Oral Answers to Questions
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
UK Visas and Immigration processes millions of visa applications each year. Most of them are processed to the published customer service standards, which is a huge tribute to our hard-working staff, and indeed most straightforward applications are decided within three weeks. In the year ending March 2025, more than 2.1 million visit visas, more than 190,000 work visas and more than 22,000 health and social care visas were issued. On occasion, as the hon. Member may be aware, there are some technical or processing errors, which are resolved as quickly as possible when they come to light.
Wendy Chamberlain
This is not about call centre answering and application processing times; it is about the backlog in digital status becoming fully operational. A North East Fife constituent has settled status and has done all the steps in setting up her UKVI account, yet on both her recent trips abroad she was told that her passport was not linked to her e-visa. Is this a one-off, in which case can the Minister review what has gone wrong? Or is it a system failure, in which case what is the Minister doing to address it?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for her question. I would be happy to look at that case. The personal details on the document associated with that person’s e-visa may well have not been updated. Updating the details may be the first step necessary, after which the issue may go away.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The problem with the immigration system we inherited is that it had very high levels of low-skilled immigration, but what the economy actually needs is low levels of high-skilled immigration. We need to attract worldwide top talent for some key sectors, many of which are based in Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, so that we remain globally competitive, but businesses tell me that long visa processing times work against that. Now that we are seeing lower levels of immigration, will the Government be reprioritising resources so we see faster processing of skilled worker visas?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will be aware that visa processing times can vary based on the type of visa and where people are applying from. However, for most applications, even those made outside the UK, decisions are usually made within three weeks. He will also be aware that we are looking at how to reform our immigration system as a result of the record levels of net migration under the previous Government, and making sure that we focus our immigration on the needs of our economy is a priority for this Government.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
New research shows that foreign nationals are claiming almost £1 billion in benefits each month. We now face the highest number of asylum claims ever recorded—up another 9% since Labour took office. Meanwhile, the 42,000 appeal backlog at the end of 2024 is projected to more than double to almost 100,000 by the end of this year. The Home Secretary herself has admitted to the media that her White Paper would cut immigration by just 50,000. This is utterly inadequate. Without real deterrence and stricter measures, the visa processing delays will only worsen, so will the Minister commit to two concrete measures: implementing the previous Conservative threshold of £38,000; and introducing a legally binding annual migration cap that actually delivers accountability?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to the shadow Minister that we have a lot of Members to get in—I want to get to Question 15 on the Order Paper—and I need her help to do so?
Seema Malhotra
This is yet another example of the Opposition wanting to rewrite history. The Conservatives quadrupled net migration to record levels. I think the hon. Member will want to correct herself on the immigration White Paper, which will be reducing net migration by considerably more than she suggested; the Home Secretary has said so. The latest figures show that, since this Government came to power, almost 30,000 foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and others with no right to be in the UK have been removed. That includes an increase of enforced returns in the last quarter compared with the same period last year, which is a much better record than the shadow Home Secretary could achieve.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
We are providing £200 million across England and Wales this financial year to increase neighbourhood policing. As part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee, every community will have named, contactable officers dedicated to addressing local issues. Alongside that, during the course of this year we will have 3,000 additional officers and police community support officers working in neighbourhoods teams. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) that, for Thames Valley police, that will include an extra 68 police officers on the streets this year.
Peter Swallow
Bracknell Forest has seen a spate of tool thefts recently. Tool theft is a double whammy: traders have to fork out thousands for new tools, all while they are out of work. I have raised this issue with Thames Valley police and the police and crime commissioner, but what more can be done through the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee to stamp down on this cruel crime?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise that serious crime. Honest, hard-working tradespeople in communities across the country are being robbed of their livelihoods as a result of this kind of crime. That is why we are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on how we target the serious and organised crime that is often behind such equipment and tool theft, and putting neighbourhood police back on the streets in communities, so they can both work on prevention and go after the criminals responsible.
Matt Western
Under the previous Government, the number of PCSOs more than halved in Warwickshire. Indeed, in summer 2023, local teachers were forced to police a park in Warwick and Leamington after a knife gang terrorised pupils, stealing their bikes. More widely, constituents are fed up with crime and antisocial behaviour; 50% say that they have been personally impacted by crime in the past five years. Will the Home Secretary outline how the Government will address these crimes and make our streets safer for everyone?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of PCSOs as well as police officers in neighbourhood teams working to prevent crime. He is also right to raise concerns. Over the last two years of the previous Government, both street theft and shoplifting increased by more than 60%, at the same time as neighbourhood police were cut. We are putting the bobbies back on the beat.
Jen Craft
This week, I will be meeting eight new community police officers who begin their roles on the beat thanks to the Government’s investment through the national policing guarantee. Does the Home Secretary agree that investing in community policing is the best way to tackle so much of the crime that blights our communities? Will she join me in wishing these vital officers all the best as they begin their new roles?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to welcome the additional neighbourhood police in Thurrock. She will know that that is part of 74 additional neighbourhood police officers across Essex just this year, as a result of our neighbourhood policing guarantee, and we will go beyond that. She is right, too, that local police who know what the problems are in Thurrock and across Essex are crucial to tackling local crime.
Yuan Yang
Across neighbourhoods in my Earley and Woodley constituency I have seen too many incidents of electric bikes and electric scooters being ridden dangerously, including on pavements. Residents have told me of collisions in areas such as Woodley Precinct and Kennet Island. I have been raising the issue with Thames Valley police, and I am very glad to hear the Home Secretary’s announcement of 68 neighbourhood officers across our region, but what more can she and the Home Office do to support the work of the police in cracking down on dangerous riders?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right: we need to make sure that Thames Valley has the 68 additional neighbourhood police just this year and give them the powers they need. That is why we are strengthening the Crime and Policing Bill both on dangerous cycling and dangerous riding, and giving the police stronger powers to take e-scooters and off-road bikes literally off the roads.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I recently met the chief constable of West Mercia to discuss neighbourhood policing. The West Mercia area covers Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire, and the word is that the integrated care board reorganisation will split that area into one that covers Warwickshire and one that covers some of Shropshire. I have had a letter from the police and crime commissioner citing the chief constable’s concerns that amid that reorganisation and the local government reorganisation, safeguarding the most vulnerable and children could fall between the cracks. Will the Home Secretary have a word with her Cabinet colleagues to ensure that does not happen?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes a really important point, because having links between local services is crucial. We will ensure that the Home Office looks into and takes up the points she raises, so we can ensure strong local partnerships working to tackle crime.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Last week, I visited many retail businesses in North Devon that are suffering from prolific shoplifting. This is a big problem across the country. Will the Home Secretary explain what she is doing to help police forces resource the tackling of shoplifting and dealing with antisocial behaviour?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right. There has been an increase in shoplifting in recent years, at the same time as neighbourhood policing numbers have fallen. As a result of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, there will be 110 additional neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs in Devon and Cornwall police over the next 12 months. That is important, but we are also strengthening their powers to tackle shoplifting.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary acknowledge the role that special constables play in neighbourhood policing, and does she agree that granting special constables the right to unpaid time from their employment to perform their duties would assist in their recruitment?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes a really important point about the role of specials. We want them to be able to play a much stronger role, not just in neighbourhood policing but across the board. People who take time out to be part of police forces can bring all kinds of additional skills. We are working on what more can be done to support specials and their recruitment, which has plummeted in recent years. It is important that that trend is turned around.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
In North Ascot, neighbourhood police have been out on the streets trying to clamp down on pavement parking, which forces disabled and vulnerable people on to the roads and into dangerous situations. Will the Home Secretary outline what more could be done to help neighbourhood police when it comes to pavement parking?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that neighbourhood police understand the challenges in each area, whether it be in North Ascot or other parts of the country, and local police can target those issues and work with local councils. There are different rules for different councils, so combined work between the council and the police is the best way to tackle local crime.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Six of Britain’s most senior police officers have warned that the Government’s actions are making it harder to keep our streets safe. From the damaging jobs tax to releasing criminals early, Labour is pushing forces to the brink. Does the Home Secretary agree with Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley that he will be forced to cut 1,700 police officers, PCSOs and staff this year?
Yvette Cooper
I gently remind the hon. Member that thousands of police and PCSOs were taken off our streets under the Conservatives. That is why the number of people who say that they never see the police in their communities doubled under the Conservatives. This Government are turning that around, with 3,000 additional police on our streets this year alone. That includes 470 more neighbourhood police on London’s streets.
Matt Vickers
We did not get to whether Mark Rowley was right or wrong, and I notice that the Home Secretary forgot to mention the hundreds of millions being gobbled up by Labour’s jobs tax, or the fact that police numbers reached record levels under the last Government.
That aside, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has published its anti-racism commitment, saying that racial equality does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour blind, and calling for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups. Does the Home Secretary agree that the police should respond to people’s actions regardless of race? If so, why did the policing Minister endorse this barmy document?
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Minister is, as he knows, talking nonsense. The police have to police without fear or favour; that is the standard that they apply and sign up to. I am really sorry that he wants to undermine the important work of police across the country, just as his party in government undermined the number of police on the streets—took them off the streets—so we ended up with thousands fewer police on our streets. This Government are finally putting them back into communities and back on the beat where they belong.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Peaceful protest is a fundamental right in any free society, but for protests to remain safe and orderly, a visible, well-trained and effective police presence is often needed on top of existing neighbourhood police teams. Cities such as Manchester are seeing rising numbers of demonstrations, which the combined authority estimates will cost up to £2 million this year to police. While the Met receives specific grants to cover the cost of policing protests, Greater Manchester police receives no such allocation. That is not only unfair to my constituents, but unsustainable. In the light of the worries highlighted by police leaders about their funding being cut in the upcoming spending review, can the Home Secretary ensure that areas such as Greater Manchester receive the funding they need to police protests properly without taking away from the neighbourhood policing our communities deserve?
Yvette Cooper
We will continue to support Greater Manchester police and police forces across the country. It is right that they should be able to deal with issues and challenges, including public order. We are strengthening the system in that area as a result of weaknesses in the national co-ordination that we have inherited. I can tell the hon. Lady that Greater Manchester police will be getting 176 additional police officers for their neighbourhood teams over the course of this year.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Off-road bikes careering through estates and communities are dangerous and an antisocial nightmare. We are giving the police stronger powers to seize bikes without the need for repeated warnings, in order to help keep our streets safe.
Darren Paffey
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. My constituents around Weston Shore have had enough of exactly the kind of thing she describes. Antisocial motorbikes are racing outside their homes every night. The constant noise disturbs everyone’s sleep, yet they have seen no meaningful enforcement in recent years. The Secretary of State has outlined that further powers are coming. Will she confirm that she expects local police forces to use these powers fully to tackle this issue seriously, so that this blight on my constituents’ lives can be stopped?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The issue he raises will resonate with people across the country; whether it is Southampton or south Tyneside, too many areas are facing the blight of off-road bikes and street racing. At the moment, the police have to give people multiple warnings. It can be two strikes or three strikes and the bikes are still on the streets. That is not good enough. We want to make it much easier for the police, so that it is one strike and out.
Tristan Osborne
I thank the Home Secretary for her response. In Kent we are using section 59 powers to confiscate bikes, including in Snodland and Walderslade in my constituency. However, the police have stated that the legislation is not powerful enough, and that they welcome powers to seize bikes. Can we ensure that police inspectors and police and crime commissioners are given guidance and that the number of vehicles seized is monitored, so that we can stop this problem once and for all?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right; we need to ensure that the police have the powers that they need and are able to act swiftly. We want to make it easier for them to crush bikes more quickly as well as to seize them and take them off the streets, and that requires additional neighbourhood police. In Kent, that means an additional 65 neighbourhood police officers, and there are similar numbers for Hampshire.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Many residents in my constituency complain about motorcycle noise from illegally modified exhausts. Can the Home Secretary inform me of her plans to help local police and local authorities address this nuisance?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right to raise this issue. Noise and speed are used deliberately in order to harass people and intimidate local residents. It is disgraceful antisocial behaviour, and it is really unfair on local families. That is why we need to give the police stronger powers to clamp down on it.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Off-road bikes are often used illegally across private farmland, causing damage to crops, spooking animals and leaving farmers feeling scared and vulnerable. While the Crime and Policing Bill includes a provision to make it easier for the police to seize vehicles associated with antisocial behaviour, Avon and Somerset police has little or no resource to police rural crimes properly. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to stop the illegal use of off-road bikes on farmland?
Yvette Cooper
As well as strengthening the law, we are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a stronger rural crime strategy. I can tell the hon. Lady that Avon and Somerset police will be getting 70 additional neighbourhood police officers across the area this year as a result of the neighbourhood policing guarantee.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Under the previous Government, shop theft was allowed to reach epidemic proportions. There was a 70% increase in the last two years of the previous Government. We are working hard to tackle this epidemic in every area of our country, including rural areas. Through our Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing a new stand-alone offence of assault against a retail worker. We will not tolerate workers facing abuse and violence simply for doing their job, whether that is in towns or in rural areas.
Amanda Hack
Convenience stores are at the heart of our communities and provide employment for over 700 people in shops in North West Leicestershire, but workers often face abuse. When I visited one of my local shops recently, I was told that just a few days earlier the assistant manager had been punched in the face when he was just doing his job. Although the assault had been reported, the police had yet to pay a visit. Will the Minister share her plans to support rural policing in constituencies such as mine, so that we can tackle violence against shop workers?
Dame Diana Johnson
May I express my concern about the attack on my hon. Friend’s constituent? It is totally unacceptable. Under the retail crime action plan, the police made operational commitments to prioritising attendance where violence had been used. Some progress has been made, but much more needs to be done. I will ensure that every police force understands how seriously the Government take this offence. The additional 35 police officers and 21 police community support officers who will be in place as a result of our neighbourhood policing guarantee might go some way to helping with that.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I recently visited the Huntingdon branch of Barclays bank in my rural constituency, where staff highlighted to me that although the Crime and Policing Bill will make assaulting a shop worker an offence, branch staff in banks and building societies are not included in that classification, despite the fact that they work on the high street and are subject to the same threats and intimidation as shop workers. There were over 10,000 instances of abuse in branches last year. What rationale can the Minister provide for excluding branch staff in banks and building societies from the protections given to retail staff, who work next to them?
Dame Diana Johnson
A case has been made over several years for why retail workers should be covered by this specific offence. Work was done with the Co-op, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and many others to get the evidence together. If there is evidence from the financial sector and from banks, I want to see it, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to talk to the people with whom he was having conversations about this. I am very open to looking at this, but at the moment, we have drawn up the offence on the basis of the evidence available to us.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I know that we are all desperately concerned about the intolerable humanitarian situation in Gaza. The UK, along with France, Germany and many others, continues to call for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages and more aid into Gaza. There are a range of routes available for those wishing to join family members in the UK, and we are working with the Israeli, Palestinian and other authorities in the region to help British nationals and other eligible people to leave Gaza via safe routes.
Marsha De Cordova
The situation in Gaza is beyond devastating. More than 54,000 lives have been lost. Hospitals are being bombed, people are being tortured and starvation is being used as a weapon of war. Palestinians in the UK are rightly scared that they may not see their mother, father, brother or sister survive these atrocities. The Government rightly responded to the war in Ukraine by offering a family visa scheme, so that Ukrainians could travel here to join their family. Is it not time for a similar scheme—a Gaza family scheme that offers the same solidarity and respect for life?
Seema Malhotra
The statement that we recently issued with France and Germany, calling for Israel to immediately restart a rapid and unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza, was vital. We still need to see so much more action being taken. Any decision to implement a bespoke visa scheme would need to consider a range of factors, including the unique crisis situation and the relevant impacts on security, compliance and returns. As I have said, immediate family members are able to join those in the UK using one of the existing family routes.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
My constituents in Taunton have a proud record of supporting refugees; they would support refugees from Gaza, as they do those from other countries. But charities that support refugees come to me with concerns about the asylum accommodation being allocated to the town. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the concerns about the latest allocations, on which I was not consulted, and about which I received no notification?
Seema Malhotra
I will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
We monitor fraud trends very closely. Fraud is a growing transnational threat that requires urgent action. That is why the Government are developing a new fraud strategy, which covers better collaboration with industry, improved public awareness and improved collaboration with international partners.
Damian Hinds
The figures were, of course, coming down, but the incidence of fraud—much of it online—is now back up to a new high. Many factors are involved, but will the Government look at taking further steps, including requiring enhanced intelligence sharing between platforms and banks, and better mandatory user identification on sites such as dating apps and online marketplaces?
Dan Jarvis
I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes these matters seriously, but I gently remind the House that under the last Government, Lord Agnew, then Minister with responsibility for countering fraud, literally resigned at the Dispatch Box. Among other things, he accused the Treasury of having “little interest” in the consequences of fraud for our society. It is precisely because of the important points that the right hon. Gentleman raises that a national fraud squad of some 400 new specialist investigators is being recruited. That will be led by the National Crime Agency’s national economic crime centre, working closely with the City of London police. We will do all we can to protect the public from fraud.
Victoria Collins
A study last year showed that more than two in five people over 50 had been scammed in the last five years, losing an average of £2,000 in each scam. In half of those cases, the money was never recovered—and that is just at the small end of the scale. Even in the past two weeks, as a result of developments in artificial intelligence, there have been exponential improvements to scams, which are more convincing and realistic than ever before. What is the Home Office doing to protect people, especially the more vulnerable, by informing them about AI scams?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise concerns; the numbers that she references are deeply concerning. Combating fraud and beating scammers requires raising public awareness, and I am grateful for the work that she has done on this. I can tell her that the Home Office is working closely with the banking, telecoms, digital and tech sectors to improve systems and share data faster with law enforcement. Over 60 stakeholders from across industry are involved in the development of our new fraud strategy. Public communications, targeted support for the most vulnerable and AI are key parts of our strategy.
Gurinder Singh Josan
The Government have outlined a clear ambition to make the UK a global hub for the crypto industry, to support our growth mission. Many of our constituents are already regularly engaging with crypto. What assessment has the Minister made of the crypto sector, and particularly of the steps required to protect consumers and investors while ensuring that we allow the industry to develop?
Dan Jarvis
Stability and security remain key to ensuring the health and growth of the UK economy; protecting investors and consumers is central to that. We are continually evolving our capabilities, including by working closely with industry partners to ensure that security is front and centre of the UK’s framework for the crypto sector.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Facebook Marketplace is responsible for three quarters of the fraud on social media, yet it seems uninterested in doing anything about that. Will the Minister assure the House that he will take Facebook to task, in order to clamp down on that fraud and make sure that consumers are protected?
Dan Jarvis
The Online Safety Act 2023 will require tech companies to take measures to prevent fraudulent content on their platforms or face significant fines. Under the Act, the largest firms will be required to do all they can to prevent fraudulent advertising from appearing on their platforms.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
We are already taking significant steps to make sure that violence against women and girls is treated as the national emergency that it is. That includes launching our domestic abuse protection orders, and investing almost £20 million this year in specialist services for victims and in projects to help prevent VAWG and improve our response to it. Later this year, we will publish our cross-Government VAWG strategy, which will set out our long-term plan to tackle the crisis.
Joe Morris
For some families of victims, further review of release decisions can provide some solace, but it cannot do so for my constituent Doreen Soulsby. Her daughter’s murderer was released before the Victims and Courts Bill passed through this place. Will the Minister meet Doreen and me to discuss clause 61 of the Bill and the release of life prisoners?
Jess Phillips
Yes, of course. As my hon. Friend knows, I have had a strong bond with Doreen for many years. Of course I would be delighted to meet him and her.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Research undertaken by Women for Refugee Women has found that banning work for women seeking asylum leads many women, sadly, to stay in unwanted and abusive relationships. Will the Minister consider lifting the ban on asylum seekers working, and will she specifically include women seeking asylum in the Government’s upcoming strategy to tackle violence against women and girls?
Jess Phillips
It is well beyond my remit as safeguarding Minister to make asylum policy, but I can absolutely guarantee the hon. Lady that migrant women and their experiences will be part of the violence against women and girls strategy; this issue has received some of the money from the recent uplift in victim services. Working together with by-and-for services across the country, we will always take account of the experiences of all women and girls in our country.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
On 28 April, the Minister was clear with this House that the framework for local grooming gang inquiries and Baroness Casey’s audit would both be published in May. It is now June. Presumably there is a new timeline for publishing them, so will the Minister share it with us, please?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I apologise for the month’s wait. I waited 14 years for anyone to do anything. Baroness Casey has requested a short extension to her work from the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary has informed the Home Affairs Committee of this. We expect the report very shortly, and when we have it, the Government will respond to it, and will lay out their plans with all the evidence in hand.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
We have taken action to ban zombie knives, and the ban on ninja swords will come in this August. We are also bringing forward Ronan’s law, which puts stronger restrictions on online sales, through the Crime and Policing Bill. There will also be additional funding, through the hotspot action fund, for high-visibility patrols in the areas with the most knife crime and antisocial behaviour.
Chris Bloore
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, and for the seriousness with which this Government are tackling the scourge of knife crime in constituencies like mine. In Redditch, the anti-knife-crime campaigner Pete Martin is making a real difference by educating young people in schools about the dangers of knife crime. Will the Secretary of State consider visiting Redditch to see Pete’s work at first hand, and the real difference that it is making in our schools?
Yvette Cooper
Can I pass on my thanks, through my hon. Friend, to the team who are doing such good work in his community? We are certainly keen to know more about that, because he is right about local work preventing young people from being drawn into knife crime. That is why we are setting up the Young Futures prevention programme, and we are introducing a new law on child criminal exploitation to go after the gangs who draw young people into crime.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
As Sussex police consider how to tackle knife crime in Eastbourne and invest in community policing, I have been urging them to prioritise investment in their Grove Road premises in the town centre, as opposed to their Hammonds Drive industrial estate premises. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should prioritise investment in town centres such in Eastbourne, so that we can better tackle knife crime there?
Yvette Cooper
Obviously, police forces have to make their own operational decisions, but we do believe that town centres need to be a particular focus of neighbourhood policing, and when it comes to preventing youth crime, including knife crime. Sussex police are getting 64 additional neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers under the neighbourhood policing guarantee this year, but we are also focusing on hotspot policing, targeting the areas with the highest knife crime.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
Clamping down on illegal working is a crucial element of our strategy to tackle immigration crime. Since coming to office, this Government have increased raids, arrests and civil penalties to their highest levels in years. Our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will introduce tougher provisions in this area, particularly to bolster our enforcement action against illegal working in the gig economy.
Johanna Baxter
Good employers in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South—those who conduct employment checks and employ people on decent terms and conditions—are being undercut by unscrupulous firms that use exploitative practices and prey on the vulnerabilities of people seeking a better life here in the UK. What steps are being taken to protect people from exploitation and employers who do the right thing?
Dame Angela Eagle
Enforcement of the law is the best way to deal with this issue, which is why there has been a 40% increase in visits to check whether illegal working is going on, and a 42% increase in arrests since this Government came to office.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Could I be counterintuitive for a moment and make a New Labour point? The cause of a lot of illegal migration is the fact that it is easier to work here illegally than anywhere else in Europe, and that is because we do not have national identity cards. The Gordon Brown Government, quite wisely, were going to bring them in, and the coalition Government wrongly stopped that idea. Why should we not have national consensus now on bringing in national identity cards, given that we all carry mobile phones? It would dramatically reduce illegal working.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am reeling at the New Labour point that the Father of the House has made. E-visas basically give us the capacity to do a similar thing, and they are easily checked, which is why, in the border security Bill, we are extending those checks to the gig and zero-hours economy.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Around our asylum hotel on Blackpool seafront, we see increased illegal working in our takeaways, bars and restaurants. Will the Minister outline to my constituents how this Government are tackling that illegal working, to ensure that we have safe spaces for people in the jobs in our vital tourism industry?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are tackling illegal working by significantly increasing enforcement. That is why we have had a 40% increase in visits and a 42% increase in the number of arrests for illegal working. There are fines of £60,000 per illegal worker discovered, and those who are discovered working illegally can be arrested and put on the route to deportation.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Surely the best way to tackle illegal working is to make more legal opportunities. The “island of strangers” immigration policy will cause huge issues for the workforce in Scotland; the care service says that it could threaten the whole sector. Asylum seekers waiting for their case to be processed are in effect an unused resource. Why not shorten the time that asylum seekers have to wait before being allowed to work, to bring some relief to such sectors?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are shortening the time that it takes to process asylum claims by getting the system that we inherited from the Conservatives working again. That is why there has been a 63% increase in the number of initial claims processed. That follows a 70% fall in the period before the last election.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Child sexual exploitation and abuse are the most horrific crimes, and the Government are taking decisive action to ensure that victims and survivors of grooming gangs get the justice that they deserve. We are delivering on the key recommendations of the seven-year independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, including the recommendation on mandatory reporting; we have asked all police forces in England and Wales to review historical cases in which no further action was taken, and to reopen investigations; and we have commissioned Baroness Louise Casey to conduct a national audit of the nature and scale of grooming gangs and this offending in this country. We will leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of truth and justice.
Graham Stuart
Senior figures in the Catholic Church and the Church of England were found to have conspired to cover up child abuse by priests. Senior figures in the Labour party are now opposing local inquiries in places such as Bradford, London and Wales, and Ministers here oppose a national rape inquiry. We have also heard from a former Labour Member of Parliament, Simon Danczuk, that he was told not to raise the issue of the ethnicity of some of the perpetrators. When will Labour put aside its electoral interests and stand on the side of the abused?
Jess Phillips
The idea that I or the Prime Minister have ever put anything other than the interests of the victims of grooming gangs at the heart of everything that we have ever worked for is, frankly, for the birds. We have increased the number of arrests of the perpetrators that the right hon. Gentleman talks about. We will continue to pursue these violent, abusive, vicious abusers through the courts—through justice—and I will continue to take my counsel not from him but from the victims in this country.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
Settlement in the UK is a prerequisite for becoming a British citizen, and it is also an important step in integrating and contributing to local communities and the country. The White Paper proposes an expansion of the points-based system to increase the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years. Individuals will have the opportunity to reduce the qualifying period based on their contributions to the UK economy and society. We will consult on the earned settlement scheme later this year; after that we will provide details of how the scheme will work, including in respect of any transitional arrangements for those already in the UK.
Olly Glover
Kamala moved to the UK in 2021 as a skilled worker in my Oxfordshire constituency. They worked to discover novel drugs for diseases with no current treatment. They are an additional rate taxpayer and have made many professional and personal ties here. The sudden increase to the qualifying period from five to 10 years has plunged hard-working people like Kamala into uncertainty about their future. Will the Minister meet me to understand the impact of the policy not just on workers like Kamala but on the Government’s wider science and research objectives?
Seema Malhotra
The changes are indeed important. We recognise how important they are to people and will listen to what people tell us in the consultation. After that we will provide details of how the scheme will work, including in respect of any transitional arrangements for those already in the UK.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent Emily asked me to raise this issue in the House only yesterday, so I am taking the first opportunity to do so. Emily is a carer and has cared for a number of people across the Harlow community. Will the consultation on the earned settlement scheme take into account the hugely important role that carers, sometimes from overseas, do to support the most vulnerable in our communities?
Seema Malhotra
Indeed, carers, including those who have come from overseas, do important work to support us, our families and our communities. My hon. Friend will recognise that, as I have said, it is important for us to ensure that people’s voices can be heard in the consultation. We recognise that settlement is an important step in integrating and contributing to local communities and families. Under the current system, people primarily qualify for settlement on the basis of their length of time in the UK, but we also believe that people should be contributing to the economy and society before they gain settled status in our country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Another group for whom the immigration White Paper is creating uncertainty is refugee families. Family reunion is a vital route by which refugees can safely reach the UK, free from the grasps of criminal trafficking gangs. The Government should be looking for more ways to facilitate refugee family reunion, not hindering it. It is unclear how the White Paper’s reforms on English language requirements will apply to refugee family reunion. Will the Minister acknowledge the needs of this unique and vulnerable group? Is she able to provide clarity on the level of English language proficiency that people who apply for refugee family reunion will be expected to have once the reforms are implemented?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for her question. She will know that in the immigration White Paper we have referenced that we will be looking at reform of the family rules, and we will be consulting on that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
May I first pay tribute to the first responders, the police, ambulance, fire service and others who dealt with the horrific incident at the Liverpool parade, some of whom I met last week? I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with those who were injured and affected.
The House will also have seen the disgraceful and unacceptable small boat crossings on Saturday. No one should be making those journeys, and criminal gangs are likely to have made millions of pounds this weekend alone. The gangs are increasingly operating a model where boats are launched from further along the coast, and people climb in from the water, exploiting French rules that have stopped their police taking any action in the sea. That is completely unacceptable. The previous Government raised the issue with France for years, but to no avail, and I have raised it with the French Government since the summer. The French Minister of the Interior, and the French Cabinet, have now agreed that their rules need to change. A French maritime review is looking at what new operational tactics they will use, and we are urging France to complete the review and implement the changes as swiftly as possible. This weekend I have again been in touch with the French Minister of the Interior, who supports stronger action, and further discussions are under way this week. I will update the House in due course.
David Simmonds
On Friday in my constituency I met the leader of Hillingdon council, which hosts 3,000 asylum seekers in Home Office accommodation—the most per capita of any local authority in the country. He told me that the council faces a £5 million per annum funding shortfall, which is more that its entire budget for libraries and culture on supporting asylum seekers. What plans does the Home Secretary have to ensure that local authorities are reimbursed in full for the role they play in supporting asylum seekers in this country?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member raises an important point, and we did inherit an unacceptable asylum backlog, including huge and unacceptable bills for asylum accommodation. We have already brought the bills for asylum accommodation down, saving hundreds of millions of pounds, with hundreds of millions of pounds more to be saved over the course of this year. That is a result of the action we are taking to clear the backlog that the previous Government left us with, and as part of that we are working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on how to co-ordinate support for local councils.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
Immigration centres are not used for indefinite detention. We can only keep anyone in detention in an immigration centre if there is a reasonable prospect of their removal. If there is not, they have to be released.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the people and emergency services in Liverpool.
On the Home Secretary’s watch, this year so far has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel. The Government’s laughable claim to “smash the gangs” lies in tatters—they are not smashing gangs; they are smashing records. The right hon. Lady mentioned the French. The French prevention rate on land is lamentably under 40%, and even those who are stopped are then released to attempt a crossing again the next day. Although she talks about action at sea, nothing has happened whatsoever. At the weekend we saw pictures of the French police just standing there taking photographs while illegal immigrants departed. Does the Home Secretary agree that the recent 12-year fishing deal should be suspended until the French agree to stop those small boats at sea and prevent illegal immigration?
Yvette Cooper
Let me remind the shadow Home Secretary that when he was Immigration Minister he said:
“I will continue to push my French counterparts to look hard at interceptions at sea.”
Five years of Conservative government later, the French Government had not agreed to any changes at all. This Government have reached a new agreement with France, and we are now pressing for that to be operationalised as swiftly as possible. But we will not take lessons from a former Immigration Minister who, on his watch, let legal migration treble and small boat crossings soar more than tenfold.
Chris Philp
Immigration is at a record level on the Home Secretary’s watch, but as usual she does not answer the question or take responsibility. Let me try this instead: it emerged yesterday that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, chose not to refer for a longer sentence under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme—as the Attorney General can—a man who had been given just 28 months for rape, yet Lucy Connolly got more prison time for a tasteless tweet. Why does Lord Hermer think rape is less serious than Twitter comments? This is two-tier justice in action. Does this not show that Lord Hermer has appalling judgment and the Prime Minister should fire him?
Yvette Cooper
The question comes from a former policing Minister under whose Government charge rates for rape and domestic abuse plummeted, while charge rates for crime dropped substantially. This Government support much stronger action on violence against women and girls because we recognise the serious damage that those crimes do. Shamefully, the previous Government left us with a shocking legacy on crime, on immigration and across the board, but this Government are turning that around.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Dame Angela Eagle
When people arrive and claim to be children, there are tests at the border to check whether we think they are children. If they are accepted as children, they are put into local authority care, so they should not be in asylum accommodation at all. If they are seen to be adults and end up in asylum accommodation, they can always make an appeal to the local authority that they are in and undergo what is known as a Merton age assessment test, which will decide on their age once and for all.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Dame Angela Eagle
To tackle illegal migration, we must work across borders in co-operation with other jurisdictions. Were we to leave the European convention on human rights, we could not work with those that sign up to it.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said; this is a problem up and down the land. At the moment, police forces are doing their best, but the Crime and Policing Bill will allow them to seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial way, without having to give any warnings, and then to destroy them. That is the way forward, but I pay tribute to the work that is already ongoing with police forces.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Yvette Cooper
Given that the right hon. Member was a member of the previous Government, her question might be rather more plausible if she apologised for the 100-fold increase in small boat crossings under her Government’s watch and for the quadrupling of net migration as a result of the policies that she supported in government. If she wants to support stronger action against illegal migration and the gangs that are organising it, why will she not support the counter-terrorism powers that this Government are putting in place to go after them?
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Seema Malhotra
While Border Force does not routinely disclose information of a port-specific nature, in the calendar year of 2024 it seized approximately 300,000 e-cigarettes and vapes at the UK border. Border Force has a robust approach to seizures, based on intelligence received from its partners. I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue previously, and I am very happy to meet with her to discuss it.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
In my constituency, we have seen the parks police slashed from Bushy Park and rates of theft and knife crimes soaring. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner warned last week that the Home Secretary will not meet her laudable targets on neighbourhood policing, tackling knife crime and tackling violence against women and girls without additional investment. Can she reassure my constituents that they will see the bobbies on the beat that she has promised, or will they see only the Chancellor’s iron fist?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Lady that more than 400 additional neighbourhood police officers will be on the streets in London this year as a result of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Dame Angela Eagle
There is an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that extends the requirement to check illegal working to the gig economy, the zero-hours economy and all those areas that have non-traditional employer-employee relationships. I look forward to being able to operationalise that when the Bill becomes law.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Regarding non-crime hate incidents and the amount of police time taken to investigate them, does the Minister agree that the clue is in the name? They are “non-crime”. Does she also agree that already stretched police should focus their efforts on tackling real crime, rather than being the virtue-signalling thought police?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Home Secretary has been very clear about the priorities that police forces should actually focus on. As agreed with the Home Secretary, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing are conducting a review of non-crime hate incidents. We will update Parliament in due course on the findings of that review and any changes that may be required to the code of practice introduced by the shadow Home Secretary in March 2023.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the work that South Yorkshire police has been doing and the Doncaster East neighbourhood policing team going after the offroad bikes, which cause havoc and are a total nightmare in the community. They are getting additional neighbourhood police as part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, and we will give them stronger powers to keep the streets safe.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Leicestershire police has signed a reported £800,000 contract with Palantir—a company that has a worrying history of racial profiling and surveillance concerns in the USA. It has since removed all the contract details from the public record, and the Home Office holds no central records of such a deal. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give that the people of Leicester are protected from intrusive and discriminatory policing practices? How can transparency and oversight be upheld in such partnerships where no central records are kept?
Dame Diana Johnson
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might write to me with the details of what he has outlined. If so, I will look at them.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for visiting my constituency last week after the horrific incident following the Liverpool football club victory parade. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the emergency services on acting so swiftly, but also in condemning the Reform UK party and the far right for trying to stoke up hatred? Can she explain how her Department will tackle this misinformation to prevent further action in future?
Yvette Cooper
I join my hon. Friend in saying a huge thank you to all the first responders—those who I met last week, but also many more who were involved in a very swift response that undoubtedly saved lives that day. It was a day of huge joy across the city of Liverpool that ended in a horrific incident, but I know from her constituency and across Liverpool that it is a city where communities come together in the face of the greatest difficulties and show their strength as a community.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Can I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the amendment I have tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would extend the definition of exploitation in the Modern Slavery Act to include orphanage trafficking? It is a horrific crime that affects about 5 million children across the world, and it is something we need to recognise in our legislation.
Yvette Cooper
The Chair of the Select Committee raises a very important point. I know that she has a strong interest in this issue that goes back many years, and has taken strong action herself on modern slavery. We will look at the amendment she has tabled, and are happy to discuss it with her further.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Last week, my whole community was shocked and appalled to hear about the stabbing of a 15-year-old boy in Cribbs Causeway. Thankfully, he is stable, and I know we will all be thinking of him and his family at this time. Three 16-year-old boys have been charged. Could the Minister please set out what steps the Government are taking to tackle knife crime, including among young people who could have much brighter futures?
Yvette Cooper
I convey all thoughts to the family of the victim in this awful stabbing case, and all of those affected across the community. My hon. Friend is right to raise the deep concerns that exist about the number of young people getting drawn into serious violence—we are seeing this across the board. That is why the Young Futures prevention programme is so important, and why we need to work to prevent this by strengthening the law on child criminal exploitation.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
As I speak, there is a removal van outside the illegal immigrant hotel in my constituency—let us hope they are moving them out, not moving more in. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that these illegal immigrants are not being dispersed in the community, being housed in houses in multiple occupation owned by private landlords, and will she advise me on where they will be housed?
Dame Angela Eagle
Anyone who is in a hotel is someone who has claimed asylum, and whose asylum claim is pending. They are not necessarily illegal immigrants at all, and the hon. Lady should make that position clear.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Last year, Dr Mohammed Mohsen was offered a position in the acute medicine department at Royal Cornwall hospital in my constituency. He was due to start that role last year, but due to the ongoing conflict and travel restrictions in Gaza, he has been unable to travel to the UK. Would the Minister meet me to consider his case, as he requires urgent assistance?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I am very happy to meet her. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working to ensure that those who need to leave Gaza, and are able and eligible to do so, are supported in that. I am very happy to look at this matter with my hon. Friend.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Home Secretary was asked a question about Lord Hermer of Chagos, as he perhaps ought to be known. Why did she not answer it, and will she do so now?
Yvette Cooper
Lord Hermer does not decide sentencing—he has a particular role as the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman, as a very experienced Member of this House, will know the way in which the system works.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
At a recent roundtable on violence against women and girls hosted by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, we heard from local organisations that do outstanding work but are hampered by short-term funding, as well as from a brave survivor who shared her experiences. They specifically asked for the Government to commit to strategic investment. Will the Minister review contracts with the sector so they are multi-year and take a long-term view of service delivery and preventive work?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
My hon. Friend makes an important point that short-term funding massively hampers the sector. The vast majority of violence against women and girls funding comes from local authorities and, in fact, other Departments, but I will absolutely commit to looking at how the Home Office manages its contracts to ensure sustainability.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the next piece of business, I will make a brief statement. This morning, the Government published the strategic defence review. The Prime Minister made a speech and held a press conference in Glasgow, in addition to other media appearances. That follows several days of media briefing. I am disappointed that, once again, the Government appear to have breached the principle set out in paragraph 9.1 of the “Ministerial Code” that
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”
I recognise that the timing of policy announcements is not always wholly within the Government’s control. There may be a need to co-ordinate announcements on international trade with trading partners, for example, or announcements may be delayed by last-minute legal intervention. The announcement of the SDR, however, was wholly at the Government’s discretion, so it is highly regrettable that Ministers have chosen, once again, to hold a major media event before coming to the House. That shows complete disregard for the House and for hon. Members. I note that Ministers, when they were in opposition, were not slow to complain when previous Governments made major policy announcements outside Parliament. In fact, the SDR was due at Easter, so I am sure that a day would not have mattered.
I am not responsible for compliance with the ministerial code, which is a matter for the Prime Minister—it is the Government’s code, not the House’s code—but I regard this as a particularly blatant breach. I have invited the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) to consider whether the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee might usefully inquire into the matter.
Ministers are elected as Members of Parliament first, before they get their ministerial roles, so they should recognise the importance of the House. It is amazing that, in opposition, Members think that everything should be discussed on the Floor of the House, but when they are in government, their memories are short on that point.
I have been here through many SDRs. In fact, in one of the major SDRs with Lord Robertson, we did not even know the effect on everybody’s constituency until it was read out from that Dispatch Box. What has changed? I will tell you what has changed: the disregard for Members who sit on the Back Benches. I am here to defend those on the Back Benches, so please, I hope we have no more of this.
All I would say is that it is the Government’s ministerial code. They should be ashamed of not enforcing it.
Government Announcements
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the urgent question. I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
(Urgent question): To ask the Leader of the House if she will make a statement on Government announcements outside the House of Commons.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I hear your statement, Mr Speaker. I responded to an urgent question on a similar matter on 14 May. I reiterate the commitments I gave then. The “Ministerial Code” is clear:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”
That is an important principle that the Government stand by and uphold.
Since that last urgent question on 14 May, the Government have made a number of important oral statements to the House, on the infected blood inquiry, on the cross-Government review of sanctions implementation and enforcement, on the charging of individuals under the National Security Act 2023, and on the legal aid cyber-security incident. The Prime Minister has updated the House on the three trade deals that we have struck in the national interest, the Foreign Secretary has updated it on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the Justice Secretary has responded to the sentencing review, and the Defence Secretary has made a statement on the future of the Diego Garcia military base.
This afternoon, the full conclusions of the important strategic defence review will be published and laid before this House first, with a significant statement from the Defence Secretary to follow. I am satisfied that this Government are coming to the House regularly to keep Parliament informed. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not satisfied, and I think that is the key. Back Benchers on both sides should rightly hear it first. I do not care how many announcements have been made in the House; it is those that have not been made here that we should be talking about.
Lucy Powell
As I have said, the Defence Secretary will make a statement this afternoon, and I am satisfied.
I recognise that there are times when we make a judgment on when an oral statement is needed, balancing that with the rest of the day’s business and other factors, but in nearly all instances a written statement is also made, and that is an appropriate mechanism for updating the House. As well as making 153 oral statements during the current Session, we have made 673 written statements.
As I said before the recess, the ministerial code makes it clear that when Parliament is in session, announcements should be made to the House. Let me gently point out that we have only just returned from the recess—as of an hour ago—and before the recess we were at pains to ensure that the House was updated on the subject of the Diego Garcia military base before it adjourned.
The Government and I take our obligations to Parliament very seriously, Mr Speaker, and I will continue to work with you and colleagues throughout the Government to make certain that important announcements are made to the House, and that Members from across the House have ample time to consider issues and ensure that the Government are scrutinised effectively.
Jesse Norman
Is that really the best that the Leader of the House can do—an “I speak your weight” autocue recitation of points that she has made in her three previous attempts to deal with occasions when the House has been embarrassed and disregarded over the last three weeks alone? It was a hopeless miscue of a response that bordered on a contempt of Parliament itself—yet another attempt to change the subject, blame others and distract attention from the latest fiasco. Evidently the defence of the realm is not important enough to merit making its way up the list of priorities in the Government’s media handouts. Lord Robertson himself, as you have said, Mr Speaker—and I am amazed that you had to intervene on the Leader of the House during her own remarks—would be ashamed and embarrassed to think that this was being done in his name.
Just three weeks ago, the Leader of the House had to be dragged to the House over the Government’s briefing on the immigration White Paper outside the House. That came just days after they had done the same in respect of prisoner recall, the UK-US trade deal and, of course, the Chagos islands. That followed instances involving tuition fees, planning reforms and even the fiscal rules, on which you, Mr Speaker, had to reprove and chastise the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now we have seen the unhappy sight of the Secretary of State for Defence, no less, extensively briefing the media on the decisions to deploy airborne nuclear weapons and build the next generation of submarines, before coming to the House. Perhaps, as I have said, they were not important enough to merit a mention beforehand.
Journalists have been able to read the strategic defence review since 10.30 am, while the Opposition were prevented from seeing the document until five minutes ago, precisely in order to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. All this is manifestly in breach of the ministerial code, the Nolan principles and, of course, Labour’s own manifesto, demonstrating the Government’s arrogance and complacency and their disdain for the House and for democratic accountability, and this from—the clue is in the title—the Leader of the House, whose job is to protect and safeguard the House and its Members. Unfortunately, her obvious floundering just now made the point far better than I can.
When did the Leader of the House know about these announcements, and what steps did she take to prevent the media briefings and ensure that the announcements were made to the House of Commons first? Will she now apologise for yet another high-handed Government decision for which she alone is fully responsible, in this instance, to the House?
Lucy Powell
It is nice to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place and respecting Parliament today—that is not always the case.
As I have said before, I believe strongly that the Government should be and have been making the most important announcements to the House when Parliament is in session. We have made more oral statements than the previous Government did in their entire last Session—we have made 154 statements in 140 sitting days, compared with their 72 in 101 sitting days—and we have made many written statements and answered parliamentary questions. We had the statement on Diego Garcia on the day that the deal was signed, despite difficulties with the timing. We had a statement on the US economic deal on the day that it was signed, and the Prime Minister updated the House after the EU trade deal.
As I have said, the SDR has now been given to the Opposition and is being laid before the House. There will be time for colleagues to scrutinise it and to question the Defence Secretary on it this afternoon. The Government responses to the sentencing review and to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on the women’s state pension age, as well as many other major announcements, such as the upgrade in defence spending, were all made to the House first.
I am curious to know whether the shadow Leader of the House raised these important issues with the previous Government when he was a Minister or a Back Bencher, because I remember many, many occasions when they disrespected this House, and I do not remember hearing his voice at the time. I remember when the Procedure Committee, I and many others wanted the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, to be accountable to the House of Commons. The previous Government did nothing about it, and I do not remember the right hon. Gentleman saying anything about that. I recall the then Culture Secretary announcing the end of the BBC licence fee and, separately, the privatisation of Channel 4 on Twitter, with no intention of coming to the House to explain those major policy changes.
The previous Prime Minister, on the first day of a very long recess, announced that he was scrapping the Government’s net zero targets—he did not come to the House to explain that. He also announced the scrapping of High Speed 2 during a conference recess and never came to the House to account for it. During covid, one of the Conservatives’ many Prime Ministers announced major changes to our way of life to the media and not to Parliament, such as the 2020 winter lockdown—he did not come here to talk about that—and the covid vaccine roll-out. When he closed the borders and then reopened them, he announced it to the media and not to Parliament. Let us not forget that the Supreme Court found that Parliament was illegally prorogued by the previous Government. Do you remember when the former Prime Minister was found to have misled Parliament? There is no greater disrespect to Parliament.
Rather than upholding the ministerial code, the previous Government ignored breaches of it time and again, with reports sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk and nothing being done about them. We, by contrast, have strengthened the ministerial code. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) laughs from a sedentary position, but we have given the independent adviser on the ministerial code the power to instigate his own investigations. Therefore, we have strengthened it.
Not only did the previous Government disrespect Parliament; they did not have enough for Parliament to do. They had a threadbare King’s Speech, with banning pedicabs the pinnacle of their ambition in their last year in government. Now that they are in opposition, they seem to be carrying on the same and hardly turn up for work. They could have used any one of their Opposition days to raise these issues, but they did not. They have many other parliamentary devices at their disposal, and they do not use them. They were a zombie Government, and now they are a zombie Opposition. The next time they bring forward an urgent question, they might want to check their own record before giving us lectures.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I thank the Leader of the House for reminding me of the mistakes of the previous Government in not coming to the Floor of the House? I would have hoped that this Government had learned from the mistakes that have just been highlighted. To try to defend what you criticise is not a way forward.
I am trying to ensure that Members on both sides of the House are allowed to question Ministers first, rather than watching announcements on Sky News. It is interesting that the SDR has been offered to journalists but that the Members here have not had the chance to see it. I agree with the Leader of the House, and I thank her again for reminding me, but let us now see the Government treat this House in the way that I expect.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Will you take a point of order now, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
No, I will not, because we have to wait till the end, as you well know, Sir Roger, as one of the most senior Members.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right to remind us of the many breaches of this rule by Her Majesty’s Government when the Conservative party was in power. However, in the middle of this mud-slinging, let me raise a still small voice of calm. The current Prime Minister pledged to be more transparent, open and proper in government. Will my right hon. Friend go back to the Cabinet and remind it that proper scrutiny in this House first, with untrammelled questions for an hour or more at a time, is more scrutiny than the Government would get in a press conference and is the proper place to do this? I hope she will take that message back, so that statements such as the one we are about to hear are given on the Floor of the House first.
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As she will know from the many times I have said it before, I do regularly remind the Cabinet that this is an important aspect of being a Cabinet Minister, or indeed a Minister. We are doing our very best to make sure that there are regular oral statements to this House on important matters and that they are brought here first. In the absence of an oral statement, there is a written ministerial statement, of which notice is given the day before so that colleagues have ample time, as she says, to properly scrutinise all these announcements.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is incredibly disappointing to find ourselves here to discuss this issue yet again, but this time on the vital matter of national security and defence.
There was a remarkably similar urgent question before recess, and it was disappointing then, as it is now, to hear the Leader of the House attempt to justify not bringing major announcements to the Floor of the House first by citing the number of statements the Government have already given to Parliament. The ministerial code is clear: the Government do not get to pick and choose which significant statements they do or do not make to the House; whenever possible, they should be doing it every single time. While I agree with the premise of the question from the shadow Leader of the House, I must say that it is a bit rich given the Conservatives’ appalling record of doing exactly the same thing when they were in government. However, that does not let the current Government off the hook.
Will the Leader of the House please confirm that the Government will comply with the ministerial code, or shall we expect to do this little dance every week? Surely this time would be better spent making a statement to the House.
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for that. I will make no apology for the fact that we are doing lots of things—we are making lots of announcements, and we are delivering the change the country voted for—and that does bring with it competing demands. As I say, when the House is in session, statements and updates will be made to this House first. Sometimes that will be via a written ministerial statement and sometimes it will be by an oral statement—it depends.
We also have to balance statements with the rest of the day’s business. I would point out to colleagues that we have an important Second Reading debate today, with dozens and dozens of Members down to speak. We are now having two urgent questions before a very important statement and then other business as well. We do have to balance these things in the House’s interests, but the statement is being made to the House today. The Defence Secretary will shortly be in his place, and I am sure he will spend a long time answering questions on it.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that criticism was not aimed at me for granting two UQs. The reason I have granted two UQS is that the Government did not come here first with the strategic defence review. If they had, we would not be having the UQs and there would be no pressure on time.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Trust, integrity and transparency must be the watchwords of our politics, but those principles were worn extremely thin under the previous Government. What steps is the Leader of the House taking to redouble our commitment to trust and integrity, because our constituents expect no less?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I do find it slightly strange that Conservative Members seem to think that they are somehow now the upholders of parliamentary democracy and standards in Parliament. I am afraid that some of us have much longer memories. We are taking steps to raise standards, behaviour and the culture in this House, and indeed to make sure that the House is respected.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I think the word the Leader of the House was looking for was “sorry”. There is much in this place which, as we know, is complicated and arcane, but the ministerial code is crystal clear on this point. The job of the Leader of the House is to represent this place and Back Benchers of all parties around the Cabinet table to make sure that this place hears things of such vital importance first. As important as public transport is, may I suggest that the defence of the realm is a little more important than the Government’s buses Bill, which will have no Divisions this evening? Will the Leader of the House please tell us why she thinks No. 10 is getting this so wrong and what she is doing to try to put it right?
Lucy Powell
I am certainly sorry if members of the media have been given sight of the SDR ahead of Members of this House. My understanding is that it is being published for the first time in this House today. As I said earlier, we have put on a statement; that was always our intention. We were always going to have a major statement today on the SDR and that is indeed what we have done. Even though there is other important business today, MPs from across the House will have ample opportunity—I am sure they will take that opportunity—to scrutinise the Defence Secretary not only today but on future occasions via Select Committees and elsewhere.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest, as a member of the Modernisation Committee. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for standing up for us Back Benchers and for granting so many urgent questions—I say that as someone who speaks in most of them on behalf of the people of Harlow. Does the Leader of the House agree that part of the Government’s remit is to modernise and to bring back trust in politics? Will she outline what she has been doing to that end and the work that the Committee has been doing to make this place more accessible?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does on the Modernisation Committee. He will know that one of the remits we have set out for the Committee is to ensure more time for Back Benchers to scrutinise Government business. That is a key part of modernising Parliament, and it will ensure that this Chamber is, and will be in the future, the real crucible of national debate that we want it to be. I am sure we will see that today and on other days.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Knowing the Leader of the House to be a decent person, I suspect that behind the scenes, when events of this sort happen, she probably argues quite strongly that announcements should be made to this House first and to the press afterwards. Does she think the reason that is not happening is that the Government genuinely think they will get less publicity to hold a press conference after there has been scrutiny in the House, or is it that they just have no confidence that they can stop their people leaking things in advance?
Lucy Powell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his question. He is absolutely right that part of my job, which I take incredibly seriously, is to uphold this House in Government, and to ensure that the rest of the Government respect this House, come to this House to be scrutinised, and are open, transparent and available to this House. It is a message that I relay very regularly and I am sure I will relay it again later today. I say gently to him that Government announcements do happen outside of Parliament sitting, and that has long been the case. Managing announcements over the course of a few days can often be a challenge, but I reassure him that on the strategic defence review, we were always going to make the statement to the House today, with the publishing and the laying of the 150-page document to the House first. I reiterate that there is a balance to be struck. People want time to read and digest before they can question the Defence Secretary. That is always a balance, too.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is not just the House as a whole; the Defence Committee also was not given advance sight of the report. Committee members were left texting journalists over the weekend to find out what was going on. At the beginning of this Parliament, the Defence Secretary committed to the Defence Committee that he would be more open and more transparent, and reset the relationship with the Committee. Does the Leader of the House think that the Secretary of State is living up to his commitment to be more transparent, after what has happened today?
Lucy Powell
My understanding is that we offered to brief the Chair of the Defence Committee, but I will stand corrected if that is not the case. I hear what the hon. Member says, and I think that across Government, Ministers, civil servants and everybody else must take their responsibilities to Select Committees incredibly seriously. Select Committees are a very important part of accountability to this House. I know that the Secretary of State for Defence—someone I speak to regularly—takes his responsibilities to the House incredibly seriously, and I am sure he will look forward to coming before the Committee to be questioned and scrutinised at length about the SDR and many other matters.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I say to the right hon. Lady, whom I have known for a little while, that normally when a Speaker upbraids the Leader of the House, the first response of the Leader of the House is to grovel and apologise? That is standard, because she has to take it for the party that she represents in government. I simply suggest that I am a little surprised that she did not make peace in that way with Mr Speaker.
Notwithstanding that, I say gently to the Leader of the House that it is not just a case of not having brought the review to the House. We know now that journalists were given scrutiny of it. When I was leader of the Conservative party, I remember that Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, offered me advance sight of documents that were a bit delicate or needed security clearance. The Leader of the Opposition was given the opportunity to look at such documents so that they were fully informed of developments. Was such an opportunity offered to the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Liberal party?
Lucy Powell
I do apologise to Mr Speaker regularly, I have to say—usually in private, but I am happy to extend that apology to him today if he has not heard me apologise. I have the utmost respect for Mr Speaker, who I work very closely with, and I totally respect his job in upholding Back Benchers’ rights to question and scrutinise Ministers and Government policy. That is what he is there to do, and he does it brilliantly.
I do not know what Privy Council briefings were offered to whom, but I can inquire for the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and I will make sure that he gets a reply.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On 30 January, the Leader of the House said,
“we will publish the child poverty strategy in the spring.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 442.]
The Guardian broke the story on 23 May that the child poverty strategy will not be published in the spring. I cannot find a written statement or any indication of an oral statement regarding the delay. Can the Leader of the House let us know whether the announcement will be made and whether the child poverty strategy will be published in the spring—it is now June, so probably not—or whether it is likely to be published in the autumn, just so the House knows?
Lucy Powell
I know this is a matter of great concern to the hon. Lady, and something that she raises often in this House. I will ensure that she and the House are updated on the timings for the child poverty taskforce, and that Ministers come to this House regularly to update on its progress.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
As we have this knockabout, what troubles me is that the House has a very important job to do. We are talking about the expansion of nuclear weapons—we assume, because we have not actually read the review, even though journalists, and members of the public through the newspapers, have been given briefings on this—and we wanted to analyse the review so that we could ask sensible questions. We will be in here for this urgent question, for the next urgent question and for the statement. When does the right hon. Lady expect the House to get a chance to digest this 130-page report before we ask questions following the statement? Everybody else in the country seems to have been able to do so.
Lucy Powell
I was on the Opposition Benches for many years—many more years than the right hon. Gentleman has been—and I recognise that it is a challenge to properly scrutinise big reviews that are laid before the House not long before a statement is made. It is the same with Budgets. I will ensure that today is not the only opportunity, but the first of many, to question the Government about their strategic defence review, which will last for many years to come. I know the Secretary of State will also want to ensure that as further questions emerge today, next week and in months to come, Members of this House have ample opportunity to put those questions to him.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Integrated care boards had their budgets cut by 50% via a phone call from the interim head of NHS England to ICB leaders, and that announcement was only made formal in response to a written question that I put to the Secretary of State. Half of NHS targets were cut without a statement in the Chamber, and although there was a statement in the Chamber on the abolition of NHS England, it has been carrying on at pace without so much as a White Paper, a Bill or any opportunity for effective parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to look at and scrutinise this fundamental reorganisation of the NHS, which is so far going under the radar?
Lucy Powell
Issues relating to decisions about ICBs and NHS reorganisation are regularly raised with me at business questions. The hon. Lady is right to say that there was a statement in the House on NHS England, and I can reveal to her—this will probably not be a surprise—that getting rid of NHS England will require primary legislation. There will be ample time to consider those issues through the passage of that legislation, but I hear what she says.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is not just by giving statements to the media that this Government disrespect the House. Just before we went into recess, we had a farcical situation where the shadow Secretary of State for Education had to bring forward an urgent question asking for a written statement to be made earlier in the day. The Government very clearly decided to make a written statement later in the day, and sent a Minister to come here, not answer hon. Members for the whole urgent question and refuse to say what the content of the written statement was—a statement that the Government had already written and intended to publish later that day. That was done simply to avoid scrutiny. What representation did the Leader of the House make on that day to ensure that information was given to the House in a timely fashion so that it could be scrutinised, rather than the Government hiding away?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue; I think she is talking about the pay review recommendations and the Government’s response. They are issues that I take incredibly seriously, as is ensuring that this House has ample time for consideration, so I went back and looked at the usual practice regarding pay review settlements. The settlements went across a range of Government Departments and a number of sectors—not just schools and education, but the NHS, Ministry of Justice, Cabinet Office and a number of other Departments. It is usual practice—it was under her Government as well—that such settlements are announced by written ministerial statements simultaneously in order that they are all put out at the same time.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I am sure the Sunday papers would like to thank the Government for advance sight of their upcoming statement. I am a member of the Defence Committee and I ask the Leader of the House to acknowledge that this urgent question is actually wasting all our time. Mr Speaker is quite right in granting it, but if procedure had been followed and we knew about the statement, we could have got on and debated the rest of the day’s business. Does the Leader of the House agree that there are few announcements to be made in this Parliament that are as important as our defence strategy?
Lucy Powell
If we were not doing a statement today, I would agree with the hon. Member, but we are doing a statement on the strategic defence review. The review is 150 pages long and will be laid before the House in time for the statement, as is usual practice. There were trails of the statement ahead of time—during recess, on the Sunday—but the full document and conclusions will be laid before this House, as I have said. I am sorry that members of the media were given advance sight of it—as I understand, it was in a closed reading room—but publication of the report will be to this House this afternoon.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
To read about our nuclear defence strategy over the weekend, ahead of the SDR, is quite alarming—just as it is to see this morning that journalists have received all the information and the Opposition still have not had sight of it. The Leader of the House is saying that she is speaking to No. 10 and Cabinet members about the importance of this matter, but did she raise concerns over the weekend when she saw the leaks in the paper?
Lucy Powell
Some aspects of the SDR were trailed ahead of time, but not the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers; that was not something that the Government were designing to put into the public domain over the weekend. That is normal practice these days. I know we all like to speak about a time when we just did things when the House was sitting, but things are sometimes given to the media ahead of time, although not the nuclear issue that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We will have a further urgent question on that, and we will have the full strategic defence review statement shortly, at which he can ask the Secretary of State for Defence a question.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Leader of the House has just told us that the document was “trailed” to journalists, but at 10.41 this morning The Daily Telegraph published a long article in which its authors clearly set out that they had read the entire document. At the same time, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence was refused an advance copy of it, even under Privy Counsellor rules. Why do the Government appear to trust journalists with national security, but not the shadow Secretary of State?
Lucy Powell
As I have said in previous answers, I am sorry that members of the media were given a reading room space to look at the SDR before it was laid before the House. That should not have been the case. Other people have asked me about Privy Council briefings; I know which ones I have offered, and I understand that they were offered to members of the Opposition, but I will get Members the full details of who was offered Privy Council briefings and who was not.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I fully respect the role of the Leader of the House in this place, but I am shocked, although in a way not surprised, by what has happened. The Government Benches are very quiet today, which is unusual on such occasions, so I think Labour Members must feel the same way we do. I would like to ask the Leader of the House two questions, and perhaps offer her a way to dig herself out of what is an increasingly big hole. First, will she offer a full apology to you, Mr Speaker, and to Members of this House? Secondly, will she seek reassurances from the Prime Minister that this simply will not happen again?
Lucy Powell
I think I have made all those things clear. We are doing a statement today on the SDR; we were always doing a statement today on the SDR. We are laying the report before the House, as is the tradition. That is the convention, and it is the right thing to do. The Secretary of State for Defence will shortly be here, and I am sure that he will be here for a long time answering all the questions that people have. I do not need to ask him this, but I will ensure that he regularly comes to this House to update it on aspects of the SDR and how it is rolled out. It is a document for a long period of time, not just for today.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is very helpful that in the last few minutes the Leader of the House has confirmed that the media were briefed directly, before the House, on the content of the review. I am grateful to her for being so honest, but I do not think that it is enough for her to promise not to do it again. Will she order an inquiry in Government about how the decision came to be made and who authorised the briefing of journalists? Whoever it was needs to apologise directly.
Lucy Powell
I think I was responding to suggestions that they were briefed, and to some articles and so on that were read out. As I say, these matters should be coming to the House first; that is why we are having the statement today, shortly. It was always our intention to do the full statement today and to lay and publish the full report in this House first. I regret it if members of the media were given advance sight of it before Members of this House.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The people of Eastbourne deserve to have Government announcements scrutinised on their behalf by their MP in this Chamber before release to the media. To compensate for the Government’s shortcomings on this front, will the Government commit to announcing statements in this House first? Will the Minister also commit to inviting local journalists from the Eastbourne Herald, Eastbourne News, Eastbourne Reporter and Bourne Free to Government press conferences of particular interest to Eastbourne, so that they can hold the Government doubly to account on our town’s behalf?
Lucy Powell
It is vital that MPs, whether they are from Eastbourne or from elsewhere, are able to question and scrutinise Ministers on major Government announcements. That is exactly what we seek to do; although this Session is not even yet a year long, we have already given almost double the number of oral statements that the previous Government gave in their last year in office. I am also very conscious that where announcements have a particular interest for a part of the country, we should make sure that local MPs are told about them in advance.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Given the essential lead-in time required for organising and protecting the Prime Minister’s visit to Glasgow, where he spoke extensively about these issues, is it not clear to the House that the Government made a deliberate decision to pre-empt the statement to the House and show contempt for the processes of the House?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry, but I do not accept that. There is a big announcement today. We are making a statement to the House this afternoon. As I said earlier, the House was in recess until nearly two hours ago. We are laying the document before the House and are not in any way trying to shirk scrutiny, questioning or anything—we are incredibly proud of this document, which is the first SDR in a long time. It will set out the future of our defence sector for many years to come. We are really proud of it and proud to lay it before the House this afternoon.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My constituents will wonder about a Government who promised to do things differently. They said that they would be transparent and be whiter than white—then they behave like this. One almost feels sorry for the Leader of the House, because she is trying to defend the indefensible.
It is not enough to express regret that journalists were given access to the document in full before Privy Counsellors, the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, or that this trailing in full went on days ahead. What we need is action. Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), will the Leader of the House commit to looking into the issue, whether through a formal inquiry or not? Secondly, will she meet one to one with the Prime Minister to express her clear opinion that what has happened is not acceptable? I would like specific answers to both those questions.
Lucy Powell
To reiterate—the Minister for the Armed Forces is sitting next to me—Members from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were offered briefings this morning. [Interruption.] That is what I understand. These questions can be put later. I am also hearing for the first time that reading rooms were made available for members of the press during previous SDRs as well.
We do take our responsibilities to the House incredibly seriously. We are coming forward with more statements than the right hon. Gentleman’s Government did. We are raising standards in the House when it comes to MPs’ behaviours and the code of conduct for Members. He and I have talked about this before: his Government tried to change the rules when one of their MPs was found to have flouted them. His Prime Minister was found to have been in contempt of Parliament by proroguing it and—one of the most serious offences that a Member can commit—to have misled Parliament. We are turning the page on that era; the right hon. Gentleman might not agree with me, but we are. We do our very best to uphold and respect the House whenever we can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Leader of the House will be aware of my complaint, at times, when matters pertinent to Northern Ireland are announced in the media. Strangford businesses contact me for details that it is my role as an MP to provide—it is the role of all of us—yet I am unable to provide them, as the media seems to know more than the House. I acknowledge that sometimes embargoed reports are uploaded too quickly, but there is clearly more at play. This is a political venue, but we must never play politics with the rules of the House, which solidified our role as the mother of all Parliaments and the home of democracy rather than a propaganda wing. How will the Leader of the House assure Members that their position will be considered rather than letting the timings of the news cycle take precedence?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman is one of the most formidable constituency MPs in the House, never missing an oral statement or opportunity to raise matters on behalf of his constituents. I applaud him for that. I want to ensure, as I try to do, that he and every other Member has ample opportunity to do that, whatever the issue of the day is; that statements are brought; and that we have time for Government business and all the other important business of the day. I continue to look forward to working with him to ensure that we do that.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on the following, as I seek to set the record straight. At the weekend I became aware of an email sent to a group of journalists from the Ministry of Defence, which stated:
“We will have a reading room open for you from 1030 to Horse Guards”
on Monday.
“You will have the opportunity to read through the full embargoed SDR publication”.
After seeing that, I emailed the Secretary of State’s office on Sunday afternoon and asked whether, given that journalists would see the publication at 10.30, we could be sent a copy at 9 am. They refused. They told us we would get a copy of the statement—that is, the oral statement to the House—in the usual way. I then repeatedly asked the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is present in the Chamber, if we could get a copy of the SDR. He refused. I have now been told something else, which is that representatives of industry were allowed to see the SDR at 10.30. This is a multibillion-pound industry that is highly market-sensitive.
Mr Speaker, can I ask your advice on this point? As I understand it, the Vote Office has multiple physical hard copies of the strategic defence review, which I have not read at all, my colleagues have not read and no other parliamentary colleagues have read. It was given to me only as I came into the Chamber, so obviously I have not been able to read it. Journalists have had five hours. It is unacceptable. Can I ask if the Vote Office could, exceptionally, be asked to release it now?
Mr Speaker
I am going to come to that, but there are a couple more points. I am very disappointed. If the industry has seen this strategic defence review when Members of this House and members of the Defence Committee have not seen it, something has gone fundamentally wrong here. I really believe we need the answers. It is up to the Leader of the House, and I do not want to press her, but it might be worth her going away and getting some answers and coming back to the House. The fact that journalists, as well as defence people who have skin in the game, have been allowed to see it before MPs makes me very concerned.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have noticed that I briefly exited the Chamber to see whether copies of the SDR were available in the Vote Office, and I was told, quite rightly, that no, they would be made available immediately after the Secretary of State had made his statement. If we were to have the press conferences the day after statements—not the day before, or on the same day—everybody would have time to read the report, we would have an initial stab at it, with very little sight of it on the day, and then we could go into it in more detail subsequently, as we usually do.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that that is a good point of clarification on the way forward.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just seen the headline in The Telegraph that dropped at just after 10 o’clock this morning which says, “I’ve read the Defence Review”. This journalist must have been fully briefed and handed a copy of it, long before anybody else. Surely that is an abuse.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Minister wants to correct the record because, yes, I was offered a private briefing this morning, but it was absolutely clarified that I would not receive the SDR until the Minister stood up. I received it 40 minutes ago.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the seriousness of the issues—the defence of the realm is the first duty of Government, as we know—is there any merit in you, sir, considering suspending the House to allow those who are to be called to speak on behalf of their respective parties at least the courtesy that has clearly been extended to industry leaders and journalists? I believe that there is a precedent for that.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way we can have a list of the commercial companies who have had sight of the review ahead of anybody else, because commercially sensitive decisions might be made that impact the defence industry and give people a market advantage?
Mr Speaker
You make the point that I was hinting at before. I am very concerned that people who have skin in the game may be able to take advantage of what is in the report. I hope that no trading has been done on the back of it, because that would be a real concern. I find it quite appalling that Members still do not have the report. The Leader of the House could, if she wishes, suggest that we allow the report, so that Members have the chance to read it. It is totally out of order that we know the report is sat there and could have been made available, but nobody has been given the chance to read it. Rather than my suspending the House—time is tight—people could go and collect a copy of the report now, and could be reading it before the next urgent question. Does the Leader of the House agree?
Lucy Powell
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding—I will check with the Defence Secretary—is that these things are normally published when the Secretary of State sits down; it is a bit like the Budget. I understand that the Opposition Front Benchers have a copy of the report now. The Defence Secretary is here; I do not know whether he is happy for it to be published earlier.
Mr Speaker
I was offered a briefing this morning, but I had already read it all in The Times; the only thing I was not offered is a copy of the strategic defence review. Business and the media have seen it. Who else might come out of the woodwork who has seen it? It is only right that Members of this House should now have an opportunity to see it, so that their questions can be informed by what is in the review. Secretary of State, are you happy to ensure that?
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We have followed—[Interruption.] You want an answer from me, Mr Speaker, and I will certainly give you this: we have followed the procedure from the last defence review, when the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was a Defence Minister. I was the shadow Defence Secretary at that time. We had no advance copy of the defence review. We were not offered a briefing, which I have offered him and the other Front Benchers. I am really concerned to ensure that the House has proper access to the report, but we have been following convention. You are quite right, Mr Speaker, that copies of the defence review are in the Vote Office, as is established procedure. They would normally be made available when I sat down after my statement. In these circumstances, following your encouragement, I suggest that Members of this House be given access to them in advance of my statement.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State for that, and I am sure that Members will receive their copies as we speak.
UK Nuclear Deterrent
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee for this chance to set out the Government’s total commitment to the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which has been the bedrock of our national security for nearly 70 years. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will shortly outline the details of the strategic defence review to the House, and that review will be underpinned by our nuclear deterrent, which is part of our blueprint for a new hybrid Navy, in which next-generation Dreadnought nuclear-armed submarines, and up to 12 SSN-AUKUS conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, will serve alongside best-in-class warships, support ships and new cutting-edge autonomous vessels, building on the £15 billion investment set out for the UK’s sovereign nuclear warhead programme in this Parliament. This is not only a manifesto promise delivered; it is our most important military capability secured for generations to come. This investment will also deliver a defence dividend of highly skilled, well-paid jobs across the country. Our nuclear warhead programme alone will create and sustain over 9,000 jobs, along with thousands more in supply chains.
To ensure that the demands of our nuclear programme can be met, we are working closely with industry partners, and are aiming to double defence and civil nuclear apprenticeship and graduate intakes. That will mean 30,000 apprentices over the next 10 years; they will be part of this historic renewal of our nuclear deterrent and our communities across the country.
The first duty of every Government is to keep their people safe. In a more dangerous world, peace and security are best achieved through deterrence and preparedness. As the son of a Royal Navy submariner, I thank our outstanding submariners who patrol 24/7 to keep us and our allies safe. We know that threats are increasing, and we must act decisively to face down Russian aggression in particular. Our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our security. The Defence Secretary will momentarily make a statement giving further details, but our proposals are possible only because of the Government’s historic decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP by 2027—the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The Government have the will, the plan and the means to secure the nuclear deterrent for generations to come. We are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Minister for his response, and your good self, Mr Speaker, for kindly granting the urgent question.
Following the report in The Sunday Times that the Ministry of Defence is looking to purchase American fighter jets that are capable of deploying tactical nuclear weapons, it is essential that the House gets clarity on the Government’s nuclear deterrent policy—an issue of critical national importance. How have the media got hold of such sensitive information on future nuclear deterrent plans, and what steps are the Government taking to investigate the leak?
If the Government are pursuing an air-launched tactical nuclear capability, that is a huge deal. It would represent a significant shift in the UK’s nuclear posture. Indeed, it would be the UK’s most significant defence expansion since the cold war. This raises serious concerns about our sovereignty when it comes to nuclear weapons, about strategic coherence with our current doctrine, and about the principle of continuous at-sea deterrence.
Despite the defence nuclear enterprise accounting for around 20% of the defence budget, it remains largely outside meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, including by our Defence Committee. This must change, so will my hon. Friend the Minister explain how Parliament will be enabled to scrutinise changes to the UK’s nuclear programmes? Have discussions taken place with the US, and what role would it play in this capability? Will the Minister confirm that the UK will retain full operational control over any nuclear weapons? Given that tactical nuclear weapons lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use, what assessment has been made of the risks of escalation? Will the Minister confirm that only the Prime Minister would have authority to use them, and only in extreme self-defence? Finally, has there been consultation with NATO allies on this potential shift? Decisions of this magnitude must be transparent. The future of our nuclear deterrent must be based on clarity, credibility and, above all, British control.
Luke Pollard
I do not want to eat the Secretary of State’s sandwiches, and I am acutely aware that the statement that he is about to make—
Luke Pollard
The Secretary of State will shortly lay out more details of the strategic defence review, but I am happy to answer a few of the questions from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee.
Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the outcomes of Lord Robertson’s strategic defence review via the House of Commons Defence Committee. I know that my hon. Friend will have the reviewers in front of his Committee shortly and will be able to ask them difficult questions. I am aware that there are proposals for how we scrutinise more sensitive and classified issues, and conversations between the House and the Government on that continue.
We of course continue to have conversations with the United States—our most important security partner—and with our NATO allies, but my hon. Friend will understand that I will not be able to detail the precise nature of those conversations to the House at this stage. I reassure him that we retain full operational control of our independent continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent—the backbone of our national security.
As I mentioned, it is the first duty of any Government to keep our country safe. The nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our national security and our safety. I can confirm that only the Prime Minister has the power to launch nuclear actions.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee for securing this important urgent question. Following comments in the press last month from Sir Simon Case, former head of the civil service, that the UK should consider air-launched nuclear capabilities, I wrote in the Express on 25 May that our nuclear deterrent needed to be made even more resilient, including the continuous at-sea deterrent, but also
“potentially, by diversifying our methods for delivering nuclear strike.”
I believe that it would be right to diversify our methods of delivering nuclear strike, because we have to recognise the threat posed by Russia in particular, and it has the ability to operate nuclear weapons at tactical and theatre levels. To deter effectively, we must be able do the same.
We support in principle moves to widen our nuclear capabilities, on the assumption that we do so working closely with our NATO allies. However, I gently suggest to the Government that they may need our support to carry that decision. I remind the Minister that eight of his Front-Bench colleagues voted against the renewal of our nuclear deterrent in 2016, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and others. If the Minister was hoping that he could rely on the Liberal Democrats, let me say that not only did all but one of their MPs vote against Trident renewal in 2016, but as a condition of supporting the coalition Government, they shamefully demanded that we delayed the renewal of our nuclear submarines, leaving us to rely on older boats for far longer. That led to longer maintenance periods, and above all, directly contributed to the punishingly long tours of duty for our CASD naval crews.
Having had the privilege of serving as the Minister responsible for nuclear, and having chaired the Defence Nuclear Board, I understand why the Minister needs to choose his words carefully, but can he at least recognise that 204 days for a patrol is far too long, and that in addition to any plan to diversify the deterrent launch method, we must ensure that our strategic CASD enterprise has an effective and productive industrial base, delivering faster maintenance times? Finally, will he confirm what the estimated cost will be of delivering an air-launched option, and say by when he would expect that to be in service?
Luke Pollard
Let me again put on record my thanks to all members of our Royal Navy who go out on patrol, not just on our Vanguard-class submarines, but also on our Astute-class boats—and the previous T-class boats—that defend our deterrent while at sea. They guarantee our security by ensuring that there is a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent every day, and have done so for over 70 years. Every Labour Member was elected on a manifesto commitment to a triple lock for our nuclear submarines: first, we will continue to support the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent; secondly, we will build four Dreadnought-class nuclear submarines at Barrow, which we are committed to delivering; and thirdly, we will maintain and provide all the upgrades that are required for the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. That includes the renewal of our sovereign warhead, which the Defence Secretary will get to when he makes his statement on the strategic defence review later today. I am determined that we will guarantee our national security, and we will work across Government to do so.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), on securing this important urgent question. He and the Minister referred to the need for full scrutiny by the House of such sensitive matters—something that has been pursued for over a year, under the previous Government and this one. Can the Minister provide any reassurance that that is finally progressing, after some delay when there was a change of Government?
Luke Pollard
Yes, I can. The Defence Secretary is open to those conversations, though there may still be a difference of opinion about the best way of scrutinising some of our most sensitive matters. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue her conversations with him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We face a once-in-a-generation set of threats, including an imperialist Putin and a completely unreliable President Trump, who we cannot depend on to support our defence. Our nuclear deterrent remains the best and ultimate guarantor of the UK’s security. We must ensure that it meets the scale of those challenges, so it is right that the Government should look at ways to guarantee its effectiveness. Delivering the Dreadnought class on time is crucial to that, and I welcome the update that the Secretary of State provided before the recess on those timescales. Looking ahead, it is important that the House understands the purpose of any future addition to our nuclear deterrent, so will the Minister outline what discussions his Department has had on how further additions to the deterrent would positively bolster the UK’s security?
Luke Pollard
The United States remains the UK’s most important security partner: no two nations on earth are as integrated in their defence, intelligence and communications systems as the United States and the United Kingdom. That is a position that this Government intend to continue, because it is in our national interest to ensure we remain strongly connected with our partners in the United States. I am open to conversations about how we bolster our deterrence. Indeed, I believe the Defence Secretary may have more to add on that matter in his statement on the strategic defence review.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I support the increase in defence spending and I recognise the reasons behind it, but will the Minister indicate what impact it may have on the non-proliferation treaty?
Luke Pollard
This Government are proud to be increasing defence spending, with an additional £5 billion in our budget this year and an extra £13 billion by 2027, compared with the situation we inherited in cash terms at the last general election. It is right that we invest not only in our nuclear deterrence capabilities but in others. As a nation that abides by the rule of law, we will continue to do so in all matters, including those relating to nuclear proliferation.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The review has identified a gap in our capability to have tactical nuclear weapons in place, and that gap will have been noted elsewhere, among our adversaries. Will the Minister assure the House that the gap that has now been identified in British military power is being filled by other NATO allies until we are able to fill it ourselves?
Luke Pollard
This Government have a “NATO first” defence policy, so it is vital that we support and are enabled by our allies, especially those in NATO, and we will continue to do that. The strategic defence review may set out words in that regard. I do not want to get ahead of the Defence Secretary’s statement, so I will not give the full details here.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
There is a consensus in this place about the importance of an independent nuclear deterrent to keep us safe, but there is far less understanding about the need and use of tactical nuclear weapons. Does the Minister agree that we need to foster a much better understanding of how the logic of deterrence works, and how it can be and is being undermined by countries like Russia? Only then can we explain why our nuclear deterrence needs to change to remain effective in protecting us.
Luke Pollard
A fundamental part of the conversations about the strategic defence review that Lord Robertson and the review team have been having since the Labour Government came to power is how we reinforce the concept of deterrence, and why the concept of deterrence is so important to our security. Our armed forces—some of the best in the world—have capabilities that should deter any aggression, and we will be further enhancing that through the measures set out in the strategic defence review, as the Defence Secretary will announce shortly. We want to deter aggression but, if necessary, we need to have the capabilities to defeat it, and that is what the strategic defence review, which will be announced shortly, will detail to the House.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As it was this issue that brought me into politics many decades ago, it is an absolute pleasure to hear the full-throated commitment of both the Government and the Liberal Democrats to the strategic nuclear deterrent. If the future of the American commitment to NATO were not in doubt, we would not need to think about tactical nuclear weapons ourselves, because that role has always been fulfilled by US tactical nuclear weapons allocated to the defence of NATO. Will the Minister assure the House that we have sufficient confidence in the willingness of the United States, despite the present Administration’s attitude to NATO, that the co-operation that we need for the future of our strategic nuclear deterrent is not in doubt?
Luke Pollard
I can indeed. The defence partnership we have with the United States, particularly on nuclear deterrence, is a strong one. We know that President Trump and the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, have reaffirmed their support for article 5 of the NATO treaty. As we build towards the NATO summit in The Hague, the UK will set out not only how we plan further to enhance our deterrence, but how we plan to ensure that collectively, across the NATO alliance, we are more lethal and more able to deter. The reason why that additional deterrence is necessary is the increased threats that we face as a nation, both conventional and cyber-threats, and increased nuclear threats.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK is one of five nuclear countries that are members of the non-proliferation treaty. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps his Government are taking to reduce the number of nuclear deterrents that our country carries, which is one of our obligations under the treaty?
Luke Pollard
As part of our commitment to non-proliferation, we continue to abide by all the measures of the treaties we have signed. Our renewal of our nuclear deterrent is necessary in a more dangerous world. As the ultimate guarantor of our security, it will be central to this Government’s defence plans in the future.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
In pursuit of deterrence, will the Minister recommit to first use when either the strategic or tactical situation demands it?
Luke Pollard
If I read out our nuclear playbook at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Gentleman would be one of the first people to raise concerns, so I decline that polite invitation to detail our nuclear strategy. That ambiguity is absolutely certain, but we do not have a first-strike policy, as he will know. As the only European NATO member to dedicate our nuclear deterrent in the defence of all NATO member states, we maintain that capacity not only in support of the United Kingdom. That is an important part of our collective deterrence.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Far from the claims by successive British Governments that Britain has an independent nuclear deterrent, is the reality not that it is entirely dependent on the United States both technically and politically? Instead of spending billions more on nuclear weapons while public services face real budget constraints, should we not honour our commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by working towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons?
Luke Pollard
Every Member on the Government Benches stood on a manifesto in support of the renewal of our nuclear deterrent and in support of a continued at-sea nuclear deterrent, building four Dreadnought-class submarines and providing the upgrades necessary to ensure the effectiveness of that system. That is a manifesto commitment that we can all be proud of, and it is one that this Government will stick to.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
As the Minister has mentioned it, as has my predecessor as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), it is now over a year since the Public Accounts Committee produced a report on how sensitive scrutiny could be carried out in this House. This is really important, and it feels as though we are being given the run-around. Will the Minister commit to setting a date when the Government will give a decision on the matter?
Luke Pollard
As I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), conversations continue between Members of this House and the Defence Secretary. He is open to further conversations to try to find a way forward, and I am certain that he would welcome a conversation with the hon. Gentleman.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister is right to highlight the nuclear deterrent as the cornerstone of our defence capability, but it is also a national effort. Will he join me in commending the unsung scientists and engineers at the Atomic Weapons Establishment for their world-leading and highly confidential work that ensures the ongoing independence of the UK’s nuclear deterrent?
Luke Pollard
I am very happy to do so. It is not just the scientists and engineers at the AWE who support our nuclear deterrent, but the engineers and apprentices in Devonport in my constituency who refit our nuclear submarines. The entire supply chain, from Rolls-Royce to BAE Systems, Babcock and countless other companies and organisations involved in this national endeavour, helps to keep our country safe. I commend all of them for their work and their contribution to our national security.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
When we discuss the nuclear deterrent, we sometimes forget that this is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, which, if it was ever deployed, would quite literally end civilisation as we know it. The Minister might not agree, but does he accept that opposition to nuclear weapons is a legitimate, moral position of conscience held by most people in most nations in the world? Will he and his Government colleagues stop trying to demean and insult those who simply and legitimately want nothing to do with these evil weapons and want them gone from their country and their community?
Luke Pollard
I recognise that there is a range of views on nuclear weapons. I also recognise that there are thousands and thousands of people in Scotland whose jobs are dependent on supporting our nuclear fleet, who do superb work at the bases on the Clyde and support not just the submarines, but our entire nuclear supply chain, through small and medium-sized enterprises and larger companies in factories, engineering workshops and other businesses across Scotland. I am certain that, although the hon. Gentleman and I might disagree on nuclear weapons, he was not speaking for those people when he made his point.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Earlier this year, along with a cross-party delegation of MPs on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited Faslane. That was a very important visit for me, because the nuclear reactors on the V-boats are made in my constituency, but it was particularly concerning to hear about deployments that are now lasting over 200 days. That is totally unacceptable, so can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to reduce the length of those deployments while maintaining our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent?
Luke Pollard
As a Government, we are seeking to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. In particular, for those submariners who are involved with our nuclear patrols, reducing the length of those patrols is a key part of what we have to do. One aspect that I can tell my hon. Friend about in this House is the investment going into our nuclear submarine refits. Ensuring that we can refit the submarines in time, on schedule and on budget is essential to rotating between the four boats. Previous Governments delayed renewing our nuclear boats; we are taking the decision to support the Dreadnought renewal, which will provide the cutting-edge capabilities necessary for our nuclear deterrent to continue in the future. I commend all those involved in our nuclear enterprise, from engineers to the submariners who serve on our submarines, for keeping our country safe.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that any party that aspires to government in this country should be wholeheartedly and unambiguously committed to our independent nuclear deterrent? I am afraid that that was not always the case when we had a coalition under the Conservatives because of our coalition partners, but I am very pleased that they have repented now. Is it not absolutely extraordinary that a party that now presents itself as some kind of alternative Government cannot even send a single Member of Parliament to sit in this House while we are debating this existential issue for the security of our country?
Luke Pollard
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that any party aspiring to government must not just understand how dangerous our world is, how the threats are increasing and how our nuclear deterrent is the backbone of our national security, but must also be part of those conversations. I note that Members from the party he refers to are absent from today’s debate.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
We all want to live in a world in which a nuclear deterrent is not needed, but sadly we all recognise that we do not live in that world, and we are further from it than we were a decade ago. Does the Minister agree that whether we are discussing the UK’s nuclear capacity or any other capacity, we must have a NATO-first defence policy and lead within the alliance? While I am here, can I also congratulate the Veterans Minister on his epic feat up Everest last week?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend’s question gives me an opportunity to thank the Veterans Minister and celebrate his work in completing Operation Mountain Goat, the speed climb of Everest. I commend him and all those who did so on their aspiration to raise £1 million for veterans’ charities—that is something I think we can get behind on a cross-party basis.
It is absolutely essential that we continue to support our national security. The more that we can do so on a cross-party basis, the more the power of our deterrence is something we can shout loudly and proudly about, especially when it relates to directing increased defence spending towards UK companies, creating jobs nationwide and using defence as the engine for growth that it truly is.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I am in favour of this new method of delivery, which gives us more options and probably makes it less likely in the long run that nuclear weapons will be used. However, cost is key, and with 20% of the defence budget already taken up by the defence nuclear enterprise, it is clear that our conventional capabilities are suffering. Can the Minister tell us whether the increased cost of these new warheads will come out of the Ministry of Defence’s budget, or out of a special Treasury reserve, as has sometimes been the case previously?
Luke Pollard
The increase in defence spending that we have secured, which the Prime Minister announced in February, provides us with the opportunity not to just renew our conventional capabilities, but look at how we can further support our nuclear deterrent and build our cyber-capabilities. Taken together, that is how we will build that collective responsibility. I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman an incorrect answer, so I will write to him about the point that he raised.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on his robust stance on the UK nuclear deterrent, which I welcome. From a Whip’s perspective, I am interested to know how he plans to bring his parliamentary party on side when so many have voted against the nuclear deterrent and Trident.
Luke Pollard
Well, it was a question of two halves. I agree with the hon. Lady on the first half, and I am grateful for the cross-party nature of what we can achieve here. It is a source of great pride to all Defence Ministers that our strong support for our nuclear deterrent and our national security was in the Labour manifesto, which enjoyed incredible support at the last general election. We are not only bringing forward a strategic defence review that will update our capabilities, but bringing forward our commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP to April 2027—three years before anyone thought that was possible. It is thanks to the brave decision by the Prime Minister that we can renew our capabilities and increase our deterrent capability as a country.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It was a Labour Government led by Harold Wilson in the 1960s that initiated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and it was during the cold war that the number of nuclear warheads was reduced by the five declared nuclear weapon states. This announcement by the Secretary of State, and today’s talk of increasing nuclear warheads, is in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is at variance with the global nuclear ban concept of getting rid of nuclear weapons. How is the world made safer by the ability to destroy it more times over than exists at present? Where is the strategy for nuclear disarmament? Where is the strategy for peace?
Luke Pollard
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman’s question comes from a heartfelt and personal belief in nuclear disarmament. On this side of the House, we support international disarmament obligations to the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and the obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. I gently say to him, however, and to all hon. Members, that we are facing increased nuclear threats as a nation not just from established nuclear powers, but from the risk of proliferation of nuclear technology, especially as that technology becomes more mobile, portable and miniaturised. It was precisely for that reason that that featured as part of the strategic defence review that the Defence Secretary will detail further shortly.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We are not due to hit 2.5% of GDP for two years, and 3% is by no means guaranteed. With the continuous at sea deterrent ringfenced, spending on conventional forces is well under 2% and in the bottom third of NATO countries. Introducing an air-launched nuclear weapon into our arsenal is a significant change to our doctrine and might fundamentally change the way that all our forces operate. We spend less on defence than other NATO nations with a nuclear deterrent, so when will we achieve parity regarding spending on conventional forces specifically?
Luke Pollard
I am normally reasonably impressed by the hon. Gentleman on defence matters, but let me say politely that we have £5 billion extra in the defence budget this financial year thanks to the decisions by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. By 2027, we will have over £13 billion more in cash terms compared with the situation that his party left. When it comes to increasing defence spending, we are doing it three years earlier. It is worth reminding him that the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was under the last Labour Government. It is something that his party never achieved for a single day when it was in power.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Most military operations require an element of surprise, and the Government certainly achieved that by delivering the news of the return of tactical nuclear weapons through the medium of The Sunday Times. That marmalade-dropping moment aside, what impact will the apparent purchase of F-35 Lightning fighters from America have on the global combat air programme that we are putting together with Italy and Japan—or should I wait for the “You read it here last” strategic defence review?
Luke Pollard
In the spirit of the day, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for the Defence Secretary’s statement that is coming soon. I am very aware that when people go to a gig, they want the main act, not the warm up, so I look forward to him speaking in due course.
Strategic Defence Review
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the strategic defence review. I have laid the full 130-page review before the House, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so and to make this statement on our first day back from the recess.
The world has changed, and we must respond. The SDR is our Plan for Change for defence: a plan to meet the threats that we face, a plan to step up on European security and to lead in NATO, a plan that learns the lessons from Ukraine, a plan to seize the defence dividend resulting from our record increase in defence investment and boost jobs and growth throughout the United Kingdom, and a plan to put the men and women of our armed forces at the heart of our defence plans, with better pay, better kit and better housing. Through the SDR, we will make our armed forces stronger and the British people safer.
I thank those who led the review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, General Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill,
“a politician, a soldier and a foreign policy expert”,
as they describe themselves in their foreword. They, alongside others, have put in a huge effort. This is a “first of its kind”, externally led review, the result of a process in which we received 8,000 submissions from experts, individuals, organisations and Members on both sides of the House, including the shadow Defence Secretary. I thank them all, and I thank those in the Ministry of Defence who contributed to this SDR. It is not just the Government’s defence review, but Britain’s defence review. The Government endorse its vision and accept its 62 recommendations, which will be implemented.
The threats that we face are now more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the cold war. We face war in Europe, growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks, and daily cyber-attacks at home. Our adversaries are working more in alliance with one another, while technology is changing the way in which war is fought. We are living in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. Since the general election we have demonstrated that we are a Government dedicated to delivering for defence. We have committed ourselves to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, with an extra £5 billion this year and 2.5% of GDP in 2027, and the ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. However, there can be no investment without reform, and we are already driving the deepest reforms of defence in 50 years. Those reforms will ensure clearer responsibilities, better delivery, stronger budget control and new efficiencies worth £6 billion in this Parliament, all of which will be reinvested directly in defence.
Our armed forces will always do what is needed to keep the nation safe, 24/7, in more than 50 countries around the world; but in a more dangerous world, as the SDR confirms, we must move to warfighting readiness, and warfighting readiness means stronger deterrence. We need stronger deterrence to avoid the huge costs, human and economic, that wars create, and we prevent wars by being strong enough to fight and win them. That is what has made NATO the most successful defence alliance in history over the last 75 years. We will establish a new “hybrid Navy” by building Dreadnought, AUKUS submarines, cutting-edge warships and new autonomous vessels. Our carriers will carry the first hybrid airwings in Europe. We will develop the next generation Royal Air Force with F-35s, upgraded Typhoons, sixth-generation Global Combat Air Programme jets and autonomous fighters to defend Britain’s skies and to be able to strike anywhere in the world, and we will make the British Army 10 times more lethal by combining the future technology of drones, autonomy and artificial intelligence with the heavy metal of tanks and artillery.
For too long, our Army has been asked to do more with less. We inherited a long-running recruitment crisis, following 14 years of Tory cuts to full-time troops. Reversing the decline will take time, but we are acting to stem the loss and aiming to increase the British Army to at least 76,000 full-time soldiers in the next Parliament. For the first time in a generation, we have a Government who want the number of regular soldiers to rise. This Government will protect our island home by committing £1 billion in new funding to homeland air and missile defences, creating a new cyber-command to defend Britain in the grey zone, and preparing legislation to improve defence readiness.
As Ukraine shows, a country’s armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them, so this SDR begins a new partnership with industry, innovators and investors. We will make defence an engine for growth to create jobs and increase prosperity in every nation and region of the UK. Take our nuclear enterprise. We will commit to investing £15 billion in the sovereign warhead programme in this Parliament, supporting over 9,000 jobs. We will establish continuous submarine production through investments in Barrow and Derby that will enable us to produce a submarine every 18 months, allowing us to grow our nuclear attack fleet to up to 12 submarines and supporting more than 20,000 jobs. On munitions, we will invest £6 billion in this Parliament, including in six new munitions factories and in up to 7,000 new long-range weapons, supporting nearly 2,000 jobs. The lives of workers in Barrow, Derby and Govan, where the Prime Minister and I were this morning, are being transformed not just by this defence investment but by the pride and purpose that comes with defence work. In the coming years, more communities and more working people will benefit from the defence dividend that this SDR brings.
Ukraine also tells us that whoever gets new technology into the hands of their armed forces the fastest will have the advantage, so we will place Britain at the leading edge of innovation in NATO. We will double investment in autonomous systems in this Parliament, invest more than £1 billion to integrate our armed forces through a new digital targeting web, and finance a £400 million UK defence innovation organisation. To ensure that Britain gains the maximum benefit from what we invent and produce in this country, we will create a new defence exports office in the MOD, driving exports to our allies and driving growth at home.
The SDR sets a new vision and a new framework for defence investment. The work to confirm a new defence investment plan, which will supersede the last Government’s defence equipment plan, will be completed in the autumn. It will ensure that our frontline forces get what they need, when they need it. The plan will be deliverable and affordable, and it will consider infrastructure alongside capabilities. It will seize the opportunities of advanced tech, and seize the opportunities to grow the British economy.
As we lose the national service generation, fewer families across this country will have a direct connection to the armed forces, so we must do more to reconnect the nation with those who defend us. As the SDR recommends, we will increase the number of cadets by 30%, introduce a voluntary “gap year” scheme for school and college leavers, and develop a new strategic reserve by 2030. We must also renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. We have already awarded the biggest pay increase in over 20 years and an inflation-busting increase this year, and now I have announced that we will invest £7 billion of funding during this Parliament for military accommodation, including £1.5 billion of new money for rapid work to deal with the scandal of military family homes.
This SDR is the first defence review in a generation for growth and for transformation in UK defence. It will end the 14 years of the hollowing out of our armed forces. Instead, we will see investment increased, the Navy expanded, the Army grown, the Air Force upgraded, warfighting readiness restored, NATO strengthened, the nuclear deterrent guaranteed, advanced technology developed, and jobs created in every nation and region of this country. The strategic defence review will make Britain safer, more secure at home and stronger abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Before I turn to the substance, in responding to my point of order, the Secretary of State said that when he was in opposition,
“We were not offered a briefing”,
and
“We had no advance copy of the defence review.”—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please! It has not been a good day so far, and I do not want any more interruptions.
James Cartlidge
The Secretary of State said that this occurred when I was a Defence Minister. Actually, in March 2023, before I became a Minister, he was invited to a reading room on the morning of publication. On the Defence Command Paper refresh in July 2023, when I was Minister, he said he did not get a copy. I can confirm, and I am happy to substantiate this, that a hard copy was dropped off at his office at 9.30 am that morning. I asked for a copy of the SDR repeatedly on Sunday and earlier this morning, and we were not given one. I have not even read the document, and I am the shadow Secretary of State. I can add that some of the biggest defence companies in this land were given copies at 8 am this morning. They have had hours to read it; I have not read it at all. This is meant to be a democracy and this meant to be a Parliament. How can we hold the Government to account?
While the Government may have tried to hide the document from us for as long as possible today, they cannot hide what has happened in plain sight, which is a total unravelling of their strategic defence review because, quite simply, they do not have a plan to fund it. An SDR without the funding is an empty wish list. The ships and submarines it talks of are a fantasy fleet. The reviewers were clear in The Telegraph today that the commitment to 3% “established” the affordability of the plan. On Thursday, the Defence Secretary said in an interview with The Times that reaching 3% was a “certainty”, but by the weekend he had completely backtracked to 3% being just an “ambition”. Today, the Prime Minister was unable to give a date by which 3% would be reached. Why? Because the Treasury has not approved a plan to pay for it.
The Secretary of State and I have both been Treasury Ministers and Defence Ministers, and he knows as well as I do how this works. For the Treasury to approve a plan, it will have to feature billions of pounds of cuts to existing MOD programmes, so this SDR has dodged the big decisions on existing capabilities. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the so-called defence investment plan to be published in the autumn will set out the cuts needed for the Treasury to agree a plan to get to 3%? We should have had those details in the SDR today.
Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the total budget for new measures announced in this SDR over the next five years is less than £10 billion? That is less than we will be spending to lease back our own base on Diego Garcia. Is it not the hard truth that the Government are unable to guarantee the money our armed forces need, but the one plan they can guarantee is to give billions to Mauritius for land we currently own freehold? And can he finally tell us what percentage of the payment for Chagos will be met by the MOD? He has never told us before.
Let me suggest an alternative path to the Secretary of State: first, guaranteeing to hit 3% and doing so in this Parliament, not the next; secondly, getting a grip on our welfare budget, rather than competing with Reform to expand it; thirdly, saving billions by scrapping their crazy Chagos plan. That is a plan to back our armed forces and make our country stronger from the party that actually last spent 3%, in 1996. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary—[Interruption.] It was a Labour Government who came in, in 1997; I do not know what Labour Members are laughing about. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary opportunity to overhaul our armed forces in a world of growing threats.
Only yesterday, we saw the Ukrainians once again demonstrating, with their audacious attack on Russian nuclear bombers, how profoundly war has changed. And yet it is true that some of the best long-range one-way attack drones used in Ukraine have not been built by Ukraine, but by UK defence SMEs. We are incredibly well placed to be a leading nation in the development of uncrewed forces, but how many military drones have the Government actually purchased for our own military since the general election? In a written answer to me, the answer was not 3,000 or 300, but three. They have purchased three reconnaissance drones since the election and not a single one-way attack drone. That is the reality. For the past year, the Treasury has used the SDR to effectively put MOD procurement on hold. That is absolutely shameful when we need to rearm at pace and at scale. At least the Secretary of State for Defence knows how the rest of the country feels: totally let down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If there is one capability that matters more than any other, it is people. We agree on the critical importance of recruitment and retention, which is why I did so much of the work to buy back the defence estate so we could rebuild it and rebuild the substandard defence accommodation. But the Army is down by 1,000 since the election. If the Government really want to address recruitment and retention, would it not be total madness to scrap the legislation protecting our Northern Ireland veterans from a new era of ambulance-chasing lawfare? Surely nothing could be more damaging for morale, recruitment and retention than to once again pursue our veterans for the crime of serving this country and keeping us safe from terrorism.
To conclude, the Secretary of State says he wants to send a strong message to Moscow, but the messages he is sending are profoundly weak: surrendering our fishing grounds for an EU defence pact that does not offer a penny in return; surrendering the Chagos islands, to the delight of China and Iran; surrendering our Army veterans to the lawyers; and to cap it all and after so much hype, producing a damp squib SDR that is overdue, underfunded and totally underwhelming. Our armed forces deserve a lot better than this.
John Healey
I see the way the world is changing. I see the way the Chancellor is fixing the economic foundations after 14 years of failure under the Conservative Government. I have to say to the House that I have no doubt that we will meet our ambition to hit 3% of spending on defence in the next Parliament. It is something that the Prime Minister this morning reinforced. He said that the SDR can be delivered, because our commitment to 2.5% was built into the terms of reference. He said this morning that we are committed to spending what we need to spend to deliver this review.
The shadow Secretary of State talks about unfunded promises. He knows about unfunded promises. His drone strategy was unfunded. It was 12 pages, with more pictures than words. His munitions strategy was unfunded and even unpublished. His party’s commitment to 2.5% on defence was never in Government Budgets. It was a gimmick launched four weeks before they called the election—they dither, we deliver.
On Diego Garcia, I say this to the shadow Defence Secretary. This deal is a great investment in the defence and intelligence base that we share with the Americans. It is essential for activities that cannot be undertaken elsewhere, and that we do not undertake with any other nation. It is a deal worth 0.2% of the defence budget. The US backs the deal. NATO backs the deal. Five Eyes backs the deal. Australia backs the deal. India backs the deal. So how, on this national security issue, have the Opposition got themselves on the wrong side?
As far as the SDR goes, this is the defence moment of a generation. With threats increasing and defence spending rising, we now have a plan for transformation—a plan that will link the best of advanced technology with the heavy metal of our platforms; a plan that will drive the defence dividend to increase jobs and business support across the country; and a plan that puts people in defence right at the heart of our defence plans for the future, with increased pay, better housing and better kit to do the job of deterring our adversaries.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the growing instability in Europe and beyond, and the fact that, among other things, the UK is the third most targeted nation on the planet by cyber-attacks, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s intention to turn the tanker around and increase the focus on defence. However, the strategic defence review is only as effective as the spending review that will follow this month. To ensure that this SDR does not suffer the fate that has befallen some of its predecessors, how confident is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that his and the Prime Minister’s ambitions will be fully matched with a correspondingly ambitious spending review?
John Healey
My hon. Friend rightly raises the scale and nature of the increasing cyber-attacks that this country faces. When I had the privilege of taking this job 10 months ago, I was taken aback to find that in the last year, defence across the piece had been subject to more than 90,000 cyber-attacks that could be linked directly to other states. That is why in this SDR, we pick up the recommendation to establish a new cyber-command, so that we can build on the pockets of excellence across defence and ensure that we can more effectively defend against and use offensive cyber to deter such attacks.
On funding, the spending review next week is an important moment for the Government, but the Prime Minister settled the funding for defence in his statement in February. The Chancellor has already put an extra £5 billion into the defence budget this year. We will hit 2.5% of GDP three years before anybody expected us to, and we have an ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. As the Prime Minister confirmed this morning, we will spend what is needed to deliver the vision of the strategic defence review over the next 10 years and beyond.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement, although I am more than disappointed that I only received the SDR two hours ago at 3.30 pm, after the journalists.
The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister are absolutely right. We have entered a new era—one defined by international instability, geopolitical conflict and global uncertainty. Perhaps not since the end of the cold war have we faced such myriad threats to our defence: a barbaric Russian imperialism under Putin threatening Ukraine’s freedom and NATO’s security; a Trumpian White House defined by its total indifference to, and even antagonism towards, the defence of Europe; and the rising threat posed by China, as well as by regional pariah states such as Iran and North Korea. Taken together, these threats pose a once-in-a-generation risk to our country’s defence. Meeting generational risks will require making generational commitments, so I welcome the Government’s readiness to accept all the recommendations outlined in today’s strategic defence review.
It is frankly staggering, however, that we still do not have a clear answer to the vital question: where is the money coming from to fund these ambitions? This is a shopping list without the money to pay for it. The Government have flip-flopped on whether we can expect defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP—the figure on which the proposals of the SDR are premised. Putting the cart before the horse when it comes to funding the nation’s defence sends entirely the wrong message to Putin and our other adversaries. Will the Secretary of State commit to holding cross-party talks on how to reach 3%?
While I welcome the announcement of new funding for military housing and urgent repairs, fixing our recruitment crisis and doing right by our service personnel requires more than sticking-plasters. Will the Government legislate to require all military homes to be brought under the decent homes standard? It is desperately disappointing that despite having had 11 months to consider how to stem the decline in the number of soldiers in the Army, the Government appear to have sat on their hands. The shameful decline in troop numbers has only continued on their watch. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Government are serious about delivering for Britain’s defence, reversing the utterly reckless troop cuts overseen by the Conservatives must begin now?
John Healey
I welcome what the hon. Lady said on Ukraine. She will recognise that this Government have been supported by all parties in the House in providing steadfast support to Ukraine to fight Putin’s illegal invasion. She will also recognise that since this Government were elected in July, we stepped up the support for Ukraine. I hope that she will recognise that we have also stepped up the leadership that the UK can offer on European security more widely. As well as convening meetings, I chaired the first Ukraine support group meeting after 26 meetings in which the US had led the way. Alongside the French, we are convening the 30-odd nations that are looking at securing a long-term peace in Ukraine, if a ceasefire can be secured. This week at NATO, I will continue those discussions with Defence Ministers.
The SDR is a vision for the next 10 years and beyond. It can be delivered within the spending commitments that this Government have made. As the Prime Minister underlined this morning, those spending commitments were baked into the terms of reference, and have been confirmed by the reviewers. As he has said, we will spend what we need to deliver this review, and I am totally confident that we will meet the ambition of 3% in the next Parliament.
On military homes, the hon. Lady is right to mention the scandal, which has gone on for years, of making the families of those who serve live in substandard homes, which are often mouldy and damp, with leaking roofs and doors. We can change that, and we have acted to start to do that. This year, for the first time, we bought back family military homes, and we now control 36,000 of them. Last month, also for the first time, we set out a consumer charter, with the basics of what people can expect from the MOD as their landlord. We have also confirmed an extra £1.5 billion over this Parliament to deal with the worst military family homes. We can start to develop for the long term, and build the homes that we need for our forces, and in the country more widely. We will be able to use better the huge asset that MOD land offers.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to Lord Etherton, who died recently; his review on the injustice to LGBTQ+ veterans was enormously important.
I really welcome this review from the Secretary of State. I have been around long enough to have seen the words “review”, “defence”, “strategic” and “modern” used many times. As the Secretary of State highlighted, the nadir was reached when the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) was Secretary of State, in a report that had more pictures than text. This report will live only if all Members of this House agree that it is long term, because as the Secretary of State knows, chopping and changing and stopping and starting programmes can cause real problems for our men and women on the ground. Does the Secretary of State agree, and what is he doing to make sure that we embed the review for the long term?
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s welcome for the strategic defence review, which recognises the threats that we face and maps out the framework for the investment decisions that will deliver it, make our forces stronger and make the British people safer. I will work with Members from all parties in the House whenever national security and the safety of our people are at stake. I welcome her support.
I also welcome my hon. Friend’s chairwomanship of the Treasury Committee. I hope that her Committee will take an interest in the defence investment at the heart of the SDR and at the heart of our plans. The record defence investment that the Government are making in this country not only reinforces our national security, but can drive economic growth and bring a defence dividend that will drive the mission of this Government to increase economic growth and bring jobs, business and new tech to every part of the country.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
History repeats itself. In 1935, we spent just 3% of national wealth on defence, and because we rearmed almost too late, we almost lost civilisation. By 1945, we were spending 52% of national wealth on defence. Given that we face a crisis in Europe, with an unparalleled Russian rearmament almost as great as that of Germany in the 1930s, will the Secretary of State do the right thing by history and give this House a firm commitment to 3.5%, not as an ambition, but by a set date?
John Healey
Given the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, there are two things that I am surprised he has not welcomed. The first is the historic increase in defence spending that this Government have already put made, with an extra £5 billion in our first year in government alone; he will remember that when his party came into power in 2010, it cut defence spending by £2 billion in a year. We also have a commitment and plan to increase spending to 2.5% in two years’ time and to 3% in the next Parliament, which is an ambition that I am confident we will fulfil. He is right to say that if we are to meet the challenges of the SDR, and the challenges of reinforcing our industrial base and our armed forces, we cannot do it alone. We are not doing it alone; we are one of 32 nations in NATO. The second thing that I am surprised he has not welcomed is our security and defence partnership agreement with the European Union, which is potentially a first step to working with other European nations in the EU, and using financing that may be available in Europe to do exactly as he urges.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House is in no doubt about just how proud we are in Barrow and Furness to be building the submarines that keep our nation safe. The commitment to expanding this country’s submarine programme, with up to 12 SSN-AUKUS boats to be built in our shipyard, is the start of the next chapter of that illustrious career. Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence spending under this Labour Government means investment in British companies, in local supply chains and in the very fabric of our communities?
John Healey
I do indeed; my hon. Friend is right. She is a strong champion for Barrow and its shipyard. As she will know, the investment programme that we have confirmed is about increasing the ability to produce more submarines more rapidly, and reaching the point where we can look to design, build and launch a new attack submarine every 18 months. That will allow us to respond to the threats that we anticipate in 10 and 20 years’ time, and to meet our NATO commitments.
We will succeed to the extent that we have a Government ready to invest, and a town in Barrow and a supply chain of proud workers from across the UK who are willing to lend their professional expertise to this most important mission: securing our nation’s defences for the future; contributing to a stronger NATO; and reinforcing our ability to generate jobs and prosperity, including in Barrow.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When I worked on defence reviews at the Ministry of Defence, they all had up and down arrows. From what I have read of this defence review in the brief time we have had with it, there seem to be a lot of up arrows; I could really find only one down arrow, which was about not extending the Dreadnoughts’ out-of-service date beyond 2050. Does the Secretary of State want to roll the pitch a bit and indicate where capabilities might be de-emphasised, or indeed lost?
John Healey
The strategic defence review sets out a vision and framework for decisions over the next 10 years and beyond. It can be delivered only because of the historic increase in defence spending—the largest since the end of the cold war—that this Government have made. That is the basis on which we will make our decisions, and on which we will deliver the SDR’s recommendations.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
It is a proud day for us in the home of the British Army: Labour is investing more in defence—and more than we saw in 14 years of Tory Governments. It is clear that we need more innovative financing solutions to support the new defence technologies mentioned in the SDR, such as the technologies being developed at Cody business park in Farnborough, which I visited this morning. Will the Secretary of State support my campaign for a multilateral defence, security and resilience bank to help power more investment, jobs and opportunities in Aldershot, Farnborough and right across the country?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is proud of the Government and of the SDR, and we are proud of her—the first Labour MP ever for the town of Aldershot, home of the British Army. She serves that community and the Army with great distinction. She is also doing extremely valuable work on how we match the significant increase in taxpayers’ investment in our defence with more private sources of investment. I have been following her work in developing those ideas, and am looking at them closely; I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is, too.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Like many in the House, I have only had a chance to skim-read the SDR. Fundamentally, it seems to be heading in the right direction, but why is it so timid? Why is it so slow? If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, we face an era-defining moment, why not move with the pace that the era demands? Why not commit to 3% within a meaningful timescale, to give industry and the forces a serious opportunity to plan, and to make this a document worth its name, rather than saying, “Let’s see how little we can get away with while keeping the papers happy”?
John Healey
I reject that characterisation completely. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the SDR is going in the right direction; it certainly is. He will recognise that it is a complete break from what the Government of whom he was a leading member, less than year ago, presided over—14 years of hollowing out and underfunding our armed forces. It was defence with no vision for the future, and it has ended now. This is a plan to use the very best innovative technology to reinforce the strength of our armed forces and the traditional hardware that we have. The SDR will deliver that vision, and we will deliver it.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This SDR underpins the reason that I left the Royal Air Force: to be part of a Government who take their commitment to defence and security seriously and will bring about the end of the hollowing-out of our armed forces that took place under the last Government. The measures taken within this SDR reverse fundamental and damaging delays caused by the previous Government within our defence programmes, supports our personnel and provides a clear and credible path to meeting the challenges presented to us by Russia. But as General Barrons has said, the greatest threat to this SDR is in its delivery, so can my right hon. Friend provide us with an understanding of what measures are being put in place to ensure that we deliver the SDR and the defence proposition that underwrites our defence, our security and our prosperity?
John Healey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the contribution he makes to debates in this House and to the determination of the Labour Government to deliver this SDR. I said in my opening remarks that there cannot be investment without reform, and from day one reform was a top priority for me as Defence Secretary. It does not bring photo opportunities and front pages, but it potentially brings the results that we need in the future. We have set up a military strategic headquarters; we have the Chief of the Defence Staff now commanding the chiefs for the first time; we have a new national armaments director; we have a single investment budget; and we now have budgetary control that was not there before. These reforms are in place, and we will drive further reforms that the SDR reinforces and endorses. This is how we will give ourselves the best chance to deliver the vision set out by the reviewers so ably in the strategic defence review report.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
What is the difference between the Chancellor’s black hole and the Defence Secretary accepting 62 recommendations from the SDR without committing the funds to pay for them?
John Healey
The Prime Minister and the Government have committed the funds—[Interruption.] We have committed the funds. We have built them into the terms of reference that will allow this strategic defence review to be delivered over the next 10 years and beyond. That is the confirmed view of the reviewers, and that is exactly what my job as Defence Secretary will be to do.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s support and his leadership in this time of increased threats. We saw over the weekend that Ukraine had managed to destroy, it says, as many as 40 Russian bombers deep inside Russia, with a value, it would say, of £5 billion. That is almost as much as we are raising the defence budget by. We have to get after innovation, and this SDR does that. In particular, I want to ask the Secretary of State about page 59, which talks about “rapid commercial exploitation”. It mentions the need to
“pull latest technology into operations”,
and to
“unlock private equity and venture capital”.
My question is this: do we need to change the commercial competition laws within the civil service to allow that to happen, or can it already happen?
John Healey
We certainly have to change the procurement system. The Chancellor and I have already announced in the spring statement the way that we will ensure that the sort of innovation my hon. Friend talks about can move to contract far faster than it has done before, and that we can ensure that the sort of spiral development that the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), first started to look at in Government can be pursued and put in place. We will do that; it is part of the procurement reforms that we are bringing into place. Pace, innovation and the new companies that have so much to offer are part of how we will do this in the future.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, has said in the last few days that all NATO nations must achieve 3.5% of GDP on defence spending. I respect the Secretary of State a lot, and he has known me for a long time in this House. When he said on Saturday that there was “no doubt” that UK defence spending would rise to 3% by 2034, I nodded in approval and thought, “Great, they have a commitment.” By Sunday, however, that appeared not to be the case. Nobody here wants this strategic defence review to succeed more than I do, as I have never agreed with the idea of the peace dividend from start to finish. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are all seen as threats, so will he now please get to the Dispatch Box as the character that he is and say that to achieve this we will need at least 3%, if not more, and that this Government will be committed to spending it?
John Healey
I say to the right hon. Gentleman: do not take it from me at the Dispatch Box—take it from the Prime Minister when he said that we will spend what is needed to deliver this review. He has made that commitment in the House; he has made that commitment today. The vision of this strategic defence review now becomes the mission of this Government to deliver.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Much of the new hardware pledged today will not be delivered for some years and will not be effective without the personnel to operate it. What more will the Government do right now, not in 2034, to ensure that our armed forces recruit the service personnel who these long-term plans will rely on?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right. In many ways, defence is a special case; we need to take many decisions now to secure the future of subsequent generations, and to develop and secure the capabilities that we will need to do that in 10, 20 and 30 years’ time.
The hon. Gentleman is also right that it is the people who are at the heart of this. He will recognise the 14 years of failure leading to the recruitment and retention crisis that we were left with last summer. He will know that I have removed over 100 of the rules that prevented some people from applying to join the forces. He will know that I have introduced direct entry for those with cyber talent to join and contribute to our defences. He will also recognise that we are looking to retain those who are valuable to us by paying better, by looking to upgrade the housing and, where needed, through special retention payments.
This is going to take time. We are closing the gap and I am determined that we will reverse that long-term decline. For the first time, this is a Government who want to increase, not further cut, the size of our Army.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The review is welcome. Where the last Government hollowed out our armed forces, we are rebuilding. Russia’s northern fleet and China’s polar silk road ambitions have seen both countries focus and co-operate in the High North. As the framework nation for the joint expeditionary force, the UK has limited surface fleet capable of operating in the polar ice. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the new hybrid Navy will see that capability scaled up?
John Healey
I can. My hon. Friend plays an important part in debates in this House, including on the Defence Committee. She recognises that, as we can see from Ukraine, it is the nations that are able to bring together the rapid innovation in new technology with the hardware of established weaponry and platforms that will have the combat edge in the future. I am determined that Britain will be at the leading edge of innovation in NATO, that our forces will be better equipped in the future, and that we will reform and rebuild our British industry to equip them for exactly that.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I very much welcome the aspirations of this strategic defence review and welcome the statement on page 7 that,
“We will develop a new Defence Investment Plan”.
However, as the Secretary of State knows from all the Budgets and fiscal events he has sat through, he cannot give the House a categorical assurance over future spending commitments, so will he make it clear to the House what decisions he is prepared to make with respect to the existing commitments such that he can secure that additional funding at subsequent spending reviews and Budgets? I hope that when he comes clean completely to this House, he will make clear that there will be considerable ongoing investment in the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, which does an enormous amount to secure understanding of future technologies in the defence arena.
John Healey
The delivery of the SDR vision can only be done because of the commitment that this Government have made to increase defence spending. The defence investment plan is a new investment framework and a new investment programme, developed in the context of and defined by this SDR vision. The work on the new investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
There is much in this strategic defence review that will be of interest to my Committee. I welcome the report and in particular the recognition that science, innovation and technology are an opportunity as well as a threat. Can he confirm that the numerous references to AI in the report are to a sovereign AI capability, whether publicly or privately developed? Having spent last week in Brunei as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, observing the amazing work of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, will he also confirm that despite this tilt back to NATO, he recognises the contribution and strategic importance of that base in the South China sea?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. The approach at the heart of this strategic defence review and at the heart of this Government’s commitment to our collective deterrence and defence in the Euro-Atlantic is NATO first, but it is not NATO only. Alliances and partnerships such as the global combat air programme and AUKUS, and partnerships we have with other nations, remain important.
On innovation and the British base, my hon. Friend will recognise that, as part of warfighting readiness, we require an industrial readiness. That industrial readiness—that industrial deterrence that is part of preventing our adversaries from considering attacks against us—means that our companies must be able to innovate and scale up production if we are faced with conflicts in the future. That will be a touchstone for the way we will take many decisions as we invest in the future.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
This defence review gives us a long shopping list of technological advances—the cyber command, digital backbone, drones, AI—and that is right and proper, but the British military is tiny. Recently, the Select Committee heard that if we had to fight tonight, we could scratch together five ships and 30 planes. The person who told us that was the former head of the MOD’s own strategic net assessment office. Does the Secretary of State agree that the lesson from Ukraine is that to fight and win wars, we need to have a mass of force—a large force—with tech that is good enough, rather than a small, perfectly formed, high-tech force? Is that lesson being heeded in the review?
John Healey
The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that we do not fight alone and we do not plan to fight alone. We are a leading member of NATO, a 32-strong alliance that has never been bigger and has never been stronger. As we approach the NATO summit later this month, there will be a discussion about the capabilities that each nation contributes and develops in the years ahead, so that we can strengthen that collective deterrence, avoid the wars that we do not want to fight, and strengthen our collective and our UK defence.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Anyone who heard Carsten Breuer, Germany’s Chief of Defence, speak at the weekend will have found his words deeply sobering, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the SDR, which is modernising our defence, from Atlantic Bastion to the transformation of our defence and a tech-driven approach. I particularly welcome the cyber and electromagnetic command. He spoke of a stronger deterrence. Will he confirm that there is a need now for stronger offensive cyber-work by our forces?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. He will be aware of the national cyber force that we are developing further. He will also be aware that I have confirmed, and the SDR recommends, the establishment of a cyber and electromagnetic command, which will be in place and do exactly as he suggests: it will reinforce our capacity, our expertise and our ability to do both defensive and offensive cyber as part of the deterrence and the defence that we need for this country.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the defence review—it sets a direction and there is much in it—but I do not agree with paragraph 20 on page 68:
“Defence should only run training and education itself when it cannot be obtained externally at suitable quality and cost.”
I think that ties in with paragraph 4 on page 105:
“As it reconsiders its training estate needs, the Navy should ensure there is ‘capacity by design’”.
I worry that that would mean the closing of the Dartmouth academy. Let me explain why I have linked those two statements. I am sure the Secretary of State has visited the United States naval officer training academy in Annapolis. The model there brings a real fellowship to people who want to stay in the armed forces because of all the things offered through the degrees and so on. I will perhaps expand on those comments when we have a further debate, but will the Secretary of State give a reassurance that great institutions and buildings such as Dartmouth will not be closed under this review?
John Healey
This SDR and the plans that will follow will only build further on the proud professional tradition and reputation of our Navy, RAF and Army training. I look forward to the further debates that the right hon. Gentleman promises.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I welcome the calm assurance that my right hon. Friend has brought to the House. Our country is safer and stronger for the decisions that he has announced today. But if we are to be more prosperous, too, we will need clear objectives for the spending that he has announced to drive more jobs, more innovation and more economic growth here in our country. Will he set out clear targets for each of those objectives when he brings forward the defence industrial strategy a little later on this year?
John Healey
I will take my right hon. Friend’s well-informed observations into account. I will take the observations of his Select Committee into account. I welcome the attention he has given to this review as we develop our thinking for the defence industrial strategy.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
There is a serious lack of answers here. Apparently there is going to be further clarity in the forthcoming defence industrial strategy, financial services strategy, defence diplomacy strategy, reserve personnel strategy, defence housing strategy and defence estate optimisation programme. The Secretary of State cannot even provide clarity on where the money is coming from. Will he provide some answers on what on earth the Government have spent the last year reviewing?
John Healey
We have spent the last 10 months delivering for defence. We have put in place the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We have given the armed forces the biggest pay rise for more than 20 years. We have voted for £1.5 billion to increase the standard of armed forces housing and we have brought back 36,000 military homes. We have invested in stronger support for veterans. We have also struck the deepest defence agreement, in the Trinity House agreement with Germany. We are delivering for defence. The Government will do more, and the SDR gives us the vision and direction to do that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the SDR, in particular the reference to an increase in investment in the defence medical services. Given that 70% of veterans have a clinical mental health condition, will my right hon. Friend explain how the interface with NHS mental health services will be managed?
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Just as the NHS contributes to our armed forces, so members of our armed forces often work full time in our NHS. It is a synergy that few understand and few appreciate, and it is a strength that we need to build on. I will work with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary in the coming months to advance the recommendations and the vision for reinforcing the readiness and strengths of our armed medical services.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I welcome the NATO-first strategy in the SDR, and the fact that we are looking to lead in NATO. Last week, I was at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Dayton, Ohio, where the NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that 3% will not be a credible solution to defence—he is going to set this out at the NATO summit this month—and that 3.5% is required to be credible, with another 1.5% on defence-related funding. If that is what NATO says a credible commitment is, will the Defence Secretary commit to 3.5%?
John Healey
Those discussions are for the NATO summit later this month. We go into that summit having made a record commitment to invest and to increase defence spending, in two years’ time, to a level that we have not seen in this country since 2010, with an aim to get to 3% in the next Parliament. The NATO summit will be a discussion about how we spend, how well we spend and the capabilities we can contribute to NATO, just as much as it will be about spending commitments.
I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we make an extraordinary contribution as a nation to NATO, and we will step that up through pursuing the SDR vision. Of course, at the heart of it is something we contribute that no other nation does: in full, we commit our UK nuclear deterrent to NATO, as the ultimate guarantor not just of our own national security but of the security of our NATO allies.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, only two out of 49 major defence projects were being delivered on time and on budget. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government are getting to grips with the financial mismanagement and failed procurement system we inherited? Given that the extra defence spending has come from the aid budget, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is even more important that additional money delivers frontline capabilities and jobs, and is not lost in the system or to the bottom line?
John Healey
It is always important that public money is well spent and that we can demonstrate good value for money. We still have some way to go on the reform of defence, but the steps we have taken already and the action we plan in the future will help us to ensure that we can get better value for the British taxpayer and better value for the British forces.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The review describes responsibility for space policy within Government as “fragmented”, so its proposal for a “reinvigorated Cabinet sub-Committee” to set the strategic approach to space is to be welcomed. That will clearly have significant implications for the development of a vertical-launch satellite facility at SaxaVord spaceport in Shetland. Will the Secretary of State ensure that hardwired into that Sub-Committee is a process of engagement for the operators at SaxaVord and the communities that host them, so that both might be empowered to deliver on this most important strategic objective for the country as a whole?
John Healey
At the heart of the SDR’s insight and recommendations is a new relationship between Government and industry—one that we have already started to put in place and that allows industry and potential investors to see the challenges that we face and contribute their ideas and innovation to solving them. That principle will be applied just as much in space as it will in other areas of new capabilities that we need to develop.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The procurement system that my right hon. Friend inherited from the Conservative party is in chaos, with only two major defence projects out of 49 being delivered on time. What is my right hon. Friend doing to get to grips with that situation? New technology needs to be delivered on time; otherwise, it risks being outdated by the time it is put into use.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right, and he is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who chaired the Public Accounts Committee that quite rightly saw and branded the defence procurement system as “broken”. The overhaul required is a measure of the extent of the reform. We have begun that and we will complete it.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Recommendation 26 sensibly calls for the expansion of in-school cadet forces. Will the Defence Secretary work with the Department for Education to reverse its penny-pinching cuts, and reinstate school staff instructor grants to help extend cadet forces into more state schools?
John Healey
We will indeed work with the Department for Education in delivering the recommendation and ambition set out, quite rightly, in the SDR, which is to increase the number of cadets by 30% by 2030. It offers a unique opportunity for many young people to gain skills and experience that make a transformation to their lives and prospects.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
This is unquestionably an important moment and a significant review, so I find it incredible—astonishing, in fact—that once again for this important statement Reform Members have gone AWOL. They clearly do not give a damn about the defence of our country.
On page 32 of the review, an overview of the dependencies and threats includes critical minerals such as lithium. Does the Secretary of State agree that the most effective way to reduce dependency on such critical minerals from the likes of China, is to invest heavily and urgently in domestically produced and processed critical minerals such as tin, lithium and tungsten in Cornwall?
John Healey
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has tin, lithium and tungsten mines in his constituency, but he is right to point to those natural reserves in this country in Cornwall. He makes a powerful case to the House this afternoon.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that the Democratic Unionist party, and the people we are privileged to represent from Northern Ireland, are hugely supportive of our armed forces. He should know that as a region, we disproportionately provide more personnel than any other part of our country to those armed forces. I was encouraged to hear him talk about every region and nation of the United Kingdom benefiting from the SDR, but although we heard about Derby, Govan and Barrow, there was a slight omission regarding Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State knows how pivotal companies in my constituency were for Ukraine in its initial phase of defence, with the NLAW and latterly with Starstreak, so can he confirm that Northern Ireland will indeed benefit from strategic and significant investment?
John Healey
I can, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland is benefiting already as a result of decisions that this Government have taken, not least with the lightweight multirole missiles that are produced in his constituency, and which we are ramping up to deliver more to Ukraine during this year. The £6 billion that I announced in munitions for the next five years will include another six munitions and explosives factories, and I hope he will welcome that. He will know that in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, munitions production is already the source of skilled, long-term, well-paid and trade-unionised jobs, which is something I know he will welcome for the future.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The importance of good cyber-security is referenced throughout the SDR, and it is critical for our defence. Ebbw Vale college has an excellent course in that sector, so to address this threat, will the Secretary of State please advise how the Government plan to get more young people into roles in cyber-security for the future?
John Healey
I would encourage my hon. Friend to take a hard look at the plans. The first recruitment is under way at the moment for the new direct entry of young people who have gaming skills, coding skills, computer skills—the sorts of skills that are invaluable for our armed forces in that wider mission of defending the country, with the direct entry route that our new cyber-force recruitment is making available. I know there will be talented young people in his constituency who have a part to play and an interest in helping the nation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Questions are very long, and the answers are getting longer as well. We need to get many colleagues in, so can we please keep it short?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is tempting to remind the Secretary of State about the 4.5% to 5% of GDP that was spent on defence by Conservative Governments throughout the cold war years of the 1980s, but instead may I ask whether, like me, he would endorse what Admiral Lord West wrote in the national press last week, when he stated that the Chagos deal was a “disgraceful decision”, and that as a former chief of defence intelligence, he did not accept that the move is
“absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence”
as the Prime Minister claims? He is a former Labour security Minister and current House of Lords representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee, so he knows what he is talking about, doesn’t he?
John Healey
On the contrary, Madam Deputy Speaker, this deal is essential to safeguard operational sovereignty for the UK of the base on Diego Garcia, to allow us to protect within the 20 nautical-mile radius of that base, and the ability to safeguard that for the future. It is essential to our and American intelligence and defence operations, and it is a linchpin of the special relationship that we have between the US and UK on intelligence and defence matters, of which the right hon. Gentleman is always such a strong champion.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
While the Government pledge to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP, funnelling hundreds of billions in public money to arms companies and their shareholders, and continuing to arm Israel’s genocide in Gaza, they are at the same time slashing disability benefits, keeping millions of children in poverty through the two-child benefit cap, and cutting winter fuel support for pensioners. How do the Government justify finding billions for war, while claiming there is nothing for the poor?
John Healey
The first duty of any Government is to defend the country and keep its citizens safe, and we invest in defence in order to deter and prevent the war that brings such extreme human and economic costs. I ask my hon. Friend to consider this: if we cannot defend the country, where will we be with an NHS without power, and with submarine cables that mean data does not work? Strong national security is fundamental to a stable economy, a strong society, and I hope she will recognise that it is imperative and important for the country that we pursue the vision in the SDR.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It was right that the Secretary of State recognised the military communities who serve across the UK, and that we recognise those communities that support them. The strategic defence review recommendations that the Government have accepted will have a direct impact on communities across the UK, but when we will know, so that communities such as Leuchars in my constituency are aware of the implications of the defence review when thinking of things such as education, transport, health and other infrastructure?
John Healey
From today, armed forces communities, including in the hon. Member’s constituency, will be able to read the report for themselves, and draw out the implications for them and their families.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am proud that my constituency of Carlisle and north Cumbria is home to Europe’s only electronic warfare tactics facility, and proud that this Government have set out steps in the SDR to strengthen our electromagnetic and cyber-defences. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about why those elements of our defence are so critical?
John Healey
The facility in my hon. Friend’s constituency plays an essential role in our national security, and I welcome her support. She will recognise that the decision to set up a cyber and electromagnetic command is part of what the SDR does, drawing lessons from what we can see about the way the nature of warfare is changing week by week in Ukraine.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The document says that
“this will allow us to grow our nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet to up to 12.”
Is not the truth—and let’s speak the truth—that that is the ask to the Treasury, and the spending review has yet to decide what the defence programme will be? I hear what the Secretary of State says, when he says with his full force and sincerity that “we will fund this defence review”, but how will he achieve that without much more significant cuts to other budgets? No Government can afford to spend and borrow much more, if anything at all, so how will he get the necessary cuts through to fund this big increase in defence spending, beyond 3.5% because we all know we will need more than that?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the attack subs: our investment is in production capacity, so that we can build at a faster rate and have a double production line in Barrow, which will allow us to build the number of new subs that we will need to deter future threats and meet our NATO commitments. I am glad that he welcomes that.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement about this significant investment in the security of our nation. I was thrilled that the Prime Minister announced that there will be up to 12 new attack submarines, boosting growth in Scotland and keeping the UK safe for years to come. However, I was astonished to read over the weekend that the SNP Government in Holyrood are blocking investment in a specialist welding centre in Glasgow by withdrawing a £2.5 million grant. If the SNP continues to block funding for that centre, will the Secretary of State confirm that this Labour Government will step in?
John Healey
I was astonished to learn over the weekend that the SNP Government are withholding £2.5 million in support for Rolls-Royce to set up a specialist welding skills centre. The centre is essential not for munitions, as the SNP Government say, but for shipyards across the board, which act as a pipeline to bring wealth and jobs to Scotland. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that if the SNP will not change its view and will not step in to make the skills centre possible, then we will.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
My constituents in Gosport will be keen for the Secretary of State to clarify two points. First, the line on page 105 about reconsidering “training estate needs” will concern many, so will he confirm that the outstanding training establishments at HMS Sultan and HMS Collingwood, which employ so many, will not be under threat? Secondly, when will the promised funds for accommodation come through? The previous Government spent £400 million on upgrading accommodation, which was beginning to filter through, but some 69 service family accommodation units in Gosport are now empty because they are deemed not fit for human habitation, and that is getting worse under his watch.
John Healey
We are doing further work on the nature and needs of our defence estate. It is right that we do that; because we now have a long-term view, we will be able to take better long-term decisions on that estate. The homes that the hon. Lady mentions are among the 8,000 empty family military homes, many because they are unfit for families to live in. I hope that she will welcome the extra £1.5 billion that we will create in this Parliament for overhauling the worst, as well as the longer-term plan in the defence housing strategy that we will publish, because we can—and we must—do much better for our military families.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
As a veteran and on behalf of my constituents in North East Derbyshire who are serving or who have loved ones in the armed forces, may I say how much I welcome the commitment to supporting armed forces personnel in the review? It recognises that we need to improve the defence medical services, proposes £1.5 billion for housing, and commits to a second, above-inflation pay rise for our personnel. That will mean that for the first time in a long time, no member of our armed forces will receive less than the national living wage—it is shocking that that was ever the case. Does the Secretary of State agree that while the Conservatives left us in this mess and Reform Members could not even be bothered to turn up to the debate, this review shows that Labour is the party for our armed forces personnel?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right: Labour is the party of defence and Labour will put defence people at the heart of our plans for the future, with better pay, housing and kit to serve in the jobs that they volunteer to do to defend us all.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
This Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world—they make it more dangerous. Instead of wasting £15 billion on nuclear warheads—weapons that must never be used and that should be as unacceptable as biological and chemical weapons—at a taxpayer subsidy of more than £1 million per job created, why not instead spend that money on real security that must involve defence and diplomacy and development? Real security means decent housing and public services, tackling the challenges of the climate crisis and pandemic-preparedness because—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
John Healey
We are strengthening our armed forces to secure the peace, not to fight the war. We deter the attacks that we fear by being strong enough to defeat our enemy. I say to the hon. Lady that our deterrent has helped to keep stability and peace in Europe for over 75 years, it has been the ultimate guarantee of our national security and it is what Putin fears most. We are the only European nation in NATO that commits its deterrent in full to the protection of other NATO allies. We play a unique role and we make a unique contribution. I would like the hon. Lady to recognise that, even if she cannot support it.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I was pleased to read in the SDR about the importance of building on the 2024 joint declaration on the Norwegian-UK strategic partnership, which recognises the autonomy of both countries and the strength that comes from working together. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that important partnership would be further strengthened if Norway decided to purchase the Type 26 frigates—the best frigates in the world—that are built in Govan, in Glasgow South West, and Scotstoun, in my Glasgow West constituency?
John Healey
They are indeed the best frigates in the world, and I have been working hard to persuade the Norwegians that joining the UK, with our Type 26 frigates, is about reenforcing the deep partnership that we already have, as two nations, alongside the US, protecting the north Atlantic and the high north from Russian aggression.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The statement has been going on for well over an hour and we will have to conclude in the next 20 minutes, so questions will have to be short, as will the answers.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State has set out an ambitious strategic defence review. As soon as possible after the spending review next week, will he set out a defence investment plan in some detail, so that the Public Accounts Committee can examine whether the funds match the equipment that he has talked about today, and whether the ambitious plan can be delivered and is affordable?
John Healey
As Chair of the PAC, the hon. Gentleman knows the problem with the previous Government’s defence equipment plan. As I said in my statement, the work on a new defence investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The review puts shipbuilding firmly in the UK’s future defence plans, particularly in the high north, as I have mentioned in the House many times, and looks towards a Royal Navy that is powerful, cheaper and simpler. The workforce at the dockyards in Rosyth, in my constituency, is ideally placed to deliver this. Just last week, we saw the roll-out of HMS Venturer, the first Type 31 frigate for the Royal Navy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is committed to shipbuilding in Scotland, including in my constituency, in contrast to the SNP, which just this week turned down the opportunity to bring new skills to that sector in Scotland?
John Healey
We are totally committed to shipbuilding in Scotland. I pay tribute to the workers in his constituency in Rosyth for their pride, professionalism and sense of purpose, and the contribution that they make to our national security.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The service personnel and their families at Bicester garrison, in my constituency, are victims of the scandal of military family housing to which the Secretary of State referred. The investments highlighted today are therefore welcome, but to reassure my constituents, will the Secretary of State commit that military housing will reach the decent homes standard? Will he give the date by which the defence housing strategy will be published? And will he confirm that he has accepted the recommendation in the SDR that all proceeds from housing developments on Ministry of Defence land will be reinvested in military housing?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this long-run scandal. I am sure he will recognise that we cannot turn this round overnight. I hope he will also recognise the steps that we have already taken this year—the 36,000 military homes brought back into public control and the plans we are putting in place for the future. That allows us in this Parliament finally to put an end to the scandal that we have seen of military families being forced to live in such substandard accommodation.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that the Government will invest £15 billion in the nuclear warhead programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in my constituency. Not only is that crucial for national security, but it will be transformational for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, supporting jobs and boosting our local economy. Will he set out in greater detail the plans for that investment and the expected benefits to my constituents? Will he come with me to Aldermaston, Burghfield or Brimpton to meet some of the brilliant staff who work there?
John Healey
I will, and I look forward to that visit with my hon. Friend. As the constituency MP, she will know the essential and unique work that the AWE undertakes and know that it supports more than 9,500 jobs. She will recognise the defence dividend that that can bring to not just her area, but the wider supply chain with the increase in defence investment that this Government are making.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
While it is welcome that the SDR refers to the need for more routine protection of subsea cables and pipelines and of maritime traffic, there is no specific mention of the same commitment to the protection of North sea oil and gas platforms, rigs and floating production, storage, and offloading vessels. They are just as important to our energy security, which is our national security, and there could be much more catastrophic consequences if they were attacked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those structures will be included in any plan for the routine securing and protecting of critical national infrastructure?
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Our British fleet of submarines are the most awesome and lethal machines in the world, keeping the peace unseen and unheard below the waves for generations. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said, the power in that punch comes from Derby’s Rolls-Royce workers, who give them their nuclear reactor cores. Will the Defence Secretary tell Members how we can be involved in the recommended “national endeavour” public communications campaign to make it absolutely clear how fundamental our at-sea deterrent is to our national security?
John Healey
In many ways, my hon. Friend is doing exactly that in the House by reinforcing the importance of the deterrent at the heart of our security and its importance to jobs, technology, businesses, the supply chain and the strength of economic growth. She is making the case that defence investment can drive economic growth, and we will ensure that it does.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Can I push the Secretary of State on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about HMS Collingwood? My constituents will look for reassurance that it will have a long-term place in the defence estate.
I also ask the Secretary of State about recommendation 40, which says:
“The Royal Navy should explore alternative approaches to augmenting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to deliver a balanced, cost-effective fleet that maximises the UK’s warfighting capabilities.”
The RFA is already stretched; I have been on visits to the RFA where it has told me that it is stretched with the operational requirements placed on it. It sounds to me like this is a loss of operational independence. Will the Secretary of State commit to an expansion of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary consisting of ships managed purely by the Royal Navy under the defence estate?
John Healey
We are proud of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It increasingly does tough jobs that in the past we would have expected the Royal Navy to undertake. Its role and contribution is under-recognised, and I am keen to see its role reinforced and for it to have greater recognition. We will ensure that we do that as we pursue the SDR’s vision.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The 1st Division, which is headquartered in my constituency, impressed on me the importance of our diplomacy and soft power and the excellence of the training provided to our armed forces. We have heard a lot about hard power today, but will the Secretary of State ensure that we put serious resources into soft power—the diplomacy that is so important in de-escalating risk? Will he also ensure that we continue that training in my armed forces city of York?
John Healey
My hon. Friend’s city of York has a proud military history, and she speaks strongly of that this afternoon. She is right to recognise the role of diplomacy alongside hard defence, but perhaps she could do more to recognise the fact that military and civilian defence personnel have an important diplomatic role to play alongside the Foreign Office. One of the things we are doing is working much more closely together in this Government compared with the way in which Foreign Secretaries and Defence Secretaries have been at loggerheads too often in the past, rather than working co-operatively.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Sleaford and North Hykeham is home to RAF Cranwell, RAF Digby, much of RAF Waddington and Beckingham training ranges. This defence review will be read with interest across the constituency. Many of my constituents serve in the armed forces, are veterans or work in the defence industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment to the expansion of RAF Digby that is planned? Will he ensure that he supports the Greater Lincolnshire regional defence and security cluster, which was established in 2023?
John Healey
I cannot give the hon. Lady a commitment at the Dispatch Box today, but I can say that I take those arguments seriously and hear what she has to say. She is speaking up for her area, and they have some great strengths in her part of Lincolnshire.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The 12 new nuclear-powered AUKUS submarines will almost double the UK’s fleet of such submarines. Given that those submarines are to be shared with non-nuclear Australia, does that not go against the UK’s obligations under the non-proliferation treaty? As they are part of the AUKUS treaty—a treaty with the USA as well as Australia—and focused in the Asia-Pacific, does that not risk adding to the growing tensions between the USA and China and make us all less safe?
John Healey
No and no. The AUKUS partnership is entirely consistent with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and our obligations. The answer is no, because it reinforces regional stability and security. It reinforces regional deterrence and makes conflict less likely, not more likely.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Leonardo, based just outside my constituency, has been left as the sole bidder for a major defence contract worth up to £1 billion. The project could contribute more than 12,000 jobs to the UK supply chain, including 1,500 skilled jobs, some of which would be in Glastonbury and Somerton. Can the Secretary of State confirm the timeline for decision making on the procurement of the new medium helicopter?
John Healey
I can confirm that the process is under way. We are giving it our full attention, and we will make any decisions as soon as we can.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that I have been raising concerns about the state of our air and missile defences. I welcome that air and missile defence is a key focus in the SDR, which will make the UK secure at home and strong abroad. Notwithstanding previously announced initiatives to bolster collaboration on air and missile defence with our allies, can the Secretary of State give us more detail on what conclusions the SDR drew on this vital aspect of national defence?
John Healey
The SDR drew the conclusion that we need to take potential threats to our homeland more seriously than we have needed to do in the past. That is the reason why I have made the commitment that we will invest £1 billion in this Parliament to further strengthen in particular radar, communications and the integration of our missile and air defence. My hon. Friend will appreciate that part of the UK’s air and missile defence is provided by our NATO allies, and we have great protection in the fact that our frontline is not on the coast of the UK: our frontline with Russia is on the borders of the eastern flank.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The strapline on the front cover of the review says, “Making Britain Safer”. I trust the Secretary of State means “making the United Kingdom safer”. On page 87, it says that
“The connection between the UK Armed Forces and wider society is the longstanding and necessary foundation for the defence of the country.”
In the light of that, will this review reverse the rundown in armed forces personnel in Northern Ireland, where today, according to answers given in this House, there are five Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel stationed? Of all the services—all three together—there are only 1,305 personnel in Northern Ireland, yet we supply a huge number of personnel to those services. Will the review reverse that rundown and make sure that every part of this United Kingdom shares in the provision of the armed services?
John Healey
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows well the scale and depth of the recruitment and retention crisis, and he knows very well that over the past 14 years we have seen consistent cuts in the strength of our full-time forces. This is the first Government for a generation who want to see an increase in the size of the full-time British Army, and that is what we will work to deliver.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I was pleased to join the Secretary of State this morning in Glasgow, where he met some of the workers building the Type 26 frigate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said, the Norwegian Government are considering placing an order for that frigate, so can I ask the Secretary of State to do everything he can to encourage our Norwegian friends to order the frigate?
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The Defence Secretary has just thrown into doubt the future of the new medium helicopter. I am very concerned to hear that that programme clearly may not go ahead. Can he tell the House whether he plans to reduce the number of RAF Chinooks, which—as he knows—are very important both to our special forces and to our Army? Are there any plans to reduce the number of Chinooks?
John Healey
I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to read what he has into my remarks. I was simply stating the facts as they are: there is a process under way that has to conclude. That is what I said to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke). This review is not about cuts—it is the first review since the end of the cold war that has taken place not in the context of cuts, but in the context of a decade of rising defence expenditure. It is about enhancing what we have for the future; it is about building out, not hollowing out. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that as the signature of the strategic defence review that we have published this afternoon.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It was really good to see the Secretary of State come to MBDA in Stevenage recently, where its workers were refitting Storm Shadow missiles for Ukraine. I very much welcome what the SDR has to say about a partnership with industry to create an engine for growth for our defence sector and our wider economy, but those tools require effective personnel. Last week, I was in Poland with the armed forces parliamentary scheme visiting our RAF personnel, and we were told, “Look, we cannot speak for ourselves. We need you to champion us.” What can the Secretary of State say today to champion our armed forces?
John Healey
First, I hope my hon. Friend will pass on my appreciation to the workers at MBDA in his constituency. They are exemplars of the high-skilled, highly committed and highly productive workforce that contributes so much to the defence of this country. I hope he will be able to say to those workers that this strategic defence review is the first of its kind—one that challenges us to think afresh, recognises the threats that we face, learns the lessons from Ukraine, and makes sure that in the future we can strengthen our armed forces and keep the British people safer. I hope he will recognise that the publication of this strategic defence review is a significant contribution to what he urges on the Government.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
In the last decade, China has expanded its military to a degree only matched since 1945 by the USSR in the cold war era. In the past decade, the previous Government did not read the signs coming from Russia; this Government must read the signs coming from China. Ukraine does not have five years, and neither does Taiwan. I again invite the Government to bring us to the table, and let us find 3% now.
John Healey
We have increased defence spending this year by £5 billion. We will reach 2.5% in the year after next, and we aim for 3% in the next Parliament. That is a record increase in defence spending—one that has not been matched at any time since the end of the cold war. The hon. Gentleman could do more to recognise that basic fact.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his leadership. In Edinburgh South West, we have Redford barracks, Dreghorn barracks and RAF Kirknewton, so I want to focus my comments through the lens of our service personnel. Recommendation 17 rightly links retention to accommodation and, in particular, the number of moves that staff often have to make throughout their service. This can be a particular issue where children are involved and both parents are serving, so when developing his policy in this area, can the Secretary of State commit to working with groups such as Forces Children Scotland to make sure that the voices of service children are heard in this debate?
John Healey
We will indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case for that organisation, but it is one among many. We are involving the voices of forces families in our defence housing strategy, and we will do the same in other areas, which will help us to put forces families and forces personnel at the heart of our defence plans.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
With reference to recommendation 46, the US’s 2025 marine aviation plan, published earlier this year, outlined that the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—has changed its programme of record, reducing orders for F-35Bs by 73 aircraft in favour of the F-35C. The upshot is that the unit price of each B aircraft is about to increase by tens of millions, and we have not yet committed to a second tranche. What assessment has been made of the current queue for the F-35A, despite the decline in its fully mission-capable rate with the US air force, and—following on from my many written questions—what assessment has been made of converting our remaining B orders to F-35C and modifying our carriers to CATOBAR, which would also extend their range and therefore increase their survivability in a near-peer conflict?
John Healey
As the hon. Gentleman says, the SDR recommends commencing discussions with the US and NATO on enhancing the UK’s participation in NATO’s nuclear mission. We have accepted that recommendation, as we have the other 61 recommendations in the review. I will not comment in public on those discussions, but this is what putting NATO first looks like.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this excellent review, and ask whether he will do all he can to use this new focus on British industry to choose AERALIS as the replacement for the Hawk jet, meaning thousands of jobs in the UK; final assembly, production and testing in Prestwick in my constituency; the opportunity for exports; the first British-built jet in 50 years; and our Red Arrows being British and Scottish?
John Healey
I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the strategic defence review, and the reviewers’ reinforcement of how valuable our British Red Arrows are to the nation. He has made a very powerful case for the capacity to look for a replacement Hawk trainer in his constituency. The SDR makes the commitment and sets the vision that allows us to say, “We will ensure that there is a defence dividend for the defence investments we make in the future. We will do more than we saw under the previous Government to direct British taxpayers’ investment first to British jobs, British-based businesses, British innovation and British tech.”
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I rise to speak as a proud member of the armed forces covenant family; my husband Paul is a naval veteran, and my daughter is a reservist. I am really pleased to see the whole-society approach in chapter 6 of the defence review, but what actions are being taken to make a career of service in the armed forces more attractive to young people and to address the specific issues raised by those leaving the service, particularly how the nation fails to treat them as the heroes that they are?
John Healey
The hon. Lady makes a very powerful case, and I pay tribute to the members of her family who make their own contribution to service. I encourage her to do more of what she has done: speak up, explain, and help us close the gap that has been growing in recent years. A wide range of people in society no longer have any personal or family connection to the forces. We need them to understand, recognise and pay tribute to the service and the sacrifice of those who do serve—those who put on the uniform and provide for us all.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Last month, I had the honour of visiting RBSL—Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land—in my constituency. Along with many defence companies and organisations, it is so proud of its effort to help Britain to defend itself here and around the world. The SDR provides certainty to industry, but we need to go further to ensure that every Government agency, body and Department—from skills and infrastructure to planning and the availability of land—gets behind its ethos. Does the Secretary of State agree that creating growth cluster zones will provide certainty to local communities and assist in that mission?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is a powerful voice and advocate for that approach and for Telford. He will welcome the additional UK investment under this Government, which means that we will have a new gun barrel factory in his constituency that will bring new jobs and prosperity. That is part of defence investment driving future economic growth in this country.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The world is in the midst of an arms race. Last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, $2.7 trillion was spent on arms—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Secretary of State is proposing a substantial increase in defence expenditure by this country. I find it sad and disappointing that in the review there is no analysis, documentation or process for how we reduce tensions around the world, bring an end to existing conflicts, and enhance and empower the world’s institutions, such as the United Nations, to avoid conflict in future, so that we can deal with the real issues of insecurity—poverty and hunger—that force so many people around the world to become refugees. Surely we could be doing things in a way that brings about a more peaceful world, rather than just pouring more and more money into weapons.
John Healey
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument and point of view. He overlooks the fact that the strategic defence review draws on more than 8,000 submissions, which were part of the material on which the reviewers based their recommendations and vision. I simply say to him that we deter those conflicts that have such massive human and economic costs by being strong enough to defeat the adversaries who would do us harm. That is why NATO has been the most successful defence alliance in history over the last 35 years, and that is why we will step up and play a more leading role in NATO for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Andrew Pakes to ask the final question.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his leadership on this issue since we came into government. Many people know that when it comes to defence, it is about not just the money we spend, but how it is spent. One of the challenges under the previous Government was that the investment did not create jobs and opportunities in the UK. Before I entered the House, I had the great privilege to serve much of our defence manufacturing workforce as deputy general secretary of the Prospect trade union. Alongside our armed service personnel, I thank our defence workers. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not just the kit that we buy, but the jobs, opportunities and apprenticeships that we create that will mark the success of this important review?
John Healey
My hon. Friend hits at the heart of the strategic defence review with a different view of the investments we make. Those investments will not just strengthen our armed forces but help to drive growth in our economy. I pay tribute to Prospect, GMB and Unite, and the members and the workers in the defence industry who contribute so much.
I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, despite nearly two hours at the Dispatch Box, we have not got to everybody’s question. If any Member wants to raise points with me, they should please do so directly, and I will provide them with answers.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to add to what I said in my earlier point of order and to seek your guidance. I reiterate how incredibly disappointing it is, as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on the day of the SDR, not to be able to read it before having to stand up and respond to the Government.
I said earlier that we knew of one major defence company that received a copy of the document at 8 am this morning. I have been told of another major prime—one of the largest—that received a copy at 8 am this morning. That means that at the time that I was messaging the Minister for the Armed Forces and begging him to let us have a copy, and he was saying that we could not have one, they were reading the SDR over breakfast.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you heard Mr Speaker refer to the phrase “skin in the game”; he was very concerned about a document being given early in the morning to big defence companies that have skin in the game. Can you advise us on what more we can do to probe this point and hold the Government to account on commercial sensitivity?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of that point of order. The House will be aware of the importance that Mr Speaker, and indeed all occupants of the Chair, place on statements being made to the House first and on adequate notice being given. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on record.
Bill Presented
Short-term Lets (Planning Permission) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Ben Maguire, supported by Andrew George, Steve Darling, Martin Wrigley, Richard Foord and Caroline Voaden, presented a Bill to introduce a requirement for a grant of planning permission to change a residential home to a short-term let in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 251).
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Monday 2nd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (1 Apr 2025)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I start by thanking my friend, the Minister of State for Rail, for being an excellent advocate and custodian of the Bill as it made its way through the other place. As someone who started his career on London’s world-famous red buses, there was no better person in the country than the noble Lord Hendy to kick-start the Government’s bus reform journey. I am proud to call him my friend, and I am grateful every day for his wise counsel, frank advice and gentle good humour.
What we saw in the other place, and what I hope we may be able to secure in this House, is constructive cross-party support. We all recognise how buses connect us to the things that matter most: work and school, friends and family, essential services and the weekly shop. The billions of bus journeys each year—equivalent to over 100 every second of every day—are the difference between vibrant communities and boarded up high streets, between aspiration and isolation, and between getting on and being forced to give up.
The Bill represents years of work in opposition and now in government to discard the failed 40-year model of deregulation in favour of putting passenger needs, reliable services and local accountability at the heart of the industry.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State on the importance of buses for connectivity. I note that the Bill talks about “socially necessary” services, but it would be helpful to have a better understanding of the definition of what they are beyond my own interpretation. For example, if a constituency does not have a train station, can we therefore have a greater assurance that we will see no loss in our bus services?
Heidi Alexander
Through the Bill, we will be giving local transport authorities the power to determine socially necessary local services. That relates to access to employment, jobs, things like health facilities, and education. That power will lie with local authorities and it will be for them to determine.
Heidi Alexander
I will make some progress.
Before I come to the Bill’s key measures, I will briefly set out the context. Although it may be tempting for me to lay the blame for the current state of buses entirely at the feet of the last Government, that would be neither right nor fair. They too inherited a broken, deregulated system that forced passengers to navigate multiple operators on similar routes, but with different tickets. They, too, faced declining patronage, with 1.8 billion fewer journeys outside London last year than in 1986, and, to their credit, they tried to fix that. The national bus strategy, bus service improvement plans and greater powers for mayors were all steps in the right direction to improve services for passengers.
Heidi Alexander
I am going to make some progress.
However, in some areas such as franchising, the last Government did not go far enough, so this Bill will not only build on previous reforms but go further—much further—in fixing the faults that are still holding the industry back from meeting the needs of local people. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will see the merits of the approach that we are taking. After all, we have all heard from constituents about jobs not taken and opportunities missed because bus services are too unreliable, or do not operate on Sundays, or do not cater for night-time shifts.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In London we have benefited for a long time from bus services that are better than those in the rest of the country, and I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend’s desire to level that up, but in London we also have floating bus stops. I know that matching the needs of cyclists, of whom I am one, with those of others involves a delicate balance, but for someone who is blind, visually impaired or encumbered by, for instance, a buggy, getting off a bus at a floating bus stop is very dangerous. What plans has my right hon. Friend to tackle the issue across the country?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend may know that in the Bill we commit ourselves to producing design guidance for local authorities so that they can look at what is best practice. She may also know that in the other place the Rail Minister said we were committing ourselves to a non-statutory pause on the type of floating bus stop that requires a passenger to alight directly on a cycle lane. I hope that that gives her some reassurance.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the work that she is doing in this regard. I am pleased to hear that the Bill requires guidance to be produced to enable authorities to make floating bus stops safe and accessible, but many blind and partially sighted people, including me, have experienced problems with them. Could a proper assessment of their safety be carried out to ensure that no passenger who uses a bus, whether it is to go to work or to attend a health appointment, will experience the challenges that so many people currently experience when trying to navigate them?
Heidi Alexander
We will be looking carefully at this issue. I am very conscious of the needs of the visually impaired community, but I am also very conscious of the need to protect cyclists and pedestrians on our roads, so I am keen for us to look at the issue in the round.
Heidi Alexander
I am going to make a little more progress, but I shall be happy to take interventions later.
I was talking about the problems caused by bus services that are unreliable, do not operate at weekends or, perhaps, do not cater for individuals working night shifts. We all know that each of those stories is the story of a life frustrated, but, taken together, they constitute an anthology of wasted potential, of living standards and growth held back. That is why improving bus services underpins our plan for change, and it is why, despite difficult choices made across Government, we confirmed more than £1 billion in funding in the last Budget to protect vital routes and keep fares down.
Heidi Alexander
I am not going to give way again to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
Ellie Chowns
Does the Secretary of State recognise that rural constituencies such as mine have particular needs, and that the funding needs to reflect the extra costs associated with rurality, as well as the demographic demands? Young people, older people and people on low incomes rely on buses more than others. Will those factors be taken into account in the funding mechanisms for bus services?
Heidi Alexander
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have taken those issues into account in our allocation of this year’s funding.
Let me now explain our approach. Funding, even record funding, without reform means throwing good money after bad, and that brings me to the Bill. Our reforms are not ideological. Regardless of what some may say, this is not about public ownership versus private enterprise. It is about enabling more people to use buses, about ensuring that those services are safer, more reliable and more accessible, and about harnessing the best of devolution.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. Sarah, one of my constituents, is here today. Her work with the National Federation of the Blind of the UK and its street access campaign has demonstrated the difficulty that blind and partially sighted people experience in accessing buses. They cannot make the choice that others make to pass their driving tests as soon as they reach the age of 17 so that they can travel to their local colleges, schools or hospital appointments. I want to draw attention to that fantastic campaign, and to ask for the Bill to make clear to local authorities that they must work to ensure that all buses are accessible—not just to people with sight impairments but to those who need to access a bus in a wheelchair, like my friends who cannot travel together and are often whizzed past by the driver, and have to wait longer than the rest of us.
Heidi Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so powerfully. I can reassure her that the Bill will introduce a duty for local transport authorities to consult disabled passengers and disability organisations before initiating a franchise scheme. It will standardise the current disability training requirements that operators will need to fulfil, and it will give the Government new powers to require operators to record data on that training. I think that, taken together, those measures should represent a positive improvement in the way in which the bus network is designed to ensure that everyone can use it.
As I was saying, the Bill was designed to harness the best of devolution. That means transferring power away from central Government and operators, and towards local leaders—those who know their areas best—and giving them the tools to deliver buses on which communities can rely. Whether we are talking about the franchising that has worked so well in London or Jersey, about the local authority bus companies that have thrived in Nottingham and Reading or about the excellent examples of enhanced partnerships in Brighton and Norfolk, it is clear to me that one size does not fit all. The Bill will expand the options available to local authorities so that each area has the bus service that is right for it, while also safeguarding the needs of passengers, particularly the most vulnerable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I know that the Secretary of State is committed to ensuring that buses are environmentally friendly and meet the net zero targets that we all want to be met. Wrightbus in Ballymena, in Northern Ireland, is a leading producer of hydrogen buses, which provide safe, reliable, cost-effective transport. Has the Secretary of State been able to have any discussions with Wrightbus—which supplies buses in London and elsewhere in the UK—with a view to ensuring that everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can take advantage of that innovative technology?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the innovative technology developed by Wrightbus. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has not only met representatives of Wrightbus but visited its facility.
Let me now explain how we are going about fixing the broken franchising process.
It cannot be right that it took Mayor Andy Burnham years to bring just one bus under public control, after being frustrated at every turn. With bus services in Greater Manchester now part of the Bee Network, usage is up by 14%, and revenues and punctuality are also moving in the right direction. However, franchising remains too complex. Proposed schemes need to jump through myriad hoops, and they still require my consent to proceed—which is odd, to say the least. The idea that I understand what passengers in Leicestershire or Cornwall need better than their local leaders do is for the birds. In December, we opened up franchising to every local authority. Through this Bill, we will further streamline the process, making it simpler for franchise schemes to be granted and assessed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State referred earlier to placing certain statutory duties on county councils. When she considers that, will she consider including in those duties the maintenance of companion bus passes for people with learning difficulties who cannot travel on their own? It is not much good for them to have a free bus pass if they cannot take a companion with them.
Will the Secretary of State join me in expressing our sadness and commiseration over the recent passing of Mr Andrew Wickham, who spent more than 40 years in the transport industry and over a decade as managing director of Go South Coast, which operates Bluestar buses in New Forest East? I always found him to be a marvellously attentive correspondent, and he was someone who worked until almost the very end.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he gives me the opportunity to place on record my thanks to Andrew Wickham. I have the privilege of representing the constituency of Swindon South, and he ran Swindon’s Bus Company. He was the epitome of professionalism and kindness to me—not only as a Member of a Parliament, but when I was a candidate—and I pass on my condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the importance of companion travel for individuals with disabilities. He will know that the decision to add extras to the English national concessionary fare scheme is taken by local authorities.
I was talking about our desire to make the franchising system simpler. Of course, the model will not work everywhere, which is why this Bill also strengthens enhanced partnerships and removes the ideological ban on establishing new local authority bus companies. Furthermore, by giving local authorities the power to design and pay bus operator grants in their area, the Bill gives greater protections for socially necessary local services, securing the lifeline routes that keep communities connected.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In our communities we have nearly full employment, but a lot of people are on extremely low wages. Before the bus fare cap came in, the bus fare from Kendal to Ambleside was the second highest in the entire country, costing people a quarter of their salary to get to work. As the Secretary of State makes sure that devolution happens and that franchising is done in a way that is fit for purpose in each different area, will she ensure that she does not abdicate her responsibility to fully fund the bus fare cap, so that people like my constituents can actually afford to get to work?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a spending review under way, but I can confirm that I fully appreciate the importance of having an affordable and accessible bus route. He will be aware that zero funding was allocated to fund the bus fare cap beyond the end of last year, and this Government stepped in with our commitment to the £3 fare. Although it applies to only one in six journeys—because a number of people who travel regularly will use a travelcard for a week or a month—I am aware of the importance that his constituents and others attach to the cap.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and her team, including the Minister in the other place, on bringing this Bill before the House. Since 2010, we have seen 2 million fewer bus miles ridden in Hampshire. In Oakley, Chineham, Black Dam and South Ham, I have heard stories of missed appointments, work shifts and social engagements as a result of poor service. Can she confirm that this Bill will give every part of England the opportunity to take back control of its bus services? Can she explain what will happen with the devolution process and whether the powers will pass to the new unitary authorities or mayoral authorities, or has that yet to be decided?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is a fearsome advocate for his constituents, and I know the importance that he places on local bus services. Under the new devolution arrangements, local transport authorities will be the part of local government where the new powers lie. It is for local transport authorities to decide whether franchising or an enhanced partnership is the route for them to deliver the services that their communities need.
Running buses should always be about serving passengers, and I want to say something about safety and what we are doing, through this Bill, to put the needs of passengers first. We want to keep passengers safe at any time of day or night, and at any point in their journey, be it waiting at bus stops or when on board. That is why this Bill includes powers for local transport authorities to crack down on fare dodgers and tackle antisocial behaviour; requirements for drivers of school services to pass enhanced criminal record checks, closing an existing loophole; and mandatory training for bus staff to help tackle crime where it is safe for them to do so.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I want to return briefly to the socially necessary services that the Secretary of State mentioned. Two issues in my constituency are of great importance: the first relates to the fact that school-only buses are often more expensive than regular services; and the second relates to operators, who tell me that the current SEND transport model is unsustainable and that children with special educational needs and disabilities are being left with a poorer service. Will the Bill seek to address those concerns?
Heidi Alexander
There are not specific criteria and provisions in this Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my ministerial colleagues and I are very aware of those issues. Although school-only bus provision is provided in a slightly different way, I would be happy to talk to him about the particular issues in his constituency.
I want to say something about accessibility. For many, buses are a route to a better, more independent life, yet the current patchwork quilt of standards and regulations can further disable passengers, rather than enable them. That will change through this Bill, because local authorities will be required to produce a bus network accessibility plan and to consult disability organisations on changes to services, as I said earlier. New statutory guidance will make stopping places more accessible, including floating bus stops, which came up earlier. However, after listening to concerns, we will press pause on those that are perceived to be poorly designed.
Chris Vince
Part of the issue with bus stops in Harlow has been caused by the redevelopment of sustainable transport corridors, which we absolutely welcome. Bus stops are being forced to move, making them less accessible. Is that something that the Bill takes into account? Even if it is a temporary bus stop or bus station, we need to ensure that it fits the criteria.
Heidi Alexander
The Bill will improve the ability of local transport authorities to deal with precisely that sort of situation.
Heidi Alexander
I will make some progress. I am conscious that a number of Members want to speak, and I would like to allow as many people as possible to make contributions.
I want to say something about our commitment to meeting our net zero targets. This Bill will restrict new non-zero emission buses on most local services in England from no earlier than January 2030, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Transport is already speaking to the industry—not just about securing an orderly transition, but about the opportunity for British bus manufacturers to meet new demand both at home and abroad.
Finally, several non-Government amendments were added to the Bill during its passage in the other place, which is why I was unable to make a statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights. That was the result of clause 40, which was not tabled by the Government. It requires recording violent behaviour on buses and sharing that data with the local transport authority, and it also requires consulting trade unions on staff safety. The personal data requirements are incompatible with ECHR obligations; as such, the Government will seek to address this matter as the Bill progresses.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State mentioned that the Minister for Local Transport is taking responsibility for the net zero side, and I was delighted to welcome him to my constituency to see the work of Wrightbus, which is repurposing diesel buses with its new powertrains. Could she provide reassurance that buses repurposed as net zero buses will also be eligible for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government funding for decarbonisation of the bus fleet in the future?
Heidi Alexander
If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that point, but I understand why he is keen to raise it.
In conclusion, I would say that for too long and in too many places a degraded bus network has been symbolic of wider national decline, with each poor service reinforcing a sense of things not working as they should. That ends now. This Bill represents a brighter future for bus travel. For the first time in 40 years, we are taking back control of our buses, transferring power from operators to local leaders and from Whitehall to the town hall, where it belongs. I truly believe that the transport needs of my constituents in Swindon are different from those of passengers in Scunthorpe or Southend. That is why buses will rightly look and feel different across the country, reflecting the identity and priorities of local areas.
This Bill is just the start of the journey. Throughout its passage and following Royal Assent, we will continue to work with the bus industry, passenger groups and colleagues in both Houses as we set out further regulations on the standards that we and millions of daily passengers expect. Better buses are around the corner, with increased reliability, greater accountability and services that passengers can finally depend on. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Buses are the most popular form of public transport in the country, carrying passengers on twice as many journeys as trains and serving thousands more stops nationwide. As the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, from the centre of London to the remotest areas, they can get teenagers to school, allow pensioners to visit friends and connect people to jobs that they would not otherwise be able to take. They keep town centres alive, connect our communities and ensure that those with mobility issues, as well as the most vulnerable, can get around.
Peter Swallow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was just curious why, if buses are so popular and important, as he rightly says, so few of his Back-Bench colleagues are lining up to speak in this important debate?
Gareth Bacon
It is because there is no Division later. It is not because nobody cares, but because there is not going to be a Division.
The previous Conservative Government recognised just how vital local bus services are to keeping communities connected. From 2020 to when we left office last summer, the previous Government committed £4.5 billion to support and enhance bus services, including more than £2 billion to help local authorities implement their bus service improvement plans. Perhaps most importantly, we also introduced the £2 bus fare cap.
Wendy Morton
Just to be absolutely clear, there are Conservative Members who wanted to ask questions of the Transport Secretary, but she seemed a little unwilling. On the specific point of fares and affordability, can my hon. Friend help to ensure that passengers, whom the Bill should focus on, see value for money from this Bill? In the west midlands, Mayor Parker, under his plan to take back control of our buses, is actually taking money from our pockets and increasing fares by 8.6%?
Gareth Bacon
Yes, indeed. We are very interested in doing that, which is why we inserted a purpose clause in the other place to ensure that the key focus of this Bill is solely on passengers.
By maintaining the £2 bus fare cap, we ensured that bus travel remained affordable and accessible to as many people as possible, while helping families manage the cost of living. We have voiced deep concerns in both this Chamber and the other place about the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable, of Labour’s decision to scrap the £2 cap and raise it to £3. Make no mistake: this is bad for those in work, who will be £3,500 worse off because of this Government’s jobs tax, and bad for pensioners, who have seen their winter fuel payments cut and their energy bills rise, despite repeated promises from Labour to cut their energy costs by £300.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
One of the things that feels so pernicious about scrapping the national “Get around for £2” bus fare cap is that, while certain parts of the country that were given long-term settlements under the last Government—sometimes of up to five years—have been able to maintain the cap, large parts of the country have not been able to do so. Does that not go to show that the last Government were prepared to work with people from all political parties, but this feels particularly pernicious because it is really targeted at areas that have not traditionally been Labour-supporting?
Gareth Bacon
As always, my right hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter, and I have to say that I agree with him.
I would like to make one thing abundantly clear from the outset: we do not oppose franchising in principle. When implemented properly, franchising can be a powerful mechanism for improving services, addressing local transport challenges and delivering the quality services that passengers rightly demand and expect.
Gareth Bacon
I will make a bit of progress.
However, the Bill in its original form does not do that. The Secretary of State has acknowledged, and I agree, that the Bill does not mandate franchising everywhere, and that is a sensible step, but the Bill does not prioritise passengers, and nothing in it guarantees an improvement in service standards. The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era, without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Highbridge bus passenger group in my constituency has raised the issues of Sunday services either not existing or starting so late that people cannot get to work, bus services being put on in the summer during the tourist season but not being available in the winter, and poor connections for rural communities. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, without additional funding, this bus Bill will not solve those problems?
Gareth Bacon
Yes, my hon. Friend is completely correct, and I will come to that a bit later in my speech.
While we do not oppose the franchising of bus services, we do oppose a particular assumption that underlines this legislation, which is that the public sector is the solution to everything. Some local authorities may have the expertise and resources to successfully franchise passenger bus services, but let us be clear that many do not. The very central premise of the Bill—giving every local authority the unchecked power to implement franchising, regardless of its resources or capacity—is not an act of empowerment; it is irresponsible. By removing the need for the Secretary of State to consent to franchising, as required under the previous Conservative Government, this Government are eliminating crucial safeguards.
Gareth Bacon
With respect to my right hon. Friend, I will not, because I am conscious that lots of Members want to speak.
Those safeguards are designed to ensure that franchising serves the passengers who rely on our bus services and the taxpayers who pay for them. The expertise required to design, manage and operate franchised networks is not readily available in most councils. That is why the Bus Services Act 2017 limited franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which are bodies with the scale, resources and democratic mandate to take on such responsibilities.
Crucially, the legislation we enacted to pave the way for mayoral combined authorities to issue franchising models also required those authorities to demonstrate that franchising would deliver genuine benefits for passengers. The removal of that requirement by this Bill is concerning, and it betrays the view held by those on the Government side of the House that the public sector is inherently infallible. Members will not be shocked that I do not share that view, but they do not need to take my word for it.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gareth Bacon
I will make some progress and then give way.
Members should take the word of Centre for Cities, which has made it clear that expanding franchising could expose councils to serious financial risks, because after decades of deregulated services, many transport authorities simply lack the skills and capacity to manage a comprehensive bus network, yet would be financially responsible if an undertaking goes wrong.
These are not just hypothetical concerns. The experience in Greater Manchester illustrates just how easily costs can spiral, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket. The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that initial projections published in Greater Manchester combined authority’s transport revenue budget put the cost of transitioning to a franchised system at £134.5 million for 2024-25. That figure has since ballooned, with ongoing operational costs now forecast to exceed £226 million per year by 2025-26, which is a 68% increase in one year. Over four years, the scheme could cost up to £1 billion—far, far more than anticipated. Moreover, the House will know that the annual level of bus subsidy in London last year amounted to £646 million. Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the entire country. It also has the highest level of bus use. Yet even with all those advantages, it requires that level of annual subsidy just to keep the network running.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
When my hon. Friend talks about the increased risk smaller local authorities would face through franchising, he could be talking about my local authority, Isle of Wight council. Does he see anything in the Bill that is appealing to small unitary authorities, or is this really just a Bill for bigger metropolitan areas and large towns?
Gareth Bacon
The risk of the Bill is that it does not come with substantial funding attached. That is the problem. It is mismanaging the public’s expectations. I expect we will hear from a parade of Labour MPs talking about how it will transform services in their local area. Without the required level of funding, it simply will not.
Victoria Collins
It is really important that we stop the vicious cycle. In my area of Harpenden and Berkhamsted, the X5 has been cancelled for commercial reasons. The bus company says it is no longer commercially viable, but that has left people who work in the local hospital saying, “I might have to move house or leave my job.” There are children who now have to wait at school or who cannot get back from school because the bus goes too late. We need to stop the vicious cycle and make sure the funding is there, and this is a good start to help bring buses back to the communities that need them.
Gareth Bacon
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which is that without substantial extra levels of funding from the Government, that simply will not happen. Local authorities may have the powers to do it, but they simply will not have the ability.
The Government have talked about the amount of money they are putting into the Bill and the Secretary of State referred to it in her speech, but it is a mere £1 billion, of which £700 million has been earmarked for bus planning documents, not actual services. Less than 30% is being directed toward the delivery of bus services themselves, which will not touch the sides. Giving local authorities the legal power to do something without the money is mere window dressing. If these challenges can emerge in Greater Manchester and Greater London despite all their resources, planning and political leadership, what should we expect elsewhere? The truth is that we do not know, and that highlights the danger at the heart of the Bill.
On a connected vein, through franchising, we may end up extinguishing a number of highly successful private sector businesses, reducing them to operating for a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and fares. Quite aside from losing the expertise that the private sector brings to the network, the Government risk removing any incentive for the private sector to invest in our bus networks, potentially leaving the taxpayer with ever greater burdens.
Despite my various concerns about this legislation, I would like to recognise that the Bill we see before us was greatly improved during its passage through the other place—improvements driven notably but not exclusively by Conservative peers. The purpose clause, which obligates the Secretary of State to consider service performance, quality and accessibility, was a much-needed addition, as was the amendment requiring an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 fare cap. Successful amendments requiring the Secretary of State to review bus services to villages in England, to develop a programme to eliminate serious injury during bus operations, and to require bus operators to record all data regarding assaults and violent behaviour, were all tabled by peers from other political parties to His Majesty’s Opposition and, collectively, they improve the Bill. The latter amendment was tabled by the noble Lord Woodley, a Labour peer and former joint general secretary of the Unite trade union. It was, bizarrely, opposed by Labour peers, but it succeeded with the support of Conservative peers and those of other parties.
A further successful Conservative amendment was passed, mandating a review of the national insurance burden on special educational needs transport, following the increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that it is deeply regrettable that Labour peers were whipped to vote against a measure designed solely to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society. In opposing the special educational needs transport amendment in the other place, the Government asserted:
“The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 1756.]
Leaving aside the breathtaking arrogance of that statement, it is directly contradicted by the very providers tasked with delivering these vital services. The chairman of the 24x7 Group, one of the largest operators of SEND transport in the country, has warned that changes to national insurance contributions could significantly raise employment costs, making some contracts unviable. That has the potential to leave thousands of children without access to the transport they rely on to attend school. To oppose even a review of such consequences is not just shortsighted; it speaks to a worrying indifference about the impact of this legislation on vulnerable passengers.
The Opposition were also disappointed that Labour peers voted against introducing a safeguard against repeated franchising assessments for the same geographical area, which risks wasting public resources and creating instability for operators and passengers alike. Similarly, it was disappointing to see Labour peers not support plans to ensure that floating bus stops do not threaten the safety of those who are blind and partially sighted.
Likewise, if improving passenger services is at the heart of the Bill, I fail to understand why Labour peers were whipped to vote against the amendment that would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene when franchised services fail due to poor local management. Does the Secretary of State really believe that passengers should be left stranded simply because a local authority is unable to deliver? I do not believe that to be the case and I look forward to her amending the Bill as it proceeds through the House.
Why did Labour peers vote against those measures? Once again, it would appear that ideology took precedence over passengers. That is why we will push to reinstate these prudent amendments as the Bill proceeds through the House. The Liberal Democrats supported many of the measures in the other place and I sincerely hope they will do the same in this House, for the benefit of passengers.
In conclusion, franchising may well play an important role in improving the bus networks of the future, but the Bill alone will not get us there. That is because the Bill does not prioritise those who matter most: the people who rely on buses every single day to get to work, attend school, reach appointments and stay connected with their communities. While we welcome the positive changes made by peers in the other place and we will not divide the House on Second Reading, we cannot vote for a Bill that lacks basic safeguards, ignores the risks and prioritises ideology over impact. We will therefore seek to improve the Bill as it proceeds through the House. I urge the House to consider not just the political implications of this legislation, but its real-world consequences for the millions who depend on these services every day.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, it might be helpful to indicate that after the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be a five-minute time limit. I do not propose to drop it any further than that and, given the number of Members here, many may be disappointed.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the first Commons debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which I welcome. The new Transport Committee decided that its first inquiry would be on “Buses connecting communities” to address the rural and non-city services across England outside London. We have completed our evidence gathering and our report will be published before too long. The oral and written evidence we received is tagged to today’s Order Paper and is available via a link on the Committee website.
Poor bus services affect the constituents of almost every constituency in England outside London, judging by the interest in the issue during the election of the Chair of the Committee last September and in the attendance today. Whether Members’ constituencies are rural, mid-sized cities, suburban or in the London commuter belt, the interest in this issue is significant. In England outside London, there has been an overall decline in bus use of 63% since 2002. Car travel is now not only the main form of travel, but in many places it is the only way to get around, particularly early, late and at weekends. For those who are unable to drive or access a car, the lack of decent, or indeed any, bus services means that they are stuck at home or at the mercy of family, neighbours or expensive taxis.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend could be describing my constituency of Mid Derbyshire, many parts of which are poorly served by buses. Does she agree that the way forward is to give local leaders the power to determine routes and support them to work with private companies?
Ruth Cadbury
I will come on to that, but yes. For a Labour Government with a focus on growth, opportunity and clean energy, it is essential to transform bus services across England to make them more reliable, more accessible and better integrated into the fabric of local communities. That is important to ensure that residents of rural areas are not left behind, to support the growth and regeneration aspirations of our towns away from major conurbations, and to make sure that the most vulnerable have equal access and ability to travel.
In its inquiry, the Committee has received valuable evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. When we looked at the impact of declining bus services, we heard evidence that described local bus services in 2025 as a “barrier” to opportunity rather than an “enabler”. We heard that the future of many services remains “precarious”. From a local authority perspective, the situation was described as “challenging”. We also heard about the economic hit to many town centres from fewer buses; if people cannot travel, they do not spend in local shops and businesses. This Bill is not a magic wand, however. For instance, the Local Government Association told us that
“successful implementation will require practical support and local flexibility from central government.”
I will address four key areas, the first of which is improved integration and co-ordination. Passenger groups told us that they need a system that works together as a whole, rather than the patchwork of disconnected services that they see at present. I therefore welcome the focus on enhanced partnerships and franchising powers for local authorities. The franchising model has long been used in London, and it has been seen more recently in Greater Manchester through the Bee Network. Franchising and even enhanced partnerships should make for co-ordinated timetables, simplified fare structures and greater accountability in service delivery so that passengers no longer have to navigate a confusing web of different operators, routes and fare structures.
Ruth Cadbury
I will press on, because I will be frowned at if I take too many interventions.
On community engagement and local needs, our inquiry was told that services should be shaped by the voices of those who rely on them, ensuring that routes are designed to connect communities, not just city centres, and that they connect rural and isolated communities. I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of local bus service improvement plans, which will ensure that local authorities can work with operators to tailor services to the unique needs of the communities they serve. Will the Bill ensure that service user groups are an integral part of both the design and the review of local services?
I move on to sustainability and green transport. The Transport Secretary reiterated just now that buses have a vital role to play in the transition to greener and more sustainable transport, as well as in cutting pollution in busy streets and reducing car dependency. If my constituency experience is anything to go by, getting adequate EV charging capacity to bus depots must be a priority. Although that is perhaps not a feature of the Bill, I use this opportunity to ask whether the Minister will work with bus operators and power networks to address that challenge for bus depots.
On affordability and accessibility, if there is to be transformational change to the bus system in England, buses have to be there for those who cannot drive or cannot afford to own and run a car. A not insignificant proportion of the population are left out, yet they need to get to work, to college, to the shops, to services and to doctors’ appointments, and they have to have a social and family life. Even if a local area is served by reliable bus services, that is no use if people cannot get on or off them, if they do not feel safe or if they cannot afford the fare.
Although I welcome references to affordability and accessibility, I have some questions based on our buses inquiry and the evidence to it, and on our “Access denied” report, the work on which was mainly completed by our predecessor Committee. Clause 14 requires local transport authorities operating in enhanced partnerships to identify socially necessary services. That is welcome, but in their evidence to us, operators and local authorities had questions about how that would play out. Having defined those services, will local authorities be held to ransom for their continuation, regardless of cost?
Accessibility means more than the design of buses and bus stops; it includes the usability of digital information, maps and timetables, without excluding those who do not have a smartphone or cannot get a mobile signal. We were told that guidance on accessibility must encourage rather than discourage innovation. Although clauses relating to staff training in accessibility are welcome, we were told that guidance must set out clearer expectations about the nature of training that is to be provided. It must be of a guaranteed minimum standard and proven effectiveness, not a tick-box exercise that enables people to say that they have done the training.
The Bill does not appear to address the accessibility barriers that prevent most people who use class 3 mobility scooters from travelling on bus services. Furthermore, will it make reference to the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000?
As has been mentioned, it is also unclear whether express coaches and closed-door school services are covered by the Bill.
On amendments passed in the other place, will the Secretary of State have another chance to look at implementing a “Vision Zero” deaths and injuries goal for the bus sector?
The elephant in the room is funding. There is not a country in the world that has a self-funding bus service. We went to Ireland, where Government policy provides that the vast majority in rural Ireland are linked to their nearest town by at least three return bus journeys per day. Even London’s buses survive on cross-subsidy from the tube system. Unless and until we have a robust economy where local authorities have the funding to deliver an Ireland level of bus provision, this Bill is the start and not the magic bullet in delivering the affordable, accessible and comprehensive bus network across England that we all aspire to.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As other Members have noted, buses are the most used form of public transport, and in much of the country they are the only option available. Outside London, however, bus use is in sharp decline, with more than 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. That is not because of insufficient demand, but because of the Conservative policy of deregulation that put profit before people, allowing private operators to cream off the valuable routes with scant regard for the needs of the wider community, resulting in increased fares and reduced or completely abandoned services for many—unless, of course, the local authority, starved of access to the profitable routes, met the costs of the unprofitable ones.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
That is exactly what has happened in Cornwall. The No. 11 and No. 12 bus served lots of rural towns and villages to Derriford hospital, but it has been salami-sliced—I have just got off the phone to Go Cornwall Bus—after years of underfunding. My constituent Mary in Padstow relies on that service to get her breast cancer treatment at Derriford, and she can no longer afford to get to the hospital, which would involve spending hundreds of pounds on taxis. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural areas like mine, we need ringfenced funding to protect those key healthcare routes?
Mr Kohler
Those are exactly the kinds of issues that must be addressed, and this Bill does not do enough to achieve that. I will come back to that in a moment.
In rural areas, the story is often one of total disconnection, with communities cut off and people unable to get to work or hospital appointments, or to visit friends or relations.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural constituencies like mine, bus routes are an absolute lifeline and a route out of poverty? When the 84 and 85 bus route was cut last year, it meant not only that people could not get to medical appointments or to work, but that students had to drop out of the college courses that would have enabled them to escape from poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure that this Bill enables an affordable, joined-up and genuinely useful rural transport network?
Mr Kohler
I completely agree. The point is that this is about not only getting people out of poverty but growing the economy. People need access to bus routes; otherwise they are left with expensive and much more environmentally damaging private transport.
Put simply, a poor or non-existent bus service is not just an inconvenience. It is a barrier to opportunity, a brake on economic growth, and an obstacle to achieving net zero. Given the decline in local bus services under the Conservatives, my party and I warmly welcome the Government’s renewed focus on this issue. The Bill includes measures that are long overdue and that my party will support.
Anna Dixon
Much has been made about the decline in bus usage. The pattern is similar in West Yorkshire, where between 2011 and 2022 there was a reduction of some 60 million journeys. There has been lots of mention of Greater Manchester, but West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin’s bus service improvement plan has already seen a 4% increase in bus usage. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that approaches that devolve responsibility and make it easier for mayors and local authorities to take over public control through franchising are the route to improved usage and, ultimately, the delivery of better buses?
Mr Kohler
I do agree. It is also about funding, which we must explore; but, yes, my party believes in localism—bringing things down to the local level is crucial.
It needs to be stated from the off that the Bill does not go far enough. It falls short of delivering the comprehensive, transformative change that our bus network desperately needs—and thus, I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to be even more ambitious.
I will now outline the measures in the Bill that my party supports. Local government, not Whitehall, know what is best for their area. That is why my party has long championed localism, which is all about providing communities with the necessary tools to realise their potential. The Bill’s provisions to improve, streamline and extend franchising rights to all local transport authorities is consequently long overdue and supported on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the community in north Taunton on getting the first No. 1 bus of the morning—the 6.22 am service—restored? I had the joy of experiencing it this morning, tinged only with the tiredness that results from having got the 6.22. Does he agree that we need specific funding so that bus services can properly connect with hospitals, such as Taunton’s Musgrove Park hospital and many others?
Mr Kohler
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the community on its success, and I agree that we need funding for these critical services.
The placing of socially necessary services on a statutory footing is a beneficial change to the enhanced partnership model, as it ensures that local authorities assess the impact of service changes and consider alternatives. The Bill also rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically-driven ban on municipally-owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them. Taken as a whole, the measures create an improved set of options from which local authorities can choose the approach that works best for them.
As the Secretary of State noted, it is important to realise that this is not, and must not become, a one-size-fits-all approach. Not every local authority will wish to pursue franchising, establish a bus company or abandon the partnership model. What works for Greater Manchester or London may not work for Oxfordshire or Cornwall. It must be up to local leaders and, ultimately, local communities to decide what works best for them. I welcome the fact that the Government are not mandating a certain approach.
Therein lies the challenge: empowering local authorities in law is one thing, but enabling them in practice is quite another. Although the Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank. Franchising is complex, resource-intensive and unfamiliar to the vast majority of local authorities. It requires legal expertise, commercial understanding, operational planning and, above all, funding. The Department for Transport has acknowledged those difficulties, yet this legislation provides little to help overcome them.
The Government’s laudable desire to increase their own capacity to advise councils is welcome, but I am not convinced that they are doing enough. The recently established Bus Centre of Excellence, which we will no doubt hear much about during the passage of the Bill, is a positive development, but does it really have the necessary capacity and resources to provide meaningful support to all those who might need it? If we are to see franchising become a viable option beyond a handful of combined authorities, we must take bolder steps to offer councils without either the expertise or the finances more than just a helpline or homilies on best practice.
Every hon. Member in this House knows how overstretched their local authorities are—with the exception of our colleagues from Reform, of course, who are sadly absent from today’s debate, no doubt too busy frantically searching for the untapped resources and savings they confidently promised they would discover in their new fiefdoms. As for the rest of us, we know that most local authorities lack the finances, expertise and bandwidth to use the tools the Bill provides. As a result, only the local authorities that already have the capacity to do so will use them, which will exacerbate regional disparities, not reduce them.
Even if we overcome such problems, that will not remove the continuing role of central Government in securing access and affordability. That is why the Government’s reckless decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3 casts a dark shadow over the Bill. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs for passengers and helped to bring people back on to the bus network. It was precisely the kind of policy of which we need more, not less. Increasing fares by £1 per trip may not sound prohibitive, but for those on low incomes or families making multiple journeys, the change represents a significant cost increase, adding £20 to the cost of a weekly commute to anyone who has to take two buses to work while only saving the Government £150 million.
Let us be clear: this increase is regressive. It will hit the poorest hardest, particularly at a time of a cost of living crisis. Surely the Government should commit to preserving affordability, not undermining it, as raising fares in the absence of service improvements risks entrenching decline, not reversing it. Even more worryingly, rumours are now doing the rounds that the fare cap may be removed altogether. That would be a catastrophic mistake. We must not allow the progress of recent years to unravel in a Treasury-pleasing piece of virtue signalling that will only save the Exchequer a further £150 million.
A thriving, affordable bus network is not a luxury but an essential public service. This Bill must ensure that that is the case. Nowhere is that more true than in our rural areas. As we have seen for years, the current unregulated bus market is failing small villages and remote hamlets, serving them neither efficiently nor sufficiently.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect section 22 community bus services such as West Oxfordshire Community Transport, which are now facing a mountain of bureaucracy to re-tender for routes that it built up from scratch against commercial bus operators that have all the abilities to pitch and win, leaving community bus operators high and dry?
Mr Kohler
I do agree. We must do all we can to reduce bureaucracy. The Bill goes some way towards that, but it needs to do more.
The Bill as it stands provides nothing specific for rural areas—no dedicated rural funding stream and no obligation to maintain coverage. It is clear that if we are to be ambitious and achieve the economic growth that rural areas need, we must ensure that local authorities have the ambition and financial means to improve public transport. The Bill is missing an opportunity in failing to do so.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
One of the consequences for my constituents of losing services like the 84/85, the T2 and the 622 is that they are cut off from health services. Does my hon. Friend agree that such access should be a priority for investment, and that a focus on the increase in passenger numbers when judging investment choices disadvantages rural areas?
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I would like to concentrate not just on purely rural areas, but on places like Surrey. In my constituency, the 514 bus connects Esher and Molesey, two important centres of our community, but it runs only twice on weekdays and once on a Saturday. On Sundays it is never to be seen. The service was severely cut back in 2016. To travel a distance of a mile and a half, people have to get a bus more than five miles into London and out again, which takes 40 minutes—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I have made this point before, but interventions really must be shorter than that. There are many hon. Members who wish to get in.
Mr Kohler
I will simply say that I agree with my hon. Friend.
Hon. Members have spoken about rural areas suffering. From 2015 to 2023, Shropshire lost 63% of its bus miles, the largest decline in any part of England. No doubt that was one reason among many that Shropshire voters decided that they had had enough of the Conservatives. In May, they voted a majority Liberal Democrat administration in for the first time.
Although the bus service in Shropshire is one of the worst in the country, it is by no means an isolated case. I have heard from colleagues and residents across the country, just as the House has heard today, that in rural areas such as Norfolk, Somerset and Hampshire, having no buses—or one bus a day, if residents are lucky—has sadly become the norm for many villages. This is not just inconvenient; it is holding back our rural economies and stifling growth. I fear that the measures in the Bill will not be sufficient to reverse that decline.
Lastly, I want to address accessibility, an issue on which my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place and other noble Lords have made good progress and have secured a number of improvements. As originally drafted, the Bill included positive provision on the mandatory training of staff, both in supporting disabled passengers and in tackling antisocial behaviour on board. We support those measures, but the Liberal Democrats believe that true accessibility means more than awareness training; it means fully accessible vehicles, clear signage and announcements, and accessible journey planning tools. Critically, it means accessible infrastructure, from bus stops to ticket machines.
The excellent amendment to ensure accessibility guidance on the provision of floating bus stops, which if badly designed can prove a real hazard to disabled people, was inserted after representations from the Lib Dem transport lead in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon. The inclusion of bus network accessibility plans, after pressure from Baroness Brinton among others, is an important amendment that will go some way towards helping us to understand the barriers that disabled residents face in accessing a vital lifeline. We must not be complacent, however. I anticipate that more work will need to be done in Committee, as the Secretary of State has intimated, to probe the Bill’s provisions and ensure that they are as effective as they can be.
I will conclude where I began. My party and I welcome many aspects of the Bill. After years of Tory neglect, provisions to give local authorities more control of and input into their local bus networks are long overdue and clearly sensible, but we cannot give local authorities tantalising new powers without a practical means of using them. That will require sustained investment and reform of the funding models. I acknowledge that the Government have promised to include longer-term funding settlements in the spring spending review, but noises off suggest that those are unlikely to address the shortfall in local government funding.
The Bill will provide the necessary tools, but if councils are to build something effective with them, they will need not just legislation, but the finance, expertise and flexibility required to give effect to their vision and address their communities’ needs. I urge the Secretary of State to go back to the Treasury and ask for more, because financing a viable bus network is key to growing our economy.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and her team for bringing forward this important Bill. Local bus services are fundamental to the lives of so many people, from providing access to work and leisure opportunities and social inclusion to cleaning up our air, reducing congestion and curtailing transport emissions. For many of our constituents, they make the difference between being able to seize opportunities and being denied them. Put simply, buses are too important to get wrong, so I wholly welcome the Bill and this Government’s ambition to finally put things right after decades of fragmentation and under-investment.
As the MP for Heywood and Middleton North in Greater Manchester, I have seen the far-reaching benefits of bringing local bus services back under local control. I am incredibly proud that Greater Manchester is the only place outside London to have re-regulated its bus network, as part of creating a fully integrated public transport network—the Bee Network—for the people of our city region.
A recent report produced by IPPR North highlights just how much the city region has turned its bus network around. The IPPR says:
“Franchising is already delivering better services for people in Greater Manchester, but it was an uphill battle to get there. It’s time for the government to get on board with better buses and support local leaders on this journey.”
This Bill demonstrates that the Government have got on board. I welcome the steps that it is taking to finally empower local leaders to make the decisions that they are best qualified to make.
When it comes to the Bee Network, the achievements of Greater Manchester are considerable. It makes the world of difference in my constituency and across the city region. Interventions made in partnership with local people meant that there were 17 million more bus journeys across the city region in 2024 than in 2023. The network now carries more than 170 million passengers a year in Greater Manchester.
An example from my area illustrates what the Bill can practically offer. At times, Heywood and Middleton North has failed to benefit from Greater Manchester’s rising prosperity. Because local people have a bigger role in devising transport policy under franchising, however, I am now able to make a strong case for an express bus service from Norden and Bamford down to Heywood and Middleton and ultimately into Manchester city centre. That is something my constituents have gone without for far too long. It is time to finally rebalance the scales in their favour.
After consulting with local people, who are determined to see the express bus service reinstated, and after producing a report setting out our case, I have been engaging consistently with Transport for Greater Manchester to see what can be done. I put on record my thanks to the mayor and his team for taking seriously the calls from my constituents, including the parents and teachers who understand the value of the route to Edgar Wood school. I look forward to conversations about the service being reinstated. At its core, that is what the Bill is all about. It will put buses back at the heart of communities, identify gaps in provision, set about addressing them, enhance connections and fundamentally shape routes to fit around people’s lives.
I would also like to raise the issue of accessibility. Our buses should be for everyone, but we know that many blind and deafblind people, and disabled people more broadly, encounter numerous serious challenges when using public transport. One issue that comes up time and again—it has already come up in this debate—is floating bus stops. I know that some organisations assess the risk of harm around such stops to be very low, based on the total number of incidents, but I would argue that one incident is one too many. We must consider that the figures may be so low because disabled people, as a result of the expansion of floating bus stops, are sometimes being deterred from travelling altogether, and many collisions undoubtedly go unreported.
The issue has been raised in the other place, as the Secretary of State says, but I ask her what engagement, to learn from the lived experiences of blind and partially sighted people and the organisations that represent them, has been carried out by the Department in devising clauses 30 and 31. We must continuously seek to build public transport systems for all, not just when it is convenient to do so.
Finally, I wish to raise the issue of safety on public transport. I commend the measures in the Bill to enable workers across the sector to develop their skills, including by supporting them to respond effectively to violence and abuse on the network. What engagement has been carried out with trade union officials regarding those measures? What further steps could be taken to ensure that bus drivers, interchange staff and others are themselves safe from harassment and abuse?
I thank the Secretary of State once again for developing this legislation and ensuring that buses are at the heart of our communities and that they serve and reflect the needs of our constituents.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have campaigned politically in North Norfolk for nearly a decade; all the while, people have been sharing with me their frustrations with our local public transport network. Since the age of 11, I have been watching different operators’ buses leapfrog each other along radial routes and trying to work out a better way of doing things for everyone.
Too many people find that the current system is not enough of a network to get from where they are to where they want to be at the times they need. One young person in Briston in my constituency is studying to work in childcare. She is eager to secure an apprenticeship at a local nursery, but she cannot get to the nursery in question until 9 o’clock—far too late for the 8 am start time. That has caused her to miss out on a promising opportunity, and her transport options mean that she continues to struggle to break into the sector. Another constituent told me how she had moved to her village because it had a bus service and she hoped that it would give her disabled son the opportunity for greater independence. But the village has since lost that service—and with it, the independence of the residents who relied on it.
Our local buses are so much more than just vehicles for ferrying people from A to B. They are the key to training and employment for those entering the world of work. They are an antidote to loneliness, allowing people to see their friends and family and to take part in community groups and activities. They also have to get our older people to their vital medical appointments. For example, to get to the main hospital in Norwich, someone has to go all the way into the city centre and change buses. That means that bus users in most of my constituency can attend a clinic only in the middle of a whole-day trip.
If only the local authority had the power to design the routes and times that work for the needs of the population—putting on direct services between busy hubs, for instance. This is the problem: for far too long, the importance of bus networks in our area has not been reflected in how they have been treated by those in power.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, Reform-led Warwickshire county council has still not appointed a transport portfolio, a month on from the elections. While it dithers and delays, a rural community suffers: bus timetables are being reduced and routes are being cut. Those who rely on public transport most are obviously being punished. Does my hon. Friend agree that bus transport in rural areas deserves urgent and serious attention?
Steff Aquarone
I certainly agree. Much as I will slag off Norfolk county council at times, at least it has someone driving a bus, in contrast to her council.
The problem is how the issue is being treated by those in power. It is not the fault of bus operators; I have been grateful for the time and engagement that they have provided me on this issue and they are a valuable source of counsel as we look to the exciting future for rural services.
I am also a huge fan of demand-responsive transport, which could be opened up to serve a much wider range of needs with some common-sense simplification of the rules. No, it is politics that has prevented a bright connected future, not bus operators. The last Government’s funding mechanism for local transport was completely unsustainable, making councils compete for pots of funding rather than supporting long-term strategy. That made for a perfect storm in the Conservative-led council in Norfolk, which could trumpet quick wins from the grants, all the while lacking a comprehensive and overarching vision or strategy for how we create a proper rural public transport network.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I really recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Under the Conservatives, Bracknell Forest council saw bus miles per head fall from 10.9 to 6.3 miles—a reduction of 42 %. Only under a Labour council have routes now been expanded. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we work closely with bus companies through enhanced partnership models—if that is right for the local area, as it is in Bracknell Forest—to improve local services for our residents?
Steff Aquarone
The hon. Gentleman has helped me make progress because the issue is all about attitude and mindset. In Norfolk, a former leader even eagerly told the council that Norfolk is a car county. If only the council had realised earlier that its pipe dream of a quarter of a billion pound link road through a site of special scientific interest was never going to happen, it could have spent the £50 million it has poured down the drain in the past five years while pursuing its fantasy on buses instead.
I hope that the powers promised in today’s Bill are seized on in Norfolk. Bus franchising can be an important first step to what we need in my constituency of North Norfolk. At present, our buses do not link up well with our one train line. There is no opportunity for integrated ticketing and no meaningful link between how the profit generated by the most popular routes can be used to provide those that are socially necessary. A radical rethink of how we deliver these services is needed. I hope that whoever gets control of these powers after the reorganisation of our local government is willing to do it. If those powers were to fall into our hands at Norfolk Liberal Democrats, we would be ready to show what a successful model for rural public transport looks like, just as we have seen happen in our cities.
The Government need to come clean on how bus franchising will be funded. I hope that through the Transport Committee’s inquiry on connected communities, my colleagues and I will help unlock a public transport revolution in every corner of the country.
The ask from the people in North Norfolk who are concerned really is not difficult: they want to be able to catch a bus to the places they want to go at the times they want to travel. This can be our chance to move away from outdated thinking. It is time to create the transport network that would really revolutionise the experience of local passengers. Let’s make North Norfolk’s buses great again!
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Bill because it finally lets local communities take back control. Communities in Birmingham Edgbaston and the Bartley Green, Harborne, Quinton and North Edgbaston wards that I represent will welcome its measures. I speak as the daughter of a bus driver—that time-worn political cliché—who was born and raised in her constituency and today still relies on the same No. 11 bus route.
Those who, like me, have lived in Birmingham and the west midlands for decades have seen the decline of our bus services at first hand. Thanks to a failed Tory ideology, Britain has become one of the few places in the developed world to hand power to operators to slash bus services and to hike fares, with little say for the communities who depend on them. In Birmingham, our bus services are mostly run by private providers with an enhanced partnership with Transport for West Midlands.
Over the years, I have exchanged many letters and had many meetings with one of the providers: National Express. I have campaigned to extend the X21 bus in Bartley Green, improving connectivity in our area. I surveyed Bartley Green residents on changes to the 23 and 24 buses, and have continued to fight to restore the iconic 48 bus route on which my constituents relied before it was rerouted.
The problem remains that in a privately run bus network, communities have no democratic control over routes and feel shut out of the process. But the new powers in the Bill mean that that system is coming to an end. The Bill matters because buses are more than just a mode of transport; in some wards in my constituency, over 40% of households do not have access to a car. Buses services are a lifeline to thousands of people who need to get around for work or to go into town, see friends or visit their doctor—I would know, because I am a non-driver too.
Poor services leave our communities feeling isolated and disconnected. The average life expectancy of a man can drop by seven years within nine bus stops in some parts of Birmingham. Opportunities within a city should be felt by everyone. But connecting people to those life chances needs a strong public transport network. That is what this Bill is about.
My constituents’ complaints are too familiar: our buses are unreliable and frequently late. It is no wonder that 50% of Brummies choose to use their cars compared with 15% of people in London. In January, National Express put up our fares in Birmingham by 40%; last week, it put up them up again to the maximum £3 fare. The current system lets private operators set the terms.
Finally, a Labour Mayor working with a Labour Government will franchise our buses, giving communities new powers to set routes, fares and services. Mayor Andy Street refused to take buses back under his control, but Richard Parker is changing that. Instead of subsidising the deregulated model with £50 million a year to ensure that services are not axed, he will take back control of fares and routes. Under his leadership, the franchising process will begin this year.
Clauses 13, 23, 27 and 28 of the Bill will be pivotal to the combined authority plan. From 2010 until 2023, the miles clocked by buses across the west midlands dropped by a third. The promised upgrade failed to materialise, and in 2014 the last Government’s promise of a rapid transit scheme along Hagley Road in my constituency delivered only 300 metres of tramline in 10 years. Under this Government, we are already on the road to fixing our broken bus system.
The new franchising powers are just the next step. The truth is that deregulation has meant little more than a race to the bottom for places such as Birmingham. Brummies have seen what forward-thinking leaders such as Andy Burnham have been able to do with the Bee Network in Manchester, and we want that too. We need this legislation and continued central Government funding to make that a reality. This Bill will help my community of Birmingham Edgbaston realise our ambitions. That is why I will be supporting it on Second Reading.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the granddaughter of a London bus driver. Bus services have been reduced to a dire state in my North Shropshire constituency in recent years—most drastically under the watch of the previous Conservative Government. We are one of the worst-served constituencies in England for public transport, having seen a staggering 63% reduction of our bus miles since 2015; that compares with an English average reduction of just 19%. A person in Market Drayton who wants to get to the Princess Royal hospital in Telford, which is a 20-minute car journey, is looking at something like a five-hour round trip on the bus. Only one service operates on Sundays in the whole county, between the market towns of Oswestry and Chester. In short, the current situation is unacceptable.
Just before recess, I met students from Lakelands academy in Ellesmere at Parliament’s education centre and answered their questions. One young woman asked me what we were doing to make bus services better, because she could not go with her friends to any after-school clubs due to her bus not running back to St Martin’s past 3.30 pm. I recently met members of the Oswestry Youth Forum, and they raised similar concerns. Young people in rural communities are now presented with a childhood confined to the small village or town they live in, and they are left with a lack of choice over their education, a lack of opportunity for socialising and taking part in activities outside school, and shrinking horizons. Ultimately, their options for employment can be significantly curtailed—unless, of course, their parents can afford to give them a car.
Meanwhile, older or disabled constituents who are no longer able to drive, or simply cannot afford to, are fully dependent on family members and friends to get them to where they need to be. I think everybody in this House would agree that this is driving deep and fundamental inequality, as well as holding back the economy in rural areas. That is why I am broadly supportive of this Bill.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is painting a picture that will be very familiar to my constituents in Dartford. In my case, we have deteriorating services under Kent county council, with 30 years of Conservative rule meaning that buses have got worse pretty much every year. I have written to the new Reform-led administration in Kent county council asking them to undertake to use the powers in the Bill to improve bus services in Dartford and across Kent. Would she agree that the new Bill offers huge opportunities for local authorities to improve bus services and transport networks for the benefit of residents in my constituency and hers?
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was about to say that I am broadly supportive of this Bill and the empowerment of local authorities to franchise bus services for those reasons. That should enhance accessibility and safety and allow local authorities to establish new bus companies, which they have not been able to do before. It is critical that local authorities can protect and establish routes that ensure access to employment, healthcare and town centres, which is one of the main aims that my own bus services Bill—Bus Services Bill No. 1, if I may be so cheeky—seeks to address, but with these new powers rightly being given to local government, I have real concerns about the ability of rural local authorities to find the funding to drive the meaningful change we so need.
In November, the Government allocated £1 billion of funding for buses, and the then Secretary of State for Transport said that the funding for rural areas would be “unprecedented”, but Shropshire council received just £1.4 million in capital funding and £2.5 million in revenue funding for this financial year. That was the 53rd lowest of 73 allocations for one of the worst-served counties in the country. That funding allocation is a tiny fraction of Shropshire council’s bus service improvement plan, which outlined the need for £73.5 million of bus funding across three years to transform the county’s bus network to an acceptable standard. The cost of franchising is also likely to be prohibitive to local authorities such as mine. The Government who promised a new formula based on need, deprivation and bus mileage to end the postcode lottery have so far made it abundantly clear that living in a rural area means less money, less public services and less opportunity.
There is a clear need for better transport in Shropshire. A third of North Shropshire’s children are growing up in poverty. Our deprivation may be hidden by our beautiful leafy setting, but it certainly exists, and by limiting the opportunities of these children, it is being perpetuated. The council spends around 80% of its budget on care, a percentage that is forecast to rise, and its costs for delivering services are high. At more than 1,200 square miles, Shropshire covers an area 27 times the size of Greater Manchester. The roughly 325,000 people who live there are relatively evenly distributed across the area, adding to the cost of delivery of those services.
I support the principles of the Bill, but there must be recognition of the desperate situation that local council finances are in, particularly in large rural areas such as mine. The looming rise of the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 is especially concerning, forcing people to fork out a significant amount every week for return travel to their job. In rural communities such as North Shropshire, alternatives to bus travel are few and far between. For the financially vulnerable who rely on buses to access services, the impact of the hike to £3 is going to be devastating.
I support the Bill’s aims, and I can see its success in cities such as London and Greater Manchester, but it is essential that rural areas are not left behind and crippled by the cost of delivering social care over a large geographical area, as they have been by previous Administrations. Buses are the best way to reduce inequality for people in rural areas and, critically, to unlock the economic growth they can offer. I hope the Minister will listen and work with his colleagues in the Treasury to help transform the opportunities for people in rural areas.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is an honour to be called to speak in this debate on an issue that I know many of us care so deeply about. I congratulate the Secretary of State and her team on producing the Bill and, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for bus and coach and a bus nerd, I am very excited to support it. Growing up in a village, I knew that our local bus service was not just a “nice to have”; it was a lifeline. For those of us too young to drive or for families without a car, it meant everything. It connected us to school, our work, our family and our friends. Without it, we were cut off.
In recent weeks, I fear I have become one of those people in this place who often talks about the good old days. Only a couple of weeks ago, I found myself reminiscing about the youth services we used to have in Worcestershire, particularly in Redditch, but the truth is that even the bus service I grew up with and depended on was frankly not that great. I was forced to leave my home, like many of my constituents are now, to get to a job or to go on to the next level of education. And let’s be honest, things have only got worse as public transport subsidies became an easy target for local government cuts during austerity. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), is not in his place any more, but of all the numbers he listed in his response to the Secretary of State, he failed to mention that the number of bus routes in England fell by half during the last Government—something that people who relied on buses were deeply frustrated about.
In 1986, the Thatcher Government promised that deregulation and privatisation would lead to lower fares, more services and more passengers, but for towns such as mine in Redditch and the surrounding villages, the opposite happened. We lost services, fares went up, passengers disappeared and communities were left behind. Many of the routes I once used as a teenager simply no longer exist. That story is not unique. It is echoed in towns and villages right across this country. Why are we surprised that services struggle to retain numbers when those services are unreliable, expensive and fragmented? How many times must our constituents explain to their boss why they are again late for work because the bus did not turn up, or apologise to a lecturer after missing the first part of a class because the timetable changed at the last minute?
Only last week, I was speaking with local businesses who told me they are desperate to recruit but cannot find staff who can actually get to them. Are we surprised? Are we surprised that our night-time economies—our bars, restaurants and live venues—are struggling, when people cannot rely on a bus to get them home safely? Dare to have a drink after 7 o’clock? Nope. Dare to have a night out past 10 o’clock? Nope. And at a time when patients are asked to go further for treatment as specialised services are centralised, we do not have the level of bus services required to ensure that the sick and the most vulnerable arrive on time, so many people simply pay for taxis they cannot afford.
In Worcestershire, the local bus system has become so complex, with different operators, inconsistent timetables and confusing routes, that you need a PhD in public transport to figure it out. Luckily I have a constituent, Jack Fardoe, a local student expert, who I swear could be dropped in any corner of the constituency and still find a route home, but most people simply give up. That is why I strongly welcome the opportunity this Bill presents.
Removing the ban on local authority-owned bus companies and expanding the power to franchise services is long overdue. It will give local authorities like mine in Worcestershire the chance to take back control—it feels weird saying that—and design bus services around people’s needs rather than a centrally governed timetable. It will mean that services can be planned properly with routes that serve communities, not shareholders, that are both urban and rural, and that match people’s lives and needs. It means that residents in Harvington, Dodderhill, Inkberrow and Astwood Bank could have a fit-for-purpose service that meets their actual needs, so they do not have to waste four hours on a 10-minute trip to the post office. People might once again rely on bus services to get where they need to be without the stress, without the guesswork and without the fear of being stranded.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech in defence of buses and the importance of the Bill. Does he share my disappointment that just like they missed the statement earlier on the strategic defence review, not a single Reform MP is here for this important debate? Does he take it in the same way that I do: that, just like defence, they just do not care about buses?
Chris Bloore
I do not want to second-guess the motivations of those on the Opposition Benches, which are quite sparse for a couple of different parties, but perhaps it shows their priorities rather than anything else.
Finally, many people talk to me about wanting to play their role in reducing car journeys—how wonderful would it be if they could do so by relying on their local bus network? I wholeheartedly support the passage of the Bill. My constituents and our local businesses support it because this is our chance to build a bus network that genuinely works for everyone. Will it be easy? No. But surely we can replicate the success of our international partners in building an affordable and comprehensive bus network that is fit for the 21st century.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, so some might wonder why I would bother to speak in the debate. The reason is very simple: the ramifications could be positive for the whole of the United Kingdom because of the Government’s vision within the Bill for decarbonising bus travel.
There are presently 36,000 fossil fuel buses on our roads in the United Kingdom. If the vision of the Government and of this Bill is secured, there is a lot of conversion and replacement to be done. If that is to happen, then I represent in my constituency the primary company that can help the Government towards that goal. I have the privilege of representing North Antrim, which of course has Wrightbus at its very heart. Not only is it involved in electric buses; it is a leader in hydrogen buses and can still produce diesel buses when needed.
I say to the Government that we have had many experiences in this United Kingdom of missed opportunities for our own industries, not least in the bus sector and the electric sector where we have seen Chinese supply. If the Government are serious about this, let us build in a prioritisation for British built buses as a prerequisite to the refurbishment of the industry.
The second thing I want to say to the Government is that with so many diesel buses across this nation, and with the expense of replacing old with new, the middle option of refurbishing diesel buses as electric buses needs to be grasped and explored. Again, Wrightbus is a leader in reimaging and resupplying electric into diesel, and that is a necessary step forward.
Given that in England, so many of these matters are devolved to mayoral areas or local councils, I ask the Government whether they are prepared to embrace metro mayors being able to pursue joint procurement not just for their own area, but working with others so that they can have the delivery that comes from larger orders. That would benefit all concerned.
I say to the Government that they have an opportunity not just to help the regions that the Bill will directly affect, but to bring benefit to the whole United Kingdom. Of course, it is not just Northern Ireland that is the primary bus manufacturer; there are also large suppliers in Scotland. There is an opportunity, and I trust that the opportunity will be grasped and that it will be underscored by the need to prioritise local United Kingdom build when replenishing our bus services and our buses across the United Kingdom.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bill will restore, for the first time in decades, the power of local authorities across the country to create new, publicly owned municipal bus companies. When bus services are run in the public interest, they work better and they work for everyone.
In Warrington South, we already know the difference that that can make. Warrington’s Own Buses is a fantastic example of what a publicly owned bus company operated under a Labour-run administration can achieve. It is rolling out a fully electric fleet and continues to offer a flat fare of £2 for adults and £1 for under-22s. It provides free travel for care leavers and maintains essential services that the private sector would walk away from. It is a bus company run for the public good, not for private profit. It is locally managed and accountable to the people it serves. It delivers social value, environmental gains and a surplus back to the local authority.
We must protect municipal bus companies that already serve their communities and give local authorities the freedom to use them as part of new franchising arrangements. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Bill and its guidance reflect the principle that where public ownership works, as it does in Warrington, we back it and build on it, because that is how we will reverse the long decline in our bus services under successive Conservative Governments and start to deliver the modern, affordable, low-carbon transport system that our communities deserve.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is great to see this Bill come to the Commons. I applaud its desire to improve the quality and availability of bus services. Buses are at the core of our public transport system and are often wrongly neglected in favour of what some—although definitely not me—would describe as sexier and more alluring methods of transport, such as trams and trains.
As we have heard, there is much that is good in the Bill—particularly the empowerment of local authorities to operate their own services and the provisions to implement services for socially necessary routes—but it could do more to address the needs of rural areas, including through VAT exemptions for small public transport vehicles to encourage demand-responsive and community transport schemes. It could do more to help local authorities to transition to net zero vehicles. As has been said, we should look again at restoring the £3 bus fare cap to a £2 cap.
In Oxfordshire, the county council feels that its bus partnerships with operators are delivering improvements, particularly when it comes to Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel, which serve my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage. Franchising has the potential to bring further improvements, although it is good that the Government have acknowledged that we do not necessarily need a one-size-fits-all approach. Franchising will be viable only if local authorities are given long-term funding certainty and support to acquire the expertise and capacity in their passenger transport teams.
We Liberal Democrats consider access to primary healthcare facilities to be socially necessary routes. In my constituency, the decision was made in the past few years to change the route of a bus going through the village of Harwell and into Didcot town centre. The change meant that people who live in Harwell can no longer catch one bus to the GP surgery in Didcot, despite it being only 2 miles away. That is the sort of thing we need to consider.
Much about the current bus provision in my constituency is good. The integrated rail and bus terminal at Didcot Parkway enables a convenient interchange. There are decent bus frequencies and journey times during the daytime between Didcot and Wantage, Grove, Oxford and Wallingford, and between Wallingford and Oxford. There are good examples of partnership working between the major employment centres at Harwell campus and Milton Park and the Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel. For example, Milton Park’s £20-a-year bus pass offer for people who work there is leading to measurable achievements in encouraging modal shift. There is generally decent daytime village provision.
But there is also much that needs to improve. Many villages have no evening or Sunday service, particularly Stanford in the Vale, which has seen significant housing growth. The buses that serve Culham campus, which the Government have proposed as an AI growth zone, are meagre, with no evening or Sunday service. In the evening, service frequencies drop on all routes, meaning that the integration between train and bus at Didcot works less well. Reliability can also be patchy, particularly on routes that involve Oxford, although that is mostly due to road congestion.
I am delighted to be a member of the Transport Committee. In April, we visited Ireland to understand the reasons for a significant increase in rural bus patronage, which increased fivefold between 2022 and 2024. That was achieved through increased public funding and by engaging communities—particularly the local equivalents of town and parish councils—in the design of routes. The core principle is, as a bare minimum, to have the restoration of morning, early afternoon and early evening services—there are also late evening services in many instances to address the issue that was mentioned earlier in respect of pubs—to create a viable alternative to driving.
Ireland has set itself extremely ambitious targets to grow its public transport youth share, from 8% today to 19% in 2030. That would nearly match Swiss levels, which are the highest in Europe. To achieve that, Ireland is investing large amounts in high quality continuous bus corridor infrastructure in urban areas, particularly in Dublin, and there are longer-term plans for significant journey time reductions for inter-city train routes to improve integration between bus and rail. As well as all that, people told us that they are concerned about the social, environmental and economic objectives that they are trying to hit, rather than looking simply at the cost in isolation.
There are good examples in the UK of the Ireland approach. I was on holiday in North Yorkshire in April, and North Yorkshire council had taken over a route abandoned by a private operator, using its own minibuses—route 11 between Clitheroe and Settle. It offers a two-hourly service, and connects well with hourly train services between Clitheroe and Manchester.
Integration is critical to making public transport more accessible and attractive, as Switzerland has shown. For those reasons, the Government’s integrated transport strategy is eagerly awaited, and will be an essential component in achieving better use of our public transport system, to the benefit of the economy, the environment, and reducing social exclusion. Although the Bill goes a long way towards improving bus services, there are a lot of things that the Liberal Democrats would like the Government to go further on, so that we can achieve our ambition for our transport system and ensure that it fulfils our social, economic and environmental needs.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Building better buses is in my blood. Growing up, my dad was chair of Barnsley passenger transport; South Yorkshire had a world-class bus service, thanks to our Labour county council. Labour knew then, as we know now, that buses are for the people. The Conservatives and Reform just don’t get it, as is demonstrated right now by those empty Opposition Benches.
When they were in government, the Conservatives promised South Yorkshire a London-style transport system. Instead, after 14 years of their neglect, our constituency has lost 53% of its bus services, including the vital SL1 Supertram service link connecting Stocksbridge and Oughtibridge to Sheffield. The crucial number 57 and 57A was left frequently running late, or failed to turn up at all, and the cuts to the number 43 and 44 buses seriously affected my Dodworth constituents. The reality for our rural neighbourhoods is even more stark, as constituents at my community event on transport told me—villages such as Bolsterstone are entirely cut off, Ingbirchworth loses bus connectivity after certain hours of the day, and the number 21 from Penistone to Barnsley is a route crying out for urgent improvements.
Our Labour Government know that buses are a lifeline that connects our families and communities across Penistone and Stocksbridge. That is why I am proud that through our better buses Bill, we are empowering communities by ensuring that buses serve local people rather than distant corporate interests. The Bill will remove barriers to public control and franchising, placing decisions over bus routes, times and fares back into the hands of communities. Our Labour South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, has been driving change locally. His franchising consultation involved nearly 8,000 people, with 75% strongly supporting it. The plans allow profits to be reinvested directly into better, more reliable services. That is why I am proud that our Transport Secretary has announced a landmark £1 billion fund to transform England’s bus services, including £17 million specifically for South Yorkshire.
This issue matters deeply to local people in my constituency. Older and disabled constituents often tell me that they are left stranded, enduring painfully long waiting times due to unreliable services, and facing distressing situations including toileting issues and missed NHS appointments because buses simply fail to appear. That is unacceptable. That is why it is right that the Bill will deliver a more accessible and inclusive bus network, as well as introducing a £3 maximum cap on bus fares until 2026, to encourage more people to use public transport.
After years of broken promises, our Labour Government are taking urgent action to rebuild Britain’s bus services, ending the postcode lottery and delivering a public transport system that is affordable, accessible and dependable, enabling South Yorkshire to bring back lost bus routes. I am committed to working with our Labour mayor and the leader of Sheffield city council to secure the return of the quick, reliable SL1 supertram link and our local hopper bus. We need bold bus solutions now, while we await the long-term infrastructure improvements I am advocating for, like the tram-train extension to Stocksbridge via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar.
Every single one of us has the right to use buses to travel to work and to see our families and friends. Public transport is fundamental to achieving social justice, so that young and old, in our rural areas—our towns and villages from Gilroyd to Grenoside, High Green to Hoylandswaine and Chapeltown to Ecclesfield—can depend on public transport for work, education and access to healthcare. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
In Tunbridge Wells, buses are not a luxury: they connect schoolchildren to their classrooms, the elderly to their communities, carers to patients, and people unable to drive to jobs, shops and healthcare. When those links are weakened, lives are disrupted and communities start to fracture. If lockdown taught us anything, it is that social isolation is not just lonely, but incredibly damaging to mental health, and that has knock-on effects throughout our whole society. Without a reliable bus service, people are stuck at home. Dependable public transport is not just a convenience; it is an economic, social and health imperative.
In my constituency, schoolchildren take the 267 from Horsmonden—a route cobbled together by merging disconnected services. It winds slowly through villages and regularly arrives late, meaning that children often miss the start of school. This is a failure to support our children’s educations. Worse, the price of a child’s annual bus pass in Kent is extortionate: parents pay £550 per child for them to arrive late or not at all. Now, with the £2 fare cap rising to £3, a commuter making two journeys a day, five days a week, will pay an extra £500 extra each year, on top of the cost of living crisis, with soaring bills, rent and food prices. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the fare cap to be reinstated at £2.
It is not just schoolchildren and commuters; many elderly and low-income residents rely on buses to maintain independence and reduce social isolation, yet services are still being cut. In Tunbridge Wells, the 289 no longer runs on weekends, isolating residents from Southborough to Showfields. People can commute to work, they might be able to squeeze in a shop on a Tuesday and perhaps they could meet some friends for a drink on a Friday, but if they want to go out on Saturday, they are stuck. There is no bus and no connection—nowhere to go. For those who do not have time to shop or socialise during the week, it is tough luck.
In Paddock Wood, a town of 7,500 people, there is no direct service to Pembury hospital on a Sunday. What message does that send to NHS workers and patients without cars? The lack of weekend service is a constituency-wide issue that disproportionately affects the elderly, disabled people and low-income families. It is not just inconvenient—it is unfair.
Rural villages have seen services slashed. The 255 once connected Hawkhurst to Lamberhurst to Tunbridge Wells, but its removal now cuts communities off from rail, shops, pharmacies, GPs and each other. There is no bus at all to Ashurst, a village five miles from Tunbridge Wells, the nearest shopping and rail centre. Parents drop children to neighbouring villages to catch the bus to school, but still pay £500 for the privilege.
My constituents are waiting for buses that never come, or watching their routes disappear. Over 25% of passengers in Kent are dissatisfied with their bus service and 27% of buses are either late or cancelled. That is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill to empower local authorities to protect socially necessary routes—those that get people to school, healthcare or work. Such measures are absolutely essential, but we must go further; we need to restore and expand services to tackle frustration and isolation.
I welcome the £23 million pledged by the Government to Kent county council for bus service improvement, but that was under the Conservatives. Reform is now running Kent county council, but frankly I would not trust it to run a bath. Its priorities are not public services. Last night we saw the announcement of a DOGE—a department of government efficiency—starting at Kent county council. That is a bit of a joke when we consider that the new Reform administration decided to cancel the first iteration of the audit and governance committee; one assumes that would fulfil the same function as a DOGE.
We must have proper local consultation to ensure that the £23 million is spent appropriately and responsibly by the Reform administration in Kent. With the right investment and priorities, focused on children, the elderly and healthcare, we can bring in a network that brings people together and does not leave them behind.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With a birthday contribution, I call Alex Mayer.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think buses are brilliant, so I am delighted that this Bill is coming forward on 2 June, because, as you said, it is my birthday. I thought it was the Minister’s way of wishing me many happy returns—and singles also!
For too long, buses have been in decline. It is great that the Minister has been clear for months that he wants to fix that and that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. December’s guidance on varied franchising approaches was excellent, and I welcome how the Bill simplifies franchising, as well as the Government’s review of enhanced partnerships and the plans in the Bill to strengthen them. We need—and I believe that this Bill will help to deliver—tailored, practical options that can work for people in every kind of town, village and city.
We can already see some EPs delivering that change, with real, substantive control over network design. From 24/7 routes in Portsmouth and a 50% zero-emission fleet in Leicester to profit-sharing arrangements and repainted buses that build identity and loyalty and encourage interchanges, EPs already encourage innovation and partnership. In the west of England, “birthday buses” offer residents free travel across 500 square miles throughout the whole of their birthday month. That is a great gift and, more importantly, a successful scheme that targets non-bus users in order to embed long-term behavioural change. That happened without the need for new legislation, but with the need for vision.
I will always call for greater public investment in buses, but I am realistic about the economic pickle that we have been left in by the Conservatives. If we want sustainable networks, we have to grow farebox revenue. The Department’s bus service improvement plan guidance is absolutely spot on here, correctly making the vital point, in line with the national bus strategy, that:
“Almost all social, economic and environmental objectives for the role of the bus…can be boiled down to the simple, practical and measurable objective to grow bus patronage.”
With that in mind, might I suggest the odd tweak to the Bill to better reflect that spirit?
We have talked about clause 1 and the purpose of improving “performance, accessibility and quality”. That is good, but my constituents certainly want quantity as well as quality. Perhaps “availability” could be added to focus minds on growing patronage. Clause 11 has some fantastic language about consulting disabled “users or prospective users” of buses. I think the term “prospective users” could be deployed elsewhere—for instance, the Transport Act 2000 requires consultation ahead of franchising with only
“those representative of users of local services”,
not prospective users.
Clause 30 gives the Minister powers to set standards for bus stops to improve safety and accessibility. That is great, but why stop there? Would the Minister not also like to have some standards aimed at increasing ridership? According to the Campaign for Better Transport, poorly maintained bus stops and bus shelters put off 23% of people from using buses.
I have looked at clause 23, on grants. I wonder whether local transport authorities could be incentivised to design grants to increase passenger numbers? It is clear that we need a virtuous circle of more passengers and more fare income, not the spiral of decline that we have seen previously.
That brings me briefly to socially necessary routes, which are important but mainly unprofitable. I absolutely agree with the Minister that the new list he is introducing will bring some certainty, but I wonder whether alongside that list, LTAs could also be required to produce a transparent and ranked formula for how they calculate whether a service is socially necessary, which they could use in turn to allocate funding. That would rightly give local leaders flexibility, but would also allow residents to see what is being prioritised and why, and where the cut-off for taxpayer support lies. If we also included the number of journeys in that formula—if that was made a criterion—it could allow residents to save a bus by using it. It would prevent lists from becoming fossilised and reduce the risk that those who shout loudest get the better services, with funding determined by data, not decibels. Fundamentally, LTAs should not be pigeonholed as a place of sticking-plaster solutions; success will lie in a network-wide approach.
Finally, I know that the Minister does not plan to create any new passenger transport executives, but I believe that—just as we are bringing track and train together—there is a real case for bringing bus and bus lane together, particularly as more strategic transport authorities are created. This is a really good Bill, and I think it is a great birthday present.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I declare an interest as a long-time passenger on Eastbourne’s 1, 1A, LOOP, Dotto train and 12 bus routes, the latter of which—with its views of Birling Gap—was voted one of the UK’s top 10 most beautiful bus routes by passengers. As the birthplace of the world’s oldest municipal bus service in 1903, we in Eastbourne expect the very best local bus services, and in the light of all these bus-based assets and traditions, us Eastbournians are ambitious for this Bill to go even further in supporting operators to improve the reliability of our services. Our local drivers and staff, such as Gary Womble Bartlett and Loreleye, are legends, but operational issues that are out of their control and poor regulation are leaving many residents waiting some time for delayed buses and, indeed, buses that do not show up at all. Only recently, Valerie Lee got in touch to tell me that she has been forced to scale steep hills back home because her No. 4 bus was a no-show.
I want to highlight the especially profound impact that unreliable bus services can have on those who are neurodiverse. This is what Ann, whose son is autistic, said to me via email: “My son has recently contacted me to say that the 14.54 bus his school have agreed for him to catch each day did not turn up at all. The bus after that was also late. He is extremely stressed and is melting down with the lateness of getting home and frustrated by the protracted wait for his bus home. I’ve had to leave him to cry it out, as interventions will just exacerbate how he feels. He is shouting, swearing and banging his head against the wall—it’s really not a great situation. He is so overwhelmed and so stressed, Josh; it’s really dreadful here right now. He sat an English Language GCSE this morning and all he wanted was to be back home as soon as possible. For a now-hourly service, these extensive delays are totally unacceptable and I must again highlight the impact this has on our vulnerable community, especially SEN children such as my son.” I hope the Government and operators hear that loud and clear.
Poor bus services and connectivity hit another vulnerable group in our society: patients. Eastbourne district general hospital, where I was born, has lost core services to the Conquest hospital in Hastings over the years. That hospital is 20 miles away, requiring at least two buses and the best part of a day to get there and back around an appointment. A hospital trust in nearby Kent has collaborated with operators to create a direct bus route between two of its hospitals, and although ultimately I want—and our hospital deserves—core services reinstated, in the meantime we deserve a Kent-style hospital bus at the very least. I urge the Government to upgrade their Bill to make such routes a reality.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about collaboration across borders and county councils. I have an issue in my constituency because of a proposal to close the GP practice in Westbourne, but there is no bus service for all the patients in Westbourne to get to Emsworth, which is over the border into Hampshire county council. Does he agree that there should be provision in the Bill to ensure that local authorities work together? People do not see the local authority borders.
Josh Babarinde
Indeed, what is happening in Westbourne sounds very similar to what is happening in Eastbourne. I implore the Government and local operators to ensure that people’s health needs are baked into the Bill.
We owe it to all our constituents, particularly the most vulnerable, to improve bus services for local people. I stand ready to work with the Government, our local authority, our NHS trust, local operators and, of course, passengers to make that happen.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill that the Secretary of State introduced this evening. It has the potential to transform public transport for communities across the country, especially in South Dorset. In towns and villages across my constituency, passengers—or indeed, would-be passengers—rely on buses to go about their daily lives. For many, they are the only affordable way to get to work, school, hospital, the train station or the town centre, or to see family and friends.
Growing up, I took the bus 10 miles up the road from my home in Wyke to sixth form most days. It was a reliable service, which meant that I could get to class, so I know that reliable buses matter in South Dorset. Yet in recent years, we have seen routes cut, services reduced and the reliability of services deteriorate, leaving many people feeling isolated and unable to access essential amenities and services. Far too often, as has been mentioned, private bus operators seem to have put profit before passengers.
Constituents in Winfrith Newburgh, Lulworth and the surrounding villages say that they face poorly connected bus services to Wareham and Wool train stations, making it difficult to access the national rail network. Even more troubling, there is no direct bus link to hospitals in Poole or Dorchester, leaving many constituents without transport to essential healthcare.
In Crossways in my constituency, although some services exist, there is growing concern that the current bus network will not meet the demands of new housing developments. We cannot build homes without building the bus infrastructure that is needed to connect those new homes with nearby towns and services. Across the Grove on Portland, there is no longer a bus service at all. The Grove community have repeatedly told me that they feel left behind and cut off from the rest of Portland and nearby Weymouth. That has been hugely isolating and has a huge impact on the ground.
Finally, in Southill, cuts to bus services have had a devastating effect, especially on elderly constituents who now face real isolation. For some there, it has become almost impossible to get to Weymouth town centre or to see a GP. In each of those communities, we need a change of direction. The Bill gives us the tools to do that and to end the postcode lottery of Britain’s broken buses.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned his elderly constituents, and I have similar issues in my constituency. People are telling me that they cannot even do their shopping anymore because of bus cuts in Shildon. One person feels that she will have to leave the village that she has lived in for decades because she is losing her eyesight. Does my hon. Friend agree that as local authorities get that control, it is important that they use it to look at people’s needs and to put on bespoke services, such as to shops and hospitals?
Lloyd Hatton
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s overview. The new bus services that councils look to put in place must link people with services such as GP appointments.
With that in mind, I hope that the new powers granted to local authorities such as Dorset council under the Bill will enable them to franchise their bus services, and crack down on antisocial behaviour and fare evasion. I also hope that the council can make buses and bus stops much more accessible, particularly to passengers living with disabilities. From now on, I want the future of bus services in Winfrith, Lulworth, Crossways, the Grove and Southill to be defined by local need and local passengers rather than profit. The Bill will enable Dorset council to work with passengers in each of those communities to deliver bus services that are finally fit for purpose. Fundamentally, the Government’s reforms will support integrated travel, helping to link rural areas with larger towns and essential services such as hospitals and, in particular, our national rail networks.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I have been campaigning for a reliable, affordable bus route to Bournemouth airport. As a fellow Dorset MP, does my hon. Friend recognise the need for a dedicated service to the airport every 30 minutes, especially as it increases the number of flights that it will be handling?
Lloyd Hatton
I am happy to support my hon. Friend’s campaign, and I will be meeting him shortly to discuss how I can best do so. Given that Bournemouth is the airport nearest to my constituency, my constituents would certainly benefit from that bus connection.
I am desperate for the Bill’s reforms to be introduced as rapidly as possible across South Dorset, which is why I plan to write to the leader of Dorset council to encourage the council to take advantage of the new powers as soon as possible. I look forward to sitting down with its officials to finally improve bus services for the communities in Winfrith, Lulworth, Crossways, the Grove and Southill. I know that other bus passengers and communities throughout my constituency will be looking to the council to use its new powers to improve bus services in their neighbourhood. We cannot keep treating public transport, especially our buses, as an afterthought. For communities across South Dorset, Labour’s bus services Bill provides a chance to finally reconnect and to deliver good-quality bus services to many more passengers. It is time to crack on.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Buses are often seen as a service for the elderly, and they are vital for older residents, especially in rural areas where isolation poses a serious threat to health. Buses can be a social lifeline, but in those rural communities they are also a vital connection to education, healthcare and work. The number of bus journeys in Devon has fallen by 40% since 2015, and in my large rural constituency many communities have been left behind by unreliable, infrequent or inadequate bus services. Many villages have no bus service at all, while others feel lucky to get one a day.
The Stagecoach Gold bus runs between Paignton and Plymouth. Stagecoach withdrew the early morning service last year following consultation with local transport authorities, because low passenger numbers meant that the service was no longer commercially viable. It may not have been “standing room only”, but cutting that service is just not good enough for those who start their shifts before sunrise and keep our communities running. One bus driver was left with no choice but to buy a car to get to work, as he would have lost his job if he could not get to Totnes by 7 am. Another constituent said:
“These changes disproportionately affect key workers, particularly those in sectors such as healthcare, retail and hospitality, who depend on early or late bus services to commute. Many of these workers have few if any alternative transport options. These individuals, likely among the lowest paid in our community, will face increased financial and logistical challenges as a result of these cuts.”
When Stagecoach relocated the Dartmouth bus depot to Plymouth, the early-morning 92 route was cut. Students could not get to college, and local drivers lost their jobs. Stagecoach also cut the 17 route in Brixham, so no visitor, holidaymaker or hospitality worker can get home after 6.30 pm. That is hardly a late night out.
I welcome the principles behind the Bill. It is right to give more powers to local authorities, and it is right to acknowledge that socially necessary routes must be protected. However, the Bill must go further if it is truly to deliver the “bus revolution” that the Government claim. Local authorities must have the power and the funding to keep services running, and a duty to implement socially necessary services. This is not just about commuting to work; young people in South Devon depend on buses to get to college, but also to access that crucial first Saturday job—to build independence, to gain skills, and to put something real on their CVs. How are those who live in a small village with no shop, no café and no reliable bus service meant to get any experience if they cannot travel? This is vital to the Government’s skills agenda.
A well-funded and reliable rural bus network does not just support today’s economy; it builds tomorrow’s workforce. We have seen in Ireland what is possible: rural bus use has increased fivefold since 2018, because the Irish Government invested in rural transport and created new services where they were needed. That is the kind of ambition we need. Let us grow our economy by revolutionising rural transport with regular, clean, green buses. I wholeheartedly support giving real franchising powers to all local authorities, with simple, integrated funding and a focus on net zero buses, but let us not pretend that those powers alone are enough. Councils need the funding, the staff and the backing to use them.
Raising the fare cap from £2 to £3 is a false economy. For a student or someone on minimum wage, it is a real barrier to access. The cap must be restored and made permanent if we are serious about affordability, ridership and ironing out inequalities. I would also like to see local authorities, such as Devon county council, have the power to introduce integrated transport passes like the ones we use in London, so that people in rural areas can get the bus to a station, and then take a train, in a joined-up, cost-effective and user-friendly way.
This Bill has potential, but it must be backed with the ambition and investment that rural communities like mine desperately need. Buses are for everyone—young or old, and in cities, in villages or even on Dartmoor—and this House must deliver an ambitious, modern system that reflects that.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I will say at the outset that I will not use my full five minutes. I will not take interventions, so hopefully more people can give their speeches, too.
Buses are a vital route to connecting people with each other and with opportunity, which is why this Bill, which will improve bus services, is so important. In the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency, our story is very mixed. For those who live near a route served by a Metrobus, a Y bus or a T1, it is usually pretty quick to get into Bristol city centre, but problems arise when trying to get across our towns and villages on the outskirts of the city, where many of our places of work and study are based, as are many of our loved ones.
For many people, including those unable to drive, getting to Southmead hospital, which is just next door in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), is all but impossible using public transport, because, like our communities, it is outside the city centre. It is not uncommon for what should be a 10-minute drive to take around an hour on a bus, either because of the route or because one needs to change buses at the University of the West of England or Bristol Parkway. Often these stops are in the wrong direction and the travel times are simply not realistic, so people do not feel that they can leave their car at home, even when they want to. As a frequent bus user, I know how frustrating all this can be when, through no fault of our own, we are made late because of a ghost bus that did not show up, and we are left figuring out what to do at the side of the road. We have also had route changes, including to the No. 73. Instead of taking people to the mall at Cribbs Causeway, where many people work and shop, the bus now stops partway there—and these are the parts of our community that have regular access to a bus.
We now have the bizarre scenario in which residents in Winterbourne are finally being served by a bus, but only because buses are being redirected through the village while the motorway bridge is being rebuilt. I am glad that our new Labour West of England Mayor joined my long-standing calls, and those of the community, for a proper solution for people in Winterbourne. I am also incredibly glad that our new Labour Government are giving local leaders and communities the opportunity to take back control of local buses through this Bill, and I was proud to campaign for that ahead of the election.
I encourage fellow residents to fill in my latest survey about their experiences of local buses. After years of Tory under-investment nationally and a real lack of understanding of how important buses are, vital routes have been lost, but I am optimistic that if other regions can do this—just look at Manchester, Liverpool, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, which are all at different points in their journeys but taking great strides forward—so can we. We must, because people in our community deserve the same opportunities as anyone else, anywhere else.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
For many years, rural bus services have been dying a slow death by a thousand cuts. In my constituency of Horsham, we have lost about a third of our services since 2010, and funding has fallen by as much as 43% in some areas. This is how it works: we cut the timetable, which means fewer people use the service, so we cut the timetable again—rinse and repeat. In many villages, it is simply impossible to live without a car. Even if we did put a bus service back into those villages, no one would use it because the only people who live there are car users. It is no wonder that economic inactivity in rural communities is nearly 2.5% higher than in urban centres. Good jobs and an education are literally out of reach. How can we reverse this downward spiral?
It is clear that if local authorities step back and rely on commercial operators to decide routes by themselves, it is not going to work, but that is exactly what we are seeing in West Sussex. Commercial operators have to keep to their timetables or face a fine, but to achieve punctuality on the No. 17 route meant that the village of Partridge Green had to be dropped altogether at certain times of day. Pensioners now have to walk over a mile to the nearest stop or pay for expensive taxis. Residents were not consulted about the cuts, and they found out only a few weeks in advance, with no time to make other arrangements. Half the village turned out to a church meeting to protest, and if only we could have harnessed that enthusiasm in time, we might have saved the service, but of course it was too late. Now the same thing is happening all over again, with cuts to the No. 63 bus through another village, Slinfold, which will make it impossible for local commuters to link to Horsham station. Again the excuse was punctuality, again there was no consultation and again residents had just a few weeks’ notice.
This gets to the heart of why our rural bus services have been in terminal decline. County councils, the bodies we would expect to have residents’ interests at heart, can all too easily hide behind a commercial bus operator and say that it is all out of their control. No one wants to admit responsibility. We all keep saying that we want to take traffic off the roads and cut pollution, but in reality, local councils such as West Sussex have been presiding over a policy of managed decline. Will the new Bill do enough to reverse it? The Bill certainly moves in the right direction by empowering local authorities to franchise routes, run their own bus companies and trial demand-responsive transport schemes, which are good building blocks for a more flexible, responsive system.
However, when I look at West Sussex, it is clear that these freedoms by themselves will not be enough, even if there was more dynamic leadership in the council. Setting up its own bus service is a high-risk, high-investment strategy for a council. I can see how big urban centres may have the wherewithal to take advantage of these new rights, but more rural authorities such as my own are already on budgetary life support and there is no way they can take on such a gamble. This is going to take something more from the Government, and that something is more funding to kick-start a revolution. So let us fund bus services properly, empower local councils to make the right decisions and ensure that affordable, accessible transport remains a lifeline for all our communities.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
If I had £1 for every time someone mentioned to me that buses were not going to where they needed to go or when they needed to go there, I could probably afford to restore most of the bus services we have lost in High Peak over the last decade. Under the Conservatives, thousands of vital bus services disappeared and local communities have been left powerless, with no tools to hold the operators to account. In High Peak, we have lost—wait for it—the 202, 236, 239, X18, X57, 61A and, recently, the 271, leaving many students and commuters where I live in Hope valley unable to get to work or college in Sheffield.
This trend has continued throughout Derbyshire, where there was a reduction of over 5 million miles—do not check my maths—in the distance driven by buses between 2010 and 2023. To put that in context, it is the same number of miles as travelling to the moon and back 10 times. However, this problem is more than statistics; it is lives ruined. I think of the elderly lady in Whaley Bridge who was able to get to her monthly hospital appointments only thanks to the kindness of her neighbour, the assistant manager in Glossop who could not take a promotion to be a manager in Buxton because the 61 bus did not run late enough for them to be able to get home, and the lady in Buxton who loves the theatre but often has to leave shows in Sheffield early because she cannot get home any other way.
The first campaign I ran as a newly selected, significantly less grey, candidate was for students in High Peak to be able to get free bus travel to colleges in Greater Manchester like their classmates over the border. Working with Claire Ward, Labour’s East Midlands Mayor, we were able to save High Peak families hundreds of pounds a year and ensure that cost was not a consideration for young people when deciding what courses to do at college and what careers they dreamed of doing.
These challenges also present themselves with tourism in High Peak. In part thanks to a TikTok craze to photograph sunset and sunrise over Mam Tor, communities where I live in High Peak have been plagued by illegal parking. I am co-ordinating a response to these issues with local stakeholders, such as the Peak park, police, and councils. A key tranche of what we need to do is deliver better bus services that are integrated with local train services.
The Bill will transfer powers away from Westminster and empower local communities to take the decisions necessary for our commuters to get to work, our students to get to college, our vulnerable to access the healthcare they need, and our honeypot villages to manage tourism sustainably. For too long, people in High Peak and Derbyshire have been let down by a Tory Government and a Tory council who only delivered cuts and isolation. This better bus Bill does exactly what it says on the tin. I look forward to better bus services delivered by our local transport authorities using these powers across High Peak.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
For my Cramlington and Killingworth constituency, like for so many others as we have heard today, buses are vital. They are often the only source of public transport. They are essential for accessing work, health appointments or seeing family and friends. That is why I launched my big bus survey earlier this year, hearing from hundreds of residents. The response was clear: too many people feel let down due to unreliable and inaccessible transport. That is especially true for people with disabilities, families and older people.
Under the previous Government, far too many routes were withdrawn, reduced or made less direct. I thought I would share just a few experiences from my residents. In Holywell and Seaton Delaval, they spoke of the withdrawal of the No. 19, which they relied on to reach local shops, healthcare and social activities. In Cramlington, local people described long waits for buses and no services at all on Sundays. Many shared concerns that while services into city centres exist, there is a lack of connectivity between local areas. One constituent told me that while her workplace is a mere 10-minute drive away, taking the bus requires travelling in the opposite direction first, doubling the journey time. Some told me they work from home instead of the office more often, because they just do not want to face the buses. Another, when their car broke down, took a week’s leave rather than have to face the bus.
Residents in East Hartford told me that replacement services sometimes skip stops entirely without warning. In Shiremoor, another resident told me that to travel just 2.5 miles they have to take a metro and then a bus because no direct route exists, massively increasing costs. In Wideopen—where I am from and grew up—and Seaton Burn, residents shared how few services come through the villages compared with a decade ago. In another case, a resident told me that rather than face the delay of the bus, they ran two miles to the nearest metro to avoid being late for jury service. In Backworth, people described frustration at the lack of regular services, while others expressed a desire to switch from car use for environmental reasons, but they simply cannot without reliable information, real-time updates and dependable timetables.
The Bill could not be more timely. For too long, too many people in my area have been let down by bus operators favouring profits for commercial companies over delivering the public transport local people need and deserve. I share these stories because they are important. Every time the bus does not turn up, every time the route is cut back, every time it does not stop, it chips away at people’s independence, with every act stripping local people of their dignity bit by bit, forcing them to either rely on others or to do without. I glad that this Government will now to shift that balance, giving local people a greater say in their transport.
People across the towns and villages of my constituency have told me that the system is not working and has to change. Buses in my area are a lifeline, not a luxury. I am pleased, on behalf of those constituents, that we are taking action to ensure they get the services they deserve. Frankly, they cannot come soon enough.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is highly unusual for major legislation on buses to be introduced so early in the life of a Government; in fact, I think it may be unprecedented. Buses are by far the most used means of public transport, but they have traditionally received less political attention than other modes, and Ministers deserve great credit for securing this legislation so early in this Parliament.
It is difficult today to capture the extent of the hostility to bus regulation that existed in Government a little more than a decade ago, when the spirit that animated the Transport Act 1985 was still a moving force in transport debates. Although franchising could boast a successful record in London, there was visceral and ideological opposition to extending it. The coalition Government were actively hostile. Ministers even sought to exclude areas that pursued franchising schemes, then known as quality contracts, from receiving funding—an echo of the bad old days when the Thatcher Government threatened to strip the west midlands passenger transport authority of metro development funding unless its municipal bus operations were sold off.
That lingering attitude changed when George Osborne struck a devolution deal with Richard Leese and the late Howard Bernstein that included franchising in Greater Manchester. That was less a turning point than a complete reversal. In fact, it was widely rumoured at the time that the Department for Transport did not know what the Treasury had agreed. That welcome revolution in thought, which found expression in the Bus Services Act 2017, was, however, imperfect and incomplete. Franchising powers were made available only to mayoral authorities that were picked and chosen in Westminster.
The Act contained a delayed and vindictive sting: clause 22, which sought to bar new municipal operations, despite the great success of surviving municipal operators in places such as Nottingham and Reading. Reputedly, the clause was a very late addition to the drafting of the 2017 Act—so late that it had not been quality assured by Government lawyers. Indeed, Conservative Ministers were forced to concede that the clause would not prevent an authority from
“acquiring shares in existing bus companies”,
nor would it prevent the repurposing of an existing company that was unconnected to bus services. Despite the flaws in its drafting, clause 22, which was born out of spitefulness and political posturing, has had a chilling effect on authorities that might have otherwise pursued a municipal operation. This Bill remedies both failings, and we will have better bus services and better law as a result of its passing.
There are other welcome provisions in the Bill. It will make it easier for operators and authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour and misogyny. It will make services more accessible for disabled passengers and accelerate the transition to cleaner, low-emission vehicles. All these measures will make a positive difference in my constituency, which sits at the intersection of Birmingham and the county of Worcestershire. It is a place where there are relatively low levels of car ownership, where a lack of audiovisual announcements makes it harder for some people to use the bus and where connections between our neighbourhoods are the poor relation to routes into the city centre.
In May, under the leadership of the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, the combined authority made the welcome decision to bring bus services back under public accountability and direction. That will enable better timetables, integrated ticketing and services that better connect the areas of highest unemployment with the business parks where new jobs are being created. It will also mean new powers over fares.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Laurence Turner
I will not; I am sorry. I do not wish to deny another Member time to speak.
A few days ago, under the version of the nBus scheme agreed by the previous Conservative mayor, Andy Street, operators exercised their legal right to hike seasonal fares, which they did by 8.6%. Low-paid bus commuters deserve better, and that is why we need the new powers that Labour is introducing in this Bill to better protect passengers from such increases in the cost of living.
One of the great pleasures of following other members of the Transport Committee is that they have made points about the forthcoming inquiry report much more eloquently than I can. I hope that that report is published in time to shape the final drafting and implementation of this important Bill, which I look forward to supporting through its later stages.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Shrewsbury has waited 10 years for a Labour Government to bring forward this Bill. Over the course of the last Government, our county of Shropshire lost over 63% of our bus routes, meaning that two out of three buses have been withdrawn. That was due to the savage privatisation that forced bus companies to pursue profits over passengers. For my residents, this meant that bus routes were stripped away from villages and they are now cut off from vital health and education services, work and leisure. It means that we have no buses after 6.30 pm anywhere in my constituency. It also means that we have no buses anywhere on a Sunday. In fact, in Shrewsbury we have not seen a Sunday bus for 10 years.
I do not know how familiar Members are with my wonderful, beautiful constituency, but Shrewsbury is a market town of 65,000 residents. It is the county town of Shropshire and hosts health, public and cultural services for 19 market towns and 400 villages, yet we are the only county town in this country not to have a Sunday bus service. It is a disgrace, and it is a painful symptom of the impact that the last Government had on public services in towns like mine up and down the country.
The lack of evening services puts severe constraints on our night-time economy and the potential for residents to get home safely after work, travel or an evening out. Not everyone can afford to run a car or is medically able to drive. The population in Shropshire is nine years older than the national average, so many older residents have given up their vehicles and find themselves stranded in the evenings and at weekends. In some villages, they are left completely socially isolated.
One of my constituents, Christine Hart, is in her 70s, lives in a residential suburb of Shrewsbury, and is a very active volunteer in her local community. Following her knee replacement operation last month, she became reliant on buses. She could not be happier with our new on-demand electric minibuses in her area funded via the Government’s bus service improvement plan. She is such a convert that she plans to keep using them even after her recovery. However, she explained to me that although she could get to a 5 pm doctor’s appointment, she has no way of getting home because there are no evening buses in Shrewsbury.
I am regularly contacted by employees who tell me that by the time they finish work at 6 pm, they cannot get across to the bus station to catch the last bus home. We are preventing residents getting to and from employment, putting a real block on economic growth. This is corroborated by my local chamber of commerce, which runs a quarterly business survey with its businesses. We receive regular feedback every single quarter that the primary barrier to recruitment is the lack of bus services that run early enough and late enough to support people—young people in particular—to access employment opportunities. My sorry tale from Shrewsbury is of a beautiful place that is very often cut off from the communities and individuals without a car, and the last thing we want to encourage is even more congestion in our historic town centre.
We must try to rebuild our public transport system, which was dismantled by the Conservatives during their time in office. They should hang their heads in shame for every one of the 5,000 miles in bus routes that they cancelled in towns like mine, for every youngster who cannot access a job opportunity, for every pensioner who cannot visit their family on a Sunday, and for every village cut off from public services.
Ten years is a long time to wait to be reconnected to the outside world, but the good people of Shrewsbury will today be celebrating as we debate this Bill, which will give back to local authorities the power to run services for passengers, not just for profit. The Bill has a clause that allows for socially necessary routes to link up medical, educational or public services to the local community at stops and times that empower them, not just the operator.
By changing the law to move away from exclusive privatisation, we can move forward to a responsive, community-led model for our public transport authorities. The Bill will not just improve lives in Shrewsbury, but transform lives, aspirations and the wellbeing of my residents, who have waited a decade for a Labour Government to give us back our Sunday service.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill. As a public transport user, I know that our buses do not always work for the people and communities that they purport to serve. For many of us, a privatised system with only a handful of companies running routes and setting fares has led to rising ticket prices, without the reliability to go with them.
London’s relatively well-run and highly regulated system has been an outlier in Britain until recent years—that is, until we have had some Labour metro mayors, who have made changes. Despite Huddersfield having had the busiest bus station in West Yorkshire before the pandemic, its bus services declined by more than a fifth between 2010 and 2023. This decline is not just a local issue; it reflects a wider pattern of regional under-investment.
The historical disparities between London and the north on transport spending are stark. In 2017, London received £944 per person on transport spending, while Yorkshire and the Humber received just £335. If the north had received the same amount per person as London between 2008 and 2018, it would have had £66 billion more spent on it. The Bill is long overdue as a starting point to turn things around.
A few weeks ago, at a coffee morning with local residents in Netherton, the key issue raised was buses. Inconsistent timetables, unreliable services and the withdrawal of the local village route have made it harder for people to get to work or appointments or to see family and friends. I therefore welcome the Government’s investment in transport in our region, including £36 million for West Yorkshire’s buses. As part of that investment, I was glad to see the recent launch of the fully integrated Weaver transport network—a nod to our textiles heritage—by our West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin.
We know that funding alone is not enough, however. We need a system that gives local areas the power to design services around local need. The Bill will take us in the right direction: in West Yorkshire, we will see the first buses going under public control from 2027. It will allow more flexible and locally responsive integrated mass transport networks and we will finally get a tram in West Yorkshire, which is fantastic.
It is worth recognising local employers such as Camira in Huddersfield. When you sit on a bus, Madam Deputy Speaker, the fabrics on it are likely to have come from a textile firm in Huddersfield. Camira’s fabrics are used on buses, trams, trains and the London tube, which shows how transport investment supports not just passengers, but skilled jobs in towns like mine.
I want to mention a couple more things, including safety. For many people, accessing bus stations, bus stops or buses at night is very difficult, so ensuring that we have CCTV and safe travel officers will be really important. We also know that there has been inequity in bus service cuts, which have been deeper in low-income areas than in more affluent areas. That is not just unfair, but bad for growth, bad for health and bad for quality.
The Bill is a foundation for getting the implementation right. With strong local powers, fair funding and a focus on equity, we can rebuild trust in our bus network and create a system that truly works for everyone.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This has been a really enjoyable debate. One of the great benefits of winding up is that we are forced to sit and listen to absolutely everything. Most speeches I enjoyed, but there were one or two that I did not. It is up to hon. Members to work out whether I am talking about them.
The contributions to this debate have been enlightening, because they have exposed some clear differences of economic and political philosophy among the parties. The Liberal Democrats, one after another, argued for improved services, particularly rural services, but were less clear about how to fund them. On the Labour Benches, there was huge optimism and enthusiasm under the perhaps mistaken belief that the Bill, in itself, will improve passenger services for their constituents. The truth is that when we look at the terms of the Bill, it is clear that the focus of its reforms is not primarily on improving bus services for passengers—quite the contrary.
In the other place, Labour whipped its peers to vote against what is now clause 1, which makes the improvement of the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain the purpose of the Bill. I send birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and make a plea on her behalf for her Whips not to be too harsh on her for her support of clause 1. Perhaps she was unaware that it was opposed by her own party in the other place.
Why do the Government not want to put performance improvement at the heart of the Bill? Because that is not the Bill’s primary intention. Labour’s true focus was set out in its background briefing to the King’s Speech. It is about
“accelerating the bus franchising process…building on the success of…public bus services still in operation.”
No mention there of passengers, performance, improvements or cost control; it is the structure of the bus providers that has excited the Government. They intend to increase the number of municipal bus companies, presumably because they think that civil servants are better equipped to run efficient bus companies than private sector operators. I can see that, in some examples, that is possible. I spoke to the managing director of the Warrington bus company last week and I was impressed by the performance figures, although they are very unusual.
However, the Government’s faith does not translate into confidence that the new municipal bus companies could win a competitive tender, as the Bill, perhaps inadvertently, allows local authorities to do away with competition. Extraordinarily, as currently drafted, it would allow any local authority to first create a new municipal bus company and then grant itself a franchise, without any competitive process. If that is deliberate, it really would be the triumph of socialist political ideology: that the state is somehow better.
Franchising is an alternative solution, potentially allowing greater co-ordination of transport provision, but it comes at a cost. It takes commercial risk away from the bus operators and puts it in the hands of local authorities. It requires dynamic contract, design and management skills. It is necessarily complex and, if done badly, risks the removal of the innovative power of the private sector, replacing it with state direction.
Let me say again what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made abundantly clear at the opening of this debate: we do not oppose bus franchising in principle. We support it, in fact, when it delivers value for money and, above all, when it improves services for passengers. But what we have seen from the Government today is a refusal to engage with the very real risks embedded in the Bill. The existing 2017 legislation has been referred to more than once during the debate. It recognises that mayoral combined authorities have the scale and resources needed to manage the development of franchise model. However, even here, political ineptitude and mayoral hubris can make a mess of things.
Andy Burnham’s Bee Network has been touted as the socialist example to follow—[Interruption.] I hear it from the Government Front Bench right now, but let us have a look at what has actually happened in Manchester. Buses that cost the private sector £180,000 cost Andy Burnham £220,000. Bus depots that cost the private sector less than £4 million cost Andy Burnham more than £12 million—in fact, nearly £13 million. Private sector bus companies train sufficient staff for their needs while Andy’s team, having failed to secure enough trained drivers, is in the absurd position of having to pay more than 400 agency staff to drive their buses at inflated hourly rates and with accommodation costs on top. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated at £17.4 million a year and rising.
Who is focusing on cost reductions in Manchester? Well, it is not the bus companies—it is not their job to reduce costs any more. In fact, the bigger the overall contract cost, the more profit they make. Require them to give above-inflation pay rises to unionised staff, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. It goes on the bill, and they get a profit percentage on top. Require them to donate to charity, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. Just add it to the bill, and get a profit percentage on top. Profits go up as the size of the contract increases. While Labour claims to have increased value for money because of the much-touted reduced profit percentage, the taxpayer is quietly fleeced. This is the doublespeak of Labour’s “value for money”.
What is the real cost of Labour’s return to “On the Buses”? Had Andy Burnham stuck to his own business plan, the Bee Network should have been profitable after the transition period, but because of his self-aggrandising hubris and statist ineptitude, the loss for this year alone is forecast to be £226 million and it is likely to rise further in the years ahead—that is £1 billion in under four years. And that is in a mayoral combined authority, although admittedly a Labour one.
Has this worked to increase traveller numbers? Between 2022 and 2024, Greater Manchester has experienced a 34.34% increase in ridership, according to Government figures, but let’s look at my county of Norfolk, which has a Conservative county council: its enhanced partnership has increased ridership over the same period by 43%. Let’s look at Essex—again, a Conservative-run council with an enhanced partnership, which has increased ridership by 52.3%. In the wider context, Greater Manchester has in fact underperformed.
Why does the Bill remove the crucial safeguards that ensured franchising was rolled out by authorities with at least a notional capacity to deliver? Why has Labour walked away from giving the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the worst happens and services fail? Why does the Bill not require a competitive tender process when local authorities decide to run their own bus companies? Labour appears content to let any council, regardless of size, experience, expertise or cash reserves, take on these huge financial and organisational risks. That is not empowering local government; that is setting it up to fail. And that is before we talk about money.
These franchising powers are meaningless without the money to implement them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made clear, just £243 million of the £1 billion promised by Labour is destined for actual bus services. That does not even satisfy Andy Burnham’s bus habit for a year. What about the rest of the country? Without billions—literally billions—of pounds to back up this Bill, it is just posturing. So where is the money? The answer is that there isn’t any. The Government have scrapped the Conservatives’ £2 bus fare, which was genuine financial support focused 100% on passengers, and now it is rumoured that even the £3 bus fare is due for the chop. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. The Government tell us they have a plan for passengers, but it seems that their plan for passengers is to make them pay more.
The Bill needs to have the improvement of passenger services at its heart. It needs to encourage the innovation and efficiency of the private sector. It needs to consider vulnerable SEND children and their educational needs. It needs to recognise the huge financial risks of franchising and municipal bus ownership, and to provide appropriate oversight and support. Most importantly, it needs a Government who are prepared to think again in Committee and be open to improvements to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Minister, can I just remind Members—I appreciate that I am largely preaching to the choir here—that they are expected to attend for the wind-ups when they have spoken in a debate. Today, many Members have not had the opportunity to be called, but have sat here throughout; perhaps they will point that out to their colleagues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I thank all Members for their participation in today’s lively debate, spanning across the House. I do not intend to take interventions due to time, and out of courtesy to Members who have spoken already, I intend to respond as best as I can. I would like, first of all, to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) a very happy birthday. This Bill was indeed a birthday surprise just for her!
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out why the Government have introduced this important Bill. Buses are the country’s most popular form of public transport, making up to 58% of all public transport trips in England in 2023. They connect people to opportunities and to jobs they would not otherwise be able to take, and they give freedom to those otherwise facing isolation. Yet despite all this, many communities have experienced the familiar pattern of bus services being cut and fares going up, with the deregulation of buses in the 1980s leaving local areas with few options. We understand that local leaders are best placed to make decisions about how to improve bus services in their areas, and through this Bill we are giving them the tools to do so. We have engaged with stakeholders in developing these measures, and implementation will give us a further opportunity to engage on the detail of implementation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) and the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) spoke about franchising. To make decisions effectively, local leaders need all possible options on the table, and that includes bus franchising. Franchising allows local transport authorities to take control of bus services by determining the routes, service specification and performance targets for operators.
Greater Manchester, the first area in England outside of London to franchise, has seen notable successes so far with punctuality and patronage up across the network, but I recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to franchising. Different models, such as the Jersey model, may suit rural areas better. The Government are determined to put power over local services back in the hands of local leaders across England. That is why the Department recently allocated over £700 million of bus grants to local transport authorities in 2025-26.
I want to address the comments made about the cost of franchising for Greater Manchester. According to data from Transport for Greater Manchester, franchising was delivered on time and to the agreed budget of £134.5 million. That included the whole process, including the acquisition of assets like bus depots. Let us be clear: without the changes made in Greater Manchester under franchising, the bus network would be smaller, less attractive to passengers and more expensive to run and use.
A number of hon. Members referred to socially necessary local services and rural services. Transport authorities that provide their services under an enhanced partnership agreement will need to identify socially necessary local services in their area and include them in their enhanced partnership. Local transport authorities will need to consider the alternative options that are available to mitigate the negative impact on bus users, including demand responsive bus services and community transport, which may work better for rural areas. By increasing the level of transparency around decision making on route changes and requiring consideration of alternative arrangements, the impact of any changes to bus networks will be fully assessed.
The issue of rural services is an important one. As I mentioned before, no one-size-fits-all solution exists. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, and it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their area.
The hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Orpington and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) referred to the fare cap. The Secretary of State set out that the Government have confirmed over £1 billion of funding to support and improve bus services in England and to keep fares affordable. We also took the first step towards consolidating bus funding by bringing together funding for bus service improvements and supporting services under one authority bus grant for the first time. My officials will work with stakeholders to develop and implement a new bus grant allocation for future funding. I ultimately want to create a fairer and simpler formula for bus funding that takes into account local needs.
A number of hon. Members raised important points about accessibility and floating bus stops. The Government are committed to safe and accessible bus transport. The matter was debated in great detail in the other place, and the Government fully appreciate the concerns raised about the accessibility of floating bus stops. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and that design features will be incorporated that promote their personal safety. We know more needs to be done to make these installations accessible for all. The Department is working with Active Travel England and Transport for London to provide further guidance and undertake research to address gaps in the evidence base.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) mentioned the innovative zero emission buses being produced here in the UK. This Government are supportive of the efforts and innovation of UK manufacturers, from which about 60% of zero emission bus regional area—ZEBRA—funded buses are typically procured.
In March, I chaired the first UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which brings together industry experts and local leaders to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus manufacturing. Moreover, the Government are supportive of bus repowering as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses. I commit to write to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock on the eligibility of those buses for the MHCLG funding that he mentioned.
This Bill is about choice—choice for local leaders to decide how their bus networks can best serve local people. It is a passenger-first approach. I think a picture paints 1,000 words, and the picture of the Conservatives tells me that they do not really care about buses. The Bill is a critical part of the Government’s bus reform agenda. I thank all those who contributed to today’s debate, which has been wide-ranging and a useful opportunity to discuss the important issues. I look forward to continuing the discussion in Committee—perhaps with a few more Opposition Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8 July 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to aconclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—( Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Parking enforcement measures on Hurstcroft Road and Eddish Road in the constituency of Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents living on Hurstcroft Road and Eddish Road. They have had to endure years of inconsiderate parkers blocking their drives and, in some instances, directing their abuse and frustrations at residents. This is grossly unfair to my constituents. My constituent Dana Ali stated that the behaviour of the road users around the school has caused great distress and inconvenience to many on the road. That is why the petitioners
“request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with both West Midlands Police, and Birmingham City Council, to set out greater enforcement for parking violations around Lea Forest Academy, on Hurstcroft Road, and Eddish Road.
And the petitioners remain, etc..”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents on Hurstcroft Road and Eddish Road, B33
Declares that West Midlands Police, in collaboration with Birmingham City Council, must seek to address the persistent parking offences around Lea Forest Academy School, between the hours of 8AM-9AM, and 2:30PM and 3:30PM, to help improve the wellbeing and lives of local residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with both West Midlands Police, and Birmingham City Council, to set out greater enforcement for parking violations around Lea Forest Academy, on Hurstcroft Road, and Eddish Road.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003076]
Arms and Military Cargo Export Controls: Israel
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I rise to speak about British arms and military cargo export controls—specifically, our exports to Israel amid one of the most devastating conflicts in modern memory. “It’s horrific. Gaza has become a slaughterhouse. That’s what it is: a slaughterhouse.” Those are the words of Tom Potokar, a British doctor working in Khan Yunis, as he urged world leaders to “stop talking and do something”.
Since 7 October, Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians. As a father, the thought of the loss of a single child is heartbreaking; the estimate of more than 50,000 children killed or injured in the Gaza strip is inconceivable. Yet despite the scale of this destruction, our Government have continued to export weapons to Israel, without pause, without transparency and without apparent regard for international humanitarian law. Despite the UK Government suspending around 30 of 350 export licences in September 2024, a new report, “Exposing UK arms exports to Israel” uses data from the Israel Tax Authority to reveal the sheer volume that we continue to send.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
A report in The Guardian last month suggested that despite the suspension of key arms export licences to Israel back in September, UK firms have exported thousands of military items, including munitions, to Israel.
Warinder Juss
The exports have included items such as bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely conceivable that those weapons have been used to kill and maim children in Gaza, and therefore the only humane and reasonable option is for us to suspend all arms export licences to Israel, and ensure that no British manufactured munitions are going to Netanyahu’s Israel?
Steve Witherden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is easy for me to respond to—yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Since October 2023 there have been at least 14 shipments of military goods from the UK to Israel. Those include over 8,500 munitions, bombs, grenades, missiles, and 146 armoured vehicle parts. In October 2023 alone, the UK exported 150,000 bullets.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Since October 2023, analysis by Action on Armed Violence identified more than 500 RAF-linked flights from Akrotiri to Israeli airspace. While described as “reconnaissance”, the Ministry of Defence refuses to confirm whether any carried military cargo. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister must confirm without delay the exact purpose of those flights? Have any of them transported military equipment to support Israel? Has the UK conducted surveillance over Gaza, and has any intelligence been used with the Israel Defence Forces? If RAF assets were operating during such incidents, is there not clear evidence of serious international humanitarian law violations, and a duty to share all relevant intelligence with the International Criminal Court without delay?
Steve Witherden
That is something I will touch on later in my speech, but I also hope that we will be getting some answers on those exact points in due course. Between October and December 2024 this Labour Government approved £127.6 million in single-issue arms licences to Israel, which is more than the total approved from 2020 to 2023 combined. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) was accused of “sensationalism” for highlighting that to the Foreign Secretary, but these are the Government’s own figures. Included in that total is £60 million in incorporation licences, up from just £2 million in the previous quarter. That prompts the question: why have single and incorporation licences surged both since we took office, and after the so-called suspension? Open licences are not included in those figures, meaning that the true scale of UK military exports to Israel remains unknown and unaccountable. The report also exposes that despite pledging to halt F-35 part shipments directly to Israel, evidence suggests that the UK continues supplying crucial components. These jets, 15% British made, fuel relentless attacks on Gaza, registering over 15,000 flight hours since October 2023, and dropping bombs that kill hundreds of people indiscriminately.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
One horrific example of why we must stop supplying the parts for the F-35 fighter jets is the al-Mawasi attack last July. F-35s dropped 2,000 lb bombs on a designated safe zone in Gaza, killing 90 civilians and injuring 300. The use of such powerful munitions in densely populated areas is clearly a violation of international humanitarian law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) said, key parts of the F-35s that carried out that attack may well have come from Britain; they clearly have done in other attacks. If we want to avoid any complicity in such Israeli war crimes, do we not need to stop these exports immediately?
Steve Witherden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am very glad that the al-Mawasi attack has been mentioned and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments he expressed.
Freedom of information data reveals that the F-35 open general export licence was used 14 times to export to Israel in 2023—three times as much as in any other year. Israel is heavily reliant on F-35s for its attack on Gaza and is expanding its fleet. Without UK components, those jets could not fly.
The latest report from the Palestinian Youth Movement further details the F-35 supply chain. It shows that subassemblies and parts for F35s, including those used for repairs and maintenance, are all “logged and documented”, and that the global supply chain for the US-run F-35 maintenance programme has “robust traceability”. Therefore, the Government’s claim that it is impossible to halt supplies of F-35 components to Israel without undermining the global F-35 supply chain does not stand up to scrutiny. That raises serious questions around the UK’s legal duty to prevent genocide, yet the weapons continue to flow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does the hon. Member share my concern that some equipment, such as drone engines, may be being exported to Israel without the need for export licences and are potentially getting into the hands of military organisations, perhaps not directly to drop bombs but to engage in other military activity, such as providing reconnaissance and decoys? Does he support requiring all exported items that can be used within a military conflict zone to have a full licence, so that the public know exactly where UK businesses are engaging?
Steve Witherden
The hon. Member raises some really important points and I am in agreement with her intervention.
When reviewing arms export licences to Israel, the UK must also consider violations across the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the west bank, where Palestinians face home demolitions, forcible displacement and settler violence—actions breaching the fourth Geneva convention and risking UK legal obligations under the arms export criteria.
The Foreign Secretary’s recent condemnation of Israel’s actions as “monstrous” was welcome but incomplete, because the very same Government continue to facilitate such actions. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot condemn atrocity while simultaneously fuelling the machinery that enables it. We cannot claim to uphold international law while profiting from its breach. I urge the Minister to respond fully—not with platitudes but with clarity, honesty and, above all, accountability.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I spoke to him beforehand and he gave me permission to intervene. He will understand the need to bring an end to this war and to bring hope to the children of the region. However, will he acknowledge that Israel is still under daily attack and cannot be left without any means to defend itself from those who hide among civilian targets? We must ensure that actions taken here do not simply reset the gauge of casualties.
Steve Witherden
I agree with the hon. Member that all countries have the right to defend themselves. I have condemned the vile events of 7 October in other places, and do so again here. All countries have the right to defend themselves, but no country has the right to commit war crimes.
Despite the International Court of Justice’s ruling that there is a “plausible risk of genocide” in Gaza, the UK continues to authorise arms exports to Israel, making us in potential breach of our obligations under the genocide convention, the Geneva conventions and the arms trade treaty.
In the hearing of Al-Haq v. Secretary of State for Business and Trade, it was revealed that the Government decided there was no serious risk of genocide back in July 2024, yet in Parliament we are told that the Government are waiting on a court determination. In court, we are told that it is not for the courts to decide, as those treaties are not incorporated into domestic law and are Parliament’s responsibility. If it is not Parliament or the courts, who are the Government accountable to for the decision to continue to transfer arms to Israel, potentially breaching international law and facilitating a genocide? Will the Government publish their most recent assessment of the risk that Israel is committing genocide?
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for his very powerful speech, and I echo his call for the Government to publish their most recent assessment of the risk of genocide. Does he agree that it makes a mockery of our obligation under international law to prevent genocide if our Government say that they can only judge it after genocide has been conclusively proven in court to have happened? Does our obligation to act to prevent genocide not mean that we should stop all arms exports to the Israeli Government now, in the face of the clear evidence of war crimes and, indeed, genocide occurring in Gaza?
Steve Witherden
I am in especial agreement on the importance of preventing those things. I am very eager, as I am sure the hon. Member is, to hear from the Minister in relation to those comments.
Let us turn to the Government’s own assessments. In the same hearing, it was revealed that by September ’24, Israel had launched tens of thousands of air strikes and killed more than 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza. The public are being told to trust our judgment on the weapons that this country is sending to a state conducting a genocide. This is the same Government who, after reviewing 413 incidents, determined that only 0.5% of them potentially violated international humanitarian law. Not a single incident involving only the deaths of Palestinians was deemed even possibly unlawful.
While the Foreign Secretary repeatedly talks about the UK’s “robust” licensing regime, the reality is that British export data is notoriously opaque. Can the Government confirm whether they have reached a new assessment since September? If so, can they disclose it to the public? If the Government are truly confident in the legality of their exports, will they publish custom codes, product descriptions and a full paper trail from sender to end user? Would this level of opacity be tolerated if it were British civilians under the rubble?
We are repeatedly told that the UK arms exports are “defensive in nature”, reduced to nothing more than “a helmet or goggles”, but let us be clear: the Government have never defined what “defensive” means, especially when exports include components for F-35 fighter jets capable of dropping 2,000-lb bombs on densely populated areas. Since September 2024, there has been no evidence that UK exports were limited to non-lethal equipment or that they were not intended for use in Gaza. The Government do not claim that it is too difficult to track where these weapons end up; instead, they invoke vague concerns about “international peace and security”, as though suspending exports to Israel would somehow endanger global stability, including support for Ukraine, but that is a false dichotomy. Palestinian lives are not less valuable.
The F-35 programme is one of the most sophisticated supply chains on earth. If we wanted to, we could track every part. The real question is: do we want to? How do the Government define a weapon as defensive? What precisely makes an F-35 component defensive? Is it the Government’s position that the need to continue to supply F-35 components outweighs the risk of genocide? If so, is there any circumstance that would lead to the UK stopping that supply? The Government have claimed that there are red lines that would trigger a halt to exports, but Gaza is already a slaughterhouse. Children are emaciated or dying of hunger, hospitals have been intentionally destroyed and Israel’s leaders vow to wipe out Gaza, and still the weapons flow, so finally, Minister, where is our red line? I call on this Government to suspend all arms exports to Israel, to ensure that no British-made weapons are used in Israel’s brutal plans to annex, starve and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. The credibility of this House depends not just on what we condemn, but on what we enable, and history will remember that we enabled too much.
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I am responding on this issue on behalf of the Government tonight, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) for securing this important and timely debate. Let me address the House this evening by first setting out the Government’s policy, and then setting out our approach to transparency, which formed a key part of my hon. Friend’s contribution.
It is accepted on all sides of this House that, as the Government have made clear, what was witnessed on 7 October 2023 was not an act of liberation, but an act of barbarism by Hamas. Over the many months of this conflict, the UK Government have made the case for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all the hostages detained, the protection of civilians, access for aid and aid workers to Gaza, and the need for a path to long-term peace and security in the region. The responsibility of Hamas is clear, but so too is the appalling humanitarian crisis that has since unfolded in Gaza as a result of Israel’s subsequent actions. The way in which Israel is conducting its operations is indefensible, disproportionate, and—in the view of the UK Government—counterproductive to any lasting peace settlement.
The Government’s policy remains that the only way to secure peace and stability is through an immediate ceasefire, the release of the hostages held captive by Hamas, the protection of civilians, and the lifting of all Israeli restrictions on aid being sent into Gaza. Last month, at the United Nations Security Council, the UK Government made the case for urgent humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, and expressed our outrage at both the killing of Palestinian Red Crescent workers and the strikes on the UN Office for Project Services compound in March. We also issued a statement with 27 international partners on the mechanisms needed to deliver those vital aid supplies, and together with the leaders of France and Canada, we made clear our strong opposition to the latest expansion of Israel’s military operations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Alexander
Let me make a little progress, and then I will be open to interventions.
I turn next to the actions taken by this Government in support of those statements. We have supported the restoration of funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; we have suspended arms licences; we provided £129 million in humanitarian assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the last financial year; and we have decided to suspend negotiations on the upgraded free trade agreement with this Israeli Government.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In the week before last, the Foreign Secretary said that we were suspending arms negotiations with the Israeli Government, yet just last week, we had a trade envoy—Lord Austin—visiting Israel and saying how wonderful it was to be there. Can the Minister please explain how those two matters do not contradict each other?
Mr Alexander
There are long-standing relationships of trade and economics with Israel—for instance, as I understand it, one in eight of the prescribed drugs available through the national health service is provided by an Israeli company. We have taken a clear position of not upgrading the free trade agreement but recognising, for example, that those supplies are important. The trade envoy roles are accountable to the Secretary of State in the Department for Business and Trade, and we were clear that Lord Austin would not directly deal with the Israeli Government when he was there and has no responsibility for the free trade agreement negotiations that otherwise would have been taking place in the coming months.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Alexander
Let me make a little more progress, then I will be happy to take further interventions.
I will turn to the specific issue of export licences. On coming into office, the Foreign Secretary commissioned an immediate assessment into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. On the basis of that assessment, on 2 September, we suspended arms export licences for items to the Israel Defence Forces that could be used in military operations in Gaza.
As a result of that decision, licences were suspended for a range of military equipment, stopping the export of F-16 fighter aircraft components, of targeting systems and of licensable parts that make unmanned aerial vehicles. That measure is still in place. I reiterate that based on our current assessment of potential breaches of international humanitarian law, we are not licensing military equipment provided directly to the IDF that could be used for military operations in Gaza.
It is right to acknowledge that our export licences granted in relation to Israel cover a wider remit than simply those items that may be used in Gaza. There are a relatively small number of licences for the IDF relating to equipment that we assess would not be used in the current conflict, including, for example, parts for air defence systems that defend Israel from acts such as the major aerial attack from Iran in April 2024.
We also think it is right to continue to provide military grade body armour used by non-governmental organisations and journalists, and to provide parts of the supply chain that are ultimately re-exported out of Israel to support the defence of our NATO allies. The Government are fully committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law, and have acted in a manner consistent with our legal obligations, including under the arms trade treaty and the genocide convention.
On the global F-35 programme, we are of course facing a critical moment of European security, with war on the continent at our neighbours’ doorsteps. Undermining the F-35 programme at this juncture would, in the Government’s view, disrupt international peace and security, NATO deterrence and European defence as a whole.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Alexander
Let me finish the explanation, then I will be happy to take interventions.
Our exporters provide components for the F-35 aircraft to a global spares pool and the common production line for new aircraft, where they have no sight and no control over the specific ultimate end users for their exports. Put plainly, it is not possible to suspend licensing of F-35 components for use by one F-35 nation without ceasing supply to the entire global F-35 programme. It was therefore judged necessary by the Government to exclude F-35 components from the scope of the suspension.
Let me be very clear, however, that the UK Government are not selling F-35 components directly to the Israeli authorities. The licence that allows the export of F-35 components was amended in September to specifically make it clear that direct shipments to Israel for use in Israel are not permitted.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) mentioned the Government’s red lines. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade said that there were red lines that would make the Government stop sending F-35 parts, but the Minister has just been clear that it is not possible to stop sending those parts. If the Secretary of State says that there are red lines—and how are we not at those red lines, given what is happening in Gaza—what exactly is going on?
Mr Alexander
We are not directly sending parts to Israel for the F-35s. We are continuing to support the global component pool of the F-35 programme for the reason that I have set out. We as a Government judge that there is a material risk to the security of our NATO allies, and more broadly to European security, if the F-35 aircraft that are used by a number of our allies were no longer able to secure the supplies and the aircraft were therefore no longer able to fly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to understand who is making the rules about the spare parts pool. Surely if we are trading into that pool, we have a right to set the rules. If those components are going on to F-35s that are being bought by Israel, we have a right to block those parts or to kick Israel out, as we did with Turkey in 2019.
Mr Alexander
We make approximately 15% of the components that contribute to the F-35 programme; it is an international programme of which we are but one partner. We continue to supply the programme because our judgment as a Government is that not doing so would undermine the continuing functioning of the programme, which is in the Government’s view, as I say, of critical importance to European and global security.
Mr Alexander
I have given way several times on that point, so I am keen to make some progress. The Government have made these judgments calmly and soberly, and will continue to do so with full awareness of our responsibility.
Let me now turn to the question of transparency. As the UK Government, we publish quarterly official statistics and an annual report about export licences granted and refused. We provide a searchable database allowing users to produce bespoke reports, drawing on this data, and we are committed to openness on strategic export licensing, which provides the means for Parliament and the public to hold us to account.
Mr Alexander
I am keen to make a little more progress before I take further interventions.
Because these are exceptional circumstances, the Government have heard requests from Members on both sides of the House for us to release further details, including information on licence applications in progress, and as full information as we can disclose on the types of equipment that are covered by each extant licence. Recognising the exceptional nature of this issue and the importance of providing transparent and robust information to ensure that Parliament and the public can hold the Government to account, in December we laid in the Library of the House an exceptional release of export licensing data focused specifically on Israel, setting out plainly how many licences remained extant at that time, how many had been granted since June 2024, and how many had been refused.
In summarising that release, let me assure Members that remaining licences relate to non-military items, military items for civilian use, or items not for use in military operations in Gaza. These licences also extend to components in items for re-export to other countries—that is, those that then leave Israel. Ongoing licensing applications are also decided on that basis. In fact, of the 352 licences extant for Israel, as of 6 December 191 were non-military. They included commercial aircraft components, equipment for private manufacturing firms, and parts for submersible vessels for use in scientific research. That left 161 licences relating to military equipment. However, less than half those related to the Government of Israel or the IDF. Most related either to UK components that private Israeli companies would incorporate before re-exporting an item to a third country, or to military-grade equipment for civilians such as body armour for journalists and NGOs.
I can advise the House that recent reporting on this topic does not provide distinctions between items for civilian and for military use, or between items remaining in Israel and those for re-export. The UK is not allowing the direct export of arms for use in Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
Richard Burgon
The Minister is giving a detailed response, but may I return him to the issue of the international pool of F-35 spares? Is it the Government’s contention that a conditional licence is impossible—that is, that we could provide F-35 spares, but on the basis that they are not then sent to Israel to be used in Gaza?
Mr Alexander
I am acutely conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The exclusion from the suspension decision for F-35 components should not, in principle, apply to licences for F-35 components that could be identified as going to Israel for use by Israel. Exports of F-35 components directly to Israel are therefore suspended unless they are for re-export.
Let me return to the specific point that I know has been the subject of much scrutiny in relation to recent reporting outside the House. The majority of military licences approved last year are for components of military items for re-export to third countries, including the UK’s NATO allies, of about £142 million-worth of military goods licensed for Israel and in 2024. The vast majority of that overall value was supporting the production of items for use outside Israel. That includes more than £120 million, or about 85% of the total licence value, for components to support exports of military items from Israeli companies to a single programme for a NATO ally.
These remaining licences have no utility in military operations in Gaza. The suspension of such licences was not required by our export licence criteria, and would have done nothing but harm UK companies and UK businesses engaged in authorised and legal trade. Since September, we have refused all licence applications for military goods that might be used by Israel in the current conflict in line with the suspension decision. More applications were refused in 2024 than in the preceding four years combined.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Hub and Spoke Dispensing etc.) Regulations 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Hub and Spoke Dispensing etc.) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. These regulations amend the Medicines Act 1968 and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to enable hub and spoke dispensing for pharmacies and dispensing doctors that are not within the same legal entity.
Pharmacies play a vital role in our healthcare system, ensuring that patients have access to medicines and acting as an easily accessible front door to our NHS. This Government recognise the importance of community pharmacies and are committed to supporting the sector. That is why we have increased the core contract for community pharmacy funding to £3.073 billion, with the deal representing the largest uplift in funding for any part of the NHS in 2025-26—over 19% across 2024-25 and 2025-26.
Community pharmacies work hard for the NHS and the patients they serve. In England alone they dispense around 1.1 billion NHS medicines every year, and that number grows year on year. Dispensing of a medicine is not just handing out a package, but covers a number of processes: the receipt of a prescription; clinical and accuracy checks to ensure the prescribed medicine regime is suitable and safe for the patient; sourcing and buying the medicines on behalf of the NHS; the preparation, assembly and supply of medicines; and advising patients to ensure they know how and when to take the medicine. It is complex and important work.
As the number of prescriptions rises, we need to support our pharmacists to focus on the provision of advice and support to patients in order to optimise their use of the medicines on which the NHS spends nearly £10 billion in primary care each and every year. That is why the Government have introduced these regulations to allow all pharmacies, should they choose, to make use of hub and spoke dispensing.
In hub and spoke dispensing, the routine elements of dispensing—such as sourcing products, the preparation and assembly of medicines, and labelling—take place on a large scale in a hub pharmacy, separate from the pharmacy at which the prescription was handed in, which is the spoke. There are typically many spokes to one hub. Existing hubs often make use of automated processes to realise economies of scale and increased efficiencies. Not all pharmacy businesses are able to invest in their own hub, and businesses are currently not able to engage a hub that they do not own. The Government propose changes that would level the playing field in community pharmacy by enabling all pharmacies and dispensing doctors to use hub and spoke dispensing, if they choose.
Hub and spoke arrangements already exist in the UK, but the 1968 Act restricts their use to community pharmacies that are part of the same legal entity. That has limited the use of hub and spoke arrangements to the larger pharmacy chains. The proposed changes to the 1968 Act and the 2012 regulations will remove that legal restriction and allow all pharmacies, including small independents and dispensing doctors, to utilise the arrangement as and when best suits them, levelling the playing field and cutting red tape.
We propose to amend the 2012 regulations and the 1968 Act using the powers in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. The amendments go beyond simply removing the barrier that currently limits hub and spoke dispensing to pharmacies within the same legal entity, and they include additional elements to ensure the policy’s safe and effective implementation by putting in place provisions to ensure accountability, governance and transparency for patients.
We propose to amend the 1968 Act to remove the restriction that prevents a medicine from being sold or supplied from a different pharmacy from the one at which it was dispensed, unless those pharmacies belong to the same legal entity, and to remove section 131 of the Act, which covers the definitions of wholesale dealing, retail sale and related expressions. The definitions of those terms will now be those found in the 2012 regulations to ensure clarity across the legislation.
The proposed changes to the 2012 regulations create a new model of hub and spoke dispensing. They establish a framework for the sharing of patient information between the hub and the spokes and set the following criteria for the newly permitted arrangements. Both a hub and a spoke must be pharmacies registered with the pharmacy regulator. There must be written arrangements between any hub and spoke that must include a comprehensive statement about their responsibilities to ensure that each party is clear about the process and activities for which they are responsible. The medicine label must include the name and address only of the spoke so that patients know where to address any questions about their medicines. The spoke must conspicuously display a notice on its premises and its online presence about hub and spoke dispensing arrangements, where they are in use.
The changes also establish an information gateway that includes conditions for lawful sharing of relevant patient data between the different legal entities that operate hub and spoke arrangements. There is potential for this model to increase patient safety. Evidence shows that, where businesses have implemented hub and spoke systems with tracking technology, automated systems in the hub have had a dispensing error rate six times lower than manual processes.
During the consultation on the proposals in 2022, respondents shared evidence suggesting that the working environment in both the hub and the spoke can be calmer and more focused, reducing some of the stresses on our valued pharmacy workforce. Providing space and time at the spoke gives staff more time to deal with complex issues and carry out patient-facing work, including explaining to patients how to get the best outcomes from their prescribed medicines.
All the amendments will come into force in October 2025. They will apply across the UK, and the timescale allows time for secondary legislation to be amended, as appropriate, across the four nations. It also gives the pharmacy sector time to explore the relevance of the new hub and spoke arrangement.
I hope I have explained the rationale behind amending the 2012 regulations and the 1968 Act to enable hub and spoke dispensing arrangements across different legal entities. I commend the regulations to the Committee, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting them.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
I will not go through everything the Minister set out, but we are amending the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medicines Act 1968 to enable hub and spoke dispensing.
The regulations before the Committee will improve seven key areas. They will enable cross-business outsourcing; clarify the legal definitions of wholesale dealing and retail sale; extend outsourcing to NHS GPs; establish hub and spoke frameworks, legally defining what the hub and spoke model is and enabling hubs to assemble medicines; tighten up labelling and information rules; introduce data-sharing provisions; and clarify premises-based supply.
The pros of doing that, and the reason why the previous Government were introducing legislation to do so, is that it will provide efficiency gains, improve access, modernise the legislation, and improve patient safety and data protection. There are some cons and concerns, however, particularly regarding the complexity of implementation and whether pharmacies will need to invest in new systems. There are data privacy risks, as the world is seeing an increasing number of cyber-attacks, which is a concern as we are adding more areas for data sharing. In addition, the regulatory ambiguity resulting from removing definitions from the 1968 Act may cause initial confusion during the transition.
Between 16 March and 8 June 2022, the previous Government consulted on legislative proposals to allow pharmacies and dispensing doctors to access hub and spoke dispensing models. Two different models were proposed:
“Model 1 is where the patient presents a prescription to the spoke. The spoke then sends the relevant information on to the hub so that they can carry out their agreed dispensing actions. The hub then sends these dispensed medicines back to the spoke, which may have further responsibilities to perform such as providing advice on the medicine to the patient, before supplying them to the patient.
In model 2, the same pathway is followed in that the patient presents a prescription to the spoke, which then sends the relevant information to the hub. The hub then assembles and prepares the medicine before supplying the completed order directly to the patient.”
On Monday 13 May 2024, shortly before the general election was called just over a year ago, the previous Government published a response to the consultation. The majority of respondents, being medium and larger pharmacy chains, representative sector organisations and other related businesses, supported the proposals. However, a majority of individuals, smaller pharmacies and independent pharmacies did not support the policy change.
At the time, the proposed next step was to make several amendments to the 2012 regulations, including the creation of two new models: spoke-hub-spoke and spoke-hub-patient. The previous Government intended to lay a final statutory instrument before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly with a view to the legislation coming into force on 1 January 2025. However, because of the election, that statutory instrument was not laid.
The Minister reiterated this Government’s position in response to a question from the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall):
“A wide range of community pharmacies and representative organisations fed into the public consultation on hub and spoke reform, and I am pleased to confirm that their responses were overwhelmingly positive in support of model 1 of hub and spoke, which we will be going with.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 774.]
There are two problems here—the implementation and the principle—and I will take them in turn.
The impact assessment, which was updated in April 2025, found uncertainty about the potential costs of establishing the hubs, the operating costs and the level of uptake of hub and spoke dispensing. Paragraph 78 stated:
“It has not been possible to determine the initial set up costs for hubs, due to the variety of different hub solutions and because we do not have a concrete assessment of the number and types of hubs that might open due to this policy.”
Paragraph 136 said:
“The key uncertainties in this IA are around the level of take up of hub and spoke arrangements and the net level of savings to dispensing costs that could arise”.
And paragraph 137 said:
“Ultimately hubs are private businesses who would need to conduct their own analysis and research into the level of market interest when deciding how much to invest in building hub capacity.”
In the light of that, can the Minister tell us whether there will be any further funding to implement this change? How will he record data on uptake and changes? And what incentive is there for businesses to take this up? Will it be mandated? Given the abolition of NHS England, where will the data be collated, who will collate it, and when will it be published?
I have now addressed the practical part, so I will now focus the Committee’s attention on the other part. The previous Government proposed to take forward both models: model 1, which was patient-spoke-hub-spoke-patient; and model 2, which was patient-spoke-hub-patient. I have been contacted on the latter by Pharmacy2U, which is the largest online distance-selling pharmacy.
Every month, Pharmacy2U dispenses more than 3 million items directly to the homes of 1.5 million customers, so it offers an alternative for patients. It asks why there was no formal consultation on the changes from the previous Government’s position, whether Ministers had considered whether this change excludes the perspectives of distance-selling pharmacies, and what the expected impact of excluding model 2 will be.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a registered pharmacist, and previously a superintendent pharmacist of a distance-selling pharmacy. Although it is great to hear the hon. Member refer to distance-selling pharmacies in this august place, I remind him that he is representing the views of only one, admittedly large, distance-selling pharmacy, and that there is perhaps a wider range of views among distance-selling pharmacies.
Dr Evans
Of course, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, with his august history as a pharmacist. My job in the Opposition is to raise these issues with Ministers for consideration. At the heart of my point is that, by choosing only one model and not offering two, we are closing down the opportunity for not only patients but businesses. If we want to invent in the NHS, that seems a bad way of doing it. It is why the last Government suggested that having a couple of models allows people to invest in, invigorate and improve our system, because otherwise, innovation will fall behind. That is at the heart of the questions I am posing to the Minister.
That leads me nicely on to my follow-up question. Does this mean that the Minister will choose not to introduce model 2? Is that likely to be in line in the future, and if so, when?
Those questions go to the principle of this. The last Government decided that there were two options to accommodate all different fields, be it dispensing GPs, community pharmacies, large-scale chemists and pharmacies or, indeed, distance-selling pharmacies. It is really important to take into account the whole environment we have in the health service. We will not divide the Committee, but we would like answers to those questions about the practicalities and policies behind the regulations.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I start by reminding the Committee again about my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes a number of pharmacy-related entries as a registered pharmacist, including my employment by PillTime prior to being elected to the House.
With that out of the way, may I say how genuinely thrilled I am to be here this evening? Although this may seem a very niche issue to many on the Committee, as a pharmacist for nearly 20 years, many of those spent in community pharmacy and latterly in online pharmacy, I can tell Members through first-hand experience of the difference that this legislation will make to thousands of community pharmacies struggling across the country.
Although I am incredibly thankful to the Government for finally unfreezing the funding settlement after a near decade-long squeeze under the Conservative Government, there remains great financial strain upon the sector and thus a clear need for modernisation to improve efficiencies. Innovation such as hub and spoke model 1 is how we enable that modernisation and unlock the efficiencies needed to ensure community pharmacy has a future. Having worked in pharmacies for the last two decades, I know the difference that implementing hub and spoke model 1 could quickly make to my fellow pharmacists not only in enabling greater efficiencies, but in creating the much-needed additional capacity to enable the delivery of Pharmacy First services. As we look at implementing the three big shifts, pharmacy has a clear role in delivering the preventive agenda, but it can only step up and fulfil that role if we give it the funding and capacity to do so.
In late March, Minister Kinnock ensured that community pharmacy received the largest uplift in funding across the whole of the NHS. Today, the Committee can deliver hub and spoke dispensing and thus create additional capacity. Having worked with innumerable stakeholders in the pharmacy sector to get this legislation moving again after its derailment last September, I can say with confidence that there is widespread support within the community pharmacy sector for hub and spoke model 1. It will finally provide the beloved village pharmacy a level playing field with the larger chains, which have been able to utilise these technologies for decades.
The benefits of the model extend far beyond the efficiency savings, with robust evidence of greater levels of patient safety by providing access to automation in the dispensing process. I thank the Minister for acting with haste greater than many in the sector expected when the implementation of hub and spoke was indefinitely delayed last September. Although I apologise for the interminable stream of letters, conversations in corridors and questions I have since sent his way, I am afraid I still have one more point that I would appreciate clarification on.
As I understand it, the VAT status of hub and spoke services is still to be explained. Could the Minister elaborate on what exactly the VAT status will be for any fees or charges between hub and spoke? From my understanding, it is currently treated as zero-rated,and there exists some uncertainty within the sector over whether that will still apply under model 1, and if not, what elements might be subjected to VAT and at a higher rate.
The Chair
It is worth noting that Members should refer to colleagues by their constituency, as opposed to their name, even when they are an august Minister.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.
The regulation of medicines is a reserved matter for England, Wales and Scotland, but a devolved matter for Northern Ireland. The amendments aim to enable the same opportunities for hub and spoke provision across the whole of the Union, and as a former Northern Ireland Health Minister, I welcome that step. When I was Minister, I published and stood over the Northern Ireland community pharmacy strategic plan 2030, which aimed to maintain and modernise systems for the safe and reliable supply of medicines and professional advice from community pharmacies.
In that regard, I have a question for the Minister. The decision has been made to enable only model 1 hub and spoke arrangements at this stage and then to revisit model 2 once the model 1 arrangements have been established. I notice that the consultation responses raise significant concerns about model 2. They outline the potential to undermine the relationship between pharmacies and patients, as well as the risks in sharing accountability for the supply of medicines and risks to patient safety. Although the spoke and hub model covers the supply of medicines, there is a danger of losing the professional advice that community pharmacists can supply to patients, which takes pressure off our health service and others. Before there is any further progress on model 2, which will be a devolved issue in Northern Ireland, will there be further engagement with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, the chief pharmaceutical officer and community pharmacy representative organisations?
Stephen Kinnock
I will endeavour to answer all the questions that have been asked, but there may well be some that I am not able to. I will be more than happy to write to hon. Members accordingly.
Let me say a word on the rationale for choosing model 1. The main driver was the view that the most important aspect is the interface between the pharmacist and the patient. We felt that the spoke-to-hub-to-spoke-to-patient model best ensured the connection, at high street level, between the pharmacist and the patient, whereas the spoke-to-hub-to-hub-to-patient model would somewhat cut the high street pharmacist out of the loop. That was a balanced judgment—it was not a slam dunk.
That leads on to one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, which was about whether the Government are still open to looking at model 2. We certainly keep things under review, and we want to see how model 1 goes. If there is a feeling that it needs to be reviewed, we would be happy to do so. However, as things stand, we do not have any plans to do anything other than go with model 1, for the reason that I set out.
The hon. Member also asked about further funding. We have set out a pretty substantial uplift— £3.073 billion—for the pharmacy sector. We are hopeful that that will go some way to easing the tremendous pressures that the sector is facing. We also feel that the hub and spoke model will drive productivity, which we hope will enable pharmacies to do more with less. That will be a good way to address some of the funding challenges.
On recording data and where the data will be held, I will write to the hon. Member. I do not have that technical information to hand.
On the incentives, we are clear that this is a flexible business arrangement. All we have said is that we need to see set out in writing how the relationship between the hub and the spoke will work. That is in the draft regulations. Letting that business relationship work with the greatest possible flexibility—rather than trying to micromanage it too much with incentives set from the centre—is the best way for it to work. As I say, however, every time we will want the assurance of a clear written relationship between the two.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset for his kind words. I have absolutely welcomed his relentless lobbying during various Divisions over the past few months—I promise him that is the truth and nothing but the truth. On VAT status, however, I will dodge the question, because of course decisions on VAT are the responsibility of His Majesty’s Treasury. I strongly encourage him to ask his question of my ministerial colleagues in the Treasury.
Finally, I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim for his engagement. We have had excellent engagement with his colleagues in the Northern Irish Government. He has my absolute, 100% assurance that we will continue that engagement and, given the time available, which I set out in my speech, we will ensure that all nations are able to take this legislation on board and make the necessary changes in a way that works for devolution and for the entire system across the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. The draft regulations were initially laid before the House on 11 March, but they were re-laid on 2 April to correct very minor drafting errors.
On 10 February, I made a statement to the House confirming that, following a public consultation, the Government intend to introduce short-term support for large-scale biomass generators to ensure the UK’s continued security of supply. As set out in our response to that consultation, legislative changes are needed to enable the Government to provide support to existing biomass generators through a new low-carbon dispatchable contract for difference. I stress that, while the draft regulations will allow for new support to be provided, the final decision will be taken following the conclusion of internal assessments and commercial negotiations, which are ongoing.
Before I cover the provisions of the draft regulations in more detail, I will briefly set out the Government’s position on large-scale biomass generation, which provides around 5% of the UK’s annual electricity generation. Current support for these generators under CfDs and the renewables obligation ends in 2027. It is critical to the Government that we maintain security of supply, even if that means making hard decisions.
I will briefly set out the range of factors that we considered before deciding whether to provide further support for these generators. First, we took analysis from the National Energy System Operator and concluded that, without further support for large-scale biomass, the country could face security of supply risks between 2027 and 2031. Relying on alternative options, such as newly built gas plants, to come online in that timeframe would carry significant risks. The Government will not take chances on our energy security. Secondly, we undertook comprehensive analysis of the costs of biomass against the alternatives. Our central projections show that, on the right terms and if playing a much more limited role in the system than today, biomass generation can be the lowest-cost option for bill payers during that period. Lastly, we will introduce strengthened sustainability requirements from the outset of any new agreement. Importantly, the draft regulations will also allow the sustainability measures to be enhanced throughout the duration of the contract, in line with the latest scientific evidence or global best practice.
Those factors represent a substantial shift from past arrangements on sustainability and value for money. However, we recognise the strength of concerns about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution. We are determined that, the next time these decisions are made, the Government will not be left in the circumstances that we were this time. We will therefore do the work that was not done by the previous Government to build strong and credible low-carbon alternatives, so that we have proper options in four years’ time.
During my oral statement earlier this year, I also confirmed that the Government had agreed heads of terms for a new CfD with Drax. The draft regulations will enable that CfD, if a final decision is taken to provide it, but they will also enable similar agreements with any other biomass generators. I remind the Committee that the draft regulations are about ensuring only that we have the option available to respond to security of supply needs and to deliver low-carbon electricity to the grid at the lowest cost to the consumer.
I know, however, that many Committee members are interested in the details of a potential agreement with Drax, the largest biomass generator in the UK. The proposed agreement with Drax would limit generation to times when the system and, in turn, consumers most require it. When renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate, and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead. That means that Drax will only be supported to operate less than half as often as it currently does.
As a result, the deal would halve the amount paid in subsidies, compared with existing arrangements—that is equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household in annual bills—and, when compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market, it would save consumers £170 million in subsidies each year. The agreement also introduces tough new measures on sustainability, and we will appoint an independent adviser to support the development of policy and practice in biomass sustainability and ensure that they keep pace with the emerging science and international landscape.
The draft regulations will amend the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014 such that a person is eligible for a CfD in respect of a “biomass station” where it is intended that the existing biomass station will continue to provide electricity. Simply put, this will enable a new low-carbon dispatchable CfD to be signed with existing biomass generators, which is not currently possible. As is the case today, the Low Carbon Contracts Company will be the counterparty to any new CfD.
The second part of the draft regulations relates to sustainability. The Government support the use only of sustainable biomass, and we continue to review sustainability requirements so that we can remain aligned with the latest evidence. The draft regulations will amend the Electricity Market Reform (General) Regulations 2014 to allow the Secretary of State to direct the LCCC to implement amendments relating to sustainability obligations within the new CfD. That will mean that the Government can make changes to sustainability requirements within the new contract, to ensure that they keep pace with the latest evidence.
Before I conclude, I want to thank the Public Accounts Committee for its review and report on wider biomass policy. My Department is carefully considering the contents of that report and will respond in due course.
The Government will do whatever it takes to deliver energy security and to protect bill payers now and into the future. The draft regulations support that commitment. They make the necessary amendments to enable support to be provided to biomass generators when existing schemes end in 2027. That will enable us to maintain the UK’s security of supply, deliver value for money for consumers and enhance sustainability requirements. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse, and pleased to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
Today we consider the Government’s plan to go on subsidising Drax. Drax is of course not mentioned in the draft regulations, and Ministers had hoped to sneak through this contract for difference without much scrutiny, but we have a responsibility to examine what is actually a very significant change to our country’s energy system. The draft regulations will push ahead with the Government’s four-year extension of the subsidy scheme for Drax, from 2027 to 2031. Such a major move is being made without proper debate or awareness of all the facts. Ministers and Drax itself have kept vital information hidden from scrutiny, covering up the true costs and business practices of the company.
Concern has been expressed about Drax in both Houses of Parliament in recent months. The Public Accounts Committee says that Ofgem allows Drax to “mark its own homework” when it comes to subsidy claims. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has criticised the Government for not sharing key documents about the true nature and cost of their dealings with Drax. Just a couple of months ago, the company was taken to court by a whistleblower who claimed that Drax had made attempts to “deliberately conceal” the unsustainable sources of its wood and
“had likely broken its legal obligations owed to its government funders”.
Thanks to the investigations by BBC “Panorama” and others, we know Drax’s behaviour has not been honest. Drax executives have been caught misleading the media, covering up reports and manipulating evidence. Ofgem fined Drax £25 million for inaccurately reporting data about its sources of wood. We have seen evidence that Drax sourced wood from primary forests in British Columbia and elsewhere. There is more than enough cause for many to doubt the ethical integrity of Drax and whether it should receive more public money.
Before presenting the draft regulations to the House, Ministers should have done their due diligence and published this evidence, so I ask the Minister these questions. When will we see the legal documents associated with the recent court case? When will we see the 2022 KPMG report on Drax’s accounts, which the Prime Minister said on the Floor of the House he would look at? When will we see the Ofgem audit? When will we see the NESO modelling justifying the extension of the subsidy scheme?
The Chair
Order. Mentioning Drax as a company is not within the scope of the legislation in front of us.
Nick Timothy
Forgive me, Mrs Hobhouse, although the main recipient of the subsidy that we are talking about is Drax itself.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Anna Turley)
We are debating the legislation, not a company.
Nick Timothy
The Government Whip could stand and refer to the names of the companies in receipt of the subsidies, if she so wishes.
Anna Turley
We are discussing the legislation; that is the point of principle, and that is why the Clerk has intervened.
Nick Timothy
And, as I say, the main recipient of the public subsidy will be Drax.
When will we see the NESO modelling justifying the extension of this subsidy scheme? When will the Government publish details of their new sustainability criteria and means of enforcement to ensure that biomass is properly sourced?
The Minister should also answer why the Department only sought the advice of the Subsidy Advice Unit on its plans last Friday, knowing that we would be voting on the draft regulations today. The SAU is now running a two-week consultation and will not publish its report until 10 July. There should not be a vote on extending the subsidy until Parliament and the public have been able to examine thoroughly the SAU’s findings. These are big questions that should have been answered before the draft regulations were debated.
Beyond those concerns, we must also ask ourselves whether subsidising companies like Drax is good energy policy. The evidence shows that it is clearly not. The company that I have been discussing is an expensive white elephant for which we have been paying ever since the Energy Secretary first held his post back in 2009. Since the ramp-up that he authorised, the company has cut down 300 million trees, six times more than in the entire New Forest. The company has received £6.5 billion of public subsidy. In the nonsensical world of net zero, it has been classed as clean energy, but it is far from being a source of clean energy. It is a plant for burning wood imported from forests across the world. As new forests are planted to offset the emissions from chopping down the trees, turning them into pellets and burning them, we are supposed to believe that it is clean. The truth is that the plant we are discussing produces four times the carbon dioxide emitted from our last coal plant, which itself produced twice as many emissions as gas. The imported wood has come from rare, at-risk and irreplaceable forests and arrives here on diesel-powered ships.
The Chair
Order. Again, I remind the shadow Minister that we are discussing the legislation, not a particular company and where it sources its materials. I recognise that this discussion is happening across Parliament, but I remind him to limit his remarks to the legislation.
Nick Timothy
I certainly will, but we are talking about legislation permitting the subsidy of biomass. It is not cheap to do so; we pay £500 million for the privilege, and the draft regulations will make it even more costly for taxpayers. Every megawatt-hour produced will now cost £160—more than double the cost of gas power—up from £138 before. Burning these trees is raising the cost of wood globally while reducing biodiversity in key areas and eroding natural carbon capture.
It gets worse. The sixth carbon budget demands the removal of 23 million tonnes of emissions to avoid even more painful behaviour changes from the general public. This company is being used as an expensive “get out of jail” card, with more public money potentially coming down the line for carbon capture. It was for those reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) withdrew Government support for schemes such as this last year, which led the chief executive officer of the company that we have been discussing to call her “reckless and irresponsible”. Cutting down and burning trees in the name of saving the planet is not just reckless and irresponsible, but complete madness.
If Members here today believe that this is environmentalism and a solution to climate change, I have a bridge to sell them. The Climate Change Act 2008 has created a complex web of targets, quotas and regulations, as well as policies set by a monomaniacal and unaccountable quango tying the hands of elected Governments and twisting policy out of shape. It is producing an energy system that is less secure and more expensive, while doing nothing to prevent rising carbon emissions worldwide.
That is why we will vote against the draft regulations. I urge colleagues from all parties to join us and show that they are truly committed to a secure and rational energy system, and not throw more money at the Energy Secretary and his very costly mistakes.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.
In 2009, the then Climate Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), announced his plan to ramp up the use of wood-burning power stations while also ensuring sustainability. Fast forward to today and the right hon. Member—now the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—is attempting to paper over his legacy by forcing through an extension of subsidies until 2031. That is being done despite broad cross-party opposition to the move, as the previous Government took the decision to refuse the extension. There are alternatives.
Since that so-called ramping up 15 years ago, six times more trees than in the entire New Forest have been cut down. Disapproval is so strong that it undermines trust in the Government’s entire package of net zero policies. Key investments in our energy infrastructure will be squeezed if we persist in chopping down North American forests and shipping them across the Atlantic in diesel freighters. There are far better and smarter ways to power our homes. We have already heard about the comments from the Public Accounts Committee, and this month the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee agreed that this is not value for money. It also expressed deep concerns about the true purpose of the draft regulations and stated that Parliament needs to see key documents about them, including legal evidence, the National Energy System Operator report and the Ofgem audit.
Rather than reflect on those grave issues, the Government chose to announce on the first day of recess that they would convene a Delegated Legislation Committee on the first day back. That is despite the fact that the draft regulations would enable Ministers to extend the subsidies to burn trees for four years from 2027, when the current subsidies run out, to 2031. Liberal Democrats strongly believe that biomass is not a form of renewable energy and should not be subject to any exemptions or Government support. It is an incredibly inefficient method of producing electricity, and there are far better methods we should be investing in.
We note the concerning comments in the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget recommendations, which confirmed that there is
“no role for large-scale unabated biomass generation at high load-factors in the pathway beyond the expiry of existing contracts in 2027.”
Yet the Government are choosing to go ahead with just that. Liberal Democrats want to see the contracts for difference scheme used to benefit renewable energy production and reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels in the hands of authoritarian regimes. Investing in renewable energy will cut bills, lower emissions and improve our energy security.
We have been calling on the Government to keep the cap on the dedicated biomass plants and end support for all new biomass plants. We want to ensure that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030, with biomass not a part of that because the wood often does not come from renewable sources and in many cases the emissions are worse than coal. We therefore oppose the draft regulations and urge the Government to think again.
Michael Shanks
We are somewhat through the looking glass with the response from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk, who seemed to forget in his long list of things that were wrong with the contracts previously that it was his Government that agreed them. This Government have sought to improve every single aspect of the contract: halving the subsidy, improving sustainability, only running on the system when it is required, and delivering security of supply. He talks about being reckless and irresponsible. What would have been reckless and irresponsible is to come here and say that we do not care about the security of supply and the importance of finding the dispatchable power that we need. That is the decision that we are here to allow the Government to take forward—
Nick Timothy
If the Minister is interested in the security of supply, why will the Government not allow new licences for oil and gas in the North sea?
Michael Shanks
We are considerably off the topic of the draft regulations, but since the shadow Minister makes the point, I will answer the question. We have not said that there will be no new oil and gas. We have said that there will be no new licences to explore new fields, taking into account all the available evidence, which is that the North sea is a declining basin. If we manage it properly, we can have a future energy process in the North sea that delivers on carbon capture, hydrogen, offshore wind and oil and gas for many years to come. There is much more on our oil and gas policy that we can discuss, perhaps in a different debate.
On these particular draft regulations, the shadow Minister asked a number of questions, which I am happy to follow up on. On the KPMG reports, perhaps he did not see, but I wrote on 25 February—as soon as I could following my statement in the House, because I take these things very seriously—and the chief executive of Ofgem responded on 12 March. Both letters are in the Library and the shadow Minister can read them. The KPMG reports do not belong to the Government or to Ofgem; they belong to Drax, and it is for Drax to decide whether to release legally privileged documents.
Clearly, analysis that NESO provides to the Government is sensitive, for very good reasons—a considerable amount of what NESO does in running the energy system must be kept secret, for commercial reasons and so that the Government and NESO can freely exchange information—but it published a summary of its advice on its website, which, again, the shadow Minister can look up.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, first of all, we are back from recess, which means we are back to work. The Government do not have time to waste, hence, I am afraid, we scheduled consideration of the draft regulations for the first day back; we have things to get through. She made the point that there are alternatives to biomass. A number of others have made that point, too, but they have yet to name the alternatives and what can be built within two years to provide the necessary supply.
We do not think that there is a long-term future for unabated biomass—we agree on that—but the crucial point is that we have a short-term security of supply issue that we have to resolve. We need dispatchable power when we need it, and the alternatives—gas, as the shadow Minister says—are considerably more expensive. The Conservative party might want to consign us to much more of the fossil-fuel casino and higher bills for all our constituents. This is a short-term decision for us to move away from that.
We have significantly increased the sustainability requirements and we will appoint an independent sustainability adviser to provide expert advice and challenge to both Government and providers on sustainability policy and delivery. We want to take sustainability much more seriously than the previous Government did, but this is an essential short-term measure to ensure the security of supply across the country. The draft regulations—copies are available in the room if Members have not had a chance to read them—will enable the Government to continue to deliver security of supply at the lowest possible cost for consumers while protecting and enhancing vital sustainability measures, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put.
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
Decriminalising Abortion
(3 days, 13 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
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 700014 relating to decriminalising abortion.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. The petition creator is Gemma Clark, and this is what it says:
“I am calling on the UK government to remove abortion from criminal law so that no pregnant person can be criminalised for procuring their own abortion.”
Gemma became involved in campaigning on this issue during the pandemic. She was particularly alarmed by the tactics of some campaigners harassing women trying to access abortion in Scotland. She also has a friend who experienced a stillbirth but was investigated by the police.
Gemma is worried that there is a lot of misinformation about abortion, especially late-term ones, and that that is linked to the rise of extreme ideologies and misogyny. She is a primary school teacher and is fearful that the young girls she is educating now will have fewer rights when they grow up than she does. I thank Gemma and the more than 103,000 people from across the UK who signed her petition. That includes 152 from my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe. I also thank 55 of my constituents who emailed me to express their views on the issue. That has fed into this speech.
How is abortion criminalised in the UK? It depends on where we live. Abortion is, in effect, decriminalised in Northern Ireland, whereas long-standing laws maintain the criminalisation of abortion in England, Wales and Scotland with two main offences: procuring miscarriage under section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and child destruction under section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is describing the law. One of the justifications for the Abortion Act 1967 was that it would end back-street abortions; indeed, whether we like it or not, we have abortion on demand in safe environments. If the proposals we are discussing go ahead and, de facto, it becomes possible to have an abortion at home up to birth, does he not think that could endanger women’s health? Is he not worried about that, or are the movers of the petition not worried about that?
Tony Vaughan
I am not aware that following the decriminalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland there has been a strong current to re-criminalise it, which might be expected had a situation such as the right hon. Gentleman referred to actually occurred. It is not my understanding that that has happened.
For each of the two offences I described, sentences of up to life imprisonment apply. A person is guilty of the offence of child destruction when the pregnancy is of at least 28 weeks and they commit a wilful act to cause the child’s death; it is a defence if the act was done to preserve the mother’s life. The offence of procuring miscarriage can be committed at any stage of gestation when a person uses a poison or instrument to induce miscarriage. As the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, there are defences, variously, under the Abortion Act when two registered medical practitioners authorise abortion in an approved clinic in broadly four situations. The first is when there is a risk of injury to the mother’s physical or mental health up to 24 weeks—that was the exception expanded during covid, so that women could access pills for medical abortions at home, following a consultation, for pregnancy of up to 10 weeks.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. and learned Member made a point about Northern Ireland. It is important to note that Northern Ireland does not have at-home abortions—pills by post—and much of the discussion about decriminalisation of abortion in England, or here in the mainland, is focused on at-home abortions. Northern Ireland has a very different context, which should not be used in the same train of thought.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is also worth noting that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has explicitly called for telemedicine to be made available to women in Northern Ireland. Given that we have a human rights framework in Northern Ireland, the Government have to respond to that or risk being taken to court again by the chief commissioner for failing to uphold the human rights of women in Northern Ireland to access a safe and legal abortion. We have no such protections here in England and Wales as yet. Is that not the case?
Tony Vaughan
My hon. Friend is right, and of course it was a 2018 Supreme Court decision that showed that the rules that were then in force in Northern Ireland violated the human rights of women. That has to be at the centre of our considerations.
Let me finish listing the exceptions so that I can get to the point. Risk of grave or permanent injury, risk to the mother’s life and substantial foetal abnormality are exceptions without any gestational time limit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Tony Vaughan
I will press on, because I am conscious of the time. Maybe we will come back to this.
Jim Shannon
The reason I knew that is because before the debate I checked with you, Mr Vickers, that we would have ample time to speak. It is important to put something on the record about the abortion legislation in Northern Ireland. I say this respectfully to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who knows that that is the way I always try to make my points: the legislation in Northern Ireland was imposed by Westminster because we did not have a Northern Ireland Assembly that was working at the time. The elected representatives therefore could not have an input into the process, and, according to the polls, the people of Northern Ireland were very much against the type of legislation coming in. He refers to the Northern Ireland legislation, but it is Northern Ireland legislation that the Government here imposed; Northern Ireland had no input into it.
Tony Vaughan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I come back to what I said to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough: whatever the position at the time of the law’s coming into force, I am not aware of there being a movement or democratic support for changing the law back to what it was before. When we talk about whether laws meet the current standards and societal norms, that is the most important thing.
Let me turn to how the law is applied in England and Wales. Until 2022, it was believed that only three women had been convicted of having an illegal abortion in the 150 years since the 1861 Act, under which most illegal abortions are prosecuted, but there has been a recent increase in the prosecutions of women for procuring miscarriage under the Act. The Crown Prosecution Service reports that in the period January 2019 to March 2023, six people were charged with child destruction and 11 were charged with procuring miscarriage under section 58 of the 1861 Act.
One of those people was Nicola Packer, who took home abortion medication following a teleconsultation, believing that she was less than 10 weeks pregnant. She was in fact 26 weeks pregnant, and was accused of having an illegal abortion. On 7 November 2020, she was in hospital. The next day—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. May I clarify whether this is a live case?
Tony Vaughan
My understanding is that the case has been disposed of. Ms Packer was found not guilty of those charges last month, I believe.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way of keeping women’s protections to have an abortion and to stop the criminalisation of women, which he has been talking about, is to support new clause 1, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) has tabled, to the Crime and Policing Bill?
Tony Vaughan
I agree, and I will support the new clause.
Ms Packer was in hospital one day, and arrested the next, and it took five years before the courts could dispose of that case. Another case is that of Carla Foster, a mother who was jailed for illegally taking abortion tablets to end her pregnancy during lockdown. She was initially sentenced to 28 months in prison. She was a mother of three who was of exceptionally good character and had suffered from poor mental health. She had quickly admitted to police that she had provided incorrect information during a consultation, and the Court of Appeal reduced the term to 14 months and suspended the sentence. However, by that point, she had already served 35 days in prison and had been denied any communication with her children, one of whom is autistic. In reducing her sentence, the judge said that the case called for “compassion, not punishment”, and that there was “no useful purpose” in keeping her in prison.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for introducing this important debate. Does he agree that at the heart of this discussion are some key principles, such as compassion, which he mentioned, as well as choice and bodily autonomy? Whatever stage we are at in our lives, it is important that we are allowed to make choices about our own bodies, free from the fear of criminalisation or judgment.
Tony Vaughan
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and thank her for her work on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which engages that principle of autonomy. I find it hard to read about the cases I just mentioned and not feel that the time has come to abandon the practice of criminalising and imprisoning women for choices they make about their own pregnancies.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank all those who signed the petition to make sure that we had this debate. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that more than 200 women have been investigated for this? Does he agree that some of the police tactics used—crime scene tape, excluding families from their own homes, and removing children even in cases where no charges are brought—are extremely traumatising to the family and the woman who has suffered the loss of a child, whether by her own decision or because of a miscarriage?
Tony Vaughan
I thank my hon. Friend for that statistic, which I was not aware of. Criminalisation involves traumatisation from the moment of investigation to charge, arrest and all the way through the system.
The time has come to abandon these outdated practices. I struggle to see how it can be a good use of the scarce resources in our criminal justice system to prosecute and imprison women in these situations. Our laws cannot be fixed relics of the past, but must reflect social attitudes and societal norms. A YouGov poll of 2,098 adults in September 2023 found that 52% of respondents believed that women should not face prosecution for having an abortion, while only 21% of respondents believed that prosecution was appropriate.
At the international level, and as the petition creator, Gemma Clark, has rightly reminded me, the World Health Organisation’s 2022 guidelines on safe abortion recommend removing medically unnecessary policy barriers to safe abortion, such as criminalisation. More than 30 organisations representing medical practitioners in this country support decriminalising abortion, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Faculty of Public Health, the Centre for Reproductive Rights, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Dr Ranee Thakar, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has said:
“Abortion that happens outside of the current law generally involves very vulnerable women—including those facing domestic abuse, mental health challenges or barriers to accessing NHS care. Yet alarmingly, prosecutions of women have been increasing in recent years…Abortion is an essential form of healthcare and should be subject to regulatory and professional standards like other medical procedures, not criminal sanctions.”
As I mentioned, Northern Ireland repealed provisions criminalising abortion. Similarly, my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) have tabled new clauses to the Crime and Policing Bill that would disapply such provisions, eliminating the risk of prosecution for women who self-manage abortions or seek care beyond current legal limits. Under the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, access to abortion services would remain exactly as it is, as I understand it, including time limits, grounds for abortion and the requirement for two doctors. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is in a much better position than me to talk about her new clause, which follows similar principles, so I will not stray into her territory by saying more at this stage.
The key point is that although we should maintain regulation, criminalisation is a very different matter. I appreciate that there are organisations passionately opposed to decriminalising abortion. I believe that decriminalisation does not mean deregulation. My hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Walthamstow propose to maintain a body of rules on access to and provision of abortion, such as the existing time limit, which would remain in force.
Some people claim that decriminalising abortion would lead to significant increases in the number of women performing dangerous late-stage abortions at home, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough suggested, but I think that would be highly unlikely. The latest figures available, from 2022, reveal that 88% of abortions were performed at under 10 weeks gestation. I have not seen, as I said in response to interventions, evidence to suggest that removing the criminal law deterrent would motivate swathes of women to have abortions after 24 weeks. Indeed, I have not heard of any campaigns in Northern Ireland to re-criminalise due to unforeseen consequences.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the excellent speech that he is making. Many of my constituents have contacted me about this issue, and I, too, support the new clauses. Does he recognise that decriminalisation would bring us in line with other countries, including France, Ireland, Canada and Australia?
Carla Lockhart
In reference to other countries, the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no evidence that decriminalisation will increase abortions. What is his response to the example of New Zealand, where abortion was decriminalised in March 2020, and in that year there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions, between 20 weeks gestation and birth, compared with 2019?
Tony Vaughan
I am not aware of that statistic. It may be that I can look into it and say more about it in closing.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
This Parliament must protect women’s fundamental healthcare rights. That is what nearly 200 of my constituents said in signing this petition, and it is why I co-signed new clause 17 to the Crime and Policing Bill, proposed by our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy).
We face a global backlash against abortion access. The US vice-president has criticised our buffer zones, citing a case in my Bournemouth East constituency. I visited the clinic identified by the vice-president and met staff there. They deserve safety and freedom from harassment, but they are concerned about tampering and vandalism of their vehicles and rising hostility. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that my constituents deserve fundamental human rights? We must lock in those rights and put them beyond the reach of politicians, to prevent future roll-backs. Does he agree that we need to end the threat of prosecution, and decriminalise abortion?
Tony Vaughan
I agree with my hon. Friend. As our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and I have said, these are human rights issues, and courts have highlighted incompatibilities where that has been the case. It is important that those principles guide our approach. I am in favour of the regulation of abortion, but I am also in favour of decriminalising it, so that abortion can once and for all be treated by the law as a matter of healthcare, not criminality, and individual rights to bodily autonomy can be exercised without fear of prosecution at one of the most physically and mentally vulnerable points in any woman’s life. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members and the Government.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they must bob if they want to catch my eye.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is not often that I come to Westminster Hall and find myself the first person to be called after the Member in charge, in this case of the petition. I am pleased to be able to comment on where we are on the petition. In this world, I try to be respectful to everyone—that is the nature of who I am and what I do. I probably have a very different opinion from the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), who spoke on behalf of the petition, and other Members who will speak afterwards.
It is one of the quirks of this place and our procedures that we find ourselves debating this petition today, when in all likelihood we will have a similar debate in the next few weeks on new clauses tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill in the main Chamber. Our debate today is almost a rehearsal for what will come in a few weeks’ time. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Vickers, that I will not digress too much into discussion of the specifics of the new clauses, but it is safe to say that they are deeply concerning to me and many thousands of my constituents. I referred to where we are and our position in Northern Ireland. My constituents have made me aware of their position, so in speaking today I will represent that and the position of many other constituents across Northern Ireland.
I should say at the outset that I find it tragically ironic that proposals have been made to further liberalise a law here in part on the premise that the law is more liberal, more permissive, and supposedly more progressive in Northern Ireland. That suggestion has been made today. Of course, the change to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland was only brought about as a result of overreach—I use that word on purpose—by Westminster, undermining the constitutional value of Northern Ireland and its elected representatives, who should have been allowed to make decisions on this matter. On a personal level and on behalf of my constituents, it is important to place that on record in this Westminster Hall debate.
Hon. Members know my position on abortion; it is a matter of public record. In coming up to 15 years here, there has not been a question or a debate on this subject that I have not participated in or had a question on in the Chamber. That is for the record. I will not go into much detail, save to say that in my view every abortion is a tragedy for both the woman and the unborn child whose life is cut short. I hope that my view will be respected in this debate, as I respect those who hold a very different view from my own. This is a very sensitive subject and deserves to be considered in that light, but it is also important that we consider this debate in the round.
There is no right to abortion in international law. It is worth noting at the outset that, contrary to what seems to be a popular belief both in the media and among some hon. Members, even academics who take an opposing view to mine on abortion acknowledge that there is no right to abortion directly enshrined in any key international human rights instrument. That is their opinion. I put that on the record as well, because it is important to discuss these matters in full. Although this is often cited as the impetus and imperative for change in the UK, the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women are not binding on the United Kingdom. We can and should determine our own laws on this subject. It is neither required nor determined that we should go down the path of further liberalisation.
Abortion is not simply medical treatment. This is not a simple matter—it certainly is not for me and my constituents and those of us who represent this point of view.
Carla Lockhart
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. In contrast, human rights laws grant protection to the unborn. The preamble to the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the UK is a signatory, states that the child
“needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.
Does he agree with me that in every case both lives matter?
Jim Shannon
That is exactly the point. I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. Her mind is the same as my mind and that of the people we represent across the Province and in our constituencies.
Abortion is not simply a medical treatment. It is not a simple matter. One of the underlying rationales behind the push for decriminalisation of abortion is worth addressing. Abortion is not a mere medical treatment that should be treated akin to other matters of healthcare. However uncomfortable this may be to confront, my view and the biological reality is that there is more than one life involved in any abortion. It is essential that that is reflected in the law and in the penalties that result from breaking that law. Of course, laws send messages and shape culture.
Emily Darlington
I completely agree that we need to be respectful in this debate as people hold views on all sides. But does the hon. Member agree with me that when we criminalise women, their bodies and abortions, we get absolutely mad circumstances as we have seen in the US, where a woman cannot be saved in the emergency room or in A&E because it might facilitate losing the child, or she is kept alive by machines against her family’s wishes just because she was nine weeks pregnant at the time of her accident?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I understand the point that she makes. I mentioned earlier that in every abortion two lives are involved. There is the life of the mum and the life of the baby—two lives that have to be considered. We also have to be concerned about backstreet abortions and where they can sometimes lead.
Laws, as I said, send messages and shape culture. More broadly, they are a reflection of our core values as a society. Although calls for abortion decriminalisation are repeated and vocal, I truly think—I say this with great respect—that many people do not understand the implications of decriminalising abortion. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has her opinion and I have mine—I certainly have a different interpretation of what she refers to.
Ms Creasy
I hope the hon. Member knows that, although I disagree with him on this matter, I have always done so respectfully, and fought for his right to be heard. However, I want to challenge him on the idea that we can have only an opinion on what actual decriminalisation and the human rights framework would look like. We have seen what it looks like in Northern Ireland since 2019, and we now have a body of work by a commissioner at the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, including court cases in which she has intervened to uphold that human right, to see the implications of decriminalisation. We may differ on whether the impact is one we would like to see in this society, but we cannot deny that there is now a body of evidence about what a human rights framework and approach to abortion access would look like.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for that. She and I have debated this at some length over the years from two different points of view. I think that decriminalisation leads to deregulation, and I have concerns about where we will end up. As I said, I aim to represent the views of my constituents, as well as the views of other Members’ constituents. Another three hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have similar views to my own have been driven by their constituents to respectfully give their point of view in the Chamber today.
Decriminalising abortion by disapplying the provisions of existing penalties under sections 58 to 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, or by repealing these provisions altogether, would be a seismic change. I use the word “seismic” on purpose, because I believe it reflects the size and magnitude of what has been proposed. To be clear, regardless of whether the specific provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 are touched on by amendments to other legislation, gutting the laws that underpin that Act would have the same effect. Depending on the model of decriminalisation, the effect could be wide enough to include de facto access to abortion for woman up to the point of birth for any reason. There would, for example, be no enforceable prohibition on abortion on the basis of the sex of the unborn baby that would have criminal repercussions.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that Britain already has very liberal abortion laws? It is double the 12-week average in any member of the European Union. Polling by Savanta ComRes, a highly respected polling company, has shown that 70% of women support a reduction in the abortion time limit, and 91% want an explicit ban on sex-selective abortions.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Many moons ago, we were friends in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the council, and we are still friends at Westminster. I am aware of the Savanta ComRes polls, which were taken over a period of time. They cannot be ignored, because they provide focus for where we are.
Without criminal repercussions, or new restrictions on abortions that are carried out by a woman or a malignant professional up to birth, are we truly ready to take such a radical step? I do not want to belabour the point, but I find it deeply worrying that a child born prematurely, for example at 22 or 24 weeks, would be treated as a legal person with full rights, while decriminalisation would permit abortion at the same gestational age with no legal recourse.
I said earlier that there are two people in this: the mother and the baby.
Ms Creasy
Under our current criminal legislation, there are exemptions from prosecution for abortions that take place up to 24 weeks, and in some instances further, if there is a threat of death to the mother or the child. What the hon. Member is talking about are the 3,000 abortions that happen every year after someone has had the worst news possible—when they are told after their 20-week anomaly scan that the baby they really wanted will not make it past birth. I do not think the hon. Member is a cruel man, and I do not think he wishes to advocate that women should be forced to carry children they know will die to term, but that is not affected by our current regulations. He is putting at risk women’s access in that moment by advocating a reduction in the time limit.
Jim Shannon
Obviously, the hon. Lady and I have slightly different opinions about decriminalisation. I have been concerned over a period of time, and still am, about examples of cases involving Down’s syndrome children, including one in Northern Ireland—a lovely, young Down’s syndrome child who would not be here today had her parents not decided to ensure that she had the opportunity to have a life. We are talking about those things. Ultimately, we are talking not solely about what is ethically or morally good or bad, or right or wrong, but about what would be permissible under the law without criminal sanction. That is what I and other hon. Members are talking about: the reality in law, and an increase in late-term unsafe abortions.
Decriminalisation sounds innocuous but, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) referred to, when the public is polled on its effect, the results are plain: only 1% of the public support abortion being permitted up to birth, which is what decriminalisation of abortion would permit without legal consequence, against the views of the majority—99% of people. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that following the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand in March 2020, which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to, late-term abortions—those occurring after 20 weeks gestation—increased by 43% compared to the previous year. That is not scaremongering; it is evidential fact. We are asking that all hon. Members take on board that information.
As the evidence from overseas shows, the risk of decriminalising abortion is not only that more abortions may take place but that the dangerous, unsafe abortions that supposedly prompted the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967 in England and Wales will occur. To date, none of the legislative proposals for decriminalisation, including the proposed new clauses of the Crime and Policing Bill, contains safeguards that would effectively guard against women seeking abortions while subject to coercion or abuse. Given the operation of the pills-by-post system, it is also not clear to me or to some hon. Members in this Chamber that there can be any guarantee that a woman’s gestational age or her general health would be effectively ascertained under a decriminalisation regime.
Whatever view we take on the principle of abortion, there is a general public consensus that fewer abortions taking place is a good thing, so I am concerned that the decriminalisation of abortion would lead to the normalisation of late-term—or at least later-term—abortions, and have a chilling effect on the broader discussions about the viability and value of life.
I am coming to the end of my speech—we have three hours for the debate, but I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. Given the ready availability of pills by post without the requirement for an in-person consultation—which I believe is critical—the bitter irony of the decriminalisation of abortion is that it would place women at greater risk of harm. Not all choices should be entirely free or unfettered. We accept limits to our choice in many areas of law, and this one should be no exception. The criminal law on abortion safeguards women by providing clarity and a regulatory framework. Decriminalisation does the opposite, and in a way that is much more damaging and much more critical to the debate. Decriminalisation is not a simple matter of choice and autonomy. If we reduce the debate to that, we will fail in our duty to protect women and the babies.
I urge hon. Members, irrespective of their views on the principle—which, as I said, may be very different from my own—to consider the full ramifications of decriminalisation of abortion. It will harm more than help, and those who suffer will be women who endanger their own safety and that of the unborn children, who are equally important. We must protect both equally. Decriminalisation of abortion would fail to accomplish that.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening this very important petitions debate. I thank the petitioner, Gemma, and everyone who signed the petition. It is a real privilege to speak in this timely debate.
Abortion remains a criminal offence in England and Wales under a law written in 1861. That means that in those two jurisdictions, still, in 2025, women can be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for ending their own pregnancies. That is not a theoretical consequence of a law passed before women even had the right to vote; it is happening now at an increasing rate.
Since 2020, around 100 women have been criminally investigated, six have faced court and one has been sent to prison on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. Those investigations are dehumanising and prolonged, and the women forced to endure them are often extraordinarily vulnerable: victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18, and many women who have suffered miscarriage, stillbirth or who have given birth prematurely. They are victims but they are treated as suspects and subjected to invasive investigations that inflict profound long-term harm.
Because of this law, women are being dragged through police cells after having given birth and forced to wait up to six years for a court date. Mothers are being torn from their existing children and new babies—sometimes for years. Some are still fighting to get them back. Women have received death threats. They have self-harmed, been denied access to the mental and physical health care they require following their trauma and been forced to spend every single penny that they and their families have earned just to defend themselves. Just what public interest is that serving? It is not justice; it is cruelty. Yet now, under new guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, officers are being told that they can seize women’s phones and search their messages, internet history and even health apps if they are suspected of ending a pregnancy outside of the law. It is state-sanctioned surveillance, and victims are being treated like criminals.
That is why the law has to change. I have tabled new clause 1 to the Crime and Policing Bill to put an end to the prosecution of women for ending their own pregnancies. It is backed by 115 cross-party MPs and 50 sector organisations. My new clause simply disapplies the criminal law related to abortion from women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Despite what those on the opposing side scaremonger, my new clause is narrow and targeted. It changes absolutely nothing about the provision of abortion services and the conditions laid out in the Abortion Act 1967, including the time limit and the need to meet certain criteria and to obtain the approval and signatures of two doctors. It maintains existing punishments for both medical professionals and violent partners who end a pregnancy outside of the law.
Instead, new clause 1 simply removes the threat of criminal liability from women who end their own pregnancies, enabling them to get the care and support that they need. As has been mentioned, it would bring us into line with Northern Ireland, Ireland, France, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 weeks pregnant or more and suddenly decides to end their own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic. But some women, in desperate circumstances, make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. What they need is compassion and care, not the threat of criminal prosecution.
As hon. Members will be aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has tabled new clause 20 to the Crime and Policing Bill in this regard. She and I share the same interests and overarching objective—to remove women from the criminal law related to abortion—but her new clause is markedly broader in terms of the scope of change proposed to the long-standing settlement that provides for abortion services. This framework is complex. Hard-won battles have cemented women’s access to abortion in this country into primary legislation. Parliament has, up to now, remained resistant to changes that constitute a rollback. I have concerns about overturning that entire framework at the current time and replacing it with a mechanism that would leave power in the hands of a single Minister. Does the Minister agree that such powers would mark a sea change in the long-standing, underlying framework that provides for abortion in England and Wales?
The Abortion Act 1967 is also related to the underlying criminal law on abortion in England and Wales. Repealing that law in its entirety would bring the continued practical operation and enforcement of the Act into question. Will the Minister comment on the likelihood of that leaving a regulatory gap?
We are lucky enough to live somewhere where abortion is accessible to the vast majority of women—and rightly so. We must ensure that we preserve that, particularly given the current political climate in the world. I would also expect any proposed changes on this subject to be consulted on and to include input from the sector, the essential work of which is underpinned by the current settlement.
I am staunchly pro-choice, and as much as I believe that future reforms on abortion provision are needed, we must not lose sight of the current moral imperative and its urgency: vulnerable women being dragged from hospital bed to police cell on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies. That can be stopped by disapplying the criminal law on abortion in relation to women.
New clause 1 has the explicit backing of every single organisation that represents abortion providers in England and Wales. It is also supported by the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Midwives, General Practitioners, Psychiatrists, and Nursing. Countless groups on violence against women and girls, including the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Refuge, Southall Black Sisters, Rape Crisis England & Wales, Imkaan, and the Centre for Women’s Justice, are also behind new clause 1. It is also supported by today’s petitioner—thank you, Gemma.
The public supports this change. This petition, signed by more than 103,000 people, is a stark reinforcement of that fact. It is time to ensure that those desperate women who are failed by the law or access to abortion can safely turn to healthcare in their time of need—often the worst moments of their lives—without fear of being turned in to the police by their own doctors. Those women deserve the care and compassion that they need. We have spoken today of the case of Nicola Packer. There must be no more Nicola Packers.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee for selecting this timely topic for debate.
From my experience running a women’s refuge and serving on the Women and Equalities Committee, I have seen how our criminal justice system disproportionately lets down vulnerable women. Since 2020, 100 women and girls have been investigated by police on suspicion of having illegal abortions. Very concerningly, that number is rising.
New guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council reminds police officers to search women’s houses for drugs related to ending pregnancy and to seize their digital devices to check internet search history and messages to friends and family, and even to access health data through their menstrual cycle and fertility tracking apps—subverting the very tools that are designed to keep us healthy. The guidance goes on to suggest how police officers could bypass the requirements of a court order to access NHS medical records. Who are the suspects that need such interrogation? Often, they are women who have suffered stillbirths, miscarriages and premature labours. Can we honestly say that it is right for police to be targeting women for criminal investigation at a point of such trauma?
That is what happened to Sammy. After a traumatic birth, she was resuscitating her newborn baby when seven police officers arrived at her house, ahead of any paramedics or medical staff. Her home became a crime scene, and she became a suspect. The police raided her bins, suspecting that she had illegally taken abortion medication. Her phone, computer and all communication with her partner were blocked by police. She provided forensic samples that did not show the presence of abortion drugs, but despite that, she remained under police investigation for a year, during which time she was allowed only limited supervised contact with her baby. To those in this debate who emphasise the life of the child, I ask, what benefit does such separation from a mother bring to a newborn?
Sammy’s story is not an isolated incident; it is part of a disturbing pattern that is creating a culture of fear around women’s reproductive rights. Sophie, a teenager, was arrested in the middle of the night following a police raid on her parents’ home. She was held in custody for 19 hours. Despite her age and vulnerability, she faced two trials, and it took six years for the charge that she ended her own pregnancy to be dropped. Sophie is not the last. We have already heard of the case of Nicola Packer.
Emily Darlington
I thank the hon. Member for her powerful speech and for reminding us about the mothers who are absolutely traumatised; often, they have other children, who are also traumatised. The tactics being used by the police are increasingly worrying, and I wonder whether the hon. Member shares my worry that the escalation we have seen in the last few years seems to mirror the escalation in the United States? We do not want to be in a position like the US, where women are literally dying because healthcare professionals are worried about intervening, given that they could lose their licence and be put in jail.
Alex Brewer
I absolutely agree; that is a fear that I share.
Nicola went to hospital to seek care, but was instead passed to the police. She was charged with carrying out an illegal abortion, a nightmare that lasted four and half years before she was acquitted unanimously by a jury. These incidents reflect a system that increasingly criminalises women for seeking healthcare, and we cannot let it continue.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Lady referenced Nicola Packer. Would she not say that the solution in that case is not decriminalisation, but to reinstate the gestational age checks for pills by post?
Alex Brewer
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I do not agree.
To overcome the fear and anxiety that many women face when seeking medical support, we must instead build a society rooted in compassion and centred on safe, supportive healthcare, where such healthcare is treated as part of women’s services, and not treated with suspicion or stigma.
One route to decriminalising abortion is through new clause 1, which has been tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill. New clause 1 would bring England and Wales in line with Northern Ireland and countries such as France, Ireland, Canada and Australia, where women are not criminalised for abortion. The new clause is backed by End Violence Against Women, Refuge, Rape Crisis England & Wales, and many others. It would not change time limits or legal safeguards, but would simply remove the threat of prosecution for women.
As 88% of abortions in England and Wales occur before 10 weeks, the idea that decriminalisation would lead to many more late-term abortions is simply not supported by evidence. At a time when reproductive rights are under threat globally, we must act. Decriminalising abortion is a necessary step towards equality, compassion and justice.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. As mentioned, abortion is currently a criminal offence in England and Wales under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and unless certain conditions are met, we have the harshest punishment in the world for illegal abortion: life imprisonment. That is despite the fact that the UK is an overwhelmingly pro-choice nation, with a recent YouGov poll showing that 87% of the British public say that abortion should be allowed in the UK, compared with just 6% who say it should not.
Like that overwhelming majority of the country, I fully support a woman’s right to choose. Having been a frontline healthcare worker for 20 years, I can say with experience and conviction that access to safe and legal abortion is a fundamental aspect of any modern healthcare system. It is crucial that women and girls around the country have access to safe, high-quality healthcare that supports their wellbeing—and that must include their sexual and reproductive healthcare.
That is why I was proud to sign new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), to the Crime and Policing Bill. The new clause would decriminalise abortion and make it clear that no woman should ever be prosecuted for ending her pregnancy within the widely agreed upon 24-week window. With over 90 MPs from eight parties now supporting the new clause, I am confident that we will finally right this historic wrong and stop this infringement upon women’s rights.
This issue has been debated for far too long. It is an outrage that we have made such limited progress on updating a law that was passed 164 years ago, despite the immense societal change we have undergone in that time. Although the last Parliament made some limited progress on this issue, particularly by legislating for a safe access zone around abortion clinics and hospitals, it failed to legislate on what so many people are crying out for, which will forever be a stain on its record. Let us not repeat that mistake; let us make progress and finally bring this injustice to an end.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Vickers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Statistics show that one in three women in the UK will have an abortion at some point in their lives, and the vast majority, as has been said, are at under 10 weeks gestation. Although the Abortion Act 1967 makes abortion legal under strict conditions, abortion remains a criminal act under a law that dates back over 160 years. Life is very different now from when the Offences against the Person Act was introduced in 1861, but a growing number of women are being investigated today under that Victorian law for suspected illegal abortion. In fact, at least 100 women and girls have been investigated in the past five years on suspicion of having had an illegal abortion.
Under updated police guidance, such investigations for sudden pregnancy loss can include searching a woman’s home, checking her phone and search history, and accessing NHS records without a court order, with many women treated like a suspect during a traumatising and likely devastating time—and all of that is happening while they are also physically recovering from that loss. Some women have even been put on trial, facing significant jail sentences.
Women should not face criminalisation for acting on their right to receive reproductive healthcare and for seeking medical help. What does that mean? Changing the law does not mean agreeing with the actions of an individual woman, and I say that as a mam-gu—as a granny—of neonatal babies. But it does mean recognising that criminalisation is not the best way to ensure that women have access to the care and support they need. Such a move would be far from unprecedented. Women are already exempt from the criminal law on abortion in Northern Ireland and in countries including France, Ireland, Canada and Australia, and that is also recommended by the World Health Organisation.
I commend my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for tabling a new clause to the Crime and Policing Bill to remove women from the criminal law for abortion. The new clause is supported by 50 medical bodies, charities and women’s organisations. Removing the threat of criminal liability for women who end their pregnancies would allow them to get the care and support they need.
As the law stands, the criminalisation of abortion impacts not only women seeking abortion, but women suffering miscarriages, the trauma of stillbirths and, in effect, all pregnant women. Access to healthcare is a right; it is high time to make that a reality for women, without the threat of criminalisation.
One hundred and sixty-four years—it is amazing, isn’t it?—is long enough. Over 100,000 members of the public have signed this e-petition calling for abortion to be decriminalised. It is time for the UK Government to listen and act.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This is an important debate for the many of us who have been campaigning on this issue for many years, because we feel passionately that the equal ability to control what happens to our bodies is the foundation of equality within society. I thank Gemma for her petition and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for setting out the law so well.
I want us to be honest with the British public about what we are talking about and, therefore, what we need to see happen if we want decriminalisation. I was the architect of the Northern Ireland legislation, and I want to be clear about what we did there and about the difference between the two proposals that will come before Parliament in the coming weeks. In Northern Ireland, we did not do what new clause 1 to the Crime and Policing Bill seeks to do. The new clause would not decriminalise abortion; it would disapply the law on abortion for some people, but would retain the abortion legislation. Those of us who support decriminalisation need to be clear that decriminalisation must mean repeal. We did that in Northern Ireland, and that is why we have been able to protect women who previously had no access to any abortion provision.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Lady mentioned Northern Ireland, and I accept that there are fundamental differences between our positions. She introduced the Northern Ireland legislation, but does she accept that the views there—among both the general public and their representatives—are quite different from those in Walthamstow?
Ms Creasy
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the view of people in Northern Ireland. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out, in the six years since that law was passed there has been no call to reverse it. I believe that human rights are universal, which is why I thought it was right for us in the United Kingdom Parliament to act for all those women in Northern Ireland whose rights were being denied by the previous status quo. There has been resistance, and we can learn from it; that is why we tabled new clause 20 to the Crime and Policing Bill.
I want to be very clear: anybody who claims that they are supporting decriminalisation by supporting new clause 1 is not telling us what decriminalisation really looks like. Decriminalisation must involve repeal, and that is why new clause 20 would repeal the legislation around abortion. That matters because, under the existing framework here, the police have already issued guidance that talks about prosecuting women. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that we do not want to see prosecutions. Many of us have been concerned for some years about the increase in investigations and prosecutions of women for abortion. We have not been able to get to the bottom of why there has been such a surge or why the police felt the need to produce that guidance.
New clause 1 would not stop subsequent guidance targeting the partners of people who had an abortion or the medics who provided the abortions, and it would not prevent demands for women to give evidence as part of that process. If we are to finally put to bed the notion that abortion is treated in the same way in this country as endangering the safety of railway workers or the possession of explosives—which it is under the Offences against the Person Act 1861—we must remove these offences from legislation. New clause 20 would do that: it explicitly says that there can be no investigation or prosecution under those offences. Therefore, it offers protection to all those involved in ensuring that women can access safe and legal abortions. That is why we took the approach that we did in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, there was no abortion service at all, but we wanted to fight for what an abortion service should be.
Those of us who consider ourselves pro-choice absolutely want to stop the investigations and prosecutions. Opposition Members have set out many of the arguments that are made to attack abortion access in this country, and that is where the human rights legislation came in. It is not true that when we passed the Northern Ireland legislation in 2019, there was immediately access to abortion. We had to fight tooth and nail against those who used their positions to thwart that legislation. The reason we were able to do that was that we had written into law a human rights lock, which meant that whenever people in the civil service, the police or the healthcare service did not approve of abortion and sought to resist the legislation, the Secretary of State had to stand up for the right of women in Northern Ireland to access a safe and legal abortion. I sat with the Secretaries of State at that point, who were not themselves particularly supportive of abortion access, as they admitted to me that they had to push through that legislation and ensure that provision.
I have read the judgments from the cases where the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission intervened directly and used the powers that we wrote into law to defend access to abortion. Why does that matter? It matters because we know that abortion is already under attack in this country. I know that many are concerned about the Americanisation of our debate here—I want to come on to that—but we have already seen millions of pounds being spent on anti-abortion activism in this country. We do not need to import those people from America; we already have people like Lord Michael Hintze and Lord Michael Farmer, who are more than happy to fund anti-abortion activism.
I pay tribute to the work of Dr Pam Lowe in identifying and tracking that. We can see from that work that there has been better co-ordination of anti-abortion campaigning, against decriminalisation, as well as the arguments made about the time limit and telemedicine—and, ultimately, in favour of the argument that we should be demanding to know why women wish to have an abortion. For no other healthcare provision do we demand that women explain and justify themselves before we provide it. Whether it is the March for Life, the activities on our campuses or indeed the lobbying of MPs, anybody who was complacent about access to abortion in this country before we saw the Trump playbook being brought into British politics needs to look more closely at what has been happening.
When we legislate on abortion, we do not just need to properly decriminalise; we need to properly protect. That is why we tabled new clause 20, which has cross-party support. The anti-abortion movement never asks for abolition; it asks for more safeguards. It asks for more visits to doctors to delay the process of accessing an abortion. It makes a claim about medical technology. Of course, it is amazing when doctors are able to do wonderful things to save the lives of children born prematurely, but this is apples and pears. The people who have to make that horrible choice to have a late-term abortion are not doing so with the best of news in their hearts, but with hearts that are broken, because they have been told that their child will not live past birth. Who are we as a society, here in England and Wales, to compel those women to keep carrying a child to term that they know will die in a way that we do not do in Northern Ireland?
Carla Lockhart
I think the mask is slipping today. This is an attack on those who seek to lobby for the protection of life in this United Kingdom, and I for one want to stand up for those people in this debate. That is such an insult towards the many groups and organisations who value life, and who value both lives in every pregnancy. It is outrageous that those people have been demonised.
Ms Creasy
I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels like that. I hope she heard my words to her colleague, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have always—it is on the record—defended the right of people who disagree with abortion to make their argument. I have always—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position. I have always defended the right of people to disagree. What I do not do is defend the right of people who disagree to harass.
Let me talk about another example of where abortion access is under threat. We fought tooth and nail in the previous Parliament to put safe access zones to abortion clinics in place. We absolutely uphold people’s religious liberties, but no one has a religious right to pray anywhere they like that trumps the human right of privacy that a woman has when she has made the choice to have an abortion to go to a clinic. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) set out the consequences of that.
Nothing in new clause 1 would protect buffer zones. New clause 20 would explicitly protect buffer zones, because the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has intervened to protect buffer zones as part of human rights legislation. Some may argue, “Don’t worry: because she made that ruling and fought that case for us in Northern Ireland, we can apply it to England and Wales.” New clause 20 would put that beyond doubt. It is therefore not some untried and untested mechanism for defending abortion; it is about recognising that, if we want to protect abortion access, we have to repeal the relevant legislation and then say what happens next.
Jim Shannon
I cannot let the occasion pass without putting it on the record that silent prayer is very much just that: a silent prayer between the individual and their God. Nothing is ever said. With respect to the hon. Lady, it is totally erroneous for her to say that a silent prayer is wrong.
Ms Creasy
I understand the position that the hon. Member is taking. Many of us believe that somebody standing at an abortion clinic and feeling the need to pray there, rather than in a church or 150 metres away from the abortion clinic, is not silently praying but intervening on the privacy of the person accessing an abortion zone. That is why this Parliament—[Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Gentleman chuntering. I want to make some progress, but let me be very clear: those of us who recognise that safe access zones balance rights in the best way recognise that the hon. Gentleman is not alone in continuing to attack them. The vice-president of the United States has sought to attack our nation’s ability to protect women’s access to abortion clinics via safe access zones. The threat that we are facing is therefore not theoretical.
Emily Darlington
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as have all hon. Members who have spoken today. I am lucky never to have had an abortion, but I have had two miscarriages, and I cannot tell you how vulnerable I was at that time. Anybody coming up to me at that point would have made me feel even more terrible than I already did. I have friends who have had abortions, and it is a terrible choice to make, for whatever reason anybody makes it. Whether the child would not survive or was a child of rape—for whatever reason that choice gets made, nobody makes it happily. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason there are exclusion zones is that the human rights of that woman, who is going through one of the worst times of her life, must be protected at such a horrible time?
Ms Creasy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for giving that personal testimony. What she touches on is what we have seen in the debate in this country for several years now: the expectation that women should give a reason why they want to have an abortion or seek that kind of medical care. That is why the Trump playbook being brought into British politics—as we now see it is—is so dangerous in this context. When the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I note that he is not here to defend his views—talks about the “ludicrous” nature of our laws and calls for a reduction in the time limit, he is not thinking of all those people who get that horrific diagnosis. He is sending a bat signal to his colleagues and fellow travellers in America: that under his watch it would be open season in this country—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that if she refers to another Member, she should have given that Member advance warning.
Ms Creasy
I do apologise, Mr Vickers. I just thought that, given his recent pronouncement and the interest that he has shown in this matter, the hon. Member for Clacton would be here.
Let me talk, then, about the vice-president of the United States—I hope you will understand, Mr Vickers, that I could not have asked him to be here today. He is one of those fellow travellers who believes that there are votes to be gained by using women’s bodies as a battlefield; that is what the debate about abortion in America has become. We are seeing American ideas—the concept of abortion until birth and the idea that women should be expected to explain themselves—being brought into our debates. I know that many of us will fight tooth and nail against those narratives and for equality, so I ask colleagues across the House: when people come for our abortion rights or propose further restrictions or “safeguards” for abortion, do we want the power of a human rights commissioner to back us up in those fights? This is our chance to have that: new clause 20 learns from a body of law and of practice in Northern Ireland about how we protect abortion properly. We do not just decriminalise it; the new clause would properly protect abortion.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, and I urge her to reread new clause 20, because from what she said, I do not think she has read it properly. Rather than concentrating power in the hands of Ministers —precisely because of the risk that comes from any future Government that may seek to use secondary legislation powers—the new clause would actively restrict them. It has a triple lock and states, first, that regulations can be made only to uphold that human rights approach and, secondly, that they cannot be used to reduce access to abortion, or to amend section 1 of the 1967 Act—which new clause 20 keeps in play as a list for regulation rather than prosecution, so it does not touch the time limits either. The new clause then states that any attempt to undermine that human rights lock can be done only with the support of the entire Parliament.
Any new Member of Parliament here today has probably had the pleasure of sitting on a Delegated Legislation Committee in the last year and wondered quite what they are doing in a small Committee Room. The answer is that they are making law, but doing so in a Committee where the balance of power has been determined by the Whips and where the Government get to decide who sits on that Committee. Those are secondary legislation powers. It is entirely conceivable that new clause 1, if passed, would give those secondary legislation powers—they are in the policing Bill—to a future Government without any restriction.
Tonia Antoniazzi
This is not a competition between my hon. Friend and me—we both have the same aim—but it is interesting that more than 115 MPs have signed new clause 1, and it has been endorsed by the whole industry. Everyone has signed up to it. Has my hon. Friend had conversations with them about why they have not signed up to her new clause?
Ms Creasy
I am sorry that my hon. Friend feels the need to ask that question. She knows full well that despite me asking repeatedly to meet her and to talk to the campaigners she has been working with, that meeting has not yet been forthcoming. I am still open to meeting people, but we need to be very clear on the record: new clause 20 has in it a lock on the activity of Ministers, deliberately so, because this is a human rights issue. It should be a matter that is subject to the entire Parliament, and it should be clear that Ministers may only ever use the powers in this legislation to make human rights-compliant legislation. If they did not, the human rights commissioner could challenge them on it and take the Secretary of State to court, just as was done in Northern Ireland.
Conversely, new clause 1 would allow Ministers to have secondary legislation powers without any restrictions. Again, I ask Members who are concerned about Ministers being involved in writing legislation to look at the difference in that constitutional role. I recognise that only those who have had the repeated pleasure of serving on secondary legislation Committees will understand the powers they can have. Certainly, I encourage people to look at how George Osborne used secondary legislation powers to change the student tuition fee rates and benefit rights. The previous Government used them under the retained EU law legislation. The scope of those powers has been broadening. Many of us respect the role of Government, but obviously we recognise that, should there be a Government with a more extreme agenda in the future, they will also have those powers. New clause 20 would lock those powers down.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer, because others wish to speak. What matters is that we are clear about why proper decriminalisation matters. Restricting access to abortion does not stop abortion; it stops safe abortion. Failing to protect access to abortion does not make it easier for people to have children; it simply means more pain, misery and heartache to be had. There is no right amount of abortions to happen in our society, but a basic human right is at stake here. Members of this House who are alive to the politics and the policy debates on abortion and in politics would do well to think about how they will feel in five years’ time if what we see at the moment is the start, not the end, of assaults on abortion. I urge Members who care about decriminalisation to back new clause 20 and make sure that our constituents in England and Wales have the same human right that they do in France and Northern Ireland.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate today. My views differ from many who have spoken, and I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who outlined our case extremely well. For me, this is a debate on life. I believe that both lives matter in every pregnancy. The most basic human right is the right to life. I speak today with deep conviction on this issue, and a desire to restore life-affirming laws to this entire United Kingdom—laws that protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is important to outline that since the 1967 Act was brought into force in the United Kingdom, 10 million abortions have taken place. One baby is lost to abortion every two and a half minutes; that is 26 lives every hour—and this debate will last three hours. That is stark. I come at this issue from the perspective of life and the protection of life. In every pregnancy, both lives matter.
There are times in politics when one does not enjoy being right. Back in 2021, I wrote in The House magazine of my fears that the pills-by-post scheme for at-home abortions was leading to an increase in medical complications, dangerous late abortions and coerced abortions. Plenty of others expressed similar fears. Sadly, those fears have all proven to be true. A study based on freedom of information requests to NHS trusts found that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill, provided by the NHS, at home in 2020 needed hospital treatment for side effects—equivalent to more than one in 17 women, or 20 women per day. Late last year, Stuart Worby was convicted of using abortion pills obtained by a third party through the pills-by-post scheme to induce an abortion of a woman against her knowledge or will.
All those cases could have been prevented if abortion providers had not lobbied, in the face of warnings about precisely those kinds of incidents occurring, for the removal of in-person appointments where health risks could be assessed and the woman’s identity and gestational age accurately verified. It is that last point about ensuring that a woman’s gestational age is accurately verified that has indirectly led to the debate we are having today.
The abortion lobby has acknowledged—I quote Jonathan Lord, former medical director for abortion provider Marie Stopes—that until recently, “only three women”
had
“ever been on trial over the past 160 years”
for illegal abortions. Since then, there has been an increase in investigations and prosecutions, albeit still a very small number in the light of the more than a quarter of a million abortions we now have every year in the United Kingdom—a national tragedy.
Why has there been a small rise in prosecutions? It is surely not because the CPS or police have suddenly decided to handle the issue in a more draconian way; rather, the pills-by-post scheme has enabled women, either dishonestly or because they have miscalculated their gestational age, to obtain abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit when at-home abortions are legal and considered safe for women—they are, of course, never safe for the baby—and even beyond the 24-week upper time limit for abortions in this country. Tragically, that has led to viable babies’ lives being ended. The responsibility for that surely lies with those who lobbied for the pills-by-post scheme.
What is the solution? Well, it cannot be to make matters worse by decriminalising abortion. That would be highly irresponsible, creating conditions where a woman could perform her own abortion, unsupervised, without any legal deterrent, away from a clinical setting, at a stage in pregnancy when doing so would carry great risks and when her baby would be viable. We would be de facto introducing abortion up to birth and reintroducing dangerous backstreet abortions. That is not pro-women, and it renders the time limit redundant in a context where pills can be obtained without any reliable in-person gestational age check.
There is a clear alternative solution: end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultations. Polling published by The Telegraph last year found that more than half of the public agreed that it should remain the case that a woman is breaking the law if she has an abortion of a healthy baby between the current 24-week legal time limit and birth; only 16% disagreed. The public does not support decriminalisation. Only 1% support abortion up to birth, which such proposals would introduce by the removal of offences prohibiting women from performing their own abortion at any stage. Polling has found that 71% of women support a return to in-person appointments, with only 9% in favour of continuing with the scheme.
Decriminalisation is a convenient way to cover up the disastrous consequences of the pills-by-post scheme. I greatly fear that, just as my earlier warnings about the scheme have sadly proven true, if decriminalisation were introduced my warnings today would also come true and more women would take abortion pills away from a clinical context late in pregnancy, endangering their lives and leading to the tragic deaths of viable unborn babies. Permitting that would be profoundly irresponsible. Ideology would be trumping women’s safety.
One final comment: I have rarely witnessed anything as cynical and disingenuous as the argument, put forward by its supporters, that decriminalisation would allow women in England and Wales to have the same so-called rights as women in Northern Ireland. When the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) hijacked the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2019 to impose abortion on Northern Ireland without democratic consent, she seemed to have no problem at all with the law in England and Wales, bemoaning how women in Northern Ireland were being discriminated against because they did not have access to the same law. She then, however, helped to introduce an even more extreme law for Northern Ireland than what we have here in England and Wales, and now cynically uses that more extreme law to argue that it is women in England and Wales who are now being discriminated against, despite the fact they can access abortions up to almost six months of pregnancy, essentially on demand. In my mind, that is politics of the lowest kind.
What is not often recognised is that introducing decriminalisation here would not bring abortion practice in England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, because of this key difference: there is no pills-by-post scheme in Northern Ireland. It is the combination of the pills-by-post scheme, whereby women can obtain abortion pills without reliable checks for gestational age, health risks or coercion, while also removing any deterrent against women performing their own abortions right up to birth, that would make decriminalisation so dangerous and so irresponsible for the Government. I hope my warnings will not go unheeded this time.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I am most grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee for this crucial debate. I also thank Gemma, the thousands of people who have signed the petition and the hundreds of constituents who have contacted me over the years, adding their voices to the call to end the archaic law that sees women who access medical services given some of the harshest sentences that our criminal system doles out.
Despite the surrounding issues, we have to be clear that the debate today is not specifically about changing the laws around termination limits. It is not about changing the eligibility for legal abortions, nor is it about changing the requirements for administering abortions. This debate is about changing antiquated laws from a bygone era that are no longer fit for our modern understanding of women’s bodily autonomy or women’s health.
[Peter Dowd in the Chair]
The Abortion Act 1967 is now almost 60 years old. There are many things that have changed in terms of women’s rights. In fact, it was not until 1991 that the idea that women could be raped by their husbands was accepted and the act was criminalised. This nearly 60-year-old law is in urgent need of updating so that it protects women and our right to bodily autonomy, rather than seeking to control it. Some of the other legislation that criminalises women for accessing healthcare dates from as early as the 1600s.
In 2020, I was pleased to join parliamentarians in voting to repeal legislation in Northern Ireland that prosecuted women for terminating their own pregnancies, yet in England, Scotland and Wales this type of legislation remains in place. The rest of the UK is dragging far behind the rest of the world: in England and Wales, we have the harshest criminalisation of abortion of any country in the world, and that includes countries that are actively anti-abortion, such as Poland and the USA. When President Trump announced his plans to criminalise women accessing abortion, he faced backlash from the Susan B. Anthony List, ardent anti-abortion campaigners.
In the past three years in England six women have appeared in court, charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancies. Abortion providers estimate that, for every woman who ends up in court, at least 10 others are subject to prolonged police investigations. When we talk about women being criminalised, we are not only referring to those who have accessed abortion beyond the legal term limit or even those suspected of doing so, but those women who have experienced miscarriages and stillbirths, who are being criminalised, investigated, and treated like criminals when they are going through a difficult and traumatic experience.
As someone who has experienced a stillbirth, I cannot express how traumatic it is. The idea that, during what can be the most difficult time in your life, you would be treated in that way—it just bears no understanding whatsoever. I remember that, very late on in my pregnancy, I was strongly advised—in fact, I felt under pressure—to terminate my pregnancy, and by doctors, not by anyone else. I was told that an injection could be given to stop my baby’s heart, but that I would still have to give birth because of how late it was.
I said no—but what I want to point out here is that it was my choice. It is very important to stress that it was my choice. We spend so much time fighting for abortion rights and the right to healthcare that we often have no time to make the point that this is all about the choice women are given.
So many people come at this issue from a point of faith. We need to understand that the right to exercise one’s faith in healthcare decisions is a human right. If that right is taken away and relinquished for one group of women who may choose to act for whatever reason, it is also relinquished for those who may choose not to move forward with an abortion. We have to keep stressing that: it is about choice. As a woman—as a black woman—I know that things have been done to our bodies for years without our consent. The rights we have now are about our autonomy, and we have to maintain them in whatever way we can.
It cannot be right that, while a woman is in this situation, the recent guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council includes instructions to search her home, internet history, text messages and even fertility tracking apps. That is awful. The guidance also, alarmingly, outlines ways in which the police can obtain abortion-related medical records from NHS providers, such as MSI Reproductive Choices UK, without a court order. Pregnancy loss is a devastating tragedy, and those who endure it deserve compassion and support—not criminalisation. It is grossly unacceptable to treat grieving parents as potential suspects in the loss of their child. This guidance risks compounding grief with the fear of prosecution, creating an effect that could deter women from seeking medical help or honest conversations with healthcare providers.
Equally, the decision to end a pregnancy can be devastating—a tragedy. Those who endure that also deserve compassion and support, not criminalisation. Access to healthcare should never be a criminal matter; making it so only puts lives at risk. Rather than targeting bereaved families, there should be a focus on improving maternal healthcare, addressing systemic failures, and ensuring that every parent receives the support they need during such a loss. As Louise McCudden, the head of external affairs at MSI Reproductive Choices UK, said:
“This guidance will be fuelling a culture of hostility and suspicion towards abortion and pregnancy.”
This policy is born out of a culture that demonises and criminalises women who access abortions, exercising their bodily autonomy, and it is sweeping up women who have seen their pregnancies come to an unplanned end. No one deserves to be investigated for ending their own pregnancy—and they certainly do not deserve it when they have lost their child. Those women and their partners need support during that time, but they will not get it if they are being treated like criminals. The continued criminalisation of abortion is antiquated, it lacks compassion and it needs to come to an end. This is about a choice, and every woman should be allowed to make that choice based on her views and beliefs. That is what our human rights are supposed to be about.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for his powerful introduction to this very timeous petition debate. This is a conscience issue, and my Liberal Democrat colleagues may have very different views, but I find it ironic that it is a conscience issue as to whether women should have a choice over their own reproductive healthcare.
The petition calls on the UK Government to:
“remove abortion from criminal law so that no pregnant person can be criminalised for procuring their own abortion. The UK is out of step with World Health Organization who in 2022 recommended that barriers to abortion such as criminalisation, or approval of others or institutions should be removed. Amnesty International state that abortion is a human rights issue.”
I wonder how many people watching the debate, or at home this evening, are surprised that we still need to have this debate. They might be astonished that women in this country can be criminalised for having an abortion, because they believe that in 1967 the Abortion Act made abortion legal. Actually, what it did was to make it legal in certain circumstances, and more than half a century later we are still debating when and how it is appropriate and when women can have the choice. As the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, so much has changed in the intervening years and so much about our society, laws and the political situation in which we live today is different from when that law was passed in 1967.
I believe that everyone, regardless of their gender identity, has a right to make independent decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the state or the law. Access to reproductive healthcare is a human right, as has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in relation to Northern Ireland.
Why are we debating this issue today? Because in this country we are seeing a rise in the number of prosecutions of women who have had abortions. We have heard about the tactics. In her powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) spoke about the stories of women like Sammy and Sophie, who are going through trauma because they made a decision. That is wholly unacceptable to me.
I find it unfortunate that at times today we have argued about how we decriminalise abortion and remove it from the statute books. Surely, the thing to do is to remove it altogether, not partially remove it or decriminalise it—to remove it altogether. The way we do that is by making it a human right, as it is in other countries. I also take issue with those who say that it is not a human right for women who have to go through an abortion when that goes against what their choice would be in other circumstances, often because they have been raped or because they have been told that it is a medical necessity. They deserve the protection of going through that in private and the right to do so. It should be a completely private personal choice and decision.
The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill spoke about the right of women to decide not to have an abortion. That is as important to me as the right to have an abortion. I have often said in this place that I do not know what I would do in that situation. I have never had to make that choice. But I do not have the right to make that choice for any other woman; she has the right to make that choice based on her faith, her beliefs or her medical or personal situation and without any interference from me or anybody else.
The fact that we are still debating this question is a failure: a failure of our system to recognise the rights of every individual to their own healthcare decisions. The only way that we can effectively protect people from being criminalised is to make abortion a human right in the way that we did in Northern Ireland. I was part of that campaign, along with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). It is right that women in every part of the United Kingdom should have the same protection, choice and rights.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate and the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening it.
As shadow Justice Minister, I have spoken on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in recent debates on assisted dying, and I do so again today on another complex issue that similarly draws on ethical, legal and moral questions. I do not think that today’s debate is a failure; it reflects the complexity of the issue at hand. Like assisted dying, calls to decriminalise abortion can trigger profound disagreement among families, friends and indeed, Members of Parliament of the same and different political parties. I deeply respect the perspectives of those advocating for this change and everyone who signed the petition, including 142 constituents of mine in Bexhill and Battle. I do not know the new hon. Members quite as well, but I have come to deeply respect the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on many issues, even if we do not see eye to eye on this.
If there were to be a vote, the historical position has always been that it would be a free vote. There are a variety of views among Conservative MPs, councillors and members, and His Majesty’s Opposition would remain neutral. In my experience, the preponderance of Conservative thought, particularly among parliamentarians, has been caution about decriminalisation because, it is argued, it carries risks that could undermine the current balance of rights and protections enshrined in our legal framework.
Let me be absolutely clear to people watching, especially women who might be worried that the UK is somehow rowing back on our abortion provision: in England, Scotland and Wales, abortion is lawful, provided that the usual criteria in the Abortion Act 1967 are met. There are different criteria in Northern Ireland, but the previous Government introduced a new legal framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland to that effect. As hon. Members have said, the Abortion Act 1967 provides grounds for an abortion, exempting women from prosecution under the Offences against the Person Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.
The petitioners have asked us to consider whether abortion should be decriminalised completely, so that no woman, or potentially no individual who assists her, can be prosecuted for an abortion under any circumstances. When considering abortion, we are not just considering the wellbeing, autonomy and rights of the pregnant woman. Our society and legal system have also given consideration to the welfare of the unborn child. The phrase “unborn child” is, on the face of it, a clear and simple one, but in moral and legal terms it lacks the moral clarity we feel about the moral considerations due to a child after its birth.
Religious thought of all kinds very often ascribes moral rights of a high magnitude to an unborn child at any stage. More scientifically focused viewpoints try to give consideration to the level of development, sensitivity to pain and suffering, or the point at which an unborn child might survive outside the womb. I think it is fair to say that there is a very widely held view that a human embryo at any stage is afforded moral consideration beyond that given to any other collection of equivalent cells.
In the case of abortion, the law is designed to recognise that. Criminal law is the manner in which we safeguard the vulnerable and uphold the sanctity of life in our system. Abortion laws, as they stand, provide a structure to ensure the rights of everyone involved, including pregnant women and unborn children, are considered with a degree of fairness and that there is accountability.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I apologise for arriving late, Mr Dowd, and it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. My hon. Friend makes a salient point about the ethical issues around extinguishing the life of the unborn. There is another salient matter: the assumption on the part of the advocates of this move that individual autonomy—we see the same with the debate about the end of life—trumps all else and that personal interests, dressed up as rights, are more important than the obligations to others and society along with duties to the country and those greater duties to God. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the philosophical rather than the theological aspect of that?
Dr Mullan
Although my right hon. Friend and I might not agree on where we draw the line on each of those very complex issues in different circumstances, I absolutely sympathise with the view that individuals sit within society and we have a wider obligation. Sometimes, laws and our customs are not there just for the benefit of individuals; they are there because of wider considerations.
Ms Creasy
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way and I recognise the points he is making. However, he says that criminal law is the way in which we give effect to the framework that he is talking about. Obviously, as we have discussed in this debate, there is no criminal underpinning to abortion in Northern Ireland, where abortion is a healthcare matter and is regulated as healthcare. For the avoidance of doubt, can I clarify that he would also accept that if we were to do as new clause 20 requires and introduce healthcare regulations that are human rights-compliant to replace the criminal regulation, there would be regulation and guidance about health services? It would not create a gap; it would be a replacement.
Dr Mullan
What I said was that traditionally in this country the nature of how we oversee and protect sanctity of life questions and those who might extinguish life is through the criminal law. Of course, the hon. Member is right to point out that in other jurisdictions, including in Northern Ireland, they might do it differently, but that is the tradition, certainly in England and Wales and, in most regards, in Northern Ireland, too. I do not think that it is fair for her to use an example of doing things differently to suggest that arguments different from that are not valid. In fact, generally speaking I found her remarks during this debate to be quite insensitive to the complexities of the issues at hand. She was tempted to focus more of her time on talking about Trump than on the very delicate balancing act that many people bring to debates about this morally complex issue. I will now continue with my speech.
We must also remember that ultimately any prosecution undertaken by the CPS must meet the test for being in the public interest. We must not confuse questions about the appropriateness of sentencing and the appropriateness of an individual decision to prosecute with an overall question about whether the criminal law itself is the right or wrong mechanism through which we regulate this activity.
Proponents of decriminalisation often cite the World Health Organisation’s recommendation from 2022, which advocates removing barriers such as criminalisation. Although such recommendations should, of course, carry weight with many, it is essential to view them through the lens of our unique societal context here in the UK. The bulk of the World Health Organisation’s recommendations are very much focused on countries that have a much lower rate of access to abortion, in all sorts of different ways, and so they sit within a different context. Our abortion laws have evolved over time to reflect the delicate balance between the rights of pregnant women and the ethical considerations surrounding unborn life. I would caution against taking a universal recommendation from a global organisation as a litmus test for whether we are or are not doing things correctly.
When prosecutions occur, they are no doubt distressing for those involved. However, we also should be wary of changing the law in response to individual cases without looking at the operation of the law as a whole and, as I have said, without considering other elements, such as the operation of the law by the CPS, that have a bigger role to play than the law in itself.
Accountability is a cornerstone of ethical practice and criminal law serves as a mechanism through which accountability is ensured in many spaces. Without such safeguards, society is potentially less able to properly address situations where procedures are conducted wrongly. These are questions that demand careful consideration and proper parliamentary debate before any changes to existing laws are made. As I and others have already mentioned, debates about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Gower and others will provide the opportunity for that.
In their response to the petition, the Government have stated that they have no current plans to change the law on abortion and I am sure the Minister will say more about that in her closing remarks. Although discussions about potential refinements to current laws are valid and deserve proper consideration, I suspect that a number of MPs would argue that the removal of criminal penalties must be approached with caution.
As I have said already, the hon. Member for Gower has tabled new clause 1 to the Crime and Policing Bill, and Members will know that debate on amendments tabled to the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill did not happen because of the timing of last year’s general election. Successive Governments have adopted a neutral stance on abortion and treated it as a free vote issue. However, I understand that the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention was unable to clearly restate that assurance on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill. I would welcome it if the Minister who is here today confirmed in her remarks that the Government will continue to be neutral on abortion.
Amnesty International has framed abortion as a human rights issue, advocating for its decriminalisation. However, all measures must be applied in a manner that respects the rights of all affected parties, including the unborn. The ethical and moral considerations surrounding abortion are multifaceted and these complexities cannot be overlooked.
Before I conclude my remarks, I will say something about the tone of this debate. As we engage with this issue over the next few weeks and months, it is imperative that we consider the diverse perspectives and experiences that shape opinions on abortion law. I hope that we will all strive to find solutions that uphold dignity, fairness and justice for all. The legal framework governing abortion must maintain an emphasis on protecting both individual rights and societal values. As I said earlier, abortion is an issue that transcends simplistic policy analysis. It is a matter of ethics, justice and the principles that define who we are as a society. The Opposition believe that abortion law should remain robust, balanced and capable of addressing the complexities of these issues. It will be for individual MPs to decide how that balance is best struck.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening this debate. I echo the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), on the tone of the debate on this topic, as we move forward into the coming weeks. I thank all those who signed and supported the petition, and the petitioner, Gemma Clark, for raising this vital issue.
The petition calls on the UK Government to
“remove abortion from criminal law so that no pregnant person”—
woman—
“can be criminalised for procuring their own abortion.”
I recognise and respect that there are strongly held views on this highly sensitive issue not only in Parliament but across the country. I thank the more than 200 people in my constituency of Pontypridd who signed this petition.
I will make it clear at the outset that the Government maintain a neutral stance on changing the criminal law on abortion in England and Wales. I recognise that the Government’s position of strict neutrality on this issue can be frustrating for all involved, and for none more so than me. If I were speaking in this debate as the Member for Pontypridd, my contribution would be very different, but thankfully my views on abortion are well known, and already proudly on the record. It is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortion should take place, allowing Members to vote according to their moral, ethical or religious beliefs.
I emphasise that the Government are wholly committed to ensuring access to safe, regulated abortions. All women in England and Wales can have access to safe, regulated abortions on the NHS under our current laws. In England and Wales, that access is provided through legislation set by Parliament: the Abortion Act 1967. Hon. Members have already stated the facts of the criminal law on abortion in England and Wales, but it might be helpful if I also do so, and set out the three main offences that apply. When I refer to matters concerning the law on abortion, any reference is to its application in England and Wales. The law on abortion in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.
The Offences against the Person Act 1861 provides two criminal offences that apply specifically to cases of abortion. Section 58 makes it a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to intentionally
“procure her own miscarriage”
by unlawfully taking drugs or using instruments. It is also an offence for another person to unlawfully administer drugs or use instruments with the intention
“to procure the miscarriage of any woman”,
whether or not she is in fact pregnant. Section 59 makes it an offence for a person to supply or procure a drug, poison or instrument with the intention for it to be used to procure a miscarriage.
The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 deals with late-term abortions in England and Wales. Under section 1 of that Act, it is an offence for any person to intentionally
“destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive”
before it is born, unless it can be proven that the act was done in good faith and only to preserve the life of the woman. Decisions to bring a prosecution under those provisions are for the independent Crown Prosecution Service. In deciding whether to bring a prosecution, the CPS will apply the two-stage test in the code for Crown prosecutors. The first stage asks whether
“there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”;
the second asks whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.
The criminal provisions should be read in conjunction with the Abortion Act 1967, which provides exemptions to the criminal offences. Under the 1967 Act and accompanying regulations, women in England and Wales have access to safe, legal and regulated abortion services, which can be provided in an NHS facility or a place provided by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, such as an independent sector or clinic. In effect, lawful abortions can be provided in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, where two doctors agree that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk of
“injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family”.
Abortions beyond 24 weeks are permitted, if necessary, to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, where there is risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or if there is a substantial risk that the child would be seriously handicapped due to physical or mental abnormalities.
To reiterate, the Government maintain a neutral stance on changing the law on decriminalising abortion. It is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortions should take place, allowing Members to vote according to their moral, ethical or religious beliefs. Hon. Members are aware that new clauses tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill would decriminalise abortion. Should they be selected, those new clauses will provide the House with a further opportunity for a full debate on this issue.
In answer to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), I cannot and will not comment on the policy behind the proposed new clauses, but I may draw to the attention of the House any practical or legal issues with them. New clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend, seeks to disapply criminal offences related to an abortion from a woman in relation to her own pregnancy at any stage of gestation. That would mean that it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to terminate her own pregnancy at any stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has tabled a separate new clause that would introduce a human rights framework for future regulations related to abortion and protect existing abortion rights. New clause 20 would repeal several criminal offences in their entirety, meaning that it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman or anyone else to terminate a pregnancy. While the stated intention is clear, the practical effect of the new clause is more limited and the powers are unclear, which could give rise to unintended consequences. Should these new clauses be selected, the House will have a further opportunity for a full debate on this issue, and if the will of Parliament is that the law in England and Wales should change, then the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law is workable and enforced in the way that Parliament intended.
Ms Creasy
New clause 20 would introduce in England and Wales what we have done in Northern Ireland, and I know from the Minister’s previous comments on the record that she has been very supportive of that legal and moral duty to act. For the avoidance of doubt, can she clarify whether her officials have met the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to understand how this operates in practice in Northern Ireland?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will come back to my hon. Friend with that information once I have spoken to officials to find out the exact details. The Government remain neutral on the policy, but we are looking at the workability and practicality of the new clauses. I will discuss that with her at a later date.
Wherever one stands on the issue of legislative change, I commend colleagues for engaging in this debate. While the Government are neutral on this issue, I want to close by thanking all hon. Members for their careful consideration of these issues and thanking the campaigners who share different perspectives, as well as by recognising the many people who have written to their MPs to share their personal experiences.
Tony Vaughan
I again thank the petitioner, Gemma Clark, for starting this petition. As others have said, it is being debated at a crucial time given the proposed new clauses to the Crime and Policing Bill, which we have debated today to a degree. What is clear is that abortion investigations and prosecutions are on the rise, although they are still relatively small in number. However, what has come across in many hon. Members’ speeches is that a culture of fear flows from the criminal law. We heard of Sammy’s case. Victims are being treated as suspects; seven police officers raided a house and searched bins, phones and health apps at a time of deep vulnerability.
Many hon. Members referred to the centrality of choice and individual autonomy, as I did. Some Opposition Members mentioned the value of the life of the unborn child and said that autonomy was almost being treated as a trump card by those proposing decriminalisation. That is not something I hear or recognise. A human rights approach will always balance the competing rights that I have just referred to. That is what the Supreme Court did in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission case when it found that the rules at that time were incompatible with the law.
There is always the backstop of preventing inhuman treatment, but there was no real rebuttal to the proposition that public attitudes in England and Wales overwhelmingly support decriminalisation. It follows that Parliament should respond to that. I again thank the petitioner for presenting this House with an opportunity to consider this crucial issue, and I thank everyone for participating in the Petitions Committee process.
Question put,
That this House has considered e-petition 700014 relating to decriminalising abortion.
The Chair’s opinion as to the decision of the Question was challenged.
Question not decided (Standing Order No. 10(13)).
Health and Social Care
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ashley Dalton
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.
[Official Report, 8 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 893.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton):
Ashley Dalton
In February, more than 80% of patients in England referred for cancer had it ruled out or diagnosed within 28 days—we are now routinely exceeding the faster diagnosis target.
Apprenticeships and Skills Training
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
We have announced radical reforms to the skills system to support 120,000 new training opportunities this Parliament. We are continuing to invest in programmes designed to boost the workforce in key growth sectors and making changes to support opportunity for young people. Skills are an engine of economic growth, improving productivity and giving people the opportunity to thrive in work and life. To deliver on our plan for change, we need a skills system that is geared to deliver the skills we need, focused on economic priorities and supporting opportunity for learners.
Creating more opportunities for young people with the growth and skills levy
Last year, the Prime Minister announced a new growth and skills levy, which is now backed by its largest ever budget of over £3 billion. This will provide greater flexibility to employers and learners and widen the apprenticeship offer, helping more people gain the skills they need, fuelling business innovation, and providing high-quality pathways for young people.
The rate of young people’s apprenticeship starts have fallen more dramatically than the overall decline over the last decade. We want to rebalance the programme back towards young people beginning their careers. As a first step, we are introducing new foundation apprenticeships, which are an employment-based training offer that give young people a route into careers in critical sectors, enabling them to earn a wage while developing vital skills.
The first foundation apprenticeships will be available from August 2025. They will be focused on industrial strategy priority areas including construction and the built environment, engineering and manufacturing, health and social care, and digital. They will be underpinned by an employer incentive payment to contribute to the extra costs of supporting someone at the beginning of their career, such as through coaching and mentoring. We will continue exploring how to make foundation apprenticeships work in other sectors like hospitality and retail too. We expect this to drive up to 30,000 apprenticeship starts across this Parliament.
This reform will be complemented by changes to the wider apprenticeships offer that we have already set out, such as shorter duration apprenticeships and more flexible English and maths requirements.
Creating more opportunities for young people at the start of their working lives means we need to prioritise public funding towards them, rather than those already in work with more prior learning and qualifications. That is why we announced our intention to move funding away from level 7—masters-level—apprenticeships, to support a more flexible offer at lower levels.
I am now confirming that we will proceed with this reform. We will continue to fund level 7 for those aged 16 to 21—when they start their apprenticeship—and support apprentices already on a level 7 apprenticeship through to completion. This change will apply from January 2026 across all sectors.
Skills England was asked to provide insight into the impact of defunding level 7 apprenticeships. They engaged with over 700 stakeholders from various sectors, employer representative bodies, and young people, which indicated that, in general, level 7 apprenticeships were high-quality and were well supported, by employers. Many learners who completed these apprenticeships saw higher wages one year after study, compared with the average UK salary. It was also clear that these apprenticeships are important for meeting the skills needs of the economy. However, alternative routes are well supplied and Skills England’s evidence suggested there was unlikely to be a significant or unavoidable fall in the supply of these skills in the long term, post-defunding. Therefore, we will be encouraging employers to invest in upskilling their staff to this level, to enable levy funding to be rebalanced towards training at lower levels.
Skills England did not find a strong enough economic rationale to exempt a small group of level 7 apprenticeship standards from defunding. While level 7 apprenticeships can be a valuable route for some disadvantaged learners, a significant proportion are from non-deprived backgrounds and are significantly less likely to be deprived than apprentices at lower levels. Level 7 generally has a higher proportion of older learners than other apprenticeships, particularly the senior leader apprenticeship—where 99% are over 25—and standards with an embedded postgraduate qualification.
However, there are several exceptions which benefit young people at the start of their careers, like solicitors and accountancy or taxation professionals. This is why we have decided that younger learners, from all backgrounds, will continue to be funded under our reforms. Level 7 apprenticeships are a valuable entry point for young people into good careers, such as law, accountancy and town planning; we have seen thousands take advantage of these opportunities and this will continue under our new approach.
This decision was informed by a wide range of evidence, including Skills England’s analysis of official apprenticeship statistics and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. We also considered wider data and representations and weighed this up against the Government’s clear priorities.
This decision to prioritise young people is a crucial step in delivering the Government’s plan for change and achieving its missions of driving growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are prioritising funding towards young people and creating more opportunities for those entering the labour market, who need skills and training to get on in their careers, and powering growth across the country by providing the skills businesses need.
Expanding skills funding via the immigration skills charge
We are also expanding funding in the wider skills system to support growth and opportunity. In the immigration White Paper published on Monday 12 May, the Government confirmed a 32% increase in the rate of the immigration skills charge, which will be used at the oncoming spending review to support skills funding for priority sectors to upskill the domestic workforce and reduce reliance on migration over the medium term. The increase in the immigration skills charge could help deliver up to 45,000 training places across this Parliament.
Boosting investment in skills for growth
We are also increasing investment in construction skills, building on more than £600 million announced by the Chancellor in March. We are boosting job prospects for adults interested in jobs in the sector, expanding training in priority sectors via skills bootcamps and free courses for jobs:
The Department will devolve around £14 million of additional adult skills funding for the construction sector to local mayors for next academic year, giving them the freedom to make the right choices for their areas. We expect this to deliver up to 5,000 additional adult learners on training courses.
For non-devolved areas, 13 new construction courses at level 2 will be added to the free courses for jobs offer available for adults so more people can upskill, improve their job prospects and earn a higher wage.
The Government are confirming £136 million for providing skills bootcamps across a range of priority sectors in 2025-26 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skills-bootcamps-funding-allocations/skills-bootcamps-funding-allocations-2025-to-2026 providing training to over 40,000 learners. This is on top of £100 million over the next four years to expand skills bootcamps in construction, as announced at spring statement.
The Government are also launching technical excellence colleges (TECs) specialising in construction skills. Colleges will be able to apply to become construction TECs and the application process will open this term for 10, to launch in September 2025. These colleges will be leaders in delivering specialist skills, directly training learners and supporting other providers of construction skills across their regions—ensuring local people can benefit from this investment. They will serve as leaders in world-class skills training, combining excellent teaching standards with close working with industry experts.
Formal establishment of Skills England
These reforms will be driven forward by Skills England, which today becomes an Executive Agency of the Department for Education. Skills England will build our nation’s world-class skills, enabling growth and opportunity by:
Understanding the nation’s future skills needs and improving our skills offer.
Simplifying access to skills to boost economic growth.
Mobilising employers and other partners, co-creating solutions to meet national, regional and local skills needs.
To do this, Skills England will combine new functions with some of those previously undertaken by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE). On 15 May 2025, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act received Royal Assent. This provided functions and assets to the Secretary of State that were previously held by IfATE, which has now been formally closed. These functions will broadly be exercised by Skills England and, combined with its broader work in the skills system, enable it to take its work forward as an Executive Agency of the Department for Education, with the approval of Cabinet Office and HM Treasury Ministers. Final accounts for IfATE will be presented to Parliament in due course.
The Government are also confirming board appointments to Skills England, and the latest analysis from Skills England is being published to help develop the Government’s understanding of skills needs and how they can be met.
The reforms announced today mark an important step in Government’s comprehensive strategy for post-16 education, delivering our youth guarantee, and our commitment to addressing skills shortages to drive growth while creating better opportunities for young people and adults across England.
[HCWS672]
Capacity Market: Consumer-led Flexibility
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am tabling this statement to inform Members of a publication relating to the capacity market. The publication provides a response to the Government’s recent consultation on improvements to capacity market rules and treatment of consumer-led flexibility. It sets out the Government’s intention to proceed with all of the changes proposed in the consultation, after all received majority support from respondents.
This Government have committed to delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero, while ensuring continued security of supply. The capacity market is Great Britian’s main mechanism for ensuring security of electricity supply by procuring additional capacity needed to meet peak demand ahead of time.
The funding provided through the capacity market incentivises investment in new and existing capacity, as well as interconnectors, batteries, and consumer-led flexibility. This capacity is acquired through annual auctions held at intervals four years ahead and one year ahead of their respective delivery years. The Government regularly amend the capacity market prior to auction cycles to ensure it remains fit for purpose, is cost-effective, and supports broader strategic objectives.
This Government response sets out our intention to proceed with policies to streamline how consumer-led flexibility, delivered by demand-side response mechanisms, participates in the capacity market. As participation in the capacity market from demand-side response portfolios increases, it is important that capacity market rules are updated to better incorporate and enable access from technologies that can respond flexibly to periods of high energy demand. In addition, the Government are also introducing a termination fee for demand-side response capacity market units that fail to demonstrate agreed capacity, improving delivery assurance to enable the capacity market to fulfil its central principle of ensuring security of supply.
The response also outlines our intention to move forward with changes to the capacity market rules to improve accessibility and provide policy intent clarifications. The changes confirmed in the Government response will enable capacity market units to change their opt-out status following a change in their operational circumstances and will remove rules on transitional and coronavirus arrangements which are no longer required. The proposed changes also extend a policy to allow existing generators to use data older than 24 months to prequalify for auctions held in 2026 and clarify the role of the scheme’s delivery body. These changes should increase participation in future Capacity Market auction and therefore increase competitiveness and value for money for consumers.
The Government intend to introduce these changes prior to the 2025 prequalification period for the next capacity market auctions. This will give participants clarity and certainty ahead of their entrance into the auctions and allow them to adapt to the changes we have made.
[HCWS671]
Africa Approach Consultation
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Africa (Lord Collins of Highbury) has today made the following statement:
Today, following the Foreign Secretary’s (Mr David Lammy) announcement of a five-month consultation in November last year, the Government are publishing a summary of our consultations.
The summary reflects what we have heard in our discussions with partners in the UK, and over 47 national governments, 25 multilateral institutions, and over 600 organisations covering a range of sectors, from businesses and civil society to creatives and diaspora organisations.
We are grateful to all those who generously gave their time and contributed their ideas to the consultation. We are drawing on the evidence to shape and inform the new Africa approach.
This will be formally launched in the second half of the year. It will set out how the UK can partner with African countries to boost sustainable economic growth, combat the climate crisis, tackle insecurity, and address our migration priorities, drawing on our shared cultural and people-to-people links.
[HCWS674]
Planning Reform and Housing Delivery
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I am today providing an update on various measures the Government are taking to further reform the planning system and achieve our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.
Speeding up build-out rates on large sites
Last year, the Government took decisive action to overhaul national planning policy through our December 2024 updates to the national planning policy framework. The changes made included the introduction of a new, mandatory standard method for assessing housing needs, and a new strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release that prioritises development on lower-quality grey-belt land. By allocating more land for development, the pro-growth framework that is now in place provides the foundation for higher rates of house building.
However, to significantly boost housing delivery we must close the gap between the amount of land allocated and permissioned and the number of homes being completed. The Competition and Markets Authority and others have concluded that most homes in England are not built as fast as they can be constructed, once permission is granted, but only as fast as the developer expects to sell them at local second-hand market prices. This leads to a build-out rate for large sites which can take decades to complete. While it is commercially rational for developers to operate in this way, the systemic impact is a lower level of house building than is needed.
As a result, the Government have published a “Planning Reform Working Paper: Speeding Up Build Out”, setting out a five-part strategy and a series of proposals to speed up build-out. These include measures to support mixed-tenure development; the implementation of conditional confirmation of compulsory purchase orders; and, as a measure of last resort, exploring the case for a delayed homes penalty, for use in instances where build-out is falling significantly behind the agreed schedule without a reasonable justification.
Alongside the working paper, we published a technical consultation on implementing measures to improve build-out transparency to gather views on the introduction of a new statutory build-out framework, which requires developers to submit information at different stages of the planning and development cycle, and a power for local authorities to decline to determine applications submitted by developers who persistently fail to build out sites quickly. We will also make it easier for councils to issue completion notices, which require housebuilders to complete development within a reasonable period of time, else the planning permission will cease—a form of “use it or lose it”.
Supporting small and medium-sized housebuilders
The Government are clear that we cannot achieve our ambitious house building targets without diversifying the housing market and making it more competitive. That means supporting a range of different developers, including small and medium-sized housebuilders.
The share of new-build homes delivered by SMEs has declined significantly since the 1980s, when smaller house builders delivered 40% of the country’s homes. To arrest and reverse the decline of SME house builders, and so maximise the contribution they can make to new housing supply, the Government are acting to support them by increasing their access to land, providing further financial assistance and easing the burden of regulation.
In respect of land, the Government have launched a pilot of a new form of partnership between cities, developers and the private sector—a small sites aggregator—that will bring together small plots of land and accelerate their development. The pilot will be trialled in Bristol, Sheffield and the London Borough of Lewisham, with support from the relevant regional authorities.
Alongside this, Homes England will release more of its land exclusively to SMEs, and the Government have also announced a £1.2 million PropTech innovation fund for up to 12 tech innovators to share to work with industry on scalable solutions that accelerate housing delivery and unlock the development potential of small sites.
In respect of finance, the government is allocating up to £100 million of the £700 million extension to the home building fund announced in December to introduce SME accelerator loans. These will provide SMEs with the finance they need to acquire new sites while they are building out existing developments.
We have also provided longer-term certainty of access to finance for SMEs by committing to providing a range of funding tools for SMEs as part of a new national housing delivery fund. This will include revolving credit facilities, alongside loans and lending alliances, to provide unprecedented Government support and ensure SMEs have the access to finances they need to grow, invest and support delivery of 1.5 million homes. Further detail will be provided at the forthcoming spending review.
Lastly, in respect of regulation, the Government have published a “Planning Reform Working Paper: Reforming Site Thresholds” to seek views on reforming site size thresholds in the planning system to better support housing delivery. The working paper proposes a gradated approach to the planning system—removing and streamlining disproportionate requirements on small and medium sites, while maintaining and strengthening requirements on major ones.
The proposals would see minor developments of up to nine homes benefit from streamlined planning and eased biodiversity net gain requirements, alongside faster decisions being taken by expert planning officers, not planning committees. A new proposed category of medium development for 10 to 49 homes would come with simpler rules and fewer costs—including a potential exemption from the building safety levy, and simplified BNG rules that make it easier to deliver biodiverse habitats on these sites, delivering a win-win for nature and development.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also launched consultations on how the implementation of BNG for small and medium developments could be simplified and improved, as well as BNG implementation for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The respective consultations can be found on www.gov.uk/government/consultations/biodiversity-net-gain-for-nationally-significant-infrastructure-projects
Planning committee reform
To further support the changes set out above, we have published our promised “Reform of Planning Committees: Technical Consultation”, providing detail on how we intend to implement the Planning and Infrastructure Bill provisions relating to the delegation of planning decisions, the size and composition of planning committees and mandatory training for members of planning committees.
The Government have been clear that planning committees have an integral role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, in exercising that democratic oversight, we must ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications which require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.
Our detailed proposals for the operation of a national scheme of delegation involve directing the majority of minor and technical planning applications to expert local planning offers (tier A), while enabling all other planning applications (tier B), which will include all significant new housing and commercial developments, to be determined by committee, if the local planning authority chief planning officer—or equivalent officer—and chair of planning committee mutually agree to depart from an assumed delegation. This will ensure that there is greater consistency and certainty across England about who in a local planning authority will be responsible for making planning decisions.
We believe these proposals strike the right balance between empowering professional planning officers and ensuring elected local representatives determine the most significant and contentious applications. I look forward to receiving feedback from hon. Members, local authorities, house builders and other important stakeholders.
[HCWS673]
Artificial Intelligence: Cross-Government Experiment
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I wish to inform the House of the findings from the recent Microsoft 365 Copilot experiment —a landmark Government artificial intelligence experiment, which demonstrates this Government’s bold commitment to harnessing cutting-edge technology to transform public service delivery and gain better value for the taxpayer.
The Government Digital Service led this cross-Government experiment using an AI-powered assistant from September to December 2024, involving 20,000 civil servants across 12 major Government organisations. The experiment used a robust methodology to evaluate whether AI tools could:
improve user satisfaction at work
reduce effort required to complete tasks
improve task quality
reduce time spent on routine activities
The eye-opening findings report will be published shortly on www.gov.uk, and will show that AI tools are liberating civil servants from repetitive administrative tasks, so that they can unleash their talents on strategic priorities that deliver greater value for Britain and British taxpayers.
Key findings
The most common benefits reported were increased productivity and reduced time searching for information. Importantly, many users indicated that productivity gains allowed them to spend more time on strategic and satisfying tasks.
Data received from the 12 participating Departments indicates a strong impact on time savings, with people saving an average of 26 minutes per day. Users reported increased work quality and motivation, as well as improving employee experience. In particular:
Adoption and usage: The experiment achieved an impressive 83% adoption rate within the first month. Adoption levels of around 80% were maintained throughout the experiment.
Time savings: the tool has a strong impact on time savings, with people saving an average of 26 minutes per day. More than a third of users reported to have saved more than half an hour a day.
User satisfaction: Users display a strong value attachment to using the tool and reported it increased work quality and motivation. 85% of users agree that the AI tool provides good value to the organisation. 82% of users would not want to go back to working without using an AI assistant.
Limitations: 17% of users did not notice any clear time savings. Professions that saved the least amount of time were those with the lowest satisfaction scores.
Conclusions: Priority should now be given to implementing an AI tool with groups showing the highest and lowest time savings, to better understand the tool’s impact and limitations across diverse user segments and professions. Priority should also be given to exploring how AI tools can improve accessibility, on which we have got some anecdotal evidence, and implementing benefits tracking for deeper insights.
This experiment is just one example of how we are using technology to drive far-reaching reform across the public sector. By putting the power of AI to work for the British people, we are creating a Government who are more efficient, responsive, and equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century, aligning with our broader vision set out in “A blueprint for modern digital government” to harness the power of AI for public good.
In line with our commitment to AI adoption in the public sector, we will take these findings forward through the newly established AI adoption unit within the Government Digital Service, which will build and deploy AI into public services, grow AI capacity and capability across Government, and ensure trust, responsibility and accountability in all we do. As part of this work, we are exploring a range of AI tools to assess their benefits, recognising that different AI tools and technologies may add more or less value depending on the use case.
We will continue to update the House on our progress as we work to make Government more efficient, responsive, and fit for the digital age.
[HCWS669]
Public Switched Telephone Network Migration: Communications Campaign
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Government are publicly supporting the national telecare communications campaign, which has been funded by BT and Virgin Media O2 and is being launched today. This campaign seeks to raise awareness of the migration of landlines from the old analogue copper landline, also known as the public switched telephone network, to digital voice over internet protocol.
The Government and industry want to appeal directly to vulnerable people and their friends, relatives and carers to ensure that they are migrated carefully. The national campaign is designed to raise awareness amongst support networks and encourage vulnerable individuals who use telecare alarms to identify themselves to their communication provider.
The campaign aims reach this target audience across the UK through various multimedia channels. It includes TV adverts, print, and community radio, with translations of the script to ensure that the campaign has a broad reach across the UK.
Further information for the public is available at www.digitalphoneswitchover.com as well as on www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-transition-from-analogue-to-digital-landlines
The PSTN is a privately owned telecommunications network, and the decision to upgrade it, which has been taken by industry, is a necessity due to its age and deterioration and is therefore supported by Government. In the period April 2024 to March 2025, there were over 2,600 major incidents on the PSTN, each affecting 500 or more customers, posing risks to vulnerable individuals, such as those using telecare devices, as well as a risk to critical services such as power plants, traffic lights, and hospitals.
Over two thirds of PSTN lines have already been migrated to VoIP, leaving fewer than 5.6 million lines operational. However, it is imperative for their own safety that vulnerable people are safely migrated.
The previous Government secured voluntary charters in December 2023 and March 2024 from the major communication providers and network operators, pausing non-voluntary migrations. A non-voluntary migration is where a communications provider migrates a customer without their consent following multiple attempts to contact the customer using different means, as it is essential that everyone is safely migrated.
In November 2024, I secured safeguards from communication providers and network operators to protect consumers, particularly the vulnerable. This includes anyone relying on their landline for any reason, including where mobile coverage is lacking, such as in rural areas. These safeguards are set out in the non-voluntary migration checklist at www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-switched-telephone-network-non-voluntary-migration-checklist/pstn-non-voluntary-migration-checklist The checklist includes data sharing agreements with local authorities to identify vulnerable people; timely and repeated communications with customers; free engineering visits; and providing vulnerable customers with a battery back-up for use in the event of a power cut. At the same time, I secured commitments to protect our critical services through a critical national infrastructure charter.
For these safeguards to work it is essential that vulnerable people are identified. This is being facilitated by data sharing agreements between the communication providers, alarm receiving centres and local authorities. As of May 2025, over 96% of local authorities that provide telecare have signed a data sharing agreement with at least one communication provider, reflecting significant progress since the first agreements were signed in May 2023. I will be writing to all authorities that have not signed data sharing agreements to encourage them to do so.
Anyone who is concerned about what the PSTN migration means for them, or their friends and family, should contact their communication provider and let them know. They should do so particularly if they identify as vulnerable for any reason, including age.
[HCWS668]
UK Airspace Design Service: Consultation Response
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
The Department for Transport and the UK Civil Aviation Authority are publishing the response to the consultation to establish a UK Airspace Design Service, CAP 3106 https://www.caa.co.uk/ukads The UKADS will act as a new single guiding mind to deliver a modernised and holistic design of UK airspace, enabling quicker, quieter and cleaner flights.
UK airspace is an invisible but essential piece of our national infrastructure. Its design has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s when there were around 200,000 flights per year in UK airspace, compared to 2.47 million in 2024. If UK airspace is not modernised, it has been estimated that by 2040 one in five flights could experience disruption and delays.
Airspace modernisation will ensure that the UK’s airspace is fit for the future, enabling aircraft to fly more direct routes with optimised climb and descent profiles to and from energy-efficient cruising altitudes. This will benefit UK consumers through greater system capacity and better resilience to disruption. Crucially, it will help UK aviation achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The Government and CAA have carefully considered the responses to the consultation last autumn. These helped to inform the decision to proceed with the creation of the UKADS and establishment of an airspace design support fund, announced by the Chancellor on 17 March 2025, and our aim is for the UKADS to be established and operational by the end of 2025.
NATS (En Route) plc—NERL—will be responsible for providing the UKADS. NERL is the only organisation in the UK with the necessary level of resource and design expertise to deliver the UKADS at pace.
The initial priority for the UKADS will be to design airspace for the London cluster of the airspace change masterplan. The London cluster has the most complex airspace in the UK, and modernisation will unlock significant benefits. This would include any airspace change required for a third runway at Heathrow.
Airspace modernisation will continue to be funded by industry, following the user-pays principle. The cost of the UKADS will be met through a new UK airspace design charge, which will primarily apply to commercial airlines. This charge will also enable a new airspace design support fund to help unlock the benefits of modernisation around the rest of the UK.
Two statutory instruments will be laid before Parliament, using powers in the Transport Act 2000, to enable NERL to be tasked with delivering the UKADS. The CAA will consult on the charge as well as proposed changes to the NERL air traffic services licence.
Consultation responses also identified opportunities to streamline and simplify the regulatory framework, including the CAA’s airspace change process and the Government’s air navigation guidance and air navigation directions. DFT and CAA intend to start consulting by September 2025 on possible changes, which will continue to support safe and efficient airspace design; proper and proportionate assessment of environmental impacts, including noise; and engagement with local communities.
With the establishment of the UKADS, these measures will strengthen the UK’s role as a global aviation leader and confirm this Government’s support for airspace modernisation and the benefits it will bring for the country.
[HCWS670]
Introduction: Baroness Prentis of Banbury
European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol 12
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cashman
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to sign and ratify Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights to promote the equality of all persons in the United Kingdom through a general prohibition of discrimination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government currently have no plans to ratify Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Protocol 12 is a very broadly drafted, free-standing right that creates unpredictability in how it will be given effect by the court, and it is not clear that ratifying it would increase protection from discrimination in the UK. The Equality Act 2010 provides a robust and clear framework within domestic law for combating discrimination.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, that is a disappointing response. I am not surprised by it, sadly, but I will persevere and try to convince the Government otherwise, along with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who cannot be in his place today, and Professor Paul Johnson of the University of Leeds. I wish to ask a question of the Minister in the wider context. Given the attacks on fundamental human rights that we are witnessing in the United States of America, Gaza, Ukraine, parts of Europe and elsewhere, is now not the time for the United Kingdom to join the 37 other European states of the Council of Europe and reaffirm these international principles, which underpin and in fact define every civilised society?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The way that I will answer my noble friend is by saying that we continue to keep the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Protocol 12 under review, but we remain unconvinced of the benefits of ratification. The United Kingdom is not an outlier in this regard. The protocol was open for signature nearly 25 years ago, yet fewer than half the member states of the Council of Europe have ratified it. Nevertheless, I take the noble Lord’s opening point that we need to keep these matters under review. There are indeed widespread attacks on democracy and our way of life across the world, and that reinforces the Government’s view about keeping these matters under review.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government are not yet prepared to sign up to Protocol 12, will they give a commitment to address the rights and protections afforded by the Equality Act—all the rights and protections—ensuring that all the protected characteristics are equally enforced and protected, especially in light of the confusing and confused narratives around the recent Supreme Court judgment?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that I think the Supreme Court judgment made the situation clearer, not less clear. The nine protected characteristics within the Equality Act are all important in themselves. It is within the Equality Act that gender reassignment is recognised. People who are trans and who have gender recognition certificates have protected characteristics, and it is for the courts to work out in due course how those will manifest themselves.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, we live in increasingly uncertain and divided times in so many parts of the world. Here in the UK, many people worry that populism, division and discrimination are on the rise. Signing up to Protocol 12 would make a big difference to all who fear discrimination and a reduction of our rights. Why, if the Government believe we are all equal—and I believe that they do—would the Minister not give to all our citizens the reassurance they need by signing up to Protocol 12?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Baroness will have heard the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I agree that we are living in divided times. The position of the Government is that we do not think signing up to Protocol 12 would change that. We think that existing laws, including the Equality Act and the Supreme Court judgment, are adequate. However, as I have said to both my noble friends who asked the previous questions, we will continue to keep this under review, because I agree with the noble Baroness’s opening point that we are living in divided times and need to be sensitive to that.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the Equality Act and protected characteristics. Could he give any indication of whether the intention of the Government is to extend the number of categories of protected characteristics? I have in mind care leavers as an example. There is a substantial amount of pressure that they should be included as one of the protected characteristics.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am not aware of any government initiative to extend the number of protected characteristics. If I am mistaken on that, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can the Minister explain why the Government have not joined with other contracting states in their attempt to promote discussion about reform of the European convention, particularly in relation to immigration matters?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The first point is that the Government were not asked whether they wanted to be a signatory to that letter, which was for all members of the EU—it was they who signed the letter. Nevertheless, we are monitoring the situation very closely. We are sympathetic to some of the sentiments expressed in the letter, so we will continue to monitor that situation.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I am a Methodist minister, and I see so many people absolutely despairing. “What are we going to do?” “What will be the consequence of what is happening in the world at the present time?” Signing this will be one step: one indication that we know where we want to go. That is what the declaration is. So I urge the Government to do this. It is not just a fancy thing; it is so meaningful and so required in the world today. We could be one of the leading nations in that move to the future.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I recognise the noble Lord’s strength of feeling, but I have to repeat what I said in answer to an earlier question: only 20 of the contracting states within the Council of Europe—that is 20 out of 46—have signed up to this over the last 20 years. So I am afraid I do not accept his premise. However, as I have said to other noble Lords, I do accept the concern he raised initially, and we will continue to keep the matter under review.
Lord Kamall (Con)
In answer to the Question, the Minister said that the Government consider the provisions under Protocol 12 to be too wide or too broad. Can the Minister give the House some examples of where they consider those provisions to be too broad?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
So I will write to the noble Lord about that. Nevertheless, my point stands: many other states have considered this and have not at present decided to sign the protocol. It is worth pointing out that none of the larger states within the European Union or the Council of Europe have signed it, either.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have a duty not just to protect people’s rights and freedoms but to promote public understanding of those rights and freedoms. So can my noble friend the Minister explain why this further innovation of a free-standing right against discrimination in Protocol 12—as opposed to a right against discrimination in the context of other convention rights, such as Article 14, which we are signed up to—would not benefit people, in the light of his comments that the Equality Act already does the trick?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The fact of the matter is that we are seeing the law develop in these areas. We have had the Supreme Court judgment. I and the Government believe that the Equality Act is working well, and there will be development in law in this matter going forward. It is also right that there is very little common law associated with Protocol 12 for those states that have signed up to it. So, as I said, the Government are keeping an eye on this matter, but at present they do not believe that it is right to sign up to Protocol 12.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government then give a commitment to bring forward, as a matter of urgency, proposals outlined in the Labour manifesto and based on the Law Commission’s recommendations to widen hate crime law, including a widening on aggravated offences?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My noble friend will know that relevant Bills are coming to the House of Lords imminently. There are various provisions in those that are widening the protection of victims. On hate crime law, there are various measures in the Bills within that. But, if my noble friend wants to make specific suggestions, she is welcome to approach me as these Bills come forward to the House of Lords.
BBC World Service
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rawlings
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the BBC World Service in the long term.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government highly value the BBC World Service and its contribution to our international objectives. We increased our contribution for this year. Decisions on the World Service funding settlement will be made through the ongoing spending review and allocations process. The Government’s view is that the upcoming BBC charter review is the right moment to look at potential sustainable and predictable funding mechanisms for the World Service in the long term.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but horror stories abound in the press of Donald Trump and Elon Musk slashing staff programmes at the USAGM, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Does the Minister agree that the Chinese and Russian media would hail the Prime Minister as a hero if he allowed the FCDO to slash the BBC World Service budget? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no more cuts but instead further investment, in tandem with today’s defence budget, as in the “message to Moscow” just announced?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reiterate that the BBC plays a crucial part in ensuring that the world is a safer place, and that people are knowledgeable about what is going on. What the US has done with the US Agency for Global Media and how that impacts is, of course, a matter for the US. However, I remind the noble Baroness that we have shown our commitment to the World Service this year with a funding uplift of £32.6 million—31%—in 2025-26. I repeat that any decisions on government funding for the World Service in future years will be made through the ongoing spending review and allocation process. But the importance of the World Service must not be underestimated.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I of course welcome the uplift my noble friend the Minister has spoken about, but does he agree that, today of all days, when we have a review of our defence commitments, what the BBC World Service is doing is worth quite a few submarines in terms of the effect on the world and on our position within it? Will he look again at the danger that the Russians and Chinese will step in if any slots are left vacant by the BBC?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am not sure what my noble friend is saying. We stepped up our services in eastern Europe as a consequence of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the BBC has just launched a new service covering Poland. So we absolutely understand the importance of its role and we will continue to do that, but the BBC has editorial independence, and how it allocates resources is a matter for it. However, I reassure my noble friend that we are committed to the BBC. We gave an uplift this year, but I cannot comment on future years, until the spending review process is concluded.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, 80% of the World Service budget is currently classed as official development assistance. Last time this Question came up, the Minister said that the Government would make detailed decisions on how the ODA budget would be used on the basis of various factors, including impact assessments. Can he confirm that the Government understand the crucial impact the World Service has in being a key part of our national security, countering myths and disinformation? To pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Dubs, defence is not just about arms.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, but I would make one correction—the figure is 70%. The point is that, prior to 2010, all the BBC World Service was independent, and it was the settlement the previous Government made as a consequence that shifted the responsibility on to the BBC. However, we did react when we felt that there was no focus, through the uplift and the grant from the FCDO. All the evidence points to the fact that this Government are absolutely committed to the BBC World Service, and we did provide an uplift this year, but I cannot comment on future years. The question originates from that long-term solution, and we are committed to using the charter review to make sure that we come up with an innovative solution that will be sustainable in the long term to ensure the future of the BBC World Service.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the BBC World Service is one of the world’s leading international radio broadcasters, with over 450 million listeners every week. However, it is vital in this multimedia world that the World Service moves with the times and remains competitive and relevant, so will the noble Lord outline to the House the Government’s view on how the World Service can tailor its content and format for a digital-native audience, especially the younger generations?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the points of this year’s uplift was to guarantee the continued presence of 42 language-based services, but over a range of platforms, so it is not just limited to normal radio and TV. The BBC has been looking at a range of platforms to ensure that its reach is maintained. Of course, the BBC is prioritising its service as a whole, both domestically and globally. The reach of the BBC goes beyond that of the World Service, and I hope that continues to be so.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, Russian-backed media are now transmitting on the radio frequency previously occupied by BBC Arabic. While the FCDO funding for 2025-26 is helping the World Service, as the Minister said, to maintain existing language and emergency services for those in crisis, including in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, this cannot be guaranteed after 2026 unless long-term FCDO funding is provided. Does the Minister agree that finding this funding is preferable to making space for Russia and China to move in instead?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I of course understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but the Government uplifted the spending for 2025-26 to ensure that we can reach those people, particularly in Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere. The evidence shows that we are able to respond and will respond. It comes back to the original Question: we need to look at a longer-term, sustainable funding mechanism that is not trapped by this yearly review. We are absolutely committed to that, and I understand the intent of the noble Baroness’s question.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, the World Service has been particularly effective at communicating issues of faith and freedom of religion. In light of the increasing need for and importance of this, will His Majesty’s Government ensure as a priority that there is sufficient funding for the World Service, and that this is both retained and enhanced?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The BBC has certain editorial responsibilities, but the right reverend Prelate knows my commitment to freedom of religion and belief, and our appointment of the special envoy is evidence of that. Ensuring that news and views are available across all opinions, and across all religions, is vital in a world where so many conflicts can be driven by misinformation.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, while it is absolutely right that defence and security are more than just arms, I say as an aside before I ask my question that actually having nuclear submarines means that you beat the blighters you are fighting against at sea, and that is quite useful at times as well, when you really have to do it. But my question to my noble friend the Minister is to do with BBC Monitoring, which is crucial in handling operations and crises as they happen. I remember, as a former Chief of Defence Intelligence, that it gives immense insight, and it has been squeezed and squeezed. Are we content that there is a sufficient funding bracket in place for that?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of that monitoring, and the challenges of a multipolar, global geopolitical situation mean that it is even more important. Maybe in the past it was relatively simple, but monitoring a whole range of activities— particularly of malign states and malign non-state organisations—is really important, so we are absolutely committed to that.
Ofcom: Protection of Children Codes
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the draft Protection of Children Codes published by Ofcom on 24 April under the Online Safety Act 2023.
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, we welcome Ofcom’s protection of children codes, which will make a substantial difference to the online experience of children. From July, platforms will be required to use measures to protect children—such as highly effective age assurance and filtering out harmful algorithms—or face enforcement action. We will monitor implementation carefully, and Ofcom has said that it is clear that the codes are iterative. However, the codes are the foundation, not the limit, and we will not hesitate to strengthen the law further to ensure the safety of our children, if needed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, has drawn these codes to the attention of your Lordships’ House. The committee has particular concerns, especially around the potential regulatory gaps in the codes produced by Ofcom because they do not require regulated services to address all the risks identified in the risk assessments. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with Ofcom’s interpretation of the Online Safety Act? Will her department bring forward an urgent amendment to the Act to close this loophole and require regulated services to mitigate all the risks to children online—which Ofcom itself has comprehensively evidenced in its research—that those services might identify in their own risk assessments?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I should make it clear that Ofcom’s codes will improve child safety online and go beyond similar regimes elsewhere to achieve this. By regularly conducting thorough risk assessments, services can proactively identify emerging threats and adapt safety measures accordingly. The Government’s measures in the code allow Ofcom to hold companies accountable for their overall management of risks to children. Ofcom will monitor implementation of risk assessment processes and code measures, building on its approach where needed. The Government will separately monitor whether legislation needs to be strengthened.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, Ofcom has identified live-streaming as a functionality which causes harm. There is nothing in the codes requiring the tech companies to mitigate this risk. Does the Minister agree that such an urgent issue, which cannot wait until Ofcom’s additional safety measures consultation, should be included in the present children’s codes?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Viscount has raised an important issue. Ofcom has recognised that live-streaming can pose specific risks to children and will consult on proposals to reduce these risks, alongside a number of other measures. It will publish this consultation before the Summer Recess. The Act and Ofcom’s codes are clear: services are required to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children encountering primary priority content, including pornography. That will extend to live-streaming services that allow pornography.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare my ombudsman interest as set out in the register. The SLSC questioned, quite rightly, how practical it is for children to complain about harmful content and noted that it was unclear what further action children could take if a complaint was rejected by a service provider. How will Ofcom and the Government ensure that complaint mechanisms are truly practical, accessible and designed with a children-first approach? What independent recourse will children have if their complaints about harmful content are rejected by service providers?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord has done in promoting ombudsman services. He will know that the codes and the Act require that all service providers provide a named person to receive any complaints and for them to be able to demonstrate that they are acting upon them. We are aware that we need to monitor how effectively that is working, and, if needs be, we will supplement that with other measures. For the time being, we want to see that the named person and a proper complaints process is working as it should be.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, the Online Safety Act sets out in Section 1 that regulated services must be
“safe by design, and … designed and operated in such a way that … a higher standard of protection is provided for children than for adults”.
This requirement is the result of an amendment that was brought forward in this place. However, currently, Ofcom’s codes do not go far enough to actually bring this into practice. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government will urgently amend the Online Safety Act to introduce a statutory code of practice for safety by design, to ensure that Ofcom delivers on the expectations of Parliament in this important area?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, safety by design is an absolutely fundamental principle of the Online Safety Act, and the Government have reiterated that in our strategic priorities which we have set out to Ofcom. We expect all platforms to implement safety by design and we will monitor the effectiveness of that.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, this Chamber provides important scrutiny to the work that Ofcom does, but it is worth noting that the Online Safety Act was a mammoth Bill and that Ofcom has undertaken an absolutely mammoth task in being ready to carry forward this regulation. Does the Minister agree with me that Ofcom is fast becoming the most important and effective regulator in this field, and that all the people who have worked to make this happen deserve our sincere congratulations for the work they have achieved so far?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. He is absolutely right: this has been a mammoth exercise, and I am so pleased that we are now beginning to see the fruits of it. There are huge numbers of people working in Ofcom on this important issue. We very much hope that, with the implementation of the illegal content codes and now the children’s codes, there will be a step change in the way that everybody—particularly children—engages with platforms online. To give noble Lords a flavour of how this will affect children, the law means that platforms must protect children from seeing suicide, self-harm, pornography and violent content. This will make a real difference to children. I am very excited to see that platforms operate this, and it is important that Ofcom plays its part.
Lord Markham (Con)
The New Zealand Education Minister says that its school smartphone ban has led to more engagement and less cyberbullying. With Ofcom warning that harmful content often reaches children through algorithmic feeds on smartphones, can the Minister give one positive reason why we should allow smartphones to continue to be used in the classroom?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I think I have said here before, we are carrying out research to look at the implications of the use of smartphones for children. The Department for Education’s mobile phones in schools guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. The Government expect all schools to take steps in line with this guidance to ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt pupil learning, but we still need to learn the absolute lessons. The noble Lord raises important points about algorithms, and we hope to come back to noble Lords and Parliament with further details of how we are going to take this work forward.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has set out the progress that has been made since the Bill became an Act. That is to be welcomed, but, my goodness me, some of the stuff that is available to young people should shock and disturb us and keep us all the time on the front foot to do all that we can. Our children—children across the world—deserve protection from this awful stuff.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right about that. As part of my role, I have seen horrendous material that I do not think anybody—not adults and certainly not children—should see. We are determined to get this right and to be forward-looking, because anything that we do in legislation needs to be fit for the next generation as well. There is no point legislating just for the now; we need to legislate for the future. We are very aware of that. We are continuing to talk to Ofcom and other stakeholders about how we can take this work forward. We are determined to make this a safe place for children to grow up and thrive.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the research that the Government are doing on the impact of phones on children. The research is overwhelming on the impact of screen use on early years development for children, but there appears to be no specific guidance to help parents navigate that. What are the Government doing to ensure that parents of preschool children get proper, age-appropriate guidance on the use of screens?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We are looking at what further advice we can give to parents. This is a sensitive issue and, as the noble Baroness will understand, we must be careful in how we raise these issues. We all understand that children often have a very different experience and a detailed knowledge of how smartphones work from their parents, so we have a role in education. Obviously, media literacy is an important part of that, but we are looking again at what further guidance we can give to parents.
Channel Tunnel: International Rail Strategy
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are supporting the Campaign for Better Transport’s proposals to create an international rail strategy to increase the usage of the Channel Tunnel from the existing 50 per cent for passengers and 10 per cent for freight.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the recent report. This Government support a thriving international rail passenger services market, given the benefits of greater choice, new services and lower fares, as well as the opportunity of serving Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford with international trains. We are also keen to see the growth of international rail freight, which supports the Government’s growth mission; we are working hard to increase freight flows through the tunnel.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging Answer, but he will know that in 2010 Deutsche Bahn brought one of its ICE trains through the Channel Tunnel to St Pancras with a view to starting through services to Germany from 2012. Other companies have indicated a similar interest, but nothing at all has happened. Does my noble friend agree not only that it is important to increase the use of stations that are now out of use, such as Ebbsfleet and Ashford, but that the tunnel access charges need to be reduced if these services are to be competitive? On freight, is he aware that the amount of freight currently going through the Channel Tunnel by rail is less than went on the train ferries operated by British Rail more than 30 years ago?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I think I was there when the Deutsche Bahn train was at St Pancras in 2010; sadly, as my noble friend says, that did not materialise. There is currently a real opportunity for more passenger traffic to more destinations, and this Government are determined to seize it. For example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently signed a memorandum of understanding with her Swiss counterpart to explore the setting up of a direct connection with Switzerland.
On the charging situation, the access charging framework for the Channel Tunnel provides for an incremental reduction in unit charges as traffic levels increase. Eurotunnel also operates a discount scheme for new routes; HS1 is currently consulting on a similar scheme. Those are important for new entrants. The recent review of the control period charges by the Office of Rail and Road reduced them by 10.4% for passenger trains and by 66% for freight trains. The volume of freight needs to increase; it would be good if it were greater than what the old train ferries coped with.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, when the Channel Tunnel opened 31 years ago on 6 May, the forecast for freight traffic was between 8 million and 10 million tonnes. It peaked at 3 million tonnes then fell to 1 million tonnes. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said in his Question, there is enormous scope for taking freight off our roads and putting it through the tunnel. What specific measures do the Government envisage taking to achieve this?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that those statistics are disappointing. As she notes, the aspiration then was for far more than currently exists. In answer to the previous question, I said that real reductions in charges, particularly for freight on HS1 and the charging regimes for both the tunnel and HS1, will help to encourage freight traffic. I am spending a lot of my time speaking to potential Channel Tunnel users to demonstrate to them the Government’s enthusiasm for more freight through the tunnel.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given the report’s finding that better international rail links could replace 6.5 million short-haul flights per year, will the Government commit to cross-departmental work to actively shift passengers from air to rail for short international travel? That has the potential to cut CO2 emissions by up to 680,000 tonnes annually.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right about the environmental benefits of travelling by train and of replacing short-haul air traffic. That is why we are putting in so much effort to create opportunities now for greater use of the tunnel to more destinations and by more operators. I have recently seen all but one of the potential competitors for Eurostar. The noble Baroness may know that the greatest difficulty is the availability of depot space in London. The Office of Rail and Road recently concluded an interim report, and I have asked the department to look urgently at other sites that can be used to increase depot capacity and therefore the number of passenger trains through the tunnel.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the only high-speed line we have in this country is the 70-mile line from London to the Channel Tunnel, which opened in 2007. In the meantime, countries all around the world have been developing high-speed rail, while we, under the previous Tory Government, simply cancelled two of the high-speed lines that were being prepared. First, can my noble friend at the very least protect the routes of the planned lines to the north-west and the north-east? Secondly, is it not time that this Government developed a strategy for high-speed rail, which is being done by so many comparable countries across the world?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is right to refer to the peremptory cancellation of phase 2a of HS2 by the previous Government. One of the first questions I answered in this House was from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, who asked me what the alternative was. The truth is that the previous Government cancelled phase 2a without regard to any alternative, and this Government have to devise what they will now do. We have an even more urgent job than that, because the present state of HS2 as a project is not where any of us would like it to be. It was neglected by the previous Government, so we have to fix that—which the new chief executive is in the course of doing—and we then have to persuade ourselves that investment in railways of this sort is good because it will allow us to manage them properly.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister reveals himself, in his answers, to be a great enthusiast for competition and open access on the HS1 line. Why then have eight of the last nine applications for new open access routes on the Network Rail services been turned down?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that those decisions, at least on open access, are currently made by the Office of Rail and Road. He also needs to note that the Government have not subsidised HS1, Eurostar or Getlink, unlike the national railway network, which receives billions of pounds in subsidy at the taxpayer’s expense. Therefore, when looking at open access applications, we have to consider the net effect of the railway subsidy for this country as a whole. He is also ignoring the fact that the Channel Tunnel is underused. The report to which my noble friend Lord Faulkner referred says that it is only half used by passengers and that only 10% of its possible freight capacity is used. That suggests that we should be enthusiastic about its greater use—unlike most of the national railway network, which is very nearly full. I referred to the question to me from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, about the west coast main line. There are very few paths and, consequently, we should be very careful in their allocation, especially to competing train services other than those franchised by the Government.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about encouraging greater traffic through the Channel Tunnel, but what can be done to convince the north of England, Scotland and the more distant parts of the United Kingdom that this will not be of benefit just to London and the south-east? At the moment there is a tremendous growth of long-distance sleeper services on the continent. Could these not be encouraged by the Government?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. He will remember that the original idea was to have through services from the Midlands, the north, Scotland and the west of England, and sleeper services too, but they were discontinued before many of them started operating because the business case and the economics of them were quite weak. For the moment, we think the best thing we can do is to encourage a multiplicity of destinations with reasonable speed and frequency, which will generate traffic and encourage people to travel by train, even though they might need to change in London.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
Is my noble friend aware that a single goods train journey can remove 70 HGV journeys from the roads, and in some cases even more? That being the case, would not expanding the rail network—and that includes high-speed rail—free up capacity on the road network, therefore making the road network significantly safer?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that rail freight is extremely environmentally friendly; that is why this Government are spending a lot of time and effort to encourage rail freight. This includes setting a target for the new Great British Railways to increase the level of freight, but also remembering that freight needs its own space on the network for train paths. That refers back to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about open access and is another reason to be careful about allocating all the space on the railway to competing passenger operations.
Allowances
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) The Resolution of 27 March 2024 relating to the House of Lords allowance is amended as follows with effect from 1 June 2025.
(2) For paragraph 4 substitute—“(4) The maximum daily amount payable to a Member should be £125.”
(3) For paragraph (7) substitute—“(7) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2026, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—
(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and
(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—
(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or
(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.”
(4) In respect of a day of attendance before 1 June 2025, the Resolution of 27 March 2024 relating to the House of Lords allowance continues to have effect without the amendments made by this Resolution.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the second Motion at the same time, but I will move and speak to the third Motion separately.
In April 2024, the noble Lord, Lord True, as Leader of the House, moved a Motion to establish an overnight allowance to recognise the increased cost of staying in London, away from Peers’ main homes. That scheme set a rate of £100, which noble Lords based outside London could claim as a contribution towards the cost of a hotel. The scheme was welcomed across the House and followed representations from, and discussions with, those who chaired the main party groups and the convenor. It was agreed that it should be reviewed after about a year of operation, and these changes proposed result from that review.
The first change relates to the amount that can be claimed. The scheme was automatically uprated in line with inflation, so it is now £103 a night. It is hard to pick an exact amount, but this figure is not a realistic reflection of the cost of hotels across the capital. The commission therefore recommends an increase to £125 a night. This will continue to be uprated in line with inflation. As previously, claims are linked to attending the House on a sitting day, and receipts must be provided.
The existing scheme covers only hotel-type accommodation. Other noble Lords make other arrangements in London to enable their attendance in the House. The commission and the usual channels have considered this very carefully. We concluded that a new flat-rate allowance of 50% of the hotel allowance was the best way forward. This will again be tied to attendance in the House, with a robust system of verification. For noble Lords whose main address is outside London, they would be able to claim £63 per night to spend at a designated property in Greater London where they stay and are responsible for the costs. To claim, noble Lords must have stayed in the property the day before or the day after attending the House, and the finance team will require documentation to support the claim.
These changes were agreed in the commission and discussed in the usual channels. They are to ensure the original purpose: to assist Members from outside London to be able to attend your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for making this statement, which I think will be very welcome to the House. She referred to the discussions we had last year when I took the decision to put to the House the reintroduction of the overnight allowance. I was very grateful for her support on that, and I am very happy to reciprocate the full support from this side following the very careful consideration we have had of these issues in the usual channels and elsewhere, under the guidance of the noble Baroness.
It is always difficult to strike a balance, and I think that the commission, in its decision on the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, has struck a reasonable balance which will support people who come to this House from all over the country, who wish to work hard on behalf of the House and on behalf of the country. Talking of hard work, I may say that my noble friend Lord Howe, who is next to me, last week completed 34 years on the Front Bench in your Lordships’ House. If that is not a definition of hard work, I do not know what is.
There is a lot of loose talk outside this House about people in this House being lazy and lining their pockets. You do not become rich by becoming a Member of the House of Lords; many people here make great sacrifices. We should not claim that we are poor or that we are underprivileged, but it is right that the House makes provision to enable those of us who come here to do a hard day’s work to enable us to do so in the most reasonable fashion. Obviously, there is a duty on us to behave with honesty and clarity, as we all do and will all do, I have no doubt, under these new proposals. I support them.
Rather than wearying the House, I say in advance that I strongly support the noble Baroness’s further Motion, because that also relates to hard-working and valued Members of the House. So again I thank the noble Baroness and commend these proposals unreservedly to your Lordships.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I support this Motion. I have a very simple question for the Leader. Bearing in mind what happened during the period up to 2009, have the usual channels thought carefully about what the phrase
“where it is necessary to do so”
means? Will there be some sort of check, for instance, or will it be a pure self-declaration as it used to be before—which led us into a bit of trouble?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for supporting the Motion before the House. The noble Lord quotes “where it is necessary to do so”, but I am not quite sure where he is referring to in my comments or in the report. However, I think his point is about the verification, and I will address that first. He is right to address that because it must be a very robust process of verification. They will require a copy of the council tax statement, and for those many of those who have a second place in London where they stay, it will say “Second Home” on it; it specifies that it is not their main home. In addition to the council tax statement, there will of course be a record of people’s travel patterns back and forward to the House. So it is quite clear that if someone is travelling from another part of the country to stay in London for a few days to ensure they can carry out their duties in this House, that would be another point of verification. The noble Lord is right to raise the point, but this is why the commission took a long time to look at this, to give consideration to ensure that we were confident on that point.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True. Indeed, I supported him when he first raised this issue last time last year. There is a balance of responsibilities both to the taxpayer and to Members of this House, but we would be the poorer if the only people who could attend your Lordships’ House to undertake their responsibilities were those who either lived in London or had private finance to enable them to stay in London.
This is less than is received in other places in overnight allowance; it is a contribution towards it, and Members will use their daily allowance to pay the rest of it. I appreciate the support from both noble Lords, and I hope that Members will agree that this is a way forward if we are to represent not only those who can afford to live in London.
Lord Geddes (Con)
I wonder whether the noble Baroness can give me clarification. I use as an illustration my own situation, which I know is far from unique. I rent the use of a room in an apartment in London on an annual basis, but, as I read the Motion and the details in the financial support document, I will not be able to claim any reimbursement for the rent I pay for the use of that room. Is that so?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Depending on the circumstances, that may be the case. It is where somebody is responsible for paying more than just the rent for a single room. I do not know if the noble Lord is on the council tax bill or what other costs he incurs, but it is not for those who stay in rooms of family and friends. It is for hotel bills and for those whose name is on the council tax form to show that they are staying there. The noble Lord will have to discuss that with the finance team, but he may not be covered renting a room in a friend’s house.
London Accommodation Costs Allowance
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an accommodation costs allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 1 June 2025 as provided for below.
(2) Members are eligible to claim the London accommodation costs allowance—
(a) if the Member’s registered residential address is outside Greater London,
(b) the Member has a recorded attendance,
(c) as a contribution towards the costs of accommodation in Greater London incurred in staying overnight away from their registered residential address where it is necessary to do so for the purpose of attendance.
(3) “Attendance” means attendance—
(a) at a sitting of this House,
(b) at a meeting of a Committee of this House, or
(c) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission.
(4) The daily amount payable to a Member should be £63.
(5) The daily amount can be claimed for each day of recorded attendance or each night which falls immediately before a day of recorded attendance.
(6) The provisions of this Resolution apply in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.
(7) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2026, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—
(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and
(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—
(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or
(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.
(8) In paragraph 7(a) “IPSA determination” means a determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
(9) Any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph 7(b)(i) should be rounded up to the nearest pound if the fraction is 50p or more, but otherwise should be disregarded.
Supplementary Daily Allowance
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, may be entitled to a supplementary daily allowance after 1 April 2025 as the chair of a domestic committee of the House, or such other body, as may be determined from time to time by the House of Lords Commission.
(2) The amount of the allowance payable shall be the applicable rate of the daily allowance or the reduced daily allowance at the time.
(3) The maximum entitlement applicable for the supplementary daily allowance is 3 additional days per month provided that for any month the total number of days claimed for does not exceed the total number of sitting days of the House in that month.
(4) The provisions of this Resolution shall be applied in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This enables a supplementary daily allowance to be claimed by the non-salaried domestic committee chairs of the Conduct Committee, the Finance Committee and the Services Committee. This was agreed by the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels, as set out in the commission report of 29 April this year. It is intended to recognise the significant additional work required of those chairs outside formal meetings, and it works by enabling them to claim a maximum of three extra days a month on top of those they can claim through attending the House or a committee meeting. However, it will ensure that for any month, the total number of days claimed for cannot exceed the total number of sitting days of the House. I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start to consider the Commons message on the data Bill, I want to remind the House of the courtesies and discipline we should apply to ping-pong. We have now spent over 40 hours debating the Bill as a whole, including over six hours in the last two rounds of ping-pong. This is much longer than usual, and the issue that is left in play is well known to noble Lords. I therefore expect few speeches and any Member who does speak to be concise and to the point. We do not need long, Second Reading-type speeches at this stage. I am grateful in advance to noble Lords for applying this discipline and have asked the Whips to monitor this and to intervene if necessary if we look to be going off track.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberData (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 104-I Marshalled List for Consideration of Commons Reason - (30 May 2025)
17:15 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 116 - Motion A1 agreed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49E.
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, I want to start today’s debate by repeating some of the sentiments set out by the Secretary of State before the Whitsun Recess, when the elected House once again overturned the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to the Bill. I am sure many noble Lords will have read these in Hansard, but for those who have not, I urge them to do so, as they were well received. The single remaining issue—AI and copyright—is one I know that many noble Lords care deeply about, and with good reason. It is imperative that we become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both AI and our world-leading creative industries, a country whose economy thrives and which remains innovative, creative and, very importantly, fair.
As I have said before, we must get this right to ensure that we promote innovation and creativity, transparency and access, recognition and reward. The Secretary of State noted his regret about how the consultation and the Bill collided and how, by indicating a preferred option, the Government appeared to have prematurely taken a side in this important debate.
I also want to ensure that noble Lords have complete clarity on our approach and how it has always been separate from the data Bill, which includes no provision to change anything in copyright law. To reiterate, the Government have an open mind about the outcome of the consultation. We will listen intently to the views of the many people who have responded to it, many of whom have interesting ideas which deserve full consideration.
It is completely understandable that noble Lords have sought to use this Bill to set a direction of travel for future regulation in this area. They are right to have asked the questions that they have. I hope that the additional assurances that I will give today provide confidence that despite continuing to resist the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we truly want to solve these issues and have a plan to do so.
Outside the legislative process, the Government will continue to do our utmost to analyse and resolve the issues. We are studiously considering the thousands of responses to the consultation. The Secretary of State is setting up expert working groups to bring people together from technology and the creative sectors to chart the way forward in a full range of areas, with a particular emphasis on transparency and technical standards. We are committed to listening—genuinely listening—to a broad range of views. The noble Baroness’s assertion that government only ever listens to big tech is as unfair as it is unfounded. The Secretary of State and Minister Bryant have met representatives of the creative industries as well as Members of both Houses to hear from them. We will of course make sure that noble Lords are informed about the progress and outcomes of the working groups at every stage possible, not least as I am sure that there will be many questions tabled on this by noble Lords. I look forward to answering them.
As noble Lords know, we have committed in the Bill to report on economic impacts and the use of copyright in the development of AI systems within 12 months of Royal Assent. This will be an important staging post as we move forward with the consultation process and subsequent regulatory change. Today, I want to give some further reassurances on the Government’s trajectory and commitments to speed and parliamentary accountability.
First, I can confirm that the Government’s report on the use of copyright work in the development of AI systems will address two additional areas, specifically highlighted by the noble Baroness’s original amendment: how to deal with models trained overseas; and how rules should be enforced and by whom. The first issue has been raised in this House, including by my noble friend Lord Brennan and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. The latter is an issue that has invoked financial privilege in the other place, but where it is right for the Government to put forward their view.
Secondly, to reflect our shared view that these issues need to be resolved quickly, we will publish an economic impact assessment—and the report required by the Bill—within nine months of Royal Assent, rather than 12. This will ensure that we are ready to act as soon as possible while also having sufficient time to consider all views and options. Thirdly, if we are not in a position to publish final documents within six months of the Bill’s Royal Assent, the Secretary of State will lay before Parliament a report setting out the progress being made towards their publication. I hope that this gives noble Lords the assurances that they need that our work will not be done behind closed doors. We want to make progress in a manner that involves Parliament and relevant stakeholders.
As a final word, I know that this debate has been heated at times. The wider world looks to us in this place to debate with courtesy—“to disagree agreeably”, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said in response to last summer’s King’s Speech. I therefore ask noble Lords to consider their words today, to avoid the language of betrayal and conflict and to try to find a measured and civil tone through which we can trace our path forward. Finding the right way forward means dealing with the issues together and coming up with workable, considered solutions. It is in nobody’s interest if we rush towards the wrong conclusion or ineffective regulation.
Time and again in previous Sessions, promises were made and legislation rushed through only for us to go through the entire process again when it was found to be inadequate. We said that we would legislate better and we are determined to do so. That means consulting properly, following the additional deliberative processes that I have set out, and then bringing forward legislation that both Houses of Parliament and both sides of the argument can have confidence in. I urge noble Lords on all sides of this House: let us get on with sorting out this issue, rather than creating yet another standoff with the House of Commons and delaying the processes that we have put in the Bill. The creative and technology industries want certainty, not constitutional crises.
I hope that my remarks today give noble Lords confidence in the Government’s approach, which has accountability at its heart and will allow us to put this important Bill to bed. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Kidron
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D—
“Statement and bringing forward of a draft Bill: copyright infringement, AI models, and transparency over inputs
(1) Within three months of the publication of the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons setting out his or her view on—
(a) the scale of copyright infringement of works used as a data input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model, where that infringement is conducted by a relevant trader or by third parties from which they source data inputs, and whether conducted in the United Kingdom or overseas,
(b) the impact of such copyright infringement on the United Kingdom economy, businesses, and individual copyright owners,
(c) the impact of such copyright infringement on the ability of UK-registered companies, in particular small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, to compete on a level playing field in the market for AI models with relevant traders that conduct such copyright infringement (especially overseas), and
(d) the adequacy of existing statutory and regulatory powers which support copyright owners in identifying and preventing such copyright infringement, including but not limited to transparency requirements on relevant traders.
(2) On the same date as the statement, the Government must publish a draft Bill containing legislative proposals to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models made available by relevant traders.
(3) In this section a “relevant trader” is a trader which operates a service which—
(a) includes the making available of an AI model, and
(b) has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (4).
(4) The service has links with the United Kingdom if—
(a) it has a significant number of United Kingdom users, or
(b) United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market).
(5) The draft Bill must require relevant traders to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information that will allow them to identify—
(a) the use of their copyright works used,
(b) the means by which those works were accessed, and
(c) the identity of third parties from which data inputs were sourced, in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation of the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(6) The draft Bill may require relevant traders to provide copyright owners with other information from that which is required under subsection (5) to allow them to identify the legal basis for the use of their copyright works as data inputs to the AI models.
(7) The draft Bill may contain provisions that apply in modified form in order that they apply proportionately to small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or apply differently to UK-registered companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006 as opposed to companies which are not UK-registered.
(8) The draft Bill must make provision for enforcement of its provisions.
(9) The Secretary of State must, in the statement required under subsection (1) or in an accompanying document, set out his or her view on the expected effectiveness of the legislative proposals set out in the draft Bill required under subsection (2) for supporting copyright owners in identifying and preventing copyright infringement by relevant traders and third parties from which they source data inputs, whether that infringement is conducted in the United Kingdom or overseas.
(10) The Secretary of State must lay the draft Bill before the relevant Parliamentary Committee in both Houses for pre-legislative scrutiny.
(11) The “relevant Parliamentary Committee” is a reference to the Parliamentary Committee in each House, or the joint Committee of both Houses, which—
(a) is charged with responsibility by its House or by both Houses for the purposes of this section, and
(b) has notified the Secretary of State that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.””
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, most noble Lords have made their minds up about the substance, but I think it is important to say why we are here again. There is no argument that copyright material is being stolen. The Secretary of State has already said at the Dispatch Box in the other place that much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models. There is no longer an argument about whether copyright law is uncertain. All three Ministers have now declared that UK copyright law is untouched by the data Bill and any previous suggestions that it was uncertain are now discredited.
Ministers continue to say, however, that this is the wrong Bill, yet the press release heralded the Bill as unlocking the power of data to grow the economy. The prevention of mass theft and the inevitable resulting growth of a dynamic licensing market would indeed grow the economy. Meanwhile, the Public Bill Office and the clerks in the other place have no problem. Indeed, thanks to your Lordships’ House, transparency has been in the Bill three times. There is only one problem: political will.
The first iteration of a copyright amendment in my name was during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill when Labour was still in opposition. At the time, the noble Baroness, who is now the Minister, said that she hoped that that Bill would
“deliver that long-overdue copyright protection that we all seek”.—[Official Report, 22/1/24; col. GC 162.]
Eighteen months ago, there were no concerns on the Labour Benches about enforcing the law of the land. Indeed, they recognised that the issue warranted immediate intervention. Since that time, a comprehensive transparency regime that included enforcement was put forward by your Lordships, but the Government voted to take it out, saying that it was too comprehensive. The next amendment followed the Government’s own timeline and scope, but made provision for regulation. The Government voted that out too, saying that it was too soon—too soon to uphold the law, too soon to stop stealing, acknowledged by all.
Noble Lords, artists, musicians, designers, writers, conductors and even the UK indigenous AI community—who we have worked with side by side, throughout—are baffled as to why the Government are deliberately standing in the way of UK citizens and companies who are trying to control and protect their own property. Some are suggesting that the Government, the Civil Service and No. 10 are all wage-earners. They simply do not understand that the £126 billion creative industry is largely made up of freelancers whose income, sickness benefit, pension, maternity and holiday pay are not contractual but provided by royalties—royalties that are dependent on copyright.
Some think that the Government are too proud to admit the mistakes of their ill-fated consultation, which was widely condemned as too little, too late, and the proposals within it considered partisan—so much so that even Ministers had to backtrack. It has no timeline and, indeed, a successful campaign by rights holders has overwhelmed the process. The vast majority of the 11,500 submissions are from creative companies and individuals whose work is being stolen right now and who need the transparency to create a level playing field. Yet rather than respond to their urgent cry, the Secretary of State, as he stood at the Dispatch Box in the other place defending the Government’s decision to overthrow the Lords’ transparency amendment, said that it would not be fair to one to sector privilege another.
It is extraordinary that the Government’s decided, immovable and strongly held position is that enforcing the law to prevent the theft of UK citizens’ property is unfair to the sector doing the stealing. In what other industrial context does being fair require a national Government to support thieves to continue their plunder while simultaneously removing tools of protection from the victim? Balancing and being fair sounds reasonable, but it is not fair, balanced or reasonable to stand by while one sector steals from another in full view.
The amendment passed by your Lordships’ House on 19 May did not demand that the Government take a side; it simply provided transparency so that the creative industry could protect itself. The Government have voted and will vote again today to make indigenous AI and creative industries defenceless.
Before recess, I hosted a five-hour meeting at which creatives were joined by many AI companies and experts to discuss technical issues around transparency. There were myriad technical solutions but all agreed that changing the incentives is what is urgent and that the tech would follow.
AI is the technology of now and the future. It requires vast swathes of data—sometimes very high-quality data, sometimes both. It is built on data. Data is a valuable component of AI. As I said to the House last time we debated the Bill, some of that data is the most valuable in British hands. It can be made available under licence—indeed, it is often licensed already—but, more often, it is still being taken without permission and without payment. This Government, in all their actions, are not only giving tacit permission to steal, but are determinedly standing in the way of UK property owners identifying the thief.
It is bewildering to me that Ministers looking back on the last two decades of the tech sector business model believe that we should damage or give away our second biggest industrial sector on the promise that we will be overwhelmed by benefits in the future. They are sacrificing both the UK creative industries and the UK AI and digital industries by leaving our valuable content and data freely open to big tech companies. These incumbents will destroy a sector that amounts to 5% of the UK economy, just as they previously torpedoed the commercial viability of UK media. They will prevent UK AI start-ups from growing by allowing big tech to sew up that market too.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I propose to be brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in a formidable speech, has set out all the issues. Still, I will make a couple of points.
The first is that I do not like protracted ping-pong. I think it is constitutionally not great. When it happened when I was a Minister in the other place, I was none too pleased. However, the difference between then and now is that when your Lordships sent something to the other place, first, it was established that the Government would not comment on it until they had considered it properly, and, secondly, you would have discussions with whoever had proposed the amendment and try to find an accommodation in the interests of ensuring that good legislation got on to the statute book. On many occasions when I was irritated, I came to realise that actually what the House of Lords was saying was absolutely right, and that in that House there were lots of people who knew what they were talking about—and today the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is one of those people.
The second is that on this occasion I think it is perfectly apparent that Ministers’ response has been to stick their fingers in their ears and basically continue saying the same thing, notwithstanding the eloquence of the Minister’s introductory remarks today, although when a Minister starts complaining about the tone of the debate you know they have lost the argument.
To me, as a Conservative, this is a vital issue. For a Conservative, the protection of private property is absolutely central to having a free society. That is a fundamental principle which I believe is shared on all sides of the House; in respect of the last debate that we had, we saw a huge majority in the House asking the Government to think again.
I have not always been a Conservative; when I went up to university, I thought I was a socialist.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
One of the things that I believed then and still believe now is that people have a right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, that people have the right to be able to own their property and that they have the right to sell their labour in a fair and reasonable manner. I am afraid that the Government are running headstrong against that basic principle, which again I would have thought could be accepted on both sides of the House.
What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with something we are absolutely brilliant at. I do not know how many noble Lords have seen the Channel 4 programme “The Piano”, where people turn up at railway stations and play the piano. The talent in this country that we do not know about is amazing—unbelievable talent, people who can compose and play the piano to a level that is just extraordinary. Those people will have no chance to develop their careers if their work can just be scooped up by big tech.
Now I am going to say something that will upset the Minister, and she will say that I am being unfair to the Government. It just looks to me as though crony capitalism and the Government have got into bed together and the Government are being told, “Just give this away and we will give you data centres outside your main cities”—quite where the electricity is going to come from to run this is another issue, but I will not divert—“and you will be leaders in the world”. Only a very naive Minister would believe that kind of nonsense. Where does it end?
What makes the Government think that the other place, or the Government, have the authority to give away people’s property and their right to earn a living? That is the issue raised here today. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that, although I deprecate extended ping-pong, on this occasion, the House of Lords is doing its duty, which is speaking up for the interests of the country. I hope that the Government will listen, that the noble Baroness’s amendment will be carried with a good majority, and that the Government will think again.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I find it worrying that I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but it is probably more worrying for him.
Now is not the time for long speeches but for commitment. I support this amendment, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on so brilliantly moving it. I refer to my registered interests as a rights holder. To the Government Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, I say that, as a rights holder and a royalties holder, reassurances do not, sadly, pay the rent, but royalties do.
When it comes to technology, creatives have embraced every single challenge of developing technology—from the printing press to cable and satellite television, television on demand, streaming, Spotify and so on. We have always proceeded on the basis that the user must pay. Now is not the time to deflect from that principle and now is not too late for the Government to embrace that principle.
It is incomprehensible for me to believe that jobbing actors, singers, writers and other creatives—people at the beginning or at the end of their careers—will be able to police the internet in such a way as to find those using their material so that they can then opt in or opt out. That is not part of the reality of people in the creative professions.
It is for those most in need of the protection of copyright that I speak—it is they who will lose the most. It is for them that I urge your Lordships to support the amendment. It is reasonable, and I believe any reasonable Secretary of State should welcome and indeed embrace it.
Finally, for the record, much has been said about Minister Peter Kyle. He is a good, decent, fair and highly intelligent person, and a friend of many years. I say to him and to the Government that the art of compromise is to give a little in order that we all win a lot—and I am not talking about the dog food. Therefore, I think it is in the Government’s domain to move forward, to compromise and to accept the amendment as—to quote the Minister—a workable solution, because it makes sense.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her opening statement. Once again, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her mission to protect the future of our creative industries, its rights and its intellectual property. Technological progress does not always make things better for humanity and it often comes with hidden long-term consequences. That is why the Government have to be wise and put measures in place to protect us, before it is too late.
So many people have contacted me to express their anger that the Government are selling them down the river. I feel it is my duty, once again, to voice their concerns. This includes those in the publishing world. Many publishers are deeply worried that their content has already been stolen and that there is no provision in current copyright law to stop this happening. They are anxious that, if the tech companies are allowed to freely steal content, it will destroy the publishing world as we know it and take away their long-term livelihood.
It is not just those in the publishing world, but people across our world-class, highly respected and admired creative industries: film, television, music, photography, arts, performers—the list is endless. This sector is one that brings in billions to the economy. That is why it is essential that, even as we embrace the benefits of AI, we must also enforce the long-standing UK copyright law, first established at the beginning of the 18th century, which formed the basis of worldwide copyright law. We cannot allow this to be undermined.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken on this measure, because I had assumed that, after the Bill had gone to the House of Commons, it would accept the arguments that have been adduced in this place in the previous debates and realise that this is not only a wrong Bill but a very harmful one for the creative talents in our countries.
What I find particularly strange about it is that it is totally alien to the attitude taken by the Labour Party since 1900. In 1900, the trade unions and the early people—the Fabians—were totally in favour of supporting British culture. No one was more so, strangely enough, than Keir Hardie. One of my grandfathers knew Keir Hardie. My grandfather was the secretary of a trade union, and got the post because he was one of the few dock workers who could read and write. He became a friend of Keir Hardie, who often stayed with him when he came down to Newport. My grandfather persuaded Keir Hardie to realise that, if the lot of the working class was really to be improved, and they were able to enjoy the great culture of Britain, they first had to read and be easy in reading. That has been one of the main features of the Labour Party since 1900. The party has been prominent in that and takes great pride in it.
In 1936, when Allen Lane published the first Penguin—a paperback book that cost only sixpence—it was a revolution, and Clement Attlee recognised it as such. The cost of a hardbound book with a dust jacket was £1. How could a working man in 1936—when the average wage of a labourer was only £5 a week—afford a book costing £1? Clement Attlee realised that that was a real revolution and spoke out in favour of it, and when he became Prime Minister after the war the Arts Council was set up. In the first Labour Government, from 1964 to 1970, Jennie Lee became the first Minister for the Arts. Not only that but she trebled the amount of money that the Arts Council had and did much to promote the National Theatre—she laid the foundation stone of it.
So Labour has always in its history supported culture, British culture and creative people. This is directly against the tradition of Labour, and it should realise that. Where are the spokesmen on the Back Benches in this House or in the House of Commons who are getting up and supporting the Government? They do not exist, as far as I can see. Does anybody on the Labour Back Benches want to get up and support the Government? The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, is going to support the amendment—they should have the courage to follow him.
The Minister did not really talk about the damage that could be done to the creative talents of our country, but perhaps she could look at last week’s Times Literary Supplement, in which there are eight articles by British authors, all of whom are very worried by this. They fear that they are having their particular characteristics taken away and stolen for nothing, and they will not be able to earn a living. One of those writers is Katherine Rundell, a fellow of All Souls and a quite brilliant writer of children’s fantasy books. Another great writer, Ishiguro, has also attacked the Bill, as has Salman Rushdie, the most read English writer in the world. So where are the supporters for this proposal?
The Minister should stop listening to the large tech companies in America, many of which have existed for only four years, and listen to the great cultural experts in our country, who are celebrating a culture that extends over 1,000 years. That is what we should be proud of. The Government should realise that this is a wrong Bill and a disgraceful Bill, and I do not think that a wrong and disgraceful Bill should lie on our statute books.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I, too, have an aversion to ping-pong, having spent 23 years in the House of Commons and having been a Minister—and having experienced it overnight, with people having to sleep in their offices. Often, it became more “pong” than “ping”, after that extended period of time.
In this instance, there is a lot of justification for your Lordships’ House insisting on the Government taking another look and perhaps coming forward with their own compromise, which many noble Lords have called for. I very much welcome the tone taken by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons, who spoke at the Dispatch Box himself on that occasion to admit that errors may have been made in issuing the consultation and in the position taken by the Government then, which may have triggered a lot of the debate we are having on the Bill.
Although he is also a Gwent boy, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who said that this is a terrible Bill. It is not a terrible Bill, but it does have a massive lacuna: the issue of AI and its impact on creators and their livelihoods. It is a matter of livelihoods, of people paying their rent, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said.
I also welcome the tone of and comments made by my noble friend the Minister in her opening remarks. I welcome what she said about enforcement, economic impact assessments and committing to bring forward a report in six rather than nine months. Those are all welcome additional commitments that we have not necessarily heard before. However, she felt that not adding these amendments or something similar to the Bill would give greater certainty, and here, I disagree with her. She said that creative industries and the tech industries want certainty. In my view, certainty would be provided if we accepted today’s amendment, or indeed the previous amendments the noble Baroness has proposed, because they give greater certainty to everyone that copyright will be enforced in this country and that the means to enforce it will be available through greater transparency.
Last Thursday, some of us in this place—I refer to my declaration of interests, including as a member of the Ivors Academy—went along to the Ivor Novello awards, which celebrates the great songwriters and composers of this country. Ivor Novello, whose original name was Ivor Davies, was born in my old constituency of Cardiff West, and there is a plaque on the very street around the corner from my house indicating where he was born. The Ivor Novello awards are a reminder that we are world leaders in creativity, as other noble Lords have said, and that we are net exporters of that creativity. Our great creativity is a foreign currency earner for this country, and we should not get into bed with anyone who seeks to undermine that.
The amendment being put forward by the noble Baroness is a modest amendment—some might say too modest, compared to what could be done if the Government came forward with their own in lieu. But that is exactly what the Government should do: they should make their case, rather than invoking financial privilege on every occasion. Although it is the Commons’ right to do that, in my view the argument should be made. If this is the wrong pathway, why is it the wrong pathway? Transparency is what is needed, and it is needed now.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS. In the United States, a revealing battle is under way, not only about competing with China but about whose interests AI regulation should serve. Thirty-one US states have passed AI laws. They understand that transparency does not stifle innovation; it enables it by providing certainty and accountability. So fierce is federal resistance that House Republicans now seek to roll back state AI laws entirely, imposing a decade-long moratorium. AI experts call this an abdication of responsibility, yet the states persist, introducing 550 new Bills this year alone.
We face the same choice. For years, we condemned China’s intellectual property theft, the foundation of its economic rise. Now, we permit Silicon Valley the same privilege. The Government’s wait-and-see prevarication is inexplicable. This amendment demands transparency alone: no new law, no regulatory burden, simply the right to know when your work is taken. This amendment grants the Government complete discretion over enforcement and preserves their consultation. It demands only visibility. This is a test of whether we uphold the rule of law in the age of AI by giving creators the simple right to see who is taking their work. I therefore urge the House to support this amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the Labour Benches, may I say that I actually support the Government’s position on this occasion? The reason is this. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has, with great force of personality, made a very considerable case for action needed to protect intellectual property, and I think she has won that battle. It would be impossible in future, in the coming year or so, for a Government to act in a way that did not take account of her very real concerns.
I am a massive supporter of the creative industries, which make an enormous and growing contribution to the country—and not just an economic one. They are part of the knowledge and service economy which we now are. As my noble friend Lord Bragg has often said, they offer people of all social classes the opportunity to fulfil themselves in ways that otherwise might not have been possible. So, while I am very sympathetic, I do not think that this simple amendment is the right vehicle to put in place a whole new copyright law.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Well, I do not quite see how passing this amendment is going to solve the problem; let us put it like that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord is very selectively quoting from what the Secretary of State had to say. The Secretary of State did change his position and acknowledged that existing copyright law is very certain. However, he went on to say that the law was not fit for purpose. That is an absolute giveaway in the circumstances. Whose agenda is he pursuing, in that case? Big tech’s?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
It seems obvious that we have a technological revolution under way, and we have to consider how best we can protect the creative industries in that situation. It is a completely different world that we are now moving into. Peter Kyle is saying that AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. That is what he intends to do in the coming months.
Therefore, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has won on this point and we should now gracefully withdraw from further ping-pong.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, there were two Members of your Lordships’ House who were sitting in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago listening to the debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and myself. During that brief debate—as usual, it was time-limited—there were no fewer than 13 interventions on the Secretary of State from around the House. Of the 13, nine came from Labour’s own Back Benches. Every single one of those 13 interventions expressed concern to varying degrees; not a single person said, “You have got it right, we accept all these apologies and we are going in the right direction”.
If you read some of the comments by the somewhat hirsute Vice-President of the United States at the February AI summit in Paris, it is very clear what the White House and the Trump Administration are intending to do. It is America first, America second, America third, up to the power 10. That is their very clear intent.
If you look at the comments of OpenAI and Google when they talk about their input into the consultation that is taking place with our own Government, you see that their position and intent are crystal clear; they are against transparency and are basically saying that it is too late to act on all the information they have already taken as they have the ability to use it, and in fact they want and need even more.
However, the backdrop to that—as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said—is that there is an intense debate going on in the United States about this. Two weeks ago, the US Office of Copyright—if you like, the guardian of copyright in US law—issued a report which directly challenges many of the premises that these large AI companies are putting forth about their right to rob, rape and pillage intellectual property wherever they wish in the world. They are trying to subjugate the 50 states of the union to make sure the White House can override them, and they intend to do exactly the same with any foreign jurisdiction which chooses to stand up to what the White House views as its own best interest. That is the reality.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
Three months after the Government’s own report, this amendment allows Parliament to be informed on the scale of theft and the loss of revenue to United Kingdom companies, as it also enables a draft Bill on copyright infringement, AI models and transparency of input.
Does the Minister agree that those measures assist the process of copyright protection here while setting a useful standard abroad, including within the 46 states’ human rights affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a much-respected member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman?
In sending out the right message from the United Kingdom, not least is this proposed amendment also consistent with Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, safeguarding, privacy and personal data.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I will make a short intervention, not least because my noble roommate, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has just spoken, and we share a birthday—this week, 5 June. It is the first time in this Chamber that two people with the same birthday have spoken consecutively, and that is an important point to note.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
We only need the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who also shares our birthday, to speak after me, and we will be making history, even if we do not pass this amendment.
I will steer a middle course, if I may, because, if this amendment is not passed, I do not believe—I know this is heresy to say so—that the creative industries will collapse. However, nor do I believe that, if the amendment is passed, the AI revolution and Britain’s lead in it will come to a grinding halt.
This is the third time we have debated this, and a lot of heat and light is being generated. I said earlier in the Chamber during Questions that, in my opinion, Ofcom is a fine regulator doing a fine job of implementing the Online Safety Act. Regulation we do well in this country; I know that sounds like heresy. It may sound like heresy to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but I remind him that I never dallied with socialism, not even at university or at school. As a true Conservative, I am entitled to say that regulation can be a good thing. We can pass this amendment and bring in proper regulation with a good regulator such as Ofcom. That is an important point.
I also to a certain extent want to admonish my own side, the side devoted to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and everything she is doing. I accept that big tech has a seat at the table, but, from my own experience as a Minister, I know that one has to navigate a difficult course between the different competing interests when they clash: creative industries, big tech and so on.
I say with great care that I do not think it is right to undermine the motives of people who are working very closely with this Government to achieve the right solution. I think I know to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was referring as the investor who advises the Government. As far as I am concerned, he has devoted a great deal of time not just to this Government but to the previous Government in wanting to do what is right, which is to keep Britain at the forefront of AI innovation. I simply want to put that comment on the record.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I do not intend to repeat what I said last time, the Minister will be pleased to hear, but there are one or two things that have arisen today which I wish to address. We were told by the Minister that the Government’s view is that we might be in danger of privileging one section of the creative industries as against another, or one section of the community that is likely to be affected by AI. However, copyright underlines everything. It is universal. If you are talking about film, television, a work of literature or anything else, copyright is the essential ingredient.
On the issue of going in small parts, with one thing leading to another, I want to mention something that happened a few years ago and that we are still trying to deal with. Before Brexit, I and others made the point to the Government that it was going to cause a serious problem for touring musicians and artists. Boris Johnson’s Government said, “We can see that; we’re not going to let it happen”. Well, we have been trying to sort it out ever since. My point is simply this: getting small issues right is incredibly important because, further down the line, they become massive. That is why I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is right to keep pushing. Like many other noble Lords here, I am very concerned about ping-pong—especially when we seem to be frustrating the mandated Chamber—but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, once said to me, there are sometimes issues where you just have to stand firm for as long as possible. I believe that this is one of them.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is my first time speaking on this Bill, so the Government Chief Whip will be pleased to know that I am not able to repeat comments I have previously made. I have followed the debates on it closely and followed, with great admiration, the campaign led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not just in this Chamber but far beyond it.
This has never been a question of party politics. Indeed, it is striking that the initiative here has been led from the Cross Benches and the Back Benches in both Houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, just pointed out. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has led the charge. She has put her case clearly and been extremely reasonable and patient in the face of answers even more frustrating than those I used to give her when I was at the government Dispatch Box. More than that, she has been proactive in seeking solutions. The morning after her victory in the last round of ping-pong, she was up early to welcome to your Lordships’ House academics, policymakers and practitioners from not just the creative industries but the AI sector as part of the University of Oxford’s consultation on copyright and AI, as she mentioned in her opening remarks.
The Government keep making this sound like it is a binary choice between two competing sectors. It is not. As my noble friend Lord Vaizey just reminded us, responsible innovators from the AI sector know how vital design and creativity are to all parts of our economy, as well as to our society. They do not want to base their businesses on the theft of others’ intellectual property, paternity rights, maternity rights, pension rights and so much more, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. It was announced last week that Taylor Swift had succeeded in buying back the rights to her first six albums, after many years of legal wrangling, for a nine-figure sum. It would be a cruel irony for her to have expended all that time and money only for her brilliant work to be stolen and fed into a large language model with no transparency and no accountability.
The creative industries have spoken with one voice on this—something that is rather unique—but well they might, for this is existential to them. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have not responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the many noble Lords who have joined her in the Division Lobbies in the previous rounds of ping-pong to express their concerns about this issue. They have not engaged on the point of substance behind her amendments but have relied on arguments of process. There is nothing in the noble Baroness’s latest amendment in lieu—her third attempt to offer a solution to the Government—that engages the financial privilege of another place.
I hope we will hear more from the Minister on the substance of the argument and on the substance of this new amendment, rather than an attempt to run down the clock or to hide behind process. I hope we might yet, even at this late stage, get a glimmer of the compromise that the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Brennan of Canton, and others have hoped for. There is a long-standing convention that your Lordships’ House respects the will of the elected one, of course. But it would not be a constitutional crisis, as the Minister put it in the closing words of her opening remarks, for noble Lords to continue to express their concerns about this Bill, because that convention relies on the Government engaging faithfully and relying not just on points of process but on points of substance.
At a time when the Government are seeking to weaken the scrutiny functions of your Lordships’ House by removing almost 90 Members—all but three of whom are from outwith their own Benches—they need to treat your Lordships’ House with a bit more respect if they want those conventions to be adhered to. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Chief Whip said at the start of this debate, we are now into the third round of ping-pong on this Bill. These issues have been extensively debated across Committee, Report and ping-pong. A cross-section of Back-Benchers has spoken, and now I invite Front-Benchers to speak.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I have spent a delightful half an hour or so listening to some very pertinent, brief speeches, and I intend, with the leave of the House, to make my own. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for helping to stand up for my professional interests and those of my family and the 2.4 million people who earn their livings, livelihoods, pensions and retirements from their creative efforts. She is doing us a great service and I am very grateful to her for that.
There is an issue of constitutional rights here: how long do we go on with ping-pong? I have said before that the elected Government of course have the right to get their business through. But those rights also come with responsibilities, and those responsibilities, above all, include at least listening to this House when it expresses a view so consistently, so coherently and on so many occasions. I do not believe that the Government have given the appearance of listening to any of what has gone on here. It is not that difficult; husbands all around the country give the appearance of listening, even in the middle of watching football matches. The Government here have not even done the basic business of saying, “Yes, I understand, and we are listening”.
The last time we discussed this, I thought it was unfortunate, if not unfair, for the Government to imply that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, had turned down meetings with Ministers. That was unnecessary. It should not have been said, because that has nothing to do with the importance of her remarks. It is also deeply unhelpful when we in this House find ourselves having to come back, time and again, simply to ask the Government to listen, to offer coherent responses and not simply to dismiss what has been said here. What is this Chamber for if, after the debates we have had, the Government give absolutely nothing? They do not listen to this House or to Elton John, Paul McCartney or any of the hundreds of thousands of people involved in this industry who are saying, “Please, just do a little bit to show that you have understood the issue”.
I have been accused in the past of having a vivid imagination, but I wonder why this Government are so blatantly stubborn over this. If I were writing a novel, I would wonder what went on in Washington while we were doing that trade deal that was so trumpeted by this Government. Were any conversations going on behind the scenes that gave guarantees, commitments or understandings about what approach this Government would take to copyright and AI? We know that Elon Musk, who was a very powerful man in the White House, wanted the Government’s position and not the position that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is taking.
Over the past few days, this side of the House has been accused by government Members of making arguments that were made in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. That was pretty shameful. It has nothing to do with this issue, although it did make me think: are we actually looking here at a digital Munich and bending the knee to a power with which we wanted to do a deal through backdoor agreements? Can the Minister please give us an absolute guarantee that no such behind-the-scenes, unannounced undertakings have been given? Otherwise, I fail to understand why this Government are being so stubborn.
In light of the fact that the Government have a right to get their business through— but they also have responsibilities, as we have responsibilities to stand up for what we believe to be entirely obviously correct—I will intend gladly and enthusiastically once again, if the noble Baroness pushes the issue, to march into the voting Lobbies with her on this issue.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am goaded by my own Front Bench to speak for the second time in favour of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I also share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
I have been a Minister in both Houses. I have been on the receiving end of ping-pong in both Houses, and I got bloody irritated by it. But I was never in a position, along with my Secretary of State, of sending back nothing. We sought to get a compromise. I can remember back to the late 1990s: the Labour Front Bench was sent by John Smith to Templeton College in Oxford to get some training. I can remember a former senior civil servant saying to us, “Whatever happens, it is never too late to avoid making a bad decision”. That is the position we are in now. We can avoid making a bad decision by having a degree of compromise, which has been missing throughout.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, may I also trespass on your patience? I, like my noble friend Lord Dobbs, live on my royalties. The AI companies have—very irritatingly—bought only one of my 20 books; they paid about £3,000, and so, as you can imagine, I am very keen that they should buy the other 19.
It strikes me that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to organise a register system or licence system—it has only just happened in the United States, with regard to Amazon buying out New York Times back copies—whereby there is no threat or danger of republication but all that is happening is the information is mined by these companies. Such a system surely can and should happen.
The reason I am supporting the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is that at the very least it will embarrass future Secretaries of State when they have to come to the House and essentially admit they have undermined one of the great British inventions. For 300 years, the law of copyright has been helping and driving creativity in this country.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I offer the unequivocal and steadfast support from the Liberal Democrat Benches for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which introduces Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D.
It is absolutely clear that the noble Baroness’s speeches become better and more convincing the more we go on. Indeed, the arguments being made today for these amendments become better and more convincing as time goes on. I believe we should stand firm, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said.
Time and time again, we all have had to address the narrative stated in the consultation paper and repeated by Ministers suggesting there is uncertainty or a lack of clarity in existing UK copyright law regarding AI training. We have heard that the Secretary of State has just recently acknowledged that the existing copyright law is “very certain”, but as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, he has also stated that
“it is not fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1234.]
That makes the narrative even worse than saying that copyright law is uncertain.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has rightly asserted, we do not need to change copyright law. It is the view of many that existing law is clear and applies to the commercial use of copyrighted works for AI training. The issue is not a deficient law but rather the ability to enforce it in the current AI landscape. As the noble Baroness has also profoundly put it—I have got a number of speeches to draw on, as you can see—what you cannot see, you cannot enforce. The core problem is a lack of transparency from AI developers: without knowing what copyrighted material has been used to train models and how it was accessed, creators and rights holders are unable to identify potential infringements and pursue appropriate licensing or legal action.
In striking down previous Lords amendments, the Government have suggested that this House was at fault for using the wrong Bill. They have repeatedly claimed that it is too soon for transparency and too late to prevent stealing, and they have asserted that accepting the Lords transparency amendment would prioritise one sector over another. But that is exactly what the Government are doing. They have suggested an expert working group, an economic impact assessment, a report on the use of copyright, and then, I think, a report on progress in what the noble Baroness the Minister had to say. But, as many noble Lords have said today, none of that gives us the legislative assurance —the certainty, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, put it—that we need in these circumstances.
The Government have objected to being asked to introduce regulations because of financial privilege, and now, it seems—I can anticipate what the noble Baroness the Minister is going to say—are objecting to the requirement to bring forward a draft Bill with this amendment. But the Government are perfectly at liberty to bring forward their own amendment allowing for transparency via regulations, a much more expeditious and effective route that the House has already overwhelmingly supported. Transparency is the necessary foundation for a functioning licensing market, promotes trust between the AI sector and the creative industries, and allows creators to be fairly compensated when their work contributes value to AI models.
The Government have asked for a degree of trust for their plans. This amendment, while perhaps less than creators deserve—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, described it as the bare minimum—is a step that would help earn that trust. It is this Government who can do that, and I urge them to heed the words of their own Back-Benchers: the noble Lords, Lord Cashman, Lord Rooker and Lord Brennan, all asked the Government to find a compromise.
I urge all noble Lords, in the face of a lack of compromise by the Government, to support Motion A1.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as this is the third round of ping-pong, as many noble Lords have observed, I will speak very briefly. If the noble Baroness the Minister has not by now understood how strongly noble Lords on all sides of the House feel about this issue, it may be too late anyway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has made an increasingly powerful case for the Government to act in defence of the rights of copyright owners, and we continue to call on the Government to listen. We have of course discussed this at great length. The noble Baroness has tabled a new Motion which would require Ministers to make a Statement and bring forward a draft Bill. Given that the Minister has expressed her sympathy for the concerns of your Lordships’ House previously, surely this new Motion would be acceptable to the Government as a pathway toward resolving the problem, and we again urge the Government to accept it.
However, whatever choice the Government make—I do not think anyone could claim that any part of this is an easy problem, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey pointed out—many of us are frustrated by the absence of agility, boldness and imagination in their approach. That said, speaking at least from the Front Bench of a responsible Opposition, we take the view that we cannot engage further in protracted ping-pong. We are a revising Chamber, and, although it is right to ask the Government to think again when we believe they have got it wrong, we feel we must ultimately respect the will of the elected Chamber.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I must once again thank all noble Lords who have spoken during this debate, and of course I continue to recognise the passion and the depth of feeling on this issue.
I did not think I needed to reiterate this, but we absolutely believe in the importance of the creative sector, and of course we want it to have a flourishing future. In previous debates, I have spelled out all the work that we are doing with the creative sector and how fundamental it is to our economic planning going forward. I do not intend to go over that, but I have said it time and again from this Dispatch Box. Our intention is to find a substantial and workable solution to this challenge that we are all facing.
I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others that we have had numerous discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others and have of course taken those discussions seriously. As a result, we have come today with an honest and committed plan to work together to resolve the contentious issue of AI and copyright both quickly and effectively.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Could she just deal with the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others? Why, if the Government are working and looking for a compromise, have they sent this back to the House without any proposal from the Government?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, when I set out my comments, I said that I have made compromises, and I will reiterate them. We are trying to find a way through on the detail of how we are going to find something that is workable and deliverable in the longer term. That is the real challenge here. We all agree that we need to find something that will support the creative sector. It is about finding a model that will work internationally as well. That is our real challenge, and that is what we are attempting to do.
I think noble Lords feel that it is simpler than it is, because this is a huge challenge for us on a global basis. Let us not just think that there is a simple solution; I do not think for one second that there is.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way, but does she accept that in order for these discussions to be fruitful in the round table and workshops that the Government have proposed, all parties need to know that they are entering those discussions on an equal footing? Although the noble Baroness and the Secretary of State have made quite a lot of play about not wanting to favour one side or another, through the consultation process and the way in which the Government have demonstrated a favouritism to one side of that discussion, there is a lack of confidence within the creative sector about their entering into these negotiations. That is what is lacking and what is needed to get those discussions to the point where they can be constructive and deliver the solution—which, I agree with her, will be very difficult to achieve.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The Secretary of State and all the Ministers in the department have made it absolutely clear how vital it is that the creative sector’s interests are protected in the discussions. The sector will be part of the working groups, have a seat at the table and have its voice heard. We have a job to do in reassuring those people that this is a workable solution, but they will see that the long-term workable solution which we are attempting to achieve would be for everyone.
Those working groups will address the issue of transparency and technical standards in a way that supports the creative industries as well as the tech sector. Those working groups, alongside the consultation responses, will inform the reports, the proposal and the economic assessment that the Government have already committed to in this Bill. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed upon and implemented. However, we must see what comes out of the process, rather than imposing preconditions at this stage.
As I said earlier, His Majesty’s Government have made three additional commitments on this matter. First, these reports will be expanded with two additional topics—extraterritoriality and enforcement. Secondly, the report’s proposals and economic impact assessment will be published more quickly—within nine months. Thirdly, if we have not completed these reports within six months, the Secretary of State will provide a progress report to Parliament.
Turning to the first proposed new subsection of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I agree that the scale of unauthorised use of works as inputs to AI models, and the impact of such use on copyright owners, AI developers and the wider economy should all be considered as we develop our policy approach and put forward our proposals, as should the adequacy of the legislative framework to support copyright owners. I am pleased to confirm that these aspects will already be considered as part of the impact assessment. The Government will report as we go along and are committed to publishing that. We intend for that impact assessment and report to be published within nine months and to make a progress statement after six months if needed. I hope that gives clarity to noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the Government agree that these issues are important and are actively working on them. We disagree with this part of the noble Baroness’s amendment only on the basis that an additional statement is not needed.
However, turning to the second proposed new subsection of the noble Baroness’s amendment, I can see the appeal of requiring the Government to make progress with legislation in this space. The Government have heard noble Lords’ concerns about the pace of progress. The Secretary of State said in the other place that he proposes legislation to be tabled as soon as possible. He has set out a plan for determining what such legislation should contain, assessing the consultation responses, convening technical working groups and then producing reports and economic impact assessments on our proposals.
Many of the things in the noble Baroness’s amendment may coincide with the outcomes of this plan. She has great foresight, but none of us have a crystal ball. It is fundamentally wrong to prejudge and pre-empt the process now being prescribed in the content of the legislation. What would noble Lords say to the 11,500 people who took the time to submit detailed responses to the consultation—that their considered thoughts are irrelevant because the outcome has already been put in statute? What to the working groups of technical experts that, rather than work with us to come up with a comprehensive solution that works for all sides, must abide by regulations that ignore their input and cover only one or two issues? What to the elected House, which has already voted these amendments down three times? Rather than respect one of our core constitutional principles, cited indeed by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, before the recess, do we believe in consulting and properly legislating, but just not today?
This cannot be what anybody thinks is right, either on this issue or indeed as a matter of principle. I repeat: the Government have heard the concerns of your Lordships’ House and set out their plan to address them. This must be allowed to run its course. I urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment, nor to support the noble Baroness’s new amendment. Doing so will further delay our plan for dealing with the issues at hand and delay all the other good that this Bill will do; for example, allowing the EU to make its decision on data adequacy for the UK; providing for data preservation notices for coroners to support bereaved parents; introducing new offences tackling intimate image deepfake abuse; and enabling digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy. All these things are waiting in the wings once the data Bill is passed.
I hope that noble Lords will reflect on this. We are making compromises—indeed, we have made a compromise—and we are trying to work quickly. Our only concern is with the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which we do not feel will give us the comprehensive and detailed solution that we know is necessary to reassure the creative and technology sectors in the UK that we can make this work.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I first thank everyone who has spoken. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who thinks that I have won. I therefore hope that he expects and anticipates that one of my amendments will make it into the Bill, because that is what winning looks like to me.
I want to make a broader point about winning and losing. I did not want to be here again. I know that the Minister has told the House to be very careful about how we speak, but I think that she would acknowledge that, in private, I have reached out to all sides of the Government to discuss this and to try to get a compromise. I think she will also know that the small changes that she mentioned—which are all very welcome, but do not add up to a real change—are not something that the Government came to me with before the debate; this was the first that I heard of them. That is probably because she knows that they are not profound or significant.
I wish that the Minister had not gone back on this issue of stealing. I just want to make it utterly clear—I hope my words were clear; I will re-read Hansard—that stealing is happening, and standing in the way of transparency allows stealing to continue. That is the argument that I have made; I have been very careful in making it. As many people around the House have said on the previous amendment, the Government cannot have it both ways. They do not like the drafting, but they do not draft anything else; they do not like the comprehensive one, but this one is not comprehensive enough. This is ping-pong in the round—the Government are forcing ping-pong on us. My real wish is that the Government find some strength, some humility and some way of coming forward with what we passed last time, which was a power to make regulation in their own image once their report had been done. That was a good amendment. That is the amendment that the Government should be backing. Today’s amendment is a “just in case”.
The Government should not worry about the bulk of the 11,500. They would be very happy if the Government acted now. That is not a problem, and I am willing to take that, but the Government have offered no timeline. They have proposed voluntary systems, while the longer issue will continue; they have said “as soon as we can”. I do not doubt that every Minister has in their heart the right motivation—let me say that on the record—but the actions of the Government are blocking an entire industry from protecting their property. Unfortunately, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I appear to have this socialist inclination that people should have a fair day’s pay for their labour. I seek the agreement of the House.
Independent Sentencing Review
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the measures announced by the Government on 22 May are presented under the guise of necessity, but they risk eroding public confidence in our criminal justice system. This country has always stood for a system of justice that is firm and fair and can be trusted by the public, yet some of the proposals fall short of that standard. If the Government are truly committed to ensuring that violent and repeat offenders are properly punished, it is entirely within their means to create the prison capacity required. Instead, we are asked to accept a series of deeply troubling changes on the grounds that there is no alternative.
What do these reforms entail? It is a reduction in time served, including a proposal for many offenders to spend merely a third of their sentence in custody. Let us consider just one example. A burglar sentenced to 18 months and entering a plea of guilty might serve just 11 weeks in prison. That is scarcely credible as a deterrent, let alone for a justice system. Such outcomes can only erode confidence in our penal system. And what is to replace custodial punishment? We have heard of an expanded use of electronic tagging. While we support the appropriate use of technology, let us be candid: electronic tags are not a substitute for custody.
As mentioned by my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick in the other place, the Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme showed that 71% of tagged individuals breached their curfew. Is that the kind of protection that we are offering a law-abiding public? Meanwhile, over 17,000 individuals are currently on remand awaiting trial, a number that is forecast to rise still further. In the light of this, will the Government now act on the Lady Chief Justice’s call for additional court sitting days so that these cases can be heard and justice delivered without undue delay?
What of capacity? Under the previous Government, we delivered the largest expansion to the prison estate since the Victorian era. The Government’s prison capacity strategy mentions the construction of a mere 250 rapid deployment cells. That is hardly adequate. When Texas undertook similar reforms in the 1990s—the very model on which this plan is said to be based—it built more than 75,000 prison places.
The Government’s present approach to justice simply cannot inspire public confidence. We must ensure, and indeed the public expect, that the most prolific and dangerous offenders face the consequences of their actions, so I will press the Minister on several critical points. First, following the announcements made in the other place on 22 May, can he confirm without equivocation that violent sexual offenders and those who have committed crimes against children will be excluded from the early release schemes?
Secondly, given the review’s emphasis on reducing custodial sentences, what assurances can the Government provide that public confidence in the justice system, particularly among victims and their families, will not be undermined by these changes?
Thirdly, does the Minister agreed that electronic tagging cannot substitute for secure custody, particularly in cases involving violent or high-risk offenders?
Fourthly, what assessment have the Government made of the capacity of our prisons in light of the sentencing proposals, and will they commit to a robust and credible prison building programme that reflects the scale of these proposed reforms?
Finally, it is deeply regrettable that the voices of victims and their families appear to have been overlooked in this review. Can the Minister clarify why the Independent Sentencing Review appears to have taken such limited input from victims’ groups? Will the Government commit to a public consultation to ensure their voices are heard before implementing these recommendations?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, we welcome the Independent Sentencing Review. We also applaud the appointment of David Gauke to lead it. He was an inspired and independent choice and, despite some reservations with the report, we regard the tenor of the review as brave, principled and, most importantly, evidence based.
We also agree with the Government in their Statement that the previous Administration are largely responsible for the crisis in our prisons—our running out of prison space, the dilapidation of our prison estate, the ineffective approach to rehabilitation, to community sentences and to the Probation Service, and the continuing pervasive recidivism. These are the factors that got us into this mess, and they are largely the previous Government’s fault. The irony is that the previous Government claimed to be dedicated to law and order, just as the noble and learned Lord does now. Well, that is not their legacy.
Given the present position, on present trends and given the prison building plans—they are extensive, but there will inevitably be delays in their implementation—can the Government realistically hope to avoid the kind of stopgap emergency responses that we have found necessary over the last year?
Moving on, the proposals for three-part prison sentences and an earned progression model are persuasive. It is interesting that they originated in Texas—not a state known for soft liberalism. My understanding is that the Texan Government believed that these crime reduction measures would save the taxpayers’ dollar. Have the Government yet estimated the possible cost savings from these proposals overall?
We agree that we desperately need the increased investment in probation and probably even more investment. We regard the commitment to more tagging and community monitoring as clearly sensible. But I would be grateful if the Minister could say how far it is envisaged that tagged offenders will be confined to their homes, and what plans there are for work, education and training for offenders while they are tagged and under supervision.
Capping recalls to prison should prevent the use of recall to respond to relatively minor breaches of conditions with extended and disproportionate prison terms, but how will the individual length of these short recalls be determined? We on these Benches, along with the majority of experts in the field, have been arguing for years for a reduction in the use of short prison sentences, and I can see the argument for leaving some judicial discretion in place in certain circumstances. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, nodding, and I know that he has had experience of short sentencing in his time as a magistrate. But we also agree that victims of domestic abusers and stalkers, and cases of breaches of protection orders, call for particular protection for victims. Nevertheless, may we have an assurance that, in practice, this reform will give the presumption against short sentences that we have long been seeking?
We accept the argument for making community sentences tougher and for intensive supervision courts, but we seek an assurance that the primary purpose of community sentences will continue to be to rehabilitate offenders and enable them to turn their lives around. We have concerns about the pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal, with its rather troubling overtones of chemical castration. Will the Government commit to careful monitoring of the long-term effects of such treatment?
Finally, we share the Government’s commitment to supporting victims, and that shines through this Statement. My noble friend Lady Brinton has been at the forefront of securing more compassionate treatment of victims, and the exclusion zones proposed will be an important new protection. But may we also have a commitment to making the criminal justice system more approachable and less traumatic for victims, particularly in cases of sexual violence? We have had some progress in this area but not nearly enough, hence the loss of so many cases. That would be a helpful complement for the Government’s principled commitment to ensure that women are less often sent to prison, and that women defendants are more compassionately treated by the criminal justice system.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, when this Government asked David Gauke and his independent expert panel to conduct a review of sentencing, its task was clear: our country must never run out of prison places again. I put on record my appreciation for all the panel’s work, including that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, who is well known and respected in this place.
In considering its proposals, the Independent Sentencing Review has followed the evidence and looked at examples of good practice across the world. It is clear to me, as someone who has been searching for answers to these well-known problems for over 20 years, that the panel has carefully and methodically approached the challenges head-on. This review sets out major reform. It is an important moment for the justice sector, and one we cannot afford to ignore.
As the Lord Chancellor has set out, once again our prisons are running out of space. Let me be clear that we must always have space in our prisons for dangerous offenders. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for prison places will still outstrip supply by 9,500 cells in early 2028. If our prisons collapse, courts must suspend trials, police must halt arrests and crime goes unpunished; we face the total breakdown of law and order in this country. Yet the previous Government, over 14 years, added just 500 places to our prison estate. At the same time, sentence lengths rose. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis.
That starts by building prisons. Since taking office just 11 months ago, this Government have opened 2,400 places. Last month, the Lord Chancellor announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031. This is the largest expansion since the Victorian era. However, the investment is vital, but it is still not sufficient. We need to do more. We cannot just build our way out of this crisis. This Government have been clear: we also need to both reform sentencing and end the cycle of reoffending.
The report’s central recommendation—the move to a three-part sentence called the “earned progression model”—means that offenders will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release point will be at the one-third mark, with additional time added for bad behaviour. For those serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release point will be at 50%, with additional time added for bad behaviour. If they follow prison rules and behave well, they will earn an earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. It is that simple.
That behaviour-based approach echoes the model that the Lord Chancellor witnessed in Texas. I have personally been fascinated by the Texan model for a number of years and have followed the outcomes achieved very closely, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, clearly has as well. If you are a prison geek like me, this is what you seek: examples of what works—and it clearly does work. Its reforms, which started in 2007, have led to 16 prisons closing, to fewer victims and to lower costs of reoffending.
To address the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, about these reforms applying to dangerous offenders, I assure noble Lords that these reforms will not apply to those serving extended determinate sentences, which includes the most dangerous offenders. I confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences or state threat sentences will be eligible for early release from prison. I can also confirm that the Government engaged with police colleagues and other stakeholders across the criminal justice system prior to the publication of the review, as did David Gauke. We wanted to ensure that we had a joined-up approach. The full detail of these policies, including an impact assessment, will accompany the forthcoming legislation.
Noble Lords have rightly raised questions about what these reforms will mean for victims, particularly victims of domestic abuse. My priority is clear: everything we do is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. Our first responsibility is to make sure that this does not happen, which is why we consulted widely, as has David Gauke, with victims’ groups.
The review recommends several important measures, including the way we identify domestic abusers at sentencing so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. We recognise how vital it is to make sure that we know who all domestic abuse offenders are, even when their offences are not obviously linked to domestic abuse. We also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts. I also clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the review did not recommend entirely abolishing short sentences. Under our proposed reforms, judges will retain the discretion to hand down short custodial sentences in exceptional circumstances, and I note that David Gauke’s review specifically references this, including giving respite to victims of domestic abuse.
To improve transparency in the system, we will also extend the provision of free sentencing remark transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences. All these are necessary steps that I believe show that this Government have recognised the unique harms caused by violence against women and girls. Further steps will be outlined when, in the summer, we publish our 10-year cross-government strategy on violence against women and girls.
Noble Lords raised important questions about public protection and the role of probation. The Government recognise probation’s important role. In fact, it is more than important; it is vital. That is why we are increasing funding for probation by up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review—an increase of 45%. That will allow us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders, which the evidence has shown cuts crime and makes our streets safer.
If we are to see more punishment in the community, it is essential that it works. That is why we are looking at new severe financial penalties that would see offenders’ assets seized even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expand the use of punishments, such as travel and driving bans, that would curtail an offender’s liberty.
I particularly draw noble Lords’ attention to the recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. These impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, with offenders regularly brought before a judge to monitor their compliance. If they do not play ball, the offenders get sent straight to prison. Intensive supervision courts work, especially with prolific offenders. Visiting the court in Birmingham remains the best day I have had in this job—I saw how it helps turn lives away from crime.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to David Gauke’s recommendations relating to female offenders. My interest in prison started many years ago, when coming face to face with the realities of many women in our prisons. Too many women are victims of considerable trauma and abuse. They are vulnerable, addicted and mentally ill. Many are also mothers, and their imprisonment has life-changing impacts not only for them but for their children. Around two-thirds of female offenders sentenced to custody receive short sentences, and around the same number are victims of domestic abuse. I proudly chair the Women’s Justice Board, which we set up last year with the aim of closing a women’s prison and addressing the specific needs of this cohort. I am pleased to note that the review’s recommendations on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison. This is an important step towards that objective.
I will inform noble Lords about some of the other areas of our focus to address the capacity crisis. The number of offenders recalled to prison has doubled since 2018, putting increasing pressure on the system. Today’s figure is around 13,000. The sentencing review makes sensible recommendations to address this increase, and it is suggested that, where offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle and will set out the precise details of these changes when we legislate.
In conclusion, in our response to the sentencing review, this Government will take the steps necessary to end the enduring capacity crisis we inherited and end the cycle of reoffending. To do that, we must agree with others that we have to build prisons on a historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever and speed up our courts. But we also must reform sentencing in a way that puts the justice system on a more sustainable footing. We now have the right ideas, the long-term funding and a Government determined to resolve this long-term crisis for good. I invite noble Lords to engage with me as we pursue this much-needed reform.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving me some advance indication of the proposals in the government Statement, but does he not agree that sentences of imprisonment, including short sentences, are almost invariably imposed by the courts only as a matter of last resort? Is it not the case that, by seeking to curtail the use of short sentences of imprisonment, the Government risk frustrating and demoralising the magistrates who perform such outstanding public service and exacerbating the increase in crime, which the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and others have said will be an inevitable consequence of the Government’s proposals?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
To be clear, courts will retain discretion to impose short custodial sentences for offenders who have breached a court order. So 12 months or fewer is not banned; it is in exceptional circumstances, including the breach of any VAWG-related protective order—for example, restraining orders, non-molestation orders and stalking protection orders. But courts will also be able to impose a sentence of immediate custody when there are exceptional circumstances that would not justify passing a suspended sentence. A large amount of evidence suggests that reoffending levels are higher for people who go to prison on short sentences than for those who serve tough community sentences instead.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I broadly support the Gauke review, which tries to address two major problems that have caused our prison population to get out of control. One of those is increased sentencing. I cannot remember a political party represented here today that has promised in any election that it would reduce sentences. They have all competed to give high sentences, and I am not sure that it has had the effect desired—of course, with some offences. The second is obviously the decrease in the amount of parole available. This review attempts to do something about the latter, and I broadly support it.
I wonder whether the Minister will agree with me on three points about which I am concerned. I agree partly with the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I know that the Government have proposed to entirely remove the shorter sentences, but they should be really careful which ones they entirely remove. More important is the phasing of this: how would those people come out, in what groups and in what numbers?
That links to the second point, about policing and probation resources. I agree with the Government increasing probation spending, but it will not all be spent at once and people will not all arrive experienced and able. How do we match those two things so that the police and probation are prepared effectively for that mass release?
Finally, there is a real opportunity here. I agree with tagging. To those who say that people commit offences with tagging, I would say that, in general, they commit fewer offences. If the tagging is linked to their offending behaviour, such as with sobriety, and if it can limit where they go and do not go, it can have an effect. At the moment, those tags go to a commercial company and not directly to the police service. Surely the time has come to create a separate body to monitor those tags and react immediately when there are breaches. I am not convinced that that happens at the moment.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s support for the general direction of travel of the sentencing review. We will continue to work with the police and others on any impacts on the wider justice system—that is very important. However, the alternative is that we run out of prison places, and the last thing that our police want or need is to have no prison places. It is very important that we make sure that we have enough prison places to rely on, so that, in future, the police have confidence that they can go about their job.
As for the short custodial sentences, MoJ research found that custodial sentences of less than 12 months were associated with higher reoffending rates compared to court orders of any length. That is why we need to make sure that we get the balance right. Tagging has recently been shown to cut reoffending rates by 20%, but what is also interesting is the future of tagging. With the way in which technology is developing, I envisage that the role of tagging and wrist-worn technology will mean that the role of probation becomes far easier and we can do far more, not just to track offenders in the community but to check whether they are consuming alcohol or drugs or whether they are in the wrong place, and so on. With electronic tagging, we need to make sure that we support our probation staff, but I am very interested in the future of the technology too.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
It is particularly welcome that the Government have accepted that community sentences are far more effective at reducing reoffending than are short sentences. Will the Minister accept that, if we want to further improve the levels of reoffending and increase public confidence, a community sentence programme will need to have far more investment than the very welcome £700 million for the Probation Service? Can he assure us that funds will also be made available for support services such as for housing, mental health, and drug and alcohol and gambling problems? Will that money be forthcoming?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord is exactly right that housing is a key factor in the potential for someone to reoffend and go back to prison. We need to make sure that, when people leave prison, they do not have the initials NFA against their name, because they need somewhere to live.
On community sentences, there are very good examples of effective alternatives. For example, community sentence treatment requirements tackle the root causes of offending, and recipients of mental health treatment requirements were 9 percentage points less likely to reoffend compared to those on short custodial sentences. The £700 million of extra funding is absolutely vital, and will go an awful long way to making sure that we can deliver the service that our hard-working probation staff need. They know exactly what to do, but they have often been restricted in what opportunities they have. I am very determined to make sure that, when we offer community services, they are sentences that work, so that when people start on them they then go on to live a crime-free life.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is it correct that in the United Kingdom we have the highest rate of incarceration in Europe and are exceeded only by the United States? When did officials at the offender management units at MoJ realise that we were definitely going to run out of prison places? Was it in this Parliament or was it at some point in the previous Parliament? Finally, is there any hope that the Minister will make some noticeable reform to our custodial system?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The amount of prison places that we will be building will mean that there are even more people in prison than ever before. We will build 14,000 places by 2031, which will mean that there is a large amount more space for offenders to go in. On the day I arrived in the Ministry of Justice, I had thought that it would be a day of celebration and that I would be home within an hour, but I was there for about six hours, meeting officials who were clearly concerned that we were about to run out of space, again. That is why I am delighted that David Gauke’s review has been presented to Parliament. We need to make sure that it works together with the review that Brian Leveson is carrying out, which I hope will be published soon. It is not one or the other; both are needed, as well as the investment in building new prison places to resolve the crisis that we have. It is really important to me that this is the last time we have a crisis. We need to make sure that we have a long-term and sustainable prison system.
Lord Bach (Lab)
From these Benches, first, I congratulate the Minister in particular for the difference that he has made in his time at the Ministry of Justice. It has been a breath of fresh air, and it is about time that a Government of either party or all parties have the courage to take on this issue. Of course, the danger for a party in taking on this issue is that the other party or parties will immediately seize on it and use it for populist effect. That has to stop—it has gone on for too long and it ruins the system.
What I am particularly concerned about is the Probation Service, because how it has been treated in the past few years is, frankly, scandalous. It has been run down and has not been able to do the very difficult and vital job that it is there to do. Can the Minister ensure, please, that the Probation Service, which is at the heart of this change if it is to be successful, is properly funded and given every support—all the support that it has lacked for so many years?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments. It has been the biggest privilege of my life to be given this role, and to be in your Lordships’ House to debate these crucial reforms to sentencing. I have been involved in and around the sector for most of my working life, and I have seen too many great ideas get ignored, too many wither on the vine and too many go unfunded.
I counted up the number of Prison Ministers I had met before being handed the keys to what was once their office, and it was 14, over just 20 years. I am not sure whether that happened because they enjoyed the role so much that they wanted to move on to another one or because it was too challenging and they wanted to find an easier role elsewhere, but, for me, this is the job that I have come in to do, and I am absolutely delighted that David Gauke and the panel have come up with the ideas that they have.
My noble friend is 100% right about the Probation Service. That is where the heavy lifting is done, and it is at the heart of the system. If you do not get probation funded and operating properly, the rest does not work either. I have met so many amazing probation staff who know exactly what they need to do but feel that they have not been supported enough over the years and that they spend too much time on administration and not enough time face to face with offenders, helping them turn their lives around—and that is the job that they signed up to do.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I very strongly agree with what the Minister has just said, and I declare an interest in that a close relative of mine works in the Probation Service. It is demoralised, underfunded and depressed, and that will have to change urgently, although, of course, getting probation officers into positions of experience takes time.
I strongly welcome this report and its findings. Does the Minister agree that of all the statistics bandied around on the topic of reoffending, perhaps the most striking is that no less than 39.3% of inmates reoffend within 12 months of their release from custody? That is the point at which the intensive provision part of the three-stage system will kick in. The period when those prisoners who are most at risk of reoffending are being engaged with by the Probation Service and by rehabilitation services will be key to this working, and if that is not got right, the reform will not be got right. As the Minister says, the Probation Service is central to this. Is he confident that he is going to be able to secure sufficient funds to create the sort of transformation that will be required for this scheme to work?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am learning how this business works, and when you go to the Treasury, you ask for what you want and then, in our case, we are happy with what we need to do the job. The £700 million is significant and will make a difference, but on top of that, we need to recruit more probation staff, which we are doing. We need to train them really well, and we are doing a review into training. We also need to support them, because the noble Lord is right: 39% of people reoffending is far too high and means more victims as well.
One of the things I learned is that employment makes a huge difference to people when they leave prison. One of the things I tried to do was to interview people when they were in prison, so they started working for me the next day. When I started employment advisory boards, 14% of prisoners had a job after six months. With the work of so many local business leaders and the third sector, that figure is now well over 30%. Those people in a job are far less likely to reoffend.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the publication of the review. My friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester regrets that she is not able to be in her place today, but I know that she has been raising many of the issues addressed in this review over several years. It is heartening that the review has looked at creative alternatives to prison that are rigorous and yet also address the root causes of people committing crimes in the first place, and has proposed effective ways of preventing people entering cycles of criminality and reoffending, as well as strengthening and protecting communities, which is in the interest of victims on all sides.
I have no doubt that my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester will want to continue to engage with the Minister and others as the Government respond to the review. But what role does the Minister believe the third sector, including faith groups, might continue to play in light of the review’s recommendation to expand the support offered by the third sector to offenders on community sentences and on licence?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has been very vocal and supportive of many of the suggestions I have been working on, not just now but before I came into this position. The role of the third sector, both in prison and in the community, is vital. One thing that has been missed is that the spending review now being a three-year deal makes a big difference to third-sector partners, who find it very difficult to rely on a one-year cycle. I am hoping that the relationships we have built up over many years will now be far more confident relationships, both ways, because third-sector partners will be able to have confidence and a longer-term view of their commitment to working with us.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister used the word “compassionate”, and other noble Lords have used that word in reference to sentencing, particularly of women, and to the effect on their families. Does he appreciate that many people do not understand how, for a simple tweet—an appalling tweet—Lucy Connolly got 31 months, while the next month, somebody who raped a young woman was sentenced to half that time?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I cannot comment on individual cases, but it is up to the judiciary to decide what sentence they hand down to offenders.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too add to the welcome that has been given to David Gauke’s review and the Government’s response to it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, when he said, “Let us try to approach this in a non-political manner”, but I fear that is probably pie in the sky. I shall put it in a slightly different way: can we try to approach this by seeing what works? Do these long prison sentences work? My own view is that they do not. As important to these reforms will be making sure that the substitute, of people spending more time in the community, works. Here, money is critical. I very much hope that the Government will be prepared to submit their detailed costings for critical examination, because we cannot afford to get this wrong.
There are three areas that concern me. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that in this electronic age, tagging should be efficient. I do not want to say much about the companies that have been used, but they have a fairly dubious history in some respects. Secondly, we ought to be very careful in how we deal with people who offend. When we tried this 20 years ago, that was the problem: if someone broke the conditions, we were too slow at doing anything about it; therefore, that needs funds. Thirdly, can we ensure that there is proper money for the Probation Service, and that that is examined critically? All of those are critical to the point that has been made—how do we have confidence in the community?
I remember going up north as a youngish judge and being told, when I advocated community sentence, “Young man,”—I was, I think, relatively young then— “we don’t believe in it up here”. We have to make them believe in it.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My approach to this job is exactly my approach to all my working life: follow the evidence and make sure you get some great people working with you who have a very clear idea of what needs to be achieved. That is my plan here. That is why, for example, Texas provides an interesting example; the evidence is clear, and I am delighted that we have taken it on board. The point within that is the incentives: what incentives does a prisoner have to do what we ask them to do? If they behave badly, they get time added on to their sentence, so it is a good example of following the evidence.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I sat as a magistrate for some 10 years and remain on the supplemental list. I have to say that it is a grave mistake to take away the ability, as a norm, to give out small and shorter sentences, for the simple reason that we magistrates did so to keep bad people away from good people. It is as simple as that. Is the problem not more what is happening within our prison estate? People who may be drug-free are going into the prison estate and getting a drug habit while there. That in itself is a cause for not just some concern but grave concern, and I am not surprised that they then come out to a life of criminality thereafter. Surely, that has to be the primary concern of the Minister. In so saying, I pay tribute to his family’s support for those on the prison estate, which has been truly exceptional over many years.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Drugs are a problem in every prison, and the addiction that people come into prison with is often exacerbated by serious organised criminals who make money out of selling drugs to addicted people. This then turns into violence and debt, and the ongoing problems we have in prisons. I want people to be in prison to turn their lives around, not to go out and commit further crime. Drugs is a massive problem, and that is why an awful lot of my time is spent finding ways to tackle drugs. It is not just about stopping drones coming in, which noble Lords are aware is a big problem; it is also about the hard yards done by health staff, supporting people with addiction, so that when they come out, they are off drugs and want to lead a normal, healthy life. We then create no victims.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Monday 2nd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 May 2025 - large print - (12 May 2025)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open the debate on this important Bill and to welcome the interest shown by so many noble Lords in seeking to speak. This is a key Bill for the Government and for the United Kingdom as a whole. I will set out why this Government have brought forward the Bill for the benefit of noble Lords today.
Immigration has always been an important part of the United Kingdom’s story. But for it to be so, it must be controlled and managed so that the system is fair and works for people in this country as a whole. Proper enforcement of and respect for the rules are key to that. The Bill before us addresses a number of those areas, and the recently published White Paper runs parallel to the Bill and covers a number of other areas.
The Bill is predominantly about the issues of illegal and irregular migration, and I think it is clear to noble Lords and any observer that the current situation cannot go on. Criminal gangs have had six years to take over the English Channel unchecked and to set up and run criminal enterprises that exploit people at their most vulnerable. As a result, there is a massive strain on the already overstretched immigration and asylum system supports. It is in nobody’s interest to continue as we are. The Bill seeks to make real change.
The criminal gangs have no respect for the lives of those they traffic. Often 50 people or more are crammed into unseaworthy vessels, sometimes facing threats and intimidation when they raise concerns. As a result, we have seen individuals tragically die in the channel. Make no mistake: this is part of a broader criminal enterprise, which seeks to bring weapons, drugs and a wide array of items used to carry out criminal activity into our local communities, smuggled into the United Kingdom. The Government are absolutely committed to taking down the gangs that risk the lives of so many people in our communities.
This Government are taking the necessary actions to secure our borders, to bring the immigration and asylum system under control and to go after the dangerous criminal gangs that undermine our border security. This legislation is part of that plan for change. The Government are determined to tackle irregular migration, to bring control back to our borders and to stop the appalling loss of life in the channel. It is also important that alongside this we have a properly functioning asylum and immigration system that delivers timely decisions for individuals and makes sure that those with no right to be here are removed.
The legislation before us will strengthen the UK’s border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect UK border security that sees the Government working more closely with our international partners up stream and in our near neighbourhood, enhancing operational activity nationally and internationally and ensuring that our law enforcement and operational teams have the powers and tools they need to identify, disrupt and dismantle organised crime activity.
What are the key measures in the Bill? First, the Bill places a new Border Security Commander and his role on a statutory footing and clearly explains the functions that will allow this role to be an enduring one that brings together the skills and expertise of a variety of agencies to tackle the issues faced, united behind a set of border security priorities.
Secondly, the Bill establishes landmark new offences, contained within the legislation, which will provide law enforcement agencies working across border security with stronger powers to pursue, disrupt and deter organised immigration crime. This should not be a surprise to noble Lords, because in the election almost a year ago the Labour Party stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce new counterterrorism-style powers that will give law enforcement the ability to tackle those involved in putting lives in danger and threatening UK border security. This Bill will deliver the new offences.
Among the new offences is one to ensure that action is taken against those who endanger others during sea crossings to the UK. These crossings are exceptionally dangerous, and I regret the loss of life we have seen even this year. The Government are determined to prevent such loss of life in the channel with these new powers.
The Bill will also create new powers to seize and search electronic devices where there is suspicion of involvement in organised immigration crime activity. This will build a better picture for law enforcement agencies investigating the activity of gangs. The Bill will ensure that data-sharing capabilities will be expanded to assist in developing the intelligence picture of organised immigration crime and other threats, make it easier for public agencies to share information and enhance the ability to act. For example, measures to allow the DVLA to share trailer data and for HMRC to share customs data will enhance the work of Border Force.
The Bill’s biometric provisions will provide greater flexibility when taking biometrics from individuals who are part of a UK evacuation. They will allow for the provision of biometrics at ports in Scotland, fixing the situation that has developed where law enforcement officials are needing to drive to a police station to carry out this task.
Measures in the Bill also focus on serious and organised crime and make it clear that it will be an offence to possess the articles named in the Bill, which we know are used in criminality and which harm communities. There is also an expansion of the serious crime prevention order regime, introducing new interim orders which will allow law enforcement to act immediately to tackle criminality where it occurs.
The Bill will strengthen the immigration and asylum systems as a whole. The Government had a clear manifesto commitment to end the wasteful migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda and use that funding to set up our new Border Security Command, led by Martin Hewitt.
Let me be completely clear: the Government’s plans in the previous Parliament to deal with Rwanda were wholly unworkable. They were going to cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and would never have dealt with the sheer number of migrants we are seeing in the channel. Around £700 million has been spent to date, and it is time to close it down. Only four people left the United Kingdom under the Rwanda scheme, and they left voluntarily. The legislation before us, as a manifesto commitment, repeals the costly and unworkable measure introduced by the previous Government and introduces new provisions to start to address the real challenges faced, to tackle harm and to build a more efficient and robust asylum and immigration system.
Beyond the provisions that repeal the safety of Rwanda Act and huge swathes of the Illegal Migration Act, the Bill will equip the Immigration Services Commissioner with the tools they need to identify and tackle abuses within the immigration advice sector. Under the Bill, the Immigration Advice Authority will have new powers to fine or suspend those who provide poor-quality advice to those going through the immigration process, restoring trust in the system—I hope and believe—by tackling such poor practice.
In this extensive Bill, we are also introducing measures that aim to begin taking the action needed to ensure a properly functioning, effective immigration system. The Bill will introduce a new, 24-week statutory timeline for appeals as part of the Government’s work to tackle the enormous backlog of cases we have inherited. To assist cases to move through the system and to provide individuals with clarity on outcomes, cases where the individual is in asylum accommodation—at great taxpayer expense—and cases of non-detained foreign national offenders will be prioritised as far as practically possible.
The Bill also provides for greater protections against harm in our communities, supporting—as I know noble Lords will support—the removal of foreign national criminals and ensuring that sexual offences are treated with the seriousness they deserve. For example, those convicted of Schedule 3 offences will not benefit from refugee protections in the United Kingdom. We recognise the devastating impact that these offences have on victims and our communities, and we as a Government are determined that individuals who commit them cannot benefit from our protections.
Stronger conditions will be placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal from the United Kingdom. These measures mean that those who do not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed due to obligations in law can have certain conditions placed upon them if they pose a threat to the public. This is another measure to try to keep our communities safer.
We are strengthening the detention powers available to the Home Office when an individual is subject to deportation on the basis that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good. This measure removes ambiguity around when powers may be used.
Extending the right-to-work scheme to those who fall under other working relationships will crack down on those working illegally, many of whom are being exploited for cheap labour. It is an objective of the Government to try to drive down that cheap labour market, which is an underbelly in our communities at large.
Finally, changes to the EU settlement scheme, which will be welcomed by a number of noble Lords, will confirm as a matter of UK law what the UK has sought to do in practice since the beginning of this scheme; namely, to ensure that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the scheme have equal rights in the United Kingdom.
The main priority of the Bill is to protect the UK’s border and to make changes to enable a properly functioning immigration and asylum system. We are ensuring that those with a genuine right to be here are properly supported, while those who have no legal right to remain in the UK do not abuse the system and undermine the protections that the UK has a long history of providing to those in need.
We have a responsibility to the British people, who rightly expect our borders to be secure and our laws to be enforced, and we have a moral duty to prevent further tragedies at the hands of criminal gangs. The plan before us is a clear, impactful plan for change. The Bill will restore order and trust to our immigration and asylum system, and provide law enforcement with the tools that they need to be able to tackle the people-smuggling gangs who exploit individuals and place them in perilous situations in the channel. This Government are committed to a fully functioning system, and we will debate migration as a whole in the White Paper in due course.
The Bill is about protecting those who need it, swiftly removing those with no right to be here and cracking down on criminal gangs. To date, since the Government were elected, the National Crime Agency has seized 600 boats and engines, taken down 18,000 social media accounts, ensured that 30,000 people have been returned since the election, including a 23% increase in enforced returns of foreign national offenders, and is taking action on illegal working visits and arrests, increased by 40% and 42% respectively. But the Government need more powers to improve their performance on illegal migration. The Bill before the House today gives those powers to the agencies to make that difference. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for opening this debate today. It promises to be both an interesting and informative debate. I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harper, who I had the pleasure of working with at the Department for Transport and who I know will make a considerable contribution to the debates in your Lordships’ House. My noble friend has previous ministerial experience in the area of immigration, and I look forward to his contribution later.
I begin by welcoming the fact that, after years of opposing measures to improve border security and clamp down on illegal migration, the Labour Party has finally realised the importance of greater control over our borders. There are some positive noises coming from the Government’s actions. Clause 41 grants the Secretary of State the ability to detain a person while they are pending a deportation decision. Clause 48 reinterprets the United Kingdom’s construction of Article 33 of the refugee convention to include conviction of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the list of offences that constitute particularly serious crimes for which refugees may be removed. This is, of course, right: no person who enters this country and commits a crime, regardless of their method of entry or their status, should be permitted to remain.
Unfortunately, that is where our agreement with the Bill ends. Although, as I have said, the Government have begun to move in the right direction, the Bill does too little, too slowly. It does nothing to deter illegal crossings, it does nothing to expedite the removal of illegal migrants, and it does nothing to reduce the scale of illegal immigration.
On that last point, I am very pleased to see the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, which show that net migration to the UK for 2024 was 431,000—half the level of the previous year. This is all thanks to the efforts of the previous Conservative Government, as the ONS has acknowledged. Last year, my right honourable friend James Cleverly strengthened the Immigration Rules, raising the minimum income for those on skilled worker visas and family visas, and imposing a limit on the number of foreign students able to bring their dependants. It is clear that Conservative policies have delivered.
Let us look at what this Government have promised and what they have delivered. The 2024 Labour Party manifesto promised to
“turn the page and restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly, and fairly; and the rules are properly enforced”.
Yet the Government have presided over the highest asylum figures recorded in a single quarter, with 31,276 people claiming asylum between September and December 2024. The number of people being given a grant of protection has increased to 17,477 in quarter 4 of 2024, up from 7,185 in quarter 2 of 2024. They have reversed the progress made by the previous Government in reducing asylum claims.
Not only this but the Government pledged to close all asylum hotels. After the previous Government reduced the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels to 29,585 by 30 June 2024, since the election those numbers have jumped to 38,079 on 31 December 2024, representing a rise of 22.3%. This begs the question: when will they end the use of asylum hotels, as they promised in their manifesto?
We heard time and again during the election, and indeed ever since, that the Government will “smash the gangs”, but it is now evident that this slogan was mere hyperbole. Can the Minister tell me how many gangs have been smashed by the policies of this Government? I look forward to receiving those figures, perhaps in his closing speech.
The Minister was keen to highlight the new role of the Border Security Commander and their counterterrorism-style powers. However, Clause 1(1) states that:
“The Secretary of State must designate a civil servant as the Border Security Commander”.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 state the functions of the commander, the duty to prepare annual reports and the duties of co-operation, and that is it. What the Government have presented us with is simply a redesignated civil servant without the powers to command anything. That extends across the whole Bill.
The Government have talked up this legislation as comprising tough new measures to tackle the people-smuggling gangs, yet they are repealing two pieces of legislation which would have had that exact effect. Clauses 37 and 38 repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The safety of Rwanda Act, ably taken through your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, would have—had it not been scrapped the day the first flight was due to take off—provided a suitable deterrent to those considering taking the journey across the channel.
The Minister has pointed to the Government’s focus on the people-smuggling gangs which facilitate channel crossings. We agree that those gangs must be pursued, for theirs is a repulsive trade, but it is not enough to simply tackle supply; we must also tackle demand. While there are large numbers of people who are undeterred from paying the traffickers, the trade will continue.
The Rwanda scheme was the deterrent that would have hit that demand for small boat crossings. This built on the work of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for steering through that legislation, which created an obligation for the Home Secretary to remove any person who arrives illegally and prevented illegal entrants claiming asylum.
The previous Conservative Government struck a returns deal with Albania, which meant that the number of illegal arrivals of Albanian nationals fell from 12,658 in 2022 to just 924 in 2023. That is a 93% reduction in Albanian nationals illegally crossing the channel.
If the Government are serious about reducing illegal migration, why remove the deterrents that the Conservative Government legislated for? We can see the effects of the Government’s policies already; noble Lords will have seen the figures over the weekend. On 31 May, 1,194 migrants crossed the channel in small boats—the highest figure for a single day this year. This brings the total number of migrants who have crossed in small boats so far this year to 14,811; that is a 42% increase on the same point last year.
This Bill not only undoes much of that work but fails to provide suitable alternatives. The offence of endangering another during a sea crossing, as created by Clause 18, is unlikely to have any real impact because it can be committed only if a person has already committed an offence under subsections (A1), (B1), (D1) or (E1) of Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971—offences that were inserted into that Act by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip took through this House. Moreover, Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 already makes it an offence to assist or facilitate unlawful entry into the United Kingdom—an offence that is punishable by life sentence thanks to the changes made by my noble friend in the Nationality and Borders Act.
Furthermore, the powers contained in Clauses 20, 21 and 23, authorising officers to search, seize and access electronic devices, already exist in Section 15 of and Schedule 2 to the Illegal Migration Act, which the Government are repealing. Would it not make more sense to keep the existing powers, rather than repealing them and replacing them with something that is virtually identical? Of course, they would not have to include these “new” powers if they were not in the same Bill repealing Section 15 of and Schedule 2 to the Illegal Migration Act.
It is apparent that this Bill presents a missed opportunity. Even after this legislation becomes law, activist lawyers will still be able to use the Human Rights Act to bring vexatious claims against the Government to prevent the legitimate removal of those who have abused our immigration system, entered the country illegally and committed criminal offences. The Government should follow our policy of disapplying the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration law, thereby ensuring the timely removal of those with no right to be here. The Government have indicated that they are willing to shift in this direction. The immigration White Paper states that the interpretation of Article 8 of the convention must be reconsidered; even the Attorney-General has indicated that he is open to reinterpreting the convention as well.
This Bill also presents the Government with the opportunity to tighten the conditions for visas and indefinite leave to remain. The Immigration and Visas Bill, presented by my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary, would ensure that indefinite leave to remain can be granted only if the applicant’s salary does not fall below £38,700 and if they do not apply for any form of state benefits. Being granted the ability to remain in the UK indefinitely is a privilege, not a right. As such, we believe that those wishing to obtain that privilege should have made a net contribution to our country. Raising the threshold for receiving earned settlement would ensure precisely that. Given the Government’s new-found vim and vigour for more stringent controls of legal migration, I am sure that they will be amenable to such policies.
Let us not forget that reducing the level of net migration to the UK is overwhelmingly backed by the British people. Polling by More in Common has found that 65% of the public believe that immigration should be reduced. I should add that that stretches to supporters of all political parties, given that 57% of Liberal Democrat voters and 49% of Labour voters support cutting immigration. Further, 62% of the public, including 61% of Liberal Democrats and 50% of Labour voters, agree that it is too easy for people to live here illegally. We would all do well to remember that this is the voice of the British public, and it is precisely what they are demanding of their parliamentarians.
This Bill does not deliver what the British people desire or deserve. Where are the powers to prevent vexatious legal challenges being used to thwart legitimate removals? Where are the powers to ensure the deportation of all foreign criminals? Where is the deterrent? Where are the measures to bring down the level of net migration? The answer, of course, is that they are simply not there. These are glaring omissions that could and should be fixed by your Lordships as the Bill progresses. We on these Benches will be seeking to strengthen this Bill to deliver on the British people’s priorities; I hope that the Government will want to follow suit.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this slightly uneven Bill. It is a Bill that is both heavy and light at the same time: it is heavy on the supply side, taking strong measures to deal with the smugglers and gangs, but it is light on actions to support asylum seekers on a safe journey to the United Kingdom. I start with an initial question for the Minister: is the intention of this Bill to stop dangerous journeys by boat and other ways, or is it to stop people coming to claim asylum? The answer to this question is critical to our understanding of the intention of this Bill.
We on these Benches support a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system, both stopping dangerous journeys and creating a safe route to asylum, with those who do not qualify for asylum being removed swiftly and humanely. For those in the margins, there are some who may be persuaded by the measures in this Bill. However, our concern must surely be for those who satisfy the grounds for asylum in the United Kingdom but currently have a negligible or non-existent way to enter this country safely. Of those who travel here by small boat, 74% are successful with their asylum claims—and that figure does not take any appeals into consideration.
The answer to my initial question is fundamental to understanding the Government’s intentions. We welcome the measures in the Bill aimed at tackling criminal gangs and reducing deaths in the channel. We support the scrapping of the safety of Rwanda Act and significant parts of the Illegal Migration Act. However, we are concerned that this Bill’s purely punitive approach will not achieve its aims. We must be honest about the range of interventions needed to bring change. Voters are tired of tougher talk on immigration that fails to deliver promised outcomes. As a country, we cannot afford the consequences of more broken government promises on this issue.
So, although prosecuting criminal gangs is essential, as long as desperate people seek refuge in the United Kingdom without alternative routes, demand will persist and criminals will profit. Given the strong push factors for those fleeing persecution in countries such as Sudan, Eritrea and Iran, we need interventions that change an individual’s calculation. Currently, paying a smuggler to bring them to safety is seen as the best, or the only, option available. We propose building on the successful UK resettlement scheme, which has already been referred to by the Minister, and family refugee reunion, along with a capped pilot for a humanitarian visa. Using the services of United Nations bodies in-country or close to in-country, this would allow those with a basis for a successful asylum claim to travel safely to the UK in order for their application to be considered. If the Government aim to reduce dangerous crossings, this would help; the Government would control an ordered, planned process and create an evidence base to evaluate such an approach. Safe routes are not an alternative to enforcement. They complement efforts to target criminal gangs. Both approaches must work together.
We are rightly concerned at the expenditure costs of maintaining and accommodating the nearly a quarter of a million people, which includes those going through appeals, in the processing backlog. In our view, the Government have missed the opportunity to include in this legislation permission to allow asylum seekers to work after three months. Although we welcome the 13% decline in the asylum backlog, the proportion of people waiting six months or more for a decision has risen sharply over the past decade, going from 25% at the end of 2014 to 59% at the end of 2024. When the current working ban was introduced by the Labour Government in 2002, the argument about processing times was identical—a six-month target to process applications, after which those granted asylum were able to work—but the six-month target was not met then and is not being met now.
Allowing asylum seekers to work would help reduce the asylum support budget, the use of hotels and child poverty. It would assist local authorities in supporting newly recognised refugees. If someone has a job, they are more likely to support themselves quickly, reducing homelessness and state benefits claims. It would also improve cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if they are seen to be “paying their way”. Visible delivery is what the Government need, and this policy could contribute to that, especially if communities saw hotels being closed.
The Government have never produced any evidence that suggests that employment rights play a role in determining people’s choice of destination when seeking safety; the evidence in fact shows that employment rights are largely unknown to asylum seekers before they arrive in the United Kingdom. We have one of the most restrictive working policies compared to our European neighbours. Lifting the ban on work would align the UK with other OECD member states. In countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, asylum seekers gain the right to work much earlier—after six months, three months, or even less. Faster application processing and enhanced working rights should be complementary policies. That is why we also seek a three-month service standard for asylum decisions.
We welcome the Government’s repeal of Sections 31 to 35 of the Illegal Migration Act. However, if integration is the ultimate goal for us as a society, we should not choke off a person’s chance to become a British citizen simply on the basis of how they arrived in the United Kingdom. Recent updates to the Nationality: Good Character Requirement guidance limit access to citizenship for refugees who entered the UK irregularly. This is counterproductive to integration and cohesion for those settled in the UK. The unclear policy guidance deters refugees from applying for citizenship due to the risk of wasting thousands of pounds if the application is refused out of hand.
We have deep concerns about the expansion and retention of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act on the safe country list. The list is problematic when decision-makers must declare asylum claims inadmissible from countries listed even where there is evidence of persecution. An example of that is Georgia, where its Members of Parliament are being locked up because they have offended the current Government. That country has been sanctioned by the UK for human rights abuses. This means that individualised assessment of asylum claims is essential and necessary. Countries may be safe for some people, but not always for all people.
We are concerned that the Bill retains and expands the detention powers in the Illegal Migration Act without implementing the safeguards recommended by the Brook House inquiry. We remain deeply concerned about immigration detention and the lack of progress since the Brook House report’s recommendations. Recent reports by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Harmondsworth indicate ongoing significant concerns. Poor processes and case progression result in people being detained when removal is not imminent and for longer than necessary in unacceptable conditions. Vulnerable people are detained when they should not be. The indefinite nature of detention causes particular harm and places no pressure on the Home Office to deal swiftly with cases. For those reasons, we will seek to amend the Bill with a 28-day time limit on detention, following recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the joint inquiry by the APPGs on migration and on refugees. This would reduce unnecessary and unlawful detention and ensure that it is used sparingly and only when removal is imminent and realistic.
We are also concerned that the criminal offences in Clauses 13 to 16 and 18 are too broad and risk criminalising those seeking asylum rather than solely targeting criminal gangs. We will seek to amend these clauses in Committee. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will expand on the modern slavery implications of the Bill later.
Finally, there is much to be done to secure action across our part of this continent. Resetting our relationship with the EU and its agencies is still in its headline stages. My noble friend Lady Ludford will examine these issues later.
I return to where I started: the fundamental question of supply and demand and the Bill being light on its ability to change asylum seeker behaviour. While the Bill may make a dent in the ability of the smuggling gangs to operate, it fails to answer the question of how we plan a safe way to manage those seeking asylum in our country. The Bill has a number of good points, many missing points and some major areas of concern—and we will try to deal with those areas during the course of our debates.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
If I were to set our annual borders Bill debates to music, I would pick Stravinsky. It has become a rite of spring, with clashing discords from the Conservative Front Bench and ritual incantations that there can be a sacrifice of international law because we are a dualist system.
We had the Nationality and Borders Bill three years ago and the Illegal Migration Bill two years ago. Then there was the ultimate absurdity of the Rwanda Bill, where we were invited to close our eyes and, by magical thinking and Westminster decree, make Rwanda safe and make ineligible all those whom we sent to Rwanda ever to seek asylum here. The House liked none of those Bills, amended them all and was overruled every time. So it is a great pleasure to welcome the 2025 Bill, because I can find nothing in it which is in clear breach of international law—and this is the first in recent memory. Moreover, I particularly welcome Clause 37, which wipes away the stain on the statute book that was the Rwanda Act.
That is the good news—and it is very good—but the Bill is not all good news. Getting rid of the 2024 Act but only parts of the 2023 Act means that we are still left with some bits of the 2023 Act that some of us opposed, including its removal of modern slavery protections for trafficking victims coerced into criminality. We are also left with the default provisions of the 2022 Act, which many believe were, in some respects, contrary to what we like to think of as a national tradition of fairness; some of them are inhumane and others are illogical.
It is not humane that we should still be so reluctant to see families reunited, yet the May White Paper threatens to make reunions harder by imposing new language and financial tests. It is not right that Clause 31 of this Bill would deny legal redress to those unlawfully detained or that the broad powers that Clause 43 gives the Secretary of State on tagging and curfews are not tempered by legal safeguards of any kind. It is neither humane nor logical—as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out—that those waiting in the asylum queue should still be denied the right to find a job. Changing that would be a win-win: it would be good for them, the economy and the public purse; it would be bad only for the criminals preying on them in the black economy.
I will make two further general points. Changing the rules of the game mid-match is usually not right. I find the retroactivity in Clause 31 particularly worrying. My inbox and Friday’s Financial Times remind me that a much larger community is worried about the potential retrospective application of the proposed change tucked away in paragraphs 264 and 266 of the White Paper.
People here on work visas, which they obtained under the points-based system, have had the right to apply after five years for indefinite leave to remain, but the White Paper suggests that in future this will be 10 years. Is that just for new arrivals, or does it mean that those already here will have to stay in limbo for another five years? The uncertainty about whether their uncertainty is to be extended is worrying many, as my inbox shows.
Retrospection would be unfair—it usually is. If retrospection is not the intention, it would be very good if the Minister could reassure the many who are worried. The FT tells us that 1.5 million people are worried about the Government’s intention. I very much hope he can reassure them and will do so.
Finally, back on asylum, it bears repeating that the best way of stopping the boats and putting the criminals out of business is to provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary. But for many with a justifiable, “well-founded fear of persecution”, in the words of the convention, in practice we provide no such route. Take Sudan, the world’s biggest current humanitarian catastrophe, worse even than Gaza. Sudan used to be our responsibility and should be on our conscience. There is a large Sudanese diaspora in this country, but for those now fleeing the civil war, carnage and starvation there, there is realistically no official or safe way they can apply to join Sudanese people here. Virtually 100% of those who do get here, coming by unofficial routes and seeking asylum, are granted asylum, such is the obvious horror they have left behind. It is our fault that they have to come as they do, with many dying en route. It does not need a Bill to put that right, but it really should be put right soon.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I really enjoyed that speech. I was thinking more of the “1812 Overture” than the “Rite of Spring”, given how many borders and immigration Bills I have been through here and in the House of Commons. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister. I thank him for his openness and willingness to listen and to discuss with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary the issues that many of us are raising with him.
The Bill, together with the White Paper, has many good suggestions and ways forward. Quite a number have been mentioned already, including the removal of criminals from our country, which actually undermine the legitimacy of our border policy and the welcome that people in this country generally wish to give to asylum seekers.
It is wonderful that we are setting aside the legacy of Suella Braverman and the absurdity of the Rwanda suggestion. Now that it has gone, the Government have been able to start processing at some real speed. The Government have started to use this terrible Civil Service phrase that has crept into speeches as well as written material and letters, which is that they are “working at pace”. It is a terrible phrase. I really hope that people stop using it. It is a bit like “Stand ready”, which means “We are doing absolutely nothing”. We really have to talk normally. But the speeding up of the processing has been quite remarkable, as has the removal of people from the country who had no right to be here, and the Government deserve real credit for achieving that over the last 11 months. Asylum has now fallen substantially, which gives us a chance, I hope, to have rational and sensible debates about what needs to be done.
Mention has been made of More in Common, which is now the favoured political polling company. The truth is, and anybody who goes and speaks to people in communities such as the one I live in and used to represent knows, that it is the small boats crossing the channel that is worrying people. By its very nature it is going to worry them, not just because of the daily count and the reporting in the newspapers, but because of the danger and worry that people legitimately have for what is happening with organised criminality.
My suggestions, which have not yet been taken up, are twofold. One is that the new relationship with the President of France that has been developed by the Prime Minister could lead us to develop a licensing scheme for parts of boats so that they could not be purchased, transported or sold to people in France. That would immediately have a major impact on the ability of the French to intervene in the warehouses and transportation. The other would be that we build on Clause 45 of the Bill, which provides for electronic visas and documentation. Given that we have got the new NHS moves to digitalisation, the DVLA electronic programme, the unique pupil identifier and the so-called government digital wallet, it is time we had a sensible identity system for everyone, and that way, we could stop illegal working and access to public services by those who did not have the right to be here.
I have a real worry about the attitude on naturalisation in the Bill and the White Paper. Naturalisation is something we should be strongly in favour of. I have had very good discussions with my noble friend the Minister about this, and I understand the difficulties he faces. Because we are setting aside the awful legislation that we had to deal with, there is no legitimacy in or excuse for saying that those whose assigned claims can be processed should not be able to move in exactly the same way as others towards naturalisation. It is really unfortunate because it undermines our credibility in every other area in which we are now taking steps to reassure the world that we are committed to our international obligations and to the way in which we carry through our legal requirements.
I ask the Minister to please think again because it is bad for integration. Why would people want to stay here and not want to integrate? If they want to go home that is absolutely fine. The real problem now is people who are here legitimately on other visas, who then attempt to claim asylum when their visa stay is over. We could deal with that very easily by ruling out asylum for those whose country of origin has not had any material changes in terms of the threat to their life and the danger to their liberty. So let us try to get some balance into this at the same time as very strongly welcoming the measures that are being taken.
I have one final, small thing to ask my noble friend the Minister: please go back to the White Paper and set aside the notion of a surcharge on overseas students. It is a particularly pernicious and unpleasant measure, and unless the Home Office and the Department for Education get their act together and understand that when people pay for a service, when that service is provided at full cost when those costs allow us to cross-reference into research and to maintain our university system, we retain our reputation across the world. When we start to pull the plug on it, we do ourselves damage for no good reason whatever. I have not met anybody, even a Reform voter, who thinks it is a bad idea to encourage overseas students to pay large sums of money to receive a service and then to go back home and tell the world what a wonderful place the United Kingdom really is.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is my great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is a person on those Benches I have the most respect for when he speaks about these subjects, which he does without cant and with a great deal of knowledge and credibility.
It is important to remember that although illegal immigration attracts the most public attention, it is only a fraction of total immigration. Legal immigration is continuing at a rate which dwarfs anything we have known in our history. Indeed, it dwarfs all previous waves of immigration put together, and it will transform our country by the middle of this century or soon after. It could mean that the indigenous population will be a minority, strangers in their own land, to coin a phrase. I think that will be as much regretted by those who have come to live in this country, who wanted to come here because of the traditions that had grown up over centuries and did not really want to see them dwarfed into minority status.
The case for mass immigration was economic; when made by Tony Blair, he claimed it was necessary to promote growth and fill vacancies. Over the two decades since then, we have experienced the highest influx of migration in our history, the slowest rate of growth since the Middle Ages, and vacancies have doubled. So the thesis was absolutely discredited. But illegal immigration raises moral rather than economic issues, and I want to ask a question about the moral basis which appears to underpin the Bill.
The Minister explained that this Bill does two main things. It purports to strengthen the measures to “smash the gangs”, which, if successful, would presumably prevent migrants reaching these shores, and it removes from the statute book the Rwanda Act, which aimed to deter migrants from coming here. Why is it morally acceptable to try to prevent people leaving the beaches of France to come to the UK, but immoral and unacceptable to deter them from leaving France to come here?
We know that prevention does not work—Saturday saw nearly 1,200 people arrive by boat in a single day. Most measures in the Bill, supposedly designed to beef up prevention, appear trivial. The border security commander will be made statutory, but he will have no troops to command, only the power to convene existing operational agencies, which, I would have thought, was the duty of the Minister. He will have to produce a strategy—a frank admission by the Government that they do not themselves have a strategy. But even if these measures have some practical impact, it is clear that tens of thousands of asylum seekers will continue to cross the channel—unless, that is, the Government succeed in smashing the gangs. Then what happens? Does that mean that no asylum seekers would be able to reach this country, and there would be no one to facilitate their journey, or would they be able to come without the help of the gangs? In which case, why do they not do that now, if these gangs are so cruel, vile and horrible? There is a clear conflict within the Government’s policy. Either their policy will work, in which case it will stop people getting here and claiming asylum, or, as we know, it will not really work and will have precious little effect.
By contrast, we know that deterrence can work. Once it was made clear that Albanians would be returned to Albania, the number of arrivals from that country, or at least purporting to be from that country, plummeted. When Australia demonstrated the certainty of being returned to Indonesian waters, the influx into Australia ended. At present, given the choice between staying in France and coming to England, many migrants are prepared to take the risky crossing. But does anyone believe that, if they knew the choice was not between France and Britain but between France and Rwanda, they would opt for Rwanda? They would stay in the EU, if not in France. So, prevention will not stop illegal immigration, which means lives will continue to be lost, whereas deterrence has the potential to start to work and therefore save lives. So I repeat my question: why is prevention morally acceptable but deterrence immoral and unacceptable?
The Minister asserted that the Rwanda scheme was unworkable. He did not explain why or in what ways. Those who operated the Australian system believe that Rwanda is eminently workable, and other countries are looking at it and are attracted to it. But in any case, it is a bit rich to say that the Rwanda scheme would not work when prevention manifestly has not worked here or anywhere else.
The noble Lord, Lord German, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, argued that we should create safe and legal routes. That is often presented as if it is largely going to solve the problem of migration. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, argued the same; it is indeed a springtime tune from him, or rather, he advocates safe and legal routes in all seasons. The suggestion is that somehow, the people who would have come by boat will come by these safe and legal routes. Some of them might but many would not, and many would be refused and would then still want to come via the boats. But, once these safe and legal routes are established, many other people who at present do not attempt or consider attempting the crossing will apply. So the total number of people coming is bound to increase significantly.
I would like to know whether those who are advocating this as if it is a soft option would be happy to see these additional people coming by safe and legal routes ending up in Liberal Democrat constituencies, for example. I suspect they would find that their voters—who are never told at the local level that it is Lib Dem policy to increase the number of people coming to this country—would be very unhappy about what is proposed.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the diocese in which I serve covers one of the most diverse parts of the country. Indeed, arguably, south London is one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world. This diversity is often represented in our churches, which have benefited, as has the rest of the country, from the great human fact of migration. It would be good to hear some recognition of this in government and Home Office statements.
It is worth stressing that the vast majority of migrants to this country come here properly under the Immigration Rules, and thus there is no proper sense in which their arrival and settlement can be described as uncontrolled. The Government of the day may, for good reasons of public policy, wish to alter the rules or introduce fresh primary legislation, but that does not mean that a system and process is not in place, that applications are not assessed and fees paid, and that the results do not match what Parliament has sanctioned.
Should this Bill pass, it will be, I think, the 13th piece of primary legislation on immigration since 1997. No one should doubt the interest of successive Governments in this subject. Indeed, I wish to congratulate His Majesty’s Government on recently publishing a White Paper on their further intentions in this area, something that had happened only once since 2002. The return of more regular engagement on major issues of policy is to be welcomed. The repeal of provisions in the safety of Rwanda Act is also welcome, although I note with concern what has been said in this debate about the weakening of the provisions of modern slavery legislation.
I wish to make a point about resources which I believe is relevant to the Bill and its impact. The Bill is concerned to a significant extent with enforcement, not least with the effectiveness and statutory footing of a new border security command. But the business of managing migration into the UK is a resource-intensive activity, and I fear that attempts to substitute more draconian sanctions in a concertina of legislation down the years is no substitute for the resources needed to train and staff border control, casework, intelligence and enforcement. The result is backlogs, asylum accommodation—which in some instances resembles a dystopian novel—and a detention estate which repeatedly fails inspection. No conceptual framework sketched out in Explanatory Notes will compensate for an absence of staff or mitigate hurried and arbitrary decisions where more nuanced consideration is required.
I appreciate that such comments are unwelcome in the closing days of a spending review, but please consider this. The pressure of those who wish to come to Europe is not mitigated by the abandoning of our commitment of 0.7% of GDP to aid. The allocation of billions of pounds of the aid budget to support asylum and refugee costs in this country is not matched by any other G7 country. In 2024, it was just over £2.8 billion. The Prime Minister, in recently announcing a further reduction in aid spending to 0.3% of GDP, stated that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is no longer to be the spender or saver of last resort. That, at least, is welcome, as is the announcement that it will no longer be expected to meet unpredicted rises in refugee costs during the year.
But these Benches have never welcomed diverting humanitarian and development aid to other purposes. On pragmatic grounds alone, to do so raises migratory pressures and increases the influence of those whose geopolitical objectives are contrary to our own. Might there be space in this Bill for something addressing safe and legal routes and the nexus of humanitarian crises, if the Government are minded to do so at this point?
The Bill references powers to detain. I end by drawing the Minister’s attention to the Refugee & Migrant Advice Service alternative to detention pilot, a community-based alternative to detention, sponsored jointly by the Home Office and UNHCR between 2020 and 2022. The cost was significantly less than that of detention, it was more congenial to participants and I understand that the absconding rate was low. Ministers at the time decided not to pursue it further. I ask the Minister whether the current Government might revisit the pilot and consider greater use of this approach. I look forward to his summing up.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very open way in which he has approached this whole subject, not just today but in weeks and months gone by. I also express my gratitude to the many NGOs and charitable organisations which have provided us with really superb briefing—almost too much of it. It took me most of yesterday to absorb some of it, but how helpful they have all been and how much work they have put into it. I shall say a little about relations with European Union countries, about safe and legal routes and about children, but let me start by saying just a bit about public opinion.
The whole debate about immigration and asylum has been bedevilled by the way in which public opinion has been quoted and what public opinion is believed to think. There are times when senior people in office—of either party—have a responsibility to talk about asylum seekers and refugees in ways which make local communities feel more sympathetic, rather than hostile. I remember walking down the road in Hammersmith many years ago, when we had earlier legislation, and somebody was shouting at me. Normally, when people shout at any of us, we know it is abuse, do we not? We have all had it happen to us. But oh no, she shouted at me, “Keep going with your amendments!” Not a dramatic slogan, but goodness me, I was so encouraged by it. I believe that we must, in debating these issues, be aware that public opinion has to be won over. It is no good saying that public opinion is always going to be hostile. It has to be won over. I welcome the measures in this Bill that will defeat smugglers and traffickers. There are things about the Bill I would like to see changed, and no doubt Committee will give us many opportunities to do that.
I turn to co-operation with EU countries. I understand that the Government have tried very hard to have better arrangements with EU countries, and there have been numerous discussions with France. It is a little concerning that we see or we hear reports on television that the French police do not have the power to deal with the boats once they are just offshore, and I believe the Government are going to deal with that. It is essential that we have better agreements with all these countries. We cannot defeat the smugglers and traffickers unless those agreements are based on firm and good co-operation. We have action plans with Italy and Germany; I think we need to do a little more with France. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that we are hopeful of having a new agreement before too long with the French. I welcome the Government’s firm commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Let me turn for a little to safe and legal routes. We keep talking about them; I think they matter. I have met the people in Calais on several occasions, and it seems to me that they would not be there unless there was no other way of getting to safety. Some of them have good reasons for wanting to come to this country, such as family reunion or because they had an education here or they speak English. It is notable that when we had the Ukrainian programme—and there were faults with it—the fact is that, in all that time, only five or six Ukrainians actually came across on the channel. They were persuaded that there were other ways of getting to safety, and they made use of them.
I am concerned about immigration detention, and I hope that we can look in detail at the proposals for immigration detention, new detention powers and what safeguards there are for people who are being held in detention, not because they have necessarily committed any criminal offences. I am also a bit concerned about the Home Secretary’s powers to impose tagging and curfew requirements on anyone with limited leave to enter or remain in the UK. I have confidence that the present Home Secretary would use those powers properly, decently and responsibly, but, of course, it may be that the Home Secretary is changed from time to time, and we have to give them powers which do not depend on the humanity of the individual holding the office at the moment.
About 18 months’ ago, I visited Calais on one of many occasions, and I met children and young people who were trying to get to the UK. There were some from Sudan who said to me very clearly, “We can’t afford to pay a trafficker. We haven’t got the money. The only way we can get to the UK is if there is a trafficker who says, ‘You steer the boat over and you’ll get a free trip’”. That, of course, means that they are committing a criminal offence in this country. So it is a way, sadly, of making victims the people who are going to be punished. We have to be very careful about the way in which they use the criminal law in such a way. Of course, like everybody else, I would like to see the traffickers got rid of and their miserable, dangerous trade disappear.
I think the Bill should give an opportunity for family reunion, including for children who are outside the UK to be able to join family members here. We have had such legislation before, and it was passed, but somehow or other it then disappeared under the last Government as well. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate what assessment the Government have made of the White Paper proposals to restrict family reunion rules. I think there are some restrictions there, particularly if the language and financial requirements are too onerous for people who do not have the money. I hope the Minister can respond to that. I wish the Minister well, and I thank him again for his willingness to be so open and discuss these issues both here and, of course, outside.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I, too, have visited Calais and I totally agree that no one would live there if they had a choice. Those people are clearly desperate, and one can perhaps understand why they are taking desperate routes. I am also speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Harper, so I cannot tell him what a wonderful speech he has just made, but I am sure it will be excellent.
I listened to the two opening speeches with something close to despair, because I get the sense that the Labour Government want to do something right, but I think they have missed opportunities here. Of course, the Opposition had 14 years to put this right and what we actually saw was 14 years of draconian rules and legislation that focused public attention on stopping the boats but at the same time allowed a huge abuse of the system with billionaires in private jets siphoning off taxpayers’ money during austerity and the Covid crisis. We had 14 years of a hostile environment and 14 years of draconian rules, and what did we actually get out of it? Rwanda was the most ridiculous threat, and I am delighted that that has now gone.
Certainly, in those 14 years, the criminal gangs got richer and the people who were letting out their hotels to refugees also got richer, but, of course, the number of people arriving by small boats has kept on climbing. Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative Government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco made a combined profit of £385 million since 2019. That has grown, because the Government deliberately allowed a backlog in asylum claims as part of their failed policy of deterrence. The “Bibby Stockholm” refugee barge was yet another failed deterrent, with the taxpayer picking up the bill for things such as the high-cost docking fees at Portland Port.
The last Government tried deterrents. They did not work and led to much higher bills for taxpayers but not to any real advantage. Refugees do not want to live on ships or in hotels. They want to become citizens and build new lives for themselves as previous waves of immigrants did. Whether descended from the Huguenots, German Jews, Ugandan Asians or other families that have fled persecution and war to make a good life here for hundreds of years, the vast majority want to contribute to society. They are grateful to be taken in and allowed to live without danger.
Most of today’s refugees want to earn a living and not rely on handouts, but our Government will not let them. Most want to contribute and benefit our economy, but our Government make them a problem instead of part of the solution. The problem is not the refugees; it is the Government’s failed attempts to deter them, which have not worked but have made things much worse and created bigger problems. I know that Labour wants to sort out the huge delays in processing asylum claims and to cut down on the use of hotels, but they are keeping most of the draconian rules that were passed by the previous, clueless Government.
Why are this Labour Government retaining provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that when in opposition they condemned as immoral and destructive of human rights commitments? They even voted alongside the Greens and the Lib Dems to defeat the previous Government 19 times on those draconian rules that they regarded as unacceptable. Why have His Majesty’s Government failed to make any provision for safe routes to this country for people seeking asylum—including people with close family and other connections here? The Government expect us to pass a law that says, “If you arrive here via a small boat, or in the back of a lorry, you’re not regarded as a person of good character and are therefore ineligible to settle”. However, because no additional safe routes are set up, the only way that you can be a person of good character, according to Labour, is not to arrive here at all. These are not the actions of a Government who treat vulnerable people with fairness and decency, and, quite honestly, they are not a Government who deserve to be in power.
Lord Harper (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She started off her speech so well with her kind remarks about a speech that I had not yet given. Having listened to the rest of her speech, I fear that this is one subject on which she and I are destined not to agree.
It is a great privilege to be a Member of this House and to have the opportunity to continue in public service. I thank Black Rod and her team, the doorkeepers, the clerks and the Lord Speaker’s team, who all made me very welcome before my introduction and subsequently. I also thank the catering team, who looked after my guests so very well. I should also thank, for supporting my introduction, my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, as well as my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, who, whether or not he thinks it an honour, has been assigned as my mentor to keep me out of trouble.
Although I served in the other place for 19 years, I am well aware that this House is very different. I fear that this is the time to make a confession. In the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats, as a matter of great principle, insisted that the coalition Government tried to reform your Lordships’ House. I was the lucky junior Minister tasked with preparing a Bill to elect this House. Noble Lords will be aware that this was kiboshed by my then colleagues in the House of Commons, who saw that it was a threat to the primacy of the House of Commons, and that Bill made no further progress. However, since I have been here, I have been very pleased to see that so many of those Liberal Democrats whom I worked closely with in the coalition Government have felt able to serve in this House for many years. I hope to see them here for many years into the future. There is hope for us all.
After the coalition Government, we had the election in 2015, at which the Conservatives won our first majority for 23 years. My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton asked me to be the Government Chief Whip. I hope your Lordships will indulge me: I should put on record a tribute to the late Sir Roy Stone, who was my principal private secretary when I was Government Chief Whip. He served in that capacity for over two decades. A finer and wiser public servant you could not wish to find. All those who came across him professionally will miss him, but the biggest loss will be felt by his family—his wife Dawn and his children, Hannah and Elliott. A fulsome tribute was paid in the other place. I wish to put mine on the record in your Lordships’ House.
When I was Government Chief Whip, I worked very closely with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was the Government Chief Whip here. He made it clear to me that whipping in your Lordships’ House is a much subtler art than it is perhaps at the other end of the building. You do not have the same tools at your disposal. However, I did not realise quite how different it was until I sat in on my first few sessions of Oral Questions here. I marvelled at the magical abilities of the pen of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which is amazingly able to select who can speak when there is a clash. I felt a certain level of envy that I did not have that power when I was the Government Chief Whip at the other end of the building. I suspect that his pen is authoritative, because noble Lords think that he exercises it with a certain amount of fairness and judiciousness. I hope that level of fairness extends, perhaps especially, to those of us who have been Chief Whips, so that we get a fair crack of the whip.
Turning to the subject matter at hand, I have some experience in this, having served as Immigration Minister when my noble friend Lady May was Home Secretary. The Minister shadowed our home affairs team for a number of years. A couple of weeks ago, he referred in this House to Labour having always had a very robust policy on migration. My noble friend and I were a little surprised. We had not spotted that enormous support when he was in opposition. However, it is always nice to see a sinner repenteth.
On this Bill, I will say a couple of things. First, when I was the Immigration Minister, I tried, as I know my noble friend Lady May did, to put in place tough measures but talk moderately and reasonably about this subject. I feat the Government are in danger of doing the opposite—talking tough but not having sufficiently tough measures. I will draw out a couple. First, we have seen illegal migration via small boats rise by 30% since the election and, secondly, the Government have removed with this Bill the deterrent, the Rwanda scheme, without replacing it with an alternative. There is not time now to dwell on these matters, but I give the Minister notice that I will be doing so in Committee and on Report. I look forward to our clashes perhaps across your Lordships’ House in due course.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Harper on a very deft, excellent and accomplished maiden speech. It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow him. My noble friend was introduced to this House as recently as 13 May, so in speaking so soon he has helped to prove an important point, which is that if one is of sufficient seniority and knowledge, one should not be afraid here to get stuck in. My noble friend is of great seniority and knowledge as a former Minister for Disabled People, as a former Minister for Constitutional Affairs—he referred to some of his travails in that duty—as a former Secretary of State for Transport at Cabinet level and as a former Chief Whip, where he always conducted himself with the discretion that we associate with those who have held that office.
Above all, of course, he is a former Minister for Immigration under the leadership of my noble friend Lady May, who is in her place. He therefore knows how the nuts and bolts of the system work. I look forward to the Minister responding to what he said. I congratulate him once again on his maiden speech; we look forward to hearing from him many times in the future.
Today, however, I want to follow a slightly different path. His speech was focused on what the Bill will seek to do, whereas I want to address whether it is capable of doing it. I ask at the very start: how much do we really know about migration into and out of the country? How many migrants are in Britain today? Where do they come from? For how long are they entitled to be here? What are they doing while they are here? How many overstay and how many are removed? Finally, are they making a net contribution to the economy or are they a cost to the taxpayer? I ask these questions in the wake of data uncovered by my Commons colleague, Neil O’Brien. He has discovered that benefit claims by households with at least one foreign national have doubled to nearly £1 billion a month in the past three years.
Finding answers is made no easier by the absence of systemic exit checks and the asymmetry of entry checks. On exit checks, we rely on advance passenger information from carriers, selective Border Force checks and administrative data—council tax information, DVLA data, NHS records and so on. On entry checks, the bedrock of the system, the International Passenger Survey, was designed to monitor tourism, not migration. The databases used by different departments to record migration often define it differently. Further, published ONS statistics break down migration data only into EU, non-EU and British categories, but not specific nationalities. Anyone coming to the country on a visitor visa to see family or for tourism, for example, is excluded from migration statistics by default, as is anyone on a temporary work visa.
Therefore, what will this Bill do, in its sharing of information provisions under Part 1 or elsewhere to: on exit, increase the number of exit checks and standardise the information received from them; and, on entry, ensure that the databases used by government use the same definitions of migrant and can talk to each other? Additionally, what will the Bill do, if anything, to break down migration data into specific nationalities, so that we can find answers to some of the questions that I posed at the start of my speech? Further, what impact will the Bill have, if any, on the Inter-departmental Task Force on Migration Statistics, set up as long ago as 2006, to improve the quality, coherence and accessibility of migration statistics?
To return to those who overstay on visitor visas and temporary work visas, how many of the roughly 2.2 million people who arrived last year on visitor visas and the 78,000 people who arrived on temporary work visas overstayed? Is it correct that, annually, 92,000 visa nationals across all visa types, and up to 250,000 non-visa national visitors, may not depart on time? Is it also correct that as few as 1,000 visa national overstayers of these 92,000 or so, and as few as 500 of these 250,000 or so, are removed each year? To look at visa types more closely, is it correct that as many as 15,000 non-EU student visa holders may overstay annually, and as few as 1,000 of these are removed each year; that as many as 5,000 family visa holders may overstay annually, and as few as 500 are removed each year; that as many as 30,000 asylum seekers may become unauthorised annually by remaining in the UK after their claims are refused and their appeals exhausted, and as few as 5,000 of these are removed each year; and that as many as 900 people enter the UK irregularly each year without claiming asylum, and as few as 50 are removed each year?
Regardless of whether these totals are accurate or not, what targets do the Government have to increase the number of removals for this year and future years, if any? I do not expect the Minister to answer this barrage of questions when he replies to the debate at the Dispatch Box, but it is vital that we get them, both for the purposes of planning for the future and for maintaining confidence in the system. Will the Bill enable us to craft a more selective and efficient, as well as a more restrictive, immigration system? That should be a key test for the Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, from this side, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harper. Whether or not he always agrees with the indefatigable noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I hope that he will find this House capable of always disagreeing well.
It is not so much a declaration of interest as a description of context to say that I am the daughter of late and lawful 1950s Commonwealth migrants to this country and a human rights lawyer of just over 30 years. For the avoidance of doubt, and at possible risk of confounding some potential expectations, I accept this Bill’s underlying premises of both border security and immigration control.
A democratic political community is of course defined by its borders as well as its values and laws. It has a prerogative to assess and balance its social, economic and cultural needs, including some desire for reciprocal international work, study, trade and tourism on the part of its own citizens. As a matter of logic and international law, it retains considerable discretion on the question of how many and what kind of visas to grant to non-nationals seeking to enter its territory for various purposes. This should be exercised, I would suggest, with considerable care, given the often competing interests of different economic actors in particular. Some employers, and—dare I say it—government departments, may have a strong instinct towards importing large amounts of skilled, and even unskilled, workers. This may be laudable, and at times vital to fuel innovation or fill gaps in services or the labour market, but less so if it is designed to suppress wages below what is fair or even sustainable for living.
Since World War II, however, there has been—rightly, in my view—far less discretion about how to treat a much smaller number of people for whom travel comes not from preference, but persecution. Let us please always remember that we have a refugee convention, a European convention and so on, as a direct result of some of the worst atrocities of the past century and the plight of those who were denied safe passage to, and asylum in, countries such as our own at that time.
The 1951 refugee convention in particular enshrines the principles of non-refoulement, sending people back or onwards to their peril; non-penalisation, not punishing them for the desperate and even clandestine means of their escape; and non-discrimination against them. All three of these principles were violated by the legislation of recent years, in particular the Nationality and Borders Act, the Illegal Migration Act and the legislative lie that is the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act. The Government are to be commended for seeking to repeal so much of that toxic legacy. However, I am sure that we will explore in Committee how that repeal does not go far enough, in a number of respects, to achieve either the legality or simplicity that I hope most of us want to see.
Before even the legislation came the politics for which our leaders are just as responsible. In my opinion, a grand political swindle was perpetrated upon the British electorate in recent years. Notwithstanding Brexit slogans about controlling borders, large numbers of international workers were consciously invited into the UK, while a fraction of those numbers of asylum seekers, mostly genuine refugees and often from sites of Britain’s previous overseas military adventures, were demonised beyond recognition. That is dishonest, dangerous and, frankly, immoral.
As we examine both the broad brushstrokes and detailed drafting of the Bill, I hope we can work with care and precision to distinguish between immigration control and refugee protection. I accept that the latter is a responsibility we share with other rule-of-law-loving territories, which, as my noble friend Lord Dubs has said, must be discharged in greater collaboration, including to avoid wherever possible desperate people taking perilous journeys. But it is one thing to criminalise traffickers and smugglers and another to dehumanise, deprive, detain and deport their desperate human cargo, who are not and have never been illegal, let alone criminal.
In life and in politics, just as much as legislation, words matter. They have consequences beyond the next headline. I was born just over a year after Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech. A few months later, my then young parents were violently attacked by violent thugs trying to take their baby from her pram in a London park. That may be too long ago for the bright young things who draft political speeches to remember, but surely not for your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction earlier and the many organisations who have sent us briefings. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on his maiden speech. I say from the Lib Dem Benches that, despite the fact we are here, we still would like to see reform of your Lordships’ House.
I support everything said by my noble friend Lord German earlier, and will try not to cover those areas too much. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who spoke with her customary clarity and power.
In some ways, the Bill is disappointing, but the Government are right to repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. We always said in opposition that Rwanda was not safe. The cost—with not one person deported—must still be an embarrassment to those on the Conservative Benches. Some think that perhaps the whole Illegal Migration Act should go the same way; that was yet more unworkable migration legislation designed for newspaper headlines—much of it not commenced.
Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, cited More in Common’s research on migration as a whole, but he failed to mention that, in questions further down most of those polls, when people are asked whether they would like to see more vacancies remaining in social care or for nurses in hospitals, they tend to say no. That is partly because people get confused between the migration that we describe as “regular” and asylum seekers and that which is irregular. We need clarity about migration, in particular the distinction that those seeking asylum are not coming here for economic needs. We know that the vast majority of migrants arrive here legally, yet the public spin has muddled the irregular with it and continues to do so.
I do not think anyone other than the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has spoken about student migration numbers yet. We know that they form part of the OECD data, which is why we always have to have them there, but there is nothing to stop the Government making sure people understand that international students are good for universities, good for economies locally and nationally, and good for the future of ground-breaking science, research and technology.
Over the last 10 years, a number of noble Lords have spoken regularly about the status and plight of children in the many migration Bills. This Bill, sadly, does not remove the concerns that some of us still have. The last Government set up the National Age Assessment Board, NAAB, using so-called visual assessment methods and scientific biological methods—which, by the way, qualified doctors refused to use. During the passage of what is now the Illegal Migration Act, the then Government cited that other European countries were using scientific age-assessment techniques, ignoring the fact that someone being assessed was also given legal support to protect them, which was not available in this country. Since last year, a number of European countries have stopped using this technique because it is unreliable and has resulted in children being put into adult accommodation with no facilities for them. That is a breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as a breach of the UN convention on the rights of refugees. I hope the Minister will reassure the House that that will be reviewed. Some of us may even lay amendments to that effect.
We need change because of those errors, but there is a further issue around how to safeguard children who are assumed to be adults and are then charged under the Bill with an offence of illegally entering the country or any of the other offences cited in the Bill. At present, a child refugee mistaken as an adult is automatically treated as an adult under criminal proceedings. We do not do that for children in our domestic criminal justice system for a very good reason. Can the Minister say how these age-disputed children facing criminal proceedings will be protected?
Along with other noble Lords, I am concerned that this Government’s proposals, especially the new financial burdens on asylum seekers, will limit and reduce the number of refugee families travelling safely to the UK to reunite with a family member. For children, this is particularly traumatic.
Clauses 34 and 35 have sensible provisions on flexibility in taking biometric information. We remember the success of Op Pitting during the emergency evacuation of Afghanistan and how the British Government were able to make change happen very quickly. However, there are concerns about the proposed extensions to use these biometrics, which can, in practice, be impossible for asylum seekers, especially women and children, to achieve. Taking the example of Afghanistan, they might have to travel over a border into Iran to try to get to a British consulate to get the biometric data sorted, and then get back to Afghanistan, which they want to leave. We will raise this in Committee because we are concerned that it is a problem. The Government’s intention is a good one, but how will it work in practice?
My noble friend Lord German, and in another place my honourable friend Lisa Smart MP, raised the important issue of those seeking asylum being allowed to work after more than three months and, importantly, to pay their way in this country. On the plus side, for asylum seekers, the right to work would give them the chance to use their skills and restore their confidence and morale as they build their new lives. These people will also help our economy, especially in skills shortage areas. Earning wages would mean contributing to taxes and national insurance, and paying for their own food and accommodation, thus reducing bills. I look forward to Committee, where many different issues will be raised.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the Bill and to follow a characteristically comprehensive and persuasive opening speech by my noble friend the Minister, as well as the well-informed and forensic contribution of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
It would be impossible in six minutes for me to engage with any substantial amount of the issues that have been alluded to or discussed; everything that has been said thus far in today’s proceedings has been wide ranging and reflective of the broader debate on these questions. So, mindful of time and of the specificity of previous contributions, I plan to restrict myself to one or two observations about the Bill’s provisions, as well as the broader challenges that they seek to engage. Given the nature and tone of other contributions, I do not intend to belabour the point about the inheritance bequeathed to my noble friend the Minister and the Government by the party opposite, but it is worth emphasising that the measures we are debating today are necessitated by 14 years, or thereabouts, of largely ineffectual policy, with occasional performative harshness here and there in that period.
Here, I will depart from my script to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on his excellent maiden speech. I look forward to debating with him and hearing him debate in future.
I welcome the commitment in the Bill to cross-agency working under the aegis of the new border security commander. It is unquestionably true that previous efforts to reduce illegal arrivals in the UK were hamstrung by a lack of co-ordination and a tendency for government departments and agencies to work in silos. Under the provisions of Clauses 3 and 5, partner authorities in their activities must only “have regard” for the strategic priorities document produced by the commander. Thinking over the strength of those provisions, I read the Second Reading proceedings in the other place, and while picking my way through the comments of the shadow Home Secretary, I realised, peering through a mist of disbelief and astonishment on some occasions, that I found myself responsive to one, but only one, element of his remarks. He suggested something supported by a briefing from the Law Society of Scotland, which other noble Lords may have received; that the title “border security commander” is something of a misnomer, given that these provisions presuppose a system based on co-operation rather than compliance. What precedent have the Government drawn upon in coming to the decision that the commander and partner authorities should have regard for, rather than comply with, the priorities in the strategic document?
Clause 37, repealing the entirety of the safety of Rwanda Act, is, of course, entirely welcome. I cannot help but be struck by the criticism levelled at the Government by the Benches opposite in this context. We have been told on a number of occasions already that we are removing a deterrent that could have a transformational effect on the inflow of illegal migration. In order to take this critique seriously—which, frankly, I do not—we have to accept that, having finally found a silver bullet for a problem that has bedevilled this country for years, the previous Government did not discharge it or receive a consequent wave of acclimation from a grateful nation, but called a general election before the first flight had taken off. This repeal only confirms what we already knew: that this scheme was performative rather than substantive in conception and intent.
In this context, I should also mention those voices who urge the UK to disregard elements of international law to ensure that we can take appropriately severe measures to discourage illegal migration. Apart from comments already made in this speech, although this is a national problem, it can be solved only with international co-operation. The new agreements that this Government have reached with Germany, Iraq, the Calais group and the G7 are testament to this. Displaying a disregard for international law before asking for co-operation with international partners, would, to say the least, represent a somewhat quixotic approach.
On the wider point of the international picture, I have a question for the Minister about the retention of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act. As noble Lords will be aware, Section 59 makes any asylum or human rights claim by a national of a safe state inadmissible, save in exceptional circumstances. I know that the Section 59 powers have not been commenced, but if they are not going to be used, why not use this Bill to remove them altogether? To take but one example of the commencement of these powers possibly posing a problem, which has already been alluded to, Georgia was added to the safe states list by the previous Government but is an increasingly hostile environment for LGBTQ people. Given that the Home Office recently granted asylum to people from Georgia, the purpose of Section 59, even in abeyance, is somewhat questionable.
Mindful of time, I limit myself to one final question. On 10 February, the Home Office published significant changes to the good character requirement guidance for British citizenship applications. The updated guidance stipulates that asylum seekers who previously entered the UK illegally will typically be refused citizenship regardless of the time elapsed since their entry. I accept that, where safe and legal routes exist, taking the alternative of illicit entry can legitimately be seen as evidence of an absence of good character. However, if someone has a legitimate claim to asylum but came from a country with no safe legal route in place at the time they entered, is this really evidence of want of good character? I would be grateful for the Minister’s reflections on that question.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I add to the welcome to my noble friend Lord Harper. It is good to see him here bolstering our side of the House, although I hope his plea for preferential treatment for former Chief Whips is ignored in the way that it should be. But it is very good to see him here.
The Bill we are debating this evening could not have come on a more embarrassing day for the Government, with 1,194 illegal immigrants having come over in 18 dinghies on Saturday alone—the fifth-largest number in a single day, totalling 38,053 since the election. Britain has lost control of its borders: those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State for Defence. If it is true that Britain has lost control of its borders, the exam question is, does this Bill give us control back over our borders or does it in some way fall short?
We have discussed various matters, and we will have plenty of time in Committee to flesh those out, not least the role of the border security commander. Many of us have not been impressed by the work over the years of either the UK Border Agency or Border Force, and it has always been my view that there is a huge cadre of people in this country whose employment we terminate far too soon. I am talking about senior military figures, senior civil servants, Foreign Office people and so forth. We let them go at a point when they have many years of useful life left in them. I would have thought that we should look very carefully at making part of their retirement a secondment to boost this part of government. They would bring expertise, greatly improving the processing of applications and so forth, which we all want to see. I hope the Government will give that some consideration.
As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who spoke before me, said, this all depends on co-operation. Can the Minister update us on our current relations with the French? Of course, we are an island; we are dependent on the French. We have given them some £476 million in a three-year deal, and seeing their behaviour over the past few days, I wonder whether we are getting any value for money from that. What discussions can we have with the French? How can we further incentivise them? Of course, if you are in France, inevitably, you do not necessarily want to retain people—you want to see them go—but why are we giving the French money if they are simply not fulfilling their part of the deal? What discussions about this legislation has the Minister had with the Irish Government in Dublin, given that another way people can come into this country is through Northern Ireland?
There has been a lot of discussion about Rwanda, and we can argue about that until the cows come home. It was oven-ready, and I understand why those who did not want to proceed with it did not, but what has it been replaced by? On his recent visit to Albania, the Prime Minister met with a rebuff. So what other countries are we now talking to? I hear that the Balkans are under increasing Russian influence. We are told that the SIS has advised the Government against the Balkans, which are a tinderbox at the moment. Who else are we negotiating with? What is the expectation that we will get a deal? What is the timeline? Crucially, what is the fallback if we do not get a deal with any third country?
This Bill deals with the future, but very little is going to happen immediately and, crucially, it ignores the population of this country. I have always said that you cannot have a grown-up conversation about how many people you want to live in this country and how many people you want to come to this country unless you know how many people are living in this country. We do not, and this Bill does nothing to address that. It talks about guaranteeing the security of our borders, but it says nothing about guaranteeing the security of the country within its borders. Can the Government guarantee that those who have come here over the years illegally wish the country well and do not present a credible threat at times?
That brings me to my conclusion and an issue which I shall be raising in Committee. It follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said about the introduction of biometric ID cards. This moves towards that. The Minister is falling into the trap, because he is going to raise again the fact that I was in a Government who passed the Identity Documents Act 2010 to get rid of them. I went to the Library to check how I voted. I was a Northern Ireland Minister of State at the time, and I was rather hoping I would not be here, but of course, the Minister will appreciate the principle of ministerial collective responsibility. Equally, I think one is allowed to change one’s mind over 15 years.
There has been a huge change in circumstance. There has been a huge change in the accretion—if that is the right word—of our identity; we all cede it the whole time to the NHS, to credit card companies and so forth. It is staring us in the face. If we had a good biometric ID system here, we could work out who is in this country first and foremost before we then decide how many more people we want to come, and that is something I believe we should debate better.
This is a contentious subject, but by doing nothing or not enough about it we are playing into the hands of parties such as Reform. The Government are understandably nervous about the inroads that Reform is making in northern seats in particular. I say gently to everybody in this House that the less we do about this, the more it plays to Reform. I still believe there is a gap between what people expect from the Government on immigration and what politicians are delivering. The wider that gap—the more it is allowed to exist—the more it will play to those on the extremes, which I believe we all wish to avoid.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on an excellent maiden speech and welcome him warmly.
I broadly welcome the Bill, and I believe that many of the enforcement measures it contains will assist in the fight against organised immigration crime. They had better, because this scourge is a growing threat to the cohesion of our society and the credibility of our democratic institutions. That is true not just here in the UK but across the whole of democratic Europe. People are losing trust, so it is essential that we are realistic and honest about what we face. It is clear that mass migration on the scale we are now seeing and the organised crime gangs that profit from it are drivers of a weakening faith in democratic institutions, bringing the rise of dangerous forms of political extremism—again, not just here but across Europe.
These conditions are fuelling nationalism and xenophobia throughout the democratic world, and the failure of mainstream democratic parties and Governments to deal with the question has played an important part in the installation by popular vote of authoritarian Governments, not just on our own continent but on others. It should be clear to everyone that if parties of the centre, centre-right and centre-left do not deal with this issue and all that flows from it, there is no shortage of parties on the political extremes that will be happy to do so—and if they are ushered in by discontent over migration, they will do much else besides.
The reason why I believe the Bill can only begin to touch the hem of the problem is that the policy challenge is broader and deeper than a simple question of law enforcement. It is the context created by the United Nations refugee convention of 1951 and its protocol of 1967. The refugee convention was created in the shadow of the Second World War and was generally understood to be a response to the horrors of that conflict, particularly to the barriers faced by Jewish people seeking to flee Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The 1967 protocol broadened its terms to include within its compass the entire world.
I will make just one point to illustrate the historical context of the refugee convention and its striking contrast to the world of today. At the time of its enactment in 1951, it was considered that there were around 2.1 million refugees under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In 2024, according to the UNHCR, there were no fewer than 122.6 million internally displaced persons around the world and no fewer than 43.7 million refugees. In addition, in the 74 years since the adoption of the convention, the world has become smaller, knowledge of conditions in developed countries more broadly available and travel over distance across seas and whole continents far easier. In the light of that, why would millions of people not seek better lives, more opportunities, and to escape with their families from violence and oppression? What could be more natural? Why would millions of people not avail themselves of the services of organised criminal gangs promising a better future in some newly reachable, unimaginably rich country?
It is in the light of the changes since 1951 that I believe the rubric of the refugee convention must be considered. It says that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution in their place of abode is entitled under the convention to asylum when they arrive in a contracting state, but that characterisation applies to literally tens of millions of people worldwide and may plausibly be claimed by tens of millions more.
So what are we to do? It is no answer just to shrug; again, we have to be realistic because at some stage we are going to have to deal with this. My own view is that we may have to revisit the refugee convention to make it fit for the modern world—to create an architecture that allows, for example, for the application of quotas between nations and of course the admission of those grievously at risk, so that we may fulfil our humanitarian function without damaging our own social and political cohesion. Discussions are already taking place across Europe about how arrangements under the European Convention on Human Rights may be reordered to allow countries more effectively to define and regulate their borders. As a strong supporter of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg court, I urge the Government to become an enthusiastic participant in those discussions.
As long ago as 2016, the distinguished Columbia University academic professor Mark Lilla wrote in his fine book The Once and Future Liberal that parties of the centre-left that espouse identity politics, that atomise people by race, by so-called privilege, sex and gender, building great hierarchies of polarisation and grievance, would never be able to create winning electoral coalitions across socioeconomic divides. Indeed, such an obviously misguided and solipsistic ideology would succeed only in alienating the left’s natural supporters and ushering in an age of populism. The result would be social division and the strengthening of political reaction. Although Professor Lilla once told me that the response of some of his university colleagues to his book was to label him a white supremacist, history has plainly proved him right. Today, a weak and confused response to an unprecedented surge in mass migration holds the same danger. That danger is particularly acute for parties of the centre-left, and we are a maximum of four years away from our next general election.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I too very much enjoyed the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harper, who showed us a glint of steel, heavily disguised by wit and deftness of touch. I think we all look forward very much to hearing more from him, including on this Bill, when he can withdraw his sabre completely.
My overriding impression of this debate has been that there has been far more that unites us than divides us. In the full range of contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to my noble friend Lord Lilley and all in between—if they will accept being the bookends of this excellent debate—there is a general acceptance that it really is the legitimate expectation of those we serve as parliamentarians that the Government must be able to defend and control our borders, described in the Explanatory Notes as “a vital strategic asset”, and indeed to remove those with no right to be here. It really is as simple as that.
Despite our island geography, we clearly do not have security at the border, and successive Governments have failed in this regard. We really should move on from ownership of historical policies and, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his contribution to the previous debate on sentencing, take some of the heat and the blame game out of this. To move towards common approaches towards a complex problem is an admirable objective.
There really is a question of competence in government, and the public are tired of failure. People look to government, and indeed to Parliament, not for explanations about how difficult this is but for solutions. If the legal and regulatory framework, either domestically or internationally, is the obstacle, then, in partnership with our European partners and with other nations, we should seek to find proper, pragmatic, fair and humanitarian solutions that change the international regulatory regime. I listened with great interest to the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who gave an excellent explanation of the imperative so to do in a pragmatic and fair way.
There is much that is admirable in this Bill. An awful lot of it feels very technical. Some of it feels just a little presentational, such as talk of commanders without too much to command, which has already been noted. It does not contain some of the ID card proposals that my noble friend Lord Swire, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and others talked about. Those would of course be much greater technical and policy moves than is contained in the Bill.
I suspect that much of our debates in Committee and thereafter on Report will be more about what is not in than what is in the Bill. I certainly welcome the pragmatic and sensible measures, many of which I was surprised are not already available to law enforcement authorities. However, I would like to ask the Minister what level of impact he believes the package of measures he is bringing forward in this Bill will have. There is a wealth of data on the situation; no doubt the Government have undertaken detailed analysis on the projected efficacy on the combination of these initiatives. What are the targets for improvements? What are the KPIs which the border security commander will be tasked with delivering? What does success look like?
In order to discuss the solution, one first has to understand the problem. People are travelling through numerous European safe countries before making the extremely hazardous trip across the channel to access the UK. Can the Minister respond in detail—if he does not have time this evening, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me—on the factors in the intelligence the Government have which they believe drive people to risk their lives and those of their children and families to come to the UK rather than to stay in another safe country, namely France? This may be in terms of how they are treated when they arrive, the opportunity to remain in the UK, benefits when they settle here and any other factors that he considers relevant. We need to have a proper understanding of that in order to work out what the solution is.
The biggest issue is clearly the perverse incentive which rewards those who come here through illicit means. Until we can make a statement, backed up, supported by and compliant with international law, that if people come to the UK through illegal means, they will extremely prejudice their changes of staying in the country, we are not going to win and will undoubtedly fail.
Much has been made of the Australian example and the efficacy of its deterrent measures. I note a statement made by Rear Admiral Justin Jones, then commander of the Australian Maritime Border Command in a public video in 2022. He said, “Australia is resolute. Our border protection policies will not change. No one who attempts to travel illegally by boat will be allowed to settle here. No matter who you are or where you are from, our borders are closed to illegal migration. The only way to Australia is with a valid visa. You have zero change with illegal migration”. That is an interesting comparison, but the emphasis is on politicians in the United Kingdom and our European partner nations to look at the international regulatory settlement together to come up with a solution.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I declare the support I receive from RAMP and start by warmly welcoming the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act and partial repeal of the Illegal Migration Act.
However, I share the disappointment expressed by many organisations—I am grateful for their briefings—that the Bill does not go further in repealing the whole of the latter and parts of the Nationality and Borders Act. The Law Society, for instance, describes the latter as
“a detrimental piece of legislation”
that will become
“the default directive in many places”.
Could my noble friend the Minister explain why the Bill leaves in place a number of provisions in both those Acts that we roundly condemned at the time?
In particular, why are we retaining Section 12 of the IMA? To quote the UN High Commissioner for Refugees it
“leaves in place a risk of arbitrary detention of asylum-seekers, refugees and stateless persons”.
Why are we retaining Section 59 which, in denying claims from countries deemed safe, ignores—again to quote the UNHCR—
“the requirement for an individualised assessment of an asylum claim”
thereby giving
“rise to a risk of refoulement”?
The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium warns that
“children and young people are particularly at risk”
because Section 59 denies them
“proper consideration of their vulnerabilities”.
The RMCC, with support from the British Association of Social Workers, is also critical of the retention of the age assessment provisions of the NBA and calls for their repeal. The RMCC points out that neither the National Age Assessment Board nor the development of so-called scientific age assessment methods—which, as already noted, have been widely criticised—has tackled the key problem of children being wrongly treated as adults on arrival.
I was therefore alarmed to read in the parallel immigration White Paper of plans to explore
“scientific and technological methods to ensure adults are not wrongly identified as children”.
It is worthy of Alice in “Through the Looking-Glass”. I am nevertheless grateful to my noble friend for the constructive meeting we had with members of the RMCC recently to discuss age assessment. He will not be surprised to hear that I plan to table amendments on this issue.
Some of those children wrongly identified as adults could be prosecuted under the new criminal offences contained in the Bill and end up spending months in adult prisons. Concerns have been raised more widely by a number of organisations, including the Law Society and the UNHCR, about these provisions, which in their breadth and vagueness, risk criminalising both vulnerable adults and children who are risking their lives in search of safety. This exposes the gaping hole in the Bill which, as already noted, is the absence of any provision to expand safe routes. The safe routes coalition, while recognising the need to tackle the exploitation of unsafe routes by smuggling gangs, which is the Bill’s main focus, argues that it is missing a golden opportunity to address why people are taking these dangerous journeys.
I cannot understand why the Government appear to be so deaf to the widespread calls to improve safe routes for children and others, including from the APPG for refugees, of which I am a member. Instead, the immigration White Paper includes plans that will weaken the family reunion route. The White Paper also includes proposals to double the length of time most people will need to wait before they can apply for settlement. This is not the place to argue against this damaging proposal, but it would be remiss of me not to mention it, given the large number of emails I am receiving from those already on the five-year route to remain.
In the absence of any clarification about whether the new rule will apply to those already here, the emails express acute distress, a sense of betrayal and a loss of trust in the UK’s integrity and consistency. As already asked for, can my noble friend at the very least clarify whether those people will indeed now have to work here for 10 years before being able to apply for settlement, having come here in good faith on the assumption of five years?
The welcome repeal in the Bill of Sections 31 to 35 of the IMA, which rendered refugees who enter the country by irregular means ineligible for British citizenship, has now been undermined by the administrative sleight of hand that achieves the same outcome through changes to the Nationality: Good Character Requirement guidance. Having welcomed the repeal as
“a positive step that recognises the importance of naturalisation, both for the individuals concerned and for social cohesion”,
the UNHCR expresses concern that the new guidance
“may result in breaches of Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention”,
which, it argues, is central to the convention’s “object and purpose”. It recommends that the guidance be revisited
“to ensure that it is applied in a manner consistent with the UK’s international obligations”.
The Law Society echoed the Article 31 point and noted that
“this is a significant change in policy which has been made with no consultation and therefore no scrutiny”.
In conclusion, although I repeat my welcome for the repeal of many of the damaging provisions made by the previous Government, I wish I could welcome this Bill unequivocally. As the daughter of a refugee immigrant, I welcome the fact that I live on an island not of strangers but of diverse groups who have enriched our lives. We have a responsibility to them, and to those who seek to come to our country in future, to ensure that we build a fair and inclusive immigration and asylum/refugee system.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill so succinctly. I welcome my noble friend Lord Harper, who is not in his place, and wish him very well in this House.
The Bill seems to have two aims and to be speaking to two different audiences. One of the aims is to control the borders by tackling the criminal gangs who ferry migrants to the shores of this country. A number of clauses—Clauses 1 to 12—will introduce a new Border Security Command to tackle the gangs. There will be new offences—in Clauses 13 to 18 and 21 to 23—with new powers and data-sharing powers. The Bill aims to address the very wide concern in this country about levels of immigration, both legal and illegal or irregular, but it aims also to tackle the asylum and immigration system, to strengthen and build confidence in the border system, and—to do that—to repeal certain parts of Conservative legislation.
That part of the Bill is addressed to people on the left who see the streamlining and processing of the asylum system as paramount. It is not a matter of tightening the rules, and I welcome the Minister’s outlining some of the more peripheral ways in which these will be strengthened—in Clauses 41, 43 and 45, for example. It is also not a matter of reviewing the international agreements from the post-World War II period for Europe to protect people who were displaced by the war, by the defeat of Germany and by the new arrangements with the Soviet Union to give it some sphere of influence over eastern Europe.
From the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, on the Cross Benches, we have heard something of the numbers involved then. We are speaking about 2.1 million people of European origin, displaced mainly in Europe. However, we are now looking at a world where, globally, people are on the move. The figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is 400 million refugees. These are very significant numbers. He rightly alluded to the 1951 refugee convention and some of the international framework of law. Many people like to pooh-pooh those of us who feel it needs to be reviewed because it is totally unsuitable for today’s global world, with millions of people on the move. Therefore, I will concentrate on what kind of figures we are dealing with in this country alone for immigration and asylum. I fear that streamlining and processing the system is not enough to help reduce the overall numbers.
In the year in which the new Government came to power, there were 224,742 asylum cases in the system in June 2024. For the year ending March 2025, around 50% of claims had been granted at an initial decision, giving 45,084 people refugee protection, according to Home Office figures. Some 40% of asylum claims were granted between January and March. This is a significantly higher rate than historically; the rate was 29% in the period from 2001 to 2018. It was 18% more than in 2023 and 5% more than in 2022, and it includes almost all small boat immigrants, whose claims by and large tend to be successful—77% of them.
With such numbers arriving after the Conservative Government’s measures to deter, I am very worried about Clauses 37 and 38, which are going to repeal those parts of the Act that acted as a deterrent. The figures speak for themselves. In 2023 the numbers of people arriving—they are just astonishing—fell to 36,699, a figure substantially lower than the 54,702 the previous year. I cannot think it right to say that the measures that the Conservative Government introduced, the Rwanda scheme and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, did not serve as a deterrent. Those numbers do speak. I agree that it is too late for Rwanda, but certainly there are the measures in the Illegal Migration Act.
To close, I welcome those parts of the Bill that aim to strengthen the borders, strengthen control of the borders and bring in offences, but I rather fear that they will not be strong enough to deter illegal migration. I fear that in trying to speak to two different audiences, we will end up pleasing neither those who want a more streamlined immigration system that will allow more asylum applications and more claims to be granted nor those in the country who, by and large, want immigration, legal and illegal, drastically cut.
Baroness Warsi (Non-Afl)
My Lords, colleagues in the other place and in this House have raised concerns about this Bill—from the impact it may have on the victims of human trafficking, undermining the work done and progress made in that area, much of it led by my noble friend Lady May, to concerns over the provisions that may criminalise asylum seekers rather than those who seek to exploit them, the expansion of counterterrorism measures and the lack of an attempt to deal with the vexed issue of no safe routes for those fleeing persecution.
I am sure that many of these and other concerns around the Bill will be debated in detail in Committee—but today I want to focus on how we debate this policy area, the consequences of what we do in Parliament and in government and its real impact on people’s lives. I do not put forward an ideological position on migration: I am neither for open borders nor for ever-increasing draconian measures that seem not to achieve their stated aim, instead often raising the temperature on this issue and then agitating further a disappointed public.
In a former life, I have represented both the Home Office and applicants in immigration proceedings. However, I am pragmatic enough to acknowledge, as I presume most in this House would, our demand for a constant supply of a Labour force over decades to underpin our economy. It has meant that we have tolerated the numbers. Like most in our country, I simply want a system that works, does not oversell and underdeliver, ensures that we meet our international obligations and is in line with our stated values.
Migration, the movement of people, which both in the UK and around the world is overwhelmingly legal, has always existed—the movement of people between different geographical areas across boundaries during the years as seasons changed; the movement within state boundaries from rural to urban areas in recent centuries; and the movement in the past of large numbers of Europeans, from the global North to the global South, the global East and elsewhere. From the mid-1800s to the First World War, it is estimated that up to 20 million people migrated from the United Kingdom. Over a period of 80 years nearly 50% of the British population moved, travelling to parts of the British Empire, colonising lands and establishing settled communities.
This was not unusual; the same pattern was seen across most European nations. Some 48 million indigenous—to use the description used by my noble friend Lord Lilley—Europeans left Europe to become permanent communities across the globe and now rightly call themselves indigenous there. These numbers and percentages far exceed the subsequent migration back from many of our old colonies, including many like my grandfather, who some 70 years ago arrived in the UK, starting his “on these islands” relationship with Britain, his actual relationship having started many decades before then as a subject in British colonial India, which included over two decades of service in the British Indian Army. He was the embodiment of what the now Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, passionately said in 2018 in the other place:
“We are here … because you were there”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/18; col. 9WH.]
Indeed, it was only after the Second World War that Europe stopped becoming the source of most migration, starting to become a migration destination.
I raise these issues for context, for proportionality and for us to consider the statements we make and will make as these changes are introduced and the Bill passes through both Houses; statements such as those suggesting, as many have done already, including in the Explanatory Notes, that what we are seeing is unusual or unprecedented. It is neither, if we look at history. Facts, stats and language matter: as my noble friend Lord Harper said in his excellent maiden speech, tough measures in moderate language. It matters because it leads to better debates, better policy and better policy-making, and ensures that migration policy remains just that, not a cloak for culture wars and division.
We need to be mindful of the impact on all communities in the UK and how what we say in positions of power can green-light dangerous behaviours in those with malign intent. It has consequences for cohesion and can become a platform for extremist views. How we have developed our policies in the past has not necessarily worked. The race riots post-Southport showed us how quickly people from racial minority communities became migrants, became asylum seekers, became illegals, became security risks, and how our fellow citizens, British Muslims, became fair game. After all the sloganising during the Brexit decision, we neither took back control of our borders nor reduced the numbers coming into our country, with legal migration increasing from around 500,000 to 700,000 annually to 1.3 million in 2022 and 1.2 million in 2023. However passionate and at times inflammatory the rhetoric, not only did the policy of restricting and reducing numbers simply not happen; in reality, the opposite did.
In conclusion, I urge noble Lords to be careful in the language we use during these debates; to be accurate in our facts; to base our arguments on evidence, not ideology; to focus on outcomes, not political posturing; to tell the full story on migration; to speak of numbers and needs, not composition and culture; and to find a way to talk about migration that is inclusive of all our fellow countrymen and women. We owe it to all of them to get this right.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I speak on this Bill as someone who has spent much of my political life focused on home affairs, justice and border security, including as a former Immigration Minister and as a spokesman in the European Parliament. I begin by welcoming the Government’s renewed focus on these vital matters, but I urge Ministers to draw a clear and consistent distinction between immigration and asylum. They are two very different issues, each requiring its own approach and solution.
Our immigration policy must be rules-based, fair to those who follow the system and firmly rooted in the national interest, supporting our economy, our public services and the social fabric of this country. But please remember: immigration, as opposed to asylum, is entirely in the hands of Governments. They set priorities, categories and numbers. And please do not be deceived by the term “net migration”. Regardless of numbers entering the country, if more people leave, the figures come down; if fewer leave, they go up. Too many valuable people leaving is also surely not in our interests.
Asylum must be firm but fair. We must honour international commitments and offer protection to those who flee from persecution. We must also be resolute in removing those whose claims have failed swiftly, humanely and without unnecessary delay. Justice must be seen to be done, and public confidence depends on it. Immigration, when managed responsibly, is a source of strength for society. However, long-term success requires more border controls; it requires integration, communication and trust. That is why I encourage the Government to return responsibility for community and race relations to the Home Office so that it sits alongside immigration policy and supports a more coherent and co-ordinated approach and ensures—as I tried to do—better integration and acceptance of those admitted to our country.
The number of irregular small boat arrivals rose by 22% in the year up to March 2025. That is a sharp increase despite the growing success of the French authorities to deter them. The public are right to expect firm action, but the loss of legal routes and facilities at UK representations around the globe has certainly not helped. More must be done to disrupt the criminal gangs to end the perilous journeys and secure our borders. However, lasting solutions can come only through serious practical co-operation with our neighbours, not schemes that involve sending asylum claimants thousands of miles away for processing—which are, at best, legally questionable, expensive and ineffective.
I note the Government’s interest in creating overseas hubs as temporary locations only for failed asylum seekers but not for applicants. This might be helpful, but it should never replace the return of such people to their source countries. Applying pressure on the Governments of those which are reluctant to receive back and protect their citizens is an appropriate and at times necessary action. It has been done before with positive effect.
Acquiring asylum is a precious thing with clear criteria. Over the last few years, we seem to have been extending improperly those criteria, leading to far greater numbers being granted asylum than I think is correct under the terms of the 1951 convention on refugees. Although I fully appreciate the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, a short time ago as to some changing circumstances since 1951, there have recently been signs of stricter enforcement and better understanding and interpretation of the rules, which is welcome.
In that context, I welcome the UK-EU common understanding, particularly part 6 on irregular immigration, which rightly highlights the importance of information sharing, something I have long championed. The previous Government began developing I-LEAP, a platform to improve data exchange at the border. That work must continue and accelerate, and I urge Ministers to prioritise and, crucially, pursue renewed co-operation with European partners to restore UK access to the Schengen Information System, which I played a part in introducing.
SIS II is the most widely used and largest security and border management information sharing system in Europe. In 2019—the last year the UK had access—it was checked by British police over 603 million times. That level of operational intelligence is essential to protecting our citizens and securing our borders. Its loss, with real-time access, was one of the many negatives in our leaving the EU.
We now have an opportunity to modernise our systems, to act with purpose and to rebuild trust in how we manage our borders. That means processing and removing failed asylum seekers in a timely manner, stopping dangerous crossings and working in genuine partnership with allies. If we are serious about border security, we must be serious about the tools and co-operation that make it possible.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on their aim of repealing the Rwanda Act and some of its modifications to the Illegal Migration Act, both of which were despicable pieces of legislation and contributed to the widespread negativity about supporting people who are escaping conflict and other dangers.
If we want a model for how to treat people fleeing war zones, we have it in the way we supported Ukrainian nationals seeking refuge in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion. Ukrainians were able to pass the residence test to receive fast and substantial help, including a temporary leave to remain if they left because of the Russian invasion. They could work here and apply for universal credit if they did not have a job, could not work or were on a low income. Ukrainian refugees were generally presented in a positive light by the media and in Parliament.
What we see here is the humanity that we should expect from a relatively wealthy country giving support to people whose lives are in danger. We offered a safe space to live, where children could go to school and where parents could legitimately work and provide for their families.
To echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the terrible war taking place in Sudan, of course Sudan was, in effect, a British colony, and the divisions it helped to create resulted in decades of on-off war. The UK is an obvious place for Sudanese refugees to turn to because of its colonial history and because English is one of the two national languages. In return, the UK recognises the terrible situation there and that there are genuine grounds for accepting claims for asylum.
Have any special measures been put in place to allow Sudanese in danger to come safely to the UK? No. A hopeful asylum seeker must first be able to arrive in the UK. If they use the standard visitor’s visa, they must apply three months before travel. They cannot apply as an asylum seeker in advance, even if they have family or other support waiting for them. Instead, they will have to find a route to the UK and on arrival expect an interrogation, to be fingerprinted and treated as a potential criminal. I ask the Minister: why are the two cases treated so differently? Are there deserving and undeserving people fleeing war?
For many years now, immigration has been treated as a criminal activity. I was shocked when I attended a Labour Party National Policy Forum some 25 years ago to find that immigration policy was included in the crime and justice section. No one could tell me why that was the case.
Unfortunately, the Bill reinforces the idea that people coming to this country are a threat and a danger rather than part of the centuries of movement of people around the world described so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. Many of our predecessors came here in that way. I accept the need for border controls, but safe routes must be part of those controls. Currently, we only pay lip service to helping even the most vulnerable threatened groups and individuals.
In our attempt to keep people out and deny them safe and legal routes to arrive in the UK, we have helped to create the space for criminals to take over immigration. The appeal for safe routes is a recurring theme in many of the briefings provided by NGOs and campaigners, and in fact in the speeches today. The Safe Routes Coalition briefing paper argues:
“When safe routes are well run and well managed, they can be very effective and reduce dangerous journeys, such as channel crossings”.
The Bill can be strengthened to improve the role that safe routes can play in ensuring that the UK offers controlled and sustainable ways to support refugees fleeing war and persecution.
Amnesty International points out that one of the consequences of not having safe routes is that refugees will continue to endure severe hardship and trauma in their search for safety, even when having family in the UK or other strong connections here.
We must look closely at the Bill with a view to including provision for safe routes, not only because this is fair and humane but to stop the need for genuine asylum seekers having to deal with criminal gangs and put their lives in danger to have access to what we surely all believe is a human right.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. These matters are not new; indeed, it is now 24 years since I co-founded Migration Watch, together with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University.
I listened with great interest to the Minister’s clear summary of the Government’s proposals. Sadly, I have to say to him that they will not work. They will not bring the scale of net migration down to a level that is acceptable to the public. Indeed, the Bill barely scratches the surface of the massive problems that our country now faces as a result of the enormous increase in immigration over recent years. We now know that net migration was approaching 1,000,000 in 2023 and was about 400,000 in 2024. These massive numbers are completely without precedent in our history and will have very serious consequences for public services such as health and education, as well as for demand for housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, pointed out earlier.
More importantly, these numbers point to the prospect that, in the foreseeable future, the white British will become a minority in their own country. It is already the case that all of our population increase is a result of immigration. Meanwhile, births to the present white majority have been very low for some years. They could increase, of course, but there is currently no sign of that. Birth rates among immigrant communities vary but are usually higher—sometimes much higher—than those of the white British.
That said, the major factor by far is now net migration. Even if it is held at the current figure of 430,000 a year, we can expect the white British majority to become a minority in the UK about 30 years from now. Of course, that number—30—is crucial. It depends on what other numbers you use in your calculation, but this is, in essence, a likely outcome if no serious measures are taken.
The Prime Minister recently had the courage to put his toe into this delicate water when he spoke of the risk of our becoming “an island of strangers”. He was right, and the public feel in their bones that he was right. We now need serious consideration of the policies required to put the brakes on this process. These include having the political courage to set a clear target for net migration, backed up by specific measures; I regret to conclude that the Bill before us today will achieve virtually nothing of the kind now needed.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I offer qualified support for the Bill. I do so in the firm belief that, unless we seize this moment to regain credible control over all forms of migration, we shall betray both the national interest and the public trust. Regrettably, my own party failed to properly deal with the issue in government and to honour the pledges made in general elections between 2010 and 2019 to lower immigration—a policy currently supported by over 80% of the public in polls. Hence net migration increased massively in the last three Parliaments. We also did nothing to address the pernicious misuse of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
In fairness, the Bill does give Parliament a coherent framework: new powers for intelligence-led interceptions, faster inadmissibility decisions and tougher criminal offences for those who facilitate irregular entry. Yet legislation alone is not enough unless we confront the scale of the problem with unflinching candour. The net migration figure in 2022 was 764,000—that was the peak—but even last year the figure was 431,000. That number of people is equivalent to a city the size of Bristol, yet we built only 218,000 homes in England last year.
Some 81% of those migrants were from outside Europe, presenting major problems for integration and challenges related to shared identity, values, culture, history and way of life. Only 14% came to work, while 149,000 were family dependants. Figures released over the weekend show that over £900 million is claimed by foreign national households—one in six households—each month in universal credit, which is barely two months’ worth of the winter fuel allowance.
Mass uncontrolled migration is bad for the economy. It is astonishing that per capita GDP, at $49,464 in 2023, is less than it was in 2008—17 years ago. No civilised country can absorb such numbers year after year without acute pressure on housing, health care and social cohesion, particularly in the very towns and cities that feel least heard by liberal, metropolitan opinion-formers—who are of course well represented in your Lordships’ House.
At the illegal end of the spectrum, the channel crisis persists. More than 36,000 people arrived by small boat in 2024—up a quarter on 2023—and the death toll tragically reached 77, the worst year on record. On Saturday, as we heard, over 1,200 people crossed the channel—so much for smashing the gangs. Behind every dinghy is an organised-crime business model that mocks our sovereignty and imperils vulnerable lives.
The key question is: will the Bill be a real, effective and significant deterrent for people traffickers? The Government’s pointless and performative repeal of the safety of Rwanda Act—while begging last month for the support of the Albanian Prime Minister, in vain, for a resettlement hub—was entirely unnecessary and predictable, and destroyed such a deterrence. Meanwhile, the fiscal costs mount inexorably. Hotel accommodation for failed asylum seekers and those in the ever-lengthening backlog now drains £8 million every single day—money that could have trained 260 nurses or built three primary schools each week. Labour promised to reduce the number of asylum seeker hotels, but they have increased in number since July 2024.
That said, the Government deserve some credit for establishing the Border Security Command and their efforts to develop renewed bilateral returns agreements. But the command must be given teeth: it needs real-time data-sharing across MI5, the National Crime Agency and Border Force, and an unflinching mandate to disrupt the smugglers’ logistics upstream, not merely a mop up on our southern beaches.
Crucially, the Bill must address legal migration. Skilled worker and student routes, laudable in their intent, have become porous. Employers in the care sector are now permitted to import labour at a minimum salary that undercuts our own workforce, while overseas students—commended for their tuition fees—import 150,000 dependants a year. This is not an immigration system; it is an open invitation. Even the Defence Secretary said this week that the Government have lost control of our borders.
We need to insert a statutory annual cap on gross immigration, set by an affirmative resolution of both Houses, for work and study visas allocated by auction, to ensure that they are allocated to the areas that need them most. We need a new system of sureties for visa holders that ensures a financial penalty if they do not leave the country when their visas expire. We should require the Migration Advisory Committee to publish full displacement and wage-suppression effects, not just labour-market shortages. We need to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act and Article 8 of the ECHR where they would thwart the deportation of serious criminals or those who have entered clandestinely.
The Times editorial was quite right on Saturday to excoriate the Attorney-General’s ill-judged and intemperate comments on those questioning the workings of the ECHR and to point out that many European countries are seeking sincerely to reform the convention to eject illegal immigrants and strengthen the asylum rules. I wonder why, if the Minister will answer the question, the UK has declined to support such an effort—for what reason? These measures are not draconian. They are proportionate, democratic and entirely consistent with our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, properly interpreted, notwithstanding the fetishisation of international law by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and other noble Lords.
This is a necessary start, but without the amendments I have referenced it will be neither sufficient nor credible. We have a brief window—perhaps the last in a generation—to restore a balanced immigration policy that is fair, lawful and, above all, trusted by the British people. In conclusion, I commend in principle the Bill, but give notice that I and other noble Lords will table amendments to deliver the effective border control and the sustainable legal migration regime that this country both expects and deserves.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the Government’s aim and the purpose of the Bill, which is primarily to stop people crossing the channel from France in dangerous boats. Since this route was exploited by the criminal gangs a few years ago, almost 100 men, women and children have tragically lost their lives attempting to cross the English Channel. In the Mediterranean Sea, thousands have perished over the years trying to reach Europe. These organised criminal gangs, who profit from the desperation of vulnerable people, must be stopped by whatever means necessary.
This is one of the most tragic aspects of our time: people fleeing poor countries, seeking a better life for their families, and escaping authoritarian and corrupt regimes. I speak as the son of an immigrant who, in the 1940s, left his country and moved from place to place before finally settling in the UK, in 1957. I know first hand the feelings of these refugees—I cannot help but feel empathy for them.
This refugee crisis is not new. Throughout history, thousands have fled their own country to escape prosecution and mistreatment. It saddens me to say that some politicians in Europe have used the misfortune and desperation of these refugees to advance their own political careers. They have stirred up hatred and xenophobia to win votes, rather than showing understanding and compassion. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have used these unfortunate people as a political football, instead of treating them with dignity and humanity.
However, as I have often said in your Lordships’ House, the UK remains one of the most tolerant, inclusive and welcoming countries in the world. I am proud that my father settled here and that his great-grandchildren are now part of Great British society.
Returning to the substantive issue of this debate, while I support the core intent of the Bill, we must be mindful of unintended consequences. As noble Lords know, I am not a solicitor—I usually leave such matters to the great legal minds in your Lordships’ House. However, here are some of my observations as a layman and long-standing supporter of Amnesty International and a staunch believer in the European Convention on Human Rights. I always place great value on the human rights and well-being of the underdog. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify some of these points.
One of my concerns is that some of the new offences in the Bill could inadvertently criminalise genuine asylum seekers and deter victims of modern slavery from coming forward. Does the Bill comply with the UK’s international obligation under the 1951 refugee convention regarding the rights of the individual seeking asylum?
Secondly, what consideration has been given to expanding safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers as an alternative or complementary approach to the enforcement measures in the Bill? Thirdly, what provisions are there to ensure that genuine victims of modern slavery are not inadvertently disqualified from protection or deterred from engaging with authority due to the new immigration offences or powers? Fourthly, does the Bill ensure robust judicial oversight of detention decisions, and does it prevent the disproportionate detention of the individual seeking asylum?
Finally, can the Minister assure me that the sharing of customs information by HMRC and the sharing of trailer registration information from the DVLA to catch organised immigration criminals will not result in a snoopers’ charter affecting the wider public?
While we all want to stop the ruthless smuggler gangs and save lives, we must also uphold our proud tradition of compassion and human rights. A just and human approach alongside firm border security is the only way forward.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on an entertaining maiden speech—although, like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I stand fully ready to vote to abolish myself.
I was as disturbed as many others were by the Prime Minister’s warning that without strong migration rules,
“we risk becoming an island of strangers”.
Of course we need a well-managed asylum and immigration system. But not only is that kind of inflammatory language alarming and unhelpful; neither recent political statements nor any measures in the Bill do anything to promote the integration that would seek to make newcomers well-settled residents and contributing citizens. I much appreciated the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi.
Indeed, much alarm has been created by the heralding of tougher requirements for obtaining both settlement and citizenship, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, described. I will never understand why, having allowed people to legally reside, any Government think it useful to make it harder for them to convert that into permanent settlement and then citizenship, which anchors their belonging here.
I would love to say more about other parts of the Bill, but I want to concentrate on European aspects, and my noble friends are well covering other topics.
The common understanding which resulted from the UK-EU summit two weeks ago pledged to reinforce co-operation on law enforcement, including through Europol, on analysis of threats, and on exchange of information and operational action.
Although we cannot yet go back to the golden era of British pre-eminence in Europol, when one of our nationals held the directorship of that agency for a decade, we can encourage maximum exploitation of these opportunities, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, about seeking access to SIS II. My Benches will table some amendments on Europol, such as equipping the National Crime Agency and police forces to participate in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations, establishing joint taskforces, and requiring the border commander to meet the director of Europol.
I want mainly to talk about Clause 42, on EU citizens, and I welcome the intention to clear up some of the muddle of the past caused by the way in which the EU settlement scheme was devised and implemented. But I fear that further confusion may lie ahead—even another Windrush—due to the Government’s reluctance to jettison the whole of the baggage of the past.
The problem comes because Clause 42 holds back from declaring that everyone given EU settled status actually comes within the citizens’ rights provisions of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement and the EEA and Swiss equivalents, such as the ability to rely on the direct effect of those rights. It says only that all those granted the right to stay under the UK’s EU settlement scheme will be treated as if they had such rights.
The UK’s EU settlement scheme was in one sense generous, in that it swept up EU citizens simply because they had been living in the UK for the requisite time. But in doing so, successive UK Governments acted on a presumption—although this is contested—that some did not have rights under the withdrawal agreements because they had not been, in the jargon, “exercising their treaty rights”, which broadly involved being a worker rather than a non-employed person.
No actual test was applied, even though the withdrawal agreement allowed that, so EU citizens were never told their legal status. As the Independent Monitoring Authority, the watchdog for the rights of EU citizens in the UK, described it in initially welcoming Clause 42:
“There are people who have status under the EUSS who may not be entitled to rights under the Agreements. This is a complex area”—
you are telling me—
“but there is a lack of clarity as to who has rights under the Agreements and who does not … The concern is that there could be potential instances where it would matter whether a citizen with EUSS status does have rights under the Agreements or not. In these situations, citizens who are within the true cohort”—
I think your Lordships gather what that means—
“might need to re-prove they were residing in the UK in accordance with EU free movement rules at the end of 2020. As time goes by it may become more and more difficult for citizens to find the relevant evidence, such as payslips, to prove they met the free movement rules at the end of 2020. We do not know what implications this could have in the future for these citizens or future generations of citizens.”
Are your Lordships getting echoes of another scenario?
I imagine that the IMA thought that Clause 42 would wash away the relevance of this distinction and the possible need to go back and establish rights from years ago, but the absence of legal clarity identified by the IMA remains. Despite good intentions, past gremlins could pop up in future and catch people out precisely because the legal position has been left as unclear as it was in 2020.
That is no doubt why the Independent Monitoring Authority now seems to have had a bit of a rethink, commenting 10 days’ ago in regard to the Immigration White Paper that
“the vast majority of the proposals that the government is consulting on should not affect the majority of citizens with EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) status who have rights under the Agreements.”
Quite a few caveats there.
I have to finish, but as Sir Humphrey might have put it, it is not only unwise but brave, Minister, to risk recreating the Windrush miscarriage of justice. I suggest that the Government should take the wiser course, even if it goes against every instinct of the Home Office, and junk past practices and start with a clean sheet. Hence, my Benches will be tabling amendments, which I hope might be signed by others, to try to get the Government to do just that.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on his maiden speech. I thought he was not going to be in his place, so, in his absence, I was going to risk his reputation by saying that when he was Transport Minister, I think the unions always had a good-faith relationship with him.
I welcome the repeal of the scheme that saw £700 million of taxpayers’ money squandered on sending four volunteers back to Rwanda. We should also commend the Government’s determination to crack down on organised crime which trades in human desperation. Those gangsters are not the only ones who have raked it in. The likes of Serco have also profited hugely from past failures to process asylum claims quickly and effectively, so I am pleased to see this Government tackling the backlog, which not only racked up hotel bills but left traumatised refugees in limbo, barred from work and unable to contribute to society. Labour’s approach must be clear: we punish the villains, not the victims. We need a system that is not only firm but fair and humane too.
This Bill focuses primarily on people who come across the channel in small boats. However, as we have heard, that is a small part of the immigration picture. In the second half of the 20th century, Irish, Caribbean and Asian immigrants helped to build our NHS and transport system, often facing racism and discrimination for their trouble. This century, we face the challenge of an ageing population and falling birth rate; unfilled vacancies, not least in health and social care and in construction; and universities, which critically rely on international students’ fees.
We do need to tackle the root causes of people’s concerns about migration. There are radical right forces, well organised and resourced, which seek to scapegoat migrants for all of Britain’s ills. However, migrants did not slash funding for skills training, schools, hospitals and youth services. They did not sell off our utilities and abandon whole towns to rot. They did not neglect building council houses in favour of luxury flats or jack up private rents. The blame lies elsewhere and the remedy, including urgent investment in our public infrastructure, is clear.
Alongside this Bill, the Government need a clear strategy to ensure that we are welcoming to newcomers and that we are good neighbours to each other. Let us remember that, before funding was cut, free classes in English for speakers of other languages helped to build community cohesion and friendships.
I want to raise three specific issues. The first is modern slavery. The Bill repeals many of the most harmful provisions contained in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 but retains provisions—notably Section 29—which would disqualify modern slavery victims from support, safety and protection because of detention or convictions which had resulted from their exploitation. This could put the UK in conflict with its duties under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and put vulnerable people at risk of re-trafficking. As well as repealing those provisions, will the Minister consider granting modern slavery victims who are in the national referral scheme the dignity of a right to work?
Secondly, the Bill makes no mention of safe routes for asylum seekers, yet people risk only their lives taking dangerous journeys to reach sanctuary and loved ones, when safe routes are not available. Also, the current family reunion rules are complex and, for many unaccompanied children, almost impossible to access. To break the people smugglers’ business model, will the Minister consider, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Bryan, building on the success of the humanitarian scheme for Ukraine to create more safe routes?
Thirdly, regarding workers, those who genuinely care about stopping those employers who abuse migrant labour to drive down wages should back the Employment Rights Bill. It must include more fair pay agreements, so that everyone, wherever they were born, gets a fair rate for the job. In the wake of extreme exploitation scandals, including in social care, domestic service, food production and the fishing industry, can the Minister ensure that there is a proper risk assessment of employer exploitation before sponsorship licences are issued? Can he also ensure that, as in Australia, workers on visas have the right to report bad employers without fearing the risk of destitution or deportation as a result?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, as we have heard already today, there are serious concerns in the country about the security of our borders. Of course, this is motivated by keeping ourselves safe, but it is also motivated by wanting to make sure that those who deserve to claim asylum and are refugees who want to travel here are able to use a fair system, that they have a good reception when they arrive and that we are able to plan for a larger population. I am afraid that, at the moment, I am not at all clear that we are managing migration in such a way that that we are able to plan for it in any great way. I will give a couple of examples of where this really matters.
I get increasingly frustrated in this place. Almost every day, we hear of a Government, this one or the previous, being blamed for things. That is the nature of politics but, just last week, we heard accusations that it was someone’s fault that nine more reservoirs are needed, and we have regular complaints about lack of housing and lack of electricity. There are many other things that we do not seem able to cope with.
I suspect that one reason is that our population has grown so quickly. When I took over the Met in 2011, the population of London was about 7.4 million; by the time I left, it was 8.4 million and, today, it is about 9 million. A significant number of the people who have come to the UK have ended up in our major economic centres, such as London. This is a very significant shift. Some of the symptoms of that growth were that, in places such as Newham, around 50,000 people were living in what are called “beds in sheds”. These places were not designed to hold people—they were garages that had things added on. When people are living in such conditions, you are just waiting for epidemics or other things to happen. I am afraid that, unless we plan well to make sure that all the facilities are there, everyone suffers. Probably those who suffer most are the migrants who arrive but who we did not anticipate in the way that we should have.
There are two major categories of migration in this country. The first is legal migration, which is allowing those who want to enter our country for economic reasons and asylum seekers or refugees who need our help. At some point, the previous Government got things a little wrong with legal migration because, by some of the measures that they took, legal migration went out of control and up to around 800,000. The noble Lord, Lord Green, mentioned at the time that some of the levers—it is not easy to predict how people will react to them—were probably set at the wrong level. The previous Government changed those levels, as mentioned earlier. This Government are now using those levers to make sure that legal migration is more under control.
This Bill, however, is about illegal migration and improving how we can stop it. I think it has some good ideas, but I am honestly not convinced that it is comprehensive, forensic or ruthless enough to deal with all the issues that we face now and will face in the coming years. I have four tests for this Bill to see whether it will improve the situation in which around 1,000 people a day have been seen to cross the channel to land on our south coast.
My first test is whether the Bill will deter people who have no right to be here from trying to get here. We have said that we do not want them to cross the border. At the moment, there are thousands of people each year who broadly say, “We do not respect your rules but are confident that, having crossed the border, we will not be removed”. I do not see any great change in this Bill that will affect their motivation.
My second test is what happens to people who have arrived here and been found to have no claim to remain, particularly where they have a criminal record. I have no confidence that those whom we wish to remove will be removed, even where they have a criminal record. Often in this country, we do not know the backgrounds of the people who are here, because we do not know their identity. Consequently, we are not very familiar with some of the things that they have done or been involved in, in the past.
My third test is whether the Bill will deter and detect those who commit organised crime and arrange for people to bypass the rules for profit. I see very little in the Bill that shows me that the Government will ruthlessly and massively go after the assets of the criminals. If we can take the profit from the business, we can exert some control. There are some incremental steps in the Bill, but it does not convince me that we will see more than marginal improvements in the seizure of criminals’ assets.
My fourth test is whether there is anything in the Bill that will allow the courts to distinguish better between valid and invalid claims for asylum. In particular, how will they either change the European Convention on Human Rights or its interpretation, which presently seems to give precedence to the failed asylum seeker or the convicted criminal against the rights of people who are properly using the legal system and the victims of crime?
In closing, I highlight a particular concern I have about the Bill. It has been mentioned already by the noble Lords, Lord Swire and Lord Browne. The Border Security Commander is, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, a misnomer. The Border Security Command has no people to command, and the organisations that do have people to command are not commanded by it. At best, it tries to co-ordinate those who have a duty to manage our borders, which includes the border agency, the immigration service, the National Crime Agency, security services and local police forces. Each of those organisations is accountable for its own actions. The commander cannot order them to take any particular action. I am not persuaded that the commander having a board, as proposed by the Bill, will make any difference to that.
The Government found their leadership voice today on defence. They made an excellent announcement about our future defence and sent a clear message to our enemies. Does this Bill send the same clear message to the organisers of illegal migration? I am not convinced that it does. It needs to speak clearly about the profit they are making and the fact that if they continue there will be a serious penalty. At least two or three noble Lords have mentioned that if the Government do not do that, people like Reform benefit, which does not benefit many people at all. Unless we get some better answers to some of the things that I and others have identified, that is the way it will go.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Listening to the different views makes me think of saying, “Here we go again”. I asked the Library how many Bills there have been since I came into the other place in 1989 that contain the words “immigration”, “asylum” or “migration”. I remember a number of those debates. I was astonished to find that there have been 14 Bills since 1989 called things such as the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill.
Each Government, including the Coalition Government, brought in different Bills. They all had the same words. I looked at some of the Home Secretaries’ Second Reading introductions to the Bills, and they all talked about how this was going to transform things, improve things, strengthen the borders and so on. Really, of course, if we are honest, none of them achieved what was promised.
The Minister, who knows I have huge respect for him, made a much franker opening by saying that, hopefully, some of the things in the Bill can make a difference. I welcome some of the measures, but we must face up to the fact that the world is changing. People keep telling me that it is, so why do we not genuinely look at changing the refugee convention and work out the bits of it we can work with and the bits we cannot?
We should also genuinely look at the European Court of Human Rights. Time has moved on, and things have changed. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has already mentioned this, but I was very disappointed when our Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, accused anyone who said that we should talk about the European Court of Human Rights of working under some kind of Nazi ideology. I know he has apologised, but it was a very grave mistake.
We have to face up to the reality that nothing will change fundamentally until we have a look at those two ideas. We have seen over the years that United Kingdom judges—I know there are a lot of lawyers in this place, and they get upset when you criticise anyone in the legal profession—have adopted ever more expansive definitions of ECHR articles in immigration tribunals, including allowing dangerous criminals to stay here, giving all sorts of reasons why they should stay and ridiculous reasons why people should not be deported. There are thousands of examples of the definitions of the articles—not just Article 8 but Article 3—being stretched and stretched over the years beyond any definition of common sense, and certainly beyond anything intended by the people who originally framed them.
Back in November 2021, shortly after I came into this place, I was lucky enough to have a debate on migration. It was, sadly, two days after 27 people were lost crossing the Channel—one of the biggest number of deaths that had happened. As I mentioned then, one noble Lord said to me before that debate, “I really don’t think we should be having this debate, because it’s going to be divisive”.
That is our problem. We have not been prepared to be honest, to face up to and talk about what people out there are talking about when they see pictures, as they saw over the weekend, of that very large number of predominantly young men. I went down to Dover during the previous Government with a group to see what was happening there. When you see all those young men coming off the boat, obviously relieved and pleased to be there and to be safe, and you realise that they are all 18 to 24 year-olds—yes, there might be one woman on the boat, or there might be a couple of babies that the criminal smugglers are very keen to put on board—the reality is that they cannot all be asylum seekers.
I know the figures that have been given. Supposedly 76% of the people who come have been given asylum. I have a number of questions for the Minister on this. Can he tell me how many extra people have been taken on to interview asylum seekers? Can he tell me what the training is and how long it takes before they are able to start meeting asylum seekers and assessing whether they are genuine? Some members of the public might think this is happening because we want to speed up the process and get the numbers down, but is there some kind of unwritten convention that it is much easier to tick the box and let the person stay? What happens to all the people who are turned down, who have thrown away their documents so we have no idea where to deport them back to? What has happened to the thousands—I am sure it is thousands—who have come in the past few years and literally just disappeared? Where are they all? Have we got figures on them? Those are things we need to know if we are going to get to the bottom of all of this.
Also, we have a very open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Jim Allister, the TUV Member of Parliament for North Antrim, asked a Question for Written Answer at the end of April:
“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what procedures are in place to check the movement of people over the Northern Ireland-Republic land border to identify illegal immigrants with no right to access the Common Travel Area”.
The answer was very clear:
“no immigration checks are undertaken on the Northern Ireland-Republic land border”.
Yet at the same time the Republic of Ireland is doing checks the other way at the border, even though it is the country that said that there should be no border there.
We have to be much more realistic, and much more honest. We cannot continue like this. It is unsustainable for any country to have so many people coming in who are not necessarily anti-British—of course they want to come to this country because the pull factor is huge—but we have no idea what their ideologies are. We have no idea whether they are going to get involved and genuinely become British citizens sharing some of our values. It is a drain on our public services, and most of all, it is shattering our cultural community feeling of togetherness. We need to accept that we have to do something. We will not smash the gangs unless we stop the boats. If we stop the boats, we stop the gangs.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I add my compliments to my noble friend Lord Harper on his characteristically deft maiden speech. With his great political experience, he will always command a hearing in this Chamber, although perhaps a few people will hope fervently that, as a former Chief Whip, he does not write his memoirs. However, we shall see about that.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I simply want to confine myself to one particular point, which is that we will not stop illegal immigration across the channel until we have a significant and strong deterrent. That is the fundamental fact of the matter, and that, of course, was the basis of the previous Government’s policy. That policy, which the current Government have now abandoned, was based on the experience of Australia. I remind the House that in 2001, a large number of people began to come across from Indonesia to the Northern Territory of Australia and the then Government, the Liberal-National Party coalition, enacted a series of legislative proposals that built up a system whereby people coming illegally into the north of Australia were detained and flown out to Nauru and the Solomon Islands. As a result of that, when it was finally in place, the boats stopped. Within two months, no more boats came from Indonesia or anywhere else.
In 2008, the Labor Government came in and immediately abolished that system. Immediately the boats came back, and within 18 months, 50,000 people were coming across the Timor Sea to northern Australia. The then Labor Government realised that they had made a mistake and hastily tried to reintroduce the Liberal-National proposals, but unfortunately they were too late and lost the general election. In 2013 the Liberal-National Government brought back the proposals in the form of the sovereign borders arrangements, and then the boats stopped again.
Sensibly, the Australian Labor Party then accepted the proposals and a bipartisan approach emerged. Not only that, but the bipartisan approach that was then adopted throughout Australia led to them dealing with not only illegal immigration but legal immigration, on a very understandable basis: there was a cap for each particular element of the legal elements, whether it was students, skilled workers, family people or asylum seekers, and a total. All that is discussed in parliament in an annual debate and is now bipartisan policy, and the Labor Government who accepted this have been re-elected to continue with this eminently sensible policy, which is, frankly, the sort of policy that we can only dream of in this country, and that was based on a bipartisan approach.
Of course, there are differences between the Australian situation and the UK’s: the Timor Sea is not exactly like the Channel Tunnel, the scrutiny that we get from the media is probably much heavier in this country than they have in Australia and the Australians do not have a European Commission of Human Rights to obey. But the fact is that, although there are differences, there are clear lessons from the Australian experience. First, deterrence is essential, as Martin Hewitt, the new Border Security Commander, recognised. The Times said:
“Martin Hewitt, who was named on Monday as Starmer’s border security commander to lead efforts to tackle the small boats crisis, is understood … to have advised that deterrence also needs to form part of the government’s strategy”.
This echoed an internal National Crime Agency memo that
“concluded that efforts to stop migrants crossing the Channel would fail without a deterrent such as … Rwanda”.
That is the first point: deterrence is essential.
The second point is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has just been saying, we need to update human rights law. As even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, has said, events move on; law should not be set in concrete and we need to look at it again. Nine European Union countries have already demanded that exactly that be done. Of course that will take time—there are 46 signatories to the ECHR—but in the meantime we need to separate out and disapply the elements relating to asylum and illegal immigration of this kind, with the hope that the whole thing can be resolved over time. That is the second point.
The third point is that we should also strive for some element of bipartisanship. It has been achieved successfully in Australia. On our own continent, Europe, Denmark has a bipartisan policy. In Australia the bipartisanship has been led by a centre-right party and in Denmark by a centre-left party. Surely the UK can do as well as those two countries. If not, why not?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, immigration is constantly presented as a negative—something to be scared of and to be feared. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill tries to address these fears, dealing primarily with illegal immigration, which we unanimously want to stop.
After all, 150,000 people on small boats came to the UK between 2018 and 2024, and 99% of them claimed asylum. Small boats have been the predominant recorded entry method since 2020. Some 86% of illegal irregular arrivals are from small boats. The most recent arrivals bring the annual total to almost 15,000, which is up 42% on this time last year and up 95% from 2023. Of course, we know of the more than 1,100 who arrived on Saturday.
The channel crossing crisis has placed an enormous burden on our asylum system. The National Audit Office says that it is going to cost over £15 billion over 10 years. I am a trustee of Policy Exchange, which reported that the annual cost of the small boats crisis was in the region of £3.6 billion. This is costing us; there is no question about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, spoke about the people smugglers and the traffickers who cause untold misery. Some 138 people have sadly died attempting to cross the channel. Of course, there are other methods of transport, such as container lorries; let us not forget the sad incident of the 39 Vietnamese nationals who died in a lorry in Essex.
There is the organised immigration crime—OIC—business model. Criminal groups are increasingly using sophisticated methods to smuggle migrants across the border with fraudulent documents. They are using social media. It is appalling. Surely the good news is that resetting our relationship with the European Union, particularly on security, will enable us to work closer and prevent these awful criminals.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, pointed out that the net migration figure went from 1 million to 430,000 last year. Let us put this into context: illegal immigration is around 10% of this figure and 90% of the immigration to this country is legal immigration. He then spoke about birth rates. Let us get real; I do not know what the noble Lord is talking about. Our birth rate in this country is 1.44. We need a birth rate of over 2.0 to actually maintain our population at the moment, which is nearly 70 million.
The net migration figure was unusually high in the year ending June 2024, which was driven by two reasons. First, there was the demand for workers in the health and care sector. Secondly, there was the increase in international student numbers. We keep including international students in net migration figures. We should remove them. Would the Minister agree?
As a former president of the CBI and currently as chair of the International Chamber of Commerce in the UK, I know that there are labour shortages in just about every sector of our economy. When it comes to resetting our relationship with the European Union, I am delighted that the Erasmus scheme has come back to give so many opportunities to our young students to be able to travel abroad.
What about the scheme for young people moving for three years between the EU and the UK? Could we have some clarification on that and on the post-graduation work visa, which I worked very hard to institute in this country? It is two years post-graduation for international students and three years for PhD students. There is talk that this will come down to 18 months. This does not make sense. Could the Minister clarify this because the Migration Advisory Committee last year reported that it is working very well as intended?
The international student figure has now reduced from 680,000 to 450,000. The reasons for this are immigration policies, the expense of studying over here and the cost of visas. The value of international students is £42 billion to our economy. Far more important is the soft power that international students bring to this country; 25% of world leaders today have been educated in the United Kingdom.
There are these negative perceptions. I worked very hard on the UK-India free trade agreement, which we have just agreed. It took over three years. Yet there was this whole focus on the national insurance waiver for three years, which goes both ways between the UK and India. This is only fair, and it is to do with workers who come here on the points-based system and mostly the transfer of workers between companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in his excellent speech, said that everyone should have an identity card. Why do we not have an identity card system in this country? India has the Aadhaar cards for over 1 billion people, giving financial inclusion, digital inclusion and security. We have only 70 million people. We have a model; India has offered us that model. We have no exit checks at our borders. Every other country in the world has exit checks at the borders. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke about integration. I am all for integration—not assimilation, but integration. He spoke about international students as well.
To conclude, the bad immigration which this Bill is trying to address is bad—full stop. But this country has always had a reputation for fairness and justice, and welcomes genuine refugees and asylum seekers. It is the good immigration that has made Great Britain great. Without the 18% of ethnic minorities in the UK, this country would not still be the sixth largest economy in the world.
I came to this country as a 19 year-old international student from India, as a Tata scholar, a Mahindra scholar and a Sethna scholar. I have had the opportunity to live the British dream. The Indian diaspora in this country is 2 million strong, out of 70 million. It is the largest ethnic-minority community and, I say with pride, the most successful one in this country, reaching the top in every field, from business to academia to politics. So let us not fear immigration; let us celebrate the good immigration that this country has always benefited from and that we should be proud of and grateful for.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harper on such an accomplished maiden speech. I look forward to future contributions in this debate and other debates in the House.
It seems a lot longer than two years ago that I spoke in the Second Reading debate on the previous Government’s Rwanda Bill. In that contribution, I tried to make a case—perhaps unconvincingly—that in terms of the social contract with the British people on immigration, we, the political establishment, were in the last chance saloon. I tried to make the point that the inflows of illegal migration, and indeed the explosion of legal migration, meant that it was becoming impossible for any UK Government to create, with any significant public support, more routes for the very people who were desperately seeking refuge. I said all this with a heavy heart. I am afraid that the social contract between government and people on immigration has only deteriorated over the past two years.
I am sad to say that it seems difficult to imagine a Government commanding public support for a Syrian, Afghan, Hong Kong or indeed Ukraine resettlement scheme at this point in time. This is not a party-political point; I fully acknowledge that much of the collapse of public confidence in the immigration system came on this side’s watch. I therefore looked forward to a new Government with a fresh mandate carrying on a radical programme to ensure that we as a country could rebuild the trust and confidence required to operate a properly regulated and controlled border—and, importantly for me, to once again give the public confidence to support future resettlement schemes that are currently politically impossible for government to introduce.
There are elements in this Bill that I of course support: the creation of new offences, longer sentences for breaking immigration law and incorporating all sex offenders within Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, on refoulement. I also fully support the international efforts that the Government have made in addressing the root causes of illegal immigration, most especially the small boats. However, I ask the Minister: do the Government really think that the measures contained within the Bill will act as a deterrent for what is a hugely lucrative industry, in the form of people smuggling, when the prospective victims of people smuggling can see waves of new arrivals every week? Do they really think that the measures contained in the Bill help to build public trust in the current state of our border controls?
I was a reluctant supporter of the Rwanda scheme, but I understood that it was bold and radical enough to act as a deterrent and, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Horam, similar schemes had had success in Australia and Denmark. The Government have proudly abandoned the scheme in the Bill, but, at the same time, No. 10 Downing Street continues to brief out attempts to find a partner for offshore processing. The writing is on the wall. The Government will get into a situation where a scheme very like the Rwanda scheme will need to be applied. However, we will first go through two years of angst-ridden incremental steps that achieve very little and further build public exasperation. I understand this because that is exactly what the Conservatives did over the last few years. Only in the last years of the previous Government were we able to take the steps that halved legal migration and achieve parliamentary approval for the Rwanda scheme, which would have acted as a deterrent for illegal migration.
Getting control of our borders is not for me, I assure your Lordships, some nativist, nostalgic look to the past. Failure to act and rebuild public confidence by drastically reducing illegal migration only harms one group in the end—the very refugees who would be granted asylum through resettlement schemes that could command public and therefore political support. With every day that passes without real action, the ability of this country to help the most desperate recedes.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Harper on his entertaining and eloquent maiden speech.
In his opening speech, the Minister said that one aim of this Bill was to provide a properly functioning immigration system. To do that, it is necessary to ensure that there is no abuse of the system. One way of making sure there is no abuse is to ensure that the Government do not operate a rigid points-based system but allow discretion to immigration officers. I have raised that point in this Chamber with the Minister before, and he—inadvertently, I am sure—failed to respond to the issue when I raised it. But I would like the Government to consider this as an important aspect of the immigration system.
The main point that I would like to refer to is one that has been raised by a number of other speakers in this debate—namely, the impact of this legislation on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Despite all the protestations from the then Opposition Benches about the impact on the victims of slavery and trafficking of the Nationality and Borders Act and the Illegal Migration Act when they were passing through Parliament, the Government have retained aspects of those Acts, which will have an impact on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Indeed, they have introduced new measures in this Bill which will make it harder for us to identify those victims and harder for us to provide support for them, and therefore less likely that they will come forward.
Modern slavery and human trafficking is the greatest human rights issue of our time. That alone should make the Government reconsider those elements of this legislation. But more than that, if it is harder for us to identify the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking; if it is more difficult for those victims to come forward because of lack of support; if it is easier for the slave drivers and traffickers to use government legislation as a threat to hold people in exploitation, then it will be harder to smash the gangs—and I thought the Minister said, in his opening speech, that smashing the gangs was one of the aims of this Bill. As regards the impact on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, the Government need to think again.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I would like to say “More, more” to that. I thank the Minister for his straightforward introduction. I think that he would be worried if he had received a unanimous welcome for the Bill today—and we have heard some rather different views. To pick up the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, from his maiden speech, which I really enjoyed, we on these Benches are destined not to agree. I congratulate him on his speech.
At this time of night, I do not want to spend time on matters on which, over quite some years, we have spent a lot of time and emotion opposing. As my noble friends made clear, we welcome what we can—and there is a good deal to welcome. The repeals take up so little space in the Bill that it might be easy to spend too little time on them, but we will not shy away from probing the principled detail and workability of a number of provisions. There are several where we are some way from sharing the Government’s approach.
The Bill includes policies on which, as others have said, many organisations in the sector are providing very useful comments: we thank them. We will seek to persuade the Government of a number of policies and actions for which we have argued over some years—sometimes alongside the Labour Party, though we will try to be tactful about that—including allowing asylum seekers whose claim is not determined to work, retrieve their dignity and pay their way, in jobs which are much less restricted than those in the shortage occupation list. If applications are dealt with within a reasonable time, this should not be too much of an ask.
Where we can within the Bill’s scope, we will try to head off some of the plans trailed in the immigration White Paper, or introduced by recent rule changes, which are causing so much anxiety and distress. The new criteria for the good-character requirement for citizenship and the doubling, retrospectively, of the period of settlement are high on our list, as are the language and financial requirements—these are, to me, a somewhat skewed way of looking at integration. It is clear that a lot of UK citizens’ family members are affected by what the White Paper heralds, and the more the Minister can clarify the details of the residence requirements tonight, the better.
If public trust in the system is to be regained, respecting immigrants and asylum seekers as individuals, not some anonymous other, must be one way to do it, rather than conflating asylum and immigration. As has been said tonight, we must be clear in our language. I welcome the reflective speeches we have heard tonight that have focused on how we debate these issues. We must ensure too that people who have been, and in some cases still are being, exploited and abused are protected and supported, not punished. That is our responsibility.
The Minister will not be surprised that we will argue for practical mechanisms and safe routes to provide refuge for more people who need refuge because they come from conflict-afflicted areas—Sudan has been mentioned several times—or because of who they are. We know that we cannot provide for everyone, but we must do better. I refer any noble Lord who thinks we have been coy about our policy on safe and legal routes to look at our manifesto at the last election.
Nor will the Minister be surprised that we will again be seeking a more humane approach to family reunion, especially where children are involved. We continue to resist the notion that lone refugee children are a “pull factor”; it is push factors that make them lone refugee children. I have no doubt that we will spend time on children’s protection and needs: my noble friend Lady Brinton and others will see to that.
I turn to the Bill with which we are presented. We welcome the repeals of extreme and cruel legislation, but it does not go far enough. My noble friend mentioned detention. It is disconcerting and worrying that the Government are not dealing with clauses that adversely affect victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. As I say, we need more repeals. We know that positive action and support are needed to make the UK world-leading again. We did not stay here one night till 4.16 am to vote on age assessment not to address now all the concerns that we still have.
For myself, I am underwhelmed by the clauses relating to the Border Security Commander. As the post was established, I think, the day after the general election, and that must in large part have been presentational—a very useful term—what have we been without for the last 10 months? I have to say that I do not care for the notion that responsibility does not sit squarely with the Home Office.
This is perhaps something and nothing compared to what is under the heading “Other border security provision”. Of course, smugglers are to be condemned and responded to as organised criminals, with money, a lot of it, as their objective, and never mind who is damaged on the way, but some of the offences as drafted will criminalise people who must be recognised as victims forced into certain actions. When smugglers’ victims are, by definition, on hand to be forced to steer boats, for instance, how is this a deterrence to the real criminals or indeed to those who are simply seeking refuge?
TPIMs-type conditions which are lacking in safeguards cast people as criminals, and I accept some who will be affected are, but will these become routine? Will they be used routinely on people who are on immigration bail or who actually have limited leave? What about detention with retrospective powers,
“while the Secretary of State considers whether to make a deportation order”
and “always having had effect”?
I know that the Government do not propose to tag students, though it seems to be possible, but—especially in view of what is happening in the US—let us promote the UK’s universities, not send out a message that they, among others, are viewed with suspicion rather than to be welcomed.
Why is Part 3, “Prevention of serious crime”, in this Bill when we have a Crime and Policing Bill coming along? Mind you, I know it is already very chunky. We certainly resist any suggestion that asylum seekers as a group should be categorised as serious criminals or indeed criminals.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Ludford—like my noble friend Lord Oates, who cannot be here today—is prepared to take on the brain-scrambling Clause 42.
Over the years, we on these Benches have expressed our discomfort—to put it at its lowest—with civil orders which can morph into criminal penalties, and we will want to be very careful with serious crime prevention orders.
I have mentioned Clause 41. Powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations or use discretion are the bread and butter of this House’s work. Before anyone interrupts me, I am aware of the report of the DPRR Committee’s report.
Who could oppose cracking down further on bad immigration advisers? However, what would help more would be more legal aid and not having IAA fees at a level which may have an adverse effect on the numbers of skilled advisers; there is so much unmet need now.
Clauses about data always need our care. I am interested in the point made by one organisation in the sector that the UK should have safeguards to ensure it is not transferring biometric information in such a way that it may place the subject at risk.
It is not a matter for legislation, but on Saturday I received a plea for help with a long-outstanding application for ILR, with the Home Office writing that that there are “technical reasons” for the delay—this is not the case on which I have been in correspondence with the Minister, including this morning. One gets the feeling that there must be piles of too difficult, non-standard applications left on one side; improving efficiency is not only about numbers, but about the tricky cases too.
We look forward to what the JCHR has to say about the Bill, and maybe the Constitution Committee too.
We will strive to turn this Bill into legislation that is focused not on deterrence—which we do not think is likely to be effective—nor on punishment, but a positive response to one of the big issues of our day. By Committee, I might have thought of some music relevant to it.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today, over the course of this evening. The Bill’s focus, as the Minister stated at the outset, is illegal or irregular migration. I am grateful to him for laying out the rationale and context for the Bill, though I depart from him on much of the substance.
I particularly commend the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Harper. Given his long and distinguished career in the other place, as well as his time in government—as an Immigration Minister at one point—it is perhaps unsurprising that his excellent speech today was both illuminating and incisive. I for one look forward to many more contributions from him in the years ahead.
This debate has made for a stimulating and wide-ranging discussion on one of the most important areas of responsibility for any Government: the control of our borders. That phrase is an interesting one, because it was only at the weekend that we heard a member of the Government admitting that the UK has lost control of our borders. This was a startling admission from the Secretary of State for Defence, no less, on a weekend that saw the highest daily total of arrivals this year—1,195 people on 19 boats—and the fourth highest figure ever recorded.
However, I admire this frankness—we need to be frank. We need unflinching candour, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough put it so elegantly. Controlling our borders is fundamental to our national security and to our integrity as a sovereign nation. Despite the decades of peace and globalisation we have all experienced over the last 80 years, it remains the first and foremost duty of any Government. We also need to recognise that controlling our borders is a way in which we define, sustain and protect our national identity, not just our national security.
I mentioned the events of the last weekend, because the situation we are seeing now is dire. Small boat crossings are up 30% on last year, and since this Government were elected last July, the numbers have increased. Almost 37,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in 2024. Of those who arrived that year, more than 23,000 did so after the election.
For all the condemnation we have heard tonight of the Rwanda Act, let us not pretend that the last year under the current Government has been anything other than a resounding failure in terms of illegal crossings. The gangs, self-evidently, have not been smashed.
This situation is untenable, but it is also, tragically, costing lives. The UN estimates that at least 78 migrants died in 2024, making it the deadliest year on record. It says that at least 225 migrants have lost their lives when attempting to cross since 2018. This is an unlawful route of entry into the UK, overseen by gangsters, that is, tragically, taking its toll of human life. That is why, among many other matters, we have to deter people from making this journey. None of this should be controversial.
I am sure that I am joined by noble Lords from across the House when I say that it is incumbent on the Government as a matter of supreme urgency to introduce measures which are courageous, bold and definitive enough to stop this level of illegal migration from happening. With regret, I do not believe the legislative proposals we have before us will achieve this.
Given the scale of the problems we face, I hope the Government will seriously consider the many concerns that have been raised today by those who have called for more stringent measures. My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower outlined many of these issues in his opening speech.
In a moment, I will concentrate on some specific points where we believe there are significant problems with the Bill, but before I do so, I would like to address its context; namely, the provisions which are designed largely to undo the work of the last Government in terms of the Illegal Migration and safety of Rwanda Acts.
It is unsurprising that a new Administration will seek to undo some of the policies of their predecessor of a different political hue—that is democratic politics, after all. But let us be clear about the reality of what this will actually mean. It will mean that the Home Secretary is no longer duty-bound to make arrangements to remove illegal migrants to their home country or a safe country; it will mean that some illegal migrants are allowed to obtain British citizenship; and it will mean that asylum seekers will no longer be treated as over 18 if they refuse to take a scientific age assessment.
Those are just a few of the reasons why we believe the Bill will not succeed. If you were contemplating an illegal crossing into the UK, would a degree of protection from removal, British citizenship, and a bypass of age checks make you more or less likely to attempt the trip as an illegal migrant? More likely, of course.
As my noble friend Lord Goschen said, it is important to ask why people try to come to the UK illegally. The answer to that lies in part in the provisions of the Bill, I contend. In removing these key provisions, the Government propose to replace them with new offences, which are one example, we say, of where technical measures simply will not work in practice. The Bill creates a new offence of selling and handling small boat parts for use in channel crossings. The Bill will also make it illegal to supply life jackets suspected of being for use by people-smuggling gangs and to supply forged ID documents. These are very specific, technical points.
However, simply as a matter of logic, criminalising such activity makes little sense. These supply chains are based in Europe. The boats are coming from France to the UK. The point at which the lifejackets, boats and any forged documents get to the UK is when they appear on the beaches where illegal migrants are landed—at which point, I am afraid, it is far too late. It may be that there is provision in the Bill for such offences to occur outside the UK, but the reality is that, by the time perpetrators are prosecuted, the boats will have arrived. In essence, the Government are proposing to tear up laws that created a direct disincentive to make the journey in the first place and replace them with a list of new offences, which in practice will operate only once migrants are already here.
Other problems with this Bill include the proposal for a new Border Security Commander. Despite the title, if we dig a little below the surface, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, we find that what the Government are actually proposing is a civil servant acquiring a redesignated role and, if I may add, a somewhat vague remit—and that is before we get to the potential for duplicating the work of the Small Boats Operational Command. This proposal does not appear to add value at present.
The Explanatory Notes for the Bill set out that the Border Security Commander will be responsible for setting the Government’s strategic priorities for border security. Surely that strategic priority is simple and can be stated in one sentence: stopping illegal migration and protecting our borders. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary do not need a new agency or office to tell them this.
Does the Minister believe that, in addressing this issue, we need to take tougher steps to crack down on organised crime in this area? Would he support amendments that might be tabled in Committee to strengthen the powers of the Border Security Commander so that, when the Bill leaves this place, it proposes a cogent and effective office, able to tackle head on the crisis that we are discussing?
I turn to the importance of a deterrent and its absence from the Bill—a point that many noble Lords have made. We need to prioritise stopping people making the journey in the first place. As my noble friend Lord Lilley said—far more eloquently than I can—the only way we can address this problem is by creating a substantial and meaningful deterrent. If we want illegal migrants to stop coming, we must give them no reason whatever to want to come to the UK; otherwise, they will go to any lengths to circumvent even the strongest legal prohibitions.
The numbers I cited earlier show that people-smuggling gangs are circumventing the law as it stands already—and that is before the Government repeal large swathes of the last Government’s immigration legislation. Surely the Minister cannot be confident that this Bill contains a serious, coherent deterrent to people who are weighing up the decision to cross the channel. The changes proposed to citizenship and staying in the UK simply will not deter people who want to come here illegally. As my noble friend Lord Harper said, the Bill might lead to the removal of the Rwanda Act from the statute book but it contains no deterrent itself. This point was also made by my noble friends Lord Swire, Lord McInnes and Lord Horam, and others.
We have some suggestions for the Minister, which I hope he will consider seriously as we progress to Committee. I have suggested some of these policies already in the Chamber. The first is that we automatically deport anyone who arrives into our country via an illegal, unlawful route. We are a caring and considerate nation. People across this country have opened their homes and their family lives to refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan. There are other successful resettlement schemes. We have safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum in our country, so we should not tolerate people skipping the queue by trying to enter illegally. The British people possess a profound compassion, but they also have a deep sense of fair play. When that kindness and fairness are exploited, we should not tolerate it—especially as it comes at the expense of people who do use legal, recognised routes to seek asylum.
Secondly, we propose that the Human Rights Act be disapplied from all immigration matters. This would prevent foreign nationals from exploiting our courts with tenuous human rights arguments designed to avoid deportation or exploit the asylum system. The Human Rights Act is of course designed to protect and uphold fundamental rights, but this is demonstrably not how it is used in matters of immigration. I speak as someone who, in a past life as a lawyer, has acted for asylum seekers. The Human Rights Act has been used to prevent the deportation of convicted foreign criminals. It is tying the hands of government and preventing the deportation of those who cause harm in our communities.
I note with interest what the current Government have said about the interpretation of Article 8 in immigration cases. There is an acceptance by the Home Secretary herself that the application of Article 8 of the convention raises significant concerns. Those who have little respect for fundamental rights should not be able to hide behind such rights when their actions catch up with them. This is a sensible proposal that will ensure that foreign criminals are no longer able to impose themselves on the communities they harm.
Finally, we on these Benches encourage the Government to adopt a legally binding annual cap on migration, voted on by Parliament. A measure that limits levels of migration requires political courage, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, stated. This would ensure that migration levels are determined by the British people through their elected representatives. For decades, the British people have demanded, and politicians have promised, dramatically lower immigration. For decades, successive Governments—and, of course, I freely accept that that includes the previous one—have not delivered. It is now time to deliver what the public want. We propose that the Government should be legally tied to a cap—a promise in law to control immigration in line with what communities up and down the country are telling us is their limit. I anticipate that the Minister will welcome a proposal of a cap. If he and the Government are confident that the measures in the Bill will reduce the numbers of people coming here illegally, making themselves accountable to the British people is surely something they will support.
To conclude, the debate has raised many interesting points. I am sure that we all agree that this is a profoundly serious issue and one that is of fundamental importance to people across the United Kingdom. The simple fact is that we need to stop people coming here illegally, and I do not believe, with respect to the Minister, that the proposals in the Bill will do that. We need a system closed to criminals and which is intolerant of those trying to exploit its structures and free to take the necessary steps to protect our borders and communities. More than anything, we need a forceful, effective deterrent to stop people coming here illegally in the first place.
We intend to push our proposals in Committee to make this a Bill that does deter illegal migrants. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House as we progress to the first day in Committee. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We commenced at 6.09 pm, and four hours and four minutes later we are coming to a conclusion. I sense, however, that this has been only an hors d’oeuvre for what will come in Committee as we consider this matter further.
We have had a thoughtful debate, and I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady in saying that language and tone are extremely important in how we approach these debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, mentioned, there are forces who will exploit these matters if we—both Houses of Parliament—do not deal with these issues effectively.
Before I turn to the Bill, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for his maiden speech. He was right that I shadowed him for a while in the House of Commons when he was the Minister. I did indeed go to Calais in 2014 and tried to put some points to both him and the then Home Secretary. While we had our disagreements, I do not think that we fell out over those issues. We had a civilised relationship, which I hope will continue. He gave a confident maiden speech today, and I particularly welcome his comments about the late Sir Roy Stone, who served in the Whips’ Office for all parties for many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about an orchestra. We have had some cohesion in the sense that there are some areas of agreement today: we have agreement that we need to look at the issues of prevention and that we need a deterrent, although we disagreed about what that deterrent should be. We have had some discussion about safe routes, and I will come to that in a moment. We have had agreement on the security command and the need for that co-ordination, and we have had agreement on international obligations being met. I want to assure my noble friend Lord Sahota and other noble Lords who raised this that we will maintain our international agreements and co-operation as currently set out in law. I will talk to each of those points in a moment.
The debate also covered a range of issues to do with the role of students, employment, family reunion, net migration, exit and entry, regulation, integration, pressure on homes, the value of migration and statistics, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned and are important. I say to noble Lords—and that includes the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Jackson, Lord Green, Lord Blunkett, Lord Goodman, Lord Macdonald, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord McInnes, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Sahota, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor, Lady Brinton and Lady May—that those issues are at the heart of the immigration White Paper, which does not form part of the Bill but is a good background to the issues that have been raised and will form part of the Government’s ongoing strategy to develop an approach to migration issues. While they are important, I do not want to ignore them, but I do not want to focus on them today because today’s focus is about the question of this legislation and what we do about the predominantly illegal migration—irregular migration—that is taking place.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who kicked off this debate, how we have got to where we are today. The issues with hotel accommodation, asylum use and levels of small boat incursion did not happen since 4 July last year; they are long-term systemic issues over which his Government presided. Collectively, we have to look at solutions.
There have been many views on the Bill and its provisions put forward today by Members of this House. The Government are trying to put some measures in place to deal with those key issues. The first of those—and this goes to the heart of a number of points that were made, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor—is on the question of deterrence.
We have taken a decision to repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act. That was welcomed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bryan of Partick, Lady Brinton, Lady Lister, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. But there is a clear difference of opinions on the Rwanda Act between the noble Lords and the current Government, and that is that we need a deterrent. The deterrent is about capturing boats, looking at assets and putting measures in place to disrupt those gangs, but it is not the Rwanda scheme as determined by the previous Government. That already spent £700 million of taxpayers’ money to send back only four people who went voluntarily.
During the period after that Bill became law to when this Government determined that it would be repealed, 84,000 people still crossed the channel. That was not a deterrent for those individuals at that stage. So we need a deterrent, and the deterrent we need is the type of arrests that the noble Lord asked me to look at and which we have made already: arrests among a Syrian organised crime group linked to 750 migrants from the UK and Europe since 4 July; the arrest of a Turkish national suspected of being a supplier of small boats; the conviction of two men from Wales who ran a smuggling gang; the arrest of six men in Belgium; NCA support for German law enforcement operations with 13 arrests across Germany and France; and the NCA establishing, with authorities in Libya and Kurdistan—a region of Iraq—how we actually tackle smuggling at that upstream level. Those are deterrents, and we need a deterrent. I and the Government do not believe that the Rwanda scheme was effective.
The question of what we do in place of that is very important. The Bill establishes Border Security Command. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, rightly asked, “What are the key performance indicators on that?” For us, they are a reduction in the number of migrant crossings, an increase in prosecutions and a disruption of the gangs, and we will discuss that as the Bill goes forward. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, my noble friend Lord McInnes and the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, raised that issue. The commander in place will provide strategic cross-system leadership, is already engaging with nations in the European Union about what we need to do together, and has already worked with the NCA, the Home Secretary and others to establish both the Iraq scheme that we put in place and new co-operations with the imaginatively named Calais group to look at how we can reduce the number of crossings at that level.
There are indicators that need to be put in place, and we will be judged on those indicators and on those manifesto commitments. But our work with the French already has prevented 9,000 crossings this year. Germany, through the work of the Border Security Commander, is looking to change its laws so that it can prosecute people upstream on supply. We have secured the landmark agreement with Iraq and have set up the new border command with £150 million-worth of support. Yes, there need to be indicators, as the noble Viscount mentioned, but I believe that is an important issue that we have undertaken.
Just to help the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, as well as the actions that we have taken to date, we scrapped the “Bibby Stockholm”, which she mentioned; we have taken a range of actions to do with current accommodation; we are committed to reduce the level of asylum hotels; and we are committed to use the resource from the scheme that we have scrapped in Rwanda to speed up the processing of asylum claims in order to determine who has a genuine asylum claim according to our international obligations, who does not, and then to remove them. Part of the importance of the Bill is to put that framework in place.
A number of noble Members raised the question of safe and legal routes, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick. The UK has a strong history of providing protection through our safe and legal routes, and we want to continue to welcome refugees and people in need. As Members will know, we already have bespoke routes to sanctuary, such as the Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong schemes, and in relation to Sudan we have already accepted 300 nationals to be resettled through our schemes as of September 2024.
The safe and legal routes are there. Do we need to review them and look at how we meet our international obligations? Yes, we do. Again, I refer to the immigration White Paper before us. On the safe and legal route option—my noble friend Lord Dubs discussed his family reunion option—there are safe and legal routes that we can look at, but I am sure I will discuss with my noble friend, as I have done already, his concerns during upcoming stages, and I will give consideration as to how we can improve understanding, knowledge and action in those areas.
Noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the wider work with the EU: my noble friend Lord Dubs mentioned that particularly, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Bilimoria. It is extremely important, and one of the things that the Government will not do is stand back from Europe. We will not revisit the Brexit debate—we cannot do that—but we can look at how we can improve co-operation on key issues. That means law enforcement but also a whole range of things. We have extra support with Europol, and we had the EU-UK summit on 19 May, where a new wide-ranging package of measures that address all elements of the global challenge was discussed.
Again, deterrence is also about understanding the problem; the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned very clearly how we understand that problem. One of the things we need to do is to work with our European partners—not our European Union partners any more but still our European partners—to assess and examine the challenge of irregular migration upstream. That is one thing that we are trying to do collectively to improve that European work.
Turning to the question from my noble friend Lord Dubs, we have done a lot of work with France on organised international crime, because it is a shared problem in which all nations have a role to play. It is really important that we have, through Border Security Command, operational activity at a local level with the nations that border us. The results of that have seen 600 boats and engines already taken down, 30,000 returns since the election—a 12% increase over the previous period—a 23% increase in enforced returns and an increase in foreign national offender removals. Those are important issues. They are in the Bill, but they are also areas that we need to look at as part of the immigration White Paper as a whole.
Let me turn to modern slavery, because I understand and note the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady May, and others. The sole modern slavery provision in the Bill would allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public grounds. The Home Office has committed to working with partners to agree priorities on long-term reform as part of the national referral mechanism. I understand what the noble Baroness said, but I will look at that issue, because I do not want to see watering down of modern slavery provisions. I supported the Bill, now an Act, that she took through as Home Secretary some 10 years ago, and I want to make sure that we deal with that. But the purpose of the modern slavery provision that we are looking at is dealing with foreign national offenders who are involved in modern slavery. I heard what she said today. We will look at that, and there is an opportunity to examine those issues as we progress the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord McInnes and Lord Swire, mentioned third-country processing. That is not the Rwanda scheme. Examinations are ongoing with partners across Europe. Scoping work has shown that it is a model that could meet our international obligations and reduce the burden of illegal migration on UK shores. We will work closely with international partners to look at the global migration crisis as a whole.
I will end with a couple of other issues that have been mentioned. The EU settlement scheme was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The clause on EU citizens’ rights is designed to confirm as a matter of UK law what the UK has sought to do in practice since the UK settlement scheme was established. Again, I have heard what she said. I hope that when we look at that in detail, we can take on board those issues and debate them in full, but I hope we can give her some satisfaction on those issues as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also raised a number of key points. Again, I will reflect on those, as I hope she knows I will.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark mentioned the detention pilot. I give him an assurance that the department is going to keep under review the feasibility of the alternatives to the detention pilot, taking into account effectiveness and cost-efficiency, as part of our plans to transform the asylum and return system. Again, I will refer to him in due course on those issues. Our international obligations are extremely important. The Bill does not include them, but there is an opportunity within the discussion on the Bill to outline still further what we are doing on those issues.
We have had a wide-ranging debate on migration and immigration issues today. Much of that is outside the scope of this Bill. I understand why it been linked to the Bill, but it is outside its scope. The Bill is designed to focus predominantly on illegal migration. In doing so, we have established Border Security Command, which we are giving the power to track and confiscate mobile phones. We are looking at how to deal with downstream suppliers and doing what we said we would do in our manifesto, which is to disrupt and spoil the gangs that are operating this evil cross-channel trade. That is what the Bill will do, and I defy anyone in this House to say any that of the measures in the Bill to take action against those criminal gangs should not be undertaken.
We will have an honest debate about the deterrence issue and about the repeal of the Rwanda Bill. We believe that we have alternatives to that, but the measures in this Bill are worthy of support. How we look at integration, employment and students, how we encourage family reunion, how we build a society in which people are respected but also integrated and how we value the people who have come to this country over many years and through many generations are issues in the White Paper, which will be debated.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive and helpful summing-up of the debate. He will understand that the current discussions around reforming the ECHR are germane to this Bill and wider immigration issues. There are nine countries doing that. This Government have not availed themselves of the opportunity to take part. If he cannot answer now, will he undertake to write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, explaining why that is the case?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are aware that a letter has been circulated by countries, which is perfectly legitimate. They are countries within the European Union; we are outside the European Union now. We will look at the provisions of Article 8 and how we can interpret them but maintaining—very importantly for those Members who have raised these issues—our integral role as a member and supporter of the ECHR. That is a critical part of our international obligations, but it does not mean that we cannot look at interpretations and examine how we implement those regulations in a UK context. We will do that. I will certainly give the noble Lord a fuller reply in a letter, but I hope that reassures him that we will look at those issues.
I will look at Hansard in detail. I have sat through every minute of the debate today and heard every contribution in full. I look forward to the debates we will have on specific amendments and specific clauses. However, I look to this House to give support to the Government’s proposals to tackle criminal gangs who are exploiting people and bringing people to this country in an illegal way, even if those people have legitimate asylum claims. This is being done by criminal gangs for illegal profit. We need international co-operation to tackle the downstream issues and to tackle the gangs at source.
I commend this Bill to the House today in order to continue that progress and to ensure that we have a full debate in Committee on its contents and the suggestions that will undoubtedly come forward from all sides of the House.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 40, Schedule 1, Clauses 41 to 53, Schedule 2, Clauses 54 to 63 Title.