Oral Answers to Questions
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The Government are determined to reduce youth reoffending as part of our safer streets mission. Despite the fiscal challenges we inherited, we have increased our core funding to youth offending teams and extended our effective Turnaround programme.
Chris Webb
I thank the Minister for his answer. In a recent survey on the impact of the cost of living on childhood in Blackpool, six in 10 respondents told me that they were worried about children in their care becoming involved in crime or antisocial behaviour. The link between deprivation and crime is clear, and it highlights the urgent need for a dedicated cross-Government strategy to improve the lives of young people in Blackpool and across the country. What steps is the Minister taking, alongside other colleagues in Government, to ensure co-ordinated action to tackle youth crime and reoffending rates in vulnerable communities such as Blackpool?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We are working across Government to tackle the root causes of youth offending. We are also creating the Young Futures programme, which will have prevention partnerships, so that we can intervene earlier. The child poverty taskforce will soon publish a cross-Government strategy for reducing child poverty.
Alex McIntyre
I thank the Minister for his response. It is so important that we break the cycle of reoffending, particularly for young offenders. In Gloucester, we are really lucky to have amazing organisations working with young offenders, including Young Gloucestershire and the Nelson Trust, which offers holistic trauma-informed support for women of all ages. Will the Minister join me on a visit to the Nelson Trust to see the great work being done in my city of Gloucester?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of essential organisations such as Young Gloucestershire and the Nelson Trust. I am grateful for the invitation, and ask him to please write to me about the organisations. We will see what my diary can do.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Somerset Youth Justice Service recently got a “requires improvement” rating from His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation. The situation is clearly damaging young offenders’ chances of rehabilitation, so what steps is the Department taking to improve SYJS and support young offenders in Somerset?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Lady draws attention to an important issue. Inspections are significant in identifying where additional support and effort are needed. The Department will do everything it can to give proper support to Somerset Youth Justice Service.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Minister agree that probation services in North Down and across the UK often exceed their duties, providing extensive support to individuals in need? Furthermore, does he agree that it is essential to allocate resources for substance abuse treatment, so that young offenders have access to personalised services?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I agree wholeheartedly. It is very important that substance abuse is properly tackled. Probation services and youth offending teams do a lot of work in that space.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The Government are taking action to support victims of domestic abuse and violence. We are ensuring stronger management of domestic abuse perpetrators through new domestic abuse protection orders and the increased multi-agency management of domestic abusers; that is being expanded to those convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour. In response to the sentencing review published last week, I committed to further protections for victims, including the roll-out of domestic abuse specialist courts and better identification of domestic abuse perpetrators.
Sarah Green
My constituent was subject to financial, physical and emotional abuse by her ex. She was also cyber-stalked; her social media accounts were hacked for details of her location, and for information about their children. Despite being granted a non-molestation order and a prohibited steps order, she was unable to compile sufficient evidence of the cyber-stalking to be granted a stalking protection order. Speaking to her, her fear is palpable. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that victims are supported in compiling the evidence that they need for a stalking protection order?
Shabana Mahmood
I am very sorry to hear of the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituent; it is clearly a horrifying case, and my sympathies are with her. Given that stalking protection orders are relatively new, there is a case for continually examining whether their roll-out is working as intended. They are primarily a Home Office responsibility, but there are amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is going through the House, that are designed to strengthen these orders. If the hon. Lady will write to me, I will ensure that she has a meeting with the relevant Minister to talk through the specifics of the case that she has raised, and the lessons that can be learned as we strengthen these orders for everyone.
Marsha De Cordova
In April, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner warned that without additional funding, London will see a sustained increase in violence against women and girls. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been working tirelessly to fix the broken system left by the Conservatives, but if we do not get that support in London, women will go unprotected. Will she commit to working with colleagues in the Home Office and the Treasury to ensure that the Met can keep women safe in my constituency and across London?
Shabana Mahmood
Of course, we work closely with colleagues in the Home Office and the Treasury. The Government will shortly publish the outcome of the spending review, but I can assure my hon. Friend that all colleagues across Government are committed to our mission to halve violence against women and girls, for victims not just in London but across the country. I will ensure that we engage with Members across the House on this matter as well.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
We inherited a justice system in crisis, with prisons churning out better criminals, not better citizens, and we know that 80% of offenders are reoffenders. Last week, I announced measures to toughen up community punishment, which results in lower reoffending rates than short custodial sentences. We will also increase probation investment to manage offenders in the community safely.
Warinder Juss
Will the Lord Chancellor outline the steps being taken to recruit and retain probation officers, and to ensure that they have manageable caseloads and that their morale is improved? What programmes or partnerships are in place to help those on probation to access stable accommodation, and employment, training or education, so that they can go through the rehabilitation process and reduce their chances of reoffending?
Shabana Mahmood
We are investing in probation. Funding will increase by £700 million by the final year of the spending review. That is a 45% increase in annual budgets, which will fund further recruitment on top of the 1,300 officers we will recruit this year and the 1,000 officers we recruited in the previous year. That will support our investment in services that rehabilitate offenders and cut crime.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor admitted in a recent interview with The Times that her sentencing reforms will create “inevitable tensions” with the Government’s efforts to halve knife crime and rates of violence against women and girls. It sounds like she does not really believe in these reforms, which have been trotted out by David Gauke, the Prisons Minister in the other place and the Prison Reform Trust. Does the Lord Chancellor realise that none of them is elected, and that if this package fails to keep our streets safe and restore the criminal justice system, the country will hold her and this Government to account?
Shabana Mahmood
I think the country will hold to account those responsible for the absolute mess that this Government inherited. Nowhere in the right hon. Gentleman’s question did he acknowledge that under the Government of which he was a member and for which he campaigned, prisons were brought to the brink of collapse. These reforms are necessary. This Government will not allow our prisons to run out of places—the one thing everybody agrees we cannot allow to happen. The only reason that is a possibility is because of the Tory party.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman’s campaign to support young adults who lack mental capacity in accessing their child trust fund. I know that he met my predecessor, and following work that I am carrying out with counterparts in other Departments, I will be very pleased to meet him.
John Milne
My constituent has been through no fewer than eight Justice Secretaries, looking for a solution to the problem of locked child trust funds; he has had to start over again each time from scratch. Will the Minister give me and Mr Turner a clear understanding of what exactly the legal impediment is to a solution, and of what part of Government the objection is coming from, so that we can make a legal challenge to it, if necessary?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member will understand, as will Mr Turner, that we have to balance the desire to support young adults who lack capacity in accessing what is their property by right with the need to ensure that everybody who needs to access those child trust funds has the proper legal authority to do so. Safeguards need to be in place, not least to ensure that those vulnerable adults are protected from economic abuse. That is why we must work very carefully across Government to ensure that those protections are kept in place.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
We inherited a system in which far too many people leave prison with no fixed address. Individuals in community accommodation service tier 3 are risk-assessed by probation and subject to ongoing monitoring. Suppliers work closely with probation to deal robustly with any behavioural concerns posed by residents.
Helen Maguire
Thanet House in Leatherhead has rightly been withdrawn from the CAS3 scheme following serious concerns, including about drug dealing, antisocial behaviour and safeguarding risks. Despite raising my constituents’ concerns numerous times, I have received no response from the probation delivery unit. Will the Secretary of State ensure that robust monitoring and clear accountability are in place across all CAS3 properties, and commit to ensuring that the Probation Service responds promptly to concerns raised by MPs and local residents?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
It is important that the Probation Service deals with any concerns promptly and effectively. The Department wrote to the hon. Lady on 20 April with further details in relation to her concerns, and Thanet House was withdrawn from the scheme on 20 May.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
A victims’ representative was on the panel that conducted the independent sentencing review, which gathered views from victims and survivors. I personally met a number of victims and victim groups and fed their views directly back to David Gauke. Those serving sentences for more serious sexual and violent offences will spend at least 50% of their sentence in custody.
Joy Morrissey
The Victims’ Commissioner says that the early release of prisoners risks victim safety, so will the Lord Chancellor explain why she is putting violent offenders ahead of victims?
Alex Davies-Jones
That is not the case. What would be failing victims is if our criminal justice system got to the point of collapse and we did not have prison places for violent offenders. This Government are getting on with reforming our criminal justice system. We are putting victims at the heart of it to protect them, and are making sure that we never run out of prison places again.
Esther McVey
The Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Act 2020, otherwise known as Helen’s law, should prevent the early release of murderers who do not disclose the location of their victims’ remains. However, there are loopholes in the law in cases where the murderer makes a disclosure but no remains are found, as happened in the case of Jean Taylor’s daughter, Chantel. Will the Minister meet me and Jean Taylor, who founded the charity Families Fighting for Justice, to close those loopholes?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the right hon. Member for her question. All my sympathies go to her constituent. If she wants to write to me with the details, I will definitely look into the case and come back to her.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The previous Government released prisoners in an indiscriminate way. This Government have developed a more organised approach, but the progression model of sentencing, recommended by the independent sentencing review and welcomed by the Government, could mean less clarity for victims about when perpetrators leave prison. Given the concern expressed by victims’ groups, what safeguards and resources will the Minister put in place to prepare victims and assure them of their safety?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for that important question. It is vital that victims be notified. That is why we are boosting probation and ensuring that victim liaison officers have that vital information. He will be aware that in our Victims and Courts Bill, which has been presented to this House, we are introducing a new victim notification scheme, and a dedicated helpline to ensure that victims get the vital information that they so desperately need.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
In March, I met people from the Justice for Victims campaign group. One family told me that their young daughter was killed by an unlicensed, uninsured driver. They were asked to alter their victim impact statement several times to avoid offending the defendant and were denied the chance to fully express their grief. That experience is shared by many others. Will the Justice Secretary take steps to ensure that victims’ families have full autonomy over their statements, so that they can express their experiences freely in court?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I also had the privilege of meeting those families in March, and I heard their concerns. I know personally how important victim personal statements are to ensuring that victims’ and families’ voices are heard. I do not want there to be any circumstances in which they feel unable to make a statement. However, these statements are considered evidence, and the rules of admissibility apply, as they do to all witness statements. That is a matter for the courts, but we will keep looking at the issue.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Can I first say how sorry I was to hear that the Minister was the subject of intimidation and an attack on her office? I think all of us across the House would like to wish her and her staff well, and to say how pleased we are that the vile individuals behind this have been caught and punished.
In September, the Justice Secretary designed an early release scheme for prisoners. She let out Lawson Natty, who supplied the machete used to kill a 14-year-old, and Adam Andrews, who shook a baby so violently that he was left blind and paralysed. She is now halving prison sentences for killers and rapists, while Lucy Connolly remains behind bars for a reprehensible but swiftly deleted tweet. Does the Justice Secretary really believe that her choices are making the public safer?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government are making choices to keep this country safer, and are cleaning up the mess left after the previous Government led our criminal justice system to rack and ruin. They left this Government to make the difficult decisions, when we came into office, that were necessary to prevent the total collapse of our criminal justice system. It is worth reminding the House again, because the Conservatives seem to have very short memories, that they only built an additional 500 prison places. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and getting on with the difficult job of building the prison places necessary to keep violent offenders in prison, while putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Between October 2023 and June 2024, the last Conservative Government released 10,083 offenders under their early release scheme, and refused to exempt domestic abusers from early release, to the horror of survivors and victims charities. The Government have made no such exclusion from their early release scheme so far, but they have the chance to put that right via the new domestic abuse identifier that they are introducing after lots of campaigning by the Liberal Democrats and others. Will the Minister today give survivors and victims charities a commitment that as soon as the identifier comes into force, it will be used to exempt domestic abusers from early release, in the way that the last Government failed to?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for pointing out the failures of the previous Government, and their refusal to exempt domestic abusers and offenders who have committed violence against women and girls from their early release scheme; this Government ensured that measures were in place to ensure that victims were kept safe. He will know the importance of the new domestic abuse identifying tool that we are bringing forward. It is a vital for identifying and tracking data through the criminal justice system, and it will be important as we go forward with the reviews that we are putting in place.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a situation in which 10% of offenders account for 50% of all offences, with a small number of repeat offenders wreaking havoc in our communities and on our high streets. Cracking down on these offenders is a central part of any successful strategy to cut crime, and we will accept David Gauke’s recommendations, particularly on the further roll-out of intensive supervision courts. However, the hon. Member must accept the reality of the inheritance left by his Government, which included an increase in sentences although they delivered only 500 prison places over their 14 years in power.
Stuart Anderson
South Shropshire residents would expect high street crime to be dealt with, and proportionate sentencing and appropriate deterrents. How will removing short-term prison sentences achieve any of that?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member should know that 60% of all people who are given a short custodial sentence go on to reoffend within the year, so clearly the system that we have does not work. We cannot simply sit back and keep doing things that we know result in increased reoffending in communities that we all want to protect. We have to look at interventions that will make a difference. Tough community punishment produces better reductions in reoffending than short sentences. We will consult Members across the House as we prepare our Bill in the coming weeks to make sure that we have a strong package of unpaid work and other measures designed to toughen up community punishment.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that when it comes to sentencing, ancillary orders, including those banning offenders from shops and high streets, are part of the answer? We need the police, together with the Crown Prosecution Service, to apply for them, and when an offender appears in court, we need the courts to issue those orders when sentencing.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is right that so-called ancillary orders, often referred to as travel bans, bans from seeing football and bans on the ability to go to particular areas, are an important part of the package of measures that the Gauke review has recommended. We have accepted those in principle and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other colleagues as we draw up our package of proposals for the upcoming sentencing Bill.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Whatever the sentence or offence, victims and families deserve a meaningful and fair route to appeal sentences that are unduly lenient. Twenty-eight days for people who have experienced deep trauma, when criminals get an unlimited time to appeal, is not meaningful or fair. Can the Lord Chancellor explain to campaigners such as Katie Brett and Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims why she is not willing to give them more time?
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Minister should know that the Law Commission is considering the whole area of unduly lenient sentencing. It is important that we let it do its work and that it is able to look at the measures in the round and think about the consequences across the whole criminal justice system. We will review those proposals once they are made and legislate if we need to.
Dr Mullan
I am afraid that that explanation will not wash. The Lord Chancellor knows that she is choosing to give the Government more time in her Bill ahead of the Law Commission’s decision. Why is she giving herself more time, but not victims?
Shabana Mahmood
If the shadow Minister ever did any homework, he would know that it is always the Attorney General who has to agree and sign off on unduly lenient sentencing referrals. Our proposals are there to make sure that the Attorney General always has a full 28-day period to consider and make rulings that often help victims. He will also know that the Law Commission is looking at that work. The Conservative Government had 14 years; why did they never do anything?
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We fund key support services, such as independent sexual violence and domestic abuse advisers. The Crown Prosecution Service has introduced victim liaison officers to ensure that victims of rape and serious sexual offences have a consistent point of contact throughout the criminal justice system. We will also provide free transcripts of sentencing remarks for victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and we will introduce independent legal advisers for all adult rape victims.
Tim Roca
On the last Government’s watch, the backlog of Crown court cases rose to record levels, leaving too many victims, including those in Macclesfield, to wait years for their day in court. That backlog included victims of sexual abuse, unable to begin properly processing their trauma until their trial is over and stuck in a horrifying limbo. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that victims of sexual abuse are not left waiting for years to see justice done?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right. As the House knows, justice delayed is justice denied. That is why this Government have doubled magistrate sentencing powers and funded a record number of sitting days. However, the scale of the challenge is beyond what increased sitting days can achieve alone. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold and ambitious reforms to deliver swifter justice for victims as part of the Government’s plan for change.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
In recent weeks, Daniel Clarke, a vile sexual offender, was sentenced to seven years in prison for horrific acts of sexual abuse against six vulnerable children, many with special needs and many of whom are my constituents; indeed, there are 81 suspected cases. I have been contacted by the families of those innocent victims, who have expressed outrage at the shockingly lenient sentence. I wrote to the Attorney General on 20 May asking for the case and the sentence to be reviewed. I did not receive a response and had to find out through the BBC that the review was happening. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the sentence is being reviewed. Will the Minister give assurances to my constituents, the House and the British public that such vile sexual predators will have the book thrown at them and that protecting our children is the only thing that matters?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising that case. I am pleased that the review is taking place. Victims of child sexual abuse are victims of some of the most heinous crimes in our society. That is why it is important that we get on with addressing the recommendations of the Alexis Jay review. We are putting measures in our Crime and Policing Bill and strengthening the Victims and Courts Bill to ensure that victims of such crimes are put at the heart of the criminal justice system and that the perpetrators feel the full force of the law.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to peacefully protest and demonstrate their views provided they do so within the law. When people break the law, sentencing is a matter for the courts, which have a range of powers to deal with offenders effectively and appropriately.
Dr Opher
Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of a functioning and healthy democracy, but people in Stroud and across the country felt that the legislation passed by the Conservatives in 2022 limited the right to peacefully protest. One of my constituents, Adam Beard, with whom I have worked for over five years in my GP surgery, was convicted and sentenced to a year in prison for planning a peaceful protest. Given all the prison overcrowding, will the Minister consider whether peaceful protesters could at least avoid custodial sentences?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The right to peacefully protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, as my hon. Friend rightly says, and this Government will protect and preserve that right. The post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023 began this month, and we will carefully consider the results of that review, along with the recommendations of the independent sentencing review.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
While we might not agree with their methods, peaceful protests can take many forms, including the burning of religious texts. Does the Minister agree that freedom of expression must be protected and that any move by Parliament or the courts to introduce a blasphemy law would undermine it?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Member will be reassured to know that we do not have a blasphemy law in this country, and that is the right and proper position.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Humanists have long campaigned to conduct legally binding weddings, and we are grateful for the contribution they make to our society. Marriage is an important institution and we have to consider any changes carefully. The Government will set out our position on weddings reform in due course.
Siân Berry
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I understand that Ministers are focused on wider marriage reform, but there is a much quicker and simpler process by which to enable humanist marriages, which is to act on the High Court ruling of 2020 that the current law is discriminatory. Will Ministers therefore lay an order so that humanist couples and celebrants can have legal recognition for their ceremonies in line with their beliefs, the same as their religious counterparts?
Alex Davies-Jones
No one will be more excited to don a hat for the first legally binding humanist wedding than me. However, we must consider whether legislating to provide for humanist marriage would introduce further differential treatment in this complex area of law. That is why we need to make sure that we take the time to get this right. It would also not address other issues in marriage law that affect all groups. As a responsible Government, we have to consider this before we set out our position. I appreciate that means that the hon. Lady will have to wait just a little bit longer.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
Since the disappointing inspection in 2023, healthcare improvement funding has been put in place, as has mobile phone detection equipment to disrupt illicit activity. HMP Lewes’s most recent inspection in 2024 was encouraging and highlighted the strengths of the invigorated leadership team. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is continuing to closely monitor and support the prison.
James MacCleary
The latest inspection of HMP Lewes found that levels of violence, self-harm and drug use remain notably worse than at other reception prisons, with just one third of prisoners engaged in education or employment and many spending as little as two hours a day out of their cells. While the new governor has been praised for making some real improvements, the prison is still described as being “trapped in a cycle” of boredom, short-staffing and drug misuse. What specific steps are the Government taking to support the governor’s efforts, to ensure that these early improvements can be turned into lasting change?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
It is important that HMPPS continues to monitor the prison carefully, and the chief operating officer’s visit on 7 May found a number of further improvements. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I can send him a full update on the actions being taken in relation to that prison.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
On the topic of prison operations, we need effective scrutiny of privatised contracts for prison maintenance because those contracts have been detrimental for prisons. Will the Minister release the last Government’s report recommending more privatisation of prison maintenance, suitably redacted if necessary, for full transparency and to avoid any accusations of a cover-up?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend will be well aware that a lot of the information is commercially confidential, but we are investing up to £300 million in 2025-26 to keep our prisons are safe and secure, and we have a prison estate conditions survey programme in place to better understand our estate.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
A key priority of this Government is that our prisons rehabilitate offenders, making them better citizens rather than better criminals. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic prison staff, who mentor and support prisoners in custody every day. I saw at first hand the benefit of the creating future opportunities programme when I visited HMP Humber in April.
Dr Chambers
Prisons have an important role in protecting the public and punishing criminals, but they are also vital to rehabilitation. Given that around half of prisoners reoffend within a year of being released, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that programmes to address mental health, addiction and education are not only available, but effective and consistently delivered across the prison estate, including in our prison in Winchester?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Member is right to emphasise all those programmes. They are clearly extremely important, and we publish and monitor a range of performance metrics linked to rehabilitative programme delivery, including employment at six weeks and six months post-release, or at the start of a community order, and engagement with substance misuse treatment. All those measures are in place and are properly monitored, but as always, there is more to be done in this area.
Susan Murray
In my constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire, the community justice team are having some success in preventing reoffending by working with offenders in a trauma-informed way. Given the success of that trauma-informed approach to rehabilitation, what discussions has the Minister had regarding the differing approaches that are taken to offender rehabilitation across the UK?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Member is right to highlight the good work going on in her constituency. As I said, I saw trauma-informed activity in operation at HMP Humber. It is something we need to learn from across the prison estate.
Alison Bennett
Dyslexia is vastly over-represented in the prison population. While 10% of the general population are dyslexic, it is thought that as many as half of all prisoners have dyslexia. Does the Minister consider rehabilitation programmes to effectively meet the specific needs of dyslexic prisoners?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Member is right to highlight dyslexia, and neurodiversity is common among people in our prisons. That is why we have neurodiversity officers in each prison to ensure that we are doing our very best for these people so that they can be rehabilitated and become better citizens when they come out of prison.
Caroline Voaden
The former chief inspector of prisons said that LandWorks in my constituency
“provides one of the best examples in the country of how we can reduce reoffending, turn lives around and prevent future victims.”
Its reoffending rate is just 6%. The Government have announced £2.3 billion towards prison builds over the next two years. When will they commit to investing in projects like LandWorks that can radically reduce the prison population, transform the lives of offenders and cut crime?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Third sector organisations like LandWorks deliver valuable rehabilitation, wellbeing support and advocacy services across England and Wales, and they partner effectively with HMPPS in many different ways. The work of key organisations like the one the hon. Member mentions is incredibly important and essential in reducing reoffending, and we continue to invest in it. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the matter further and see what more can be done.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Lack of work is a key driver of reoffending. Derby medical manufacturing company Pennine Healthcare has some offenders who work for the company on day release, but it is exploring a project to manufacture in prisons, providing skills and potential work on release. Does the Minister agree that, rather than the continuing revolving door of reoffending, we need to ensure that there is both punishment and meaningful rehabilitation? May I invite the Minister to visit and learn more about the project?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend highlights yet another piece of excellent work that is going on across our prison estate in partnership with other organisations. Again, if she writes to me, I would be happy to allow my diary manager to see how my diary is performing.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The north-east charity Nepacs runs departure lounges across prisons in the north-east, including at HMP Holme House, which serves Teesside. Its work is critical in giving prison leavers a central point of support to prevent reoffending and help them reintegrate into society, but the Probation Service has cut its funding and it faces closure. Will the Minister meet me to talk about how the increased funding that we are providing to the Probation Service can be used to protect this vital service?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend highlights another excellent piece of work that is going on, and the difficulties in ensuring that funding is effectively used as we move forward in a difficult situation due to the funding inheritance that we had from the previous Government. If he writes to me about that particular case, I will be very happy to meet him.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Prison has two purposes: rehabilitation and punishment. We need offenders to pay back to the communities and individuals they have harmed. I welcome my hon. Friend’s actions to punish offenders in the community. Can I give him a list of all the potholes that need filling in Norfolk?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend can write to me with his list of potholes, and we will see what we can do.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
Ministers meet regularly with the chair of the Sentencing Council. On the specific guidelines for immigration offences, the hon. Member will know that they set a minimum sentence, but no maximum. Judges can still sentence as they see fit within the limits of what the law allows, and foreign criminals can still be deported, even if they are sentenced to less than 12 months.
David Simmonds
As the shadow Justice Secretary heard when he visited on Friday, criminal gangs are imposing a significant cost on Hillingdon, which has the highest level of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority, because the council has to support asylum seekers who have been smuggled into the UK. What plans does the Justice Secretary have to ensure that we have tougher sentences that are fit for purpose, so that our communities do not face this burden in the future?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I and colleagues in the Justice Department are working closely with our colleagues in the Home Department to make sure that we have a joined-up approach to tackling the issues he has raised. He knows that asylum is primarily a policy issue for the Home Secretary, and I will make sure that she and her team are made aware of the specific problems in Hillingdon that he has raised today.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
For the first time, the Sentencing Council has published immigration sentencing guidelines. They water down sentences passed by Parliament, which means that hundreds of illegal migrants every year will avoid the threshold for automatic deportation. Once again, the Justice Secretary’s officials were in the meeting and waved the guidelines through, and I have the minutes to prove it. Has the Justice Secretary lost control of her Department once again, or is it the case that, as the Defence Secretary said on Sunday, this Government have simply “lost control” of our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
No; what this Government are doing is cleaning up the almighty mess left to us by the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. He knows full well that I have already signalled an intention to review the powers of the Sentencing Council. We have an upcoming sentencing Bill, and I will take the action that he and his Government never did in 14 long years. [Interruption.] He has suddenly found his voice—he did not have it for a decade or more.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
We continue to support IPP offenders through our updated action plan, which contributed to a 9% decrease in IPP offenders in prison in the last year, but we will not put public protection at risk. The Prisons Minister in the other place and I continue to meet regularly with MPs, peers and other stakeholders to work together on supporting this cohort.
Tessa Munt
It is 12 and a half years since IPP sentences were described as “not defensible” and were abolished for offenders, but 2,852 people remain incarcerated under these sentences—just 74 fewer than in June 2022. When the Justice Committee reported in 2022, its key recommendation was that the Government legislate to enable a resentencing exercise for these individuals. Will the Minister please set up an expert committee to at least advise on how to bring forward a resentencing exercise urgently?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
It is right and proper that IPP sentences were abolished. Various organisations have considered resentencing. None of them has identified an approach that would not involve releasing offenders whom the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public. We do not wish to give false hope to those serving the sentence by establishing an expert panel, but we will continue to work robustly with this group and do everything in our power to address the problem that we recognise.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
This Government’s plan to support women is clear and ambitious. The aim is to reduce the number of women going to prison. Our Women’s Justice Board will support that. The independent sentencing review’s recommendations—[Interruption.] I am on the wrong question; apologies. [Interruption.] Well, you got a preview of the next answer, Mr Speaker.
We are committed to ensuring that offenders leave prison with the jobs and skills needed to lead law-abiding lives. That is why we have launched regional employment councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation and the Department for Work and Pensions to support offenders in the community.
Patrick Hurley
We got there eventually! Employment is crucial to reducing reoffending, and data shows that offenders who are employed within six weeks of leaving prison have a reoffending rate around half of those out of work. Will the Minister outline how the regional employment councils, including in Southport and the Liverpool city region at large, will help to drive down reoffending?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that securing employment is known to reduce the risk of reoffending significantly. The Minister for prisons in the other place has led a business with a track record of getting offenders into employment, and I understand that National Highways is starting to build strong partnerships as chair of the employment councils in Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. To help offenders into employment, they need to have the opportunity of training while in prison, and whenever they leave prison to go back into the societies where they live they need someone there to oversee them and ensure they are following the right path. Will the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that that is the case? He is a good Minister, so will he share his ideas with the policing and justice Minister in Northern Ireland, to ensure that the good things that happen here can happen in Northern Ireland as well?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I am very happy to share good practice across Northern Ireland and other regions of the UK, so that we can all learn from one another, and officials meet in the five nations group, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. He is right to say that we need to ensure that people are supported as they move into the community. That is why we are investing in probation, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor said, onboarding more than 1,000 probation officers this year and another 1,300 next year.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
My hon. Friend has had a preview of this answer! This Government’s plan to support women is clear and ambitious. The aim is to reduce the number of women going to prison. Our Women’s Justice Board will support that. The independent sentencing review’s recommendations on short, deferred and suspended sentences for women, which we have accepted in principle, will reduce the number of women in prison. We have also taken decisive action by immediately accepting Susannah Hancock’s recommendation no longer to place women in young offenders institutions.
Kate Osamor
I thank the Minister for his preview. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women affected by the criminal justice system, I welcome the independent sentencing review’s final report. I note that the review encourages the Government to consider introducing statutory defences for victims of domestic abuse, including where coercion has been a factor in their offending, to prevent unnecessarily criminalising them. Will the Government look further at those proposals?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Yes, the Government will look further at those proposals. The Women’s Justice Board has been created to do exactly that sort of work, and we also have an excellent Victims Minister in my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones).
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
In March, the Government announced that girls will no longer be placed in young offenders institutions. How will the Minister monitor the implementation of that policy, and how will he ensure the public are protected from the small number of violent girls who need to be detained?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Every week I get a report of the number of girls in our youth estate, so I am monitoring it. There are no girls in a YOI, and there have not been since the girl who was in a YOI moved out soon after we came into government.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
I know the House shares my anger at recent attacks against prison officers. After the awful events at HMP Frankland, I commissioned a review into the use of protective body armour, and today I can announce that I will mandate its use in close supervision centres, separation centres, and segregation units in the high security estate. That is my initial response to the review, but I will set out further action on body armour in due course. When Jonathan Hall’s independent review into the Frankland attacks reports, I will take any further steps necessary to protect our brave staff.
Crime must be punished, but on the rare occasions that a miscarriage of justice has taken place, the Criminal Cases Review Commission exists to uncover and rectify that injustice. In recent years the commission has lost the trust of the public. It must now win it back, so today I have appointed Dame Vera Baird, a former Victims’ Commissioner, to be its interim chair. She will review the commission, its governance and leadership, and ensure that it delivers once more for those who have been victims of injustice.
Susan Murray
What discussions have the Government had regarding the International Court of Justice’s 2024 judgment on Israel and Palestine?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady will know that that is a matter primarily for the Foreign Secretary. We keep under review all judgments of all courts, domestic and international, and adopt our policy position accordingly. I will ensure that her concerns, if there are any, are raised directly with the Foreign Secretary.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I was pleased to visit Telford justice centre with my hon. Friend, where we met magistrates and leaders of the Magistrates’ Association. I meet the Magistrates’ Association regularly. We have a system of certification, acknowledging the vital work that magistrates do, especially long-serving magistrates who serve more than 10, 20 or 30 years. I am happy to continue discussions with my hon. Friend on how we can acknowledge and recognise that brilliant service even more.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Brave prison officers are under attack, and I am warning again that, if the Government do not act now, an officer will be killed on the Justice Secretary’s watch. After the Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, allegedly attacked an office with boiling water, he is now bingeing on treats such as Maltesers and Pringles. When will the Justice Secretary strip Rudakubana and monsters like him of those privileges and put them in solitary confinement? When will she finally have the backs of all our brave prison officers, by giving each and every one the protection that they need in the form of high-collar, stab-proof vests, and not just a privileged few in the most limited circumstances?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me give the shadow Secretary of State a much-needed education, because he appears not to know that under the Tory Government violence on staff in our prisons soared and experienced officers left in droves because of it. That is the inheritance I received, and that is the mess that this Government are clearing up. He will know that I have already acted on suspending the use of self-cook facilities, and Jonathan Hall is looking into the HMP Frankland attack. I have made the announcement on body armour, and I will not hesitate to take any further action, but unlike him I will not take “headline-grabbing” measures, just for the sake of a headline.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to both Front Benchers that Back Benchers also have to get in? Topical questions have to be short and punchy. Please, let us stick to the script. If the right hon. Member wants to ask longer questions, he should come in earlier—I could have picked the questions where he could have been brought in.
Robert Jenrick
Last month, nine countries wrote to the Council of Europe calling for urgent reform of the European convention on human rights to tackle the migration crisis. The UK was conspicuously absent, and instead the Attorney General has likened critics of the ECHR to the Nazis. The Justice Secretary is reported in the press to find Lord Hermer “very frustrating”, and “personally unbearable”. Well, Mr Speaker, we might have found an area of cross-party consensus, but why did the Justice Secretary not sign the letter? Are the Government irrelevant, or are she and the Prime Minister defending a broken system?
Shabana Mahmood
Again, if the shadow Secretary of State ever paid any attention to detail, he would know that that letter was sent by EU member states and we are no longer a member of the European Union. Let me assure him that I am absolutely committed to considering the wider picture of our human rights law and I will not hesitate to take action where I need to.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Sarah Sackman
This Government inherited record and rising backlogs. As my hon. Friend described, the human cost of that is victims waiting longer and longer for their day in court. We have acted swiftly, increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, but fundamental reform is needed, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his review. He will be reporting shortly and we will take his package of fundamental reforms forward, to ensure that we have reform of our Crown courts and swifter justice for victims.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree with the chair of the Prison Governors’ Association that the Conservative proposal to arm prison officers with lethal weapons is just “headline-grabbing nonsense”? Does she agree that, on top of providing body armour, the serious means to protect prison officers is by ensuring that they get the years’ long training they deserve, not the weeks’ long crash course that the last Government left them with?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Again, people who pay attention to the detail will know that there are already mutual aid agreements in place between prisons and local police forces to ensure that if an armed response is required, it is available.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for that vital question. We are giving judges the statutory power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. We are also making it clear that reasonable force can be used, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, to ensure that any adult offender attends when ordered to do so. I pay tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, as well as to the family of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, who have all fought tirelessly to bring about this law. This is a law for all of the victims and it is in their memory that we bring it forward.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The hon. Gentleman is right that those sorts of schemes are exactly what are needed. That is why we have increased funding for youth offending teams and protected funding for the Turnaround scheme, which is highly successful in moving people who are on the edge of youth crime away from crime. We are continuing with that funding and we have the Young Futures prevention partnerships coming in.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
A constituent who came to see me recently was significantly impacted by finding out about the release of somebody who had perpetrated a non-violent but heinous crime against him. What more can we do to ensure that all victims are notified when the perpetrator is released?
Alex Davies-Jones
My sympathies are with my hon. Friend’s constituent. It is vital that victims are notified. Those victims who are currently eligible for the victim notification scheme should be given a victim liaison officer to find out about their cases, but we know that there is more to do. We are bringing forward a new victim notification scheme in our Victims and Courts Bill, which will for the first time provide a dedicated helpline to get such information to victims and survivors.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
Chemical suppression is a mechanism used by other jurisdictions around the world, and it has been shown to work. The previous Government sat on a pilot for years on end and did nothing. I have said that I will pull every lever at our disposal to deal with sex offending once and for all.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
A family court judge who would have made decisions in relation to many abused children was recently found guilty by the High Court of abusing their own adopted children. Does the Minister agree that protecting the anonymity of members of the judiciary who have abused their children, particularly when it relates so intimately to their own work in court, risks undermining public trust in our legal system?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight an absolutely appalling case, and the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the children who were victims of that abuse. The independent judiciary has ruled on this. This Government believe in transparency in our family courts, and that is why we are working to expand the use of transparency orders, but we have to respect the independence of our judiciary, which has ruled in this particular case, not least for the reason of protecting the children in that case.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
I do not know what the right hon. Member is referring to, because the Government have already announced that we are considering the way in which our human rights laws are applied in immigration cases. I am the policy owner for the European convention on human rights, and I am considering its application within our domestic laws as well. I do not know what other reassurance he needs.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to tightening up exclusion zones. Knowsley has some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in the country, so that kind of action will be important for victims. Does she agree that an offender’s freedom should never come before a victim’s right to feel and be safe?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises such an important point. I have been struck by so many meetings with victims in which they feel that the exclusion zones, as currently constructed, effectively make them constrained, rather than the offenders. That is why I want to move to restriction zones for offenders, and we will bring forward our proposals in the upcoming sentencing Bill.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
It is vital that those who need legal aid—some of the most vulnerable people in our society—can access it. We are funding provisions such as Advicenow, which is an online provision. We also ensure through our contracting process through the Legal Aid Agency that there is provision right across the country to ensure that no one, including those in rural areas, struggles to access legal aid.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
My constituent Claire Ball was sexually abused as a child. As an adult, she faced her abuser in court. He was allowed to provide character references. Her good character was called into question, yet she was not allowed character references. Will my hon. Friend take steps to rectify this unfairness for victims such as Claire?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that vital point. This Government are looking at character references carefully, and we will bring forward information on that in due course.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady highlights an absolutely appalling case. If she is asking whether I think that is acceptable, the answer is no. As my hon. Friend the Victims Minister said, justice delayed is justice denied. It is for that reason that we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to recommend bold and fundamental reform. The hon. Lady has just described the human consequence of the Crown court backlog that we inherited from the past Government, and we will fix the mess.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Last week I visited Meadow Road youth centre to see the fantastic work that Lloyd and other youth workers are doing to provide an outlet for young people. However, it could be closed down due to funding uncertainty. Does the Minister agree that sporting centres such as that reduce youth offending and are hubs for rehabilitation? Will my hon. Friend commit to Dudley getting its fair share of funding and to keeping the centre open?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Centres such as the one that my hon. Friend describes in her constituency do excellent work and help to reduce youth offending. If she writes to me about the case that she refers to, I will look into it.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
The Ministry of Justice currently provides free sentencing remarks for victims of murder and manslaughter. As of last month, we have made permanent our pilot to provide those sentencing remarks to victims of rape. The hon. Lady will understand that providing full transcriptions is a costly exercise, which is why we are undertaking testing of artificial intelligence to make transcripts available in future in a lower-cost and timely manner.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
At just 12 years old, my constituent was subjected to horrific abuse by a family member who was ultimately convicted of nine offences, including four counts of rape. The offender was sentenced in youth court to just a three-year referral order and a two-year restraining order. My constituent cannot appeal this sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme simply because of the court in which the case was heard. Will the Minister review this deeply troubling case and consider extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include youth court rape convictions?
Shabana Mahmood
I hope that my hon. Friend heard the earlier answer on the unduly lenient sentence scheme and the review by the Law Commission, but if he writes to me with the specifics of that case, I will make sure that we look into it.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
As of 1 May this year, there were seven biological males in HMP Downview, a women’s prison in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State confirm when they will be moved out?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady will be aware that those seven biological males are on E wing, which is a transgender-only facility. We will review the recent Supreme Court ruling and make sure that we are compliant in everything we do going forward. We have inherited a policy that we supported in opposition. It was a strong act by the last Government, but we will build on that following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
A recent freedom of information request showed that between January 2022 and March 2024, 52 prison staff were recommended for dismissal due to breaches of security. However, ten times that number resigned over similar breaches. What action has the Minister taken to strengthen training, oversight and accountability across the Prison Service to address this worrying trend and prevent further security failures?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Prison officers do an amazingly positive job in our prisons. Occasionally, prison officers let themselves down, and those cases are properly looked at. We continue to keep a tight look, and we learn from any issues that occur.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Is the Justice Secretary content that her Department spends more than half a billion pounds every year locking up criminals who belong in other countries?
Shabana Mahmood
I am content that this Government have deported more foreign national offenders than the previous Government. I am content that we have accepted the findings of the Gauke review, and we will be bringing the early removal scheme threshold from 50% down to 30% to make that sure more foreign offenders are eligible for removal from our country.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Sadly, some of my constituents have experienced a double blow, not only from having defective cavity wall insulation installed, but from being pursued for adverse legal costs by firms such as SSB Law. Ministers have previously confirmed that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has opened an investigation. Will the Minister provide an update on that investigation and meet me to discuss how those affected can get redress?
Sarah Sackman
Once again, I am sorry to hear about the impact that the collapse of SSB Law has had on my hon. Friend’s constituents and the many others affected. As she says, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is completing an investigation into the collapse. Disciplinary notices have been issued to several individuals and further decisions are expected before the summer. I am happy to provide her with a written update as that investigation is concluded.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Litigation finance plays a key role in the legal system in the UK and provides opportunities for postmasters and others to take cases to court. The Civil Justice Council has just published its report on the sector. When will the Government respond to that report?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and I thank the Civil Justice Council for its work. He will understand that we have not yet had a chance to fully digest the report, but we anticipate acting on its recommendations in fairly short order.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Lord Ponsonby told the Justice Committee in February that the Government will set out a public position on reform of wedding laws, including humanist marriage, in the next few months. The Minister has said much the same today, but when will it happen, and will it include reform of current cohabitation laws, which disadvantage millions of couples?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for that important question. He will know that our manifesto committed to reforming cohabitation law, and we will be bringing forward that reform shortly. The Law Commission’s report made 57 recommendations for reform of wedding law, including enabling non-religious groups such as humanists to conduct legally binding weddings, and we will be bringing forward information on our package of reforms shortly.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Recently, I attended a service marking 40 years since William Heenan was murdered by the IRA for being a Protestant. While we honoured his memory, the self-proclaimed “First Minister for all” in Northern Ireland was visiting the newly erected statue of IRA terrorist Bobby Sands, glorifying the movement responsible for the cold-blooded murder of men such as William. Will the Minister agree to meet me and innocent victims from Northern Ireland regarding the review and improvement of the glorification of terrorism legislation that applies to Northern Ireland?
Shabana Mahmood
As I think the hon. Lady will be aware, that is primarily a policy area for our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, but I will make sure that we raise those issues with them.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Yesterday, a man was convicted of a public order offence after burning a Koran outside the Turkish embassy. The judge said that the fact that the man was attacked was proof that he was guilty of disorderly behaviour. This is grotesque, and means that in effect, we have a blasphemy law. Does the Justice Secretary believe that this should hold, or will the Government back my Bill to put an end to all of this madness next week?
Shabana Mahmood
We do not have a blasphemy law, and we are not going to have a blasphemy law in this country. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I believe that that specific case is going to be subject to an appeal, so it would be inappropriate for me or any other Minister to comment on the details of the matter. However, I am sure that once all other channels are exhausted and we have a final resolution, we will be debating these matters in detail in this House.
Thames Water
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on Thames Water’s financial situation.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I thank the right hon. Lady for securing this urgent question. I want to begin by making clear that Thames Water remains stable, and the Government are carefully monitoring the situation. Customers can be assured that there will be no disruption to water supply.
Thames Water is a commercial entity currently engaged in an equity raise, and KKR pulled out of that process earlier today. As Thames Water has said, the company will continue to work with its creditors as part of the equity raise to improve its financial position. There remains a market-led solution on the table, and we expect the company and its directors to continue the process that is under way and fix the financial resilience of the company in the interests of its customers. I want to be clear that the Government are prepared for all eventualities across our regulated industries and stand ready to intervene through the use of a special administration regime, should this be required to ensure the continued provision of vital public services.
The situation facing Thames is taking place within a wider context. Only last year, we saw record levels of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas. It is clear that our water system is broken. We have already passed legislation so that the regulator can ban the undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses that so outraged the public, and we have further strengthened accountability through the introduction of up to two years in prison for polluting water bosses who break the law. We have increased the regulator’s resources and launched a record 81 criminal investigations into water companies, and we have followed the “polluter pays” principle, meaning that companies that are successfully prosecuted will pay for the cost of that prosecution so that further prosecutions can follow. We have worked with the water companies to secure £104 billion of private sector investment to rebuild our broken water infrastructure. That means new sewage pipes, fewer leaking pipes, and new reservoirs across the country, as we work to end the sewage scandal that we inherited from the previous Government.
I launched the Independent Water Commission, under Sir Jon Cunliffe, so that it could outline recommendations for a once-in-a generation opportunity to transform our water industry and ensure that it delivers the service that the public deserve and our environment needs, and today Sir Jon published an interim report setting out the commission’s preliminary conclusions. The Government will respond in full to the commission’s final report in due course, and will outline further steps to benefit customers, attract investment and clean up our waterways.
Whether we are talking about Thames Water or about other companies serving other parts of the country, the era of profiting from pollution is over. This Government will clean up our waterways for good.
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by correcting the Secretary of State? When he refers to private sector investment, he is in fact referring to the bill increases that each and every one of us will pay—£31 a year—so when he talks about private sector investment, he means bill payers’ investment.
Some 16 million residents and bill payers will have been concerned by this morning’s news that the private equity firm KKR has pulled out of its rescue deal with Thames Water. According to a source close to KKR, one of the reasons it pulled out was its concern about negative rhetoric directed at Thames Water and the rest of the industry in recent weeks by the Secretary of State and other Ministers. In other words, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have talked themselves out of this rescue deal. I am bound to say, if only they could do the same thing with the Chagos islands deal.
On which date did the Secretary of State discover that KKR was thinking of pulling out of this deal, and what involvement did he have in the phone calls over the weekend between KKR and No. 10 spads to try to rescue it? I ask because in recent weeks there have been briefings to the press that he is considering temporary renationalisation. The Treasury has apparently instructed him that he will need to find up to £4 billion from the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to cover the cost of this manoeuvre. Let me put that in context: the entire farming budget for this year is roughly £2.5 billion.
Can the Secretary of State therefore explain the options to which he has just referred, and do they include a plan for temporary renationalisation? From which budget would a temporary renationalisation come: DEFRA or central funds? That question is particularly relevant in view of the upcoming spending review, on which there has been detailed briefing, including the suggestion that the DEFRA budget is to be slashed.
The Secretary of State referred to the Cunliffe report, which we will of course look at very carefully, but can he confirm—this recalls yesterday’s shambolic defence review announcement—that there is no funding for this latest review, and that it will do nothing to resolve the immediate issue of Thames Water’s solvency, which he has mishandled, just as he has mishandled the family farm tax, the fishing industry and the sustainable farming incentive?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making it clear to the House that she does not understand the principles of private sector investment, and neither is it particularly clever to stand at the Opposition Dispatch Box and make up figures to attack.
This Government stand ready for all eventualities, but I will make no apology for tackling the poor behaviour of water companies and water company executives that took place under the previous Government and that we are correcting. We even heard stories, which have been confirmed to me by water companies, of previous Conservative Secretaries of State shouting and screaming at water company bosses but not actually changing the law to do anything about the bonuses that they were able to pay themselves. This Government are taking action, working with customers, water companies and investors to ensure that we have a successful water sector that works for the environment, customers and investors in a way that it completely failed to do under the previous Conservative Government.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Let us be clear that the collapse of KKR’s rescue deal is not a blip; it is a reckoning—a moment that exposes the complete bankruptcy of the privatised water model. This morning’s interim Cunliffe review of the water sector confirms the scale of the crisis. It describes our water system—a regulated statutory monopoly—as being too risky for investors now. It did not seem to be too risky when shareholders were siphoning off billions in dividends while letting the pipes rot, the rivers choke and the debt pile up. The only people truly at risk now are bill payers, who face a 35% real-terms price hike in the next five years—and not just to fund clean water or climate resilience, because half of it is to boost investor return. So I ask my right hon. Friend again: when will the Government stop fiddling, put Thames Water into special administration, strip out the debt, and begin the job of returning our water system—not just Thames Water—to public ownership?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Lewis, I was very generous in bringing you in so early, but I did not expect you to make a statement yourself.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I reassure him that the Government stand ready for any eventuality and will take action as required. We are not looking at nationalisation because it would cost over £100 billion of public money, which would have to be taken away from other public services, such as the national health service, to be given to the owners of the water companies. It would take years to unpick the current model of ownership, during which time pollution would get worse. We know that nationalisation is not the answer, because we need only look at the situation in Scotland to see that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Under the Conservatives, Thames Water was allowed to pile up nearly £20 billion of debt while pumping sewage into rivers and lakes for 300,000 hours just last year, but rewarding its shareholders with £130 million of dividends. Today, Thames Water’s customers have been left in the lurch, and the Conservatives seem to think it is because we have all been a bit too mean about Thames Water.
The price must not be paid by the customers. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those who were responsible for making dreadful decisions rightly bear the cost instead? Is it not right for the company now to go into special administration, and to emerge from administration as a public interest company? Is it not also right that all water companies, including the likes of United Utilities in the north-west, move to a public interest model, so that caring for the environment matters more than profit?
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) has done more to hold Thames Water to account than Ofwat, this Government or their predecessor. Does that not prove that regulation has failed, and that Ofwat should be abolished, with a new, powerful clean water authority given the power to clean up our lakes and rivers, and our industry?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member for his question. There is a procedure to be followed for special administration, and we stand ready should that be required, in this case or any other case involving the regulated industries. He may have had a chance today to look at the interim report, on which Sir Jon Cunliffe is inviting comments ahead of the final report in about a month. That report will form the basis of future legislation to fix the regulatory mess we inherited from the Conservative party.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Only the Conservatives could come here and defend Thames Water. The rest of the country has seen what an appalling performance this company has given during the 35 years since privatisation. I think it is time we put this company out of its misery, but we must do so in a way that does not bring the debts it has run up on to the taxpayer or the bill payers. Can my right hon. Friend say whether one of his options is preparing for that eventuality?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are prepared for every eventuality, as I have outlined, and we will take whatever action is necessary to ensure the continuing supply of water to customers in the Thames Water region and elsewhere.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Under the £3 billion loan that Thames Water has negotiated, the first drawdown of £1.5 billion will be on 30 June, which is less than four weeks away. That is contingent on Thames Water having a lock-up agreement in respect of a recapitalisation transaction, but it now has no partner to provide that. It of course chose to proceed with just one option, which has now walked away. Who does the Secretary of State think that Thames Water will now turn to—it is not exactly going to be negotiating from a position of strength—and what are the Government going to do if it cannot meet that 30 June deadline?
Steve Reed
There remains a market-led solution on the table, and we expect Thames Water to follow through with the process to ensure it is able to fix the problems it is currently facing.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents and other Thames Water users are fed up to the back teeth with having to pay more to help this company, which has failed them so badly. Obviously, the Secretary of State has to have special administration on the table, but we know that would be hugely costly to the taxpayer. I know it is hard to talk about hypotheticals, but if he does go down that route, will he have the cost to individual customers front and centre, so they do not actually have to pay more for that process?
Steve Reed
Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I share her anger at the fact that bill rises were so high this year, but that is because the Conservative party did not take the necessary action to ensure that the water system was properly maintained. As anyone who has ever owned or lived in a house will know, if people see a crack in a wall and leave it for 10 years without fixing it, the problem gets much worse and the cost of repairing it is much more. In a very real sense, the public have been left to pay the price of Tory failure.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will ensure that Thames Water stands by its commitment to upgrade our sewage network in South Buckinghamshire? Specifically, will he ensure that the upgrade promised for the Little Marlow sewage treatment works in my constituency is delivered on time?
Steve Reed
I am happy to give the hon. Member that reassurance. The Government expect Thames Water to carry through on the full range of programmes agreed as part of the last price review process.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My constituents have been comprehensively failed by Thames Water for many years. We saw the catastrophic flood in Herne Hill in 2013, when many local businesses had to close permanently. Vulnerable customers were let down during the “beast from the east” freeze-thaw event, being left without water for days and days at a time. There are endless roadworks in the same locations where it has repeatedly failed to invest adequately in its infrastructure. Now my constituents are seeing bills go up by way more than the Ofwat determination. It is clear that this organisation is not fit for purpose. What options is my right hon. Friend considering to bring this misery to an end, and to put customers back at the heart of Thames Water’s operations?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am sure that she will have seen today the interim report from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s water commission, which outlines his initial thoughts on how to fix the broken regulatory system. The Government have also increased compensation from what we inherited from the previous Government, so her constituents who suffer from the kinds of problems she outlined can expect far better compensation as a result of this Government’s actions.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I declare an interest as a Thames Water customer. The reality is that Thames Water is bankrupt. It cannot pay its debts and it cannot meet its legal obligations to Ofwat, the state and its customers. Therefore, surely the right thing to do is to put it out of its misery, and put it into special administration for £1. The shareholders and the debt holders know—caveat emptor—that they have all blown their dough. If the Government buy it for £1, which would be a good deal for the taxpayer, it will not have to pay huge, egregious rates of interest and taxpayers and customers will be the beneficiaries.
Steve Reed
I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that Reform cares so much about the problems facing our water system that it did not mention it even once in its general election manifesto. What he is proposing—nationalising the water sector—would cost in excess of £100 billion, which is money that Reform would have to take away from the services, such as the national health service, on which his constituents rely. I think they would be very ill-served by him if he were to take away that funding, and push up the waiting lists we have just started to see coming down as a result of this Government’s investment.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
As a neighbouring MP, the Secretary of State will know the level of outrage in my constituency at the continuous failures of Thames Water, including the five-day period earlier this year during which residents were left without water. Given that this Labour Government have introduced measures to make polluting water company executives criminally liable and to ban unjustified bonuses, does he agree that we are finally seeing accountability brought back to the water sector?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend, and indeed neighbour, for his question, and I know what a strong water champion he is on behalf of his constituents. His constituents, much like everybody else’s, will now benefit from increased compensation when there are failures. I agree with him that one of the problems we inherited from the previous Government was having a failing system with no accountability at all, so it is quite right that we have introduced new criminal liabilities and potentially prison time for polluting water bosses, and that we have given the regulator the power to ban the unfair and undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses they got away with under the Conservatives.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree with Thames Water’s own expert adviser Teneo—on page 193 of the expert advice report—that the ultimate cost to the Government if the company goes into special administration will be zero?
Steve Reed
The point is that there is a market-led solution on the table and I expect Thames Water to follow through on that.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
It is possible for an American private equity company to walk away from Thames Water, but my constituents cannot. When water company bosses fail, it is our residents who pay: in sewage discharged into rivers and in their crumbling pipes and drainage. I am therefore glad that the Government have taken bonuses off of failing bosses, but what more can the Government do to tilt incentives towards investment in our infrastructure so that my constituents get some relief?
Steve Reed
The problems that my hon. Friend points to are to do with a lack of investment throughout the entire period of the previous Government, so I was delighted that just before Christmas we secured a commitment to £104 billion of private sector investment. That is the single biggest investment in our water sector in its entire history and will be the second biggest private sector investment into any part of the economy under this Government. We are serious about clearing up the Conservatives’ sewage mess.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thames Waters is a massive stakeholder in my constituency, and the biggest landowner. We have half of London’s drinking water in four raised reservoirs and we have a fair chunk of the Thames, from Staines to Sunbury. For 11 months now, I have been trying to get a meeting with Thames Water. I appreciate that it has had one or two other things on its mind recently, but can the Secretary of State use his good offices to encourage Thames Water to meet me?
Steve Reed
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the water companies—Thames Water and all the others—should of course engage with MPs who are seeking to represent the interests of their constituents. I would be very happy to approach Thames Water on his behalf to ensure that he gets the meeting he seeks.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
My constituents, like those of my colleagues, are gravely concerned about the increase in their water bills, but I am also as concerned as them about the impact on business. Crayford town centre was closed again last month—the third year on the trot—because of rotting infrastructure. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to my constituents that no matter what happens, we will continue to invest in infrastructure to ensure that those kinds of closures finally end?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend will be aware of the action we have taken through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to give the regulator the power it needs to ban the unjustified bonuses that water bosses were able to pay themselves under the previous Government. The era where they could profit from pollution ended when that Government ended.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Green party has campaigned for the public ownership of water since the year dot, unlike certain cynical opportunists behind me on the Reform Benches. We know allowing privatised monopolies to control water leaves infrastructure crumbling, waterways running with sewage, sky-high bills, and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank. Given this obscene and fundamental failure, why will the Government not even consider bringing water back into public hands, where it belongs?
Steve Reed
The problems facing the water sector are to do with failures of governance and regulation. We need to tackle the actual problems, not the imagined ones. If we were to seek to nationalise the water sector, that would cost in excess of £100 billion that would have to be taken away from services such as the national health service or education. It would take years to unpick the current model of ownership, during which time there would be no investment and water pollution would get worse. From the example of Scotland, we know that nationalisation is not the answer, because there are also problems with pollution there. We will ensure that our priority is pure water, not the purity of the hon. Lady’s ideology.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As Thames Water dumped sewage into the Cut and the Blackwater in my constituency, the Conservative Government washed their hands not in it, but of it. This Government are acting to ban bonuses, to issue the biggest fine we have seen from Ofwat and to bring in criminal liability. As we seek more action to get to grips with the Thames Water crisis, will the Secretary of State commit to putting two things at the forefront of his mind: first, our environment and cleaning the sewage; and, secondly, making sure that customers and our constituents get a fair deal?
Steve Reed
I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have launched 81 criminal investigations into water companies for pollution and other failings—a dramatic increase on what we inherited from the previous Government. I am sure he will recall that they cut the resources to the regulator in half. Despite the appalling financial inheritance, we increased resources by 9% at the Budget and we have now introduced the polluter pays principle, so that where there is a successful prosecution of a water company, that company will pay the price of the investigation, so that further investigations and prosecutions can follow.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Thames Water is teetering on the brink, investors are running for the hills and my constituents are paying the price for its mismanagement through soaring bills. All the while, it is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a proposed sewage recycling project at Teddington lock on the River Thames in my constituency, which will at best be used every two years and which some cynics suggest is designed entirely to boost its balance sheet. This morning, the Secretary of State committed to my constituent Ian McNuff that he would come and visit the site to look at the impact of the proposed project. Will he reiterate that commitment today? My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I would be delighted to welcome him.
Steve Reed
As I said to the hon. Lady’s constituent, I would be happy to visit if my diary allows. In any case, I would be very happy to ensure she gets a meeting with the Minister for Water to discuss her concerns around Teddington.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it comes to something when the Opposition seem to be suggesting that Thames Water should maybe not be sanctioned, because that may put its preferred bidder at risk, when it had rejected others? Jon Cunliffe suggested stronger regulation, not weaker. Is it not clear that the direction that this Government are going in must be the right one?
Steve Reed
I agree. The whole mess we inherited was due to the previous Government letting the water companies get away with it; people were paying themselves multimillion-pound bonuses as they profited from pollution. That ended when the Conservative Government were defeated. We are putting the water companies under tough special measures and we will focus them on serving their customers and the environment, not themselves.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State think that the situation might improve if Thames Water executives were obliged to sign up to performance-related pay?
Steve Reed
That is a very interesting proposal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will suggest it to Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is currently looking at a better way to regulate.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I note the Secretary of State’s reluctance to entertain public ownership, but I draw his attention to research from the University of Greenwich that shows that bringing water into public ownership would pay for itself within about seven years and that, after that, it would save the public purse up to £2.5 billion a year. Is the Secretary of State aware that immediately bringing Thames Water into special administration and permanent public ownership would cut the company’s massive debt mountain in half, stop the payment of huge dividends and debt payments into the future, and within just several years actually start turning a profit for the people of this country?
Steve Reed
I beg to slightly correct my hon. Friend. Special administration is not nationalisation and nationalisation would cost in excess of £100 billion—money we would have to take away from other public services to hand to the bosses of the water companies who caused this mess in the first place. I do not think taxpayers would welcome that.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I received a note in my inbox today from the Government engagement lead for north Thames valley that says that Thames Water will run out of money in summer 2026. Will the Government commit to taking Thames Water into special administration and unburden the company of its debt via its creditors, or will Members be required to block their diaries for summer 2026 for another recess recall?
Steve Reed
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are procedures to follow that would require any regulated company to go into special administration. As things stand, Thames Water remains stable and there is a market-led solution on the table. We expect Thames Water to follow through on that.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
This is another example of the previous Government’s failure to get a grip of our water system. Meanwhile, just last week this Government fined Yorkshire Water £350,000. My constituents are really upset to see their water bills going up. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will never let our national infrastructure get as bad as those on the Conservative Benches did?
Steve Reed
Absolutely; we intend to clear up the mess the previous Government made. The fine that my hon. Friend refers to—indeed, there have been others—is the result of the additional criminal investigations we have launched, which follow on from the additional resources we have given the regulator so that it can investigate what is going wrong and then take action. What a difference between this Labour Government, who are putting our water companies under special measures, and the previous Government, who let them get away with it and line their pockets.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I find it deeply depressing to hear the Secretary of State say that somehow or other there is a market solution there for Thames Water. We have had 35 years of excessive profits, pollution and rising bills. He knows he will have to take Thames Water into public ownership at some point. He quotes this strange figure of £100 billion in compensation, but surely if we took it into public ownership, Parliament would set the price at which we would purchase the company, taking into account excessive profits, pollution, damage and the destruction of so many people’s lives through the way Thames Water has behaved. Will the Secretary of State be tough with it for once and say that water is a human right, and that it should be publicly owned and publicly run?
Steve Reed
Water is indeed a human right, which is why this Government are taking every step necessary to sort out the broken water system that we inherited from the previous Government.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The situation at Thames Water is deeply disturbing, and in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—the home of Surfers Against Sewage—there is now deep anxiety that this commercial insecurity will spread. With only three prosecutions and no meaningful penalties under the previous Government, is it not clear that the Conservatives prioritised the polluters instead of protecting the environment and customers?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to congratulate Surfers Against Sewage on its fantastic work highlighting the failures of the water sector under the previous Government. I am sure both my hon. Friend and the charity will welcome the 81 criminal investigations we have launched in order to find out where lawbreaking is happening, to take action against it and to hold those who are responsible accountable for once.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
In this Chamber in September, I called for Thames Water to be put into special administration in order to protect my constituents. A portion of the bills they have paid since then has gone on lawyers and consultants to put together a deal that has collapsed. The Liberal Democrats—unlike the Conservatives, who continue to bury their heads in the sand—have fought against throwing more good money after bad, and more and more debt. The Government did not act in September. Will they act now, put us all out of our misery and put Thames Water into special administration?
Steve Reed
As I have said, the Government stand ready for all eventualities, should they be needed.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I refer the House to my registered voluntary interest. Over a year ago, I spoke to one of the then biggest investors in Thames Water, and I was struck by the fact that they said they had never been in a room with the regulator, other investors or the Government. I know it is difficult commercially, but I urge the Secretary of State, in trying to resolve this issue rapidly, to use his good offices and do as much as possible in the background to bring all the stakeholders to the best result.
Steve Reed
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question; I think what he is referring to, in the round, is the failures of the regulatory system and, indeed, the regulators. He will have seen that Sir Jon Cunliffe points to exactly the same problems in his interim report, published today. As we work towards the final report, published in about a month, Sir Jon is starting to point to solutions, and I am sure he will want to pay attention to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The British public are not fools—they know when the emperor has no clothes and, indeed, when a regulator has no teeth. Ofwat has failed, just as Thames Water has failed. Will the Government now act on the Independent Water Commission’s findings, published today, scrap Ofwat and replace it with a regulator that can end this crisis, which has been decades in the making?
Steve Reed
We are working towards resetting the entire regulatory framework, as the hon. Gentleman may have seen from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report, published today. He is absolutely right, though: under the previous Government, the regulator was absolutely toothless. That is why one of the first pieces of legislation this Government passed was the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which gave the regulator the power it lacked previously to ban the unfair and unjustified multimillion-pound bonuses that so outraged the public as those companies profited from pollution.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his comments on continuity of service, which will provide some reassurance to my constituents. Thames Water has failed my constituents time and again; clearly, it needs investment. What is he doing to ensure that there is the confidence to invest in our water sector?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Part of making the sector more investable is ensuring that we have a robust, clear and predictable regulatory framework, which is what Sir Jon Cunliffe is working towards. The hon. Gentleman may have had a chance to look at the interim report that Sir Jon published today; if he has not, I recommend it to him. That is the way we create an investable water sector and bring in the money that will allow us to fix our broken water system once and for all.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My constituent Bruno lives in Charlton-on-Otmoor. When it rains heavily, sewage flows into his garden, which is within sight of a pumping station that fails every single time. One third of bills paid to Thames Water by Bruno and other customers is used to service the company’s debt; that money should instead be invested, and should go towards improving pumping stations like the one near Bruno’s garden. Why will the Secretary of State not recognise that Thames is financially unviable, bring it into special administration, write down the debt and ensure that the future company serves the public interest?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman points with a graphic example to what happens when we face the scale of regulatory failure that developed untroubled under the previous Government. That is why Sir Jon Cunliffe has brought forward his report today, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read; I hope he will also provide Sir Jon with feedback, which he is asking for ahead of his final report in a month’s time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have helped to secure £104 billion of private sector investment by the conclusion of the price review period. That will be used to upgrade exactly the kind of facilities that he points to, which are letting down his constituents and mine, and those of everyone else in the House.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
With a third of customers’ bills going to service Thames Water’s debt, my constituents are fed up of paying higher bills for Thames Water’s mistakes. Will the Government agree to put Thames Water into special measures to save my constituents and bill payers money? It is only a matter of time for Thames Water; will the Secretary of State act now and save people money?
Steve Reed
I share the hon. Gentlemen’s anger that the public have been left to pay the price of Tory failure over 14 years. One of the first things I did when I was appointed Secretary of State was get the water company chief execs into my office, seven days after the election. I got them to commit to ringfencing customers’ money that is earmarked for investment, so that it can never again be diverted to pay bonuses and dividends in the way that it was under the previous Conservative Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers, and for his perseverance on this subject. He will understand that it is disappointing in the extreme to hear that public funding may have to be used to bail out this company. Given that it has some 8,000 British employees and serves 25% of the UK population, Government attention is very urgently needed. What steps will be taken to ensure that this is not money down the drain, to use a pun, and that we instead reconstruct a viable concern that takes a modern approach? Does the Department have a team ready and able to step up and achieve that goal?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are ready for every eventuality, and there are teams in place to carry this out. Let me reassure him that I have no intention of using public money to bail out this company; we are looking for a market-led solution to its challenges. I thank him for his kind personal words—we will all keep persevering until we have cleaned up our waterways for good.
Mr Speaker
Okay, shadow Secretary of State. Let us see if it is a point of order.
Victoria Atkins
It is just to correct the record, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has given the impression in his answers—without, I am sure, intending to—that the investigations of which he is very proud, from July last year, were a direct result of Labour winning the election in July. That is simply incorrect. As I have drawn to his attention on Twitter, courtesy of a press release on 20 February last year, we in fact invested some £55 million in further investigations, which is the—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not responsible for the correction. You have certainly put the matter on the record. The Secretary of State may want to come back; if not, we will move on.
Points of Order
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the House will know, Laila Soueif stopped eating 247 days ago to try to save her son, the imprisoned British-Egyptian national, Alaa Abd el-Fattah. He is an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience who has been in jail for more than a decade because of his writings on democracy. Laila is now at risk of death. Have you had any indication of whether the Foreign Secretary will come to the House to inform us about what action the Government are taking to secure Alaa’s urgent release?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I have had no message to say that a member of the Government will be coming to the House today, but what she has said is certainly on the record. I know, too, that the Prime Minister took notice of the question on this subject that was put to him, and I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard what the hon. Member has said.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, following the publication of the hard copy of the strategic defence review, I informed you that I was aware that at least two major defence companies had been given a copy of that document at 8 am yesterday morning. Looking at what happened on the market, I noticed that the share price of one of those companies spiked very sharply at exactly that time. We do not know exactly what that can be attributed to, but you will be aware that the “Ministerial Code” says very clearly, on the publication of White Papers and consultation papers, that
“where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.”
Presumably, that is to avoid this sort of effect from the receipt of privileged information that is not made available to other companies. Mr Speaker, I seek your advice on how to pursue this matter further. Have you heard from the Government on whether they will make a statement, or take any steps to investigate these matters?
Mr Speaker
I have had no indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement. What the shadow Secretary of State has said is on the record, and I know that he will not give up on this. I suspect that he will be on his way to the Table Office to see what advice he can be given on pursuing this matter.
Royal Fleet Auxiliary (Report on Commissioner)
Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRoyal Fleet Auxiliary (Report on Commissioner) Bill 2024-26 View all Royal Fleet Auxiliary (Report on Commissioner) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a report on the potential merits of appointing a commissioner to consider, investigate and make recommendations to address welfare issues faced by personnel serving in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and their families.
This year marks the 120th anniversary of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which was founded in 1905. In those 120 years, RFA personnel have developed a proud sense of independence. They are non-military merchant navy sailors who support and supply the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, and they have a steadfast dedication to public service. Much of their work happens behind the scenes—they do not often make the headlines—but they are vital to UK defence, maritime power, and humanitarian and disaster relief.
The RFA refuels warships at sea. It delivers ammunition, supplies, food and water, and it transports Royal Marines and equipment to where they are needed. RFA ships were in the Falklands, Kosovo, the first Gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan. RFA personnel are not armed combatants, but they are deployed in war zones and they face danger. Recent RFA deployments have included: anti-narcotics missions in the Caribbean, the Persian gulf and the Indian ocean; the provision of disaster relief to Haiti, following earthquakes in 2010 and 2021; anti-people smuggling operations in the mediterranean; and the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The RFA Proteus was instrumental in responding to the security threat posed by the Russian vessel Yantar in the North sea last November. Responding to this sort of “grey zone” security threat, especially to subsea energy and communications infrastructure, is an increasing part of Royal Navy and RFA work to enhance national maritime security.
As RFA ships are maintained at the port of Falmouth, in my constituency, and call it their home, I have become accustomed to seeing them sailing in and out of Falmouth bay. I remember watching the RFA Argus depart in September 2014 to deploy off the west coast of Africa during the Ebola pandemic. She provided crucial medical equipment, supplies and food, and transported doctors, nurses and military personnel. On her return, she was honoured with an Admiralty Board letter of commendation.
I have highlighted these examples to show how important and varied RFA operations are. RFA personnel are, without doubt, incredibly hard-working, committed and courageous, but due to the unique nature of their service, they often do not receive the same level of protection and recognition as the rest of the forces. In recent years, the RFA has faced challenges. Resources are stretched, and the RFA has taken on more and more jobs previously done by the Royal Navy. At the same time, there is an ageing fleet and crew shortages—only six of 11 RFA ships are currently operational, and skilled positions are understaffed by 30% to 50%. The UK carrier strike group in the Pacific ocean is relying on the Norwegian navy for solid support capacity due to the RFA Fort Victoria being non-operational. The Fort Victoria is more than 35 years old, and a replacement for the UK’s only solid support ship is not expected until the early 2030s. It is crucial for the UK’s security and impact on the world stage that the RFA is properly resourced. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to the RFA during his statement on the strategic defence review yesterday.
The recruitment and retention crisis in the RFA has been fuelled by issues with pay and terms and conditions. A 2024 report commissioned from Faststream by the Ministry of Defence found that the RFA leave ratio was one to 0.69, and that the RFA offered less time off per day worked than any other sector. Personnel regularly have four-month sea tours. Officers have experienced a real-terms pay cut of over 30% since 2010. The Faststream report stated:
“The RFA’s current offering pays lower than the market average for the net day rate in every rank benchmarked.”
I was therefore pleased to see the pay deal that was agreed earlier this year by this Government. Alongside a pay increase, there was a commitment to improved terms and conditions, including reduced length of assignments, and an agreement to ratify a new collective bargaining agreement reached by the RFA and maritime trade unions. This, I hope, is just the beginning; we need to do more and go further to support RFA personnel. The Armed Forces Commissioner will be an independent, direct point of contact for armed forces personnel—someone with whom they can raise complaints and welfare issues. There should be an equivalent for the RFA—or the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill could include the RFA. It would mean that RFA personnel could raise concerns about bullying, unsafe working conditions, discrimination, and misconduct, but inclusion under the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit—or indeed that of a separate commissioner—would not change the RFA’s legal status. It would not militarise the RFA, which would retain the separate identity of which its personnel are so proud. Unions should rightly have a say in proposals for a commissioner that encompasses the RFA.
The Armed Forces Commissioner will supersede the previous service complaints ombudsman commissioner, whose remit was much narrower. This follows through on the promise made by this Labour Government to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. That contract should not end at the gates of a naval base, or the stern of an auxiliary ship. It should recognise the service of RFA personnel.
The families of servicemen and women will now also be able to raise issues with the commissioner. If RFA personnel came under the commissioner’s remit, their families would benefit, too. Partners and children of service personnel and the RFA are alone for long stretches of time. We know that service takes a toll not just on those in uniform, but on those around them; they need that support and that scaffolding, too. I am very aware of that as a former Navy wife.
We cannot claim to support the forces if we do not support those in auxiliary roles— the people who facilitate global deployments. The RFA must not be an afterthought in defence policy. Now more than ever, we need to provide RFA personnel with decent pay, conditions, career progression, equal time off, and modern vessels to reflect the importance of the role that they play in an ever-changing and dangerous world.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jayne Kirkham, Anna Gelderd, Andrew George, Anneliese Midgley, Ben Maguire, Chris Bloore, Graeme Downie, Jacob Collier, Laurence Turner, Luke Akehurst, Noah Law and Perran Moon present the Bill.
Jayne Kirkham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed (Bill 252).
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 18 November 2024 (Armed Forces Commissioner Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberArmed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 3 June 2025 - (3 Jun 2025)
14:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 180 - Question accordingly agreed to.
14:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 184 - Question accordingly agreed to.
14:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 329 / Noes: 101 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendments 2 and 3, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 4 to 7.
Luke Pollard
I am delighted that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to the House. I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which were proposed by the Government in the other place, as well as Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were proposed by the Opposition and to which we have proposed an amendment in lieu to strengthen them.
Before I start, I would like to recognise the publication of the strategic defence review yesterday, which signifies a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence. We made clear then, as I do today, that our people are at the heart of defence. The strategic defence review sets out our mission to look after our people better, to unlock their full potential, and to build a “one defence” culture that is focused, inclusive, respectful, and centred on valuing all contributions. The establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner is a key part of that mission.
I thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important piece of legislation. It is a landmark step in this Government’s commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand behind those who serve our nation. I extend my thanks in particular to Lord Coaker, the Minister in the House of Lords, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place. I also thank Baroness Goldie, the Earl of Minto, Baroness Smith of Newnham, Lord Stirrup, Lord Stansgate, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Beamish and Baroness Newlove, to name just a few who made valuable contributions in the other place on this important piece of legislation.
Seven amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. Before I turn to them, I remind colleagues that this Bill is part of a manifesto commitment made by Labour during the general election to improve the service life of all those who serve and, importantly, to provide for the very first time an opportunity for family members to raise concerns about service welfare as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I think all of us in the House very much welcome the Armed Forces Commissioner. We have a new commissioner in Northern Ireland who is doing an excellent job. There is also a role for local councils to deliver the armed forces covenant. For councils in Northern Ireland that are perhaps hesitant—I am being very gentle with my words here—to fully integrate the covenant, will they be encouraged to embrace in totality the opportunities that the Bill provides? Everything in the Bill is good, and I think the Government need to be congratulated on all they are doing.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Implementing the armed forces covenant is something that this Government feel strongly about. That is why we are bringing forward legislation that will implement the armed forces covenant fully into law on a national basis, so that it grips not just on local authorities but on central Government. There is real merit in implementing the armed forces covenant at a local level. There are pockets of best practice nationwide—not just in military cities like Plymouth, which I represent, but across the country. It can also be of benefit to councils and communities, so I would encourage him to continue his campaign to ensure that the covenant is properly implemented.
For too long we have heard stories of bad experiences that have gone unchallenged, some resulting in tragedy. The Defence Secretary has made it clear from his first day in the Department that there will be zero tolerance for this type of behaviour. That is why we are acting, and that is why I hope that the whole House will support this vital endeavour and the amendments to the Bill.
I invite the House to agree to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which were made by the Government in response to suggestions made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They have the effect of fully implementing the Committee’s recommendations to change the regulation-making power to define relevant family members contained in the Bill from the negative to the affirmative procedure.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I recently met the mother of Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life after being sexually assaulted and abused within the services. I was really impressed by her mother’s strength and her campaign. Does the Minister agree that the Bill will give more powers to family members, and that maybe we can avoid these tragic incidents in future?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for raising a serious case and a real tragedy, not just for the family of Gunner Beck but our entire armed forces. It needs to be a wake-up call, where we recognise that the behaviour within some of our services is unacceptable and that we need to make improvements. For that very reason we must continue to support the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, because it will enable family members as well as those serving in uniform to raise genuine service welfare complaints with the commissioner.
It will not solve every problem we have with the culture in our armed forces, but it provides a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion. My hon. Friend mentions a conversation she had with Gunner Beck’s family, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that to make sure that we properly learn the lessons that defence needs to learn.
I am proud to come from a naval family and to say clearly from this Dispatch Box that the families of our armed forces matter. For the very first time, this Bill will give them a say and allow them to raise concerns. Family members are a crucial element of the commissioner’s remit, and we agree that the definition of a relevant family member should be subject to parliamentary debate and approval. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), raised that point on Second Reading, and we support it. We are moving it from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure, which will enable that discussion to take place.
Lords amendment 7 is a technical amendment that is consequential on clause 3, and I invite the House to support it. Clause 3 amends section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a “person” rather than only an “officer” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible. This is an evolution of the way that the service complaints system has worked and is a prudent change to make.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister mentions family members and other individuals raising complaints, but some of the complaints will be about devolved issues such as health, education and other issues that affect families. Can he reassure me that the Armed Force Commissioner will have an effective method of working with the devolved Administrations to make sure that the concerns of armed forces across the UK can be addressed?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right that defence is a reserved matter, and so it is appropriate for this place to introduce a UK-wide Armed Forces Commissioner. It is also right that whoever is appointed to the role of Armed Forces Commissioner is able to raise issues of concern with the Administrations in every part of the United Kingdom—whether it is London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. Equally, they should be able to engage with local councils. The Armed Forces Commissioner role builds on the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, who already has a good working relationship with the devolved Administrations, so I am certain that whoever is appointed to role will be able to build on that and make sure that, for instance, if a housing issue is highlighted by someone based in Scotland, that can be raised with the appropriate individuals in the Scottish Government.
Lords amendment 7 will ensure that the language in section 340N of the 2006 Act is also updated from “officer” to “person” so that there is no inconsistency in the legislation.
I will now turn to Lords amendments 2 and 3 and the debate that took place in the other place about whistleblowing. I thank Baroness Goldie, one of the previous Defence Ministers in the House of Lords, in whose name the amendments were tabled, for her characteristically considered and constructive contributions to the Bill’s passage and for raising a serious issue. The amendments seek to introduce a new general function for the commissioner
“to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and their relevant family members,”
and to define the term “whistleblower” for the purposes of this Bill.
We believe that the amendments, while well intentioned, are unnecessary because the Bill is already designed to provide a voice for armed forces personnel and their families outside the chain of command. The commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matter that they choose; anyone can raise an issue with the commissioner, including the type of person defined in Baroness Goldie’s amendment; and the commissioner is independent, sits outside the chain of command and the Ministry of Defence, and reports directly to Parliament and not to senior officers nor to Ministers.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I acknowledge the many merits of the Bill. However, it seems that Baroness Goldie was seeking to ensure that women such as those abused at the army college in Harrogate, near my constituency, and other victims have a clear and well-known route called whistleblowing. I urge the Government to not underestimate that whistleblowing presents a real opportunity to encourage people to come forward.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right that the entire Bill, to an extent, is about whistleblowing, because it allows anyone in our armed forces and their relevant family members to raise a concern outside the chain of command. Effectively, that is the very heart and soul of what we propose in this legislation.
I will come to the amendment in lieu in a moment, but certainly, with that, we seek to strengthen the provisions that Baroness Goldie’s amendments propose. We agree that there is an issue that needs to be addressed within our armed forces and we recognise that there are behaviours that are unacceptable. The Ministry of Defence’s Raising our Standards work, which the Minister for Veterans and People leads on, is an important part of providing an opportunity for everyone who serves to raise those concerns and have confidence that they can do so within the chain of command, but where they feel unable to do so, there will be a route available to them through the Armed Forces Commissioner to raise those concerns. Equally, as I just mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), this is about the ability of family members, who may feel less constrained by the chain of command or the structure of the armed forces, to do so on behalf of their family unit. I entirely understand the purpose of the amendments and I agree with their spirit, but we seek to strengthen them in the amendment in lieu.
One of the key parts of the amendments was to ensure that anyone who raises a concern will have their identity protected. It worth noting that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be bound by the data protection legislation that this House has passed, meaning that the personal information and details provided by anyone who contacts the commissioner will be subject to stringent controls.
On the specifics of the word “whistleblower”, we all understand what we mean when we hear that term, and it is important that we provide opportunities for those within our services to raise concerns. However, it is not completely straightforward from a legal point of view how that is enacted in this piece of legislation. Although there is some limited precedent for the use of the term, there is no single meaning and it requires additional context to explain what it means in each case. That means some technical changes are required to Baroness Goldie’s amendment to make it operable within the Bill, which is why we seek to strengthen it.
The amendments seek to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but importantly, no additional protections are created because the commissioner can already investigate anything that is contained in the amendment proposed by Baroness Goldie. However, it is a useful opportunity for us to restate the importance of being able to raise concerns, especially about the abuse that happens in our armed forces, and to state on the record from the Dispatch Box that there is no place for any of that abuse in our armed forces and that not only is the Ministry of Defence taking steps to tackle it but there are protections in the Bill to enable that.
None the less, I understand the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that people feel better able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions or their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit behind that. A united voice from this House, saying that we will not tolerate unacceptable behaviours, will send a strong message to those watching this debate—both perpetrators and complainants—that the zero tolerance approach we want for the armed forces is one that we will all get behind.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister is absolutely right. We have to have that zero tolerance approach, not only because it is right for our service personnel who sacrifice so much and for their families, but because it strengthens our whole armed forces. That is why it was so important to see that focus on personnel in the strategic defence review. Will the Minister reflect briefly on the connection between the Armed Forces Commissioner and the strategic defence review in turning around the issue we have had with retention in our armed forces and finally getting to grips with that crisis?
Luke Pollard
Certainly, the consequence of one of our proposed objectives with the Bill—making it easier for people to raise an issue about service life and to have that addressed—is improved retention. We know that people have concerns about service life. Housing is a good example, and yesterday’s strategic defence review allocated £1.5 billion to improve it. However, we need to make sure that we are reflecting on our approach, and for me there is a good reason we do so, which is based on warfighting. In the event that our people are asked to commit to combat, every member of our forces should know that regardless of the skin colour or religion of the people standing beside them in the trench, or of who they love, they will have their back, and they will have their back consistently. That equality of service is vital to military discipline and to upholding our values, and it is also something that we still need to work on. For that reason, we need to make sure that the Bill passes and can be implemented swiftly.
We want people to trust the commissioner and feel confident that their issues will be addressed and that they will not face any negative consequences as a result of coming forward. As such, I have tabled an amendment in lieu that would go further than Baroness Goldie’s amendments and ensure genuine protection in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner, preserving the anonymity of individuals who make complaints.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I note with interest the Government’s amendment in lieu. Does the Minister agree that, in all of this, which is unobjectionable in the main, there is a concern not around the person making the complaint but around the person about whom the complaint is made? As we live in an increasingly litigious society—the number of service complaints are going up and the number of cases considered by the ombudsman has been going up—it is likely that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s work and the number of people complained about will go up. Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient support for those about whom complaints are made, since the distress that it causes when those complaints are unfounded, or unfounded in part, is significant?
Luke Pollard
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has experience as a Minister who covered this area in the last Government. He is right that we need to reflect on the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Certainly, we need to make sure that we are looking after our whole force.
It is true that there are issues that we believe are not being addressed because there is not a sufficient spotlight being shone on them. It is for that reason that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill provides for a reporting function not to Ministers or the Chief of the Defence Staff, but to Parliament. Indeed, I believe the Defence Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is likely to receive those reports. It is precisely for those reasons that I believe the commissioner may be able to offer a view as to how the system they oversee will be able not only to protect victims and perpetrators, and seek justice with perpetrators, but deal with people who may be falsely accused. Largely, I expect general service welfare matters to be the predominant piece of activity for the commissioner, rather than necessarily looking at individual aspects of abuse or misbehaviour for which there is already a legal system within defence that can address some of those. As a whole, however, I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point.
In addition to the amendment that we have tabled in lieu, the Government have also committed in the other place to updating their current Raising a Concern policy, which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The update will outline the role of the commissioner and ensure that similar protections for people under the policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner. That will include provisions related to anonymity and confidentiality, and ensure that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to the raising of that concern.
Further, the Government will conduct a thorough communications campaign to ensure that members of our armed forces and their families are clear about the role of the commissioner and how to access their office, how it interacts with existing policy protections and policy, the type of issues that can be raised, and how they will be dealt with.
Taken together, our Government amendment and the additional commitments that I have outlined today and that Lord Coaker outlined to the House of Lords will establish genuine protections for people wishing to raise concerns anonymously, and build trust and confidence with the armed forces and their family members in a way that we cannot envisage would be achieved by Lords amendments 2 and 3 on their own.
This Bill is a critical step in renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. For the first time, we are providing them and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised in due course by Parliament, and in turn for the Government—this Government and any Government in the future—to be held to account. That can only be a positive thing. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
In Southend and Rochford I have had the pleasure of meeting many veterans and service people, men and women, who keep our country safe. An Armed Forces Commissioner will be a direct point of contact for those serving and their families, and will have direct authority to investigate welfare complaints from housing to kit to issues affecting family life. As a former soldier myself, I know that losing a lot of kit happened often, but I digress. This role comes alongside record amounts of funding for the armed forces and housing, so I am sure that colleagues across the House are extremely proud—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member really ought not to be making a mini-speech. Perhaps he is drawing his comments to a close.
Mr Alaba
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure colleagues across the House are extremely proud of our armed forces. Does the Minister agree that this Bill is an opportunity for us to show a united Chamber in support of our armed forces and that colleagues should support it?
Luke Pollard
I agree with my hon. Friend’s interventions, and he need not worry, because I will not be sending him a bill for any of the kit that he might have misplaced over the years.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this House is at its best when we focus not on the party politics that may give us cause to divide ourselves, but on support for our armed forces personnel, their families and the missions that we ask them to undertake to keep our nation safe. It is precisely for that reason that I hope colleagues across the House will take note of what he has said and present a united House in relation to these amendments.
For the first time, we are providing our armed forces and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised by Parliament and, in turn, for the Government to be held to account. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to put aside party politics and to put our troops first, so that we can move closer to delivering this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call shadow Minister Mark Francois.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could begin by referring briefly to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), which immediately preceded this debate. As a Navy wife, she clearly fully understands the vital role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in supporting our armed forces, and as the son of someone who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, I have grown up to appreciate everything that the RFA does for us. It is a wonderful organisation. I was sitting on the Front Bench throughout her speech and I wish her Bill all the best.
As the shadow Armed Forces Minister, I rise to speak as a critical friend of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, driven by a commitment to ensuring that it delivers real and meaningful support for the brave men and women who serve our country. Our armed forces personnel deserve a system that honours their sacrifice and guarantees fairness, accountability and transparency when concerns arise.
To recap, the Bill at its core seeks to strengthen oversight by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner modelled partly on the German system, with Ofsted-like powers to access military sites and relevant information for investigations. If implemented well, it could improve the lived experience of our servicemen and women, bolstering public confidence in how their issues are handled.
A truly independent, well-resourced commissioner is a vision that I believe commands support right across the House. Saying that, where are Reform Members? This is legislation that is designed to enhance the welfare of our armed forces and their families, so why are they not here? Having checked in Hansard, I know that they were not here yesterday either. They took no part in either of the urgent questions, and no part whatsoever in the statement or the very long debate that followed it. Why? It is because Reform Members do not do defence. They are one-club golfers with one single issue, and unfortunately the welfare of our armed forces personnel and their families does not seem to be it. Their empty Benches speak volumes, and while I am at it, are there any Scottish National party Members here? Oh well, they do not take this very seriously either, do they?
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point. I have sat in this House on, I think, all the occasions when we have been discussing defence, and I was also sorry to note that there were no Reform Members here for either the VE Day debate or the Remembrance Day debate. Does he agree that that shows the complete dereliction of a party that aspires to govern?
Mr Francois
For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes.
At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify. At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case.
That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity. In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that
“Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”.
He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree. They argue that our amendment is unnecessary because it does not confer additional powers on the commissioner.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Recently, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said that he was “ashamed” by the stories of sexual misconduct—predominately crimes committed against women in service. He also said that lots of these crimes go unreported, so lots are unknown as well as the terrible ones that are known. How can we have a truly effective independent commissioner if there is no whistleblowing function through which these crimes can be reported?
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument. I hope that if time allows, he will also make a speech.
The Government themselves acknowledge that the commissioner provides an enhanced, independent route for raising concerns. Our amendments build on that by embedding a clear, accessible and statutorily protected whistleblowing function. That simplicity is vital for ensuring that service personnel, especially those who feel most vulnerable, can come forward without fear.
The Government have further argued that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. However, that claim is simply untenable. As Baroness Goldie powerfully highlighted in the other place, the Armed Forces Act 2006—section 340Q is titled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”—and the Police Reform Act 2002 provide clear statutory precedent for the term. Those Acts demonstrate that including whistleblowing adds tangible value to legislation, ensuring protections for those who expose wrongdoing. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and the very Act that this Bill is designed to amend, how can the Government argue that it lacks clarity or value in this context?
Let me address the Government’s contradictory stance. In Committee in the other place, we proposed a broader amendment to empower the commissioner. In the other place, the Ministry of Defence dismissed it as too wide-ranging. In the spirit of constructive compromise, which has been the general tenor of the Bill throughout, we narrowed our amendment to focus specifically on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that this revised amendment is too narrow and does not grant sufficient powers—too broad, then too narrow. That inconsistency displays a reluctance to engage with the substance of our proposal.
To illustrate my point, let me offer two theoretical examples to the House. First, let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland. This is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will be aware, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether any armed forces personnel who served, or indeed are still serving, in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but as of today, over 131,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward to an early debate in Parliament on these matters. While we are of course in the hands of the Petitions Committee and not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this occasion, we are hopeful that the Committee might allow a debate to take place as soon as possible, and certainly prior to the summer recess. I see Labour Members nodding, so I am keen to get that into Hansard.
Secondly, let us consider the theoretical example of an officer serving as a military assistant to a Minister on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence. What protection in law would that officer have if they became seriously concerned that a Minister they were working for was about to breach the ministerial code? Not that any Minister here today would, of course. How would an officer faced with a moral dilemma of that magnitude be permitted to act as a whistleblower to raise concerns that Ministers had acted inappropriately—something that would certainly impact their general welfare as well as the reputation of the Government they served? We will see if the Minister has anything to add before we conclude.
In summary—I know others are keen to speak—the Government have offered assurances about anonymity in the commissioner’s work and promised a communications campaign to raise awareness of the commissioner’s role. These are welcome steps, but, as I hope I have argued, they are not enough. A communications campaign is no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can rely on with confidence. The other place recognised that, delivering a significant cross-party defeat to the Government last month when Conservative peers, alongside others, successfully amended the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Lords amendments 2 and 3 are not just about process; they are about rebuilding trust.
I will listen closely to the Minister’s response, but if the Government cannot move beyond their current position and continue to offer assurances without real statutory weight—I am afraid we find the amendment in lieu unconvincing—we will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. We owe it to our service personnel to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns are properly investigated.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As we consider the Lords amendments to the Bill, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the important issues that these amendments address.
I am pleased to support Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which enhance parliamentary oversight of secondary legislation under the Bill. The Government’s support for those amendments is a positive step towards greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of this important legislation.
I also want to highlight the significance of whistleblower protection. Lords amendments 2 and 3 rightly draw attention to the need to safeguard those who come forward with concerns. I welcome His Majesty’s official Opposition’s efforts to bring attention to this issue and to the Government’s commitment to this principle, particularly through the amendments they have tabled in lieu, which aim to protect the anonymity of individuals making complaints. That is essential for fostering a culture of openness and trust within our armed forces and ensuring the Armed Forces Commissioner has the confidence of serving personnel and those who make complaints.
I am grateful to the Armed Forces Minister for his clarification on the matter just now. As Chair of the Defence Committee, I want to reiterate that our Committee very much looks forward to holding a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the first Armed Forces Commissioner—a vital step in ensuring the independence and effectiveness of this new office.
Finally, as this is likely our last opportunity to debate the Bill in the House, I look forward to its passage into law and thank all those who have been involved in drafting and amending the Bill as it has made its way through both Houses.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were tabled by Conservative peer Baroness Goldie and supported in the other place by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject the Government’s proposals to remove them and replace them with a watered-down version. The amendments do something simple but profoundly important: they embed within the commissioner’s role a clear and explicit whistleblowing function, one that empowers service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare and wrongdoing safely and with confidence, and, crucially, one that provides statutory protections for those who speak up.
A complaints process and a whistleblowing system have two different purposes. A complaint is often about personal redress whereas a whistleblowing disclosure is about drawing attention to serious wrongdoing, often at great personal risk in the public interest. The Government’s amendment in lieu acknowledges the importance of anonymity, but it does not go far enough. It merely inserts a provision to protect identifying details in publishing reports and only where the disclosure was “in response to a request”. It neither defines nor protects whistleblowers in statute.
Whistleblowing is a vital tool in surfacing systemic failure—something that our service personnel clearly need. It seems like almost every month brave service personnel and veterans come forward with shocking accounts of misconduct. Their accounts underline how much courage it takes to speak up and how easily that courage can be crushed by fear of social backlash, reprisal or career damage. The Government argued that anyone can raise a concern with the commissioner and that data protection law already protects anonymity, but data protection is not the same as whistleblower protection. It is passive and does not actively encourage disclosures, does not instil confidence and does not grant status or safeguards against retaliation.
The whistleblowing amendments would not overburden the commissioner; they would simply recognise whistleblowing for what it is: a unique and necessary channel for uncovering wrongdoing that might otherwise be buried. They are tightly drawn, limited to welfare matters, and designed to ensure that information reaches someone with the authority to act. The commissioner will be tasked with improving the culture and confidence among our armed forces. Nothing would do more to support that mission than keeping the amendments, which would introduce a whistleblowing function, giving our brave service personnel and their families an independent, trusted person to whom they can speak safely and be heard without fear.
I will vote against the Government motion to remove Lords amendments 2 and 3, and I urge colleagues to do the same. The amendments give confidence to those who wish to speak up, but who are afraid of the consequences. “Whistleblowing” is a simple, clear and well-understood term that can provide extra assurance. It could make this Bill truly transformative to the armed forces culture.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Yesterday’s strategic defence review rightly put our brave service personnel at the heart of defence plans, and this Bill is a fundamental part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the amendments made in the other place, which improve the Bill. However, I support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a new general function for the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, but the House will know that the commissioner can already investigate any general service matters that they choose, and the Bill already allows anyone who wishes to raise such issues to do so. While the Lords amendments have been important in raising issues around anonymity for whistleblowers, Government amendment (a) would go further by ensuring genuine protection for people who raise an issue that later features in an investigation and report by the commissioner.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3. We have seen time and again how important it is to allow our service personnel to speak up in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our armed forces and the success of critical missions. The 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, the 2005 loss of the C-130 Hilton 22, and the 2006 loss of Nimrod XV230 serve as stark reminders of what happens when concerns are not openly reported. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to maintaining anonymity by ensuring that no identifying information, or information that could lead to identification, is included without the explicit consent of service members. I also welcome the Government’s assurance that they will update the MOD’s “raising a concern” policy to reflect civilian protections and ensure that all individuals who come forward can do so with guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that referencing such awful disasters really brings into focus the lack of public awareness of the lack of support for our armed forces in previous years, and that this landmark Labour Bill will transform the culture in our forces in a positive way and is long overdue?
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This Bill marks a culture change in how the Government go about interacting with our armed forces, and provides them with a sense of pride but also the necessary process to ensure that their service is protected and treated with dignity and respect.
Ultimately, whether it is reporting on ongoing cultural issues of bullying and sexual harassment, poor quality housing or equipment safety concerns, every service member should feel empowered to do so and feel assured that they can and should speak up. We have seen how the armed forces ombudsman has consistently been unable to ensure that the service complaints system does not disadvantage or discriminate. Such findings raise serious concerns, highlighting the critical need for the new and empowered Armed Forces Commissioner to regain the trust of service members. Building that trust is more important than simply enacting new legislation; it is essential that service members feel confident that their complaints will be handled anonymously and fairly.
Ultimately, fostering a culture of trust in the armed forces must take precedence over the specific language of the legislation. It is the practical implementation by the chain of command, and commitment to the fair treatment of all, that will truly make a difference. I recognise that this Government are committed to renewing our country’s contract with those who serve, and the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner is an important step. The success of the Armed Forces Commissioner largely depends on the effective implementation of this Bill, and on the willingness of the chain of command to work with the commissioner. However, the Government must ensure that the service complaints system tackles the deep-rooted systemic issues that persist in the armed forces, recognising that the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner is only one part of much-needed broader reform—not that Reform—
Luke Pollard
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate in the time that we have left. On behalf of the Government, I thank all Members for their contributions. It is clear that there is widespread support for the principle of introducing an Armed Forces Commissioner, for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit to include relevant family members, and for us to get on and implement the Bill well, which I can assure the shadow Minister is our intention.
I will refer to a number of the points that have been raised in today’s debate. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) that we need to ensure that the system works. The Bill in front of us is not designed to adjust the procedures, policies or process of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces as it transitions into the Armed Forces Commissioner’s Office, but it is designed to expand the powers of SCOAF. The current Service Complaints Ombudsman has been asking for that in her annual reports, and we have provided an expanded remit in the Bill in front of us. I share my hon. Friend’s determination to see an improved system, and I place on record my thanks to Mariette Hughes, the current Service Complaints Ombudsman, for her work in reducing the backlog of service complaints that were not being addressed. In Committee we heard about the progress that has been made, which was very welcome, and I am certain that that improvement will be embedded in the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner as well.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of Northern Ireland veterans, and we owe our veterans from Operation Banner a huge debt of gratitude. Their professionalism and sacrifice saved lives in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, and helped bring about peace. There will be no rewriting of history. However, the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act did nothing to help those veterans. Over and over again, it was found to be unlawful by the UK courts, and any incoming Government at the last general election would have had to repeal and replace that unlawful legislation—it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
We must ensure that the legacy mechanisms in place are fair, lawful and proportionate, and we are working hard to ensure that veterans’ welfare and legal services are provided, so that anyone involved in any of the investigations gets the support they require and we can minimise the impact on this unique group of veterans. As we replace the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act, we will prioritise and strengthen the protections to ensure the dignity and respect of veterans, and I know that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office will look forward to further discussions on this issue should the Petitions Committee grant a debate.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It has often been said that the courts rejected the legacy Act, at least in part. I am not aware of which part specifically they rejected, but I would like to remind the ministerial team that in 2017 the then Defence Committee examined in great detail whether it would be legal to have a statute of limitation that would put an end to these prosecutions. Four professors of law, including Philippe Sands, agreed that it would be, as long as there was an investigative process, possibly embodied in a truth recovery process. When the Government bring forward whatever alternative legislation to the legacy Act they propose, will they make sure that a statute of limitation is part of it?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have had many long discussions about issues that the Committee discussed when he chaired it, and I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) may have interest in this as Chair of the Committee today. I will ensure that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office who are leading on that work have heard those remarks.
Mr Francois
Well, 131,000 people do not agree with what the Minister just said, clearly. If he is so confident in the Government’s case, can he say on the record that he would welcome their proposals being debated in Parliament for at least three hours before the summer recess? Presumably he is not frightened of a debate, so could he put that on the record?
Luke Pollard
I already had, before the right hon. Gentleman intervened—it was the last line I said before giving way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think there is a good issue that needs to be debated. This place should debate issues of concern to the British people, and it should also be the forum where we challenge and test those arguments. Indeed, the courts have already tested the legacy Act and found it to be unlawful. That is why any Government would need to look at it again—indeed, our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are doing so—and I am happy to confirm that any Bill would be brought forward to the House for such a discussion.
I turn to the whistleblowing protections, which were raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. I agree that the term “whistleblower” exists elsewhere in law. However, as I said, simply using the term in the Bill as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have no practical legal effects and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not provided for in the Government amendment in lieu. Indeed, the Government amendment goes further than the Opposition amendments. In relation to practical effect, there is no difference between what is proposed and what is already in the Bill.
However, I entirely accept the spirit in which both Members raised that important issue. We know that there are issues in terms of culture in our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and the whole team in the Ministry of Defence have been clear that there is no place for those issues, and we are making culture change. Indeed, the fact that our senior officers have made similar statements show that from the top to the bottom of our armed forces, there is no place for any abuse, and a zero-tolerance policy must take that seriously. I am not certain that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have much legal effect, and the Government amendment goes further.
However, I welcome this debate and the opportunity we have as a Parliament to put on record our strong cross-party support for a zero-tolerance approach. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is pointing at the empty Reform Benches, which he made a strong argument about earlier. I am not a golf player—as a hockey player, I have only one stick, and I believe a few more are needed in golf.
The strong cross-party position—or the position of all parties represented here today, I should say—is that there is no place for abuse in our armed forces or a culture of intimidation. The powers contained in the Bill provide an opportunity for people to raise concerns outside the chain of command. That is what the Government’s amendment in lieu also seeks to do, recognising that, in addition to the commitments I have given to the House today, we can further strengthen the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the Bill to the House.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons 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: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 3 June 2025 - (3 Jun 2025)
15:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 185 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F.
I am tempted to start with a quote from “Macbeth”—
“When shall we three meet again?”—
because I notice there is a similar cast to our previous debates, but let me start by dispelling some misconceptions. We are not, contrary to what some have stated, changing UK copyright laws to the detriment of the creative industries. If the Government’s Bill is adopted, not a single word of copyright law will have changed in the United Kingdom. It will be as robust as it ever was. In fact, we have said repeatedly that creators should share in the value of this new technology, and we support artificial intelligence developers paying for the content that they use. We want to see more licensing of and proper remuneration for UK content.
We are not undermining copyright owners’ control over their work. We have said from the beginning that we want intellectual property owners to have more control over the use of their works. Some said in the House of Lords yesterday that we have not listened to them or to the creative industries, but that is simply not true. We have heard loud and clear the message from the creative industries and from others. That is why we put reporting commitments on the face of the Bill at a previous round, and we have committed to adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on enforcement. We have committed to delivering reports and impact assessments within nine rather than 12 months, and the Bill will require the Secretary of State to make a progress statement to Parliament about the impact assessment and reports within six months of Royal Assent.
It is also why the Secretary of State, who is sitting by me now, stated clearly that although we went into the consultation with a preferred option, we have heard the reaction to that. We want to consider the consultation responses in full, and—to quote him precisely—
“When we went into the consultation, I believed that opting out could have offered an opportunity to bring both sides together, but I now accept that that is not the case.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1233.]
As I have said, the Government have listened at every stage.
As I have explained to the House previously, the Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. What we have is a Bill that will harness data for economic growth, improve public services and support modern digital government. We want to get the legislation on the statute book as fast as we possibly can.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
If only I believed the Minister. I pick up the frustration in his tone, and I appreciate that this must be exhausting for him, because this is the fourth time that the Government have been defeated on this issue in the other place. I understand that he just wants to get this piece of legislation done, but this time it only requires the Government to come forward with a plan to implement transparency before it is too late. He says that our copyright law is robust and that he is not seeking to undermine it—it is robust, but it is being ignored. How long will it take before the Government hold the AI companies to account for what is effectively the biggest copyright heist in history? How long will it take before the Government clamp down on what is basically the whitewashing of the behaviour of big tech? Who is really pulling the strings here?
Chris Bryant
Well, nobody is pulling my strings. I do not know what that final reference was to. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and the Select Committee, who have done important work in this field. Some of what we have committed to in previous rounds of ping-pong in this House has sprung directly from what her Select Committee asked us to do. We will continue to listen to that. As she knows, we have always said, right from the beginning, that a key aspect of any package we bring forward would be something around transparency.
I will come on to the precise matters in the new clause before us, and I hope that might explain why we are urging the House to reject the amendment today. It is a delight to hear from the hon. Lady, and she need not doubt me.
Robin Swann
I know that the Minister does mean it in this case. He talks about the speed of moving this legislation on to the statute book. I note that legislative consent motions are in from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but as yet there is not one from the Northern Ireland Assembly. Can he give me clarification as to what implication that legislative consent motion not being in place will have for those businesses and individuals in Northern Ireland who will be affected by this legislation?
Chris Bryant
I have spoken to Ministers in Northern Ireland, and they have already laid that legislative consent motion. My understanding is that that process will be fully done in time for Royal Assent, so he need not worry. We have sorted that one out, too.
I promised the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), that I was about to come on to the precise details of the amendment, so I will address that. First, as Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, my noble colleague, said in the Lords yesterday,
“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”—
the one that we are now considering—
“how to deal with models trained overseas; and how rules should be enforced and by whom.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 481.]
We will do subsection (1) of the new clause as part of our report and economic impact assessment. In other words, we have already committed to do half of what is in the amendment, and I would therefore argue that that half is unnecessary.
The second part of the new clause is problematic, and I think it would be problematic for any Government. It requires the Government to produce a draft Bill on copyright and AI according to a specific timetable. It lays out elements that that Bill must include and determines how it should be considered by this House. I cannot think of any Bill in our history that has included such a clause, for very good reason. A central plank of parliamentary sovereignty is that no Parliament can bind its successor. That does not just mean from one Parliament to another; it means that one Session of Parliament cannot bind a future Session. However, the Kidron amendment says that, for instance, the draft Bill
“must make provision for enforcement”.
What happens if it does not do so, or if the measures it includes for enforcement are not sufficient in some people’s minds? Where would that be adjudicated? How would it be decided?
Chris Bryant
I will just finish this point, if the hon. Lady will allow me. In addition, we are still working through a huge number of consultation responses. To prescribe a draft Bill in detail at this point would completely undermine that process and the policy work that is taking place. I would argue that not only is that bad policymaking, but it would completely disregard the input that so many respondents to the consultation have exhausted so much effort in providing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Bryant
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Gosport, and then to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I think the Minister for giving way, but I think he is dancing on the head of a pin. The fact is that all legislation somehow binds those who are coming down the track, and others have spoken on many occasions about the urgency of bringing forward measures to provide transparency about what of people’s intellectual property is being scraped right now. I cannot understand why the Government are taking this position. This amendment is not asking for much; it is just asking for the Government to have a plan to sort this out in short order.
Chris Bryant
Of course, I understand the demand for us to act as swiftly as we possibly can, and that is our intention. One could argue that introducing a draft Bill, which would then be considered in various different places and presumably would be followed by a Bill, would delay things rather than speed them up. In addition—this is a really important constitutional point—as I said earlier, I am not aware of a single Bill in the past that has required a future Bill to be produced and specified things that must be in it.
Chris Bryant
I have got to give way to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon first, but then of course I will come back to my hon. Friend.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. The essential point is that the creative industry is desperate to get a hook within this Bill to reassure it that this vacuuming up of its intellectual property will be controlled. The problem with all the commitments, the working groups and all the words that the Minister is saying is that they do not give the creative industry that reassurance. Yesterday’s debate was passionate about the need—somehow, in whatever way the Government want—to give the creative industry reassurance that this issue will be dealt with within a set timeframe.
Chris Bryant
I understand the concern of the creative industries—they have expressed it to me in no uncertain terms on many occasions, both individually and in larger groups. We have heard the message loud and clear. I think some people have been labouring under the misconception that this Bill is doing something to undermine copyright. I know that the right hon. Gentleman listened to the debate in the House of Lords yesterday, because I was standing next to him, listening to the fullness of the debate as a courtesy to the House of Lords.
As I have said before, I worry that to legislate on a part of this issue, rather than the whole of it, is a mistake. For the sake of argument, let us say that we only legislated in relation to what transparency should be required and did not come up with an enforcement measure. What would happen if the companies simply refused to provide that information? Would we have to introduce a new offence of not providing such information? What would we have to do? That is my argument for why I think—notwithstanding the clamour for us to go as fast as we possibly can, which I fully understand—we need to get it right and to legislate in the round, rather than just piecemeal on the back of a Bill that is not meant to deal with these matters at all.
I heard my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) attempt to intervene earlier.
Ms Billington
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I understand that he is being extremely patient in these circumstances. May I draw his attention to something that happened before 2010? I know that that was a long time ago, but both he and I are old enough—and, indeed, ugly enough—to remember those times.
When Lord Mandelson was Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, what was then known as the Napster clause was included in the then Digital Economy Bill. That was done precisely to give reassurance to the music industry that if, later on, downloading became so problematic that the music industry was going to be hollowed out, the Government would give themselves the power to act. If my hon. Friend is giving the Government the power to report, surely it would be right for the Government to give themselves the power to act once they have received evidence that something is going wrong, enabling them to enforce the copyright law that we all now agree is clear and should therefore be enforced.
Chris Bryant
I will start with my hon. Friend’s very last point, which is that we all agree that copyright law is clear—we do. I hope people understand that the Government’s position is clear that copyright law is clear. I do not think that is in doubt.
Secondly, of course, we always have the power to introduce legislation. However, certainly if I were sitting on the Opposition Benches, I would doubt whether it would be right to introduce transparency requirements solely on the basis of secondary legislation, which—as I say—would probably have to contain some sort of enforcement mechanism and potentially a new offence. I would say, “Secondary legislation is unamendable—it is take it or leave it. That would be problematic.”
While again I understand the desire for us to move as swiftly as possible, I reiterate that I think it is better for us to legislate in the round, taking all of the subject matter into consideration. Some matters have not even been mentioned in this debate, such as what we do about the copyright that pertains to AI-created material. Should that material have any protection, or no protection? Should it follow the person who created the AI large language model, or should it stick with the person who asked the AI large language model the question?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) is quite right: back in 2010, the Napster provision was first enacted through the Digital Economy Act. Such provision is possible, and I just do not understand the Minister’s reticence about this amendment. It seems an entirely reasonable amendment to bring forward—it does everything that everybody wants to achieve when it comes to this Bill. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, could he at least say that he accepts the principles of it and what it requires, and that he will do all he can to bring forward all the provisions it asks for?
Chris Bryant
I am trying to be tidy in the way I respond to people, so first, I note that I did not respond to the Napster point. Quite a lot of people have made the point to me that we got from Napster to Spotify. There are many problems with Spotify that many musicians, record labels and so on have raised with me, but at least it is better than people taking stuff for nothing. There is an argument—a strong argument, I would say—that in this debate, we want to move from Napster to Spotify, or to something even better than Spotify. I am not sure precisely how we get there, but I am absolutely certain that we need to legislate in the round for all of these issues.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me about the principles of the noble Baroness Kidron’s amendment. Of course we believe in transparency—we are fully subscribed to wanting to provide that. That has always been part of the package that we have wanted to present. There is still the question of what enforcement would look like, and many other issues that any Bill that comes forward would need to address. I am hesitant about introducing a draft Bill, because a draft Bill would take longer to go through.
We want to be able to legislate in this area as soon as we possibly can, but we also want to have listened to and borne in mind the full panoply of the responses. People may presume that they know what the 11,500 responses will say, but actually, they are much more diverse. I am not saying that everybody is clamouring for what the Government have laid out; I am just saying that those responses address a diversity of issues, all of which we need to address.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way again, as he has on so many occasions during these debates, and for his ongoing engagement in these matters, but does he agree that if the Government do not act now to enforce the law, we will basically be allowing what everyone already sees as theft to continue? Would he accept that in any other industry, such as retail or farming?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is entirely right about the issue of enforcement, although traditionally it is not for Governments to enforce the law. It is for the courts to do that, although in certain circumstances when there has been a breach of the criminal law, it will be for the prosecuting authorities to consider. In a way this makes my point, which is that it is all very well to legislate on transparency requirements, but if there are no enforcement measures it will not make the blindest bit of difference. All this has to be done in the round.
We have already said that we want to engage with the creative sector and, of course, the technology sector as much as we can. We believe that such engagement will help to chart the way forward on both transparency and technical standards, and possibly on technical solutions to the problem. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed on and implemented. However, we must see what comes of the process rather than imposing preconditions at this early stage.
For all those reasons, I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendment. The first part of the proposed new clause is a helpful addition to the work that we will do and are now committed to doing, but the lion’s share of it would lead to what I believe is confusing law and constitutionally uncertain.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I echo the comments of my hon. Friends about how open and engaging both the Minister and the Secretary of State have been on this issue. As for the consideration of working groups, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s policy is to ensure that both sides are in the room at the same time, with the Minister and the Secretary of State? This has been rehearsed before; the last Government failed, and talks broke down. May I urge this Government please to ensure that both voices hear each other? Their job is to manage that process, as well as leading it.
Chris Bryant
I agree 100%. There would be absolutely no point in not having both sides—indeed, I would say several sides—of the argument in the room at the same time. Yesterday morning I had an interesting conversation with someone who is very prominent on the music scene. He told me, in granular detail, what we would need to do for transparency in the music sector, but added that obviously it would be completely different for the publishing sector. That is the kind of detail we will have to go into. If we are to bring about a licensing regime that really works, it will have to work differently for sound, music, words and images, which means that we will have to have all those people around the table, as well as AI—not just “big tech”, a phrase that was used frequently in their lordships’ House yesterday, but tech from the UK. That is a very important part of what we need to be promoting. So yes, I can guarantee to my hon. Friend that we will have everyone in the room, and also that we want to get on with it as soon as we possibly can—
Chris Bryant
And I want to be able to sit down as soon as I possibly can, but I am being prevented from doing so.
Mike Martin
The Minister is being extremely generous, as he always is. I pressed him on this point on the last occasion when we met across the Chamber, but some time has passed since then. He speaks of dealing with the issue “in the round”, which is a sentiment that I understand, but when? Can he give a timetable?
Chris Bryant
“As soon as possible”, I am afraid. I know that there are lots of parliamentary terms for these matters, such as “imminently” and “soon” and so on. The difficulty is that there are plenty of other priorities for legislation at the same time. I am not the Leader of the House, so I fear that I cannot give a guarantee about a timeline, but we have given some guarantees about when the Secretary of State will report back to the House—within six months of Royal Assent, and I hope that that is within six months of “soon”—and we have given guarantees about our other reports back, which will be within nine months, shortened from 12 months.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will try to crack on.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I thank the Minister for giving way again: he is being very generous. He has spoken about trying to bring the AI sector together with the creative industries. The last Government tried that in response to the text and data mining exception. They formed an AI working group, which, as the Minister knows, fell into abeyance because the AI companies did not engage. Does he think that that could be a problem this time, and has he heard any signals from the big tech companies that they would be more forthcoming with their engagement in response to this attempt?
Chris Bryant
We will make sure that they engage. In a strange way, I think that the campaign that has been led by the hon. Lady and others, in the House of Lords and elsewhere, will help to make people engage in what will not necessarily be an easy process, but one that I think could deliver a win-win for us in the UK and could potentially enable us to lead for other countries in the world. Every indication that we have had thus far suggests that everyone wants to sit in the room together, and, of course, we will have to provide significant leadership in those meetings to be able to drive them forward. As I said on the last occasion when I was talking about these matters at the Dispatch Box, I should like to be able to get on with that as soon as possible, but we have a duty to get the Bill out of the way first.
Let me now say a few words about ping-pong. As Members will know, this is in large measure the same Bill that was presented, twice, by the previous Government. The second Bill fell at the general election, but both major parties committed themselves to reintroducing it, in a broadly similar form, in the new Parliament. None of the parties intended to introduce any matters relating to copyright into the Bill when they discussed it in the run-up to, and during, the general election.
I warmly commend those who are fighting the corner of the creative industries—of course I do; I am the creative industries Minister—but there comes a point at which the Lords is barring the Commons from fulfilling a pledge made by both major parties. We shall now be entering the fourth round of ping-pong. Few Bills in our history have gone this many rounds. In the cases of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill of 2004-05 and the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2006-07, at issue was what the Government had put in rather than what it had not included. Neither of those Bills had been openly advocated by both main parties at a general election. By tradition, the House of Lords does not interfere with Bills to which Governments have committed themselves at the time of a general election. Everyone agrees that this Bill is a valuable piece of legislation, and for that reason I urge their lordships to let it pass into law.
Sir Julian Smith
The Minister was present at yesterday’s debate. Their lordships were acutely aware of not wanting to fetter the House of Commons, but at the same time they are trying to represent thousands of people who are desperate about their incomes. I think it worth putting on the record here that all those who spoke were very aware of what they were doing, but on balance felt that fighting for the underdog was the best thing to do.
Chris Bryant
I am not making an criticism of any individual Member of the House of Lords. I listened to the debate, and it was clear that people felt passionately and were arguing entirely in good faith. I fully understand that. As I have said, however, this a Bill that was not intended to include elements relating to AI and copyright. In the last Parliament it was supported by the Conservative party and by us on the Opposition Benches, and was referred to by both sides during our general election campaigns. Neither of us said that we were going to include anything about copyright in the Bill, but that is what is now holding up Royal Assent. There are economic benefits that would flow from the Bill, but they will of course be delayed if we further delay Royal Assent.
Let me end by saying that, as I think I have said several times, I fully understand the concerns expressed by people in the creative industries about artificial intelligence. Many use it already, but they are understandably concerned about where it will go, and they fear for their jobs. It is true that, for many, the strikes in the US had an even more cataclysmic effect on their careers, but I would just add one corrective to those fears. There is a moment at the end of “The Winter’s Tale” when Paulina takes Leontes to see a statue of his wife, who he thinks died of grief when he falsely accused of her adultery many years earlier. We all know when we watch it in the theatre that the statue is actually the actress playing Hermione; it is not a statue at all. Yet the moment when Leontes touches the statue and says, “O, she’s warm!”, still shocks us and brings tears to our eyes. Why? Because it is human to human. Yes, of course it is artifice laid upon artifice, but it is humanity face to face that really moves us. The Government have heard the concerns expressed by this House and the other place, and we have set out our plans to address them. I believe the Bill must be allowed to run its course.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Back again, and it feels a bit like groundhog day. I must confess that I am a Bill Murray fan, and I think “Groundhog Day” is a great movie. However, I realise that some Members on both sides of the House may not have been born when it was released, which makes me feel a little old, so I will explain a little of the plot. A weatherman set in his ways is sent to a town in Pennsylvania to report on groundhog day, and finds himself in a time loop in which he lives the same day over and over again. In due course, that leads to despair, but eventually he learns that this gives him the opportunity to learn from his mistakes—the time loops can be seen as a blessing or an opportunity, not a curse—and through this he grows, develops and changes. He then breaks out of the time loop to live happily ever after.
We will be stuck in groundhog day on this Bill until the Government realise that the Lords amendments are not a nuisance, but an opportunity, and that they need to listen to the concerns and change course. The noble Lords in the House in which this Bill started have made clear the risk to creatives from AI companies taking their data, and the importance of fairness and transparency. We on the Opposition Benches and Members on both sides of the House have raised similar concerns, but we do not have the numbers yet. In Parliament, it is not sufficient to win the vote; it is also necessary to win the argument, and the Government have lost this argument.
Copyright law is a toothless instrument if the lack of transparency about the use of creative content in AI models continues. The lack of transparency renders the enforcement of rights elusive, and the Government are apparently happy for this to persist on an open-ended basis. While the Government’s direction of travel remains uncertain, everyone loses out. Creatives continue to lose out when their work is exploited without payment. Firms in the AI industry, especially smaller ones, cannot get out of the starting blocks, let alone play their part in turbocharging our tech economy. The Government continue to risk the confidence of both these key industries, with the chilling effect on investment that this entails.
Of course, we are sensitive to the constitutional principles, and noble Lords were very mindful of that topic in their speeches in the other place. The Minister is right that it is almost unprecedented for the other place to return to a Bill so many times. However, rather than use this as a reason to try to push through the Bill, the Government need to listen to that evidence of the strength of feeling. We all know that the Government will have to respond to these concerns, and their position will have to change.
I would love to end this speech with a literary quote suited to the substance of the debate, and I envy the Minister’s ability always to bring flair to our discussions across the Dispatch Box. Instead, I will fall back on a political one from the 38th American President, Gerald Ford:
“Compromise is the oil that makes governments go.”
The Government should meet the Lords on the compromise they have offered, put oil in the engines of our creative and AI industries, and bring an end to this groundhog day.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Here we are again. Once again, I would like to thank those in the other place who have worked so hard on these amendments, and indeed Members across the House who have stood up for creatives. We are back here again two weeks later to discuss and vote on Lords amendment 49F to secure the rights of creatives in the changing face of AI.
What has changed in those two weeks? An awful lot actually. Forty eight hours before we voted on the amendment on 20 May, the latest big AI tech launch occurred when Google launched Veo 3—literally an all-talking, all-singing, all-dancing AI video creator, the like of which we have never seen before. Seeing is believing, and even when you see it, you will not always be able to believe that what you are seeing is not real. The emotions of the characters created by binary code, a series of zeros and ones, have already had me laughing, feeling and thinking; their jokes like a stand-up comedian, the light of the sunset comparable to standing at the Ashridge beech woods as a perfect day’s golden hour arrives, the tangible fear of the binary character representing the actress, the director and the artist questioning what this means for them. The engineering, the development and, dare I say it, the creativity that has gone into developing such software is epic. There is no denying that, but I cannot help but wonder if all the value came from the engineering and the computing. What about the period dramas, the beauty of children’s illustration, the wit of the one-liner and the fast-paced thrillers that have helped to train this cinematic experience at the touch of a prompt?
As far as I can discover, Google representatives have previously mentioned that, as well as publicly available content, YouTube may have been used to train the model. I wonder how many must feel, seeing their creations replicated. Of course, this is just one example of the AI developments happening every minute. The alarm bell that creatives have been ringing has come to fruition a thousand times over. As much as I am sure that many creatives are excited about the possibilities, many will be questioning the implications for their industry, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Just this afternoon, I spoke to creatives from the Creators’ Rights Alliance, who have proof of their works being essentially copied against their will. Artists, writers, photographers, filmmakers, singers and songwriters are watching their life’s work swallowed up.
I have not even spoken about Lyria, which writes music, or the thousands of other developments coming out of AI—incredible developments that we must celebrate, but we must also ensure that the creative work that has gone into it is also valued. While technology moves at pace, our frameworks for accountability have not kept up. In this moment, as artificial intelligence reshapes how creative works are used, adjusted and commercialised, the time for reflection is behind us. I appreciate the Government talking about protecting rights and the actions they are taking, but the time for real action is now. That is why I urge Members across the House to vote for Lords amendment 49F, to ensure transparency of business data is used in relation to AI models, a proportionate approach that calls to establish transparency. I urge the Government to also move at pace to protect creators’ rights with a plan and with everyone around the table, something we have heard across the House today.
As I walked around Little Gaddesden arts fair this weekend, I saw the bright colours and joy that had been created by Sally Bassett, Alison Bateson and Andrew Dixon. Right at the end of the road, Little Gaddesden village hall is where parts of “The Crown” were filmed. I thought of the legendary story about Picasso, which many Members may know. At a Parisian market, an admirer approached Picasso and asked if he could do a quick sketch on a napkin. He kindly obliged, creating art on the napkin. He handed it back to her, but not before asking for 1 million francs. “But it only took you five minutes,” barked the admirer. “No,” Picasso replied, “it took me 40 years to be able to draw this in five minutes.”
Given that prompts can create art, whether song, print, film or story, in seconds, who is being renumerated for the years of work that have gone into it? I urge Members across the House to vote for Lords amendment 49F. We must find a solution to ensure that human creativity is truly valued.
Sir Julian Smith
First, the Ministers, who I like personally and rate a lot, unfortunately do not control the timetable of Government business. Secondly, they do not have a Bill in the King’s Speech. Thirdly, my prediction is that they will be promoted before this new Bill comes to pass.
The speeches were honest, but what they exposed is that there is no time commitment whatever from those on the Government Benches to bring back a Bill to this House to address the current property theft raining down on the UK creative industries. That is why the creative industries and the debate in the other place, which we listened to yesterday, are so passionate. Theft of the property rights of composers, writers, filmmakers and other creatives have been happening for years. They continue to happen and will continue to happen until the new Bill comes forward; greater and greater volumes of intellectual property and hard-fought rights falling into the AI hopper never to be seen again, and no system of redress other than expensive legal action to get it back. How would we feel if it was our own property, business or land—if it was removed without us even being asked, with the gentle reassurance that we could take action retrospectively?
Creatives are desperate. Most do not have the workers’ rights the majority of us have, or things such as pensions or holiday pay; all they have is their intellectual property rights. Where will the incentive be now to toil for weeks, months and years creating a piece of music or writing a text, only to have it snatched away when success arrives? There is an irony, with the Government returning shortly with the Employment Rights Bill, that creative workers’ rights continue to be so eroded.
The transparency amendment in front of us today is a much diluted version of the previous Kidron amendments sent to us from the other place. It sets out a clear timeline for when the Government must return with a Bill, which is a modest request; the Government will still be able to delay the Bill, should they want to, and, to be honest, the creative industries will still not have the opportunity to protect their works in the meantime.
The amendment should be accepted because it will provide reassurance to a key UK sector. However, it should also be accepted as an example of our two Chambers respecting each other. No one in the debate yesterday, listening to the words of Baroness Kidron, Lord Forsyth or others, could feel they were trying to cause the Government problems. Each and every supporter of the amendment did so on the basis of support for the rights of those working in one of the UK’s leading economic sectors, who are pleading with us for their survival and to work positively with this new technological development.
Our politics is currently jam-packed with black and white positions and an instinct to jump to disagreement and polarisation. The Lords amendment before us today represents a modest proposal to disagree well, and the Government should accept it.
Pete Wishart
I was not going to say anything in this round of ping pong, but a couple of things in the debate have tempted me to my feet. The first thing I want to say is about the House of Lords. I have to say that I congratulate their lordships on their tenacity on this issue; I think we both expected and presumed that they would have backed down a long time ago, but they have decided not to, and I think that is because of what I have heard today. They are backing the sector. It has been left to the Lords to ensure that the voices of our artists and those in our creative industries and sectors are adequately articulated and presented to Ministers, so I congratulate them on that. I say that as somebody who is no great respecter of the House of Lords—I have this cute little notion that someone serving in a legislature should be elected to that legislature.
The Lords have done an exemplary job in all this, and they are entirely entitled to bring forward this matter again and again until the ministerial team find some sort of compromise, which, between the two of them, they will surely be able to do. This is the territory we are in now; this is the fourth round of ping pong. It is no good us just sending it back to the Lords again and again. The Government can insist and get their way, of course: they are the Government, and this is the primary House in our Parliament, so they can do that if they want. But why would they not sit down and work out a way forward that takes on board everything the Lords want to achieve and secure and that meets the noble ambitions and lofty rhetoric we have heard from those on the Government Front Bench today and the last few times this has been debated?
I cannot see anything wrong with the amendment. It sounds like the Minister is inventing reasons as to why it could not be agreed to. The example from the Digital Economy Act is spot on: we were adaptable and did things as the situation required in order to meet the challenge of the time—a huge challenge, when digitisation was coming into our creative arts. This is a bigger challenge and test. This is more existential than the Digital Economy Act of 20 years ago, and that is why we must act now. People cannot wait.
Our cultural heritage is being scraped and hoovered up by large tech companies, and soon there will be nothing left of it. Millions of creative artists are waiting for the Government to engage—to sort it out, compromise and do something with those with an interest in all this. The Government are convincing no one thus far; the creative industries do not believe that they have their best interests at heart or that we will have enough time to secure what is left of our cultural heritage.
The Government should do something—do not just send the Bill away again, although they probably will, and have it come back to us. Sit down, compromise and get something sorted out and, for the sake of our creative industries, find a solution that works for everybody.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F.
Business of the House
Dementia Care
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered dementia care.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate and Members for supporting it, as well as the charities and organisations that have provided material. Dementia is undoubtedly one of the most urgent health and care challenges facing our society, and I know that most of us in this Chamber will know someone affected by it. My family is currently battling it on two fronts. My confident, witty, generous father-in-law is now almost unrecognisable as the man he used to be. He is lucky to be living in a lovely care home where he receives the best care possible, but the decision to move him there was heartbreaking. My brilliant, funny cousin, always the life and soul of family parties, was diagnosed far too early with frontotemporal dementia, which is likely to affect her ability to communicate over time—a particularly cruel diagnosis for someone so young. Watching people we love become confused by the world around them, unable to communicate and fading away from us while so physically present is heart-wrenching. Dementia has to be one of the cruellest conditions for those afflicted and for those supporting them.
As we are neatly placed between Dementia Week and Carers Week, it is fitting that we should discuss this condition with which 900,000 people in the UK are living, most over the age of 65. Dementia is now the leading cause of death in the UK, and while its scale is national, its impact is deeply local and personal. It is already widespread as our population ages, and that number is expected to rise sharply. According to NHS England, one in 11 people over the age of 65 has dementia, and that rises to one in six for those over 80. In Devon, which has one of the oldest populations in England, this issue is not just coming; it is already here. Unless we act now to improve diagnosis, care and support, we will fail tens of thousands of families in our communities.
A timely diagnosis is not just about putting a name to a condition; it is also the essential first step towards accessing care, planning for the future and, increasingly, receiving treatment. New disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer’s offer real hope, but only if the disease is caught early and diagnosed accurately. In October 2023, the all-party parliamentary group on dementia published a report highlighting the significant regional disparities in dementia diagnosis across England. The findings were stark. While Stoke-on-Trent had the highest diagnosis rate, at 90%, the South Hams—much of which lies in my constituency of South Devon—had the lowest rate nationally, at just 44%.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
As a fellow South Hams representative, I wonder whether the hon. Lady would agree that the Government’s lack of focus and targets for dementia diagnosis is having a particular impact on rural constituencies such as ours, given that treatment is so dependent on diagnosis. Does she also agree that the work of local groups such as the Dementia Friendly Parishes around the Yealm is going to be vital to increasing diagnosis in our communities in Devon?
Caroline Voaden
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I agree that community groups such as the one around the Yealm are vital in caring for people with dementia.
Devon as a whole is falling worryingly behind. As of March 2025, our county’s dementia diagnosis rate stands well below the national average, placing Devon 39th out of 42 NHS systems in England. At the same time, demand for services is increasing sharply. Referrals to the Devon memory service have surged by 94% of the past five years, yet no additional investment has been made to meet this rising need. In Torbay the pressure is especially acute, with some individuals now waiting up to 20 weeks for an assessment.
A diagnosis can change lives. It provides clarity, access to support and the opportunity to plan for the future. It has proven to help people live well with dementia, but without investment people are being locked out of vital services, including support groups. One local dementia charity told me:
“Until there is a formal diagnosis, patients and their families cannot access our Memory Cafes, as our funding requires a confirmed diagnosis to provide support.”
I know from family members that this kind of support can make a world of difference, giving carers contact with others who truly understand the pressures and strain of caring for a much-loved relative who is slowly but surely losing themselves to this awful condition.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The hon. Member speaks about community groups and their importance. In recent months I have had the pleasure of joining and supporting lots of dementia support groups, including South East London Mind’s young onset dementia activists group, Beckenham dementia café, and Beckenham and Penge dementia café, and Angela from Bromley Dementia Friendly Community. Will she join me in acknowledging the incredible acts of kindness that such groups do every single day, so often motivated by their personal experiences of dementia?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely commend all those groups—the hon. Member is lucky to have so many in his constituency.
Like many other diagnoses that can be equally shocking to receive, dementia has no cure. Approved medications offer limited benefit only in the early stages and not for everyone. For those in the moderate to late stages, the most effective treatments are access to information to navigate the social care system and good-quality care. That means personalised, respectful and consistent support not only for the individual but for their family too, and that family support is critical. Across Devon and beyond, unpaid carers bear the overwhelming weight of responsibility. There is a physical, financial and emotional toll from the moment of diagnosis, yet respite support is sparse and, in many places, non-existent.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I share the hon. Member’s deep commitment to ensuring quality care within our communities—something I saw at first hand last year during my visit to Warren Farm Lodge care home in Kingstanding. The dedication of the staff left a lasting impression. Does she agree that we need to work with the Government to urgently develop a blueprint for transforming dementia diagnosis?
Caroline Voaden
The hon. Member has beaten me to it—I absolutely agree.
The lack of respite support is pushing carers into crisis, and when that happens the result is clear: faster entry into long-term care, increased hospital admissions, more GP appointments and distress for everyone involved.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The hon. Member is absolutely right that respite care is important. In my constituency, Sandhurst day centre offers fantastic respite care, allowing people with dementia to stay as active and as social as possible for as long as possible, which we know also keeps people out of hospital for longer. Does she agree that we need to see more support for day centres such as Sandhurst day centre?
Caroline Voaden
I could not agree more—I am sure I will agree with most of the interventions in this debate.
This does not have to be the outcome. We know that with the right support at the right time, people can live well with dementia at home, and that reduces pressure on services and improves quality of life.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
One in four hospital beds are occupied by someone living with dementia, and there is a 50% higher hospital readmissions rate for those who have dementia than the general population, with one in three people living with the condition never receiving a diagnosis. Does the hon. Member agree that the key is to get that early diagnosis, so that help and support can come in early, which will have better prospects for the individual and their families?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely agree that early diagnosis is one of the key things that makes a difference to anyone living with dementia.
We talk a lot about social care in this place, and the Liberal Democrats have championed the cause of carers—those thousands of people who quietly and lovingly dedicate themselves to caring for someone they love, often someone suffering from dementia. These carers are, because of the nature of this disease, often elderly themselves and, because of a postcode lottery, are sometimes left to just get on with it themselves without the vital support and advice that they so desperately need.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I echo the hon. Lady’s comments about the vital role that family carers and unpaid carers play in enabling people with dementia to live well at home. Does she agree that, in addition to formal respite care, community support from groups in my constituency such as the Wrose Dementia Friendly Community Support Group and Shipley Memories Group is vital to give carers little breaks, when they have an opportunity to get out of the house and meet other carers like them?
Caroline Voaden
Having regular, small chunks of respite is absolutely vital for carers.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
A constituent has written to me to tell me the story of her mother, who was diagnosed with dementia in 2020. Her father was 86 and the primary carer. They spent over £7,000 on five weeks of respite. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to expand respite centres, day centres and home care to ensure that families are not left by themselves?
Caroline Voaden
I could not agree more. If we had little chunks of regular respite care, people would not end up having to pay for several weeks, just to recover from the care that they are providing.
There are some brilliant projects working to support families afflicted by dementia, and several of them have been mentioned already. One of the most inspiring examples that I have seen is the Filo Project, a community interest company that offers dementia support in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and east Lancashire, and which has recently expanded to Bournemouth. The Filo Project takes its name from the pastry, referring to the many layers that make up a personality—the layers that are cruelly and silently stripped away by dementia. The project provides high-quality, community-based day care for people with early to moderate dementia, and what makes it so powerful is its simple approach: small, weekly group support in the home of a host, where people with dementia spend the day receiving the attention, care and companionship they need. That not only helps them, but provides their families with regular and crucial respite and support. I commend founders Libby Price and Dr Liz Dennis, who I believe is in the Gallery today. It is a model that works, and it has made a tangible difference to many families.
There is a critical need for more community-based initiatives such as the Filo Project, and one of my direct asks of the Minister today is that VAT be removed from such services. Although dementia patients can access goods and services exempt from VAT, they have to pay it on the care provided by the Filo Project and others like it. Families supported by the project have paid more than £700,000 in VAT for care since the group was set up 10 years ago, and the extra cost restricts who can afford to take part, so I urge the Minister to remove this burden. While the Government are facing mounting pressures from all sides to find additional funding, it is worth noting that investing in community-based projects is a fraction of the cost of the NHS, yet the impact is transformational, benefiting families across the country and ultimately saving money.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Like every Member here, I have many constituents who have explained that navigating such a complex web of health and social care services is absolutely exhausting. For many families, it leads to crisis before help arrives. Will the hon. Member join me in calling on the Government to tackle the delays and disparities in dementia diagnosis, and to ensure that there is investment in diagnostic capacity, including the fantastic memory clinics that hon. Members have spoken about today?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely agree.
In 2023, Devon saw the closure of its dementia advice service after 10 years because of a cut in funding under the previous Government—a decision that left a significant gap in community support across the county. The service offered vital information, practical advice, and tips and strategies on coping with dementia, as well as signposting to legal and financial support, and the closure was a blow to many families already struggling to cope. It is a scandal that Devon’s integrated care board has neglected older adults by cutting a service that was designed to prevent early care home and hospital admission, and to ease pressure on primary care.
However, there is hope on the horizon. Devon has recently developed a new countywide Devon dementia strategy, which aims to bring about real and meaningful change for those living with dementia and their loved ones. Written in collaboration with over 40 organisations, it sets out what is needed in dementia care today and for the foreseeable future, and I commend them for their work. This strategy is vital, and so is the funding to support the measures it highlights. Dementia prevalence in the area covered by Devon’s ICB is expected to rise by 54% between 2023 and 2040, and by then, over 33,700 people in Devon will be living with dementia. Now is the moment to act, to ensure that this strategy is not just a document that sits on a shelf but becomes a driving force for better services, earlier diagnosis and more consistent support.
I would like to briefly share the story of one of my constituents, Michael, to illustrate why this is so urgent. Michael’s wife began showing signs of dementia six years ago and was diagnosed with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s nearly five years ago. As her symptoms worsened, her condition became more difficult to manage, and she was eventually sectioned as being a danger to herself. At that point, the NHS took over her care, and she is now in a home where she is receiving very good care. Michael has nothing but praise for his GP, the older people’s mental health team and his local hospital for their support. However, his experience has highlighted critical gaps in the system. He recalls the complete lack of day care facilities to provide respite before his wife went to hospital and the overstretched system that was unable to assess people quickly or provide necessary help, either at home or in day care.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for leading this debate so effectively and raising these important issues. She will be aware that three in four dementia carers have no alternative plans in place if they are unable to provide care. Many of them are terrified about what will happen to their loved ones if they are no longer there to provide care, and nine in 10 have already reached crisis point, with burnout and depression. Does she agree that dementia carers need to be fully supported to put alternative care arrangements in place? May I urge the Minister to implement a carers strategy that sets out carers’ rights and what support carers should receive when it comes to alternative provision?
Caroline Voaden
So many thousands of people are doing this care for free, at home, living under this burden and worrying about what will happen if they are no longer there. They deserve recognition and help to put those plans in place, in case something happens to them—that is crucial.
For many families, accessing respite care is a huge challenge. Caring for someone with dementia is often a 24/7 job and is utterly exhausting, yet unpaid carers like Michael are saving the country billions of pounds and are often doing so without the support they need. Michael echoes the calls I have heard in my own family for the Government to do more to support carers by ensuring they have access to regular respite care. We must also urgently examine the funding and availability of care homes that can support high-needs dementia patients.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for taking so many interventions; it is very welcome. As she will be aware, health is devolved to the Scottish Government, and we Scots have a slightly different system. However, Alzheimer Scotland has called on the Scottish Government to commit to recognising that the needs of people with advanced dementia are healthcare needs and to ensure equality of access to appropriate health and nursing care that is free at the point of delivery, regardless of our geography. Does she agree that that is what we all want for our loved ones?
Caroline Voaden
There is a lack of equity, is there not? I looked at Hansard, and dementia has been mentioned 192 times since the general election last year, but cancer has been mentioned nearly 1,000 times—we have spoken about cancer five times more than we have about dementia. That shines a light on what a hidden problem it is, and yet it is not hidden, because we all have experience of it.
We must urgently examine the funding and availability of care homes and find a way to reduce the staggering costs, which can cripple family finances and local authority budgets. House of Commons Library research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats has shown that the cost of care in nursing homes increased by 61% from 2015 to 2022. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the introduction of free personal care in England, based on the model introduced by the party in government in Scotland in 2002, so that provision is based on need, not ability to pay.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The hon. Member is being extremely generous with her time. Is she concerned, along with the Alzheimer’s Society, that more than 71% of carers for people with dementia have no formal training whatsoever, although dementia requires very specific care and training? Will she join me in calling on the Government to introduce mandatory training for all those who care for our loved ones with dementia?
Caroline Voaden
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—I have not quite got there yet, but it is in my speech. We are also calling for a cross-party commission to form a long-term agreement on sustainable funding for social care in England.
Last week I met journalist John Suchet, whose wife Bonnie died of dementia. He is now married to Nula, who lost her husband James to a rare form of dementia known as Pick’s disease, diagnosed when he was just 57. John and Nula met in the care home where they were supporting their partners. They supported each other along a terrible journey and have both since written books about their experience. In Nula’s book she says:
“Dementia, dementia, what is it? I still know very little. All I know is, it’s a bloody cruel, sadistic disease, that has demolished my hopes, plans and dreams. It has taken away my life, twisted it and mangled it, and so it can claim another victim—two for the price of one…With absolutely no professional support—no-one at all monitoring his or my journey as they would, for instance, a cancer or Parkinson’s patient. I am entirely alone.”
It should not and must not be like that for the carers who give up everything to look after someone they love.
This is where the Government must step in. We need a clear strategy to support people with dementia and their families at every stage. That starts with an urgent review of NHS continuing healthcare, so that dementia-specific needs, especially cognitive and behavioural needs, are properly recognised, with specialists involved in assessments. No one should face dementia alone. Families must have access to a specialist dementia nurse, regular health and wellbeing reviews, and co-ordinated, joined-up care. We also need a national framework for young onset dementia, ensuring timely diagnosis, tailored support, and fair access to care. To relieve pressure on hospitals, every NHS acute trust should have a specialist dementia nurse service, backed by ringfenced funding.
Investing in dementia support will clearly save the NHS money in the long term. I am sure the Minister knows these statistics, but I will read them out: people with dementia visit the GP three times more often than someone without dementia; 25% of people with dementia living in their own homes are admitted to hospital with a potentially treatable condition; 25% of hospital beds are occupied by people with dementia, and they stay in hospital twice as long as other people aged over 65; and 43% of people with dementia in hospital are there due to urinary tract and chest infections, both of which are treatable at home.
A voluntary, community and social enterprise response to the closure of the Devon adviser service showed that dementia support workers are cost-effective, and that every £1 invested in dementia support worker roles results in almost £4-worth of benefits. Compare that with the cost of a hospital stay. Over 85% of dementia patients with a hip fracture stay for up to 14 days, and 34% for over a month, despite the national average length of stay being just seven days. The extra cost is estimated at around £6,000 per patient. The Alzheimer’s Society said between 2015 and 2020,
“almost 336,000 admissions costing almost £1 billion to the NHS were for chest infections, delirium, falls and UTIs, all of which can be prevented or managed well in the community.”
Clearly, this is a strong case for invest to save.
Clinical care must go hand in hand with long overdue social care reform. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive social care workforce plan, the creation of a royal college of care workers, and a higher carer’s minimum wage to reflect the value of this essential work. Unpaid carers also need support, with paid leave, respite breaks, and proper recognition. Finally, we must expand dementia training across the sector, backed by a national care agency to uphold standards and register care workers. The Care Quality Commission has just published a report that underlines the importance of reform. Its findings were alarming, confirming that health and social care staff frequently lack understanding about the specific needs of dementia patients. The Alzheimer’s Society estimates that only 29% of paid carers have training in dementia.
Dementia is a growing issue and the system is already under strain. Right now, approximately 30% of general hospital beds in Devon are occupied by people with dementia, many of whom are there because of preventable conditions. A sustainable strategy for dementia care must focus on community-based support, early diagnosis, carer support and workforce training. That is not only the right thing to do; it will save money in the long run. It is time that we treated dementia care not as a burden, but as a vital part of building a compassionate and sustainable future for everyone affected.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate, which shines vital light on an issue that affects so many families across this country, especially in my constituency of Redditch and the villages.
Over 900,000 people in the UK are currently living with dementia, and by 2040 that number is expected to rise to 1.6 million. However, the challenge is not just the growing number of people affected, but the poor support that many receive and the inequalities that persist in diagnosis and care. It is estimated that only about 65% of people aged 65 or over who are thought to have dementia actually have a recorded diagnosis, which means that far too many people are missing out on vital help early on. That is especially true in communities including ethnic minorities and in deprived areas.
I have been contacted by many families in Redditch who describe the distress of waiting months—sometimes years—for a diagnosis or clear guidance on what to do next. One particularly heartbreaking aspect is the many families who are forced to sell the home of a parent who no longer knows that they cannot return home. These homes often represent a lifetime of memories, yet families face that heartbreaking decision simply because the system does not provide adequate care options.
A particularly worrying fact cited by Age UK is that 19% of people it spoke to were concerned about accessing dementia services—they did not know where to turn or felt unable to get the support they needed. We also have to confront the huge variation in care home capacity across England’s integrated care board areas. In some parts of the country, care home availability simply cannot meet demand, limiting options for people with dementia and their families. This postcode lottery means that some people wait longer or must travel far from home for care, which is unacceptable.
The challenges faced by our NHS are also starkly evident in dementia care. Too many patients with dementia are caught up in the crisis of corridor care, where beds are not available and patients wait in hospital corridors for hours or even days. It is deeply distressing for patients and their families, and exacerbates the risk of deterioration. Such failures are a direct consequence of years of under-investment in our NHS, which has stretched resources to breaking point.
My own mother served in the NHS for 40 years. She witnessed at first hand both its strengths and its struggles. I know how deeply committed this Government are, just as the then Government were in the late 1990s, to rebuilding and reinvesting in our NHS. The recent commitments to increase funding and recruit more staff are steps in the right direction, but we must ensure that translates into real improvements in dementia care on the ground.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. One of my constituents has a grandma who waited a staggering 18 months for a dementia diagnosis. The family did not have the £3,000 required to get a private diagnosis. My hon. Friend mentioned the need to increase the resources available to the NHS and how committed this Government are, so will he join me in encouraging the Minister to direct resources not just to dementia care, but to dementia diagnosis, so people can get the diagnosis they need faster?
Chris Bloore
My hon. Friend’s intervention highlights inequalities throughout the country and reaffirms why the hon. Member for South Devon sought this debate. People who cannot access private care are put at a huge disadvantage, which is simply not acceptable, so I agree with my hon. Friend’s call to the Government.
We know that people with dementia are far more likely to have unplanned hospital admissions, which can cause distress and often worsen their condition. That shows why we urgently need better community care, and why hospital staff must have improved dementia training to provide the care that these patients deserve.
The economic cost of dementia to the UK is enormous; including healthcare, social care and the wider costs to society, it is estimated to be over £42 billion a year. The huge financial burden highlights the importance not only of investing in medical research but of improving support and care infrastructure.
Unpaid carers play a massive and often overlooked role. In fact, family members and friends provide the majority of care for people living with dementia. Women make up a disproportionate share of unpaid carers, balancing that demanding role alongside work and other responsibilities. Their contribution is invaluable but can come at a significant personal cost, including financial strain, mental and physical exhaustion, and social isolation.
Age UK has made it clear that the system is overstretched and underfunded. People in Redditch, and everywhere else, deserve consistent, high-quality care that respects their dignity no matter where they live.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In particular, I commend him for the way in which he has talked about the support that relatives often give as caregivers. Will he elaborate a little further on the points he made about the need for more resources to be focused on less advantaged communities? My own experience in representing a community that has some disadvantages is that people in those communities, particularly families from ethnic minority backgrounds, need far more support.
Chris Bloore
I completely agree. It is clear from the data that disadvantaged communities and those from ethnic minorities are not getting the targeted support that they need; I see that in my constituency, particularly in the Winyates district of Redditch. The data shows a very clear reason for further intervention.
Diagnosis is only the start. The Alzheimer’s Society calls for a minimum standard of good quality post-diagnosis support, but real faults remain. Too many people receive little or no clear information after diagnosis. They are left to navigate a confusing maze of services alone, with inconsistent follow-up and limited access to support groups or counselling. That gap leaves families isolated and unsure about managing symptoms or planning for the future, increasing stress and uncertainty during a profoundly difficult time.
Carers also bear an incredible burden. Families in Redditch tell me about exhaustion and isolation. We need better respite care, as the hon. Member for South Devon said, and better financial support and mental health services for carers. Too many of my residents rely on the voluntary sector for support in their communities; I particularly commend the Astwood Bank memory café for the work that it does.
We must improve the skills of those caring for people with dementia. The Alzheimer’s Society calls for mandatory, high-quality dementia training for all adult social care workers. Hospital staff need better access to dementia training too, because too many patients experience distress and delays because staff do not have the skills that they need.
Importantly, dementia must have parity of esteem with cancers in funding and Government prioritisation. Dementia affects millions and carries a massive societal and economic cost. It deserves the same urgent intention, investment and commitment that cancers receive so that research, care and support can improve in step.
While investing in research is important, we cannot forget the urgent need to improve care for those people living with dementia. Dementia care is a test of our values. I am sure that no one in this House believes that anyone should face this journey alone or without support. We should all be committed to building a fairer, more compassionate care system that delivers for all, including the people of Redditch and the villages.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this very important debate. There is hardly a healthcare issue so big that we do not talk enough about as dementia. Perhaps that is because it is one of the most feared diseases, for understandable reasons.
For decade upon decade—unlike cancer, for example—there has been very little tangible scientific progress, until recently. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on access to medicines and medical devices, I will focus my remarks on those treatments. Breakthroughs are coming through thick and fast, with the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approving two disease-modifying therapies in 2024 for Alzheimer’s. Those medicines chart a path to a time when Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia are a treatable condition that can be delayed to the point where it is, for all intents and purposes, cured. That is incredibly exciting for families such as mine with a history of Alzheimer’s, and more is on the way.
More than 100 medicines are being investigated, so it is a matter of not if, but when new medicines come forward, yet the UK is not ready. The alarm has been raised, but no one is listening. The last Government were asleep at the wheel, and I fear that this Government are too. Moving from a system focused entirely on care to prevention and treatment will require a monumental shift in thinking that breaks down departmental silos and redistributes budget to treatment. We know that reversing brain damage is nigh impossible, but preventing it is not. That is why early detection and diagnosis are so critical.
Dementia begins without symptoms as early as people’s 40s or 50s. We need to identify those people before the onset of decline, but that requires a system with sufficient diagnostic capacity. That means improved GP waiting times, increased capacity at memory clinics and a massive increase in magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography and lumbar puncture test capacity. The lack of capital investment in our NHS has left us dangerously exposed, with the lowest number of MRI scanners per capita in the OECD. The UK has 6.1 systems per million people. In Germany, the rate is 30.5. Emerging diagnostics, including the blood biomarkers being investigated at the Warneford in Oxfordshire, need to be embraced alongside getting the basics right.
The Government must also look actively at how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assesses new medicines in dementia. Both lecanemab and donanemab were approved by the MHRA and then rejected by NICE on the same day. That means the MHRA believes these medicines are safe and effective, but NICE believes them too expensive for the NHS, because it fails to consider the economic and social benefits, including savings to informal care.
Do we want a system where those who can pay privately for medicines that delay dementia get treatment, and those who cannot, do not? Even when a new therapy is approved by the MHRA, given the green light by NICE and by some miracle we have diagnostic capacity, patients still may not get their hands on it. Depending on how a new medicine is delivered, we may not have enough infusion capacity. If it is a pill, we will be in luck, but we cannot bank on that. The truth is that the NHS cannot cope with the innovation we all want in dementia. My message to the Government is simple: get ready.
I hope the Minister for Care will take note of one final point: please stop punting problems down to the ICBs. My recent written parliamentary question, asking what steps the Government are taking to increase the number of Alzheimer’s disease specialists, was answered by him yesterday, and he said:
“The provision of dementia health care services is the responsibility of local integrated care boards”.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, especially with that last point. Is he, like me, concerned that ICBs will have their funding cut by 50%? Dementia will be one of the many conditions that will suffer because of that.
Freddie van Mierlo
Like the hon. Member, I am incredibly frustrated that whenever I put concerns to the Minister, I get pointed towards the ICBs, and when I talk to the ICBs, they tell me to talk to the Minister. There must be responsibility within our system. The Minister has been in politics for longer than me, but I hope he will allow me to offer him a little advice. It is not the ICBs that the people of this country are angry with when it comes to not getting the treatment they deserve; it is the Government. They expect the Government to take responsibility, not pass the buck.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My dad was a GP in Hartlepool for 33 years. When I was young, I was never more impressed than when he would talk to me about his medical knowledge. The depth of his knowledge was extraordinary, and one of the tricks he used to be able to do at any given moment was take any two numbers I gave him and divide them or multiply them and get the answer right when I checked on the calculator. It was a rare skill, and his impact over those 33 years meant that when I went into politics the most common thing I heard on the doorstep was, “Are you the doctor’s son?” He did tell me recently that someone had asked him whether he was the MP’s dad, and I take that as a small victory.
In Hartlepool, there are 1,299 people living with dementia, and my dad is one of them. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s five years after he retired. Speaking to my mum, who obviously is his carer, too, we both agree that it feels like we have already gone through a form of bereavement, because the person who brought me up is not quite there any more. He is happy, and he enjoys his grandchildren, but it is different. I want to see that changed for other people, because early diagnosis is critical. My dad did not get the early diagnosis that he should have received, and we have paid the consequences as we have gone forward.
In Hartlepool, we are pioneering a new dementia strategy. I am so proud of Hartlepool borough council, because as part of that strategy, the council has committed to ensuring that 100% of its social care staff have dementia training, so that this evil disease—I do mean evil—can be caught and better treated at an earlier stage. As we have already heard from the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), only 29% of social care staff in this country have any form of dementia training. I impress on the Minister that that must change.
Dementia is the defining health and social care challenge of our time. It impacts one in two of us—50% of the population—either through being diagnosed ourselves, or having someone in our life diagnosed with it. Despite this reality, too many people living with dementia and their families struggle to access necessary support. The lack of an integrated care pathway often leads to families being led into fragmented and complex systems, where they can easily fall through the cracks and reach crisis point. Shockingly, one in four hospital beds is occupied by a person living with dementia, and those people face hospital readmissions at rates 50% higher than the general population. We must improve specialist dementia support, both in hospitals and in our communities. That is not just a moral imperative; it is vital for building the health service that we want, one that is fit for the future. The forthcoming 10-year health plan presents a crucial opportunity to rectify those shortcomings.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have worked in this area of policy and services, and I am aware that some of the most powerful advocates for change in dementia care are people with dementia themselves and their families. Does he agree that, when formulating new strategies for dementia care, people with dementia must be fully included in making those plans, based on their own experience?
Mr Brash
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. In a completely unplanned way, the next sentence in my speech is, “It is essential that the voices of those affected by dementia are at the forefront of these NHS reforms”, so his intervention was very timely and deadly accurate.
We must ensure that the clinical support and person-centred care that reduces the risk of crises and unnecessary hospital admissions comes to the fore. To that end, I urge Government Ministers to commit to providing ringfenced funding for a dementia specialist nurse in each NHS acute trust, and to integrate specialist nurses such as Admiral nurses—I was so proud to meet them here in Parliament recently—into multidisciplinary neighbourhood health centres. With 1 million people currently living with dementia, and with that number projected to rise to 1.6 million by 2040, as we have heard today, we literally cannot afford delay. The economic impact of dementia is estimated to reach £90 billion by 2040, with 40% of care costs borne by families and unpaid carers. It is time for action.
One of the consequences of my father’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis is that that evil disease has done to him what it does to so many: it robs people of their strengths, but it exacerbates their weaknesses too. My father now struggles with travel, and despite my election in July last year, it is very unlikely that he will ever get here to see me stand in Parliament. In his name—Dr Charles Brash—I ask the Minister to act.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who has hit the nail on the head when it comes to how terrible this disease is.
Forty years ago this August, my paternal grandfather was dying of lung cancer. My father went to the hospital with him. The day went on and on, and eventually, my grandfather said to my father, “Go and give your mother a call—let her know where we are at.” She answered the phone, and my dad said, “Just to let you know, mum, we’re delayed at the hospital. Dad and I are going to be late.” She said, “Oh, I’ve not seen your father in three weeks.” At that point, he said, his blood ran cold. Tragically, my grandfather died just two weeks later. The funeral came, and the funeral went. My grandmother constantly asked, “Where have all these flowers come from?”
Within four years, my grandmother had to go into a nursing home. Making the right decisions during those four years put a huge strain on my father. “Do we sell the house? How are we going to pay for the care?” My grandmother was walking the streets at 3 am. She was leaving the gas on. Neighbours were saying, “The whole street is going to be destroyed. Derek, you have got to do something.” Then she was put into the home. What I have found during my work on dementia is that that is often the pattern. The spouse, or the partner, protects his or her spouse or partner. They pick up the slack—and this is such a ratcheting disease, which comes so slowly, that they do not realise that they are under more and more pressure and taking on more and more work.
Tragically again, in 2019, my father-in-law died suddenly, and it soon became apparent that he had been hiding my mother-in-law’s dementia. My mother-in-law is doing very well: she has a carer, and on some days she is still pretty sparky. She was a formidable woman in her time. She is 87 years old now. She still remembers me, and there is an important point there: I will be the person she forgets next, because I was the last in. I say to my wife, “For as long as she remembers me, we are still in a roughly good place.” That is quite a sad statement, is it not? It is sad that we are moving down that road.
However, I was inspired by something I saw shortly after I was elected, in 2010 or 2011, at a dementia café down in Rothwell. I went there when it first opened, and I quickly became aware of the support that it was giving people, and of how much they appreciated it. That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Hartlepool said about how cruel this disease is. Because people are gradually supporting their loved ones more and more, they reach a point at which there is enormous pressure. They are not going to take a step back, go on to Google or try to get on to the local Facebook to try and work out what is going on locally. People do not know what is going on out there, and that was even more true 10 or so years ago.
A huge number of voluntary organisations take clients. Let me name just two in my constituency: Wetherby in Support of the Elderly—WISE—and the Easingwold Hub Club. They provide a huge amount of support for people with dementia, but dozens of other voluntary organisations supply an incredible service that helps to take the pressure off carers, who are also able to take their loved ones out, which in itself can be stimulating. That gave me an idea, and I created the Dementia Directory and one of the first dementia-friendly constituencies. The directory breaks up the constituency up into parts, and lists all the events that are going on. We are working on the new one now. It is a complex process; it is a bit of a spider’s web, because we find one event and then another is off, and then another is off. We try not to miss any, but inevitably we do.
It is because the last directory had such a huge and positive impact that we are preparing this one for the new constituency, following the boundary change. All that we need now is the sponsorship that will enable it to be printed and posted. It will make a difference, because, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, this is a terribly cruel disease. There is a statement that upsets and annoys me greatly: “It is not such a bad disease, because the person who has it does not know they have it.” That is an awful thing to say. I can never hold back a tear when I see the advertisement in which a chap sitting on the end of the bed says to his wife, “I want to go home.” How many of us, as children, became homesick? I was homesick when I went to university. It is a terrifying thought that as you get older you will not know your partner, and you will be constantly homesick.
For Members who may not know this, I have a tip, because I have done dementia training. When I went to a care home, there was an elderly lady of about 90, who said, “I don’t like it here. They never let me see my parents. I just wish they’d let me see my father.” I had been told to get into a memory of the person and mention somewhere their relative may be, so I said, “Well, your father’s down at the allotment.” She said, “Oh, yes, that’s right,” and she calmed down. Do not argue with those people, because that will just make them more upset, but try to take them back to a memory.
As well the directory being used to notice events, it highlights things that may help, such as hydration. One of the things that happens with elderly people is that they do not want to keep going to the toilet and they get worried about doing so, so they are often quite sparky in the morning when they have had a cup of tea, but by 3 o’clock they are getting memory lapses because they have not drunk enough. That is also something we have to tell people.
How many Members in this Chamber, when they said they were going to speak in this debate—they do not have to put their hands up—had somebody say, “Oh, don’t forget to go there”? Everybody seems to know what dementia is, but nobody really knows what it is. It is a real paradox. Everybody makes that comment, “Don’t forget,” but do they really understand the depth and impact of this disease? Dementia includes Alzheimer’s disease. I recently read a book about Ronald Reagan, which at the end said that he did not open his eyes for the last four years of his life. Just think about that, and what this terrible disease does to people and all the impact it has.
This debate is about dementia care, and several contributions have been made about things the Government can do. I raised this issue back in 2012-13, and the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, did put funding into research for dementia. The trouble is that we have learned how to preserve all the organs of our body with medical research and medical advances, but we have never bothered with the brain. The blunt truth is that, before this disease had the prevalence it now has, most people were dead before they got it. However, there is something we can do all do as Members of Parliament in our constituencies, and that is to draw together all the voluntary organisations that give such relief to families and help to stimulate the sufferer along the way.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a characteristically powerful and informed speech. He mentioned the importance of the role of volunteers, which I think the whole House will recognise. Does he, however, share my concern that, with an ageing population, we seem to be seeing a smaller cohort of people prepared to step up to volunteer? Across the Government and across this place, a noble endeavour to embark upon would be to champion and encourage more people to get involved with volunteering outside the usual catchment or cohort, because otherwise, in the not-too-distant future, these vital organisations will be so short of volunteers that they will not be able to do the jobs they need to do.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who does indeed make an important comment. My constituency of Wetherby and Easingwold has an older demographic, and that will become more acute over time. He is right to say that there is a dedicated band of volunteers, but most of the people who do the voluntary work during daytime are of an age to be retired. There are people who I think do an incredible job in supporting people—they really do—and they deserve nothing but our gratitude and thanks.
As I have said, there is something positive that we really can do as Members of Parliament, so I urge everyone when they are back in their constituencies to look at what goes on and see what they can do to promote it. I promise them that it will make a transformational difference not just to the lives of the people affected, but to their lives as Members of Parliament in doing what they can do for their local community, which is why we are all here in the first place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Over 20 Members wish to speak, so there will be a speaking limit of six minutes.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this most important of debates. Dementia care is a subject incredibly close to my heart and that of many of my Amber Valley constituents who write to me. Any hon. Members who were present when I made my maiden speech may recall my speaking about my dad, David Farnsworth. Once an extremely talkative man, sadly, like that of so many others, dementia has taken his voice.
With that in mind, it is incumbent on me and other hon. Members to use our voices in this place to advocate for much-needed improvements to dementia care. That must start with increased diagnosis. Alzheimer’s UK is rightly calling on the Government to improve dementia diagnosis rates and set ambitious targets for the future. NHS statistics show that diagnosis rates, as of July 2024, were 65%, so a third of people living with dementia across the UK still do not have a diagnosis, meaning they are missing out on the vital care support and symptomatic treatment it can bring.
The picture is particularly bad for the 70,800 people in the UK who are estimated to have young-onset dementia, where symptoms develop before the age of 65. Getting a diagnosis can take twice as long as for older people. My father-in-law, Michael Spare, was diagnosed with dementia at the age of 64. My mother-in-law, Yvonne, recalls how hard it was to get a diagnosis and to be taken seriously, despite them both knowing that there was a problem. Dementia UK advocates for the Government to mandate every integrated care system to develop a young-onset dementia pathway to include providing timely and accurate diagnosis. I wholeheartedly support that.
When my dad was diagnosed with dementia in 2018, my family and I were frightened. At the time I had a colleague, Sue, who had gone through this with her mother. She was kind enough to give me some advice: try not to focus on what you have lost; celebrate what you can still share and enjoy together. I remembered that advice recently when my step-mum, Kate, started the engine of my dad’s beloved classic car. His face lit up at the sound. Somewhere deep inside, he remembers the joy that restoring his Triumph Spitfire brought him over many years.
Not everyone will have someone like Sue to talk to and living with dementia can be very lonely. For those people, Admiral nurses, employed by Dementia UK, can be a godsend. They provide an invaluable service to families confronting or navigating the reality of living with dementia. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Kath Hunt, who works at the Ripley branch of Nationwide building society. Nationwide has been partnering Dementia UK to offer free appointments with Admiral nurses in high street branches across the country, including in Ripley. Sadly, there are far too few Admiral nurses and, while I am thankful that the scheme exists, it should not fall to partnerships like this for families to get support. Dementia UK recommends that Admiral or specialist nurses should be core members of multidisciplinary neighbourhood health centres to provide vital care in the community. I wholeheartedly support that recommendation.
Admiral and specialist dementia nurses can also be hospital-based, but they are few and far between. When my dad was hospitalised for an infection unrelated to his dementia, he was put on a general ward. He was so ill, we thought he would never get out of bed. Several weeks into his hospitalisation, I saw a nurse perform what seemed a miracle. He was able to get my dad to engage and even got him to stand up. Amazed, I asked how this could be. He explained that he usually worked on the dementia ward. It was his expert skills and knowledge rather than a miracle that made the difference, but the nurse was certainly an angel in my eyes. Dementia UK is demanding that the Government commit ringfenced funding for a dementia specialist nurse service within each NHS acute trust, and Age UK is calling for urgent improvements to staff training in hospitals to ensure people with dementia have their needs fully met. I support both measures.
My dad is now at home and is looked after by my step-mum Kate and my brother Bradd Farnsworth, supported by visiting carers. I recently asked whether they had had specialist training for caring for people with dementia. They had not, but said they would find it useful. They are not alone. Despite people living with dementia making up 70% of residents of older age residential care and 60% of people drawing on care at home, around 29% of social care staff have no record of dementia training. I am calling for mandatory training for social care staff, in line with the dementia training standards framework, which is absolutely essential, and I will continue to campaign for that.
With the 10-year health plan for England due, this is a key moment. It is vital that improving dementia care is included in the NHS reforms, and I implore the Government not to pass up the opportunity to fix dementia care at long last.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for bringing this important debate to this Chamber.
Dementia is one of the most urgent public health crises we face, and one that profoundly affects so many of my constituents; according to Alzheimer’s Research UK, 1,800 people are living with dementia in our area. The current package of care for those living with dementia is simply not good enough. Far too many of my constituents speak of delayed diagnoses, exhausted kinship carers and gaps in social care provision.
Last year, I joined the brilliant Warwickshire Reminiscence Action Project in Stratford-upon-Avon to hear directly from people in my community living with dementia and their carers. Their stories were heartbreaking and moving, much like those we have heard in the Chamber today. There are many dementia cafés and social groups around my constituency, which provide information, much-needed support, and memory and sensory activities. We must support care workers, including by equipping them with specialist training, and kinship carers, who give everything, often with little recognition or support. Improving the availability of respite care is one step forward.
I have to say that I was deeply disappointed that the Government have dropped their target of diagnosing two thirds of those living with dementia. Early and timely diagnosis is absolutely crucial for individuals and their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon said, we need a proper workforce plan for social care, and to ensure that every person living with dementia receives timely, high-quality care, while making sure their carers are properly supported, too. That can be achieved only with early diagnosis.
We also know that dementia is an intersectional issue, with those from disadvantaged backgrounds disproportionately affected. Falling diagnosis targets and longer delays for appropriate care will fall hardest on those who cannot afford to go private. Dementia is also a rural issue; in communities such as mine, the risk of isolation for dementia patients is even greater, as is the need for strong local support. Families impacted by dementia often have to wait far too long to get the best support.
Make no mistake: this is not just about compassion. Dementia already costs the UK economy £42 billion a year, a figure that is projected to more than double by 2040 if we do not act.
In conclusion, I ask that we do not row back on care commitments, and that we have a dementia care plan that eases pressure on our acute settings while giving patients and their families the support they need when they need it.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for bringing this important debate to the House this afternoon. I also thank other Members for sharing such personal testimonies; as well as bringing broader context, it really adds value to what this House brings to our national conversation.
As a public health consultant, it would be remiss of me not to spend a couple of minutes talking about how to reduce the risk of dementia before getting on to dementia care, as only about a third of UK adults think it is actually possible to reduce their risk of dementia. I am sure these recommendations will all be familiar to everybody listening. As healthcare professionals and as politicians, we should encourage people of all ages and stages of life, and in particular middle-aged adults, to be more physically active, eat healthily and maintain a healthy weight, drink less alcohol, stop smoking—very apt at the moment—and be socially active.
Many Members have spoken today about being socially active, and socially isolated older adults are nearly twice as likely to develop dementia within 15 years. Further recommendations include controlling diabetes and high blood pressure. If that sounds familiar, it is because we talk about that in the cardiovascular realm, too. We should be communicating loudly that what is good for the heart is good for reducing the risk of dementia.
Let me move on to dementia care. I want to talk a little bit about what we are doing in Worthing West, which relates to a lot of what has been said already, and then I shall conclude with the national picture. In Worthing West we have 2,361 people currently living with the condition. The charity Guild Care is a not-for-profit care service for older people, people with dementia, and children and adults with learning difficulties. It provides care for 120 people with dementia in their own homes and for a further 100 in its respite service. It is great that we have heard so much about respite services in this debate today. It is so important to help people with dementia access support, care and activities that provide a healthy way of living. People visiting dementia day services experience stronger social ties, have better mental health, require fewer GP visits, use less medication, sleep better—something that we all need to do—and have more active engaged minds.
We also know that respite is vital because behind each diagnosis, as we have heard today, often stands an unpaid carer whose career and life are put on hold while their own health quietly deteriorates, as stress, sleep loss and isolation take their toll. Inevitably, in that situation, we see dementia rates rising. Recognising and investing in the value of respite has huge benefits.
We have also heard about some innovative community care hubs across the country. Guild Care in Worthing West is developing its own community hub to combat social isolation. It provides integrated dementia care, diagnosis, support and a rich programme of activities that keep people healthy and living at home. That is an aspiration that we want for all of us—to live well and to stay at home for as long as possible. Our role in Government is to ensure a more co-ordinated system, building on best practice models, such as those that we have heard about today, including that of Guild Care in Worthing West.
We have also touched on training. Guild Care delivers in-house specialist dementia training to its staff in a bespoke programme that it developed with colleagues in the Bromley dementia hub—so I give a shout-out for Bromley there. Good research-based staff training is essential to help care professionals to deliver compassionate, person-centred support, as so many hon. Members have said today. It is the bedrock of quality care.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned person-centred care in dementia. Does she agree that initiatives such as Playlist for Life in my constituency, which uses meaningful music to reconnect people with dementia to their memories and their identity, should be more widely supported across the NHS?
Dr Cooper
What an outstanding service that sounds. I know there is a creative mental health all-party parliamentary group taking place today. We underestimate the benefits of exposure to the creative arts for all of us, specifically for those with dementia. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for raising that. Clearly, training is essential, as are the creative arts.
To conclude, I wish to talk about what this all means nationally, and specifically about the implementation of a national social care service, which I know the Minister is very well aware of. I acknowledge that the Casey Commission is a vital step towards implementing that service. The Darzi report and our recent work in the Health and Social Care Committee, some members of whom are here this afternoon, underline what we all know, which is that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing the broken social care system. The two are fundamentally interconnected; we must not look at health and social care issues in isolation, and that includes dementia. We must ensure that strategic plans build better integration and recognise that investment in social care is essential. It is essential to improve people’s lives. Moving from treatment to prevention of illness is pivotal to the NHS 10-year strategy and to reducing the spiralling costs to the NHS of an ageing population.
Let me conclude now with this idea of changing the narrative. This has been touched on this afternoon. Sometimes we think about dementia as an illness that has no hope. One Member has already said that 50% of us may well develop dementia in our lifetimes. One way or another, the illness has touched pretty much everyone in this Chamber. Care Talk recently published a comprehensive report on dementia, which is well worth reading. I would like to urge everyone to take up this new narrative on dementia. The traditional narrative surrounding dementia focuses on decline and inevitability, but, as I have already mentioned, around 40% of dementia cases might be attributable to risk factors that can be modified. A 20% reduction in the risk factors per decade could reduce UK prevalence by 16%—even by this year.
I am advocating for policies that help people live well and protect them from illnesses including dementia, and for services that help people to live well with dementia, by emphasising their strengths, which many personal testimonies have already touched on. We must also be supporting people and their families to better navigate the condition and contribute to their communities and our society.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Dementia is heartbreaking. With over 944,000 people in the UK suffering from this illness, we need to support families and sufferers in a more holistic manner. Health in Wales is devolved—as it is in Scotland—to the Senedd. However, as dementia affects so many of my constituents, I want to highlight the work that is being done in my constituency to support carers and their loves ones during this difficult period in their lives.
The trajectory for dementia is upwards, with 1.6 million adults expected to suffer from the illness by 2050. Some 70,000 of those will be under the age of 65, so although it is known as an older person’s disease, it is not exclusively so. Lewy body dementia, which affected a very close friend of mine, is thought to account for 15% to 20% of cases of dementia, and it can be difficult to diagnose because the symptoms are so similar to Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease. The symptoms for Lewy body dementia can include hallucinations, loss of sleep, movement problems, changes in alertness and attention, and most of all confusion.
I think of how afraid they must feel when they know that something is wrong but they cannot articulate their feelings and do not know what to do or where to go for help, and the same can be said for their carers, families and loved ones. Their world is turned upside down. First they have to navigate a diagnosis, and then they have to obtain the help that is there, but how do they find that help? Where is it and who is there to point them in the right direction?
In Caerfyrddin we have dementia groups and memory clinics, all run by volunteers who have walked this journey with their loved ones—people who understand and care. The Cathen Dementia Group is one such safe space. It runs every Thursday from Llangathen Hall between 2 pm and 4 pm and serves the wider Llandeilo area and all rural villages around it. When I popped in for a visit in January, they said that they wanted a way to reach more people who are living with dementia, such as people who live rurally and do not drive cars and people who do not have the support network that others have on their doorstep.
Working with Dolen Teifi, a third sector volunteer transport provider, we are preparing to have transport in place for the autumn term. Working with the Carmarthenshire Association of Voluntary Services, we will secure funding for not only this but other incidentals that they need in order to operate. Working collaboratively, we can achieve the help that these groups need. The groups provide safe spaces for sufferers of dementia, support for the carers, and the chance to have a cuppa and a chat. The groups provide a bit of normality for a couple of hours a week.
If anybody can help and support these groups, please do. They are a lifeline within my rural constituency, where if people do not drive then they just do not go anywhere or meet anyone. I want to thank Dolen Teifi and the Carmarthenshire Association of Voluntary Services, but I want to give my biggest thanks to the team of volunteers and carers who run groups such as Cathen Dementia Group.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
It is a huge honour and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and the many others who have shared personal family stories as well as stories about what is happening in their constituency. I truly welcome this debate and thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing it.
Dementia care is important to many of us in this House and to the communities we represent. I would like to start by putting on record my thanks to local dementia support teams and the families and volunteers involved for their work in my constituency. It seems fitting that we are discussing this matter during Volunteers’ Week, having heard many important contributions, particularly the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), about how we can all play a personal role and encourage more volunteers in this space.
I want to put on record a particular shout-out to a volunteer in my constituency, Heather Hooper, a dementia friend ambassador who has done so much to help me in my journey of learning on this issue. Indeed, I thank all the volunteers in this space for their help and outreach work, including for helping me as a new constituency Member of Parliament, along with my team, to learn and understand not just what needs to change in the care system, but how we can support families and people with dementia when dealing with the casework requests that sadly come forward so often because of challenges in this area.
As many in this House will know, dementia is the leading cause of death in the UK, and one in two of us will be affected by this complex condition in our lifetime. The individual stories I have heard from local families and carers are so moving—perhaps some of the most moving casework I have received since being elected—and it is heartbreaking to hear about the lack of accessible care and support still faced by too many people. The facts and figures, beyond the human toll of the stories that we have heard, are stark. Dementia UK’s recent survey results are a hard read. Three quarters of respondents said that they did not receive the right care to meet their needs through the NHS, and 76% said that hospital care did not meet the specific needs of people with dementia. We cannot, and should not, accept that.
I am hopeful that in Peterborough we can make a positive change. In my constituency, there has been a recent debate about the future of our Dementia Resource Centre—a unique partnership between families, care workers and the city council, and one of just two in the country that follow such a model. The centre is, in effect, a one-stop centre for dementia sufferers and their families in the city. It offers vital services in the community that enable people to be diagnosed with dementia fast. It works in collaboration with GPs and the local authority, as well as with other bits of the health service—we have heard about how important that is—to give people with dementia and their loved ones the care and support they need. It also works to simplify the system so that it is based around their needs, rather than there being an expectation on too many people to navigate an already complex system, given the pressure that they may be experiencing. I thank the Alzheimer’s Society for its dedication and work alongside the council and other healthcare professionals.
With dementia rates only set to increase, centres of excellence like the one in Peterborough need to be promoted across the country, and we have heard about so many good examples already. That is why we have fought so hard to keep the centre open in our city. The story of our dementia centre in Peterborough will be familiar, with so many of its services involving local government. The accumulation of financial pressures on the council means that the authority is rationalising the estate. We have recently been through the traumatic experience of finding out whether the Dementia Resource Centre would continue to exist and where it would be moved to, but I am pleased to say that it is now safe.
Thanks to campaigners, families and the incredible work of Councillor Dr Shabina Qayyum—our council’s cabinet member for adult social care, who other hon. Friends will know—we have saved the centre and found a new home for it at Paston Farm community centre. That means not only that have we saved the centre; we have also created a bespoke area in which the council will continue to invest. It will provide a dedicated space for socialising, so that families and carers have something that is in their lives every day, alongside the professional medical care and healthcare that they need.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is giving an incredibly powerful and trademark passionate speech. When he talks about the support that families need, will he also recognise the support that young people and particularly young carers need? To experience a loved one suffering from dementia must be incredibly challenging for younger people as well.
Andrew Pakes
My hon. Friend has answered his own question, given the passion with which he has told that story; the role of young carers is a story to which the House must bear witness. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Care is passionate about ensuring that those who care for loved ones facing health conditions get the recognition and support they need, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his question as well as the Minister, in recognition of the role he plays in this issue.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman’s story of his saving his local centre rings a bell with me. The Hunter Centre in Haslemere, which had been run by the Alzheimer’s Society, looked like it was going to close in 2017, but because of some great work by Anne Downing, it was saved and is now thriving—in fact, I am a patron—so I am sure that this can be done not just in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in mine, but across the country.
Andrew Pakes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us such a wonderful practical example. I would correct him only by saying that it was not me that saved our centre; it was the campaigners and their families. I would like to ensure that the record represents that it was their work that saved it, rather than me as an individual MP, although I was glad to play my small role alongside their great efforts to hold me to account.
Fundamentally, care belongs in the community. It is our duty to promote and support such initiatives as I have talked about, and to ensure that the wonderful creation that is the NHS is centred on community-based care, not on top-down-based care. It is our duty to promote this and I sincerely hope that this type of provision, alongside the additional services that hon. Members have spoken so passionately about today, will be the hallmark of what comes next and will feature prominently in the 10-year plan and in the remarks that the Minister will shortly make.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Dementia is a uniquely tragic disease because it is, after all, an attack on the mind and on one’s memories. It is a terminal malady for which there is currently no cure and which affects almost every family in the country. My constituent, Timothy, said this of his family’s experience with the disease:
“My wife, to whom I was married for 65 years, slipped into dementia about three years ago. When dementia strikes, it comes slowly. We did not know what was happening, and though our children were very supportive, they could not know why one parent had dementia and the other didn’t. Household management got worse, making each day a strain. My wife had been a superb cook, but I was a poor substitute. Our children tried to help, but they had their own lives to live.”
In my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, it is estimated we have 1,877 people living with dementia—a figure that far exceeds the national average—and yet in my constituency and in rural areas around the country, the paucity of care provision coupled with significant transport challenges means that the impact of dementia is felt even more acutely. The lack of access to dementia care only exacerbates feelings of abandonment and isolation.
It is no secret that we are an ageing society. Projections from the national health service indicate that we are on course to have over 1 million people living with dementia by 2030, and as many as 1.6 million by the mid-point of this century. This significant demographic shift underscores the need to expand and strengthen the workforce in the care sector through upskilling, training and retention strategies. I speak with particular thrust as the Member of Parliament for an overwhelmingly rural area. I am all too aware of the recruitment and retention woes in remote communities where geographical isolation and resource constraints make things additionally challenging.
Several Members of my party have made the point about social care and I know that my party leader makes it on a weekly basis at Prime Minister’s questions, so I will not revisit the need for social care as it runs alongside the NHS. However, we must support our carers. Increased pay for carers is not merely a matter of fairness; it is an investment in a future where better care will inevitably lead to better outcomes for those with dementia. After all, a rising tide lifts all boats. According to the UK Dementia Research Institute, 85% of people with dementia wish to remain in their own home, so it is about time that unpaid carers—those silent heroes—were afforded the right to carer’s leave and a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks.
Unlike other speakers, I have not talked about my family’s experience with dementia until the end of my speech because, quite frankly, I thought I would cry. My three brothers and I were lucky enough to be brought up by an intellectual colossus: my mother, M—Cambridge educated, a City solicitor, and a wonderful mother and grandmother. Fortunately, my family is able financially to look after her, and I am endlessly grateful to my brother and sister-in-law for looking after her as well as they do, and to her carer, Nicolette, who comes from Romania and who has literally changed her life.
Somebody earlier said that it is important not to look at the sad side of things, but to look at the best side. I rang my mother—mummy—last Sunday. We were laughing so much that I nearly had to put the phone down. She might not be able to remember everything, but she still has a sense of humour, she still has a good appetite, and she always enjoys a wee glass of sherry. She will be here with me next Wednesday for parliamentary questions. Mummy, I can’t wait to see you. I love you.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. As Members across the House have rightly highlighted, dementia remains one of the most urgent health and social care challenges facing our country. One in two of us will be affected by it in our lifetime, whether through our own diagnosis, caring for a loved one or both.
Over 14,200 people in the Black Country live with dementia, including over 3,000 in city of Wolverhampton. That number is expected to more than double over the next 10 years. As lack of early diagnosis is an issue and prevents proper dementia care, and considering the prevalence of dementia in our communities, I am pleased that 67% of people with dementia in Wolverhampton have been formally diagnosed as having the condition, compared to 62% nationally and 59% across the west midlands. These are more than just statistics; each number represents the individuals, families and communities living with the daily realities of this cruel condition.
The total annual cost of dementia in England reached £42 billion in 2024, and that is set to double in the next 15 years. More than half the cost is shouldered by unpaid carers—the family members and friends who often go without support, recognition or respite. I welcome the Government’s recent increase in the carer’s allowance earnings threshold, which will enable more carers to remain in work while continuing to receive the support they rely on. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but if we are serious about improving dementia care, we must start with the chronic underfunding of our social care system, which is fragmented, overstretched and under-resourced. We cannot rely on good will alone, so I urge the Government to commit to sustainable, long-term funding for our social care sector—for the workers, for community-based services and for specialist dementia provision.
I am proud that the city of Wolverhampton, which is within my constituency of Wolverhampton West, has been recognised as a dementia-friendly community by the Alzheimer’s Society, with over 13,000 dementia friends across the city. I particularly commend the work of Alz Café in my constituency, which is an independent, volunteer-led service providing a warm, welcoming space for people living with dementia and their families. With live music, hot meals and compassionate support, it is a lifeline for many, and it is run entirely free of charge.
Community-led initiatives are vital, but we cannot allow them to become a substitute for a robust national care infrastructure in our NHS and our country. Volunteers and charities play an incredible role, but they cannot carry the burden alone. Dementia care should therefore be included in the NHS 10-year health plan, as advocated by Dementia UK, with more specialist dementia nurses in our hospitals and in the community to deliver timely, person-centred care, which can save on costs by reducing hospital stays. It is beyond time for us to have a properly funded, co-ordinated national approach to social care that ensures that everyone affected by dementia can access the crucial care and support that they so need.
It is important that we have timely diagnosis of dementia, particularly given that young-onset dementia is becoming common, and age-appropriate support. Dementia care is vital for the future health of us all.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
My constituent Silé’s husband developed early onset dementia at the age of 38. Nobody knew what it was initially, because they were not expecting a normal, healthy 38-year-old to have early-onset dementia. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to do much more right across the UK to highlight that dementia and Alzheimer’s can develop at any age?
Warinder Juss
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we need to take urgent action, and earlier. There are now cases of people having got dementia even as early as the age of 50 without knowing that they have the condition because there is no diagnosis, so I agree with the hon. Lady.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Everyone deserves high-quality care when they need it—that is particularly the case for those with dementia, who often have some of the most complex needs—but the sad reality is that social care services in this country are in crisis. The disease has a huge impact not only on the patients, but on their family and friends as they struggle to care for them.
Richard wrote to me about his experience of being a full-time carer for his wife of 55 years. She has ataxia, compounded by dementia. She is losing her ability to walk or talk, write or use the phone, or follow simple instructions, and Richard has to be with her 24/7 to ensure her safety. The daily routine starts with getting his wife out of bed; transporting her to the bathroom; helping her with the toilet; getting her into the shower and then getting in the shower to shower her; helping her clean her teeth; getting her back to the bedroom to dry her hair and dress her; taking her downstairs via their self-funded stairlift; getting her into a wheelchair to transport her to the dining table for breakfast; and then taking her back to the lounge. She may sleep for a little bit, but sooner or later there will be a call for help to go to the toilet, so it is back into the wheelchair, back on the stairlift and back on the toilet. Richard will clean and dress her, and then she will go back on the stairlift, back into the wheelchair and back into the lounge, where the whole palaver will repeat after five minutes, as she has forgotten that she has already been to the toilet and cannot be convinced otherwise.
That is just one small part of a day, and it sounds relentless. Owing to a recent back injury, Richard has had to employ a carer for two mornings a week to help. He wants to care for his wife as long as he can, but one day he may have to move her to a nursing home, and that worries him. He reckons it will cost approximately £1,800 per week and rising due to the increase in national insurance, and he is now worried that in pandering to populism on immigration, the Government may make it even harder to recruit carers. He says:
“Once again, it is the least fortunate and needy of us who will bear the cost.”
Another constituent wrote:
“When my wife was first diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2019, we were given a couple of booklets and told to prepare for the inevitable.”
He went on to explain that for a couple of years, including during the covid lockdown, they saw no one apart from the occasional surgery visit, until a crisis in 2023 led to the community mental health team being involved. For a while, his wife got a fair amount of support, but when the mental health team deemed her stabilised, that support was withdrawn, leading to another crisis in January 2024. He is very worried that the whole cycle will play out again and again.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend reminds me of a conversation that I had with William, a constituent from High Ham who has been caring for his wife, who has had Alzheimer’s for many years. He has relied on the intensive dementia support team in Yeovil, but the service has recently been reorganised. As a result, it has become quite fragmented across Somerset and there is no central contact or clear structure. There are incomplete records, leaving some carers adrift. Does my hon. Friend agree that streamlining dementia care services is vital to ensure clarity and co-ordination for carers?
Claire Young
Absolutely. It is a very frightening situation for people to find themselves in. For carers who have to do all that I have described Richard having to do, having to battle their way to find the services available just adds to the problems.
My constituent says that mental health services are the Cinderella of the NHS. There is a lack of staff and resources, and such services need more financial support so that they do not abandon people the minute they think they can get away with it.
A number of Members have highlighted the importance of voluntary initiatives, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those in my constituency, including Time 4 Carers, the memory cafés in Yate and Thornbury, and the Charfield memory group. However, voluntary initiatives are not enough to provide the support that dementia patients and their carers need.
The cross-party commission on social care is welcome, but unpaid carers such as my constituents cannot wait three years—they need a fair deal now. That means respite breaks, so that they do not get to breaking point and can carry on caring for their loved ones, as they want to. It means ongoing support from health services, regular check-ins and not being abandoned when the immediate crisis is over, and it means having the confidence that when they do need to turn to paid carers, those carers will be available, they will have dementia training, and cost will not be a barrier to using them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am now asking Members to speak for no longer than five minutes.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for bringing this really important debate to the House. I am speaking today on behalf of the 1,422 people in Leigh and Atherton living with dementia. That is above the national average; my constituency ranks 281 out of 650. I want to speak about the incredible work being done in our communities to support these individuals.
Sadly, due to years of neglect and underfunding, there is no integrated dementia care pathway, and trying to navigate fragmented and complex health and social care systems can cause families to fall between the gaps and reach crisis point. Dementia is placing a monumental pressure on our health and social care system, but it is all too often an afterthought. This cruel condition is having a terrible impact on so many families, and that is clear when speaking to my constituents, who share with me heartbreaking stories of their struggle to access the support they need. That is why improving dementia care in the community is essential. It can offer improved outcomes not only for those with dementia but in the wider health and social care system, as we have heard today.
At a local level, we are fortunate to have brilliant organisations that go above and beyond, offering care, comfort and invaluable support. I pay tribute to my remarkable constituent, Mark Aldred, whose passion for dementia causes is nothing short of inspiring. When he was mayor, his charity appeal partnered with the local Alzheimer’s Society and raised an outstanding £30,000—a true testament to his unwavering commitment to making a real difference. Together with his wife Karen, Mark founded the Good Deeds Trust, a heartfelt initiative born from their deep connection with the people of our borough. Their family-run charity offers essential advice and support to those navigating the challenges of dementia.
We are also privileged to have specialist dementia nurses Bridget Lawler and Caroline Clifton at Belong, a care home based in the heart of Atherton. I pay tribute to them. Their dedication to supporting patients has earned them national recognition, as they have been shortlisted for the Admiral nurse award at the Dementia Care awards. They offer invaluable advice, help arrange assessments with healthcare professionals and provide essential guidance on securing financial support.
I could not be prouder of the staff at Belong Atherton. To see their hard work and kindness recognised at national level is truly inspirational, but they are not alone. We have a pub in Tyldesley called the Union Arms that has been holding dementia meet-ups for the last 10 years. It has become a safe space for people living with the condition to spend time in good company. The group, known as the Forgotten Regulars, has created a fantastic support network, brightening the lives of those affected by dementia, including their families. Despite the incredible work the pub is doing, it faces the challenge of rising costs as it tries to keep the dementia club running.
As a dementia research champion, I proudly stand with Dementia UK and other organisations advocating for better support for community initiatives, greater investment in research and treatment and earlier diagnosis to transform the future of dementia in my constituency and the rest of the UK. Ultimately, ensuring we have a health service fit for the future means improving community and primary dementia support. That starts with championing and nurturing the incredible work being done in our communities that is making a difference and supporting those who need it most.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. Dementia care is in crisis. One in six hospital beds is currently occupied by someone with dementia, and by 2040 it is estimated that the figure will be one in four hospital beds. We need the Government to take bold, radical action to introduce a system that provides the best possible support for people with dementia and their families—support that is easily accessible every step of the way.
I have heard from many carers in my constituency who are stretched to their limit, and adding to that pressure is the constant uncertainty over support. People with dementia often fall through the gaps in the health and social care service, as many assessments are not designed for people with dementia. That is why I support Dementia UK’s call for the Government urgently to review the NHS continuing healthcare process. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering a specific focus on how cognitive and behavioural needs are assessed, and say whether dementia specialists will be involved in the continuing healthcare assessment process?
Support for carers is also incredibly important. In May 2024, Hampshire county council changed a local support service, after 12 years and with very little notice. One of my constituents described how the previous provider, the charity Andover Mind, had been a lifeline for him and his wife who was diagnosed with early-onset dementia. The charity offered care advice, legal guidance and hosted social events that helped to build supportive networks at an incredibly difficult time. My constituents feel that the new service is focused on short-term emergency response rather than comprehensive support.
At present, the care system relies heavily on unpaid carers, who are usually family members, and people with dementia often rely on a combination of unpaid and formal social care. Two thirds of unpaid carers are women, and a third provide more than 100 hours of care a week. This is a full-time job with no pay, little rest, and far too little recognition. As my constituent Julia said,
“post diagnosis, there was just very little help”.
While caring for her husband, she found that she had to do her own research and reading to get him the care he needed. She is concerned, however, that her husband is better off than many others who do not have family advocating on their behalf. Clearly, there is a growing need for a minimum standard of good quality, post-diagnosis support for people with dementia and their carers.
I urge the Government to commit to providing guidance and ringfenced funding to ensure that there is a specialist dementia nurse service in every NHS acute trust. I support the demand for a bold, new diagnosis target, urgent action to reduce waiting lists, and improved dementia diagnosis data collection and publication to drive greater accountability. There is also a discussion to be had about dementia-specific training for care workers. Last year in England, only 45% of care workers received dementia-specific training, which highlights the scale of the problem. Will the Government implement the Alzheimer’s Society’s recommendation that dementia training should be mandatory across the adult social care workforce?
I have spoken in this Chamber on previous occasions about the impact of dementia and Alzheimer’s on my own family, and how after a loved one is diagnosed with this terrible disease, we lose them twice. With our rapidly ageing population, it is critical that more support is given to families coping with dementia, so they do not have to jump through hoops to get support, and so that those living with dementia and Alzheimer’s are treated with the specialist care and dignity they deserve.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. Caring for a relative with dementia is one of the most tremendously difficult things that many people will ever have to do. I pay tribute to the many people in my constituency who are caring for a relative with dementia; it is incredibly challenging. Over time I have spoken to many people on the doorstep whose relatives were suffering from dementia, and who were finding things very difficult. When I read a dementia care plan, I saw that 51% of carers providing unpaid care in my constituency are providing more than 100 hours a week. That is the most phenomenal commitment, and I thank ever so much all those who are doing that.
I have heard the Minister speak extremely movingly about his family’s experiences and I know that he is very committed to improving dementia care in this country. However, it is shocking that at present only about 67% of people with dementia in my constituency will actually receive a diagnosis. I recently spoke to a resident whose mother has been in a care home with advanced dementia for three years, but is still undiagnosed. As long as we do not have a full set of diagnoses, we cannot properly explore good healthcare outcomes for people, what proportionate spend would look like and how we can improve the system generally.
A huge amount of unpaid care is provided by women—although, of course, there are people of all genders providing it and I salute everyone who does so—which is one reason why the gender pay gap doubles when women are in their 40s. Work by the Women’s Budget Group has shown that as well as improving the wellbeing of those providing that care, investment in the care sector could create 2.7 times as many jobs as the same amount of investment in construction. I do not think that we should be providing better care just because there is a good economic basis for doing so—we should be doing it because it is the right thing to do—but it is important to note that there would be huge economic benefits.
I welcome the Government’s launch of an independent commission into adult social care as the first step towards creating a national care service. In Cheshire East, there has been inconsistent funding of Admiral nurses, which has led to inconsistent support. I have been impressed by the care provided by local hospices; although traditionally associated with cancer care, they are now often involved in dementia care. I would like us to provide more funding for hospice care as soon as we are able to do so.
The services that people receive are hugely important to them, whether they are delivered in the community or in care homes. A dentist in my constituency has told me that due to an issue with insurance, many dentists are no longer covered to provide services in care homes, which is a huge loss as those people deserve dental care. The Alzheimer’s Society has called for dementia training for paid carers, and I agree that we should be moving to do that at pace.
I want to thank not just the unpaid carers, but the volunteers in my constituency who are doing the most incredible work. In Congleton, we have the Congleton Lions dementia buddy scheme and the New Life church “Forget-me-not” group for carers and those living with dementia; we have over 1,000 Dementia Friends in Sandbach and the “Bring me sunshine” group at Sandbach library; we have memory cafés at Alsager library, Astbury village hall and Holmes Chapel Methodist church; and I would like to say a huge thank you to everyone involved in making Holmes Chapel a dementia-friendly village. I have not captured the full range of support provided and I apologise to the groups that I may not have picked up on, but the variety of services provided by people on an unpaid basis across my community is staggering.
However, that does not take away from the fact that we need the right paid services for people in their homes and subsequently in care homes, if that becomes the right choice for families. I thank everyone who is providing enormous support to the people who they care for, across our entire society. I know that hon. Members from all parties will agree that we need to provide more support to those giving that care.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for bringing this debate to the House. I would also like to give credit to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), whose touching tribute to their father reminded me of the grandfather who I knew and loved, before dementia slowly stripped me of that man.
Dementia is a particularly cruel terminal illness and the leading cause of death in the UK. We each know somebody who is watching or who has watched somebody they love slowly fade from dementia. One day, some of our own children will slowly be robbed of us—perhaps, in time, my daughter will slowly suffer my own withdrawal. The very foundations of our characters are the memories of lives lived, and friends and families loved. Dementia steals away those memories, and with each memory lost, so too is a little more of that person. Children and grandchildren, once a source of joy and warmth, become strangers as the void left by lost memories is filled with confusion and fear. Confusion chips away at confidence while fear eats away at empathy. Once only a shadow of the person we love remains, dementia takes their independence. It comes for their speech, their ability to walk and even their ability to eat.
For those who shoulder the burden of care, the impact is profound, provoking competing feelings of sadness, anger and pride. Many do not realise that they are carers and soldier on in their duty to their loved ones without external support. Young carers, such as those I met recently in Twigworth, shoulder their additional responsibility through the most challenging period of their own development. Many do not know that they are carers, and too many are not identified as such by their schools or their authorities.
The financial burden of dementia on the UK economy is £42 billion per year, and £26 billion of that is borne by informal carers. Patients and carers alike are failed by dual crises in social care and the NHS, and the stresses imposed on patients only hasten their decline. Liberal Democrats have consistently called on this Government to address the growing social care crisis with a long-term plan, and I reiterate that we cannot adequately support the NHS without addressing social care.
Other Members have spoken at length about measures that the Government can take. I will not repeat those, but I will say that one area in which the Government can move quickly is dementia care skills, through tailored training for our health and care workers to better understand the needs of dementia patients. Too often, care is not adequately tailored for dementia. In Tewkesbury constituency, I am proud to have Gloucestershire’s sole dementia-only nursing home, Wentworth Court. I will be visiting it this week to listen to its needs and learn from its experience, and I will follow up by writing to the Secretary of State.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thought this evening that I might appraise the House of the story of Pat and John Hirst from my constituency. Pat was a nurse. She qualified in 1975 at Leeds general infirmary, and the following year she met John while studying in Liverpool. They married in 1978, raised their three sons and settled in Stockton. Pat returned to work after she had had her children, initially in nursing homes, caring for residents with dementia, then later at the University hospital of North Tees, where she worked for more than a decade.
In the final months of Pat’s time at the hospital, her performance as a nurse began to decline. Unbeknownst to her colleagues or her family, Pat was displaying the early symptoms of frontotemporal dementia, which we heard about earlier from the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). Pat’s colleagues did not realise that, so disciplinary action was initiated. John believes that Pat would have been dismissed, but she instead decided to retire on her 60th birthday, before the end of that year.
In early 2012, Pat experienced swallowing difficulties. She underwent tests across several hospitals, and the diagnosis came. No further explanation was provided, other than a referral to the local memory clinic—an experience of many people with dementia. That evening, John sat at his computer and searched online for more information. There, alone in his own home, he learned that the average life expectancy from diagnosis was between two and 20 years. He had not realised until that point that dementia could be a terminal illness. I think we can all agree that there must be a better way of finding out such devastating news.
Pat remained aware of her surroundings and her loved ones until the very end. In her final two years, she lost the ability to speak and could communicate only with her eyes. John recalls the look of fear in her eyes when it became clear that end of life care was beginning. At that point, she was fully aware that she was saying goodbye to her husband and her sons. Their grandson Henry is now two years old. He will never know his granny, but John is determined that Henry and others of his generation should grow up in a world where dementia can be diagnosed early, managed better and ultimately cured. John now volunteers with Alzheimer’s Research UK, and he recently completed a walk from Teesside to Newcastle to raise awareness and funding. For those not familiar with the area, that is quite a long distance. Even walking, he got there faster than he would have done on the Durham coast line.
In Stockton, we have about 1,300 people suffering from dementia, but it takes six weeks longer for a dementia diagnosis in my constituency than the national average. We clearly need to ensure that people are diagnosed early before symptoms become apparent, but it is also important that we raise awareness with the public and employers that early-onset dementia can and does affect people before retirement age, so that people do not suffer the kind of treatment that Pat did in her last year of employment.
While the impact of dementia is a difficulty for a parent, it adds a new dimension when that person is diagnosed at the age of 30 or 40. We have heard already that if nothing changes, one in two of us will be affected by dementia, whether individually, living as a carer or both. John speaks not only for himself and for Pat, but for the thousands of families across Stockton North and the country who are facing this condition. We owe it to John and to other families to ensure that the experience of dementia is no longer defined by lengthy waits, lack of information and financial hardship or, indeed, improved by people like John walking long distances from Teesside to Newcastle. Instead, it should be defined by early intervention, compassionate care, and meaningful progress through research.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. I also thank the many Members from all parts of the House who have shared passionate stories, either of their own or of constituents. Far too many people across the UK are living with dementia, a cruel and progressive condition that robs them of their memory, speech and independence. For every person with dementia, there is often a family doing everything they can behind closed doors to hold things together. I have heard from so many, and one of them is my constituent, Claire.
Claire describes her mother, Christine, as a vibrant and sociable woman. She was a devoted mother, a church flower arranger and a proud Harpenden resident of nearly 40 years. However, in her early 60s, Christine started showing signs of confusion, withdrawal and mood swings. Her family noticed something was off, but like so many others, they did not assume it was dementia. Even medical professionals overlooked these signs. Christine’s story took a devastating turn in 2018, just four weeks after her daughter Claire had given birth to twins.
At what should have been a joyful and tender time in their family’s life, Christine suffered a cardiac arrest. That moment plunged her into mid-stage vascular dementia, a terminal diagnosis with no treatment or cure. After Christine’s diagnosis, the family was visited by a nurse once and then told they were being discharged. They received no care plan nor long-term guidance. From then on, care fell entirely to the family. Claire’s dad, a retired engineer, became a full-time carer overnight. He learned to administer insulin and to manage medicine, and he joined online courses alongside his daughter.
Support for the family came when Dementia UK got involved in March 2020, and that was great, but unfortunately it was too late to change the trajectory and was tragically interrupted by the pandemic. Admiral nurses, who provide expert guidance for families such as Claire’s, could have made all the difference, but demand continues to outstrip supply.
Through it all, Claire created something positive. She saw at first hand the extraordinary power music had to reach her mum, even in the late stages of her dementia, so she set up Sing from the Heart, a community singalong in care settings and online for people with dementia. It was a real pleasure to visit them in the Willow Court care home and to hear Claire play along and the residents enjoying it. It is now a lasting tribute to her mother, who passed away in April last year, aged 73.
Alongside Sing from the Heart in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, we also have the memory café at Harpenden Trust and Open Door. There are so many volunteers, as mentioned today, working to give that care in the community. Everyone with dementia deserves high-quality care whenever they need it. The Liberal Democrats want everyone to be able to live independently and with dignity, and to receive any care they need in their home whenever possible. That is why we have routinely called on the Government to act now. Their decision to quietly drop cross-party talks on social care and push the delivery of the Casey commission’s recommendations to almost a decade away will leave many with dementia, and their families, paying the price. Do the Government accept that dementia care is in crisis, and will they now commit to better funding, so that families in this country do not go through the same hardships of receiving care as Claire and Christine?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I now ask Members to keep their comments to no more than four minutes.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
All politics is personal, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for sharing their personal experiences today. Three years ago, Clackmannanshire became home to the Alzheimer Scotland brain health and dementia resource centre. Alongside other local women, Debbie Cassidy—a constituent of mine—raised in excess of £100,000 and created a first for our country: a dedicated brain hub that helps people understand and manage the factors that affect brain health and what potentially leads to dementia. That is a terrific achievement, and an inspirational example of what can be achieved by local people when they are backed with the right support.
Talking of support, for years Ludgate House in Alloa has been instrumental in providing specialist respite care for people and families with many complex needs, including dementia. Clackmannanshire residents with dementia have received the most compassionate, attentive and brilliant care from the staff—the same dedicated staff who have provided peace of mind to families, allowing them to take a much-needed break from their caring responsibilities. However, there is uncertainty around the future of the respite unit at Ludgate House. This is a consequence of the chronic underfunding and systemic issues within our Scottish social care system.
The possible fate of the respite unit at Ludgate House is representative of a broader crisis in dementia care. In Scotland, over 90,000 people are living with dementia, a number that is projected to rise by 50% by 2040. With that alarming prediction, the removal of that respite unit would leave a significant void in our community, depriving families of essential support and placing additional strain on already overstretched health services. In fact, a recent report from Alzheimer Scotland highlighted the lack of strategic planning in commissioning for long-term care, noting that many people with advanced dementia face monthly care bills of thousands of pounds.
Like people from all over the UK, families from Clackmannanshire have been and continue to be victims of the cost of living crisis, so the possibility of losing the respite unit at Ludgate House does not bear thinking about. In response, I am working with the staff. We have set up a campaign to keep the respite unit open and press the integration joint board for clarity, transparency and—above all else—the continued delivery of this vital service. The Scottish Government must invest in dementia care, allocating sufficient funding to support existing facilities and develop new community-based care models. There must be equitable access to dementia care regardless of financial circumstances, and we must support people with dementia, their families, carers, and the staff affected by the uncertainty surrounding Ludgate House and, of course, facilities all across Scotland and the UK that face very similar problems.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. In my constituency, an estimated 1,638 people are living with dementia, which is above the national average. However, beyond those numbers are the stories of individual people, each with their own unique experience of living with dementia. Dementia does not discriminate; it can impact anyone, robbing them of their best memories and devastating families and friends in its wake.
I also commend those who dedicate themselves to caring for and supporting those with dementia. I have been lucky enough to meet some of them in Melksham and Devizes. Recently, I visited a branch of the Nationwide bank in Devizes, which has been hosting dementia-friendly sessions and acting as a support hub for those with dementia. It was truly heartwarming to see the friendships and bonds formed between the regular customers and the staff, who have undertaken special training to help them.
However, I must also point out the impact that the hike in employers’ national insurance contributions is having on care providers, including those providing care for people with dementia. The care sector already operates on a razor-thin margin, and these rises have increased operational costs drastically, affecting not only the budgets of the individuals and local authorities who will be picking up the added burden, but hospices, which are being faced with difficult choices over who they can care for and for how long, and how to raise sufficient funds to continue operating.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for initiating this important debate, especially because dementia is the defining health and social care challenge of our time. It is now a leading cause of death in the UK, and one in two of us will be affected in our lifetime, whether through receiving a diagnosis ourselves, caring for a loved one, or both. Yet despite the scale and impact of the condition, people affected by dementia continue to face a fragmented system that all too often leaves them without the support they need when they need it most. Navigating a complex web of health and social care services is exhausting, and for many families it leads to crisis before help arrives.
As the hon. Member explained, there is a postcode lottery, but I am proud of the fact that Wolverhampton is a dementia-friendly city. Through Dementia Connect, a personalised support service from the Alzheimer’s Society, people have access to a wide range of help. Whether it involves emotional support, advice on benefits, connection to local support groups or practical tips for living with dementia, the service makes a real difference, enhancing the quality of life for patients and their families.
Alongside that, Wolverhampton’s wider dementia pathway—our memory clinics, community health teams, Admiral Nurses, dementia cafés and carer support services—form a crucial safety net for families who are under immense pressure. To every NHS worker and social care professional, and to all the volunteers and the army of unpaid workers who provide support for patients and families in my constituency, I say “Thank you.” Their knowledge, their lived experiences and their absolute dedication are deeply valued and appreciated.
However, local services can only go so far, which is why I am urging the Government to make dementia a core priority in their upcoming NHS 10-year plan. I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to listen to leading experts such as Dementia UK and Age UK; to ringfence funding for dementia specialist nurses in every NHS acute trust; to embed dementia specialist nurses, such as Admiral Nurses, in neighbourhood health centres; to tackle the delays and disparities in dementia diagnosis —as of April 2025, only 65% of those aged 65 or over who were estimated to have dementia had had a recorded diagnosis—to ensure investment in diagnostic capacity, including memory clinics; and to address the growing concern among older people and unpaid carers about their ability to access these vital services.
Dementia is not just a clinical condition; it is a personal crisis that unfolds in so many living rooms, GP surgeries, hospital wards and care homes across our country. Let us not allow a “geography roulette” to determine the dignity that is needed by every person who is affected by dementia.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Dementia is such a cruel disease. Let us be clear that it is not simply part of getting old, yet too often it is treated as though it is inevitable. In my constituency the number of people living with dementia is nearly 40% higher than the national average. One in every 45 adults of all ages has been diagnosed, and we know that the true number is even higher when we include those not diagnosed.
Family members, who provide such amazing care, are relying so heavily on community groups such as Stepping Stones—led by my predecessor and good friend, Dame Annette Brooke—with jigsaws and its tea dances providing moments of joy. The Leonardo Trust provides grants for unpaid carers, and I thank the Museum of East Dorset for its fantastic work in recruiting residents to crochet the over 8,000 forget-me-nots that decorated the town of Wimborne last month.
Neurological conditions such as dementia are the leading cause of illness globally, and as our population ages, the challenge will only grow. However, dementia is not just a disease of old age—some of the most heartbreaking cases are among younger people. A neighbour of mine in Broadstone—a proud veteran, builder and father—was diagnosed in his early 50s. I watched him go from walking past our house without recognising us, to needing a carer by his side and now living full-time in a care home. His daughters, who once played with mine, will never have their father walk them down the aisle and his wife will never share the retirement they dreamed of.
That is why I did not hesitate to become a dementia research champion. If we do not understand how the brain works and how to stop it failing, we will not get the benefits of extended life expectancy. Today, the Daily Mirror has reported that over 100 new drugs are in development to halt dementia, with scientists saying we are at the start of a journey to a cure. Of these drugs, 86% could halt or reverse the disease. However, research alone is not enough, and we must transform the care we give.
Like those of other Members, my constituents are facing a battle just to get the care they need. Andrew was told that his wife Tricia did not qualify for NHS continuing healthcare because it did not meet the NHS-funded nursing criteria of being short term or of optimum potential, despite changing on a daily basis. The council eventually stepped in, but not until Andrew himself had become ill. Why is nursing care not being picked up by the NHS? Surely that is what it is for.
Another constituent, Emma-Jane, told me about her mother, who has dementia and paranoia, and has become abusive. Her father, who had protected his family for so long, once spent the night in a park just to escape. A social worker decided that her mother could not go into a care home, because her mother had wanted to stay at home, despite acknowledging that she lacked the capacity to make such a decision. After accessing respite care when the family reached crisis, Emma-Jane is now funding care privately, while she battles the council because her father simply cannot cope. This is intolerable: families are breaking and councils are overwhelmed.
Kevin wrote to me about his Aunt Jean, now 92, who entered a care home eight years ago. The family home has gone and the money has gone, so the council must step in, but the care home fees are nearly double the local authority cap. Even with Jean’s pension and a discount from the care company, there is a £300 a week shortfall, leaving the family to choose between paying out of their own pocket or moving her from the place she has called home for nearly a decade. To put that into perspective, the cost of caring for Jean for one year, after her pension contribution, is equivalent to the total annual council tax of 24 households. If every dementia patient in my constituency needed council tax funded care, it would consume the council tax of 43,000 homes, and I have only 44,000 in the whole constituency.
We must act: we must invest in research, support carers, and reform how we fund and deliver care. I call on the Minister to push for faster progress on the Casey report. There is no choice: the cost of inaction is too high for our families, our communities and our country.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
There is no doubt that dementia is the biggest health challenge of our time. It is the leading cause of death in the UK, and there will not be a single family across our country that is not touched by this illness. I suspect that for most of in this House, if not all, it will be no different.
I look to my own experience with my mum, who developed a condition when she was aged 62 or 63. My mum, Phyllis McAllister, a nurse, nursing sister and midwife—a carer by profession—was also an unpaid carer to my late father, after he suffered a stroke, until she could care no more, with the carer now needing care.
It is often said that it can be a postcode lottery when it comes to the provision of dementia care, both at home and in residential care. My family and I were very fortunate in that our experience was a positive one. The provision of dementia healthcare services is the responsibility of local integrated healthcare boards. That is the case across the UK. My Labour-run administration in West Dunbartonshire provided outstanding home care services on a daily basis to allow my mother to remain in her home for as long as possible. However, the highly dedicated team of home carers are often expected to do more for their clients with reduced times. Those are the consequences of the cuts to local government and health and social care budgets from central Government over the last decade. They are played out on the frontline of dementia care.
I served as a councillor on West Dunbartonshire council for 21 years and I am very proud of our record on the provision of dementia care. As an administration, we took the bold step—the brave yet correct decision—to continue to offer local authority-run residential care homes. We built two large, state-of-the-art care homes: Crosslet House in Dumbarton; and Queens Quay in Clydebank, where my mother now receives quite outstanding care by a highly dedicated team of care staff, which my brother and I are so appreciative of. I refer to that, because it demonstrates what all local authorities and integrated care boards could and should provide, given the correct support and funding from central Government.
I want my UK Labour Government to prioritise a society where every person with dementia receives high-quality, compassionate care, from diagnosis through to end of life care. We must commit to improving dementia care and empower our local leaders with the autonomy they need to provide the best services to their local community. That means the UK Labour Government learning the lessons of SNP failure. Early this year, the Scottish Government formally abandoned their national care service plan, scaling back their flagship policy of centralised control under a single national body, wasting time and money—£30 million wasted, money that could have delivered 1 million extra hours of care, stopped care packages being cut and provided the essential dementia care that families across Scotland are so desperate for.
There is a role for central Government. The Labour Government’s 10-year health plan provides a key opportunity to fix dementia care. It starts with a blueprint for transforming early dementia diagnosis. Diagnosis late in the progression of the disease costs all of us so much more. Early diagnosis is vital to ensure people with dementia can access the treatment and support they need. Our 10-year plan should include bold, brave commitments to funding and providing our NHS with groundbreaking new treatment, medicines and research, including clinical trials of promising new dementia drugs. I urge the Minister to commit our Labour Government to improving dementia care across the board: causes, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, care and support.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I wanted to share some of my experiences and, with her support, the experiences of my office manager, Becca. Becca and I agreed that the issue we wanted to raise in the debate is dignity.
Becca’s nan, Pat, lived with dementia for over a decade. She received care both at home and, later, in a specialist dementia care home. At home, the care she received was poor. When carers visited, Pat was left in inappropriate clothing, unwashed or not taken to the toilet. Her husband, then in his late 80s, and their daughters were left to care for her. When Pat moved into a care home, the quality of care improved. The staff clearly cared for her, and over time she became one of the longest-residing residents. Some carers treated her like family. But even in a good care home, the pressures of understaffing meant that dignity was often the first thing to be compromised.
Pat’s husband and daughter visited her every day. They noticed that she was frequently dressed in clothes that did not belong to her, despite everything being clearly labelled. Sometimes, other residents wore the outfits her family had chosen for Pat. As a result, Pat was often left in ill-fitting clothes. Worse, carers did not always have time to take Pat to the toilet. Pat’s daughter would have to raise that she had to go to the toilet, or that she needed to be cleaned and dressed. Every day, she had to advocate for her mother to ensure that she was treated with the dignity she deserved.
My nan, Hilda Duffield, was born Hilda Caunt in 1918. By the time she was 90, Hilda—nan—was losing mobility and suffering memory loss. Ted, my grandad, had become her devoted carer and took over all the domestic tasks. After some time, nan was diagnosed with dementia. I remember the disease becoming increasingly entangled with and amplifying her already worrisome nature. She started to become angry, flying off the handle with stress over where grandad was—whether he was in the next room or had popped to the shop. The disease took an increasing hold over her as time progressed.
My nan and grandad continued to manage together for several years, but the situation changed rapidly when grandad became ill himself in autumn 2012. When he was admitted to hospital, it was clear that nan needed full-time care. After a few weeks in residential care, she was moved to the same nursing hospital as grandad, and she was present at his bedside when he died in January 2013. They had been married for 73 years.
With my grandad’s death, my nan’s dementia worsened. She was moved to a care home near my uncle Neil in Bolton, as he and my aunt Eileen would be able to spend time with her during the day. I, however, never saw my nan again after she moved to Bolton. By all accounts, by that stage she had no memory of me or of much of my family. She spent her days hallucinating and had become abusive to care home staff; I remember my uncle Neil telling me how he regularly heard her screaming words he did not know she knew at people who were trying to help her. We decided as a family that there was no benefit to me or to several other family members visiting, and that it was better for everyone who could to remember her as she was before her mind was taken by that cruel disease. I do not know if that was the right thing to do. I never will.
By the end, like Pat and so many others who suffer with dementia, my nan had lost her dignity to that disease. She had lost everything and needed those around her to maintain her dignity for her. In Erewash and across the country, so many more have stories like those I have shared today. Not all those suffering have someone who can advocate for them, but I hope I have gone some way towards doing so today, as have my colleagues across the House—my gratitude goes out to all of them.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech, and I wish her father-in-law and cousin all the very best.
I have been the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia for the past 10 years. Like my co-chair, Baroness Angela Browning, I became involved because of a loved one who had acquired the disease. In my case, it was my mum, who was also called Angela and who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease at 64; along with my stepfather and brother, I cared for her until she died in 2012. After her death, I became a dementia friends champion—the first MP to do so—which allowed me to do a number of dementia friends sessions. As a consequence, we have hundreds of people involved in Oldham, and have set up a dementia-friendly Oldham, with an annual memory walk and lots of other groups that support families affected by dementia. I am very proud of that.
I appreciate that the Government have yet to publish any plans on dementia, but given that dementia, as we have heard today, is the leading cause of death in the UK—above heart disease and above cancer—and affects nearly 1 million people, with an equivalent number of carers, I know that the Minister will give it the focus and attention it deserves. We have also heard that a quarter of NHS beds are occupied by someone with dementia who is fit and able to be discharged, but who cannot be discharged because of the crisis in social care.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
People with degenerative conditions stay under consultant care, but after 18 months my constituent with Alzheimer’s was discharged with no monitoring and no access to specialist nurses unless referred by a very lengthy GP process. He told me that he feels abandoned. Does the hon. Lady agree that dementia must be treated as seriously as other long-term conditions, and that everyone with dementia should have access to a specialist nurse and an annual health and care review?
Debbie Abrahams
That is a very long question. I certainly believe that we need to improve care. Dementia is obviously an umbrella term for several different diseases, and we cannot make recommendations that apply to each specific disease; I think that has unfortunately not had the airing that it might have.
The APPG has undertaken a number of inquiries of which I am incredibly proud. A few years ago, we published “Workforce Matters”, which is still very relevant today. We have heard some of the recommendations around specialist care. Unfortunately, we have a postcode lottery; the APPG heard some fantastic examples of care, but also some not-so-great examples. There was also a survey of nearly 2,000 people. There is still lots to do there, and I hope the Minister will look at those recommendations. Our “Raising the Barriers” report around the inequalities in dementia diagnosis also needs further attention. Those inequalities are not just by geography, but by different cohorts of people.
In my last minute or so, I will talk about prevention, as we have heard only a little reference to that. With young-onset dementia, we are able to track the start of changes in people’s brains from the age of 30 that are associated with different cognitive diseases. What is good for our heart is also good for our head, but there are other things to consider, including reducing air pollution. We know that smoking and heart disease is a real no-no, as is obesity and high blood pressure. It is also important to be on top of hearing loss and related issues. Excess alcohol consumption is another factor; fewer than 14 units a week is the guidance for a healthy life, but 18 is excessive.
Social isolation is really bad for dementia, as is traumatic brain injury. I am supporting Football Families for Justice, which is run by Nobby Stiles’s son, to try to get compensation and support for footballers who have been affected by their sport throughout their careers and are suffering from brain diseases as a consequence. We are calling on football authorities to take responsibility. Footballers are now paid fantastically well, but that was not the case in the past and we need to make sure that those players are cared for; this is an occupational disease.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. We have heard many moving speeches this afternoon, and it has been a great honour to sit and listen to them.
We must remember that dementia is not a fact of life, or something that everyone must face as they get older. It is not inevitable as a part of ageing. Dementia is a disease— a dreadful disease at that. Some 1.5 million people will be living with dementia in this country by 2040, so let us treat dementia with the same seriousness that we treat all other deadly conditions. Let us not neglect dementia simply because it disproportionately affects older people.
At present, we have a fragmented and complex health system that does not provide a clear enough route for people with dementia. Let us improve specialist dementia support in hospitals and in the community. It is simply our duty to do so. The estimated economic impact of dementia in the UK last year was £42.5 billion. By contrast, we learned yesterday that the defence budget is £58 billion. It is suggested that, by 2040, the dementia budget will be £90 billion, so something must be done.
Improving the treatment of dementia in our communities and in primary care settings will certainly help to free up hospitals and care systems, because, as we have heard, people with dementia occupy a quarter of all the hospital beds in the country. Let us move dementia treatment into the communities, with specialist nurses in communities to ease the pressure. Dementia is not inevitable. We must be bold, optimistic and forward-thinking, and prepared to deploy radical advances in science to tackle the condition. Let us support our scientists and researchers as they strive to develop more effective treatments and make progress towards curing the disease.
Let us support research by enabling the NHS to empower its clinicians to conduct research and to use patient data. That would help to facilitate medical research and increase the number of clinical academics, whose number has been declining for much too long.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talk about hearing loss. Many members will know that I am an ear, nose and throat surgeon. Hearing loss is absolutely central to the problem of people withdrawing from the society in which they live. The simple testing of hearing and the provision of hearing aids will do much to help. I urge Members of a certain age to consider having a hearing test.
I am interested to know what we can do with patient data. If researchers across the country ran studies on 67 million people, we would accelerate progress towards a cure. Artificial intelligence could be set to work analysing datasets and providing rich sources of longitudinal data to inform future research and cures. Artificial intelligence already models the folding of proteins that cause the disease, so to secure those benefits, let us do something about the collection of medical information, and let us prioritise openness by giving patients access to their medical records, allowing them to see how the information is being used to support the NHS. That is something we could do to help.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. Listening to the stories from Members on all sides of the House, it is clear that this is not simply a political debate; it is deeply personal to pretty much everyone here.
My father had dementia. He was a typical Irish farmer; he was very strong-willed, physically tough and fiercely independent, and he was used to working all hours of the day. Watching that man slip away, becoming increasingly confused, anxious and very often unreasonably angry, was one of the most heartbreaking experiences of my life. I know I am not alone in experiencing that, as we have heard very similar stories.
Many Members have said that with dementia we lose the person we love twice—first slowly, piece by piece, and then again at the end. The final loss can feel like a relief, because it is a prolonged bereavement; the grief starts sometimes years before. Dementia is a brutal disease, not just for those who are experiencing it but for those who are caring. For spouses, children and families, it is relentless emotional toil, sleepless nights and endless juggling of tasks.
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend shares his experience of losing his father. I lost my father in the same way, and he too was a proud farming man. I want to raise an issue from a constituent who contacted me about her father James. He is currently alone in a room in a hospital, and he is scared to mix with other violent dementia patients. He wants to be at home, and the family want him to be at home, but there are barriers in social care in Somerset at the moment. Does my hon. Friend agree that dementia patients should be able to live independently at home, with dignity, and receive the care—
Dr Chambers
Yes, I agree that empowering people to live as independently as possible is hugely important.
For me, there was guilt—for many years actually. I felt guilty about the moments of resentment at how my job and career were affected, and for losing patience when faced with the anger of someone you are trying to care for. I remember that my dad did not really understand that all we were trying to do was help. I want to mention the very insightful piece of advice from the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) not to argue with people who have dementia. I wish I had understood when we were caring for my father that there was no need to correct his current understanding of the world. My grandfather was born in 1870, and my father kept asking where he was. We tried to explain that he would have been aged 130 if he had still been alive, but I wonder why we had those discussions. That was a hugely important and emotive piece of advice.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
When I led a district council, one thing we tried to do was take initiatives to make us more dementia-friendly. There is some excellent training run by the Alzheimer’s Society. Does the hon. Member agree that all MPs’ offices should be seeking to take such initiatives so that we can be compassionate in the way that he describes?
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with what the hon. Member has just suggested. There is no way that we can approach dementia without a huge amount of compassion and empathy.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to the issue of not seeking to correct those with dementia on where they think they are. In that respect, dementia care and understanding have come a long way, and in fact it is now standard not to try to do that. I thank the hon. Member, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), for raising that issue in the Chamber.
Dr Chambers
I remember trying to explain to my father about the sheepdog, which he loved to train but which he did not recognise as his own any more. That is unusual for a farmer. There was no need to have that discussion; it was heartbreaking. The dog loved my dad and dad not recognising him any more was very upsetting. This all still feels very raw, but as we have heard today, my story is not in any way unique. There are so many families in Winchester and around the country who are experiencing that similar, heartbreaking journey.
Caring for my father is one of the hardest things that my family has ever done. I pay tribute to my mother, who bore the brunt of caring for my father for many years; to my sister Irene, who helped hugely for years and years; to my cousin Patrick; and to our neighbours James and Deborah Hodgson—we could not have managed without them. However, especially nearer the end, we could not have done without the extraordinary support of the care workers who came to help on a regular basis. Their compassion, skill and dedication helped get us through some of the darkest days.
That dedication was extraordinary. Dad loved singing and one of our care workers had printed out some of the songs that he knew—some old Methodist hymns, “The Old Rugged Cross” and “Danny Boy”, which was his favourite song and the song that I am named after. He might not have remembered our dog, but he could remember every word of “Danny Boy” when he was singing it. The dedication of the care workers, to find out someone’s favourite song and then sing it with them, was quite extraordinary.
Care workers, who are vital and skilled, are often underpaid, undervalued and stretched beyond endurance. We just cannot allow that to continue. That is why the Liberal Democrats call for urgent and meaningful reform of social care—reform that starts with recognising and properly rewarding and supporting the workforce who underpin it. We have been calling for a national social care workforce plan—not for the can to be kicked further down the road, but a real plan to address recruitment, retention and training, with practical steps to fix the staffing crisis. We want to establish a royal college of care workers to give care professionals the recognition and career development that they deserve. I pay tribute to Liz Blacklock from Winchester, who runs Lapis Care based in Bishop’s Waltham, where I went on some visits a few weeks ago. Liz has long been calling for a formal register of care workers, which would be one of the functions of any new royal college of care workers.
Liberal Democrats also call for a national carers register, so that all unpaid family carers can be better supported, for example with statutory respite care. We also call for a higher carer’s minimum wage, because paying poverty wages for such emotionally and physically demanding work is not only unjust but short-sighted and drives burnout, turnover and, ultimately, worse care.
Let us be clear: dementia is not going away. One in three people born today will develop dementia. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with her public health experience, was insightful in her advice on how we can help to prevent it from developing.
The financial pressures on local authorities, driven in large part by adult social care, are among the most urgent political challenges of this decade. In Winchester, the Chesil Lodge day centre provides essential care for older adults, including those with dementia, and importantly provides respite care for family members. Hampshire county council is threatening to withdraw funding. That could overwhelm unpaid carers, forcing loved ones into residential care, which in the end will cost the council and taxpayers more.
With the political will, proper investment and genuine commitment to value and care work, we can build a system that supports people with dementia with dignity and gives their families the help and hope they so desperately need.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I think we have established that dementia is a thief, not once but twice: first of the mind, then of the memories, leaving the greatest pain not with the sufferer but with those who remember. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing such an important debate and for speaking so passionately and openly about her story, as did many across this House. I also thank the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK, Dementia UK and all those people who advocate for dementia and their families. As we have heard, there are 1 million people living with dementia in the UK, and that figure is projected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. One in six hospital beds are occupied by dementia patients, and dementia sufferers are three times more likely to see their GP. Modelling suggests that 70% of care home residents are people living with dementia.
In this House I often enjoyed the tired lines from the then Opposition about how the Conservatives never did enough on x or y or z. As Labour Members are ably demonstrating, it is easy to stand across the aisle and say that nothing is ever enough, but as they are learning, delivering in the real world is far harder than demanding from the sidelines. On dementia, the Conservative Government led from the front with more funding, better diagnosis and a national commitment to change lives. We all agree that we must continue to do more, but to do that we need direction and action, and that is what we are exploring here today, almost one year on from the introduction of a Labour Government.
Debbie Abrahams
Can the shadow Minister remind us about the commitment in the 2019 Conservative manifesto on the dementia moonshot and tell us if and when that was delivered?
Dr Evans
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I am going to canter through what we have done in the past 14 years, because it was, after all, under the premiership of Lord Cameron that the challenge on dementia set the ambition for England to be
“the best country in the world for dementia care and support and for people with dementia, their carers and families to live”.
So, on to the point. In 2012, the then Prime Minister set the challenge to make us a global leader and increase awareness and research. This included the dementia friends initiative—a public campaign to boost understanding, over 1 million dementia friends trained by 2015 and increased research funding, which doubled from 2010 to 2015. In 2015, the Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia 2020 set national goals for diagnosis rates, care quality and research impact, including a national target for dementia diagnosis rates of 66.7%, which was met in 2015.
In 2016 and 2017, the UK Dementia Research Institute, launched under Theresa May, was a flagship initiative backed by £290 million from the Government and charities. This actually delivered £300 million in dementia research and innovation by March 2020, a full year ahead of schedule. We had the NHS long-term plan in 2019, which committed to enhancing diagnosis. In 2019 we also had the dementia moonshot pledge from Boris Johnson, with an extra £160 million. This was followed up in 2022 with the Dame Barbara Windsor dementia mission—a £95 million fund to accelerate research into treatment and early diagnosis. Of course, the pandemic hit and we had the recovery, and that is why the Government set out the 2023 major conditions strategy, which would have included dementia.
There is therefore a question for this Government as to the priority they have given to dementia since taking office, and it is worth looking at why concerns are being raised. This Government, rightly so in their own right, did not opt to proceed with the major conditions strategy. That might surprise some Members, as we heard the current Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who is in her place, call for a dedicated dementia strategy a number of times when she was in opposition. Only last year, she said the following in a Westminster Hall debate on new dementia treatments:
“As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said, it is disappointing that the Government shelved the plans for a dedicated dementia strategy. England remains the only nation without a specific dementia plan. That is very short-term thinking, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister about that. In 2022, I said:
‘We cannot give confidence to people suffering with dementia and their carers without a much clearer plan that is in place very quickly.’—[Official Report, 14 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 141.]
That remains the case today.” —[Official Report, 11 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 192WH.]
So I would like to ask the Minister: does he stand by these comments and can we therefore expect a dedicated dementia strategy? It is easy for the Conservative side of the House to understand that governing is difficult. Good intentions make fine Opposition speeches until they collide with reality. Does the Minister plan to carry on with a dedicated strategy, and would he be kind enough to confirm that today?
On the topic of strategies and comments made by Labour Ministers before they took office, I note that in a Westminster Hall debate on inequalities in dementia services only in May last year, less than a week before the general election was called, the shadow Health Minister and now the independent hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne) promised a carers strategy. He said that carers are
“a vital part of the fight against dementia, and they will be at the heart of Labour’s plans in Government. There will be a carers strategy under the next Labour Government, because we value the vital work our carers do. It will be a cross-Government strategy with the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Education and the future of work review all feeding into it along with the Department of Health and Social Care. There is a brighter future for those living with dementia and their families and carers. Labour will deliver it.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 228WH.]
That is a laudable aim.
However, since the election, it appears that all is not quite as it seems. In an oral question in the other place in November, Baroness Merron made it clear that she had
“not committed to a national carers strategy”,
stating,
“I do have to say to the noble Baroness that I have not committed to a national carers strategy. However, in our joined-up approach, we will certainly be looking at what is needed. That will be very much part of our considerations on the workforce strategy, which Minister Karin Smyth will be leading on. It is crucial to the delivery of services.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 107.]
I therefore ask the Minister today whether specific plans are still in place for a national care strategy.
Joe Robertson
As my hon. Friend knows, at the beginning of the year, the Government and NHS England removed dementia from their planning guidance, which sets their priorities for the year ahead. Crucially, they removed the diagnosis targets. That was a cruel blow to people living with dementia and their families. Will the Minister give his view on the Government removing dementia from their targets and priorities?
Dr Evans
I am grateful, first, for my hon. Friend promoting me and, secondly, for his expertise in this area because I understand that he has worked with Dementia UK. He is absolutely right—he has beaten me to the chase. One of the real concerns that charities and patients have raised is exactly that: the removal of this crucial diagnosis target. We only need to look at Wales where that was not the case. The national diagnosis rate is 56%—10% lower than in England.
On top of that, the Government are presiding over a major top-down restructuring with cuts to integrated care boards and NHS England, while forcing through devolution on the 21 county-run authorities responsible for social care, while raising taxes in the employment national insurance contribution on care providers, which will get passed on to local councils, while raising taxes on the very dementia charities and others that provide support, while ditching the fast-track social work scheme as we learned last week, while terminating the NHS and care volunteers response that helps support care, and while scrapping the cross-party talks on social care and instead swapping it to an independent commission led by Baroness Casey, who still seconded to the Home Office. We can all see what is being taken away and taxed. It is what is going to benefit dementia support and care that is much harder to spot.
In the rough and tumble of this place, it is not lost on me how much this issue touches the Minister himself. He has spoken bravely and openly about his family’s struggle, and I have the utmost respect for him and what he has been through, and I have been through similar with my grandmother Dot. I do not question his heart; I simply gently challenge the Government on their policies to achieve better dementia care for all.
To that end, I have a couple of questions. Will the Government commit to setting a new target to increase dementia diagnosis rates across England? With integrated care systems facing restructuring and budget resolutions, how does the Government plan to hold local systems to account on dementia diagnosis, especially across the NHS and social care? We have seen in Wales how irregular data collection on dementia diagnosis affects overall diagnosis rates. What steps will the Government take to improve the quality of data in dementia diagnosis, particularly when it comes to follow up? Given the growing prevalence of dementia in our care homes, what steps will the Government take to support providers and ensure that the social care workforce is trained effectively to meet the needs of care users?
With the upcoming spending review and the long-awaited 10-year plan for the NHS expected in the next couple of months, I trust the Minister sitting in front of me. He is the right person to highlight to the Government the seriousness and importance of tackling dementia, just like the last Government understood.
I return to where I started: dementia steals the most from those left remembering, because the greatest heartbreak is losing someone who is still here. But with compassion for families, dignity for those who suffer and the relentless pursuit of a cure, we can offer not just care, but hope.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate, and I commend her for her work as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. It has been a thoughtful and constructive debate, with a number of truly powerful and moving personal contributions from Members across the Chamber.
This is a cause that is close to my heart. I thank all Members for their kind words about my own family, but our history is far from unique. We know that one in two of us will be affected by dementia in our lifetime—by caring for someone with the condition, developing it ourselves, or both. It is predicted that just under 1.5 million people in England will be living with dementia by 2040. Each person, along with their loved ones and carers, has a unique journey and their own heartbreaking stories. On behalf of the Government, I thank everyone working to support people with dementia, as well as their friends, families and carers. This Government will back them every step of the way. We are also backing our scientists to deliver new treatments and ways to care for people living with dementia, and I recently had the pleasure of visiting the UK Dementia Research Institute’s centre for care and technology, where I saw some of its innovative smart-home tools.
A timely diagnosis is vital to ensure that everyone can access the advice, information and support that can help them to live well with dementia and remain independent for as long as possible. This Government remain committed to the national ambition for two thirds of people living with dementia to receive a formal diagnosis. We are funding evidence-based improvement projects to pilot the diagnosing advanced dementia mandate in 14 trusts. I am delighted that best practice is currently being shared and promoted with regional and local partners, following an impact assessment of the pilots.
Dementia can impact anyone, but there is varying and unequal access to health services. That is why the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is working to make our country fairer by developing a tool that provides a clear assessment of population characteristics, such as rurality and socioeconomic deprivation.
Joe Robertson
I welcome the Minister’s confirmation of his commitment to the diagnosis target of two thirds. Will he put that in a key document—the equivalent of the planning guidance for NHS England? Will he ensure that that is well documented and set out in a strategic document, so that we can be absolutely clear and are not relying on his oral assertions in this Chamber?
Stephen Kinnock
We are absolutely on the record with the 66.7% target.
I want to take this opportunity to set out what appears to be a philosophical difference between this Government’s approach to our health and care system and that of many Opposition Members. We believe in devolution, we believe in decentralisation, and we believe in empowering those who are closest to the citizen to make the decisions that need to be made. If others have a more centralising and deeply anachronistic approach to managing our health and care system, which I heard from Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, that is up to them, but we believe in modernising our system, not micromanaging or having shopping lists of targets. It is about providing support and agreeing on outcomes, but leaving those who are best placed at the coalface to decide how best to meet the unmet needs of their communities. That is a very clear dividing line between us.
On research, it is worth pointing out that we have done studies with UK Research and Innovation, the Alzheimer’s Society and the People’s Postcode Lottery. We have found that through our investment, ADAPT and READ-OUT are working to produce clinical and economic data that could bring blood tests to the NHS within five years to support the diagnosis of dementia. All of this means that the rate of diagnosis is improving. The latest data from April shows that the diagnosis rate has inched up to 65.5%, up 0.3% since July 2024, and it is worth noting that the 66.7% ambition has not been met since 2020.
The quality and availability of care services is variable, as Members have pointed out. We are empowering local leaders with the autonomy they need. We are supporting integrated care boards. I am pleased to say that we recently published the Dementia 100 pathway assessment tool, which brings together multiple resources into a single, consolidated training tool. That launched last month, and there has been huge interest and support from the sector, with 1,000 people registering to attend the launch webinar. We have the dementia care pathway full implementation guidance, and we are supporting the implementation of that guidance through a dashboard, to enable targeted support where it is needed.
All those who have dementia deserve to receive high-quality care. We must have a workforce that is equipped with the skills that are needed. We are incredibly proud of everyone who works in the care sector, and they deserve the training that many Members have mentioned. The care workforce pathway provides guidance for progression and development for professionals across adult social care with the knowledge, skills, values and behaviours that our carers need. It links learning outcomes to existing frameworks, including the dementia training standards framework.
Some of those learning outcomes can be achieved through the training and qualifications eligible for funding under the learning and development support scheme. That scheme, launched in September last year, supports adult social care employers to invest in their workforce through funded training opportunities, including a range of dementia-related qualifications. I am pleased to confirm that we have backed the scheme with a £12 million investment. Pay and conditions are also vital elements of our workforce strategy, so I am sure Members across the House will welcome our groundbreaking fair pay agreement legislation in the Employment Rights Bill for adult social care workers, which is hugely significant in this context.
On the question of our care workforce, a number of Members have highlighted the vital role that unpaid carers play. To support them, on 7 April the Government increased the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit from £151 a week to £196 a week, which is the equivalent of 16 hours at the national living wage—the largest increase in the earnings limit since the carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976. We are very proud of that change.
I understand that every person with dementia, alongside their friends, families and carers, has their own unique and important story of living with dementia. I know that I am not alone in this fight. I want to pay tribute to the Alzheimer’s Society, Dementia UK and Alzheimer’s Research UK for all their vital work. Together, we will build a society where every person with dementia receives high-quality care from diagnosis through to the end of life. I once again thank the hon. Member for South Devon for raising this vital topic.
Caroline Voaden
I do not think there is much to add, but I want to thank all the Members who have come here today and shared their personal experiences of dementia affecting family members and loved ones. I know it is not an easy thing to do, and we all have really difficult experiences. It has been very moving to hear those personal stories. We have a Minister who deeply feels these issues and understands what dementia means and the impact on the wider family.
I would like to see properly trained dementia nurses in every GP surgery and acute hospital trust in this country, so that we can keep these people at home, look after them, look after their carers, and support the people who love them and do an incredible job. I pay tribute to the hundreds of organisations all over the country that are doing amazing work, many of them on a voluntary basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered dementia care.
Debbie Abrahams
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his response to my question about the dementia moonshot, I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), might have got his figures wrong. Could you advise me on how we can correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put her point on the record.
Petitions
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of residents of Garretts Green ward in Birmingham. The petition, assisted by local councillor Saddak Miah, has the full support of residents, whose quality of life has been badly affected by the lack of access to general waste bins. Although recycling bins are provided, Birmingham city council says that there is “red tape” that affects residents’ right to a general waste bin. They have to put their black bags straight out on to the streets, which has attracted fly-tipping and vermin. I do not think residents should have to live like that, treading over rats on their way to work and school, so I am laying this petition to call for action. My constituent Yasmeen Bhatti spoke for many when she told me that the constant rubbish is severely impacting families with young children and those with mobility issues, and that a solution is urgently needed. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham Council to take immediate action to ensure that all residents on Lea Hall road, in the Garretts Green ward have access to general waste bins, and that these bins are collected by Birmingham city council.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the Garretts Green Ward, Birmingham,
Declares that residents in Garretts Green who reside on top of a grass verge need to have access to a general waste bin; further that Birmingham Council must remove the red tape that is stopping the existence of general waste bins on Lea Hall Road, in the Garretts Green area.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham Council to take immediate action to ensure that all residents on Lea Hall Road, in the Garretts Green Ward have access to general waste bins, and that these bins are collected by Birmingham City Council.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003077]
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I rise to present this petition from the residents of Bicester who want a replacement for the level crossing at London road, which will close with the introduction of east-west rail services, cutting the town in two. I am grateful to the 4,526 residents who have individually signed this petition, and to those who worked so hard to gather the signatures, many of whom are sitting in the Gallery tonight. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the construction of an underpass at the London Road level crossing in Bicester that could accommodate car users as well as cyclists and pedestrians.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Bicester,
Declares that proposals to close the London Road Level Crossing as part of the East West Rail development have failed to reflect the strong local preference for an underpass that accommodates light vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians; and notes that widespread community support for such an underpass has been expressed through public meetings, correspondence and local engagement.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the construction of an underpass at the London Road level crossing in Bicester that could accommodate car users as well as cyclists and pedestrians.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003078]
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I rise to present this petition from my constituents in the Scottish Borders to the House of Commons. It calls on LINK to set up a banking hub for Selkirk and Eyemouth. I want to record my thanks to the many local residents who have signed this petition.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk,
Declares that residents of Selkirk and Eyemouth are being left without proper access to cash and banking facilities. This is causing significant concern and worry for the local community, and that LINK should take the necessary steps to tackle this by setting up a banking hub in each of the towns. Further that a separate online petition on the same issue has generated 1,456 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that the residents of Selkirk and Eyemouth have access to a Banking Hub, with proper access to cash and banking facilities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003079]
Yeovil Hospital: Maternity Unit
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I start by thanking the fantastic staff at Yeovil district hospital’s maternity unit and paediatric staff across the country for their hard work. I also thank the Minister for Secondary Care for coming to the Chamber this evening to respond to the issues raised, which are important for Yeovil and South Somerset.
In January, the Care Quality Commission inspected paediatric services at Yeovil district hospital. It issued a section 29A notice because it assessed that the hospital failed to meet regulations relating to staffing and governance, and therefore required significant improvement. On Monday 12 May, the hospital trust decided to temporarily close the special care baby unit at YDH from 19 May, initially for six months. That means that the hospital will also be unable to safely provide care during labour and birth at the maternity unit, meaning that the unit is effectively closed. Care of pregnant people due to give birth will now be transferred to Musgrove Park in Taunton, Dorchester county hospital, the Royal united hospital in Bath or Salisbury hospital.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I am sure that my hon. Friend knows about the problems that we have had at Tiverton district hospital. I was lucky enough to have had my three sons at the old Tiverton hospital. I am sure that people not being able to go to Yeovil hospital to give birth will push down—literally—into Tiverton hospital, but I remind my hon. Friend that there was an incident a couple of years ago when one of my constituents delivered her fifth child in a pub car park, because Tiverton hospital did not have the capacity to take her in. Does he agree that the closure of maternity services at Yeovil hospital impacts not just Dorset and Somerset, but the hospital in my constituency?
Adam Dance
I agree with my hon. Friend and I will come to that point later in my remarks.
In letters and at meetings, I have directly asked senior leaders at the trust for reassurance that the service will reopen after six months, but they have been unable to give it. My No. 1 priority is my constituents’ health and safety. I appreciate that the decision was difficult and that patient safety was at its heart. The safety of mothers and their babies must come first, but the way in which the decision was reached and implemented has been disgraceful. It has created huge fear and anger in Yeovil and may put people’s health at risk.
The hospital trust’s leadership team says that high levels of sickness among senior hospital staff caused gaps in the rota, but I have been informed that those staff are off sick because of work-related stress that was reportedly caused by a lack of support, a toxic work culture and bullying from management. That is not good enough. Clinicians have been working desperately hard to provide quality care and have been trying to work alongside management to improve the service, but they have found management to be unsupportive. It seems that the real issue is about management and about supporting and retaining staff.
After the CQC inspection, it was up to the hospital trust to plan a clear response and to ensure safe maternity services at Yeovil hospital. Despite money apparently not being a problem, there was a lacklustre attempt at recruitment and locums were brought in. The hospital leadership team waited until the last minute to reach a decision, and closed the maternity unit with little or no consultation with staff, patients and stakeholders, such as Somerset council and MPs like me. It is an insult that the hard-working staff knew about the closure only six days before it was due to happen. Some of them were told on Teams and others found out on social media—that is not how to treat staff.
It is a disgrace that expectant parents were given such short notice and that the hospital trust did not provide them with advanced and detailed information about the temporary closure. Yeovil hospital charity has been fundraising over the last few months for the maternity unit. It had already raised £2,000 and was due to have another huge fundraiser this month. The charity does great work for the hospital, but it too was left in the dark, which is not good enough.
It is especially worrying that a decision made to protect people may put their health at risk. Many expectant parents have told me about their fears about capacity at other hospitals and about travel times to Taunton, Dorchester or Bath. Last year there were approximately 1,300 births at Yeovil hospital. Most of the patients who would have been cared for at Yeovil hospital will go to Musgrove Park in Taunton, where staff have already raised concerns about not having enough capacity to manage their own patient numbers.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Many women in my constituency choose to give birth in Musgrove Park hospital, and with the closure at Yeovil—where, as he said, 1,200 babies are born each year—there is a grave concern about whether Taunton will have the capacity to cope. In fact, mothers across Somerset will suffer as a result of this closure.
Adam Dance
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to that point now.
In September last year, reports described Musgrove Park’s maternity unit as “traumatic, super-hot and overcrowded”. Measures such as extra beds are being put in place. Expecting that overstretched service safely to take on extra cases from Yeovil is not realistic and risks putting even more pressure on the hard-working staff, who are already at breaking point. I am also concerned that the staff in Dorchester and Bath will be put under serious pressure and that, despite their best efforts, services may suffer there too.
I am particularly worried about mothers who are at high risk or who may expect complications at birth. Many parents in my constituency who experienced complications during the birth of their children, such as Louise and Rob, have told me that their children are alive because of the tireless work and dedication of the team at Yeovil and that their children may not have survived if they had been forced to travel to Taunton, Dorchester or Bath, which are 45 minutes from most of my constituents on a good day. Experts have told me they are worried that emergencies such as late pregnancy per vaginal bleeds require immediate medical attention and can cause death for mothers and babies in the worst-case scenario.
It is not just parents and paediatrics who are at risk; I am seriously concerned about the knock-on effects on Yeovil’s emergency department, which will potentially put more strain on the hospital and on patient care. Sadly, other constituents who were hoping to have children have told me that they are now reconsidering because of the stress and risks posed by potentially not having proper maternity services in Yeovil.
While I appreciate that this is a local issue, trust in the hospital leadership has broken down. I believe that central Government have a duty of care to the people of Yeovil and that they can take steps to help. I ask the Minister urgently to undertake a review of the decision-making process at the Somerset NHS foundation trust on the closure of maternity services.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions the Somerset NHS foundation trust, which made a decision recently to reduce the number of beds and associated staff at Frome community hospital. Does he agree that those decisions really need wide consultation, allowing for boundaries and relationships with hospitals such as the RUH, as well as proper consultation with staff and the community before they are undertaken?
Adam Dance
I totally agree; it really is just not good enough. [Interruption.] I hope the Minister is listening.
I urge the Department of Health and Social Care to do all it can to maintain and support NHS Somerset in ensuring the return of safe maternity services to Yeovil district hospital. Just as with the closure of its hyper-acute stroke unit, many worry that this is a sign that Yeovil district hospital will be turned into a cottage hospital. As such, I also ask the Minister to join NHS Somerset integrated care board in committing to maintaining a fully functioning district general hospital in Yeovil that provides safe, high-quality and sustainable services.
However, Yeovil is not alone in this: we face a crisis in maternity services, particularly in rural areas. The CQC has raised safety concerns about a lack of training, limited engagement with communities, inadequate risk assessments and poor management and culture among senior leadership. The CQC national review of maternity services in England for 2022-24 found that 47% of maternity services were rated as requiring improvement for safety. As of May 2025, 56% of maternity units in the south-west had an overall rating of “requires improvement” or “inadequate”.
Given that, can the Minister detail the Government’s plans for funding and improving the provision, management and staffing of maternity services in hospital trusts that cover large rural geographies? Can she provide a timeline for implementing those plans? I again urge her and the Secretary of State to meet with hon. Members from Somerset and Dorset to further discuss this issue and to come to Yeovil and talk to those impacted by this decision.
In conclusion, the closure of Yeovil district hospital’s maternity unit, initially for six months, was done for the right reasons, but it was done disgracefully. People in Yeovil are not just worried; they are scared and angry. We care deeply about supporting our fantastic NHS staff and the lifesaving work that they do. Hundreds of people joined me at a rally outside the hospital on the day that the maternity service closed, and many more have written to me. Nearly 6,000 people already have signed petitions calling for the safe return of Yeovil’s maternity unit. We will campaign tirelessly to ensure that we can restore local maternity services in Yeovil safely. I hope that the Minister will join us in that battle, because everyone deserves access to safe, local maternity care, regardless of where they live.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for allowing me to speak, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The closure of Yeovil special baby unit and maternity unit has shocked many of my residents across Glastonbury and Somerton, as it did my hon. Friend. After the announcement, I immediately set up a petition to gather evidence of the strength of feeling regarding these vital services. Since then, I have been inundated with responses.
I begin by echoing my hon. Friend’s sentiments in thanking the staff at Yeovil for their incredible work and care. Rob from Limington, a resident in my constituency, told me that his family would not be a family without the work of Yeovil staff. That is a compelling piece of information. Somerset NHS foundation trust made the decision following a clinical assessment that services could not continue operating safely. That is a damning indictment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on their campaign. To reinforce the point evidentially on the closure of Yeovil hospital maternity unit, the impact on the community will be great; it happened to me at Ards hospital, where GP services were overrun with the work that had to be done. Midwives complained that the impact on the community was great, and the effect was not just on the maternity unit, but on NHS services overall.
Sarah Dyke
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the impact is not just within the county, but causes a huge knock-on effect on wider services.
The decision is a damning indictment of how our health services have been treated, and how they have been run into the ground following the Conservatives’ regular cuts. Residents in Glastonbury and Somerton are devastated, and are concerned that this six-month temporary closure could then become permanent. I have had many examples of residents contacting me, including Ben. He and his wife are from Martock, and are expecting their first child in September. They have planned a home birth with support from the Yeovil midwifery team. They can still access those services, but if complications arise, they will no longer be able to rely on Yeovil hospital services, which are only a 15-minute drive away. They will have to go a lot further, driving at least 45 minutes to access Taunton, Royal United hospital, Dorchester or Salisbury. There are so many unanswered questions, especially on how the closure will affect the capacity of Taunton’s Musgrove Park hospital, or Dorchester or Bath’s maternity units.
We need clarity now. Our residents deserve that. Will the Minister give us and our constituents that clarity, so that those who are looking forward to starting a new family or who are growing their family can know that the journey through their pregnancy will be safe and that they will have a family beyond that?
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate about the temporary closure of maternity services at Yeovil district hospital. I know, having given birth to three myself, that choosing where to give birth and the planning of that journey, as has been outlined, is incredibly important for women. We are determined that all women are given choice over their care and are listened to and supported with compassion. The hon. Member is an advocate for the Yeovil community, and I welcome his representations, ensuring that his constituents’ voices are heard. That is an important role for Members of Parliament.
I will start by acknowledging the concerns that hon. Members have raised on their constituents’ behalf, both in their letter and in this debate, and I hope I can update them on the relevant issues as they stand. In preparing for this debate, I have met the trust and Somerset ICB, and I am grateful for their time and briefing on these issues.
As hon. Members know, the trust cannot safely staff the paediatric service as well as the special care baby unit. This means that it has taken the difficult decision to close the special care baby unit, which also means that it cannot safely provide maternity services—I think that point was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Yeovil.
The hon. Member is concerned about the process followed by Somerset NHS foundation trust in coming to this decision, particularly about it not having consulted the local council, MPs or other stakeholders. He also identified concerns about the information going to staff. In some situations, such as this one, NHS providers may need to make a temporary service change due to a risk to the safety or welfare of patients or staff. Legislation allows them to do so without consulting the scrutiny committee beforehand, provided that that service change is needed for safety or welfare reasons. I understand that the trust briefed Somerset county council’s health overview and scrutiny committee on 15 May, and has committed to further updating the committee in October. The trust has had one-to-one conversations with affected women and families to help them with alternative plans, which have been supported by Somerset Maternity and Neonatal Voices Partnership.
Adam Dance
Does the Minister agree that the timescale given to our NHS staff, and telling them on Teams or not telling them at all—with them finding out on social media—is not the right way to treat them? Imagine how that makes those staff feel.
Karin Smyth
I am not aware of the operational details of how the decision was communicated, but I am happy to come back to that. As I have said, when decisions are made for reasons of safety—which is of primary importance—sometimes staff will not be able to be consulted in the usual way. Of course, some staff will not be working at a given time, or may be on holiday, and organisations have to take particular measures to inform staff. I appreciate that that is very disruptive and personally distressing for staff who have been working in a unit and need to know where to go, but emergency situations sometimes necessitate things not being done as robustly as might be desired.
Local leaders have assured me that this closure is not intended to be permanent—that is very important for hon. Members and their constituents to understand. The trust is committed to reviewing the position in three and six months, and following the three-month review, Somerset ICB will provide an update in September. Finally, once a decision is made, any permanent change would need to be based on clear evidence of better outcomes for patients.
On the wider issue that has been raised this evening, as hon. Members will be aware, the Government’s position is that changes to NHS services should always be locally led and clinically evidenced. Any decision about the next steps for the neonatal and maternity services at Yeovil hospital should be taken by the local NHS, with support from the Care Quality Commission. I understand that work is currently under way to mitigate the impact of the closure and move towards safe operation of services. The NHS England South West regional team is working with the trust and the ICB to mitigate the risk of the closure and ensure that the wider systems work together to provide safe services. The trust is working closely with neighbouring hospitals in Bath, Salisbury, Poole, Dorchester and Exeter to ensure sufficient capacity, which should provide assurance to local people.
Regional team clinical leaders have attended a rapid quality review meeting with ICB and trust clinical leaders, and work continues on mitigating the risks that have been identified. I have been assured that Somerset ICB will monitor progress against improvement plans, formally noting any new or emerging risks and actions required. It will also be monitoring the impact on Musgrove Park maternity unit. I understand that Somerset NHS foundation trust and Somerset ICB have also written to the hon. Member for Yeovil since the closure and that there is due to be a call with local MPs tomorrow. I think that is good progress; as I said to representatives of the trust when I met them, I commend that way of operating with local Members of Parliament. I hope it is helpful in having detailed conversations locally to reassure hon. Members and—more importantly, if I may say so —their constituents at what I appreciate is a really difficult time for women who are either due to give birth, or are thinking about starting a family.
We are committed to tackling staffing challenges that the NHS faces, such as this one. For the maternity workforce, NHS England is undertaking a programme of targeted retention work for midwives. This includes a midwife retention self-assessment tool, a mentoring scheme, strengthened advice and support on pensions, and flexible retirement options.
NHS England has also invested in unit-based retention leaders, who focus on retention and give pastoral support to midwives. This initiative, alongside investment in workforce capacity, has seen a reduction in the number of vacancies and in leaver and turnover rates. Maternity care remains a top priority for providers, as is demonstrated in the planning guidance, in which the NHS was instructed to improve safety in maternity and neonatal services as a priority.
I know that there is concern in Somerset more widely about how this change will affect services in the local area. Let me reassure Members that NHS Somerset is committed to investing in local services for both hospitals there. That includes a commitment to a fully functioning district general hospital in Yeovil. The Yeovil diagnostic centre, which is due to open later this year, will be a modern, three-storey, state-of-the-art centre based at Yeovil district hospital. It will have the capacity to deliver an additional 70,000 diagnostic tests and out-patient appointments each year and to be open seven days a week, providing radiology, endoscopy and cardiology services, audiology tests and out-patient appointments.
I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil again for raising this important issue. I know that he and his colleagues will keep a close eye on progress. I hope that I have responded to his immediate concerns tonight, and I will of course write to him and other Members shortly in response to their letter of 19 May.
Sarah Dyke
May I raise the issue of maternity services at Musgrove Park hospital, which will be taking on a number of patients? An upgrade that was due has now been pushed back to the mid-2030s. At present, maternity services are provided in a 1940s dormitory-style building. Does that really show mothers-to-be that their needs are being prioritised?
Karin Smyth
I am of course aware of that, because I lead on the new hospital programme. The Government are committed to a clear timetable for the programme, which includes Musgrove Park. In our Budget last autumn, we announced decisions—which the hon. Lady and her colleagues did not support—involving capital plans and ensuring that that programme is now on a financial footing that it was not on previously.
I am confident that the local NHS is aware of the impact of this change and continues to work hard to improve the situation. Any change in NHS services must be made with the utmost sensitivity to local views, while also prioritising safety. I know that Members will continue to monitor this issue, and I will ensure that they receive a response to the letter of 19 May.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Before I address the content of this statutory instrument, I will briefly provide some background. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, known as the IPA, provides a framework for the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the intelligence services, law enforcement and other public authorities. It helps to safeguard people’s privacy by setting out stringent controls over the way that these powers are authorised and overseen.
The IPA was intentionally drafted in a technology-neutral manner to ensure that public authorities could continue to acquire operationally relevant data as technology evolved. Although that approach has largely withstood, a combination of new communications technologies and the changing threat landscape continues to challenge the effective operation of the IPA. To ensure the legislative regime remained fit for purpose, the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 was introduced by the previous Government and received Royal Assent in April last year. The 2024 Act made a series of targeted changes to the IPA to enable our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tackle a range of evolving threats in the face of new technologies and increasingly sophisticated terrorist and criminal groups.
I do not intend to cover the changes made by the 2024 Act in detail, as they have already been debated extensively by both Houses. However, I will outline the purpose of the statutory instrument we are debating. It will bring into force three new and five revised codes of practice that provide operational guidance for public authorities to have regard to when exercising their functions under the IPA. As well as including minor updates to ensure consistency, the codes of practice have been revised to reflect the various changes made by the 2024 Act. The statutory instrument and the codes of practice have been informed by a 12-week public consultation, which closed in January this year.
The new codes of practice on bulk personal datasets with a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy and on third-party bulk personal datasets relate to new regimes introduced by the 2024 Act. The new code on the notices regime consolidates guidance from various existing codes into one place. This instrument also contains several provisions relating to the IPA’s notices regime, including the following: defining “relevant change” for the purpose of the new notification notices; introducing timelines for the review of technical capability, data retention, and national security notices; and amending existing regulations in relation to membership of the technical advisory board.
The 2024 Act was designed to uphold national security and to ensure that prevention and detection of the most serious crimes continued to be underpinned by an effective investigatory powers framework. These regulations are an important and necessary step in the implementation of that Act. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to this important Committee. As the Minister suggested when he nodded to me during his brief contribution, the original legislation received Royal Assent when I was the Security Minister, and I was proud to take it through the House with cross-party support. I took a profound interest in it at that time and have continued to do so since it became law. I worked with the last Security Minister in the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), on the 2024 Act, partly in my capacity as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, that Act, to which this statutory instrument gives life, as it were, changed the process whereby warrants are issued, inasmuch as it enabled the Prime Minister to appoint five Secretaries of State, the assumption being that they would include the warranting Secretaries of State—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and, I presume, the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as the Prime Minister himself. Will the Minister say a word about that? It is not that I have an objection to it—it is important that these things are dealt with practically—but it would be good to hear the Minister’s views on that, as it is before us today with these codes.
Secondly, on the codes that relate to part 7A of the IPA, on bulk personal data, it would be helpful to have a further word about datasets with a low expectation of privacy. That is what the changes to the codes deal with, and it is what the amendments to the original Act addressed. As detailed in the explanatory notes, the public consultation to which the Minister referred was disproportionately focused on exactly that matter. A further word from him about that might be helpful.
Finally, how this is understood more widely is critical. There is still a lot of misunderstanding about the original Act, the 2024 Act and, I guess, these codes, too. This is not about collecting everyone’s data and making it widely available. As the Minister and other Committee members will understand, there are strict restrictions on how it can be accessed. The double lock—in some cases, it is now a triple lock—that we put in place in the IPA holds firm and ensures that this material is available only as needed, and the bar to access it is very high. I am sure that the Minister and the shadow Minister will want to reassure people about that. As they know, the way that this is perceived publicly matters a great deal to the security services, the National Crime Agency and others who might take advantage of these powers.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. At a time when more of our lives are spent online, the job of keeping our country safe brings law enforcement increasingly into the digital space. Many of the most serious crimes, including terrorist attacks, are now planned, prepared and facilitated online. In order to intercept those crimes before they happen, police officers and intelligence agents need to take action, often at short notice. That can lead them to co-operate with and require co-operation from tech companies, often based thousands of miles away, which have their own data privacy policies and operate across hundreds of different legal environments. Often, those companies are extremely reluctant to provide the kind of data that is needed, but access to that information can be the difference between an attack happening or being stopped in the nick of time.
It is absolutely right that we give law enforcement and our intelligence agencies the powers that they need to navigate these situations. That is why the previous Government passed the IPA, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and the 2024 Act. The measures before us today will give effect to some of the enhanced powers passed by the previous Government in 2024, and we gladly support them.
We should welcome and celebrate the strides being made by tech companies. These platforms are something to be embraced, not feared. We must also be cautious about measures that could infringe on individual privacy, which is a long-held and important principle in this country. I think we are all agreed that our age of constant connection must not become an age of constant surveillance. The need to keep the public safe must always be balanced against the importance of privacy and individual liberty. Powers must be accompanied by appropriate guardrails and parameters, as I believe they are. As such, does the Minister believe that the mechanisms for parliamentary oversight strike the right balance? How will the Government review the efficacy of these regulations so that we can remain at the forefront of a fast and ever-changing technological environment?
Dan Jarvis
Let me first thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for his comments and questions. He said at the outset that he was proud of the role that he played in introducing this important piece of legislation, which dates back to 2016. He is absolutely right to be proud of his work on it, as it continues to deliver very real operational benefits on behalf of the country.
I have greatly enjoyed our exchanges on these matters over the years, both inside and outside the Chamber, not least because while they are incredibly important matters that underpin our national security, they are also quite detailed and complicated. They therefore require a significant amount of knowledge and understanding to comment on in the way that the right hon. Gentleman is able to because of his previous experience and his interest in them.
The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the authority and responsibility vested in the Prime Minister, and I think he nodded towards a process of delegation. I know he will understand that I am incredibly limited in what I can say about that in this forum, although I would be happy to have a further conversation with him on Privy Council terms.
With your indulgence, Ms McVey, I will reflect briefly on some of the conversations and the thinking around the 2024 Act, as there were various discussions about what could and should be done, should the Prime Minister of the day either be temporarily unavailable—potentially through ill health or through travel—or be conflicted because of a personal matter. In truth, we never got into the detail of those slightly difficult but important debates on the Floor of the House. Perhaps that was a good thing, and perhaps it was the most appropriate way to proceed. However, I can give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that, as he would expect, this Government, this Prime Minister, this Security Minister and this Home Secretary take these matters incredibly seriously, and we will ensure that the relevant delegations are in place so that where difficult decisions need to be made, we can make them in the most timely and effective way.
The right hon. Gentleman made some helpful remarks about the importance of this legislation, and I completely agree with him. He will know from his time in government of the exceptional work that our intelligence services and law enforcement do on our behalf. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and it is on us—as Ministers, as shadow Ministers and as parliamentarians—to ensure that an appropriate legislative framework is in place so that whatever technological advances there are, we can continue to ensure that our law enforcement agencies and our security services do not just have parity with our opponents, but enjoy a competitive advantage. I am grateful to him for the work that he has done, and for the support and advice that he provides.
I think the right hon. Gentleman asked me about the part 7A code of practice. Just to confirm, the code sets out how the new regime provided for under part 7A of the IPA should be implemented, and it provides further detail about the use of bulk personal datasets. As I hope the right hon. Gentleman knows, I would be very happy to discuss any of these matters with him in more detail.
I am also grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, for her comments and questions. I know that she speaks with real interest and authority on these matters from her own time working with Government, and I am grateful for the support from her and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on these matters.
The shadow Minister rightly and understandably raised an important question about the tech companies. As she knows, we take that relationship incredibly seriously. The Government’s preference is always to work closely with technology companies to ensure public safety, but we must also make sure that we have the powers in place for when collaboration is not sufficient; I think she knows what I am talking about. In addition, private companies should not be able to unilaterally remove the use of powers to investigate terrorists when they change how their technology works. She summarised very well and effectively, in a way that I hope we can all agree on, the balance that must be struck between freedom of speech and privacy, and ensuring that the Government always have the tools necessary to keep the public safe.
The shadow Minister made two other helpful and constructive points. The first was on parliamentary oversight, which she was right to raise. If I were seeking to be slightly mischievous—I am not—I would perhaps be tempted to reflect on the lack of prime ministerial leadership in recent years with regard to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings serves on and knows well. The Prime Minister must send a clear signal about the ISC’s importance. It has crucial work to do on behalf of Parliament to scrutinise the work of our intelligence services. By its nature, that detailed work requires Committee members to study the activities of our security services carefully and discreetly. I can absolutely give the hon. Lady an assurance that the Government take that work very seriously, while respecting the independence of the Committee, which answers to Parliament, not the Government.
The shadow Minister’s final point on the process of review was very important. The investigatory powers regime operates in a rapidly changing world. The alarmingly quick rate of technological change means that, as a Government, we have to make sure that the legislative framework continues to adapt to the changing nature of the threat that we face. As part of that process, as she knows, it is incredibly important that we work closely with our allies, including our Five Eyes partners, but the Government have an absolute responsibility to ensure that the investigatory powers regime is fit for purpose. We keep a close eye to ensure that it is, and where we think that updates are required, we will introduce them. I hope very much that that will be a collaborative process, because it is important to me and, I hope, to Opposition Members that we do this in a non-partisan, collaborative way.
I am grateful for Opposition Members’ contributions, and I thank the Committee for its consideration of the regulations. I hope I have set out reasonably clearly that they are necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the UK’s investigatory powers framework, and I commend them to the Committee once more.
Question put and agreed to.
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFootball Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 June 2025 - (3 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. As perhaps will be obvious, I am comfortable with Members removing their jackets in the course of proceedings if they wish to. I remind Members to switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee, I am afraid, are not allowed during the sittings.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee. The motion can be debated for up to 30 minutes, but it does not have to be. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 3 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 June;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 June;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 June;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 June;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 June;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 June;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 5; Schedule 2; Clauses 6 to 9; Schedule 3; Clauses 10 to 18; Schedule 4; Clauses 19 to 20; Schedule 5; Clauses 21 to 24; Schedule 6; Clauses 25 to 67; Schedule 7; Clause 68; Schedule 8; Clauses 69 to 75; Schedule 9; Clauses 76 to 81; Schedule 10; Clauses 82 to 93; Schedule 11; Clauses 94 to 98; Schedule 12; Clauses 99 to 101; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 26 June.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. In accordance with the code of conduct, Members are responsible for declaring any interests at the start of proceedings and when speaking or tabling amendments. Do any Members wish to declare interests at this stage?
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am a season ticket holder in the Premier League.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I am a member of the Robins Trust at Cheltenham Town.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am a season ticket holder of Sheffield Wednesday and work very closely with the supporters trust there.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I am a member of Tottenham Hotspur football club.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I sold my shares in Manchester United to the phoenix fund, which exists to buy the club if it ever comes back on the market.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
For clarity, my interests are declared in the ministerial register.
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first, while the Minister will be called first for clause stand part debates. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote —including a new clause in a group—they will need to let the Chair know. My fellow Chairs and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful.
Clause 1
Purpose and overview
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 96, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) For the purposes of this Act, English football is sustainable if it—
(a) continues to meet the needs of present fans without compromising the ability of future generations of fans to enjoy and benefit from the club;
(b) continues to contribute to the economic and social welfare of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated;
(c) increases TV viewership;
(d) increases overall match attendance;
(e) improves international sporting competitiveness.
(3A) English football meeting the requirement in subsection (3)(a) includes all clubs continuing to operate teams in club competitions in a way that represents the unique heritage of the club as recognised by its fans and respecting the interests of those fans.
(3B) English football meeting the requirement in subsection (3)(b) includes all regulated clubs continuing to have a positive impact on economic and social factors that contribute to the welfare of the local community. This includes, but is not limited to, direct or indirect positive effects on the income of local businesses, cultural enrichment, or the reputation of the local area.”
This amendment creates a more precise definition of the sustainability of English football.
Mr French
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to be opening the first sitting of this important Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. It is right and proper that we begin by considering the most fundamental questions of all: what is this Bill actually for? What is its central aim, or its core principles? What will it actually do? And why are the Government looking to establish a regulator for football at all?
As we consider those fundamental questions, I want again to put on the record my thanks to all the clubs, fans and leagues, and those in the wider football community, who have engaged positively over many years, highlighting a range of challenges, experiences and opinions in the game. It would be remiss of me not to thank Dame Tracey Crouch again for all her work on the fan-led review of football. I am sure she is very happy that Spurs have finally ended their European trophy drought.
Moving on to the future of football, clause 1 states that the purpose of the Bill is
“to protect and promote the sustainability of English football.”
The Opposition believe that that is something of a missed opportunity. Why should our ambition for our national game be limited merely to its surviving? We have much higher ambitions for the future of English and British football than mid-table mediocrity. As the creators of this beautiful game, we want these isles to continue to be home to the best leagues, the best clubs, the best players and managers, and of course the best fans, both here and overseas.
Although the focus of the Bill is the English game, I want to be absolutely clear that the Conservative party has the same passion for seeing all British football clubs thrive and the sport as a whole continue to go from strength to strength. Football is a national sport rooted deeply in our communities, but we must not lose sight of its global reach, evolving international competition and the importance of our game to millions of people around the world.
Amendments 95 and 96 in my name seek to provoke exactly that discussion. They also seek to ensure that there is a specific definition of the “sustainability of English football” that is more than just the preservation of the status quo, and that sustainability means the sustainable growth of the game. Given that the Government’s stated core mission is growth, let us see whether Government Members support them. Without the amendments, there is a real and growing risk that Labour’s football regulator will stifle the growth of English football at all levels, whether by overzealously adding more burdensome regulations and costs on clubs throughout the pyramid, or by increasing its scope beyond that originally intended. That is why my amendments seek to ensure that the regulator has a clear objective actively to support growth of the game.
As we heard on Second Reading, English football has a proud and unparalleled heritage and is now an economic powerhouse for this country on the international stage. The Football Association was the first of its kind anywhere, as was the English Football League. In the inaugural 1888-89 season, Preston North End went undefeated in the league and the FA Cup, making them the original invincibles—that is something a member of my team, Matthew Comber, will not let me forget. So long is the history of English football that it predates the Labour party by almost two decades. The deep-rooted identities of our clubs have been passed down through generations and inspire deep passions across England and around the world.
Those emotions are not captured by the word “sustainability”. The love of a home ground, the pride in a club’s colours, the hope of a promotion push and the agony of a relegation battle are deeply human attachments. Some of that is recognised in the clauses on heritage assets, but if those elements are important enough to warrant specific provisions, why are they absent from clause 1, which sets out the Bill’s purpose? We must be careful that, in striving for sustainability, we do not risk entrenching stagnation. A regulator whose primary remit is to preserve the status quo risks falling behind and becoming rigid and resistant to positive evolution of the game, and that creates significant risks given the increasing international competition.
It is sometimes said that the Conservatives fear change. I reject that characterisation. We value our history, but we are not stuck in it. We embrace change where it is well thought out, positive for the future and rooted in our values. That is exactly the mindset we should bring to the regulation of football. The Government’s new regulator must be forward looking. It cannot simply aim to keep the wheels turning. It must support the growth of the game, including in attendance, participation and commercial success. Anything less risks relegating English football from its current position of world leader.
That is why my noble Friends in the other place tabled amendments to build on sustainability with ideas such as success, growth and aspiration. Those are not just slogans; they are principles that clubs and communities live by, and they reflect the very spirit of English football. We should not be afraid to put those words in the Bill. Doing so would give the regulator a true north—a clear, unapologetic mission not just to preserve English football, but to help it flourish.
Let me be clear about what is at stake. Football is one of our greatest national industries. The Premier League alone accounted for £1.4 billion in TV exports in the 2019-20 season. It is watched by more than 1.5 billion people across 189 countries. This is not just sport; it is a key part of our cultural identity and one of our nation’s most powerful soft power assets, with all leagues, including the English Football League and the National League, highly ranked around the world.
The women’s game has been clear that it does not want a regulator as it wants to be able to grow. The men’s game, in many parts, is the same. It should be allowed to continue to grow, to do the great things it does in local communities and to employ thousands of people across the country to support football, not to perform Whitehall-imposed box-ticking exercises.
Football is deeply local. Clubs are the beating hearts of our towns and cities up and down the country, as Members know. If the House gets this Bill wrong— if we give the regulator an inadequate remit—we risk weakening that fabric. We cannot let that happen. I urge colleagues to support these amendments and the broader principle behind them, namely that we must aim higher. The Government’s majority means that it is almost certain that the Bill will pass and a regulator will be created, so let us give that regulator a purpose worthy of the game it is being created to protect. Let us ensure that the Bill is about not just survival, but the long-term success and vibrancy of English football.
Jim Dickson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I want to start by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to be part of this Bill Committee. I again declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Crystal Palace for over 35 years, which has given me a chance to see the ups and downs of a football club and the perils of clubs going into administration. That has happened to Palace twice in just over 25 years, but that shows that clubs can sometimes bounce back. I hope, Sir Jeremy, that you will tolerate me briefly putting on the record my joy at having been at Wembley two weeks ago to watch the mighty Eagles win the FA cup—a high point in my time as a fan. I promise the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that I will not turn the Committee into a clash of the south London giants over the next month or so.
I warmly welcome the Bill. Fans and all those who value clubs as integral parts of local communities will fully support the establishment of the independent regulator and the three primary objectives of sustainability, resilience and protecting heritage. The enhanced owners and directors test; the club licensing system, which is proportionate and puts advocacy first; the oversight of financial distribution; and the backstop powers in the Bill are very important. Fan organisations are particularly pleased by the provisions requiring clubs to meet the fan engagement threshold.
Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill and defines sustainability. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup seeks to change that definition. I am curious why the Opposition want the definition of the sustainability of English football to be tied to, for example, its increasing TV viewership. Although I am sure that is well intentioned, I fear that it conflicts with other parts of amendment 96. While growing a TV audience is obviously important, if it is considered critical, I am sure that clubs will argue for even more late changes to fixture schedules to produce the best kick-off times for TV, or, as has started to happen in other leagues, to begin playing games abroad. Those things create major expense and inconvenience for fans and therefore will not meet the needs of present or future fans, which the amendment refers to.
The amendment misses the point in another important respect by muddying the waters between success and sustainability. Across their history, the Premier League and the English Football League have been very successful in generating revenue. According to the football finance expert Kieran Maguire:
“Since the Premier League was formed in 1992-93, its revenues have increased by 2,857%, whereas the Championship is at just over 1,000%”—
also very healthy. Given that prices have doubled, from a consumer prices index perspective, that is great business.
However, that has come alongside an inability to control costs. The most significant costs in the industry are wages. While Premier League revenues are up by 2,857% since 1992, wages have increased by over 4,000%. Mr Maguire also said:
“Similarly, as far as the EFL Championship goes, if we take just one division, wages are up 1,400% compared with revenue of 1,000%...As a consequence, if we look at the figures for 2022-23…the 20 clubs in the Premier League lost a collective £836 million. In the Championship, on average the clubs were losing £20 million: League One, £4.1 million, League Two, £1.4 million; and in the National League, £970,000. All those clubs have been part of a spectacularly successful industry, of which we should be proud.”
He added, as the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has also said:
“It has globalised the game of football as coming from the UK. There has been a collective inability to control costs.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 14 May 2024; c. 5, Q1.]
One of the results is that since the start of the Premier League, roughly 40% of clubs in the top four leagues have gone into administration, which further underscores the problem. It is little wonder that, according to Dr Christina Philippou from the University of Portsmouth:
“More than half of the clubs in the top five leagues are technically insolvent, so if they were any other business, they would not be in existence.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 14 May 2024; c. 7, Q4.]
So why is it right for the Bill to focus on the broad definition of sustainability? It is because the fans and communities need these clubs to exist. Unless we root the definition of success in sustainability, rather than the other elements that the Opposition are trying to introduce, we will not see that happen.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am delighted to be on the Committee, although I feel slightly ashamed that, unlike seemingly everyone else, I do not have any interests to declare.
The amendments deal with the important issue of the Bill’s purpose, but I will start by saying that football in this country is more than just a game; it is a defining part of our national identity. With around 14 million grassroots players and over 40,000 clubs across England, football is deeply woven into the fabric of communities. From the local pitch to the world stage, our game is a source of pride, unity and aspiration.
There are many key dates in this nation’s history. One of them is 1066, when the Norman conquest marked the start of modern monarchy in England, but for many people 1966 is an even more important date, because it was the last time that England won the World cup. To see this as merely a Bill relating to a sport would be to misunderstand the fundamental importance of football in our country. As a previous Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport noted in 2023:
“We invented the beautiful game. The English Football League is the world’s original football league, while for over 3 decades the Premier League has been the template for all other leagues to follow—simultaneously generating both the most excitement and the most wealth of any league on the planet. The Premier League and EFL are true global success stories, exported and watched by millions of people around the world each week.”
The community value of football clubs at the grassroots level also must not be underestimated.
The original wording of the Bill risks reducing sustainability to narrow financial metrics; amendment 96 seeks to broaden its definition to encompass environmental, social and generational responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the amendment aims to make the definition more aspirational; rather than merely sustaining the status quo, it would mean looking to promote and enhance football in this country.
Our amendments 95 and 96 would frame football as not merely a business but a shared cultural institution, and they would protect fans’ long-term stake in their clubs, ensuring that future generations can access the same joys, histories and traditions. An overly cautious approach in the Bill could stifle investment and reduce competitiveness, so I ask the Minister for greater clarity on the regulatory model. The statement of the Bill’s purpose relates to sustainability and the Bill itself is overly focused on financial metrics.
Jon Pearce
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a tension between increasing TV viewership and increasing match attendance? Many fans around the country will say that the frustration of moving kick-off times from 3 o’clock on a Saturday to 4 o’clock on a Sunday, or to a Monday, Thursday or Friday evening, has a massive impact on the regular UK fan. Does the hon. Member see any tension between the aims of amendment 96?
Joe Robertson
I would not like to sweep aside any suggestion of tension. There will always be tension among people who watch sport—in this case football—in different ways, but I do not accept that there is an overall tension. It is perfectly possible to grow both match attendance and TV audiences. I do not accept that there is a structural tension between those two things. In my view, the success of football is infinitely growable.
Amendment 96 also refers to the unique heritage of football clubs. The shadow Minister talked about football being older than the Labour party, which shows how woven into the fabric of this country—indeed, of the whole United Kingdom—football is. The amendment also mentions the
“effects on the income of local businesses, cultural enrichment or the reputation of the local area.”
All Members know that football and football clubs have a positive effect on those things. It is right to that the Bill’s purpose reflects all those things and the breadth and importance of football in this country.
The Chair
I am happy to call the hon. Member for Cheltenham automatically in every group or, if he prefers, he can indicate whether he wishes to contribute. Which would he prefer?
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I begin by welcoming the Committee; it is a real pleasure to be here. It is just over a year since I was sitting on the other side of the room debating the Bill’s previous iteration. I look forward to working with Members from all parties. The Bill was in both the Labour and Conservative party manifestos. It is an important piece of legislation and we will spend a lot of time on line-by-line scrutiny.
I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for tabling amendments 95 and 96. I will also respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford.
Amendment 95 was debated at length in the other place. Unsurprisingly, the Government’s position on it remains the same. We do not agree with its intent to narrow the purpose of the entire Bill specifically to financial sustainability, or to add to its purpose the vague and undefined words “success of English football”. I was a little confused by the contribution from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. He said he was concerned about “narrow financial metrics”, but the amendment in the shadow Minister’s name actually would narrow the purpose simply to financial sustainability. I will outline why we do not agree with that.
The Bill’s purpose is sustainability, as defined in clause 1. It is about the continuation of service. I draw Members’ attention to subsections (3) and (4), which say that sustainability means continuing to serve the interests of fans and to contribute to the wellbeing of the local communities that regulated clubs serve. Of course, financial sustainability is an important part of that. If a club suffers financial collapse, it cannot continue to serve its fans and the community. However, we believe there is more to it. If a club’s balance sheet remains healthy, but it ups sticks and moves 60 miles away, or changes its name, badge and shirt colours, that is not continuity of service. That is precisely why the Bill covers aspects such as fan engagement and heritage, as well as financial issues, and why the Bill’s purpose needs to be overall sustainability, not just financial sustainability.
I understand the desire to ensure the continued success of English football as one of this country’s greatest exports—Members from throughout the House have outlined the huge contribution that it makes globally —but that is already achieved in the Bill. As part of its secondary duties, the regulator must have regard to avoiding impacts on important outcomes in football. That includes domestic sporting competitions, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs, financial growth, and investment in football. Rather than the undefined concept of “success”, those specific elements represent the building blocks on which English football’s success has been built. Actively pursuing those outcomes will remain the responsibility of the industry, rather than the regulator, but the regulator will avoid unduly harming them while it strives for sustainability.
If, as part of the Bill’s purpose, the regulator were required to protect the success of English football as well as its sustainability, there would be a significant widening of its scope. The regulator would need to be actively involved in anything that relates to the success of English football, such as the commercial and sporting sides of the game. Government Members have been clear that we do not want scope creep, which brings me to the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about the National League’s three up, three down campaign. I have met representatives of the National League a number of times and I am completely sympathetic to their aims, but that does not fall within the Bill’s scope. I think we can all agree that it is not something that we, or organisations such as the Football Association, UEFA and FIFA, want the regulator to interfere in.
Amendment 96 seeks to add further detail to the definition of “sustainability” for the purposes of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for largely copying and pasting the Government’s explanatory notes to clause 1; however, the purpose of the explanatory notes is to provide that sort of additional, illustrative detail about the intention behind the legislation that is not appropriate for the face of the Bill.
The amendment also seeks to add criteria on TV viewership, match-day attendance and international competitiveness to the definition of “sustainability”. We have significant concerns that that would expand the scope of the regulator and put in place a much more interventionist regime than this Government propose and, indeed, than the previous Government proposed. The regulator would be required to concern itself with issues such as match-day attendance and TV viewership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford mentioned. It would not be able to have a direct impact on those issues without actively intervening on issues such as ticket prices and broadcasting. At best, we would have a regulator without the powers to achieve its purpose, and at worst, we would have mission creep into areas that do not warrant statutory regulation. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw his amendments.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause sets out the Bill’s purpose, which is to promote and protect the sustainability of English football, as well as summarising what each of its parts provides for. It explains that English football is sustainable if it continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs and continues to contribute to the economic or social wellbeing of local communities with which regulated clubs are associated. The Bill’s purpose is crucial as the regulator will be obliged to act in accordance with it at all times, so far as is reasonably practical.
The fan-led review made clear that the pre-eminence of failure in the market is unsustainable, with football clubs unable to continue to provide their service. It is unacceptable that fans and local communities could witness their clubs no longer operating. We know the huge impact and contribution that clubs make to communities up and down the country, which is why we are making good on our manifesto commitment and have introduced the Bill.
The clause defines “sustainability” for the purpose of this legislation as the continuation of service in the interests of fans and for the wellbeing of local communities. We will debate and explore the Bill’s purpose in detail over the course of the Committee. At a basic level, the Bill asks clubs to consult their fans, to be a fit and proper owner and to have a business plan. In essence, clubs should continue to belong to their fans and communities now and in future, which means there should not be financial collapse, relocation of stadiums or new breakaway competitions.
Mr French
It is an honour to speak again under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I promise the Committee that I will not say that every time.
The Opposition do not disagree with much of the sentiment as we are all passionate about football and understand the role of clubs in our communities, as I acknowledged earlier. Our concern, which is why we tabled the amendments, is that the opaque definition of sustainability could have significant unintended consequences for the regulator’s direction of travel.
The Minister said of our amendments that the considerations we were trying to put in the Bill were secondary—or words to that effect; I apologise if I have slightly misquoted her—but my concern is that those considerations are primary in their focus. It will take many months to get the new regulator up and running, but if it does not understand the message that the House is sending it—that it should be focused on trying to improve football—it could be a lost cause before it has even got started.
Our concerns are clearly articulated in our amendments. We accept that we have lost the vote—the Government have a massive majority, so that is not surprising—but we urge Ministers, in their work going forward, to be clear with the regulator and the people who work for it that the ambition of this House is not to limit the scope of the regulator to just the clauses before us today.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, but I simply do not recognise their premise in terms of the definition of sustainability being vague. In the Bill’s previous iteration, the Government did not make the amendment that the hon. Gentleman proposed. I will not repeat my previous speech. We think that sustainability is much broader than simply finances. There is a procedural issue around not necessarily secondary considerations; the explanatory notes provide additional illustrative detail, and obviously what we say in Committee will give a clear indication to the regulator, and indeed to clubs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Key definitions
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) For the purposes of this Act a ‘specified competition’ includes—
(a) the Premier League,
(b) the English Football League, and
(c) the National League.
(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament amend the competitions specified in section (3).”
This amendment would specify the leagues that are to be classed as “specified competitions” under Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 74, in clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert—
“(3B) The competitions specified by the Secretary of State must include the National League North and the National League South (but see section [Opportunity for levy exemption for clubs below the Football League] which provides for a process by which clubs in these competitions may apply for an exemption from the levy established under section 53).”
This amendment extends the scope of the regulator to National League North and National League South.
Mr French
I will. It depends on how long we go on for today.
In all seriousness, the Government have not been specific in this clause regarding their key definitions, and have clearly left open the door to scope creep by the regulator and the Secretary of State, whoever they might be in the coming weeks and months. That should concern all Members who value Parliament’s role of holding the Government to account, regardless of political affiliation. That is why I tabled amendment 132, which would clearly specify the leagues that are to be classified as a “specified competition”. That would ensure that, should the Bill pass, the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, could not unilaterally decide that they wished to expand the regulator’s scope without first consulting Parliament.
Without the amendment, the Secretary of State could, without oversight or accountability, decide that they wanted a particular competition to be included, and for the clubs involved to face the costs of that decision. We know that representations from the women’s game highlight a desire not to be included, but the Bill as it has come from the Lords would allow the Secretary of State to bring the Women’s Super League, the Women’s Super League 2, the FA Women’s National League North and the FA Women’s National League South under the regulator’s control. It is also unclear why the Government have drafted the Bill to specifically reference consulting the Football Association but not other bodies such as the Premier League, the EFL and the National League. Will the Minister please explain why that is, as the question has been raised with me, and I suspect with other Committee members?
It is important to clearly define what competitions will be under the regulator’s scope so that the wider football world can understand the direction of travel for clubs and leagues, which will ultimately impact long-term investment and budget decisions. Uncertainty is not helpful for clubs or fans, and the regulator will already impact clubs and leagues in different ways, let alone if the Government expand their reach further. Unsurprisingly, the Government do not like the amendment, as it would remove powers from the Secretary of State to decide which competitions are under the scope of their regulator. We know the Government are a big fan of scope creep, but we want to prevent it, and to ensure that any attempt by the Government to add more trophies to their cabinet is subject to the approval of Parliament and the democratically elected representatives of fans in our constituencies.
On the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I will listen to his arguments carefully but in my experience the last thing that clubs at that level need is more red tape and costs that will stifle their growth. The amount of paperwork that the Government’s regulator will likely require of every club is a concern. For smaller clubs, it will mean a shift in focus from what happens on the pitch and from fans to form filling—bureaucracy over the beautiful game. I can see what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do—even if, true to form, it is not very liberal—but it would create more costs than rewards. Yes, there is an exemption from having to pay the levy, but it will have to be applied for, so the clubs would still be liable to pay the levy, alongside other costs the regulator will put on them, until the application was approved, which will likely take time.
Max Wilkinson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We were clear on Second Reading that we supported its aims, although we believe that it should go further—on the scope of the competitions covered, for one example. We also agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about financial redistribution; he made some eloquent points. I am not sure that they were entirely in line with what his party was arguing on Second Reading or in the House of Lords, but there we are.
Our amendment 74 is clear. It extends the scope of the Bill to cover the sixth tier of English football. We all remember what happened to that tier during the covid pandemic: many clubs ended up on the verge of bankruptcy and needed bail-outs. The need for financial sustainability does not end at the fifth tier. To push back against the point made by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I should say that we would see the football regulator taking a light-touch approach, as in the outline aims of the Bill, and there would also be an exemption for clubs in the sixth tier because many are run by volunteers with perhaps one or two members of staff, not all full-time.
We believe that when clubs come up from the sixth to the fifth tiers—there are many ambitious clubs in the non-league sector—it is really important that those also build in a financially sustainable way. We believe that including them in the Bill will help them become financially sustainable as they make their way through the football league.
Joe Robertson
I rise to support Opposition amendment 132. The shadow Minister eloquently set out the reasons why, and I do not need to repeat them. But I pose this question to the Minister: why would she reject clarifying that specified competitions mean the Premier League, the English Football League and the National League? If she is not prepared to accept the amendment, which would set out those competitions with clarity, that slightly begs the question of what she or her Government have in mind. What are they seeking to add by using the wide discretionary powers set out in the Bill already? Unless the competitions are clearly identified as in the amendment, there could be a question about whether the England national team could accidently get swept up as part of the regulations. The amendment makes an obvious clarification and gives certainty to football clubs and fans.
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is disappointing to see the return of amendments 132 and 74 after the extensive debate in the other place, where it was made very clear that they would likely make the Bill hybrid. I will respond to some of the points that Committee members have made but will outline the Government’s position first. Throughout the development of the policy, there have been countless opportunities for all affected and interested parties to make representations on scope. These wrecking amendments would serve no purpose other than to kick the legislation into the long grass.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, a new Member, said that amendment 132 would be a simple addition. He should know that the addition of those competitions would indeed make the Bill hybrid. As I said, the issue was debated extensively in the House of Lords. The amendment would unnecessarily delay a Bill that was in both parties’ manifestos. This time last year, I spent many hours in a room on this corridor debating the previous Government’s version of the Bill; the hon. Gentleman, of course, stood on a manifesto that committed to it.
Lincoln Jopp
I regret that I have not spent as long as the Minister has in considering this issue. Could she point me to the clauses that make it absolutely clear that the English national team could not be taken within the scope of the regulator and that “a club” could not apply to the Football Association?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; I will come to debate some of the points that he has made later in the Bill. We are very clear that UEFA and FIFA have no issue with the Bill and that the England national team do not fall foul in any way of this legislation.
I move on to the amendments. I understand the desire for up-front clarity in the Bill about which competitions will initially be in scope. There is a sound policy rationale for the approach that we have taken in clause 2. By delegating to secondary legislation, we are merely following the precedent established by other, similar, sport-related legislation, including the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. The delegated power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and that the scope of the regime remains relevant. It future-proofs for future innovation and protects against circumvention by ensuring that clubs and competition organisers cannot simply reconstitute, rename or establish new competitions to avoid the regulator’s regime.
As mentioned, the intended scope of the regulator is well known and has involved extensive consultation with the clubs and leagues that will be in scope. Any changes in the future would again require consultation and would be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.
Mr French
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments about why she believes we should not specify the leagues, but what is unclear in her language is whether she believes that the Committee should have the opportunity for scrutiny; these measures have been scrutinised in the other House and by a previous Parliament. I believe passionately that when it comes to future-proofing the Bill it is the role of elected Members on the Committee to scrutinise and have a proper debate. I appreciate that the issue has been debated elsewhere, but we need to have a proper debate here, and that is what I am trying to do. I am trying not to be too political in my comments.
My other point is about the consultation exercise with clubs. From the feedback we have had from clubs, it is unclear why they were not invited to give evidence to the Committee. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not want clubs to give evidence to the Committee?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those points. I very much welcome parliamentary scrutiny, and hon. Members will know that we intend to make some changes to the Bill following the debate in the House of Lords. Of course, it is the role of the Committee to scrutinise the legislation, but we must recognise that calls for change date back to 2011 in this place, with the cross-party Select Committee report and the fan-led review. We had extensive evidence sessions a year ago where we heard from clubs, fans and lots of different stakeholders, and indeed over the last year as the sport Minister I have done extensive consultations. The Bill remains largely the same as the one we previously debated. We believe that we have made some changes to strengthen it, and that is what we are here to debate.
Stephanie Peacock
No, I will make some progress and then take another intervention in a moment.
On the point about consultation and it being appropriate for parliamentary scrutiny—this comes to the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—currently, National League North and South are not in scope, but clearly it would not be feasible for the regulator to oversee the entire pyramid and place requirements on clubs all the way down to grassroots.
On the basis of extensive consultation, we believe that the top tiers are the most sensible and proportionate place to draw the line; below that, the regulatory burden would outweigh the potential benefits. However, if circumstances change and the Secretary of State feels that the National League North and South might benefit from being within scope of the regulator, the Secretary of State could conduct an assessment and make regulations to include them.
Mr French
I might have jumped the gun, particularly given what the Liberal Democrat spokesman said, but I want to understand the Government’s thinking about that exact classification and the difference between the National Football League and the National Leagues South and North. What are the Government fundamentally looking at in defining what leagues should be in scope of the regulator?
Stephanie Peacock
It is a fair question, but there was exactly the same cut-off under the previous Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
I am going to answer the question. It is largely—not exclusively—about where teams tend to be full time. It is not a perfect cut-off, and the Liberal Democrats have made a perfectly clear argument, but there has to be a cut-off somewhere and we believe, as the shadow Minister’s Government did, that the top five tiers is the best cut-off.
I want to respond to the shadow Minister’s points about the women’s game and how it could be brought into scope. Karen Carney’s review of women’s football recommended that it be given the opportunity to grow and self-govern rather than move immediately to statutory independent regulation. We are not saying in any way that it should be brought into regulation; we are simply giving that option so that we would not have to return to primary legislation. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Mr French
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments, but in the feedback we are receiving there seems to be inconsistency not only about what leagues should be under the powers of the regulator to ensure certainty and clarity, but about the powers of the Secretary of State. As I said, there is a massive issue about the role and power of Parliament to hold the Government of the day to account, which we all should believe in regardless of what party we represent.
I note to Labour Members that their party will likely not be in power for ever—I am not making a point beyond that—but this legislation will be in place until another Parliament seeks to change it. Whatever the colours of the Government of the day, Members should have an opportunity to scrutinise what they bring forward. Our amendment 132 seeks to ensure that that happens, by giving hon. Members a clear ability to have a vote whenever the Secretary of State wishes to expand powers.
Max Wilkinson
No, we accept the numbers in the room.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
This clause, as is standard procedure, sets out the key definitions used throughout the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State power to make a statutory instrument to specify competitions, as we have just debated. Those specified competitions can then define the regulated population.
Defining the scope in this way is an important part of future-proofing the Bill, as was seen when the old First Division became the Premier League in 1992. Before making any changes to the specified competitions, the Secretary of State must carry out an assessment on whether it would be appropriate to do so. In carrying out that assessment, the Secretary of State must consult the regulator, the FA and any other stakeholders who the Secretary of State considers relevant. A report of that assessment must also be laid before Parliament. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
I will pick up on a couple of my previous comments that have not been answered by the Minister, as we will shortly conclude debate of this clause. Why have the Government decided to specify the FA in the clause but not the other leagues? That point has been raised with me by those other leagues. Why are the Government not specifying the other regulatory bodies involved in football? I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, and will happily give way if she would like to give it.
Stephanie Peacock
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the FA is the national governing body of the English Football League, and that is why it is specified.
Mr French
I welcome that comment, but the FA has a quite different role than the leagues themselves, which are currently responsible for various regulatory aspects of English football—whether in the Premier League, the EFL or the National Football League. The FA’s role is alongside those bodies. That is why—these are not my words—there is uncertainty about why the Government have decided to only specify the FA, given that there are clearly other governing bodies involved in English football. That is currently a bit of a mystery.
On the Minister’s other comments, the Government are unclear on the direction of travel of English football and on what the Bill will and will not do. It has been suggested that the regulator will be able to solve all problems, but we have to be honest with the public and say that that is not going to be the case. If a club is badly managed—and I know we are about to discuss ownership—there is little that the regulator will be able to do to stop a club from going bankrupt, as an extreme example. We all have to acknowledge that that is a real risk for football, regardless of what the regulator looks like. I will end my comments there.
Stephanie Peacock
As I said in my intervention, the FA is the national governing body: there is only one governing body, and that is why it is specified. We expect the regulator—this provision is in the Bill—to consult all relevant parties, including leagues and fans. In the previous debate, we were clear that the leagues will be specified by statutory instrument.
The shadow Minister just said that it has been claimed that the regulator will solve all problems, but that absolutely has not been claimed, either by this Government or the previous one. We are debating the purposes of the Bill this morning; it is about the sustainability of the football game, having not been able to do that itself over the last decade. There have been calls for change in this place dating back to 2011—the ill-fated super league, the fan-led review and his Government’s previous Bill. This Bill will not solve all problems, but we hope it will put football on a sustainable footing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Meaning of “owner” etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clause 4 stand part.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 3 is about the owners of football clubs, who play a pivotal role in the sport. Without their efforts and investment, English football would not be the success it is today. Owners have an immense responsibility to not just their club, but fans, local communities and businesses in the surrounding area. Although current league rules outline a requirement to declare who controls a club, there are concerns with their application. That applies particularly when clubs are owned or controlled by offshore entities or complex company structures.
Fans have also expressed concerns about the opaque nature of who owns their clubs. They deserve to know who has ultimate responsibility for the club they support, and the clause ensures just that. The clause signposts to schedule 1, which defines when a person is an owner of the club. The clause also defines a club’s ultimate owner or owners. The ultimate owners of a club are those who have the highest degree of influence or control over the activities of the club. When a club applies for a provisional operating licence, it has to identify its owners and ultimate owners to the regulator in a personal statement. Defining the ultimate owners of a club and requiring clubs to declare them will be a crucial step to improving transparency and accountability in the game.
Schedule 1 defines owners for the purpose of the Bill and equips the regulator to apply that definition in different real-life circumstances. It is crucial that owners are suitable so that the sport is placed on a more sustainable footing. An ownership chain may be long and complex, with many links; to ensure clubs have sustainable custodians, the regulator needs to identify the human being with actual control at the very end of the chain—rather than the holding companies or other legal structures, which are just links along the way. That is why, under the Bill, the definition of an owner focuses on identifying individuals, except where clubs are owned by registered societies.
Registered societies are specific legal structures defined in clause 91; they must be run as co-operatives or for the benefit of the community. When used for ownership of football clubs, they are typically one-fan-one-vote organisations where control is split equally among hundreds or thousands of members. That is why ownership chains can end with registered societies, without needing to identify named individuals behind them.
The Bill’s definition of an owner draws heavily on precedent from other legal regimes where ownership can be complicated or opaque, including the “persons with significant control” regime in the Companies Act 2006. The Bill’s definition is designed to capture those who have significant shares or rights, or other forms of significant influence or control over the club. It also includes owners who meet one of these conditions at arm’s length, such as via a trust or a similar body. That approach means that owners cannot simply evade regulation by creating ever more complicated ownership structures. Having a clear definition of an owner means that owners can be identified, tested and held to account as custodians of the club.
Clause 4 is about officers and senior managers. The Bill will introduce two key things: transparency for fans and accountability for decision makers at clubs. The clause defines an officer and a senior manager of a club for the purpose of the Bill. Those definitions have been drafted in recognition of the existing legislative precedent, including the Companies Act 2006 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as well as the definitions currently used in the football industry. The clause’s purpose is to appropriately define the people who run, or have a significant level of direct influence, over the day-to-day running of a club.
Officers of a club are subject to legislative requirements, including the owners and directors test. The regulator may take enforcement action against a senior manager— a subset of officers who carry out specific management functions at the club. If a club commits a relevant infringement connected to a senior management function carried out by that individual, the individual can be held liable. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
I will start with clause 3, which deals with the broad definitions of an “owner” within the context of this legislation, as the Minister has just set out. While it may appear technical on the surface, this clause lays the groundwork for the regulator’s ability to properly identify and engage with those who hold real power and influence within our football clubs. Getting these definitions right is absolutely essential. For too long, fans have felt that football governance has been undermined by opaque ownership structurers, shadowy investment vehicles and individuals who exercise effective control without proper scrutiny or accountability.
The clause also ensures that the regulator is not hamstrung by narrow or outdated definitions of ownership. It gives clarity on who can be held responsible, whether through legal ownership, executive authority or de facto control. That clarity is vital if we are serious about improving transparency and strengthening the fit and proper person test regime. At the same time, it is right that this is done in a proportionate and legally precise manner. We must avoid unintended consequences that could dissuade responsible investment or penalise legitimate business structures. Definitions must be robust but not overly broad.
On that point, I will pause for a second. As Members, we have to recognise the international nature of club ownership, both in the EFL and the Premier League. We are talking about English football, but there are only four or five clubs in the Premier League that have an English majority owner these days. We have to be very clear in our work, and in our discussions on the Bill, that we do not want to deter inward investment in the game. We need to understand that there is increasing international competition for these owners to effectively move their assets into other countries. In particular, there is the rise of the Saudi league, which is growing in competition versus the more traditional heavyweights of the European sector.
In seeking to strengthen the ownership test, which I support, we have to be mindful of not deterring investment. Could much of this work on ownership structures and tests have been done appropriately through the current governance structures of English football? Yes, I think it could have been done better already, and I personally would have preferred that to be the direction of travel, rather than through the Bill. However, we are where we are, and I will not oppose clause 3 for the sake of it.
Clause 4 defines the roles of an “officer” and “senior manager” within football clubs, and again seeks to improve transparency on accountability, roles and responsibility. This provision, as outlined by both the Minister and the Premier League in some of its comments, seems to mirror banking regulations, which I was familiar with before coming to Parliament nearly four years ago—time flies when you’re having fun.
The language used in this provision is similar to that used by the Financial Conduct Authority. When the Minister speaks again, I would be quite interested to understand why the Government have chosen banking regulations as the model for football, because I want to understand their thinking on the future of the regulator and football. We are talking about both a business and a sport that differs in many ways to financial services and in the positive impact that it has on this country. While football creates many jobs, it also has an impact on communities around the country and grassroots clubs, where we like to see young boys and girls participating in football.
Schedule 1, like clause 3, is foundational to the Bill and thus to the future of English football in providing a detailed meaning of an “owner”. Where the clause provides the broader meaning of an “owner”, this schedule details the conditions for being an “owner” and rightly looks beyond just legal shareholders. It captures those who influence clubs through formal or informal control, whether that is through a boardroom presence, financial influence or complex ownership structures.
The inclusion of the 25% ownership threshold is rooted in established legal standards, but equally important is the provision to capture those who may fall below that line but wield significant power. We have seen far too many clubs come to harm because of murky ownership arrangements and a lack of transparency. I am confident that other hon. Members will speak to the goings-on at Reading in recent months and years, if previous debates are anything to go by. I know more about Reading than I ever thought I would, as a football fan, but a lot of hon. Members have mentioned the example already.
That said, I must also raise the example of Charlton Athletic, a proud and historic club just outside my own constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup. It operates in the Greenwich borough next door to mine, with the training ground literally on my constituency boundary and the home ground, the Valley in Charlton, a bit further away.
Mr French
Yes, we also have Portsmouth.
This rivalry—the kind of blend I mentioned—is obviously true of my own family: half blue, half red. To be clear, that is only in football terms, especially as the current Government continue to use the famous Millwall “No one likes us, we don’t care” chant as political inspiration. That rivalry will be reignited next season, as the mighty Addicks have been promoted back to the Championship, where they will play Millwall twice. Hopefully, both will be battling it out for promotion to the Premier League—Millwall, of course, just missed out on the play-offs.
On a more serious note of regulation, it has not only been on the pitch where the fortunes of both clubs have differed significantly in recent years. So I was not just rambling on about fans for no reason; there is a clear point about ownership linked to all this.
Mr French
Great.
While Millwall fans have enjoyed the success of international ownership through the Berylson family and the late John Berylson, who tragically passed away, those who support Charlton Athletic next door have endured a series of damaging ownership disputes, including periods where it was unclear who truly was in control, or whether those individuals had the long-term interests of the club or its supporters at heart.
It is precisely that kind of instability that schedule 1 is designed to prevent, even if we must highlight that it will not be bullet-proof against an owner taking bad investment decisions that fans may not agree with—both today and in the future. However, there is a gaping loophole in this legislation, which shows either the Government do not understand English football as part of a delicate international eco-system, or that they admit the regulator will not be able to live up to the hype that many Labour MPs are suggesting. I would happily give way to the Minister if she can answer this crucial question now: do the ownership tests also include multi-club ownership structures? I shall carry on.
We are seeing an increasing number of ownership groups acquiring stakes in multiple clubs—often across leagues and even countries—raising concerns about conflicts of interest, sporting integrity and transparency, but also about the effectiveness of the Government’s regulator. A clear example is 777 Partners. As hon. Members may know, it is a US-based investment firm that recently attempted to take over Everton, despite already holding controlling interests in clubs across Europe, which I understand to be Standard Liège, Hertha Berlin, Genoa and, further afield, Vasco da Gama in Brazil.
As far as I can see, there is still no mechanism in the Bill—which is why I have asked the Minister to comment on this—to allow the regulator to properly assess the cumulative risks of such widespread, multi-club control. In such instances, if one of those clubs runs into financial difficulty, it will surely draw resources away from others. That is the risk I am trying to highlight.
The Chair
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that we come to the suitability of ownership later in the Bill. This clause is specifically about definitions, and I know he will keep to that as closely as possible.
Mr French
Thank you, Sir Jeremy; I appreciate your steer. My point is about definitions, but I appreciate that we will talk later about the scope of the Bill and the suitability of owners. The point that the official Opposition are trying to make is that the definitions should be more prescriptive about the multi-club ownership model. I hope you will allow me to carry on in that vein. I am sure I will make similar comments when we come to suitability.
If one of the clubs in a multi-club ownership runs into financial difficulty, it will surely draw resources away from the other clubs and put their financial stability at risk. As the Bill stands, the descriptions give no regard to that; rather, they seem to encourage that sort of behaviour as an obvious way to operate outside the scope of most of the regulator’s powers.
The City Football Group, which owns Manchester City, has stakes in clubs in Spain, France and Italy, and as far afield as Australia and Uruguay. Although that group is often held up as a successful example of the model, it raises legitimate questions, which we are seeking to ask today, about competitive fairness. In its own rules, UEFA has already sought to restrict clubs from competing in the same European competitions.
Not including multi-club ownership in this part of the Bill negates the Government’s claim that the Bill will promote competition. If anything, it seems that it will provide an open goal for the richest clubs.
As a football fan first, I know that supporters are frustrated by the tactics that the wealthiest clubs already use to avoid the financial fair play rules, and I am afraid the Bill will likely make that worse. We have seen UEFA act to ensure clubs such as RB Leipzig and FC Red Bull Salzburg restructure their ownerships to avoid breaching rules on clubs with shared control competing in the Champions League. UEFA recognises the risk to competitiveness, and the Government should too. The Minister must accept that UEFA is protecting competition across Europe, but she and the Government are actively putting competition at risk by not including accommodations for multi-club ownership in this part of the Bill.
I appreciate that giving the regulator complete carte blanche over the multi-club ownership model would likely violate UEFA’s rules. We know that UEFA has written to the Secretary of State about the Bill—she will not publish that correspondence—so why are the Government picking which bits they agree with UEFA on and which bits they do not? To be clear, we are not seeking to increase the regulator’s scope; instead, we want to apply consistent conditions to all owners, whether they own a newly promoted League Two club or some of the biggest clubs across multiple countries.
I am sure we will see more and more discrepancies between what the Government say and what the Bill will actually do as we continue through this Committee, but the fact that we have got only as far as schedule 1 in our first sitting and have found a glaring omission is proof that the Government need to look very carefully at how the Bill will operate.
Jon Pearce
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I declare my interest as a member and the former chair of the RamsTrust. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South is also here, this is probably not the last time that we will get to talk about Derby County.
I welcome these definitions, which are hugely important as a balance against some of the tests of ownership. They will help to solve some of the problems that Derby County have faced. In October 2003, three individuals bought Derby County for £1 each. The three amigos, as they became infamously known by the fans, had no money of their own and initially refused to disclose who the actual owners of the club were. It turned out that the money the trio had used to support their takeover was a loan costing 10% interest a year from a company, the ABC Corporation, registered in Panama.
It was at that point that I joined the RamsTrust—the supporters’ group that campaigns for a stronger voice for supporters in the decision-making processes at Derby County. Obviously, such trusts play vital roles at other clubs across the country. The tireless efforts of the fans in scrutinising the activities of the management of the club led to four individuals being convicted for fraud and receiving substantial prison sentences. The definitions will certainly help; although those individuals would have passed any fit and proper person test because they had no previous convictions or previous evidence of fraud. That is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill.
Joe Robertson
In looking at the definitions, I am concerned about what is intended to be meant by “ultimate owner”, not least from a drafting point of view. Schedule 1 deals with an owner in significant detail, although it is actually quite convoluted and I worry that there may be loopholes in there that may be exploited in the future. By setting out such a high level of detail around trying to close loopholes, loopholes might accidentally be opened or created.
However, it is not the definition of “owner” that I want to look at, but the definition of “ultimate owner”, which must be something different or else it would not be separately defined. It is contained in clause 3(2), which says:
“For the purposes of this Act, a club’s “ultimate owner” is—(a) where the club has only one owner, that owner;”.
That makes sense; if a club is owned by one person then they are the ultimate owner—that is easy. It goes on to say:
“(b) where the club has more than one owner and one owner exercises a higher degree of influence or control over the activities of the club than any other owner,”.
That seems very vague wording for lawmaking. There could be two highly influential owners, but one has some power at their disposal that makes them technically able to exercise a higher degree of influence; that does not mean that the other owner is not also very influential. I do not understand why “ultimate owner” dismisses the possibility of there being two club owners exercising a significant degree of control, albeit where one has a marginally higher degree of control than the other.
Normally the wording in company law—but not just company law—talks about an owner, director or officer exercising significant influence and control, and there is a lot of case law that sets out what that means. That wording is used in the Bill, in schedule 1(15), which is entitled
“Significant influence or control over the activities of a club, trust or other body”.
But because clause 3(2) does not use that wording, “ultimate owner” must mean something different than exercising a significant degree of control, and I do not understand what it is getting at.
There is a third definition of “ultimate owner”. We have dealt with where there is only one owner—that is easy. We have dealt with where there is more than one owner, and one owner exercises a “higher degree” of influence, whatever that means. The third definition is
“in any other case, each owner of the club who exercises a degree of influence or control over the activities of the club”.
That seems to be sweeping up anyone with any influence, so potentially every owner. But it goes on to say
“where there are other owners, is a higher degree of influence or control than any other owner.”
That suggests that the only owner in a multi-owned club who is not caught by the definition of “ultimate owner” is the one owner who ranks the lowest in terms of the amount of control that they exercise over the club. The provision is badly drafted. It is very unclear what it is trying to achieve, and alternative wording is available to the Government and the draughters of the Bill. If the aim of describing the ultimate owner is to avoid applying this to very small shareholders, such as community shareholders and fans who have some ownership of the club but no meaningful say over what happens to it, the Bill could simply state that an ultimate owner is any owner other than those who exercise a negligible or trivial degree of control. That would exclude those who have no influence but who own shares and would avoid the convoluted, inclusive set of provisions that amount to nonsense in the minds of most people.
If an ultimate owner is not defined in the Bill, the Government open themselves up to all sorts of problems. An ultimate owner, who may be very wealthy, could deploy his well-paid legal team to take the Bill apart in court, and we know what courts will do: if the wording is unclear, they can find in favour of the person who is trying to be bang to rights with a badly drafted Bill. I would urge the Government to rectify that. I do not expect the Minister necessarily to be able to respond to all that detail on the hoof now. If she cannot, I ask her to go away and seek clarification on that, because I worry that that is a major drafting defect. If we cannot define an ultimate owner in the Bill, we have a problem.
Amanda Martin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a Pompey fan and season ticket holder, and as an elected member of Portsmouth supporters trust board, ownership is a very painful subject in my city, because bad ownership has almost cost us our club on more than one occasion. I welcome the definitions in schedule 1, because there has been a series of owners—some have been the subject of international arrest warrants, some have had their assets frozen by the Government, some have been imprisoned, and no one could prove that one of them even existed, as I have said before in the House. That string of horrendous owners had a devastating impact not just on the football club, but on the community. Assets were sold off to areas of the owners’ other companies, and local businesses and employees lost thousands of pounds. The Bill and the regulator, and clause 1 and schedule 1, can protect clubs from poor ownership and will therefore mean that football clubs up and down England will never have to experience what Pompey fans had to experience.
Stephanie Peacock
I will attempt to respond to the various questions from the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North and for High Peak, and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. The Opposition spokesperson broadly welcomed the provisions, but he asked some specific questions. He made points on financial regulation, and I think he used the word “banking-style”. The Bill draws on precedent from a range of previous regulation. Some elements are from financial regulation. A previous amendment of his dealt with financial sustainability, and the Bill, as drafted, is all about that. We would not term it as “banking-style”, but it does draw on previous legislation and existing regulation.
The hon. Gentleman broadly welcomed the provisions on owners and directors. He mentioned that it has been four years since he was elected to this place, and in 2023, he asked the then Sport Minister to strengthen the ownership test, so I am really pleased that he welcomed the changes that we have made. He also said that he would prefer this to have been implemented without legislation. Of course, we all would, but we are where we are, and that is why both parties stood on a manifesto to introduce a football regulator Bill.
The Opposition spokesperson made some broad points on the owners and directors test, and we will have a further debate on that when we come to part 4. ODTs have to be applied clearly and consistently. If the owner has appropriate financial resources and meets other aspects of the test, our ODT would not prevent multi-club ownership. Concerns around multi-club ownership are to do with conflicts of interest and competition, which is why the leagues and UEFA have rules around multi-club ownership. Clubs competing in those competitions will be required to abide by any applicable rules, but we can come back to that point on part 4 when we will debate this issue at length.
Mr French
I want to flesh out the point that I tried to make, although I appreciate what the Minister said about coming to this later. Why this is not defined at this point is key, because, as I am sure all Members will agree, we do not want to accidentally create an open goal for wealthy clubs to get around the Bill. There is a real risk coming through from the football community that, if we do not tackle the issue of multi-club ownership up front, the Bill will create just that open goal.
In the comments from across the Committee today, there has been a consensus about what we hope the future of football will look like and around fairness; I think that that is all we can seek to achieve as a House. However, I am concerned that we are not putting the multi-club issue in the Bill. It is difficult to understand the reason why, because it is so pertinent to the ownership test. I accept that the Minister has said that she does not want to block it—that would not be wise, given that a number of clubs have that structure already—but I urge her to address the point about the risks to football. There are major risks, as we have seen already. The Minister’s reference to leagues and competitions was pertinent; we saw the press story yesterday about Crystal Palace and its European future. How will the Minister define the multi-club issue and how will it interact with the Bill?
The Chair
Before the Minister responds, I remind all hon. Members that interventions should be brief. There are plenty of opportunities to make longer speeches.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who makes some valid points. We will talk about owners and directors when we come to part 4. Competition and conflict of interest are not in scope of the Bill and are for UEFA, but I am happy to debate this with him further down the line.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made an extensive and technical speech. For transparency purposes, the ultimate owner or owners will be publicly identified in clubs’ personal statements, and this will help fans to hold the most powerful owners to account, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said. Anyone who exercises significant influence or control will be defined as an owner and can be subject to an ODT, but I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East on some of the technical points that he made, as he asked.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister for that. She has already given some better words by talking about “significant” control. That is not the wording in clause 3, but I prefer it, to be honest. Will she go away and look at that? It is probably a drafting issue.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for welcoming my comments. I will take that away, but I hope to have provided him with some clarity.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Establishment of the IFR
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
This clause formally establishes the regulator as an independent corporate body and refers to schedule 2, which contains further details on the structure, set-up and governance of the regulator. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
The clause formally establishes the Independent Football Regulator as a statutory body, providing the legal foundation for the IFR’s existence and marking a significant moment in English football governance and our constitution. The clause gives the Independent Football Regulator its own legal personality, allowing it to operate independently of Government and the football authorities.
We will come to the issue of independence, so I will not hold up the Committee too much on the point. I will not make this personal to the Government’s proposed choice of chair. It is rather about the structural integrity of independence, which is crucial to what we do as a House and how sport operates across this country, as it has done successfully for a number of years. The last thing that sport fans want is politicians involved in the regulation of football. We all welcome being supporters—a number of Members are supporters of clubs—but we must be clear that there should not be political interference in the running of the game.
The clause ensures that the regulator can exercise powers conferred elsewhere in the Bill, including around licensing, enforcement and oversight functions. We have a number of concerns about how the details in schedule 2 will work in practice, and the rules around making the independence of anyone involved in football regulation clear as we move forward.
More broadly, I seek clarity from the Minister on a few matters. Does she believe that clause 5 provides sufficient clarity and authority for the IFR to act decisively and independently when enforcing breaches of licensing conditions or financial rules? What safeguards are in place to ensure the Independent Football Regulator’s independence from political or industry pressure when taking enforcement action against powerful clubs or owners?
Will the IFR have the necessary investigatory powers from the outset to underpin robust enforcement, or are those powers dependent on secondary legislation or guidance? How will the IFR balance its role as a regulator with the need to maintain constructive relationships with clubs, especially when initiating enforcement proceedings?
On that point, I again highlight the importance of independence—not just independence from this place, but independence from other leagues and experiences that might bring into question any judgment that the IFR makes. That is a concern I have around the choice of chair, which I know we will come on to. I have concerns about leagues and any bias—known or unknown—in decision making, and the questioning of that. Going forward, that would generally be very unhelpful for the game.
Lastly, to what extent will the IFR be held accountable for the consistency, transparency and proportionality of its enforcement decisions under the powers established in the clause?
Joe Robertson
The requirement for the regulator to be independent is clearly essential. I am sure that it is common ground on both sides of this Committee Room, and in the rest of the House, that the Independent Football Regulator board and chair need to be independent.
This is a significant time for English football. To be regulated by statute and lawmaking and the decisions of the Members of the House of Commons and the other place is a departure from the way our beautiful game has grown in this country, without regulation. In certain aspects, we need to be really careful about what we are doing. The independence of the chair and the board of the regulator is key. Independence can mean so many different things, as the shadow Minister has noted. It can mean independence from the influence of certain interests within the game—clearly, if the regulator is to regulate multi leagues, we need an independent regulator that is not encumbered by particular interests, particular clubs or particular leagues.
There is also the very important issue of political independence. Given that the chair will be appointed by an elected politician—by the Secretary of State—the decision needs to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that independence, with a capital I, remains key. We might get on to this point at another time, possibly today, but the Secretary of State has recused herself from making any decision over the recommended candidate because of a donation he declared to her leadership campaign. The preferred candidate also made a donation, which he declared to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, but the Prime Minister has not recused himself from any involvement in the decision.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member is making a compelling case. Does he think that in all cases—in all public bodies, in all quangos—anyone who is a member of a political party, or has ever been canvassing, even in an European election, might be barred from holding any of those kinds of offices? As I understand it, political parties of all colours have in the past appointed people to various public bodies. This is clearly what is being implied by the Conservative amendments.
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I know that both hon. Gentlemen will recognise that they are straying slightly wide of what clause 5 says. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to respond, but I hope he will do so briefly and return to clause 5.
Joe Robertson
Thank you for that guidance, Sir Jeremy. I can see what the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to do, and I have sympathy with his general point about the independence of chairs of bodies, but I will stick to this Bill and this independent regulator for two reasons. The first is that we are in this Bill Committee today to talk about football governance. Secondly, the point I was making is that because this is a new departure—to have a regulator in a sport that does not have a regulator—particular regard needs to be paid to political independence. We have a candidate who has made a political donation to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Government have an unexpected relationship with the preferred chair of the regulator.
I urge the Minister to address at some point today how the independence of the football regulator will be protected. Even putting to one side the preferred candidate, the fact is that the appointment will always be made by a Secretary of State, so how will we avoid the criticism that the hon. Member for Cheltenham identified? If it is a political appointment, there are always going to be accusations—in this case, fair—around an elected politician appointing a regulator over English football. I know that that is inherently unattractive to fans, who should be our priority.
Stephanie Peacock
I will deal with the comments specifically on the chair in the next group—I am not avoiding the question, but I think we are going to have a more substantial debate on the next group. Let me answer some of the other specific points that Members have made. The shadow Minister asked about finance, and the levy will be proportionate to the size and level of the club. We absolutely value the independence of the regulator. That means all sorts of different things in terms of leagues, Governments, clubs and so on.
On how the independent regulator operates and what will guide them, I draw Members’ attention to clause 8 in part 2 on the regulatory principles. We will go through those later so I will not go into any detail now, but they are a useful guide to help the independent regulator in their functions and in carrying them out. I will pause there, because I think we will have a more substantial debate in a moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
The Independent Football Regulator
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 117, schedule 2, page 87, line 12, at end insert—
“3A Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”
This amendment would ensure that the political interests of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the Chair are made public before the appointment is confirmed.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 118, in schedule 2, page 87, line 37, at end insert—
“(5) No member may be appointed to the Board if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”
This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Board.
Amendment 114, in schedule 2, page 88, line 3, at end insert “including the Chair.”
This amendment makes it explicit that there must be a system for the declaration and relevant interests of the Chair of the Board.
Amendment 115, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) “relevant interest” will always include donations to political parties.”
This amendment makes it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest.
Amendment 116, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—
“7A The Chair of the Board must not
(a) be a member of a political party,
(b) canvass on behalf of a political party or on behalf of a candidate for election to the House of Commons, European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or local authorities, or
(c) speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party.”
This amendment would require the Chair not to be a member of a political party, or to publicly campaign for, or demonstrate support for, a political party.
Amendment 119, in schedule 2, page 93, line 2, at end insert—
“4A No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”
This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Expert Panel.
Mr French
I have tabled a number of amendments for Members to consider, and I believe the theme of the amendments is clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East alluded to some concerns that we Opposition Members have about the independence of the regulator, and particularly the perception of independence. We are concerned about the structure outlined in schedule 2, and we believe that it could be improved to ensure that all fans and all people involved with football have greater trust in the regulator and in any decisions that he or she may make in the future. I say “he or she”, because this is much broader than just the chairman that has been appointed at the helm of the regulator; it runs through every action the regulator will take. That is why I believe it is so important to ensure they are independent.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, sought to make a comparison with other public bodies. I understand the point that he was trying to make, but the independence of football is important from a wider sporting perspective. We are talking about something quite different from other public appointments and bodies, which have a closer relationship with Government. By default, this regulator is defined as independent.
Max Wilkinson
How might the shadow Minister compare the relationship between the IFR and the Government with the relationship between the BBC and the Government, for example?
Mr French
That is a well-made point. I have said in previous public comments that the BBC is an important example of how this can go wrong. I thought that the Government might have learned from that because, whatever the merits of the candidate, he or she—I will be less specific than to talk about individuals—has been marred by affiliation, in some cases probably wrongly. That is the point that I am trying to make. Every decision, going forward, could easily create a situation in which the same accusation will be—[Interruption.] No, it is not about double standards. I am making the point clearly that every decision on something as important as this—the first time that the country has established a regulator for a sport—will be marred by accusations of non-independence.
Max Wilkinson
I have a lot of sympathy with the point that the Opposition spokesperson is making, and the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East earlier. The problem is that we know that the Conservative party has, in the past, appointed lots of party members, donors and activists to public bodies. Therefore, although I have some sympathy with the point, I feel that the hon. Member is perhaps on weak ground when making this argument.
Mr French
I appreciate the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I will say that, though the Liberal Democrats like to avoid this point, they were in coalition with the Conservatives for five years, so some of those decisions would have been made by—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dartford want to intervene?
Mr French
The hon. Gentleman was chuntering, but I did not hear what he said so I cannot comment on it. The amendments tabled in my name are important to ensure that there is transparency, and to ensure not only that the regulator has independence in everything that it does but that the perception of its independence is not brought into question, because that is important.
I will talk through the grouped amendments. Amendment 117, to schedule 2, would insert that :
“Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister propose changes to the Cabinet Office’s governance code on public appointments, which is where this decision sits?
Melanie Onn
I was not disagreeing or agreeing. I was simply asking a question.
Melanie Onn
I think it is important to understand whether this is a general point of principle, as the hon. Member acknowledged in his comments about the previous Government’s decisions on the BBC, or something specific and unique to the Bill. He cannot have it both ways.
Mr French
This is turning into whataboutery whinery, and I fear that I am already testing your patience, Sir Jeremy. I am trying to stick to the Bill in front of us, and why we tabled these amendments. We can have a lot of whataboutery around different regulators. The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned Ofwat.
Mr French
Ofqual. I will stick to football.
I will reiterate what we are trying to do with the amendment: any political interests and political donations made by the prospective chair of the board must all be declared as part of the appointment process and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That is important because, if we are to value the role of this House in making informed decisions, we must have the appropriate information. I do not believe that asking for political donations to be registered and declared transparently is unfair—it is not. It is to do with decision making by this House.
I have already put on the record that I believe that what has happened in recent months has been a great discourtesy not only to all Members of this House, but specifically to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That Committee sat to make its decision on the nomination of Mr Kogan by the Secretary of State yet, at that point, at the time of the meeting, my understanding is—I am happy to be corrected by the Minister—that the Committee did not know of the donations to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, not until they were disclosed in the live Committee hearing. Regardless of the political arguments that people might want to make, and of the whatabouteries again, that is not fair on right hon. and hon. Members of this House. They were not provided with that information to do their work, which is the valuable work of Select Committees of this House.
Amanda Martin
Will the hon. Member cast his mind back to when the Education Committee rejected the person proposed to be put in charge of Ofsted, and the Government went against the Committee’s opinion. Sometimes Select Committees are not given all the information, and sometimes a Committee’s decision or recommendation is not followed by the Government. We can surmise why that might have been when we look at that person and her links with the Conservative party at the time.
Mr French
Again, I think we are broadening what I am talking about to a slightly different point—[Interruption.] Hold on! The hon. Lady’s point is whether Select Committees have the right to disagree with the Government and vice versa. That is not the point I am making. My point is that members of the Select Committee should have the information to make their decisions. What I am talking about here is clear: I am trying to ensure that all Committee members, of all different parties, have the information that they require to make informed decisions as elected Members of this House.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. In essence, with this amendment, we are trying to set the regulator up for success. Presumably the question mark about whether someone appointed was the best person for the job—as opposed to any extraneous influence that donations might have had—should be the primary consideration.
Mr French
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, because that is exactly the point I am trying to make. Now or in the future, we do not want the appointment of whoever is appointed as chair to be marred by perceived conflicts of interest. As I have said, that would undermine that crucial and important role of the regulator in the football pyramid. As the Minister has said—I agree fully—we hoped that clubs and leagues would have come to a consensus many years ago that would have solved many of the issues that still exist in football. The chair of the football all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, who sits on this Committee, has done more work on this issue than most people in the room—I thank him for that—but the fact is, we are here now to set up a regulator who is supposed to be independent of politics and of having any perceived bias for any league or club, and that is difficult.
I make this point again, without being unsympathetic to the situation for this or previous Governments: trying to find a person with the right skills and expertise to fulfil the role, without having any of those risks of bias, is very difficult. We have sought to find the right person, with the right blend of skills and experience, who would almost certainly have to come from within the football world or the regulatory world. Of course, if they come from the football world, there would always be issues of perceived bias.
Kevin Bonavia
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I see what the shadow Minister is trying to do with the amendment, but if we want proper transparency, what is special about football compared with other appointments? If the shadow Minister is really concerned, should we not look at the public appointments system, rather than setting precedents in Bills? We could end up with a hotchpotch of different legislation, which would make football need to have this, but not the BBC, for example. It does not make sense. This is surely not the right forum for the change.
Mr French
I understand the hon. Member’s point. I welcome his first comments on the Bill today, and I am sure we will hear more from him as it develops over the month. My point is that the Committee has the Bill in front of us right now. I am not involved with the Cabinet Secretary or any legislation regarding that role. I am the shadow Minister for sport, and my job is to analyse the Bill in front of me as an Opposition spokesperson. We can only deal with the here and now and the Bill in front of us, so I do not see the argument. There is a lot of whataboutery—
Jim Dickson
The shadow Minister represents a political party and the Opposition’s view has a wider perspective on the work that we are doing today. To try to carve this Bill out entirely from the wider appointments process seems odd when he represents a party with a Secretary of State and a party leader who take a wider view on these matters.
Mr French
There we go! He might wish that the hon. Member for Cheltenham had moved his amendment. This is quite painful, because my local club, Welling United, were relegated this season. It is quite painful as the local Welling-Dartford rivalry plays out.
I understand the point the hon. Member for Dartford makes. Of course I represent a party and of course I am the shadow Minister for Sport, but my job today is to focus on the Bill. The job of this Committee is to focus on the Bill. I respect the fact that hon. Members may have different opinions about whether we should be considering other aspects of public appointments but when we sit here today, having seen the news last night that an independent inquiry has been called into the appointment of the chairman, that strengthens the point of why the amendment is needed.
In government, parties have to make difficult decisions. That is undoubtedly true, regardless of who is in power. We have already seen such a huge own goal, which has undermined the regulator so much, and it was an own goal that could have been avoided. That is why it must be clear and transparent that, whoever is in power, political donations of any kind—particularly when they are to the Secretary of State and Prime Minister, which creates a lot of issues—must be properly declared so that Select Committees have the analysis to make proper, informed decisions.
I am not saying that the Select Committee might have reached a different decision, but it should have had the information on donations. The fact that an inquiry is taking place creates difficult issues for this Committee. At this point we are unclear, given that the story broke only yesterday—that was the first time I was aware of the inquiry—but we have an independent inquiry into the appointment of the chair of the football regulator when we are seeking to discuss the legislation for that regulator today. That creates concerns about the Bill and how it is drafted—I am trying to stick to the Bill rather than the person. I urge Members to accept amendment 117, because it would make the rules on donations clear and it would apply to all parties in government.
Lincoln Jopp
Another counterpoint to the whataboutery argument is that this proposal will cut through massively with the British public and the football-supporting public. We had the appointment of the director general of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, who was a Labour donor, and the director of investment at the Treasury, who was a Labour donor. Those things matter to us here, but they do not cut through to the public in the same way that the football regulator will. It has to be cleaner than clean to instil the confidence of the footballing public.
Mr French
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will not get into what the public are more interested in or not, as that is dangerous ground for a shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport to get into—obviously, I have to meet a lot of different bodies, and people have different interests. My hon. Friend’s point about the independence of sport and why it is so important has not been missed. I am sure that as the Bill progresses we will debate the question of why independence is so important.
We have spoken about public perceptions, and about the political process in this House, but what we have not spoken about yet so far is the role of international regulators, including UEFA and FIFA. We will make the point, as I said on Second Reading, that independence is crucial to that. For English clubs to continue playing in European competitions, the regulator must be independent. That is very clear.
We have urged the Government on multiple occasions to publish discussions with UEFA—again, I am happy for it to be on a private basis—so that all Members of this House can make informed decisions about the risk to English football if an independent regulator either expands its scope, through scope creep of the Bill, or is perceived by international bodies to not be independent. That is so important, because the international football community has made it increasingly clear that it will not accept Government interference with the running of the sport.
Mr Betts
The hon. Member is talking about correspondence with UEFA. As I understand it, the previous Government also had correspondence with UEFA, and the current shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), was the sports Minister at the time. So, to give an example of what should be done, will the shadow Minister now agree to publish the correspondence that the previous Government had with UEFA?
Mr French
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is a very well-respected Member of this House and of the football APPG. Obviously I was not a Minister in the previous Government, so it would not be possible for me to publish correspondence. I can speak only on my own behalf, and I do not have any UEFA correspondence. Again, I understand the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but, on the question of what I have urged the Minister to do, I am happy for that to be done on a private basis, so that we can have those reassurances as Members of this House.
This situation is clearly pertinent to the Bill, because, as Members of this House, and as football fans—a number of people have outlined their local clubs and who they support—we surely have to have confidence that what we are putting into law through this House does not conflict with the ability of English clubs to participate. This is not me trying to scaremonger; I just need to know the information.
Stephanie Peacock
I am interested about the shadow Minister’s idea of “publishing” something privately; that is a new concept to me. I have said in this House more than once—in this Committee, on Second Reading and in Westminster Hall—that the letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State makes it very clear that there are no concerns with this Bill. I am obviously confidently saying that in Parliament; I am very much not going to mislead Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East pointed out, the shadow Minister’s Government did not publish any correspondence. I sat in a room like this with the right hon. Member for Daventry, and he did not publish it, so why is the shadow Minister asking us to when he knows that Governments do not publish private correspondence?
Mr French
I recognise what the Minister is saying, and I understand the comparison she is making, but my understanding is that, if a Minister refers to a letter between the Government of the day and an international body that has important structures, there are rules within “Erskine May” that would allow—and sometimes force—the Minister to table that letter in the House of Commons Library for all Members to see, so I would urge the Government to do that.
Sir Jeremy, because this is very important, I seek your advice on whether, now that the Minister has referred to that letter, it should now be published under the rules of “Erskine May”. Can the Clerks clarify that, because the Minister has referred to it in her comments? It is in “Erskine May”—I checked on Second Reading—but I just want the guidance of the Clerks on whether that letter should now be published so that Members of this House can have an informed discussion about the risks to English football linked with the independence of the football regulator, because that is critical to all the work that we are going to do today.
Melanie Onn
I wonder whether the shadow Minister could indicate in which section of “Erskine May” that information can be found. If that applies to this letter, it will apply to all letters to previous Governments as well.
Mr French
I believe the hon. Member has slightly misunderstood the point I was making; it is about what happens if a Minister of the Crown refers to a private letter of correspondence with the Government. The advice from Clerks on Second Reading was that there is a part of “Erskine May” that talks specifically about that. That is the difference. My understanding is that—[Interruption.] There was not—we cannot talk about the work of previous Parliaments. We are talking about today. That has just happened. It is a piece of information that I believe is important to this discussion, and it is a piece of information that has been referred to, so I would ask for guidance from the Clerks.
I appreciate that we are about to break, Sir Jeremy, so I would appreciate it if, when we come back, or over the break, we could have some guidance on that letter and whether it should now be published by the Government—in good faith, for transparent reasons—so that all Members of this House can be as informed as possible, in the same way as we have discussed in relation to donations and the Select Committee.
We need to understand the risk to English football’s participation in European competitions. We have seen more clubs qualify for European competitions this year, which is great—that means they have been successful in Europe—but we need to understand that there is no risk to future participation, whether that be next season or beyond, from anything in this Bill, and I would like that certainty from the Government. I ask again that this letter be published, and I seek the guidance of the House.
The Chair
It now being 11.25 am, the Committee will in any event now be adjourned until 2 o’clock. I hope for the assistance of the Committee. The shadow Minister has raised a point on which the Chair may be able to assist—I will not say “will be able to” at this stage—but we will investigate, and at 2 o’clock we will give the Committee what information we can on the point he has raised. Then, of course, the hon. Gentleman will be able to continue his speech and speak to this and other amendments.
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFootball Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 June 2025 - (3 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Welcome back, everyone. I have a couple of housekeeping points to make. We are expecting some votes this afternoon and they will probably not be consecutive, so I am afraid that I will have to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes for each vote. If everyone is back in the room in less than 15 minutes, we can restart sooner, but everyone does have to be back for that to happen.
Members will recall that before we adjourned this morning, the shadow Minister asked a question about a letter that had been referred to, and I undertook to find out what I could to assist the Committee. What I can say from the Chair is that there is a general principle that
“a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House”.
However, that principle does not apply to summaries or citations of correspondence; the publication of such correspondence is a determination for the Minister to make, not a matter for the Chair. The only other thing that may be of assistance to the Committee is a direct quotation from “Erskine May”:
“The rule for the laying of cited documents does not apply to private letters, memoranda or blogs.”
That, I think, is all the assistance that I can give from the Chair on the matter. I will now call the shadow Minister, who was in mid-flow when we adjourned.
Amendment proposed (this day): 117, in schedule 2, page 87, line 12, at end insert—
“3A Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”—(Mr French.)
This amendment would ensure that the political interests of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the Chair are made public before the appointment is confirmed.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 118, in schedule 2, page 87, line 37, at end insert—
“(5) No member may be appointed to the Board if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”
This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Board.
Amendment 114, in schedule 2, page 88, line 3, at end insert “including the Chair.”
This amendment makes it explicit that there must be a system for the declaration and relevant interests of the Chair of the Board.
Amendment 115, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) ‘relevant interest’ will always include donations to political parties.”
This amendment makes it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest.
Amendment 116, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—
“7A The Chair of the Board must not
(a) be a member of a political party,
(b) canvass on behalf of a political party or on behalf of a candidate for election to the House of Commons, European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or local authorities, or
(c) speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party.”
This amendment would require the Chair not to be a member of a political party, or to publicly campaign for, or demonstrate support for, a political party.
Amendment 119, in schedule 2, page 93, line 2, at end insert—
“4A No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”
This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Expert Panel.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I appreciate your work and that of the Clerks to get some further information on the point. Just so that all Members are aware of the part of “Erskine May” to which I was referring, it says that
“a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.”
I appreciate your comments, but I think that the spirit of the House is quite clearly outlined there. I would like the Minister to publish the document so that Members can have a view.
I would also argue strongly on your last point, although I appreciate that this is a point of debate rather than one of fact, because I believe that the document in question is not a private letter but a piece of correspondence from a key international regulator to His Majesty’s Government. I believe that Members of this House deserve to have all the information available to make informed decisions about a regulator that will be of the utmost importance to football, as well as to this House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I know that there have been requests to see the letters that UEFA has sent to the Government. As a matter of course, the Government do not share private correspondence, as it would undermine the ability to have open, honest and frank discussions with key partners. It is worth stating that we wrote to UEFA asking whether it would be content for it to be published, but it confirmed that it would rather communications were kept private.
Paragraph 21.26 of “Erskine May” states:
“A Minister who summarises a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the Table. The rule for the laying of cited documents does not apply to private letters”.
“Erskine May” is fairly clear that the Government are not bound to publish the letter, as I have not quoted from it. I refer the House to my earlier comments on the letter.
Mr French
I thank the Minister for her confirmation of her position. I appreciate her clarification of her perspective, although obviously I disagree with it; that is why I raised the point. I am concerned about this, and I will pick up the point with Mr Speaker afterwards, because there is a general theme here. This is not aimed at the Minister—I have a good relationship with her, and I respect her—but there is an ongoing issue, which has been expressed in this House in recent days, about the Government not being open and transparent with the House in other announcements that have been made.
Stephanie Peacock
I say gently to the hon. Member—this is a point that has been made by my hon. Friends behind me—that his Government did not publish any private correspondence from UEFA. There will be letters in existence similar to the one to which he refers. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), whom I like a great deal—indeed, I respect both gentlemen—did not publish those, so I am a bit confused about why the hon. Gentleman is making this very well-rehearsed argument, which is contrary to what his Government did.
Mr French
It is not well rehearsed—it is not in my speaking notes at all. It is just a general point of principle that this House should be able to hold the Government to account with full information. I appreciate that I am testing your patience, Sir Jeremy, so I will get back to the amendments. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have lots of support from Government Members.
Schedule 2 sets out the constitution of the Independent Football Regulator for an initial period when it is first being established, and for subsequent periods thereafter. It contains detailed provisions about the appointment of the chairman, deputy chairmen and non-executive members of the board, and the rules by which somebody may be appointed to the board in relation to conflicts of interest. On conflicts of interest in particular, the Government have left much to be desired, so we seek to correct some serious omissions.
As we have seen in recent weeks, the Labour Government have politicised what was supposed to be an independent football regulator by appointing a crony. That is nothing short of a disgrace—such a disgrace, in fact, that the Secretary of State has been forced to recuse herself from any further part in the appointment of the chair. As I said this morning, that is now a point of independent inquiry, so it is not just my opinion. There is clearly a concern, which is why the Commissioner for Public Appointments will be looking very closely at it.
That is why I tabled amendment 117. As we know, although only because of his revelations at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Government’s appointee donated to the Secretary of State’s leadership campaign. We believe that she did not declare that in line with the ministerial code. We also believe that it was not disclosed earlier. Does the Minister think it acceptable that the Secretary of State concealed that information from Parliament? We believe that there was no reference to that donation on Second Reading. Did the Minister know that the proposed chairman had donated to both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State? Will she confirm whether she or any other member of this Committee has received any donations from the chairman of the regulator? Is she concerned about what the independent inquiry that was announced yesterday might mean for the future of the regulator, if it is found that the process has been breached?
Those are really fundamental points, because a breach of the process will have direct consequences for a lot of what we are discussing today. It will throw English football up in the air and bring it into disrepute if the first chairman of the regulator is found to have been appointed without the Government following due process.
The Chair
Order. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is going, and I will certainly not prevent the Minister from responding to the points that he has raised. I would say, though, that this Bill is not about the appointment of an individual to this position, but about the creation of the position in the first place. We must constrain our debate to the content of the Bill, which does not, I am afraid, include decisions about which individual may occupy the office if created.
Mr French
I understand your point, Sir Jeremy, and will try to stick closer to the amendments as requested, but amendment 117 is about ensuring that political donations are made transparently and up front so that all Members, including Select Committee members, have the information to hand when they are making informed decisions as elected Members of Parliament.
Amendments 118 and 119, which are also in my name, are designed to further reinforce the appointment process for the chair of the board and the expert panel. As I have just highlighted, the Government have made a bit of a mockery of the process already. It desperately needs solidifying, so amendment 118 seeks to prohibit any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the board. I hope that hon. Members understand why I make that point.
In certain civil service roles or other roles linked to the public sector, there are restrictions not only on political interference, but on what can be said publicly and in other aspects of a person’s life. I am concerned about what would happen if, say, Gary Neville—I am not just starting on him, I promise—or Jamie Carragher were suddenly appointed to the football regulator. Would this House be comfortable with those people—again, this is just an example—making comments about the regulation of football while having a commercial interest as a media pundit or commentator? Personally, I would not be comfortable with it, because a range of issues could arise. The point of the amendment is to make it clear that we do not believe that people in those positions should hold media roles.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am interested to know where the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to; I am not quite sure that he knows, at this stage. He is saying that anyone who has a role with influence in any of these matters should not be a media commentator. Does that go for MPs? I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s ex-colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg appeared as a presenter on GB News while he was still an MP. Is there not a conflict of interest there, or are such conflicts very specific to this one job?
Mr French
I thank the hon. Member for intervening. As was the case before lunch, I am happy to have this debate in Committee. I should not talk about people who are no longer Members of this House; they are private individuals and are no longer linked to the Government, and they are certainly not part of the Independent Football Regulator. I refer the Committee to my comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne about why the independence of football is so important.
I will not get into the jurisdiction of Ofcom and what it is looking at with regard to political people on TV networks, because that is not what the Bill is about. My point is that the chair is an independent person who will be appointed to independently regulate football. Should they have a dual role that includes media punditry, commentary or other media work? We believe that the answer is no. Ensuring that they cannot have such a role would ensure that there are no vested interests in the process.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The hon. Member’s amendment reads:
“No member may be appointed to the Board if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”
It does not state that, if appointed, they could leave that role and take on their role as a regulator, as most people do when they enter a role as a regulator. It says “currently”, so it would essentially prevent anyone who might have that knowledge and understanding from being appointed. His amendment does not say anything about their leaving or resigning; it just says “currently”.
Mr French
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. There is an important reason why it says “currently”. We are not trying to prohibit people who might have the relevant experience. We are trying to prohibit someone from having the dual role of being on the independent regulator while also being in the media world. That is quite clear; she has just read it out.
Mr French
But that is the point that we are making: we believe that that is a conflict of interest. In our debate on schedule 2, we will come on to the definition of conflicts of interest in relation to the board. We are concerned that what a conflict of interest will look like is very opaque.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East, who chairs the football all-party parliamentary group, made an interesting point about the relevant skills and experience of people we want on the regulator, and earlier I mentioned the difficulty of finding a chair who has those skills and that experience and is seen as non-biased. We will also make a point—I give warning—about some of the other appointments to the board. We desperately need clarification on how conflicts of interest will be managed while appointing people who have the relevant skills and experience.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is dangerous to indulge in hypotheticals, but if an applicant for the football regulator chair role had been integral to the negotiation of broadcasting rights for the Premier League, would they not be conflicted in their duties under the Bill? They would have done something in their former life that could disadvantage certain leagues and certain divisions of the league, and they would be seeking to protect that legacy.
Mr French
I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting and important intervention. I touched on this concern briefly before lunch. The perception of such a conflict of interest is a particular problem in the choice of chair. I appreciate your comments, Sir Jeremy, about sticking to the scope of the Bill, but there is a broader point here about how the Bill is drafted to ensure that such conflicts of interest do not arise.
As our amendments on this issue make clear, we are talking about people who are currently holding jobs, but we would expect that the interests of any person appointed to a board such as this would not conflict with their ability to make independent decisions. My concern is that that perception, rightly or wrongly—I genuinely mean that—will be applied to future decisions because of the chair who has been chosen and his experience. That is not personal; I am just concerned that that will be a problem for any future decisions.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
When I first read the amendment, I assumed that it would apply to somebody who owned a stake in a broadcasting company: a famous podcaster or someone who owned a famous podcasting outlet, for example. I understand why that might be a conflict of interest, but if it is somebody who is commenting on whether a penalty or a refereeing decision was any good, I do not quite understand how that would be a conflict of interest. Perhaps the hon. Member can enlighten me.
Mr French
That is a fair question. We know how the media works. How can I put this? There is a desire for certain people to make certain comments that might be controversial. Our concern is that such comments could undermine the regulator straightaway. With the amendment, we are trying to be as clear as possible and avoid a headache down the line for the Government, so that the Bill not only covers interests such as shareholdings but ensures that no conflict of interest could arise from working for the regulator.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I think I understand where the shadow Minister is going on conflicts of interest, a subject that the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised, but can he advise me how the amendment would help in addition to paragraph 6(1) and (2) of schedule 2, which in effect says that nobody can be appointed to the board unless there is confirmation that they do not have a conflict of interest? If the conflict of interest test can be satisfied, I am unclear as to why the amendment is necessary.
Mr French
I am happy to answer the question, and I appreciate how it was put: it was not adversarial, but on a factual point. We are trying to clarify the point. In the Bill, as drafted, it is not clear what a conflict of interest is. The amendment seeks to make a specific example of an area that we think would be a particular problem for the regulator, and clarify what a conflict of interest is in this regard. I hope that that explains the amendment.
Jon Pearce
With respect, in most areas of professional life, conflicts of interest will have to be declared. There is not an exhaustive list of what might constitute a conflict of interest, because that is almost impossible, so whether there is a conflict of interest is a matter of fact to be tested. I go back to the point that if we start defining what might constitute a conflict of interest, a limited amendment such as this one would have to become exhaustive. I do not see how that could ever be possible.
Mr French
I appreciate those comments. We will come on to conflicts of interest, and it is a question that I will put to the Minister, because the Committee and the House have to be clear and confident about what a conflict of interest might look like for the regulator. We will come on shortly to appointments to the expert panel. In such appointments, if there are no clear lines of accountability on what we believe to be conflicts of interest, I fear that we could have a situation like the one we have just had with the chair, in which the Government did not feel that there was a conflict of interest, but most people observing the appointment would say that there was a quite clear conflict, given the donations to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Labour party. Those are the points we are making, and I am happy to debate the matter further as we make progress. I have given the Minister some extra reading time on what I plan to ask about conflicts of interest.
A crucial point was made about how boards work differently in different sectors, and about whether conflicts are transcribed early on, so that everyone understands what we believe a conflict of interest is. We want to ensure that there are no vested interests in the process and that no one side will benefit from the simple fact that a chair is interested in that same side; that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made. By accepting the amendment, alongside our other amendments, the Committee could ensure total independence of the chair of the regulator both from this Government and from industry insiders. That is our objective.
Amendment 114 would make it explicit that there must be a system for the chair of the board to declare their relevant interests. As we have discussed, this needs to be explicit within the Bill because of how the Government have conducted themselves in the appointment process. We have seen that this Labour Government cannot be trusted to run the process properly or ensure that full and proper declarations are made. The amendment would make sure that nobody in this Government’s regulator can avoid being transparent with the public on their conflicts of interest. This amendment has become necessary because of the Government’s actions and their disdain for Parliament and public accountability.
It could be argued that the Secretary of State has hidden her interest in the appointment process to date, especially because she did not declare her interest on Second Reading. This amendment would provide much-needed transparency on the future of the regulator and its chair, whoever he or she may be. I would like to think that Ministers are in favour of full and proper transparency, unless there is something that the Government wish to hide from us. As I said, we found out about the donations only at the last minute, through a declaration made to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This House would not otherwise have known. It troubles me deeply, regardless of which parties were involved, that Members made decisions without knowing about the donations.
Alongside amendments 117, 118 and 114, I have tabled amendment 115. As I have said repeatedly, this Government’s behaviour throughout the process has been nothing short of a disgrace. We found out about the appointee’s donations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State only via a Select Committee, and we did not know about them on Second Reading.
Without the appointee’s last-minute admission, we would have been in the dark. We do not know whether the Secretary of State would have been transparent about the donations she received. She has now recused herself, but we must remember that she nominated that person for the Select Committee’s consideration, which is a really important point that I am sure the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments will look at closely. We cannot allow this sort of cover-up to continue, as we need a sustainable independent regulator. Amendment 115 would make it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest, as they have been proven to be by this Government.
I have also tabled amendment 116, which would ensure that politics is kept out of football. This debate is making me very uncomfortable as a football fan. I do not believe that politics should be anywhere near football, and it is because of this kind of issue. This has brought football into disrepute, and it is not just me saying that—it is across all the sports pages.
I am concerned about politics being dragged into football, and this amendment would require that the chair is not a member of a political party and does not publicly campaign or demonstrate support for one. It has been drafted in line with other such roles where chairmen are required to be politically neutral. Again, I believe this is common sense, and I hope all Members would support it.
Once again, this is an issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Requiring the chair of the board not to be a member of a political party or to campaign in a political way would protect the integrity of football and the regulator.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Amendment 116 also says that the chairman must not campaign
“on behalf of a candidate”,
which also applies at a local authority level. The regulator could have a friend standing as an independent candidate for a council. That would not be party politics, but the regulator would be barred from canvassing at a super-local level on a “save our local hospital” campaign, which really has no relevance to the football governance role that they hold. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that his amendment would too greatly impede the regulator’s ability to express their democratic rights in society while holding the role?
The Chair
We had a couple more votes than we were expecting, but Members will recall that we were debating the group of amendments beginning with amendment 117.
Mr French
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I know the Committee is delighted to hear me continue my speech.
These amendments are on the key issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Alongside the other amendments we have tabled, we believe that requiring that the chair of the board is not a member of a political party, or a campaigner for a political party, will help to protect the integrity of the football regulator. As the Bill stands, the Government are allowing appointees to the regulator to hide their political activity from fans and from Parliament, which would undermine the regulator from day one. I urge all Members to accept these amendments with good conscience, or to be prepared to explain to their constituents why they are supporting cronies over clubs and favours over fans.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
We are debating a group of amendments that attempt to better the regulator’s independence. The shadow Minister has set out at great length—made even longer by the interruptions —how these amendments would do that.
I think we all agree that the regulator should be independent. It is perfectly open to Labour Members to say, “Hang on a minute, the Bill already does that,” but their interventions and their scoffing from sedentary positions seem to make the counterargument, “Well, when you were in government, you made political appointments to bodies like the BBC and Ofqual.”
Joe Robertson
The Government Whip is agreeing from a sedentary position. “And therefore it is perfectly open to us to make a political appointment to the football regulator.” That is an extraordinary argument.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I do not think it is a case of saying, “Well, you did it, so we’ll do it too.” It was just highlighting the absolute hypocrisy coming from the Opposition Benches.
Joe Robertson
I obviously disagree with the word “hypocrisy.” [Laughter.] There is no point laughing when dealing with the very serious issue of taking politics out of football. Fans do not want to see us trading arguments about hypocrisy and the BBC; they want to see us working together to keep politics out of football, and that is what these amendments seek to do.
On the amendment about political donations, of course the shadow Minister spoke about the Government’s preferred candidate—that is the environment in which the Bill is being considered. We learned about the preferred candidate’s political donations to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister only in a Select Committee hearing, after the Bill had already been considered on Second Reading.
My colleagues and I looked at the preferred candidate’s donations to Labour MPs and prepared a list of those that had been publicly filed. The list did not include his donations to the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I am not saying that there was an improper lack of a declaration of interest, but the donations were not in the public domain. It was only at the very late stage of a Select Committee hearing on his appointment that the donations came out, and they came out because he voluntarily gave that information. I commend him for doing so, but this is the problem we have: we are relying on candidates voluntarily declaring donations they have made to the Government of the day—donations that might not otherwise be publicly declarable. Amendment 117 would force such donations to be publicly declarable in order to keep politics out of football.
Melanie Onn
The hon. Gentleman appears to presuppose that such a declaration would result in a person being turned down for the post. In fact, there was a declaration and the Select Committee still decided that the candidate was a fit and proper person. As could happen in future, this person was found to be suitable regardless.
Joe Robertson
I am not sure I agree with the hon. Member’s interpretation of why individuals should disclose that they have made political donations. It is not necessarily so that they can be automatically vetoed; it is for transparency, making sure it is in the public domain and making sure the Select Committee has all the information available when it reviews their suitability. This time, the Select Committee relied on a voluntary disclosure. Through amendment 117, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is trying to make that mandatory. It would then be for the Select Committee, other commentators, MPs and the media to draw their own conclusions and give their own opinions on suitability.
Melanie Onn
The hon. Gentleman is being very gracious in giving way again, for which I am incredibly grateful. Could he explain what questions members of the Select Committee are not permitted to ask candidates when they are making these decisions?
Joe Robertson
Amendment 117 would mandate that a candidate for chair of an independent regulator must declare all their political donations. It would not be merely a voluntary process. I back that, and in the absence of any good reason not to, I urge Government Members to do the same.
Lincoln Jopp
Does my hon. Friend remember the case of a referee whose footballing allegiance became public a couple of seasons ago? It caused a huge ruckus because it generated a suspicion that he had been, in some way, partial in the way he had conducted his independent role as a referee, which is not unlike that of the regulator. For football affiliation, read political affiliation. There will be semi-political decisions. Does that not also make the point that the regulator should not be politically aligned?
Joe Robertson
I have to confess that was not in my mind when I rose to my feet, but my hon. Friend has a good memory. I welcome his sporting analogy, rather than the analogy of Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a job for GB News, which is completely irrelevant to the Bill.
That brings me to another point. I wonder why the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, given that he is chair of the football all-party parliamentary group, tried to widen this debate on the politicisation of organisations. We are talking about football, about sport. It is almost uniquely an apolitical thing, both nationally and internationally. In fact, international sporting bodies are very sensitive to politics. I recall that, in the last 15 years, UEFA—was it UEFA?—tried to ban England players from wearing the poppy on their arms. That was ridiculous, but the organisation saw the poppy as a political symbol.
Football probably stands highest in trying to keep politics out of sport. Associating it with who might have a contract with GB News shows a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of sport.
Jon Pearce
If we are dealing with the independence of sport per se, does the hon. Gentleman consider the British Olympic Association to be within the ambit of sport? Its current chair, Sir Hugh Robertson, is a former Conservative MP and Minister for Sport. Does this apply to all sports, or just to football?
Joe Robertson
The issue here is that this is a regulator, with regulatory authority and powers. When we legislate, we should do whatever we can to keep politics out of sport. If there are examples going back over time, we can debate them, but doing that in the context of creating a brand-new regulator for football—one that has never existed anywhere else—would probably be a distraction tactic on the Government’s part. It would not deal with fans’ genuine concern that we should not bring politics into sport. We have an opportunity to do something to deliver that by agreeing to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister.
Amendment 116 states:
“The Chair of the Board must not…be a member of a political party”.
Why would anyone disagree with that? It is perfectly open to someone who wants to run to be the independent regulator to resign their membership of a political party. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North talked about the word “currently”. Well, “currently” means at the point that someone is appointed, so it is perfectly possible for someone to go through the appointment process before resigning their interests at the moment the Government propose to appoint them. I think the word “currently” deals with that issue, which we possibly agree on.
The amendment also says that the chair must do no canvassing
“on behalf of a political party”,
including in council elections. The hon. Member for Newbury might find it weird—as would I—that someone would want to live without canvassing for council candidates, but that is not much of a sacrifice for someone to make if they want to be the national regulator for English football.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Gentleman mentions amendment 116, and proposed new paragraph 7A(b) references the fact that the Opposition would not like the chair of the football regulator to canvass for a political party running for the European Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is suggesting some kind of movement to rejoin the EU, or is he suggesting that a Frenchman, a German or someone else from the European Union might become the regulator? In that case, which parties might he like to rule out or rule in?
Joe Robertson
The Liberal Democrats are always looking for an opportunity to bring things back to potentially rejoining the EU. No, I would not read the amendment as either an overt or a subtle message about a campaign to rejoin. Of course, it is perfectly possible that a non-British national might campaign in Europe for a candidate standing for the European Parliament, but I will not get distracted by all the possibilities. The wording of the amendment speaks for itself. The point is that, while somebody is chair of this independent board, they should not campaign for political candidates or for someone to attain political office.
I urge the Government to take the amendments on board. All they would do is further embed the idea of independence, which the Government say they support.
Amanda Martin
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
Taking politics out of this, I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who said this morning that we should have the best person for the job. I believe we do, and it is not just me. The cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by a Conservative MP, approved the appointment, because it recognised the strength of the candidate. It could have rejected him, or it could have taken more time and asked for more information—
The Chair
Order. I mentioned to the shadow Minister, and I will say it to the hon. Lady, that the debate is not about the individual appointed to the office; it is about the nature of the office, as provided for in the Bill. I invite the hon. Lady to please keep her remarks to that.
Amanda Martin
I apologise, Sir Jeremy; my point was about the principles.
On amendment 116 and the other amendments that relate to political party membership, has this type of concern has been raised before regarding appointments to other public bodies? More than one hon. Gentleman has spoken about how this is football and it is really important—almost as if it is more important than anything else. Was party membership taken into account by the Conservative party, who were in government at the time, when other appointments were made, or were concerns raised through a parliamentary question, a Westminster Hall debate or on social media or any other platform? I think particularly about appointments to the Care Quality Commission, Natural England, Monitor/NHS Improvement, the Consumer Council for Water, the Low Pay Commission and Ofsted—it would be remiss of me not to mention Ofsted. I think we can all agree that those appointments are very important.
The Chair
Order. I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, but we are not discussing any of those appointments in the Bill—we are discussing this particular appointment to this particular role. I understand her point, but I know she will return quickly to the substance of the amendments that we are discussing.
Amanda Martin
I will, Sir Jeremy. It is about precedent. Does the shadow Minister think that this is an issue only for football governance and only for this appointment? As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak noted, current practice for appointments to regulatory bodies and public bodies has been in place a long time. Paragraph 6 of schedule 2 strengthens that process and gives clear details of what it looks like. I guess this is a case of “do as I say and not as I did”.
Lincoln Jopp
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I wish the Committee to entertain a semi-hypothetical set of circumstances. I have spent many minutes googling in order to find the only club in the Football League represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament—the mighty Bromley, as I am reminded constantly by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I think he said in the Chamber that visiting supporters have started chanting, “You’ve got the only Tory.”
This is a very particular set of circumstances—there is only one. Bromley has done jolly well this season. Let us just hypothetically suggest that they caught the eye of a very wealthy potential new owner, which would bring riches beyond belief. That would come under the strictures of this Bill in terms of change of ownership. Let us suggest that, in carrying out its normal duties, the football regulator questioned, delayed and, finally, denied that change of ownership.
If the football regulator was a paid-up member of another political party and a donor to that other party, does the Committee not understand that the perception would be that part of the reason the regulator had come to the conclusions that it had was political? That is what we are trying to avoid with the amendments. I ask Committee members to reconsider, in order to give the regulator the best possible chance of success.
Mr Dillon
Seb Coe is a successful leader of sports bodies in this country and of our 2012 Olympics. He is a former Conservative MP and peer. I saw him act with integrity and did not question his political past. Why can people not act with integrity and be members of political parties? This is looking to spin a political angle when there might not be one at play.
Lincoln Jopp
If people appointed to regulators and quangos have fully declared what they have done, ab initio, that does a lot to dampen down concern about partiality. It would be nice to see the Government select someone for one of these appointments who was not a donor at the last election.
Stephanie Peacock
Before speaking directly to these amendments, I want to address the comments made about the chair appointment. I am very aware of the direction that you have given, Sir Jeremy, so I will focus my remarks on the comments made by the shadow Minister and Opposition Members.
David Kogan brings with him a wealth of expertise from the sport and media industries. The shadow Minister’s speech had three parts, so I forget when he said this, but he made the point more than once that it is about attracting the right candidate with the right experience, and how that is a challenge. We are confident that David Kogan is the right person. He was found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member who was agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
David Kogan declared his political activity to the DCMS Committee, as the shadow Minister has stated, which endorsed his appointment, adding a further layer of robustness to the appointment process. The donations were declared during the Committee session, as the shadow Minister also stated, and the Committee was sufficiently aware when it published its report endorsing him.
Joe Robertson
I know we know this, but the Select Committee is dominated by Labour MPs—I want to make that clear. I did not follow the process within it, but a Committee dominated by Labour MPs approved a Labour donor as the independent regulator.
Stephanie Peacock
I know the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that it was a unanimous decision by the cross-party Select Committee. There will have been similar instances in the previous Parliament, so I think his point is somewhat unfair, but it may be a reflection of the fact that he is new to this place.
Reference was made to the fact that we have received a letter from the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will of course co-operate fully with his office. No conclusions have been reached at this stage, and we will completely co-operate. Some points were made about what was said on Second Reading and to the Select Committee. The governance code already sets out the requirements for political donations. Donations in scope of the governance code were provided to the Select Committee in advance of the hearing. The leadership campaign donations fall outside the reporting window and the threshold for declaration; however, they were disclosed to the Select Committee in the interests of transparency, which endorsed the appointment on a cross-party basis.
Lincoln Jopp
I completely take the Minister’s point about the unanimity of the Select Committee. In that same spirit, it is worth quoting the Chair of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who said:
“While Mr Kogan’s background and experience make him well-suited for the role, his past donations to the Labour Party will inevitably leave him open to charges of political bias in a job where independence is paramount.
We want to see the new Independent Football Regulator succeed, so it’s crucial that nothing undermines the regulator as it gets up and running. Mr Kogan must give 110% when it comes to reassuring everyone in the game that he is his own man. The Committee looks forward to working with him constructively and holding him to account.”
Imagine how much simpler life would be if someone who did not have that perceived conflict of interest—
The Chair
Order. First, that intervention is too long. Secondly, I will let the Minister respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am afraid we will then have no more debate about this individual. We have covered the subject; both sides have had a go. A yellow card is now being shown and we will move on. Minister, please give the last thought on this subject.
Stephanie Peacock
I have heard the points that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I do not have the quote in front of me, so I will paraphrase, but I believe that the Select Committee also praised, or acknowledged, Mr Kogan’s candour and transparency—the fact that he was open with them—and of course the Committee did endorse him. I will heed your yellow card, Sir Jeremy.
Mr French
The amendment is quite clear that it is not about the individual but the process going forward for transparency on donations. I will not mention the gentleman, but the other question that the Minister was answering before the intervention related to the rules and duties on Ministers and Members of this House. She made the point about disclosure thresholds within the code, but the spirit of the rules makes it quite clear that any perceived conflicts of interest must be disclosed. It is my understanding that that had not happened, which is the point that I was trying to make.
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman gets ahead of himself; he is somewhat excited this afternoon. That was my second point—I have numbered my points one and two, and I have a third to make. He asked about members of the Committee. It is for hon. Members to declare relevant interests, and when we began the sitting this morning hon. Members did indeed refer to their entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do not want to be drawn any further on the details of the process as that would not be appropriate. I have made all the comments I can within the confines of the topic and the yellow card you very kindly gave, Sir Jeremy. I will therefore move on to talk briefly about the amendments.
I will explicitly state that the independence of the regulator is paramount. The Bill is, as the hon. Gentleman said, designed to create an independent football regulator free from any undue political or industry influence. That has always been and continues to be our aim. In the service of that, we have already strengthened the Bill further, now requiring the regulator to establish and maintain a register of relevant interests of members of the board. That already includes the chair, so any further amendment is not necessary.
The definition of relevant interests in the Bill is already broad enough to include political donations if they are relevant to the regulator’s functions. The appointment of the chair is subject to the governance code on public appointments, which clearly sets out that any political activity
“should not…be a bar to appointment”,
as well as the requirements in relation to the declaration of political activity. That point has been well rehearsed; indeed, the Liberal Democrat spokesman made it earlier, as have other hon. Members.
The chair of the regulator is already required to undergo a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing, which we have debated at length. Pre-appointment scrutiny is reserved for the most significant roles, including those where demonstrable independence from the Government is required. The chair and other non-executive members of the board would also be bound by the code of conduct for members of public body boards, which sets clear expectations around political impartiality once in a role. I reassure the Committee that the Bill is robust in ensuring the independence of both the chair and board members more widely. The amendments would not in any substantive manner increase the level of protection in the Bill against undue political influence over the chair.
I turn to the amendments 118 and 119 about conflicts of interest for the board and the expert panel. I reassure the Committee that the Bill, supported by public law principles and non-legislative measures already in place, already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest, irrespective of sector. It is also important that the widest possible range of people are encouraged to apply to contribute their skills and experience so long as any and all conflicts of interest are managed appropriately. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North.
Government amendments made in the other place have strengthened those protections even further, and beyond doubt. Paragraph 17 of schedule 2 requires members of the board to declare their interests in any matters that fall for consideration by the board, and for that declaration to be recorded. The board member would not be permitted to take part in any discussions related to a matter if they have a significant direct or indirect interest in it.
With specific regard to the expert panel in amendment 119, the Bill already places an onus on the chief executive officer to check for conflicts of interest at the point of making an appointment to the expert panel and on an ongoing basis from time to time. The Bill sets out that the chief executive officer must ensure that the expert panel has all the relevant range of skills, knowledge and experience. The amendment might limit the ability of the chief executive officer to do that, as it would restrict the pool of potential members of the expert panel. It may well be appropriate for the expert panel to have expertise in media or broadcasting, but the amendment would outright preclude that, and so might hinder the regulator’s ability to fulfil its objectives.
All in all, the Bill contains comprehensive safeguards to examine and manage genuine conflicts of interest appropriately. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr French
I have heard the Minister’s comments clearly and I am afraid that I am not filled with confidence, not necessarily because I doubt what she says or her intentions but because of the proven experience of the situation in which we find ourselves. I appreciate the yellow card, so I will not go fully back into that, but it does bring into question the judgment of Ministers and individuals and whether we can have certainty in these steps and measures. The Opposition think these amendments are not party political at all. We want to ensure that we have transparency and absolute security that whoever is appointed to these positions will act with complete neutrality and independence, and avoid any perception of bias. I will not repeat the arguments of why that is so important for sport and the independence of sport. We will press our amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
That result may not have come as a surprise. Does the hon. Gentleman still wish to move amendment 116 formally?
Mr French
I do, Sir Jeremy. I am hoping for a different outcome on this one.
Amendment proposed: 116, in schedule 2, page 88, line 6, at end insert—
“7A The Chair of the Board must not
(a) be a member of a political party,
(b) canvass on behalf of a political party or on behalf of a candidate for election to the House of Commons, European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or local authorities, or
(c) speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party.”—(Mr French.)
This amendment would require the Chair not to be a member of a political party, or to publicly campaign for, or demonstrate support for, a political party.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. For the reassurance of the Committee, we will reach amendment 119 later because we have not yet got to that point in the Bill.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 138, in schedule 2, page 88, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) But the number of persons in the employment of IFR (including any persons seconded to the IFR) must at no time exceed 50.”
As always, you are keeping me on my toes today, Sir Jeremy; I thought we were about to vote on amendment 119. We always learn something new in Bill Committees. Amendment 138 raises a serious and growing concern, so I will be very clear about what the amendment would do. We seek to limit the number of employees of the Independent Football Regulator to a maximum of 50. We think that is quite fair. I could have proposed 20, 10 or some other number, but I thought 50 was fair, based on the conversations that we have had with the football world.
Our serious and growing concern is about not just what the legislation says, but the consequences of the way this Government have chosen to structure the regulator. The amendment uncovers and seeks to prevent the key problem with the Government’s regulator, which we believe is purely that it will ultimately put up prices for fans. This morning, the Minister said that her Government have not claimed that the regulator will solve all the problems, and while that may be true, we believe that her regulator will actively create more problems for clubs and for fans. I will come on to the problems that we believe it will cause for clubs later in the Bill, but, to be clear, we put fans first and that is what this amendment seeks to do.
The creation and operation of the Government’s regulator and the burdens it generates will impose a very real cost on clubs. I suspect that will not have a massive impact on the billionaire owners of the big clubs, or the executives, consultants and lawyers employed in the football industry, but it will significantly affect clubs that are already subject to serious financial constraints and those lower down the pyramid.
Let us begin with the principle. I do not believe that anyone here disputes the need to protect the long-term sustainability of English football and the need for English football to be sustainable, even if definitions of “sustainable” differ. However, if the Government genuinely intend to safeguard the game for future generations, creating a vast and costly bureaucracy is not the way to do that—yet that is what this regulator will do. It will increase the costs on clubs, which will ultimately have no choice but to pass them on to fans. That view is accepted by those in the industry that I have discussed this with. This Government have chosen bureaucracy over the beautiful game and its fans. It is the ever-present home and away supporters who will end up bearing the brunt of the costs of this regulator.
Turning to the specifics of amendment 138, last week I submitted a written question to the Secretary of State to ask how many appointments had been made to the shadow football regulator already and how many of those appointed were previously employed in her Department. I know from conversations I have had with the EFL, the National League, the Premier League and the FA that the shadow regulator has already begun to scale up. When my noble Friend Lord Moynihan asked the Lords Minister a similar question in the other place in December, the answer, which was received in January, stated that the number of IFR employees already stood at 38. As it happens, the answer to my written question is due today. Can the Minister save me the trouble of waiting for that response to come through online and tell us here and now how many full-time equivalent staff are currently working on the shadow regulator and how many of those were previously employed in her Department as employees, advisers or appointees?
Stephanie Peacock
There were 42 employees as of 1 June; 11 joined having previously been employed by DCMS and two joined having formerly advised DCMS. The answer is due by 6 o’clock today and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives it in writing by then.
Mr French
I must admit that I am surprised to get a concise answer from a Minister; I thank the hon. Lady very much. There are 42 employees and a number of those were already in roles in the Department. That is very important because it highlights the size of this regulator already.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I used to advise businesses on their target operating models, so I understand how to build teams and structures. On what basis does the hon. Member think that the figure of 50 is correct? What work has he done to understand the different structures that will be required? How does he think the aims of the Bill can be achieved with a staff of 50?
Mr French
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I am about to answer that. The figure is based on conversations with the leagues and other regulators already in play. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions in the points I am coming to.
We have heard that the number of people employed is 42. Unofficially, before today, I was told that it would be 80. That is the rumour going around the football world, but we have clarity from the Minister that it will be 42. [Interruption.] That is based on conversations with clubs. That is what engagement is about. That is why we asked the question. We are not basing the figure on rumour; I have just asked the question. That number will include civil servants, of course, and, as we have heard, regulatory specialists, policy advisors, analysts, stakeholder engagement leads, public affairs professionals and legal advisors, all of them at considerable expense to the taxpayer in the short term, and at significant cost to football fans in the longer term, as costs are passed on. In our conversations, the industry shared concerns about the scale and cost, especially compared with how football currently operates.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe just made a point about the size of the regulator. I do not think it is fair to quote someone directly when they are not here, or to quote an informal conversation, but I understand from a briefing that was given to the Lords, and a similar conversation that took place with me directly, that a gentleman very well-respected in football—who was key to this Bill—suggested that the work of the regulator could be done with several people. That was his expert opinion. When I suggest 50 people in this amendment, I am being very generous, given what the football industry believes the number should be, the costs and the fact that other regulatory bodies will still be involved in football.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I think we all agree that any regulator, including this one, should be agile, proportionate and just large enough to do its job, but is it really the role of politicians to pluck figures out of the air based on rumour and conversations, and put them in a Bill in a way that ties the regulator to that figure forever and a day? I know it is a maximum figure, but should not politicians stick to the thing that they do best—setting regulation and making the law—rather than trying to specify the detail of individual organisations that have a job to do?
Mr French
I respect the hon. Member’s comments, but I think that this issue is fundamental to the discussion. The Opposition are seriously concerned about the cost and scope of this regulator, and how that will impact both clubs and fans in football’s delicate international ecosystem, so this issue is pertinent to the point that we are trying to make. The number that we have reached was not plucked out of the air. We had discussions with people directly involved in running football to try to ascertain an appropriate number of employees for the regulator. People in football are concerned about how big this regulator has become, and how quickly, even before the chairman has his feet under the table.
James Naish
The shadow Minister says that one individual suggested that several people would be sufficient, yet he claims that the figure of 50 is not plucked out of thin air. I ask him again: what modelling has been done, how many departments would be involved, and how many people would be in each of those departments, so that he can credibly stand there and say that 50 is an adequate number?
Mr French
I am slightly confused. The hon. Member for Dartford is telling me that we should not dictate how the regulator works and how it manages staff, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is saying the opposite. We have suggested a cap, and I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on what that cap should be and how many employees she believes the regulator will need. That is important because we are passing a piece of legislation that is the first of its kind, and it will create extra costs for clubs that, as I am arguing, clearly will be passed on to fans. If the essence of the Bill is to protect clubs and fans, we need an honest, open conversation about how big the regulator should be. The Conservatives have tabled a sensible amendment that seeks to cap the regulator’s size in line with how other regulatory bodies in the sporting world work. That is the premise of our amendment. I would like to move on, because I am testing your patience, Sir Jeremy.
We are told that, once operational, the Government’s regulator will be funded through yet another statutory levy. That may sound benign but, in practice, it will be yet another financial obligation imposed on clubs, many of which, particularly in the National League and the EFL, are already stretched due to increases in other bills that we have already seen this year. Higher energy bills, national insurance, and employment costs around wages are real costs with which clubs are already struggling.
The Chair
The Committee will recall that we were discussing amendment 138 to schedule 2. As usual, it was the shadow Minister who was interrupted.
Mr French
I am getting used to being interrupted, Sir Jeremy. This is so thrilling that people want to escape as quickly as possible. Before the Division, we were highlighting that clubs will have no choice but to pass these additional costs from the regulator on to fans. As we have explained, we believe that a number of clubs are financially stretched, particularly as we go lower down the pyramid, although that is not always the case, as clubs’ finances differ.
We believe that this cost will go on to fans, by which we mean higher ticket prices and higher merchandise costs. Matchday programmes, concessions, streaming fees and even transport subsidies and loyalty schemes could be scaled back as clubs tighten their belt, and they will be required to tighten that belt even further. This is not just speculation; it is the economic reality that clubs are experiencing, according to their feedback, although I appreciate that economic reality is not always the Government’s strong suit.
This matters because, as those of us who still manage to watch our local clubs know, the cost of attending football matches has already become prohibitive to many families. The idea that we are creating a regulatory regime in the name of protecting fans while simultaneously driving up the cost of a matchday experience is not only a contradiction; it is laughable.
James Naish
What figure is the shadow Minister using for how much a single full-time employee would cost that leads to the total of 50 in this proposal? What figure is he using to say that this will be economically prohibitive for clubs?
Mr French
The structure of the regulator is addressed elsewhere in the Bill, so I will not drift too much because I have already been yellow carded by the Chair, to use a football term. However, we have made it quite clear that we are trying to limit the size of the regulator because we are already concerned, and that question about costs is one that I want to ask the Minister. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will come on to this shortly.
The Opposition have been clear that we will not oppose the Bill for the sake of opposition, but like many fans and clubs up and down the pyramid, we are worried about how these bills will be paid. A regulator of this scale, with powers of licensing, enforcement, business model oversight, owner scrutiny, fan engagement mandates and financial analysis, does not come cheap, yet nowhere in the Bill do we see sufficient transparency or constraint on how big this body might grow to be, including how many people it may hire or how heavy-handed it may become. That is our concern regarding scope creep.
Let us not forget that the Football Association already exists, the EFL has its own monitoring tools and the Premier League already has fit and proper tests and financial regulation. This new regulator risks not only duplicating existing efforts but adding an entirely new layer of complexity, cost and compliance for clubs, particularly those already operating on a knife edge. The smaller clubs that are already struggling will, in a cruel twist of fate, be the clubs that suffer the most. When they are forced to divert resources away from their academies, community foundations or stadium improvements to pay for the regulator’s levy, it will be fans who feel it first and the Government who will deserve the blame.
Looking forward, what is the projected headcount of the football regulator over the next three years? What is its estimated operational cost in its first full year? How much of that cost is expected to be recovered from clubs? Will the Minister provide exemptions for smaller clubs or those in financial distress, or will this be another flat levy that hits the lower leagues the hardest?
Good governance in football is vital, but so is affordability, restraint and remembering that every pound extracted from the system is ultimately paid by someone—the fan in the stand, the father and daughter already paying £90 to sit in the upper tier of some Premier League clubs, the lifelong fan who travels to away games week in, week out, and the dedicated fans who create their own podcast to discuss their club’s trials and tribulations. There are lots of podcasts out there, and I could recommend a few. On a more serious note, they are the ones who will suffer, and they are the lifelines that clubs will lose. We are already seeing fans protesting ticket prices in the streets and the stands. We are concerned that the burdens from extra reporting will increase the cost for those fans.
Max Wilkinson
I am a new Member and I was not here for the previous iteration of the Bill, brought forward by the previous Government. Can the shadow Minister confirm whether the regulator his Government proposed would have been entirely staffed by volunteers? How it was going to be funded? Was there any kind of levy proposed? Please forgive my ignorance.
Mr French
I am happy to answer that question. I think it is quite clear. The comparison is drawn and it is argued that this is the same regulator as before, but it is not. We clearly have different political opinions about what regulation might look like and how big it might be. These are the questions that we are trying to tease out. We are trying to put a cap in place because we are concerned that what is being proposed in the Bill will significantly increase the size of the regulator and its cost. These are the key points the amendment is designed to draw out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, if he has concerns about the cost of the regulator, will support it.
It is clear that the Government’s Bill for the regulator is not about lowering costs for fans or improving the experience of football. It is about Government control and intervention into more aspects of our lives. By limiting the number of employees that the Government’s regulator can employ, as those across the industry have suggested, we can make sure that fans are protected and clubs not over-burdened with new costs and regulations, because in football, as in politics, promises are easy but the bill always comes due.
Max Wilkinson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I want to make two quick points. First, it seems to me that the previous Government were going to impose extra regulation, and there would have been a regulator that probably would not have been run by volunteers. By the logic we have heard today, the Conservatives previously proposed some kind of increase that they worried would put up ticket prices. I do not agree that that is necessarily going to happen.
Secondly, one of the first things that my local club, Cheltenham Town, said to me after I was elected, was, “Please support the Football Governance Bill, because that will make our club more sustainable.” Then I spoke to the Robins Trust, of which I am a member, and it said, “Please support the Football Governance Bill.” If the club and the fans are both saying, “Please support the Football Governance Bill,” it is my duty as their local Member of Parliament to take their word for it that they think things will get better as a result of the Bill.
Cheltenham Town is a League Two club; sometimes, in a good period, they are in League One, but these are not people who are burdened by the concerns of billions of pounds, as at Manchester United. Ticket prices at Cheltenhm are about £20—I think I might be able to get in for £20 for some games. Price sensitivity is probably an issue for Cheltenham Town fans and the club, and they tell me I should back this legislation, so I do not know why, based on that and having heard the arguments made by the shadow Minister, I should change my mind, because there is nothing to suggest that anything has changed between the previous regulator and the newly proposed regulator. The opinions of the club that I serve are entirely clear.
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Member says that both his club and the fans support the football regulator, but they do not know how much it is going to cost or how big it is going to be. They like the purpose of the regulator, but they do not yet know the cost. Is it unfair to set a boundary on some of those aspects in the Bill, so that it does not grow arms and legs and put regulatory burdens on his club outwith their ability to meet them?
Max Wilkinson
We have a fundamental disagreement here on the Bill and the need for regulation. It is clear that the Conservatives have decided that they will now not support the concept of a football regulator. That is a perfectly legitimate political decision. It is also legitimate to point out that that was not their view until a few short weeks ago. It is also legitimate for me to point out that both the club I represent and the fans are telling me that I should support the Bill.
I hate to make a point about political ideology, but sometimes I do. This perhaps is one of those instances when we just have to let organisations decide for themselves. My understanding is that traditionally that has been a Conservative thing. Someone sets up something or there is an existing business, and the Conservatives might say that that organisation can make decisions for itself. The next amendment is about salaries, and I will probably make the same point. Sometimes we just have to let organisations make their own decisions and let the market decide.
Mr French
If we follow that train of thought and bring it back to what we have been talking about today, which is a regulator, does the hon. Member believe that such a hands-off approach to a regulator is common sense, given the issues of regulation that we now see across our country—issues that the Liberal Democrats often campaign on—which call into question the expanded powers that regulators have failed to act on. Using that same philosophy we should try to ensure at this point in time that this regulator does not end up in the same bad place as regulators in other parts of our economy.
Max Wilkinson
The shadow Minister makes a persuasive point, but I still do not understand why it is right for politicians to say, before a regulator has even been set up, “You may have no more than x employees.” I shall end there.
Melanie Onn
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to address some of the points about the costs. I fear that as we discuss each amendment we run the risk of disappearing down quite a few rabbit holes and losing sight of the Bill’s principle and purpose.
Everyone will have received the submission from Fair Game, a collaboration among the smaller clubs that are concerned about the football pyramid as a whole. Fair Game’s biggest concern is not the potential for runaway regulator costs, although it is important that the costs are proportionate. Nobody is saying, “Let’s have a cast of thousands,” but the shadow Minister has failed to provide any workings-out for his number in respect of the scope and size of the organisation.
The fundamental issue for clubs is not the costs of the regulator and the economics of the bureaucracy. The issue for them is how little the smaller clubs get from broadcasting and attendance, and the fact that the football pyramid is entirely broken. If we fail to remember that in each debate, we will fail to assess and address the points that are being made up and down the country. The shadow Minister keeps referring to the costs of premiership clubs, but the majority of areas around the country do not have premiership clubs; they have clubs in the Championship and below. Those clubs are struggling to make ends meet and to keep going year by year, and they are seeing extraordinary disparities in the entirety of the financial system.
It is worth referring to the disproportionate spread of the costs. The broadcasting deal controlled by the Premier League is worth £3.2 billion, of which 88% goes to Premier League clubs and 70% goes to clubs in receipt of parachute payments. The remaining 5% is then split between the next 138 clubs. I would say that clubs’ futures and costings rest on issues that relate to that, not on the costs of setting up a regulator. If we continue with the argument of not wanting the associated costs, we will not have a regulator. We cannot have one free. It comes down to the fundamental question of whether we do or do not want one. The Opposition currently seem to be going down the route of saying, “We don’t want one.”
Mr French
The hon. Lady is missing the point of what I said. By adding tens of millions of pounds, which I suspect will end up being the cost of the regulator—the Minister will be able to explain the figure—we are not reducing the cost for clubs but adding further costs. We will get on to distribution—
The Chair
Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman had finished making his intervention.
Mr French
We will come to the distribution of media rights and so on, to which the hon. Lady referred, but that is separate from the problem that we are talking about, which is that if the regulator is too big, it will add to the costs and there will not be as much money to go down the pyramid.
Melanie Onn
The shadow Minister might be surprised to hear that I understand perfectly well what he said, as I have understood on all the previous occasions on which I have intervened. I am sorry that he does not seem to recognise that I do.
If the clubs had more money in the first place, because the structure of the pyramid and the flow of the finances were right, some additional cost proportionate to the size of a club would not be prohibitive to that club. Therein lies the problem: we fix the issue with the pyramid and then everything else will flow from that, and we can do that only with the existence of a regulator. The regulator cannot exist in isolation. It must have some supportive executive functions to be able to fulfil its roles and responsibilities in this weighty Bill.
Joe Robertson
Whenever I rise to speak on the Bill, I try to keep the fans uppermost in my mind. We have heard discussion about the potential for increasing costs. That is because the Bill will create a bureaucracy. It is a bureaucracy that some Members support, which is fine, but it is a bureaucracy and has to be paid for. It is being paid for by a levy on clubs. The amendment is not about whether we support a regulator; it is about whether we support the principle of trying to put some parameters around the cost by putting a headcount cap on the regulator and ensuring that this bureaucracy does not grow and grow over time.
In this country we have had a slight tendency, across Governments of different political colours over many decades, to allow bureaucracies to grow. The Bill would be relatively unique but, I think, strengthened if we put in a cap to ensure that this regulator and this bureaucracy cannot grow without restraint. It would therefore ensure that fans will not be overpaying for an organisation that does not need to grow to hundreds, thousands or whatever number anyone wants to suggest.
Mr French
My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument. The other point that we are trying to make is that the other established bodies of football are still in place and doing other parts of the job. The regulator is seeking to bring in new responsibilities, but it will not reduce the existing costs on clubs of those other regulatory bodies.
Joe Robertson
I take the point, which is well made. We do not want the regulator to grow and start trying to perform the functions of other bodies that exist, just because it has an unrestricted budget. Who knows what the Government of the day will allow to be spent on it? I heard the representations from Government Back Benchers about the methodology to evidence why 50 is the magic number. It is correct to say that it is not the role of MPs to mandate specific headcount, but putting a cap on it would ensure overarching budgetary control. Although it is reasonable to disagree, it is also reasonable to assert that a regulator should be able to function with 50 paid staff members.
James Naish
What the hon. Member says is absolutely correct, but the reality is that we do not start with the outcome; we start with the process and the functions. What does the regulator need to do? How is it going to achieve that? How many people are required to deliver those services? Then we get to an outcome. I understand the principle of saying that there should be a cap, but that is just not the way it is done. I have done a lot of advisory work, but I do not know any business that would start with that principle.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member for Cheltenham also referred to the principles of business, but the issue is that this is not a business; it is a regulator. That is why it is entirely proper and fair for Parliament to put a cap on headcount to ensure that the regulator delivers its objectives with some sense of constraint. I suspect that there will always be a justification for taking on more staff to dot every i and cross every t, but that should not be what the regulator is about. I take the point, however.
Jim Dickson
If the number is 42 at the moment, as the Minister says, and the regulator is not yet up and running, might 50 not be an entirely inappropriate number for the work that the regulator ultimately has to do, as set out in the Bill?
Joe Robertson
I am slightly worried that there are 42 people devoted to setting it up. That sounds like quite a lot to me; it gives me concern and supports my argument for a cap. In response, the Government could come forward and say, “This is the headcount that we expect to deliver the things we want to be delivered,” but I do not think that the Minister is saying that. She will have the opportunity at the end of this exchange—when she resists the amendment, as I am sure she will—to give some assurance that the regulator will not grow beyond a certain size. If she cannot give some indication of headcount, that will ring alarm bells. Those are the alarm bells that the cap seeks to deal with.
James Naish
The hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not think that that is the responsibility of MPs. All of this is really about scaremongering and about creating the idea that there will be a huge cost. The truth is that none of us knows exactly what the size of the regulator will be when it ultimately delivers its functions. It is the responsibility of the regulator to manage itself appropriately. Putting an arbitrary figure from a random conversation into legislation such as this is not good practice.
Joe Robertson
The cap is not a mandatory number. We are not saying that the regulator must have 50 people delivering a set of regulatory powers. It is about trying to impose some sort of control on the regulator to stop it growing and growing. The hon. Gentleman says that we will leave it to the regulator, but what happens when the regulator comes back and says, “We need 250 people”? What if, further down the line, it thinks that the job is a bit bigger than it thought, so it argues for 300 or 400? We can name a whole list of bureaucracies that have grown and grown; NHS England is one such, although I am prepared to accept that the IFR would not grow to the size of NHS England, at least within this Parliament.
Mr French
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. My argument, which I believe he is making too, is that hon. Members should have a say in what the regulator looks like, both now and in future. Our overriding point is that once the Bill has passed, there is no power in it that I can see that gives hon. Members any say over what the regulator will look like. We are trying to put a ceiling on it now so that hon. Members can have a say in the size of the regulator.
Joe Robertson
The shadow Minister puts it much more succinctly than I have, and I thank him.
The rationale behind the amendment is to keep control over the costs. There will be a levy; it will be football clubs that pay; and ultimately the costs will fall on fans, potentially through higher ticket prices, which we want to avoid. If the Government will not back the amendment, I invite the Minister at least to give some assurances of control over spiralling costs. The headcount of any organisation is one of the key costs.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Gentleman mentions ticket prices. Some very simple back-of-a-fag-packet maths tells us that even if the football regulator costs £100 million to run, when we divide that by 92 teams and about 40 games in a season, it comes to a matter of pence per ticket sold: something like 20p, 40p or 50p. I could not even get a Mars bar for 50p in the Tea Room. I do not understand why this argument is being made; it really does not stand up to any kind of challenge. I am not a mathematician or a businessperson, but I can do simple division. I can work out that this body will not cost £100 million, £200 million, £500 million or £1 billion a year to run. It is a fanciful argument and the Opposition should put it to bed.
Joe Robertson
It is rather tempting to make a gibe about Liberal Democrats and back-of-a-fag-packet economic comments, but I will not. If it is as simple as the hon. Gentleman says, then let us hear that from the Minister. Let us hear assurances and guarantees that we are talking about pence, because frankly any inflation of ticket prices beyond pence is unacceptable, given the current prices and the legitimate views of fans about them.
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe made the very powerful observation that, in identifying a target operating model, form should follow function. The function has been pretty well defined in the Bill, which rather prompts the question why the Government do not have some idea of the form that the regulator should follow. Without any cap whatever, we would simply be inviting untrammelled mission creep and cost growth. Perhaps the hon. Member disagrees with where the cap has been put and with the methodology approaching it, but I would be interested to know whether he agrees with the principle that he and other hon. Members should have an opportunity for scrutiny if there is a proposal to grow the budget, the wages or the number of people in the regulator.
It is interesting to note the varied approach across the regulatory network. Do we think that the football regulator will be like the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which is pretty important—we all drink water—and does its work with 55 people? Coming in next is the Office of Rail and Road, which has up to 370 people. The Information Commissioner’s Office has 500-plus; information is all around us, so that is pretty important. Not quite topping the tree, but coming pretty close, is the Pensions Regulator, with 900 people.
The point is that untrammelled bureaucracies have a tendency simply to grow. There is no limit on the amount of fan consultation that could be done. A member of the football regulator could be sent down to every fan meeting if it really wanted to convince itself that the club was engaging with the fan base. All the amendment seeks is some measure of control, to give Parliament the opportunity once again to stop this thing growing arms and legs and moving way beyond its intended purpose.
James Naish
The hon. Gentleman has made the point clearly: he has named a number of organisations that are significantly bigger than the random figure in the amendment. I am not disputing what he says, but the bottom line is that it makes no sense to include an arbitrary figure in formal legislation.
Mr French
I am sorry to jump in—I am a bit keen. The point that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe makes supports the point that we have made throughout. The political argument that the Government have made is that the objective is to have a light-touch regulator. Does my hon. Friend agree that by trying to limit its size, in principle, we are helping the Government to do exactly what they are promising?
Lincoln Jopp
We do not know yet what the target operating model will be. I think the Government can do that work, as they have a pretty clear picture of the functions of the regulator that are envisaged in the Bill. The shadow Minister asked the Minister to give some indication of the limits on money and structure, because we have the powers and the functions. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to hear the Minister’s answers.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his amendment. I note the irony of him saying he does not want to oppose the Bill for the sake of it, given our discussion today and the fact that the Bill began its life under his Government. I completely understand the intent to ensure that we do not end up with an overstaffed regulator that is not delivering value for money. That is exactly why there are appropriate controls over the regulator’s expenditure.
Proportionality is key to the point about costs. We will have a further debate today or on Thursday about the regulatory principles, which are really important, but the operational cost estimate is between £77.4 million and £106.8 million over 10 years. That was based on the impact assessment signed off by the previous sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry. Those costs have not changed—with the caveat, of course, that that is an estimate.
Stephanie Peacock
We do not believe that the changes are significant enough to lead to a significant increase in costs.
Lincoln Jopp
Quoting those figures is very helpful. Can the Minister tell us what personnel assumptions those figures were based on?
Stephanie Peacock
I am happy to provide the Committee with a copy of the impact assessment. I will address the point on staffing in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
Lincoln Jopp
On that principle, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence, who said yesterday that the number of people in the Army would be 73,000?
Stephanie Peacock
It is not for us to say. It is an independent regulator. The hon. Gentleman outlined how different regulators have wildly different numbers of staff. We do not think that we should set a cap.
Joe Robertson
Can the Minister give any indication of the sort of headcount she expects of this regulator?
Stephanie Peacock
I am not going to be drawn on figures. I will say that we think that the regulator should be as light touch and slim as possible. We do not think that it should be unwieldy and we do not think there should be staff for staff’s sake. It is not for me as the Minister to prescribe a specific number. I do not agree with that. For those reasons, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should withdraw his amendment.
Mr French
I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and to the answers provided by the Minister. I am concerned that the Government will not publish a refreshed impact assessment because, as I have highlighted, the costs to businesses and football clubs around the country have increased since the impact assessment was published. The regulator designed by the current Government also differs from the previous Government’s. We believe that it is bad practice for Members not to have all the information to hand for a live discussion about the expected costs of the regulator or concise information about what the size of the regulator may be.
Lincoln Jopp
Does my hon. Friend share my frustration? The Minister said that some indicative numbers for the costs came from the impact assessment for the previous version of the Bill. I asked her what personnel numbers that was based on, because if such assumptions do not underpin the budget, that is as random a number as any.
Mr French
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The amendment is about the headcount, and he asked the Government, who oppose the amendment, what assumptions they have made for the headcount in their financial calculations. That is a completely fair question for Committee members to ask in this debate. I am not satisfied with the Minister’s answer, and I do not believe my hon. Friend is either, based on his intervention. Members should have the information on the impact of staff costs. I have set out some of my concerns about what it may mean for fans down the line. I am afraid we have not had assurances that give us any confidence that the Government will seek to cap the size of the regulator. We want to get a vote on the record, because we believe there should be a cap on the size of the independent regulator.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 120, in schedule 2, page 89, line 9, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert—
“(3) The IFR may pay a person appointed as the Chief Executive no more than £172,153 per annum.
(3A) Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer as per paragraph (3), the IFR must pay its employees such remuneration as may be determined by the non-executive members.”
This amendment limits the pay of the Chief Executive.
It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—I have not said it in a while—even if you have given me a yellow card. At least in football that does not mean the sin bin, so I can keep playing.
Let me explain why the amendment is important. In doing so, I will stick to the principle of trying to play not the man but the ball. We tabled the amendment to make sure that taxpayers and fans get value for money from the Government—in what would be a first since their election. It would limit the pay of the chief executive of the Government’s regulator to make sure that they are not paid more than the Prime Minister. Who would argue with the principle that the chief executive of a regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country, whatever you think of him or her at the time?
It is a fair amendment that would also ensure that non-executive board members determine employees’ pay, instead of the chief executive by themselves as an employee of the regulator. We believe the Bill will create a conflict of interest if it is left solely to the chief executive to determine pay, as the chief executive would be able to determine their own pay increases as part of the package, unless it was done independently by non-executive members of the board.
Mr Dillon
I seek clarity. The shadow Minister said that the chief executive would not be able to negotiate their own pay, but if they were already at the limit and they were appointed on a rate of £172,153 per annum, they would not be able to receive any inflation increases, because the amendment would tie the pay not to the Prime Minister’s salary but to a specific value.
Mr French
I am happy to answer that question, because I believe the figure should be considerably underneath that rate. The amendment would allow pay to go up to the cap, but I am not saying it should be a target. This is similar to the slight difference in understanding about the previous amendment. We are not saying that it should be that artificial figure; we are saying that we believe there should be a cap that is not above the Prime Minister’s current salary.
Mr Dillon
Proposed new sub-paragraph (3A) says:
“Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer”,
and it does not say whether any other members of staff could be paid the same as the chief executive, so it would do nothing to limit the costs of the operation—they could all be offered £172,000 a year. Part of the shadow Minister’s argument is about cost saving, but there are no arbitrary limits on other members of staff in the organisation.
Mr French
I disagree with the hon. Member’s interpretation. It is quite commonplace for the chief executive to be the highest paid member of staff in most organisations. In my experience, it would be highly unusual for members of staff underneath the chief executive to be paid more than them.
Joe Robertson
I am going to stick my neck out here. I have little confidence in the Government curtailing the expenditure of money, but I do have confidence they would not let a football regulator come into existence where every single employee is paid £173,000. I hope that my trust in them is not misplaced.
James Naish
When looking at the operating model and how pay should be done, one would benchmark against equivalent organisations. What benchmarking has the hon. Gentleman done against the pay of other chief executives? The Prime Minister’s pay is not a good example for that particular type of role.
Mr French
There is no equivalent to the football regulator. It is the first of its kind. We cannot argue to fans that it is unique and everything else, but then say that it is the same as something else. If it is the same as something else, why are we doing it?
We have benchmarked the figure quite clearly—the hon. Gentleman may disagree; that is what voting is about in Committee—to the Prime Minister’s salary, which we believe is fair. It is fair to the taxpayers, who understand that someone appointed by the Government or by the board to run the independent football regulator established by the Government should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. That is fair and moral.
James Naish
This amendment is yet another example of plucking a random figure—although it is an actual figure, as has been referenced—and putting it in legislation, which is not best practice. That is why it should not be supported.
Mr French
I understand the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. We have had lots of attempts at muddying the waters today, but it is Government Members who will have to explain to their constituents and fans around the country why they believe that a regulator should be appointed that earns more money than the Prime Minister. We on this side of the Committee are happy to stand up and say very clearly that we do not agree that that should be the case.
We do not agree that those costs—which we have concerns about, as I have said in debates on previous amendments—should be passed on to fans, as the cost of the regulator ultimately will. That may not be the case for the clubs that have large billionaire owners, but we are talking about the whole pyramid all the way down to the National League. I fundamentally believe that it is our duty in this place to seek to limit the cost of the regulator to those fans.
Mr Betts
There is a matter of procedure and process here. I cannot think of another example where a public servant’s salary has been written into primary legislation, either as an actual or a maximum. Does the shadow Minister accept that we would have to have a new Act of Parliament to amend that figure in 10 or 20 years’ time? Surely that is appallingly bad practice.
Mr French
I disagree. As I have said, we are here today to set the guidance for what we think is an appropriate level of pay. We believe that fans on the street will think that this amendment is fair and proportionate, and that the chief executive of the football regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country.
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. He made the comparison with a public servant, which is the point that I am trying to make. If we classify this independent regulator as a public servant—that is another rabbit hole that we probably do not want to go down now—should they be paid more than the Prime Minister, who should be the ultimate public servant in this country?
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The shadow Minister talked previously about guidance, but that is not the proposal in this amendment. The amendment would put in primary legislation a figure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, is set in law until Parliament decides to change it—is that not bonkers?
Mr French
No, absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman actually makes the point that I have made already, because we believe that Parliament should have a say on what the regulator looks like in future. We have already made the case that the Bill gives unchecked powers to the Secretary of State. The hypothetical situation that hon. Members have referred to, where we come back with another Act of Parliament, would give Members the opportunity to scrutinise what the regulator has done and scrutinise its costs. It would give Members the opportunity to explain to fans around the country why they are increasing ticket prices and other costs. Members should have the opportunity to keep a sensible check on the regulator in future.
I will get back to my comments, as I appreciate that I am testing your patience again, Sir Jeremy. I am sure that the Minister will understand the serious concerns around not only the cost of the chief executive but, importantly, who determines the pay, which is the second part of the amendment.
I hope that the Minister can also answer my questions about the other issues that my amendment brings to the fore today. On paragraph 8(4), why must a non-executive member of the board of the Government’s regulator notify the Secretary of State when they intend to resign from said board? Why do they not need to inform the chairman, deputy chairman or even the chief executive of the regulator? From my experience, it would be commonplace on most boards for someone to notify the chairman of the board rather than—obviously this is a unique situation—the Secretary of State, so the focus of the Bill seems unusual. Does the Minister understand that, once again, that makes it look like a political regulator? By maintaining the legal ties between the employment of non-executive directors and the Government, it is clear that they are not independent of Government, but reliant on Government. Will she clarify why that is the case?
Paragraph 9(b) states that the Secretary of State can remove a board member if they are satisfied that there is a conflict of interest. Will the Minister tell us what qualifies as a conflict of interest and how the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, will decide what meets those qualifications? Would donating to a political party not in government count—or perhaps donating to a political party that is in government? Would having an interest in related broadcasting companies qualify?
Paragraph 10(1) sets out that the Secretary of State may determine the remuneration of non-executive members of the board. That gives the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, extensive powers over patronage. Can the Minister tell us how many board members does she anticipate will be needed and how many will be appointed? What will the remuneration per board member be, and what is the total cost of the board’s operation?
Does the Minister agree with the spirit of my amendment that the Prime Minister should be paid more than whoever is the chairman or the chief executive, whoever that may be? Those already large salaries may encourage the Prime Minister, perhaps on the advice of the current Secretary of State, to appoint somebody to the role to make sure they get a good return on their investment into Labour leadership bids.
Joe Robertson
I will not repeat what the shadow Minister has very ably said, but clearly the amendment goes back to the issue of costs spiralling out of control. Let us remember that the concern is about the pay levels for those appointed. The role has already been advertised, as I understand it, on the Government website at £130,000 for a three day part-time role, which means that pro rata they will be paid more than the Prime Minister. I have a serious problem with that, and I suspect that most fans have a serious problem with this so-called slimline light touch regulator being headed up by somebody who is paid more than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That is why my hon. Friend is trying to bring in some level of cap on pay.
We were not successful in bringing in a cap on headcount, but the Minister could not give us any indication of how many people she expects to be employed by the regulator. The Government are prepared to say that 73,000 people should serve in the armed forces, so it is not unprecedented to give an indication of the number of employees in organisations, which is all this amendment is trying to do. If Government Members are happy for the regulator to be paid more pro rata than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so be it—they will have to vote in that way. I am not happy, and that is why I support the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and I appreciate the intent to ensure that the regulator offers value for money. That is precisely why the regulator has a regulatory principle encouraging it to be as cost-efficient as possible. There are also countless other safeguards in place to ensure value for money, and we referred to those in earlier debates. For example, the regulator will be required to lay its annual accounts before Parliament, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, for scrutiny.
The regulator will also be subject to pay remit guidance, in the same way as central Government Departments are, to ensure that pay rises are justifiable. That will ensure value for money without sacrificing important operational flexibility for the regulator. On the other hand, a maximum salary for the CEO, fixed in legislation, would leave the regulator unable to adapt to market changes and could leave it unable to recruit and retain the expertise that it needs to effectively regulate.
I understand that the amendment seeks to limit the CEO’s salary to no more than the current salary of the Prime Minister. There would be no way to update that if the salary changed in the future, or even with inflation. It is not a practical constraint to impose.
Max Wilkinson
Does the Minister find it strange that, in this room, a Liberal Democrat spokesperson and a Labour Minister are arguing with the Conservatives about letting the market decide someone’s salary?
Stephanie Peacock
I absolutely agree, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson puts an important point on the record.
We expect a significant benchmarking exercise to be undertaken in determining the appropriate level of remuneration for the CEO of the regulator. That should be consistent with other regulators of a similar size and regulatory remit. We believe that an arbitrary constraint would be problematic. Safeguards are also in place already requiring approval for any public sector salary that exceeds £150,000, as per the senior pay controls process.
Mr French
I thank the Minister for her comments, and I am listening carefully. On the point about markets, we are not talking about the market dictating the level, but Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Cheltenham is in for a rude awakening if he believes that this is what the market looks like, if he goes down to the City of London. But on the argument that the Minister is making about the size of the regulator, what is that comparable size? We have tried to get an answer on what size the Government are looking at. So on the point that she just made about the salary being appropriate and reflective of other representative regulators, what is the size of the regulator? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East made the point about the salary that has been advertised only being a part-time salary, so what are the expectations in relation to that compared with the size of the regulator? That is fundamental to the Minister’s point.
Stephanie Peacock
As I have outlined, a benchmarking exercise will be done thoroughly on that. I am intrigued by the mock outrage from the Conservative party, who did not in any way put in a staffing cap or a salary cap when we were in this room previously. To take some examples of other salaries, they are much higher: at the Financial Conduct Authority, the salary is £400,000, at the Competition and Markets Authority, it is £200,000, and at Ofcom, it is £350,000. This is the current salary now but it was not wildly different under the last Government. I did not see them making these amendments to their Bill.
Mr French
Again, there is this deliberate conflation regarding what I am asking. The Government are arguing that this regulator is light-touch and different from those other regulators, and that the salary has been benchmarked against those at other regulators of a similar size and nature. This is the question I am asking the Minister: what is that other regulator, and how big is it? That determines what is an appropriate level of salary. This is about not only the Government’s arguments and our understanding, but the cronyism argument. I will not go into this but the reality is that a Labour donor is in the process of being appointed to a part-time job on a six-figure salary. Members of the public have a right to know what analysis the Government have done to determine that level of salary on a part-time basis.
Stephanie Peacock
I do not know if the hon. Member is wilfully misinterpreting what I am saying or not. I have made it very clear that there will be a benchmarking exercise. I have given a number of examples of other regulators whose salaries are much higher and were so under the previous Government.
Senior pay controls allow the Government to ensure that senior pay is set at an appropriate level to enable the public sector to recruit, retain and motivate the best people, while also ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. That means that if the regulator sought to set the CEO’s salary above £150,000, it would need approval from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments, although I think they were more confusing than they were an answer to the questions. We have tried to be clear, and I do not mean this disrespectfully. I am not wilfully misunderstanding; I am asking a really clear question about the comparison the Government are making. What does the benchmark look like? That is not a theoretical question; we already know that someone has been appointed, and they used a benchmarking exercise to make that appointment. That is the point I am trying to make: a benchmarking exercise must have already been carried out, if the Government have done their due diligence in making that appointment.
James Naish
I make the point again: it is the hon. Member’s amendment that would insert a figure. He is lecturing the Government and saying that benchmarking should have been done, but his amendment includes a figure, yet he is saying that he has not done the benchmarking and that it is just a random figure.
Mr French
To use the Minister’s comment, I think that the hon. Member is wilfully misunderstanding. I have made it absolutely crystal clear that the political argument—what we believe and what the taxpayers and fans will believe—is that it is not appropriate for a regulator to be paid more than the Prime Minister, the No. 1 so-called public servant in the country. That is the benchmark in the amendment.
What I am asking the Government—the hon. Member is conflating this, I think deliberately—is this. What is the benchmark that they have already used to appoint somebody? That appointment—not of the chief executive, but of the chairman—has already happened. That is the point we are asking about: whether the Government have done a benchmarking exercise. They must have an idea of what the regulator looks like, yet we have had no answer to that question.
We on this side of the House will be putting fans first. We will be seeking to cap the size of the Government’s regulator, to ensure that it is nimble and light-touch, that it is not overburdensome and that it does not do what we know regulation can do in this country, which is to snowball and to create more jobs and more duties for itself. We will look to cap it, in the interest of fans and taxpayers.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 61, in schedule 2, page 89, line 29, leave out “sections 61 and 82” and insert “section 82”.
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC3.
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Government amendments 61 to 63 are technical amendments to schedule 2 that support our proposed changes to the distribution models put forward in other Government amendments. We will get into more detail on our changes to the distribution mechanisms later in the Committee’s proceedings, as they should be discussed in the context of the part of the Bill to which they relate. However, these are amendments to schedule 2, which we are currently discussing.
The primary goal of our changes is to move from a binary, winner-takes-all model to a staged regulator determination, where the regulator will be empowered to design its own solution, drawing from proposals submitted and extensive evidence. I will not elaborate further now; I have met the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I believe, to speak about this. We will be debating it later; it is just the way that the Committee’s proceedings have fallen that means that these technical amendments come now.
I would like to reassure Members that these changes have been proposed after extensive engagement with the stakeholders most heavily invested in the process and following significant scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. We believe that the changes will strengthen the mechanism, making it more likely to deliver a distribution solution that works for football.
The primary function of Government amendments 61 to 63 is to make the board of the regulator, rather than the expert panel, responsible for the design of distribution orders. Both the decision to trigger the process and the design of the final distribution orders are important regulatory decisions that will have a significant impact on the financial landscape of football. The regulator may face criticism or challenge over decisions of such magnitude, and needs to be accountable for them at the highest level. These amendments enable this.
First, amendment 61 removes an exemption to the functions exercisable by the board of the regulator, so that decisions regarding distribution orders can now be undertaken by the board. The amendment is intended to improve the coherence of legislation and to reflect the increased responsibility of the regulator in the design of a potential distribution order.
Government amendment 62 ensures that the board directly takes these important decisions itself, by specifying that it can only delegate those decisions to a committee of the board and not to another entity. That reflects the previous design of the backstop, which we will speak to later. As stated, the decisions at this stage are crucial to secure the financial future of football and to ensure that the regulator can deliver its objectives, particularly regarding sustainability. It is right that these decisions are taken directly by the board.
Government amendment 63 removes the requirement for the CEO of the regulator to establish a committee of the expert panel to undertake the final proposal stage of the distributions mechanisms. Again, that reflects the change from the previous mechanism. It is slightly odd to discuss this outside the backstop, but we will be able to debate that in more detail later on. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that Members will support these amendments, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mr French
As the Minister set out, Government amendments 61 and 63 are consequential on the insertion of new clause 3, so I will limit my comments on this part, because I agree with her that it would be better placed at that point. However, I want to ask her about a couple of points. My understanding is that new clause 3 replaces what was clause 61, which set out the final proposal stage under the resolution mechanism. Again, I will save my substantive comments on that for later.
Government amendment 62 provides that the board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or of making a distribution order under new clause 4 to another committee of the board. I would like to ask the Minister the rationale for making this change at this stage in the process, given that the Bill has gone through the other place. We had a discussion on Second Reading and, as she just acknowledged, the leagues were not happy with the mechanism as it was designed previously. It is a fair question to ask why the Government are seeking to change this part of the Bill now. Why does the Minister think that the decision on whether to trigger the resolution process or to make a distribution order should be delegated to a committee rather than taken by the board itself?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. On the broad question of why we are making the change, to be quite blunt, it would be easier not to. We have a big majority in this place, but we spoke earlier about parliamentary scrutiny and we genuinely listened to the debate in the Lords, where there was quite a lot of discussion around the mechanism of the backstop.
It is important to make it clear right now that the backstop is a backstop. I often quote Dame Tracey Crouch, to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude. In the previous Bill Committee, she made a very succinct speech—it is worth reading—about how the backstop should be a backstop. Understandably, a lot of the debate has focused on the backstop—that is not a criticism—but it is genuinely meant to be a backstop. To be quite blunt, it would be easier not to make the change, but we think that it is the right thing to do. I could understand the previous Government’s pendulum arbitration and why it could be successful, but it was more risky, and that prompts more nerves from stakeholders. I am straying into debating the backstop, which I do not want to do because we will debate it later on.
On the question about specifying that the board can delegate these decisions to a committee, hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but we are not changing the way that the backstop can be triggered— again, we are straying into the backstop. There is a set of criteria for when the backstop can be triggered by a league, and the state of the game report must have been written and the regulator must agree with that. That stays the same.
I am straying into a future debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying—he can correct me if I am wrong—that under the previous mechanism it was pendulum arbitration, where party A would put forward a proposal, as would party B, and an expert panel would decide on one or the other, in a completely binary way. This changes it so that there is informal mediation and then a proposal stage. Because the regulator is more involved in saying, “We like that but go and speak a bit more about this,” or, “Seek some more evidence on that,” it makes sense that they do not then delegate that decision. That is the point that I am making, though it is quite difficult to debate this outside the backstop, as I acknowledged in my remarks. I am happy to take his comments away, and when we come to part 4, I believe, and we debate the backstop and the changes more thoroughly, I am really happy to go into more detail.
Amendment 61 agreed to.
Amendment made: 62, in schedule 2, page 91, line 41, at end insert—
“(da) the function of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under section 59;
(db) the function of making a distribution order under section (Distribution orders);”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment provides that the Board may only delegate the functions of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under clause 59 or making a distribution order under NC4 to another committee of the Board.
Amendment proposed: 119, in schedule 2, page 93, line 2, at end insert—
“4A No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”—(Mr French.)
This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Expert Panel.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 121, in schedule 2, page 94, line 34, at end insert—
“31A (1) The Expert Panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under this Act.
(2) Any decision published by the Expert Panel must include—
(a) the number of members of the Expert Panel who supported the decision;
(b) the number of members of the Expert Panel who did not support the decision;
(c) the reasons for the decision;
(d) the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to.
(3) The Expert Panel must publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph (30).”
This amendment requires the Expert Panel to exercise its functions transparently.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the panel must publish any decision that it makes relating to any of its functions under the Bill, and that any decision published by the expert panel must include the number of members of the expert panel who supported the decision, the number of members of the expert panel who did not the support the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the reasons why those who did not support the decision decided not to. The expert panel must also publish any records of its committee proceedings as recorded under paragraph 30 of schedule 2.
The amendment is all about transparency of the decisions made by the expert panel. As it stands, paragraph 30 requires that the expert panel
“must act independently of the Board”
when exercising its functions, without preventing the two-way exchange of information between the board and the expert panel. It is clear, however, that that needs to go further, which is why we tabled amendment 121, which requires the expert panel to exercise its functions transparently. I hope that the Committee agrees that no regulator should hide behind closed doors, and the Government’s football regulator should be no different.
That being said, the Bill lacks detail on the expert panels, and I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the following. How many people does she expect to be on the panels? How many of the panels does she expect to be needed in the first year of operation, and then in subsequent years? What is the cost expected per panel, and is there a specific cap on the cost that can be incurred by an expert panel to the regulator? Finally, how will each member of the panel meet the qualifications of the experience, skill and knowledge we have discussed already, while not incurring a conflict of interest?
To be clear, amendment 121 seeks to ensure that the regulator, a world-first in sports governance, and not in a good way for many of us, will maintain transparency with the fans it is intended to protect and support. We in this House have a great many tools at our disposal to hold the Government to account. It is only right that fans who do not have such tools can see what those deciding the future of their clubs and English football are doing. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and my amendment seeks to let the sun shine on the Government’s regulator.
Stephanie Peacock
I will address some points on amendment 121 and then respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The Government recognise it is vital that the regulator is transparent and able to be held accountable by Parliament and others. That is why, for the expert panel, the legislation already sets out a number of requirements to publish decisions and give reasons for them.
Transparency in decision making is important, but it is also important that individual panel members can act without fear or favour and that ultimately the regulator as a whole stands behind the decisions it makes. It will also be necessary in some instances for details to remain private for commercial, personal or other sensitive reasons. We absolutely agree that transparency around the regulator’s processes and decisions is important, particularly in football, where fans often complain of being out of the loop. That is exactly why the Bill already contains extensive publication and consultation requirements and the regulatory principle encouraging the regulator to be transparent. However, the amendment goes further and risks undermining the operation of the expert panel. Some details may be commercially sensitive, as I have outlined. Equally, individual panel members should not necessarily be singled out for their contributions to decisions; the panel as a whole makes decisions and is held accountable as a whole.
I am at risk of comparing apples with oranges, but we spoke earlier about the Select Committee. In this place, we will have minorities on Select Committees, and I do not believe that those Members who do not agree have their names published. I acknowledge that I am not comparing like with like, but I make a gentle point about how members should be able to make decisions without fear or favour.
The hon. Member asked some specific questions about the expert panel. For the panel to take a decision, it must form a committee of at least three members. If that decision is appealed, three new members will be needed to form a committee to take a new decision, so the minimum number of members required for the expert panel is six. There is no cap on the maximum number of members as the regulator should have flexibility to react in the event of a high workload. Obviously, different panels may be required for different issues. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. The Minister admitted that with Select Committees she was not comparing like with like. Would not a better comparison be another big regulator, the Bank of England, where the Monetary Policy Committee in setting interest rates does indeed allow for minority reports, which are helpful to the market in understanding the logic behind those who want rates to go up, go down or stay the same?
Joe Robertson
I offer the shadow Minister another example: on Select Committees, as mentioned by the Minister. There may be no formal record of how minority votes go in Select Committees—although the Minister did seem to know the outcome of the appointment decision—but, as sittings are held in public, people can see how different members of a Select Committee respond to an issue.
Mr French
That is an excellent point. I believe that the people who want to sit on these expert panels and help with the future of football—I assume that is what they will be contributing to—should be able to operate transparently for the ultimate fans. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I will press the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I suspect members of the Committee will have noticed that we have spent quite a bit of time on schedule 2 in the course of the day. I am prepared to allow a debate on schedule 2 stand part, but nobody should feel obliged to extend it if they do not wish to do so.
Mr French
Unfortunately, based on the earlier deliberations, I do have something to say. I will try to be succinct and not rehash the debates we have had already, although I am happy to carry on taking interventions, as I have done all day.
I will set out why the Conservative party will be opposing schedule 2. The Government have missed the opportunity to tighten up the transparency of the regulator. Instead, they have allowed it to operate under a shadow, and they have not ensured that it will be transparent to fans, who are the ultimate stakeholders in this process. There is a lack of transparency in the decision-making processes. The regulator is granted broad discretionary powers with limited obligations to publish detailed reasoning for its decisions, as we discussed in the debate on amendment 121. Clubs and stakeholders may be left unclear about how rules are interpreted and applied, undermining confidence in regulatory fairness.
A number of times today, I have made the point that there is to be limited parliamentary scrutiny. Because of the amendments that have not been accepted, there are limits in the Bill on how Members of Parliament can have their say on what the regulator will look like. The regulator’s rules and standards are not subject to the affirmative procedure or meaningful parliamentary oversight.
I know that the Minister did not wish to make any comments, but I am interested in her view and the Government’s view on where reports on the regulator will end up. Will it be at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or, given the costs involved, at the Public Accounts Committee? It is important that Members understand whether they will be at least able to see the reports, even if the Government are not willing to make votes available. There is no requirement to consult publicly before issuing or revising key regulatory frameworks, which again limits external input. We have already brought up the issue of some people not being consulted and others being consulted.
On the opaque appointment and governance structures, we have highlighted the Opposition’s concerns about how the selection process has taken place and how it will take place in the future. We need strong safeguards to ensure that political interference does not impact the perceived and the realised work of the independent regulator. It is a fundamental risk to the future of football and the future of sport.
We believe that the duty to disclose key information is insufficient and that the regulator should be disclosing information on a regular basis, so that Members of Parliament and fans can have clear sight of what it is doing. That is a completely fair thing to ask for. It is not a political request; it is about transparency.
On costs, which we have discussed at length, the Opposition are concerned that we do not have transparency about the cost of the regulation. We are unclear on what the Government’s end goal is for the regulator. We have heard different arguments about what its size may be in the future and comparisons with regulators that I think would scare most of us. Hearing the cost of 900 members of staff should scare all football fans, if that is the direction of travel the Government are going down with the regulator, which is supposed to be light touch.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister, just to give her a bit more time. How will Parliament scrutinise the regulator’s spending, as set out on page 96 of the Bill? Can she tell us whether scrutiny will come from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee or the Public Accounts Committee? There is also mention of financial assistance being provided, based on the Secretary of State’s judgment. Can the Minister tell us what the Bill means by “appropriate” and whether taxpayers will be bailing out failing clubs or even the regulator?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. To take the final one first, taxpayers will not be bailing out failing clubs. This is not going to save every single club; to make it very clear, it was never intended to do that.
The provisions in the schedule ensure that the regulator has the necessary structures in place to function effectively and efficiently, with appropriate accountability as a public body, which is an issue that we have debated extensively. It ensures that an agreed and transparent process is adhered to when establishing a governance framework, including its board, committees and expert panel. We have made provision for the regulator to appoint a board observer from the Football Association, and as the national governing body for English football, they will get an insight into the operation of the regulator without having voting powers. Ultimately, the regulator will be accountable to Parliament. As we have spoken about throughout this debate, it will be operationally independent and free from undue political or industry influence. The provision in this schedule is central to creating that framework, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mr French
As I referenced in the question, I was deliberately trying to be specific because we have not really got into what part 4 of the schedule says. The Minister has just made a point about scrutinising the spending of the regulator. How will Parliament be able to scrutinise the regulator going forward? I am happy to have it in writing, if the Minister does not have the answer on her today. Will it be the role of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Public Accounts Committee or both? Will reports be laid on the Floor of the House, for example, for hon. Members to look at, or in the House of Commons library? That is the question that I am trying to ask the Minister today, and I would appreciate it if the hon. Lady gave us a bit of certainty on that.
Stephanie Peacock
I am absolutely happy to do that. It is obviously up to the Select Committees, and they can scrutinise if they want to—it will be up to individual Select Committees to decide. The IFR has to publish an annual report, and there is a review clause in there, too. We are happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail if that would be helpful.
Question put, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Max Wilkinson
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) to ensure that the care and support of those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football is a central part of its approach to football governance, and to establish and supervise the scheme provided for under section [Neurodegenerative care scheme].”
This amendment places an objective on the IFR to establish and supervise a scheme to provide care and support to those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football (see NC1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Neurodegenerative care scheme—
“(1) The IFR must establish and supervise a scheme aimed at providing a high standard of care and support to any person who has developed a neurodegenerative condition linked to their career in English football.
(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out—
(a) minimum requirements for the scheme,
(b) a timescale for the scheme’s establishment, and
(c) arrangements and a timescale for a periodic review of the scheme.
(3) The IFR must ensure that, as a condition of organising any competition specified pursuant to section 2(3), all specified competition organisers jointly operate, manage and fund the scheme in accordance with subsections (3) to (9).
(4) For the purpose of operating, managing and funding the scheme, all of the specified competition organisers must form a Joint Coordinating Committee (‘JCC’).
(5) Any current or former player who has at any time been registered as a professional footballer is eligible for the scheme.
(6) The scheme must provide care and financial support to any eligible person who suffers from a neurodegenerative condition which is deemed, pursuant to subsection (7)(a), to have been caused or contributed to by playing or training activities within English football.
(7) The JCC must, under the supervision of the IFR, appoint a panel of independent experts—
(a) to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, a neurodegenerative condition of an eligible person has been caused or contributed to by playing or training activities within English football, and
(b) to determine the appropriate provision of care and financial support required in the case of each eligible person.
(8) The IFR must ensure that the JCC acts upon the panel’s determinations.
(9) Where—
(a) specified competition owners, through the JCC, cannot agree about the operation, management or funding of the scheme, or
(b) at any time, the scheme does not meet either—
(i) the aim under subsection (1), or
(ii) any requirements set out in regulations under subsection (2),
the Secretary of State may, having taken advice from the IFR, make a direction about the operation, management or funding of the scheme.”
Max Wilkinson
My first Southampton game at the Dell was in 1993. Southampton lost, predictably, to Manchester United. My grandparents and father took me, and playing at the back that day was a man called Kevin Moore. He was one of the greatest headers of the ball that the Football League has ever seen. He would regularly be seen rising above the level of the crossbar and heading the ball downwards into the goal. He did so in the Zenith Data Systems Cup final—that is a reference for the spotters among us.
Kevin Moore is one of a number of footballers whose case has clearly established a link between heading the football and dementia. To balance things up with my friend from Portsmouth over the way, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, there is similar evidence in the case of Portsmouth legend Ray Hiron. The Portsmouth News has done a wonderful public service for us all by reporting on that. Kevin Moore’s brother Dave, told the Daily Mail that
“Kev had great spring and he absolutely loved heading footballs”.
Kevin talked about how he would go to the back of Blundell Park in Grimsby with his friends and head the ball, which was apparently on a string tethered behind the stand. He probably gained a lot of aptitude for heading a football by training like that, and it definitely made him more successful at playing the game as a fierce centre-back. However, it clearly had an impact on his health in later life, and he died in a nursing home aged just 55, which is a tragedy.
Kevin Moore and Ray Hiron are not the only ones; Chris Nicholl was another Southampton legend with a Grimsby Town link. There are also more famous names such as Jeff Astle, Nobby Stiles and, more recently, Dean Windass. They are legends at their clubs and across the country.
What has been clearly established is that heading a football does an awful lot of harm over time to the brain of a human being. We accept that this is possibly outside the Bill’s scope, and we also accept the numbers in the room. However, I rise to speak to amendment 1 because it is really important that, as part of these debates on football regulation—when we are talking about billions of pounds sloshing around the football system—we understand that we could do so much with a tiny proportion of that amount to ease the pain and suffering of these footballers’ families.
Let us face it: the families of Kevin, Ray, Dean, Jeff, Nobby and Chris are around and speaking today, and there will be more families in the future. While it is very unlikely that we will be able to solve the issue with this Bill, it is important that every Member of Parliament with an interest in football takes an interest in this issue. We simply must push to get justice for the families of the footballers we have heard about today, and for those whose family member might suffer the same difficulties in the future.
Mr French
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving amendment 1 so that we can have an initial conversation about this very emotive and important issue facing ex-players, and about the campaigns on these well-known health challenges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) cannot be part of these discussions because she is a Deputy Speaker, but I have agreed to meet and listen to the group in the Southampton area.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the new clause we have tabled on player welfare, as we believe there are strong links to the arguments made on amendment 1. I will park those for now, as I am conscious that I am close to a red card following my initial yellow card—I will not go too far on that, Sir Jeremy.
Clause 6 defines the core objectives of the independent football regulator as
“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs… to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football…to safeguard the heritage of English football”.
Amendment 1 seeks to add another subsection that would clarify this particular issue, and I understand the arguments that have been made.
We have already engaged with some of the leagues on this issue, and I draw the attention of the Committee, and of anyone listening at home who may be seeking assistance and support on this issue, to the funds that are available. I am not taking a particular position; I just want to highlight the existing scheme to support former footballers in this regard, as I think it is very important for those families around the country. My understanding is that the scheme was set up in 2023 by the Premier League and has distributed over £1.4 million to date. If this Bill Committee can achieve anything, we will be performing a good public service by advertising that the fund is available for ex-players to ensure those families can get the support they desire.
I will return to our player welfare new clause, but my understanding is that the drafting of the Bill, however well intentioned, does not look to include either the PFA or the LMA, both of which are key stakeholders in how we protect the rights of footballers and managers, who are under a lot of pressure. I think we all recognise that as politicians, because we have a lot of pressure placed on us in our duties in the workplace. With an increasing fixture list, as clubs look to add more fixtures to be more commercially viable, there is broader concern about player welfare. That is why I am keen to have that debate later in our considerations.
It is key that once this football regulator is established—and we know that it will be established—it considers the welfare of players. It is important that it does that with the bodies that represent both players and managers. I look forward to debating this further, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for moving the amendment for discussion.
Mr Dillon
I rise in support of new clause 1, which starts by saying:
“The IFR must establish and supervise a scheme aimed at providing…support to any person who has developed a neurodegenerative condition”.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to an existing scheme run by the Premier League, which initially put £1 million into the pot, and I accept that £1.4 million may have been spent. However, Nobby Stiles’s care was £125,000 a year, so that fund would help only a handful of players.
If we look at the money in the game, there is £10 billion in Premier League TV rights and the PFA has £50 million in cash assets. John Stiles, Nobby Stiles’s son, is on record as saying that the PFA is not working with them enough. The PFA union derives an income of £26 million a year, and shirt sales in this country generate £200 million a year. The money already exists within the game to fund this at an appropriate level—more than the Premier League agreed when it set up its fund.
This scheme also has the support of the Football Supporters Association. We know from evidence that footballers are four to five times more likely to suffer devastating conditions such as Alzheimer’s, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which was found to be the cause of death in Nobby Stiles’s post-mortem.
Mr French
To be clear, I was not taking a particular side. I was just explaining that funding is already available. I understand the hon. Member’s point about whether the funding is adequate.
On Nobby Stiles, the footballs that people play with are materially different from the ones that were played with in 1966. I ask in good faith: is the hon. Member leading this conversation to a potential ban on heading the ball in games, or is it just about the distribution of financial support for players?
Mr Dillon
I have a football at home signed by Sir Geoff Hurst, so I know exactly how heavy those old balls were, particularly when they got wet. We have seen coaching improvements so that children no longer head the football. That has come about because of the experiences of footballers who played in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. The Lib Dem spokesman referenced a game at Southampton in the early ’90s, when the football was not too dissimilar to the modern football. I can remember kicking it around at the park myself.
I am not in favour of banning headers in games. I would like to see a fully funded and legally compelled scheme set up to protect footballers who have suffered from playing the beautiful game and to support their families. Footballers of previous generations were not paid anywhere near what current footballers are paid. I would also like more research on preventive measures. Without the players, there is no game. We have to support our former players while protecting our future ones.
Joe Robertson
I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham for speaking to amendment 1 and new clause 1. He said that this may not be the right place or the right Bill to do so, and I probably agree with him. Nevertheless, this is a helpful opportunity to acknowledge the issue, and it is timely given that there is a debate on dementia care in the Chamber right now. Until I entered this place, I worked for a national dementia care charity that was looking at the possible link between heading footballs and dementia diagnoses.
This debate is also timely because, almost at this hour as I understand it, an APPG is being set up to look at dementia in sport. While this amendment may not be successful, it is nevertheless very timely. I commend the hon. Member for raising the issue.
Max Wilkinson
I have little more to add, other than to say that I think we should all go away and consider the extremely moving stories told by the footballers’ families. For those of us who saw those footballers during their very best days on the pitch, heading the ball with such vigour, reading those stories brings into sharp contrast what happens to those men after retirement. I therefore suggest that, while the amendment probably will not be agreed by the Committee today, it is important that we keep the discussion going—all of us who have an interest in football—and tell other parliamentarians too.
Stephanie Peacock
That is quite okay, Sir Jeremy. I have done a lot of talking today. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for moving the amendment and for giving us the opportunity to discuss it. I will explain why we are not able to accept it, but it is important to say first that the safety, wellbeing and welfare of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount.
I am very aware of this issue—I participated in a debate on it in the Chamber in September 2023, and I care greatly about the subject—and the hon. Gentleman, and indeed other Members across the House, spoke very movingly, giving a number of examples of the terrible experiences that footballers and their families have had.
I pay tribute on the record to the work of Football Families for Justice in supporting ex-players and their families. I commend it for its excellent work. Again, I echo the shadow Minister’s comments, as he made an important point about directing people to the fund and making it clear that the money is available.
The Government absolutely agree that this area requires further work, and we have committed to looking at these issues. I do not believe these measures are appropriate for this Bill, but I am fully aware of the importance of prioritising player welfare and ensuring that former players and their families have the support they need.
National governing bodies are responsible for the regulation of sports and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from harm, including head injuries. The Government expect national governing bodies to take the health and safety of players as a top priority.
The Secretary of State and I recently met a small group of affected families and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering with dementia. We heard, at first hand, about players’ experiences and the views of the group on how safety and welfare could be improved at all levels of the sport.
We are considering what is required, including how to support football to come together to address the problems raised. We are committed to supporting the families and football authorities to come together to address those issues, and our officials are in the process of arranging meetings to further explore the issue.
That has hopefully outlined how the Government and I care very much about these issues. I will briefly say why we do not feel we can accept these measures. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for tabling them, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for introducing them—he spoke very powerfully.
The regulator will be a specialist regulator with a precise focus on financial regulation, corporate governance, fan engagement and heritage, as we have heard throughout today’s debates. It will be aimed at addressing the main issues that came out of Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review.
We have heard at length, in this House and the other place, about the importance of a tight regulatory scope focused on the market failures that the industry cannot address itself. Even if we wanted to accept this change, we feel it would open the door to other amendments, and indeed to scope creep, which we do not want. But that is certainly not in any way a reflection of how seriously we take this issue—we take it very seriously. We look forward to meeting and working with campaigners, and indeed with everyone in football, to come to a solution on this issue.
Max Wilkinson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 6 sets out the regulator’s objectives, which are its primary aims and also the limits of its statutory remit. As clause 7 sets out, the regulator may act only if the action taken, so far as reasonably practicable, advances one or more of those objectives. I will speak briefly to the objectives, and then we can debate them further.
The first objective is club financial soundness—the ability of individual clubs to continue meeting their debts and liabilities even in the face of challenging circumstances, new risks and financial shocks. The second is systemic financial resilience, which relates to the wider financial resilience of English football. That involves issues that, individually, pose a small problem, but that, when aggregated or multiplied, pose a significant threat to groups, clubs and the pyramid as a whole.
The third objective is safeguarding club heritage and the heritage of English football. Clearly, financial collapse is a risk, but so is the potential for clubs to become unrecognisable to their fans and communities. As we know, the Bill grew out of the fan-led review, which highlighted myriad problems facing football in this country. There are a number of areas where action is needed, but not all the problems are for a statutory regulator to fix. We have been clear about the areas where the regulator would need to act; some relate to issues of sustainability, where we believe that the market has failed, or remains ill equipped, to act.
We believe that the three objectives are the right focus. When I talk about the Bill, I always say—and I said it when I opened today—that at a very basic level clubs have to do three things: be a fit and proper owner, have a business plan and consult their fans. Many are doing that, and doing it well, and in that case there will be no need for duplication. At a very basic level, that is what the Bill and the regulator aim to do.
Mr Betts
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to refer particularly to clause 6(c). When we finally get to the football issues in the Bill, I am sure a lot of them will be about the ownership of clubs and how owners behave. Just in passing, and without going into detail, the EFL has once again taken action against the owner of Sheffield Wednesday, Dejphon Chansiri, for failing to pay the players’ wages. I have said before that he does not have the resources to run the club, but we will come to that later. The other major issue we will come to will no doubt be the financial distribution within football.
However, let us remember why the Crouch review was established. It was actually kicked off and stimulated by the suggestion that there might be a European super league, with certain clubs going off and playing by themselves and detaching themselves from the rest of football. The then Prime Minister got rather upset about that and decided that action needed to be taken. So the review was essentially about protecting the integrity of the established football competitions—the leagues, the FA cup and the League cup.
Clause 6(c) refers to the need to
“safeguard the heritage of English football”,
or the heritage objective. Our objective is to protect the Premier League and the EFL—what has been the English league game and the pyramid for a long period—together with the FA cup and, more recently, for the last 50 years, the League cup. That is the heritage that needs protecting.
Mr French
I absolutely understand the hon. Member’s argument, and as I said earlier I have full respect for the work he has done as chair of the football all-party parliamentary group. However, a story in the press yesterday highlighted that there could be a breakaway league in rugby union. A lot of the arguments he is making about the creation of the Bill are about why the heritage part is so important. Given that commonality and that we are talking about a similar risk, does he believe that the Government should set up a regulator for rugby?
Mr Betts
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not tempt me down that road; if he did, I am sure you would stop me fairly quickly, Sir Jeremy. Let us stick to the matter in hand and look at the heritage of the game.
It is absolutely right that the Government acted. The Bill, through a clause retained from the previous Bill, acts to stop clubs engaging in competitions that are not accepted by the regulator. That is an important part of the Bill, and it comes from the European super league suggestion. However, there are other developments in the game that I think are undermining its heritage.
Mr French
The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech about the heritage elements of cup competitions, and a genuinely important point about fixture scheduling and how the international teams impact that. We are talking about Club World cups and tours of Asia—we have just seen Man United go straight to Asia. However, to try and spin a positive on the situation—I am not defending certain clubs—would the hon. Member agree with me that it is a good thing that this year the underdogs have won those cups? There is value again in those cup competitions, whether that is Crystal Palace winning a tournament—the hon. Member for Dartford is nodding at that—or Newcastle winning.
Mr Betts
That is a fair point, and it does not happen often enough these days. We can think back to how often the cup is won by someone different, and in past years it has been almost the same teams playing each other all the time. I think Crystal Palace were underdogs; I am not sure that Newcastle and Tottenham can really classify themselves as underdogs. But it was a point well made.
There is a point I want to emphasise and ask the Minister to have a look at. Does she accept that the regulator, with the powers that it has to safeguard the heritage of English football, can look at the impact on domestic competitions and on all the clubs within the pyramid—the clubs that play in the FA cup and the League cup—from other competitions, where the calendar fixtures of a small number of clubs detrimentally affects those other clubs?
Mr French
I will make my comments brief, because the hon. Member has made a number of excellent points that need to be addressed by the Minister rather than by me. The objectives under clause 6 are the promotion of the financial soundness of regulated clubs; protecting and promoting the financial resilience of English football; and the safeguarding of heritage assets, which is the main point the hon. Member for Sheffield South East just made. He spoke well about how those different issues interlink between clubs of different sizes, and the impact it has on lower league clubs that value the financial benefits of a replay.
I remember, as a Cheltenham fan, when we were in what was League One then, but now is the Championship, going to Bolton, where we lost in Bolton’s new stadium, and going to Coventry where we beat a Premier League team. It is incredible for fans to go to grounds that they would not normally get to experience. We must not lose that aspect of this. There is also the financial impact of the smaller club getting a replay, which is absolutely crucial. Welling United, one of my local clubs, has sadly just been relegated from the Conference South. I remember—I think they had got to round two in the cup a few years ago—Carlisle had come to visit. Welling United fans would never normally have had the opportunity to watch them play that club, or to visit their stadium and see all the characteristics of stadiums at that level and professional players perform there. That is an important part of the fabric and the love of the FA cup, which we all share.
I am talking about the EFL cup as well, but the FA cup in particular is incredibly powerful. I spoke about the soft power asset of English football around the world—people understand the value of the FA cup and what that means for competition across the whole pyramid. We know clubs in the lower leagues play a number of qualifying rounds to try to get to round three when the Premier League clubs normally come in. We must not lose sight of the impact of replays, and I would be genuinely interested to see what the Minister says in response to the point made by hon. Member for Sheffield South East on those.
We had a long debate earlier about what we thought were good ambitions to try to expand the scope of the objectives of the IFR in clause 6, and I appreciate that Committee members have had their say already on whether that is the wrong thing to do. I encourage the Minister, again in good faith, to consider the point about the growth of the game. We are concerned that, as drafted, the objectives of the regulator do not fulfil the potential it could have to try to look at the growth of the game. In other Departments I know the Chancellor has urged Ministers to write to their regulators to ask for growth examples, but at this point in the Bill we can mandate that to be a part of the regulator’s considerations. I urge the Minister to think about that point.
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure to once again, and possibly finally for today, serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy—but we will see. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for all his work in the all-party group and for his long-standing interest. I completely appreciate his points. I would say that the regulator will have a number of ways to safeguard heritage, including to be able to prohibit competitions, and require consultation on matchday operations. Clause 8 encourages the regulator to engage with both players and fans on relevant matters. The regulator has a tightly defined scope and purpose focused on protecting and promoting the long-term financial sustainability of the game for the benefit of fans and local communities. It will not intervene on sporting competition matters, such as the footballing calendar.
To address the point by my hon. Friend for Sheffield South East about the FA cup and replays, I remember that just as the previous Bill was published, it was in the news and a real debate. I completely appreciate that one could argue that it is very much part of the heritage of the game, but it is also a competition matter, and therefore it is out of scope of the Bill. I will take away the comments by my hon. Friend, and I appreciate Members from across the House for putting theirs on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)
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
Groceries Code Adjudicator
(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
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
It is a delight to be here and to speak on this subject, which is of great importance to my constituents, both consumers and producers. A free economy works best when those who buy and those who sell can do so in a multiplicity of places. Nowhere is that more important than in the field of food, for food is the most basic of all commodities; we all, after all, need to eat. That variety prevailed for most of time. Indeed, if one thinks of the earliest civilisations, the way we mark them is by their trading capacity, such as those in the Levant who traded food produced there in markets between 7,000 and 10,000 years ago.
Yet in my lifetime—in all our lifetimes—the provision of food in this country has changed. It was Napoleon who described Britain as a “nation of shopkeepers”. If only that were still true. In my boyhood, my mother could shop at a variety of places to obtain the food products and other household items that she needed. What has happened during my lifetime is that a monopoly supply, or near-monopoly supply, of food provision has emerged, in the form of the great behemoths, the huge supermarkets, the corporate interests that now dominate the provision of food.
That has broken the food chain. Let us be in no doubt about where we are as a nation in respect of the provision and consumption of foodstuffs. The food chain is broken, and Governments of all colours have been reluctant to face that reality. Indeed, there has been a defence of the fact that most people now are obliged—I emphasise that: obliged—to buy their food from a handful of places, with little or no choice as to whether they do so, because, as I said, everyone has to buy and consume food. The defence offered is that it has driven prices down; but I will contest, in this short debate, that that is not really so.
Bulk buying of food, which is now the norm—most people buy their food on a weekly basis; they fill their trolley with any number of goods—does three things. First, it disguises the relationship between cost and value. In the days when people bought as they needed, they had a pretty good idea of what things cost and whether they were providing value for money. When people fill a basket, those details are lost in bulk purchase. That allows supermarkets to produce what they call loss leaders, which are cheaper products that draw people in.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Groceries Code Adjudicator is of course vital, but my party and I believe that its remit is too narrow. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is time for a new groceries code regulatory authority, with powers to introduce price floors and ceilings, ensuring fair prices for suppliers and consumers?
Sir John Hayes
I am delighted to accept the hon. Lady’s advice on that. She is not, in parliamentary technical terms, my hon. Friend, but she is a friend none the less, and she is right in her assertion, which I shall move to after I entertain the House a little further with my preparation for making exactly that argument. The essence of my call today is that this Government need to take action to deal with the near-monopolistic supply of foodstuffs that our constituents are obliged—I use the word again—to endure. The best way of doing that is through a more regulated market, and she is right to say so; but let me set the scene a little more before I come to the point at which I will call for exactly what she has suggested.
As well as the loss leaders that I mentioned, which have the seductive effect on consumers of encouraging them to buy many other things, secondly, that kind of provision of food has led to a great deal of waste. From studies that have been done, we know that these days much of what people buy—as much as 20%, or perhaps a little more—is never consumed. That would have been unthinkable a couple of generations ago. People would not have believed it was possible to stock the pantry or fridge with all kinds of things that ended up on the scrapheap.
Sir John Hayes
I give way to the Select Committee Chairman, to whom I pay tribute on this subject for bravely making the case that I will make today, with less expertise than his.
Mr Carmichael
The right hon. Gentleman flatters to deceive, I fear. He is right about the way grocery supermarkets go about their business, but much of the problem is the way they choose to go about it. I recently heard from a livestock farmer who bought in potatoes to feed stock. He expected to find them green, bruised or damaged, but when they arrived they were perfect; they just were not conformed to the particular specification that the supermarket demanded. That demand does not come from consumers, but directly from supermarkets. If he looks around Europe and elsewhere, the right hon. Gentleman will find that supermarkets there behave very differently.
Sir John Hayes
The right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why, when he and I were in Government together, we introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator. He will remember that I worked closely with his colleague Vince Cable, then Secretary of State, and was involved in that decision. He is also right to focus on the producers. I have spoken so far about consumers, but I want to go on to talk, thirdly, about the distortion in respect of producers.
I began my speech by speaking about how both producers and consumers need a multiplicity of places to buy and sell. In the model that I set out, the one that prevailed for aeons, people who made and grew food, primary and secondary producers, were able to sell to a variety of places. In our lifetimes—I might be overestimating the age of some hon. Members present, but certainly in many of our lifetimes—markets existed where farmers would take their produce to auction. Indeed, there was a livestock market in Spalding in the streets until the 1930s and a covered market until the 1990s, where livestock was brought to be traded and auctioned very openly.
Producers have also been affected by this distortion. As the food chain breaks, it is not only consumers who struggle, able to go to only one or two places to get not just what they want, but what they need, because, as I said, foodstuffs are fundamental.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate on an incredibly important topic. Those of us here will express that shortly. Does he welcome, as we all should, the commitment shown by these examples? Tesco, Asda and Lidl in my constituency have an arrangement on Fridays and Saturdays to give those goods that are coming to the end of their shelf life but are still consumable to local community groups, which in turn filter them out to those who need help, the families below the poverty level. We are sometimes hard on the superstores for what they do, but we should recognise that there are occasions when they play their part.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is right. His endless good will, known in this House for some time, encourages him to emphasise that supermarkets do deal with their waste products, but inevitably, as well as the waste products that over-consumption produces, supermarkets throw away many of the things on their shelves because of sell-by dates. It is hard to get a handle on, because quite a lot of it is disguised, but supermarkets themselves are actually contributing immense amounts of food waste.
It is true that some communities have found settlements for that, in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. Some supermarkets have at least paid lip service—I say at least, because it is occasionally more than that—to redistributing some of the waste food from their shelves into communities, but we should not be gulled by that. Burke said that tyrants seldom need a pretext; this is a kind of economic tyranny. To have a circumstance in which a near cartel of supermarkets can determine the price of products and then foist them on to a consumer base that has little other option is, in commercial terms, about as tyrannical as can be imagined.
You can tell from all that, Dr Allin-Khan, that I am not a great admirer of the large retailers, and not just for the reasons I have given. I doubt, for example, that supermarkets are particularly careful—by that, I mean they are careless—about the circumstances of their customers and employees. I am not confident that a supermarket chain has quite the sensitivity to a locality, to a community or to a group of people who become their customers and employees that a small family business has. Happily, I still have some of those small family businesses selling food in my constituency, and thank goodness for that, but their number has shrunk. The nation of shopkeepers is now a nation of very large shops, and those are corporate entities rather than the kind of shops that I imagine Napoleon had in mind. This huge problem has affected our high streets, where supermarkets have become more ubiquitous and the only grocers one can spot is a Tesco or a Sainsbury’s—or perhaps an Aldi or a Lidl—rather than the variety once seen up and down our constituencies.
It has also affected producers, as I will come on to in the second part of my speech, because my constituency is disproportionately responsible for the production of UK food. Lincolnshire grows 30% of the UK’s vegetables, 20% of the sugar beet, 18% of the poultry, 20% of the potatoes, and it processes 70% of the kingdom’s fish. In total, my county produces 12% of all the food that fills the shops and shelves, pantries and fridges of our country. Given that, one can understand the particular concerns that farmers and growers in my constituency have about the way those big retailers treat them.
The picture I painted, of an open economy where people can sell in a variety of places, has long gone. Most of my primary producers have very few options, and therefore often have a gun put to their head by their customers, the supermarkets. That might affect their terms of trade and the prices they are offered, which is why the relationship between farm-gate prices and retail prices is, again, distorted in this broken food chain. It often involves sharper practice still, where supermarkets cancel orders quickly; even when a farmer is tooled up ready to provide goods, they will find that in the next season they no longer have a contract to do so.
In the past, supermarkets have lumped all kinds of other costs on to the supplier, such as marketing and transport costs. That is unacceptable, and it is ultimately unsustainable, as those businesses make too little profit to reinvest and therefore become less competitive. We might say, “Well, surely the supermarkets need to obtain their goods to sell them,” but we know where they then go; they import goods from countries that produce those goods at standards we cannot imagine in this country, thereby putting even more pressure on domestic producers. Do we really want that, or do we want a country that cares about food security and becomes more economically resilient because more of what we consume is made here?
A Labour Prime Minister once spoke of British jobs for British workers. He was right. We indeed want British jobs for British workers and we want British goods for British consumers, too. We need to recognise that the provision of food as locally as possible provides economic security, cements and secures communities, and shortens supply lines and therefore, apart from anything else, has immense environmental benefits by cutting food miles. That is the kind of economy that we can have, because there is nothing inevitable or pre-ordained about fewer and fewer food suppliers dominating the food chain.
I have spoken about the impact on consumers of reduced choice and the impact on producers of not being able to trade their goods fairly and freely. Now, I shall talk about the changes we could make. In addition to the decline in income that all types of farm have suffered in the last several years—figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggest a sharp decline between 2023 and 2024—there is an issue with the GCA itself.
I am proud to have played a part in setting up the Groceries Code Adjudicator in 2013, but since then the GCA has conducted only two major investigations—into Tesco in 2015 and the Co-op in 2018. The GCA’s power to fine retailers came into force in 2015 and applies only to breaches that occurred after that date, so it did not apply to the first of those investigations. Then, in 2018, the adjudicator said that it did not consider
“the nature and seriousness of the breaches by Co-op to merit a financial penalty.”
So although the GCA has had the power to investigate and punish retailers who breach the groceries code, for that is what the GCA oversees, it has not done so. Why is that? Where is this reluctance rooted? What has been the reason for it?
The reason is partly that those detrimentally affected by the broken food chain are reluctant to report their problems to the adjudicator. They fear they will be identified and later punished—after all, these economic tyrants have little mercy. Those affected can go nowhere else to sell their produce, so what would they do then? They literally have nowhere to go. It is also partly that the adjudicator’s powers are insufficient, and that is the reason for and purpose of this debate.
I am pleased by the reports that the adjudicator is now taking a look at Amazon. As a matter of record, I have never bought anything on Amazon and never will; let me establish that before we go any further. I like to buy my goods in small shops, face to face, and meet real people. I do not want to live in the virtual world—why would we? I want to live in the real world. That investigation is good news, but I fear that, rather like the two previous investigations, it may come to nothing, merely raising false hopes of action that will not in the end be taken.
By the way, I hold in high regard the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), with whom I worked in government. Not all Liberals are as bad as they are painted—at least, not as bad as they are painted by me, that is for sure. I know, too, that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), is a good and responsible Minister, who will be listening to this debate with care. I implore him and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—because the previous Government’s record on this is not great either—to step up to the mark, because the present position is unsustainable and cannot continue, for we cannot perpetuate a situation where a handful of corporate giants wield disproportionate power over the provision of food, and by so doing, dictate the food security of this country. If they continue to import food at the rate they are without care, how can we be food secure?
Let me deal with the particular measures we would like to see. We need to extend the role of the adjudicator to include more retailers and food service providers, including food manufacturing businesses, because at the moment the scope is narrow. We need to find a better way of guaranteeing the anonymity of those who bring their complaints to the adjudicator. Efforts have been made in that respect, and even at the time we set up the system we were mindful of that issue and tried to create some degree of protection for people going to the adjudicator with complaints, but I am not sure that has bedded in as well as it might have done. I know from speaking to farmers and growers in my constituency, whom I meet weekly, that that remains a fear. That is a barrier to the effective application of the adjudicator’s powers.
We also need to expand the adjudicator’s remit to include the ornamental sector, which is important in my constituency. Lincolnshire, particularly South Holland and The Deepings, has a thriving ornamental sector, employing a large number of people in many smaller, often family-run, businesses. They are currently outside the adjudicator’s scope and should be included.
We need the adjudicator to have a role in initiating inquiries and studies, rather than simply waiting for complaints. It would be perfectly reasonable for the adjudicator, on the basis of his or her expertise to initiate inquiries into particular aspects of food provision and retailer behaviour. We want a more proactive role. When the role of Groceries Code Adjudicator was established, it was dubbed the “food ombudsman”. That was never the official title, but perhaps it ought to be. Rather than simply having a narrow remit to enforce the groceries supply code of practice, perhaps the adjudicator could have a slightly broader remit to look at the whole issue of the provision of food and its relationship with food security.
When people such as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I began speaking about food security donkey’s years ago, it was regarded as a rather arcane subject and we were seen as mildly eccentric for worrying about such things. Now, food security is a salient issue and at the top of many nations’ political agenda. More than that, it has become critical to national wellbeing. What a good time this is to think more laterally about the role of the food ombudsman and how it might reinforce the Government’s commitment to food security. It would be a way of delivering the objectives that the Government have set out. They said that they are keen to reinforce food security, so why not use the GCA as the means of doing so?
Doing that would allow the adjudicator to develop a strategy and to roll out a set of co-ordinated actions against unfair practices. I would include prices in that because, while all of the techniques I have briefly outlined are used to distort the relationship between buyers and sellers, prices are an issue. How can we ensure that farm-gate and retail prices are brought into closer union?
Just before Christmas last year, we had the obscene spectacle of one or two retailers bagging a series of vegetables in a plastic bag and saying, “These can be bought for 12p.” I had farmers and growers in my constituency telling me, “We have toiled hard to produce high-quality produce, only to see it being sold at a price far below the cost of production. Is it any wonder that the consumer does not appreciate the hard work that goes into making food and the quality of food grown in this country?” There has to be some means of reuniting value and cost by looking closely at the price farmers are paid and the price consumers subsequently pay. That is not to encourage food inflation, but simply to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of a bigger cake, rather than see their share be eaten up in the profits of these corporate behemoths.
By and large, I favour a capitalist economy, although I am not an unbridled admirer of capitalism. How could I be? I am a Conservative, after all. But on balance, I think it is perhaps the best of a series of faulty options. As I said at the outset, capitalism works when people can buy and sell in a multiplicity of places—circumstances that do not prevail in the UK food sector. By empowering the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which henceforth will be known as the food ombudsman, I think, we may be able to rebalance the provision of food and join again the food chain, which is so badly broken.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing today’s debate and for his impassioned and articulate speech, which I very much associate myself with. I am quite staggered at how regularly our minds meet on the crisis of capitalism, although we do have different answers to it from time to time. I place on record my role as the chair of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group, and thank them for their extensive work on this issue over the years.
As we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, the groceries supply code of practice and the adjudicator, despite being well intentioned, miss the mark by quite a large margin in terms of protecting those whom they were designed to protect. The code applies only to designated grocery retailers whose annual turnover is more than £1 billion. It does not apply to indirect suppliers, cover pricing or consider the protection of workers throughout the grocery supply chain; and even with its limited powers, it has not issued a single fine.
Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, agrees with the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of those deficiencies, the UK’s food system is on a precarious footing. It says that most suppliers producing and processing the food that ends up on our supermarket shelves are vulnerable to unfair purchasing practices, which can send competent businesses into bankruptcy, undermine competition and lead to a worse deal for consumers. As the bakers union says, there is a limit to suppliers’ ability to keep prices down through productivity increases from automation or sourcing cheaper inputs—a key factor in the horsemeat scandal. As a result, there is relentless downward pressure on labour costs, leading to attacks on the pay and conditions of workers employed in and across supply chains.
In the four weeks to 18 May, grocery price inflation has jumped to 4.1%—its highest level since February last year. Of course, the reasons for that are complex, ranging from wholesale costs, to energy and ecological issues, all the way through to problems with the supply chain, but that does not mean that the Groceries Code Adjudicator can continue to ignore the important issue of excessive pricing. Sometimes there is a reasonable cause, beyond the control of the supermarket or supplier, but sadly, sometimes it is a result of aggressive cost cutting, asset stripping, and unsustainable leveraging strategies.
There are long-running accusations that some of the big retailers and manufacturers have been using reduced competition and market leverage to set prices and, in turn, make excessive profits. For example, in 2023 wholesale food prices started to fall, with the World Bank saying they were expected to drop by 8% by the end of the year; but those falls were not reflected on supermarket shelves for some considerable time, which led to accusations of “greedflation”. Even the Tesco chairman suggested that suppliers might be at fault, telling the BBC at the time that it was “entirely possible” they were using high inflation as an excuse to raise prices unnecessarily. Of course, the major retailers and suppliers refute that, and the Competition and Markets Authority said there was nothing to find—nothing to hang their hats on—but large profits and record executive pay and shareholder payouts were juxtaposed against a backdrop of high food inflation and food insecurity.
Most people were perplexed, and rightly so. The Competition and Markets Authority might not have found widespread market abuse per se, but there remained a fundamental issue of fairness. Is it right to report bumper executive pay and shareholder dividends at times when consumers and the wider supply chain are struggling?
Last November, interestingly, the Competition and Markets Authority’s second report on pricing suggested that manufacturers had been raising the cost of first infant formula milk higher than was necessary to cover inflationary costs. It was not the Groceries Code Adjudicator that instigated action. Some supermarkets themselves responded by slashing the cost of formula, but the fact is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should have had the powers to intervene earlier and to regularly monitor price fluctuations to identify emerging issues. It should not have taken a one-off CMA investigation to uncover that unscrupulous price hike.
If the Groceries Code Adjudicator cannot investigate and robustly intervene to protect suppliers, producers or consumers when it is clear that the pricing structure of a supermarket or a major supplier pricing structure is putting the short-term interests of shareholders above the wider public interest, and if it cannot respond to emerging issues, outline measures to help families facing hunger and protect the sustainability of the UK grocery supply chain, what is the point of the Groceries Code Adjudicator?
There are a few recommendations that I have made to the Minister on which I would like an update. I hope he will take these points on board. First, a new groceries regulator authority with beefed-up powers should be established with a wider responsibility to protect the sustainability of UK suppliers and the interests of consumers. It must apply to the whole sector, not just to those with a turnover of more than £1 billion. The new regulator should be given the power to introduce price floors and ceilings to protect suppliers and consumers from aggressive pricing tactics and exploitative price gouging. There must be an investigation across DEFRA, the Department for Business and Trade and the Competition and Markets Authority into the impact of private equity acquisitions of UK groceries retailers and manufacturers on the security and sustainability of the UK food supply chain. We must restore and extend sectoral collective bargaining for workers employed in the UK food supply chain. Finally, we must introduce a statutory right to food in UK legislation and address the root causes of insecurity.
As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings rightly set out, consumers should not be forced to buy their goods from major retailers if they are the only retailers in town. We have to provide an economic framework that supports suppliers and producers and ensures that people enjoy a diversity of shopping experiences and diversity in pricing so that we have a sustainable UK food sector.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. I will now impose an informal four-minute limit. If we run short of time, I will have to impose it formally or reduce it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing time for this debate from the Backbench Business Committee. I find myself in the curious position of being in violent agreement not only with him, but with the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey). That is a moment worth reflecting on.
In advance of this debate, we have received some very useful briefings from the National Farmers Union and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union about food insecurity and workers’ rights; the hon. Lady has just touched on those issues. Curiously, the one organisation from which we have not heard a peep is the Groceries Code Adjudicator itself. That is quite significant, because this is not the first time that the House has debated the work of the adjudicator: my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) secured a debate on it in February, I myself presented a ten-minute rule Bill on it in March, and now we have this debate today. If the adjudicator had a good story to tell, we would expect to have heard something from it by now, given the criticism that has been levelled at it. But not a peep: it has maintained an omertà that would put the Mafia to shame.
I do feel slightly conflicted. The adjudicator has a tiny office and, I think, a staff of seven or eight. Given its inability to process complaints at the moment, I do not know that I want it to spend that much time talking to MPs and policymakers. But if it has a story to tell, it needs to come out and tell it. Otherwise, we will be entitled to assume that there is not much that it can say.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke about the need for reform and the way in which that reform might take shape. I disagree with very little of what he said. What we need, as the hon. Member for Salford says, is a single regulator from the farm gate to the supermarket shelves. At the moment, too many unfairnesses are hardwired into the system, there are too many players in the market and it is just too easy for outcomes to fall between the gaps. Those who suffer are always the consumers, who are left with higher food prices, or the primary producers. At the moment, it is principally the primary producers who are losing out. The supermarkets are entering into a price war as they try to push down food price inflation. As a primary food producer myself, I declare a registered interest.
There are wider issues around the behaviour of supermarkets. There has been widespread and justifiable outrage in the past few days about Asda selling Uruguayan beef. The way it is often done is instructive. The labelling on the top looks lovely. It says that the beef is 30-day matured rib-eye steak of “heritage breed origin”, whatever that means. A shopper has to turn it over and see the small print on the back or underside of the tray to find out that it is beef produced in Uruguay from cattle slaughtered in Uruguay. Even if we park for a moment the concern about animal welfare standards, the carbon consequences of shipping beef around the world in this way are utter madness, even though ironically it would help us to meet the targets set for us by the Climate Change Committee.
That example illustrates that amid growing competition among supermarkets on price, if we continue to reduce our levels of livestock in this country the resulting gap will be filled by cheaper imports. That surely renders any definition of food security utterly meaningless. Once we lose our own producers, we will not get them back.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), as we all do, for leading the debate and setting the scene incredibly well.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator is imperative in setting out standards for fair trading between large stores and their suppliers. The right hon. Gentleman referred to doing his shopping locally. I am the same, but I know that for the generation after me—my son, my daughter-in-law and all their family—Amazon is probably their first contact. Life is changing, and it seems cheaper to do it that way.
People are becoming more interested in the food that they are eating and where it is sourced. I have been a member of the all-party parliamentary group for eggs, pigs and poultry for most of my time in Parliament. I am of a generation for whom there is no better way to start a day than with two boiled eggs. I remember the ’60s—that is how old I am—when the advertisements on TV said, “Go to work on an egg.” Well, I could go to work on two eggs and finish the day with two eggs as well. I am probably keeping the egg industry going just with my own purchases.
I understand the importance of the issue for the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency. The GCA’s jurisdiction extends across the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: it regulates designated retailers with an annual groceries turnover exceeding £1 billion. In Northern Ireland, the GCA’s role is particularly significant. The Ulster Farmers Union— I declare an interest as a member—has highlighted the GCA’s importance in maintaining fair trade practices amid ever more challenging economic conditions. It believes that
“the GCA performs an essential role in a modern, sustainable and competitive grocery market in the UK.”
There is no doubt that reducing or weakening the powers of the GCA will put suppliers and consumers at risk. In my constituency of Strangford, large chains such as Tesco, Asda and SPAR have contracts with numerous suppliers, and their contributions keep the sector going. I have a great relationship with many local suppliers in my constituency, including the likes of Mash Direct and Willowbrook Foods, which provide fresh potato and vegetable dishes. One example is a local farmer, Roy Lyttle—a small farmer, but a decent enough producer—who has just developed a new salad product, Lyttle Leaves. I believe it will take off.
Local farmers and butchers, such as Carnduff butchers and Colin McKee’s, are incredibly popular throughout my constituency. The issue is that grocery inflation has risen to 4.1%, the highest in 15 months, and there is always a possibility that it will continue to rise. That highlights the financial pressure on suppliers and manufacturers to provide products at a competitive rate and ensure that they can make a profit with their wonderful produce.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend will know that farmers in Northern Ireland feed more than 10 million people across the United Kingdom every year. Does he agree that our farmers are treated as shock absorbers? They carry all the risk and receive the least reward. They are still being relentlessly squeezed by powerful retailers and processors. Does he therefore agree that the GCA’s role needs to go further in protecting our farmers from unjust and unbalanced practices?
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend’s words are on record, the Minister is here, and hopefully he will respond in a positive way.
Workers have reported feeling lonely, stressed and isolated. They find it hard to connect with others; they often work alone or as part of a small workforce. They are the ones who produce the food on our farms, and they must be properly rewarded for their actions to ensure that supermarkets always have produce to sell. Unfortunately, with inflation rates, people are working harder and under more pressure, with little recognition.
The scope of the problem is highlighted by a 2025 BFAWU survey that shows that nearly 60% of food workers are not earning enough to meet all their basic needs such as rent, heating, electricity and food. Some 86% say that they have had to reduce their heating to save money. It is important in this debate to give the perspective of workers, because they are the ones doing all the real graft.
I will conclude with this point: we must look at the sustainability of the UK food supply chain and ensure that suppliers have access to large food suppliers at a decent price that reflects their work. There are calls for DEFRA here and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home to work together, as the GCA applies to the whole United Kingdom. We must do more to protect the collective UK food supply. I hope that the Groceries Code Adjudicator will commit to doing so in Northern Ireland. I thank the adjudicator for doing his bit to protect the farmers and suppliers of Strangford.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this important debate. He and I discussed the matter in this very room quite recently, and I am proud to be here again to represent the people of Lichfield, Burntwood and, crucially, the farming villages of my constituency.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator regulates supermarkets and other businesses to ensure fairness in our food supply, but it does not go far enough down the supply chain—I almost said “food chain,” but I am avoiding the pun. It regulates only a small number of businesses, about a dozen. While it tries to keep prices as low as reasonably possible and aims to ensure that food profits get shared fairly across the supply chain, it simply is not reaching the most important layer of the supply chain—the producers and farmers.
In almost all cases, farming is a pretty weird yet fundamental part of the UK economy, as it is the part we need to keep the country fed. Despite its importance, the sector does not always follow the economic patterns we would expect. The general rule of thumb in any free market economy is that those taking greater risks should see a greater return. They should see the value when things work well, as it is on their shoulders when things do not work well in difficult times. However, that is not always how farming works in the UK.
Farmers across the country are very much at risk of flooding, disease and drought. A huge number of potatoes are grown in my Lichfield constituency every year, and I know many farmers who were happy to see the heavens open a couple of weeks ago. Farming is a risky business. Factors well beyond a farmer’s control can have a profound impact on the yield from a particular field, on the quality of what is grown, or on a hundred other things that most people will never even think about. Usually that would mean bumper profits when things go well, to reflect the need for rain, sunshine or frost at the right time, but that is not how it is currently working in the UK. Most farms are simply not making enough money.
I make it clear that I am not saying that we have had it too good for too long, and I am not arguing for higher food prices—we have just had a cost of living crisis, and I hope it is a very long time until we see another—but there is enough profit in our groceries system to make sure that everyone gets fair prices, a fair day’s pay and a fair day’s return.
I am sure everyone in this room believes, as I do, in a free market economy that delivers fairness for everyone, but the free market is failing farming, food producers and our groceries system. It is therefore right that legislators should step in, and it is important for the GCA to take a more active role. It is important to farmers, and especially to dairy farmers on my patch—we need to look much more closely at dairy farming.
The dairy farmers I speak to openly say that the very best contract they can reasonably expect for their milk is a “cost of production” contract, which all but guarantees that there can never be any profit in their farming business. Some salaries will be included in the costs, but no line for profit. The result is a perverse situation in which the processors to which the milk is sold—the customers for much of my farmers’ produce—demand to see the farmers’ financials and will then tell them what it costs to produce milk. That is the antithesis of how a free market should work. There can be no situation more perverse than that.
This is really important to farmers in my constituency, who deserve a market that works in their interest; it is important to retailers, large and small, that want to do the right thing by their customers; it is important to my constituents who work in farming communities; and it is important to people living in more urban areas of my constituency, as they are also very interested in making sure that people get a fair shot in a fair economy. We need the GCA to stand up and play its role in making sure that we have a fair system for everyone.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
A recurring theme of my conversations with farmers across North Somerset is that they have little interest in Government handouts. They want to stand on their own feet without relying on state subsidies to stay afloat. However, it seems that this aspiration can be realised only if we address that pressing issue of supermarket pricing and the power imbalance between suppliers and retailers in contract negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must revisit the groceries supply code of practice, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator that enforces it, to ensure that farmers producing high-quality British produce are paid the fair price they deserve?
Dave Robertson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. We do not need the Government to try to run everything. We need a free market, but one that is regulated properly to deliver for producers and consumers—to deliver for everybody.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I am setting an official time limit of three minutes each.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate—he is right to describe the supermarkets as an “economic tyranny.” We Liberal Democrats are also concerned about concentrations of power, and there is currently no greater concentration of power in our food chain than that held by the supermarkets.
Welsh farmers face pressures on all fronts. Nineteen per cent of British sheep are in Powys. However, despite the current bout of food inflation, farm incomes are still falling. One of the biggest challenges is the simple fight for fair treatment within the agricultural supply chain. Farmers deserve to be treated fairly, which is why the Liberal Democrats championed, during the coalition years, the creation of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to tackle unacceptable practices by supermarkets that, time and again, used their size and power to squeeze local producers.
The GCA has helped to improve the situation since its launch in 2014, but farmers are still coming forward with stories of unfair treatment such as last-minute order changes, delayed payments and punitive delisting. These are David versus Goliath situations in which small producers are left shouldering huge losses, while the big retailers rack up billions in profits. Just last year, Tesco posted £2.3 billion in profit, while Asda brought in more than £1 billion, but many farmers, particularly in Wales, are barely breaking even. Studies back this up: nearly half of UK farms fear they could go out of business, and three quarters say that supermarket behaviour is a major concern.
The GCA needs more teeth. It must be able to launch its own investigations, rather than waiting for complaints. Too many farmers are scared to come forward, as they are worried about being blacklisted or dropped. The GCA’s scope also needs to be widened. Many food suppliers, such as processors and packagers, are not covered, despite playing significant roles in the supply chain. Retailers such as Amazon were added only recently, and Amazon scores extremely low on compliance. With an increasing market share of smaller, online and non-traditional grocery retailers, many of which do not come close to hitting the £1 billion a year turnover threshold to be covered by the GCA, major players are falling through the cracks.
Better funding, more staff, greater transparency and anonymous reporting tools would all make the GCA more effective. It has achieved real progress in the last decade, but if we want to protect our farmers, our food supply and the rural communities they support, the GCA must be given the power, the scope and the resources to help secure a fairer agricultural supply chain.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate.
The number of English farms has fallen by nearly a quarter in 20 years, with dairy farms, which are highly prominent in Somerset, hit particularly badly. We all know that British farmers have faced a long list of challenges, such as the impact of Brexit, sky-high energy prices, terrible Tory trade deals, botched transitions from the basic payment scheme to the environmental land management scheme, the shattering blow of the family farm tax and the no-notice cancellation of sustainable farming incentive grants. Now the Government seem set to make significant cuts to the nature-friendly farming budget in their upcoming spending review.
On top of all that, farmers earn tiny profits and are regularly exposed to industrial-scale exploitation by supermarkets that are focused on delivering cheap food and meeting their just-in-time supply model. Many households are living in food insecurity as a result of our unbalanced food system, and food poverty is on the rise. Food security is vital for national security, but farmers are increasingly being forced out of business as they cannot afford to make a living growing food for our tables.
I cannot stress enough how important our farmers are to national security. As Professor Tim Lang’s recent report on the UK civil food resilience gap highlights, we must act now to ensure the UK’s food resilience and preparedness. We are living in a volatile and unpredictable world, and we must be ready for international shocks to food supply chains, so I urge the Minister to talk to his DEFRA colleagues, to look carefully at the damage being caused to the UK agricultural sector, and to support a system that empowers and rewards British farmers to produce high-quality food while protecting nature.
Of course, we must also address the power imbalance that farmers face on their route to market. The UK groceries sector is dominated by a handful of supermarkets, with around 95% of food sales controlled by just 10 retailers. That concentration means that supermarkets wield significant power over farmers, leaving them with very little negotiating leverage. Unethical practices from large supermarkets can lead to contracts being altered at the last minute, and supermarkets often use loss leader strategies, selling some products at a loss to attract more customers. That practice squeezes suppliers, which are often forced to accept lower prices, and if they do not meet their quotas, they will be punished.
In large part, that reflects the limited scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which covers too few retailers. Many farmers and suppliers fear retaliation if they report unfair practices, while two thirds of farmers report feeling fearful of being delisted if they speak out of turn about supermarket behaviour. That leaves them underpaid and vulnerable. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a change in the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It needs teeth, and it needs to be strengthened.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Farmers in North Norfolk are facing a litany of struggles. They feel let down by the previous Government for selling them down the river with dodgy trade deals and years of cuts to the farming budget. They feel let down by the current Government’s continued pursuit of the damaging family farm tax.
Farmers’ major struggle, however, is the continued decline in the profitability of farming. That is deeply worrying not just for farmers, but for the supply chains, businesses and communities that they support. Of course, it is not just about supermarkets: larger food manufacturing suppliers, most of which have indulged in record profits throughout the cost of living crisis, have allowed shrinkflation to surge and are engaged in their own race to the bottom on many prices for British-grown ingredients.
In North Norfolk, we grow huge amounts—almost 2,000 hectares—of sugar beet. In 2023, when the National Farmers Union and British Sugar were at loggerheads on the agreement for purchasing beet, British Sugar contacted the individual farmers who would be affected by the agreement to share the terms to which it wanted them to agree. That bypassed the NFU’s negotiating team, who exist to ensure that farmers are protected and get a good deal from the only buyer of sugar beet. The NFU was rightly outraged, as were many of the farmers I have spoken to. That is exactly the kind of bad behaviour by monopolistic multinationals that we need a strong regulator with teeth to protect farmers from.
I, too, want to see the adjudicator go further and act tougher. In future, I also hope that it will get involved in actively pursuing policy goals that I am sure we would all support, such as directing the market to incentivise healthier food alternatives, encouraging the consumption of whole foods, and tackling the swelling amount of ultra-processed food on our supermarket shelves, which is a cause of growing public concern. Market shaping, along with selective legal measures such as the sugar tax, is surely preferable to the nanny state telling us what we can and cannot eat.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator is an important protector to get the best deals for farmers and consumers. I am pleased that it continues in its role, but I hope it can step up in the years to come by using its powers to encourage measures so that our shelves are more fairly stocked with products that are better for our health, our farmers and our planet.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on the manner in which he introduced the issues and perambulated around the full range of factors that are clearly having a significant impact on this country’s extremely and continually marginal food production base. He went back almost to the prehistory of food production and highlighted the collective near-monopoly held by supermarkets, and the restricted opportunities for small independent food retailers in that infrastructure.
The right hon. Gentleman was perhaps echoing the words of Lord Heseltine who, when he was President of the Board of Trade, memorably said that he was prepared to intervene before breakfast, lunch and dinner—or dinner and tea, to my way of thinking. The right hon. Gentleman is of that wing of the Conservative party that believes in free markets but recognises that they need to be regulated when they go in the wrong direction, as has clearly happened in this case.
A number of interventions and comments touched on the potential of going back to retail price maintenance, which was introduced before the second world war to regulate the final price. I do not think any political party proposes that the GCA or regulation should morph into finished retail price maintenance, although it was interesting that the spectre of final prices was reflected on in the debate.
The hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) outlined the limitations of the GCA and the implied lack of teeth, a point that was echoed by many others. She called for its powers to be beefed up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the EFRA Committee, made a telling point that, amid all the briefings, the GCA seems remarkably silent in offering any advice on the many debates that we have had on this issue. He also highlighted that the GCA and the groceries code do not look at primary producers but the ultimate supplier to the supermarket, because that is how the code was written.
Perhaps I need to go into some of the pre-history, and not because I am concerned that I have been airbrushed out of the history of the creation of the GCA. The late Colin Breed, the former Liberal Democrat MP for South East Cornwall, produced a report called “Checking Out the Supermarkets” in 2000, following an investigation, which resulted in a Competition Commission inquiry. I took on his work and chaired the Grocery Market Action Group, which had members of the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association and Friends of the Earth all sitting in the same room, along with Traidcraft—I see Fiona Gooch from Traidcraft in the Public Gallery—and other organisations not normally expected to work together, because they saw a fundamental injustice in the grocery supply system. We must work together.
Further inquiries undertaken by the Competition Commission produced a report in 2007 that identified excessive risk and unexpected cost passed on from supermarkets because of their overwhelming power in the supply chain, and the impact that had on suppliers. That needed to be regulated and, hence, the groceries code was created. We campaigned and argued for the creation of the GCA as a means of policing the code. It could not simply sit on the shelf without anyone observing how the code operated.
That code was never intended to be the finished product. It was simply a framework for the Government to commence a review of how the process should operate, so the GCA should not be held in aspic for all time. I understand the Government are undertaking an inquiry covering 2022 to March 2025. I hope that review will reflect on the comments of hon. Members, the impact on primary producers and the current limitations.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) emphasised the marginal status created for many farmers. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) described the challenge of maintaining both a low retail price and a profitable supply chain. It is very difficult to get that right, but if there is fairness in the supply chain, then both can be achieved. All Members recognise that. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) has already ably led a debate on this issue, so he is well practised. He understands these issues and brought the Welsh perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) proposed changes to protect whistleblowers and made particular reference to those affected by the bully-boy tactics of supermarket buyers. Let us say it: that is effectively what is going on in the sector. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) emphasised similar issues affecting his area.
It is really important that the Government look carefully at areas of the GCA where improvements can be made. The framework is there; what the Liberal Democrats are asking for is that the GCA be able to instigate its own investigations. That may well be on the basis of market intelligence or whatever it may be, but it is important that it is able to instigate its own investigations, while at the same time being aware of time-wasting fishing expeditions. Nevertheless, the balance can be struck. The pressure points in the supply chain are pretty clear. That freedom must be there.
The reach of the adjudicator is far too limited. Only the ultimate supplier is reviewed according to the code. They need to be seen in the context of the full supply chain. Very often the people who are actually catching the cold and suffering the most are the primary producers, but they are not the final supplier. That needs to be reviewed, and I hope the Government will allow that change.
A number of Members mentioned the lack of resources. Whether there are seven or 10 entirely seconded members of staff, this is a really shameful situation. The adjudicator has to control very large supermarkets, and the cost of a single investigation is greater than the GCA’s annual budget on many occasions. From 2013 to 2024, there were only 13 arbitrations and only two formal investigations. The GCA is rightly highly regarded and seen as efficient and effective, but with more resources will come more clout. The GCA is currently funded by a £2 million levy on the 14 supermarkets. Split 14 ways, that is only £142,857. Supermarket profits are in the hundreds of millions—indeed, billions—so it is really important that the Government review that. The Government should also be looking at sectors other than food, perhaps including the garments sector.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. Who better to open this debate than a Lincolnshire representative from a county that I know very well and which produces 30% of our vegetables, 20% of our sugar beet and, collectively, 12% of all of the food that we find on our shelves?
We have heard contributions from Members from all four nations of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. I represent the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley in God’s own county of Yorkshire, and we also have many producers and growers who have a relationship with supermarkets, and have been expressing their concern to me in advance of this debate.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator is hugely important in addressing some of the systematic issues within our food supply chain that have been referenced in the debate. It was set up under the coalition Government, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted. It manages only 14 retailers, which cover a vast swathe of the food market, but that does not go far enough. Competition puts huge pressures on our suppliers and growers further down the chain, which is why it is vital that the Groceries Code Adjudicator addresses unfair practices. The questions that have been raised in this debate are those of power, funding and resource.
In 2024, a survey run by the GCA reported a reduction in the number of groceries code issues and an increase in supplier satisfaction with retailers, where issues were raised. I question that report. All Members speaking in this debate have picked up on the fear among growers and producers of being blacklisted if concerns are raised, and a reluctance to even report, because of the huge pressure that can be put on them by the retailers.
The 14 retailers included in the scope of the GCA and the code of practice cover a significant proportion of the UK market. However, it misses a number of smaller but significant retailers. That is the point I want to build on, as mentioned by other Members today. Has the Minister considered reducing the £1 billion turnover threshold that marks the point where businesses must be compliant? If that threshold were removed, many more retailers would be brought into the fold of the GCA. Members have advocated for that in today’s debate.
The work of the GCA is important in maintaining the health of our supply chains. An unfair contract between a retailer and a producer or grower can be devastating. We have heard the points made in the debate—the challenges are huge. That can result in growers and producers being locked into unfair contracts. Orders can be cancelled unnecessarily. The Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), made a point early on in the debate about potatoes—they were of sufficient quality for any consumer to eat, and yet, because they did not meet the exact specification from the retailer, the order was not taken.
Sir John Hayes
I forgot to say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. My hon. Friend identifies a fundamental issue. In commercial transactions, there is always risk, and that risk needs to be balanced. At the moment, all the risk is taken by the farmer or grower and none of the risk is absorbed by the retailer. We need to adjust that balance to ensure fairness, in the way that has been articulated by so many Members across the Chamber.
Robbie Moore
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. At the moment, the risk is all sitting on the shoulders of the growers and producers. That is unfair, because there is a certain expectation of the food they are preparing, whether in quantity or quality, but some of the risk factors are completely out of their control, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) noted. Those factors include weather conditions, which impact many of our farmers and growers. The lack of flexibility in the contracts is another.
That is why the GCA must have the teeth that many have talked about in this debate, because these issues go beyond the impacts of the unfair contract. At a time when pressures on our agricultural sector are mounting, additional budgetary pressures were announced by the Government in last year’s Budget. The hike in employer’s national insurance, the family farm tax, which has created a huge amount of uncertainty, the cuts to the sustainable farming incentives, and the drastic reduction in the delinked payments to a cap of £7,200 are all additional cash-flow pressures, exposing our farmers and growers to long-term uncertainty, beyond the challenges associated with the contracts they are entering into with retailers.
While the GCA has made hugely important steps, many producers and growers are still unaware of its role and powers. There is absolutely more work to be done within the industry to build awareness and trust of the GCA and its powers, and that is exactly what the nub of this debate is about. We know that pressures are mounting on the agricultural supply chains that run right the way through the system, from farm to fork. One of the shortcomings of the GCA in its current set-up is that it only handles the relationship between the retailer, the supplier and some farmers and growers, missing out many farmers, growers and other intermediaries in the supply chain. That has to be addressed, as has been referenced by many Members in their contributions.
That has to be addressed if we want to restore a level of trust in the system, and work to do so has been started. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 were introduced recently, which have a specific focus on milk, and regulations for other products are on their way. But I ask the Minister: what are we doing to address this disjointed approach? It seems that multiple regulators are managing different elements of the supply chain, which is creating more friction and uncertainty for businesses.
The experience of the last decade shows the growing case for better lines of communication between the GCA, DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. What conversations has the Minister, in his role representing the Department, had with DEFRA and the GCA? That was a point made by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; I congratulate him on the work he did in introducing his ten-minute rule Bill, which had the support of the Opposition.
Going forward, I hope that the Government will be able to pick up where the last Government left off and not only expand on the fair dealing regulations, but tie in the GCA and its operation to the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, providing a joined-up approach to the full supply chain. Although I welcome the increasing scope of regulatory framework on the agricultural supply chain, does the Minister plan to include other products, such as ornamentals, as part of an expanded GCA remit? Ornamentals, like food, are perishable and suffer with the same challenges that many Members have outlined in this debate.
What are the Government’s intentions when it comes to increasing the GCA’s powers, funding, resource and people power, so that it has the ability to enact the requests of both sides of this House? I reiterate that trust absolutely needs to be restored into the system, which can only be done by re-establishing better supply chain relationships throughout the system. That relies on giving the GCA more power, more finance and better lines of communication with DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate, and on the sweeping historical nature of his opening comments, which gave us a broad view of the importance of agriculture and food in the development of civilisation. Of course, we are talking about more contemporary issues, which he went on to address, and I will respond to some of his comments in my remarks.
This is an appropriate time for the House to discuss the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator because, as Members will be aware, we are currently undertaking the fourth review of the GCA’s effectiveness, as required by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013. The statutory review will consider how the GCA’s powers have been exercised and how effective the GCA has been in enforcing the groceries supply code of practice. It will also consider whether the existing permitted maximum financial penalty for non-compliance following an investigation is appropriate and whether there should be any restriction on the information that the GCA may consider when deciding whether to investigate.
On the question of financial penalties, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to two investigations where no fines were issued. However, it is worth stating for the record that, following the Tesco investigation, it was charged £1 million by the GCA for the cost of that investigation, and the Co-op investigation led to a charge by the GCA of £1.3 million for the cost of it, plus compensation to suppliers of £650,000. But it is noted that the GCA has not been issuing fines. I think that is part of its overall approach to try to get compliance rather than issuing fines, but that is something that Members can respond to as part of the review.
Mr Carmichael
The difficulty is that the review of a limited regulator is always going to bring up a limited answer. What we need is something much more holistic. Just to take one small example, the number of small abattoirs in the country is now down to the hundreds, from 2,500 some time ago. That is a direct consequence of the way in which the supermarkets bring pressure to bear in other parts of the supply chain, so what we need is something that looks at the whole process, from farm gate to supermarket shelf.
Justin Madders
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Of course, the review is dictated by the legislation that his party was, in government, involved in introducing, so part of the problem is where we are with the statutory framework, but I do take his wider point that clearly there are a number of different developments in how we deal with the overall agricultural food supply market; the GCA is just one part of it. The other developments, which Members have talked about, particularly in terms of ASCA, probably need to be looked at more holistically than is the case at the moment.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the Minister for that remark, but the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is right: the important thing is co-ordination. The previous Government did a good job in establishing the basis for the “fair dealing” obligations, but it is really important that the work being done—outside the Minister’s Department in some cases—is co-ordinated, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator, in exactly the way that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested, has a purview that extends across the whole process. I hope the Minister will give a commitment to that now.
Justin Madders
I acknowledge the wider points that have been made. Members have raised today a number of issues that are beyond the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and clearly are within the bailiwick of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which clearly I need to work with on developing a more holistic approach. That is one of the challenges we face, because the code regulates only designated retailers’ dealings with their direct suppliers and currently applies to the 14 largest grocery retailers in the UK, each with an annual turnover of £1 billion or more.
A number of Members referred to the threshold and questioned whether that is currently appropriate. It is worth pointing out that, according to the marketing data company Kantar, the 10 largest retailers covered by the groceries code amount to 97% of the grocery retail market, although the adjudicator has said that he is happy to hear views on whether the threshold should change and about suppliers’ experiences of dealing with retailers not currently covered by the code. The adjudicator has also said that he will pass on any relevant information to the CMA to inform future decisions on retailer designations under the code. There is therefore an opportunity for Members to feed in if they feel there are particular retailers under the current threshold that should be included.
A number of Members talked about the issue of price. The code does not regulate the prices agreed between retailers and suppliers. It does, however, require these negotiations to be conducted fairly and transparently, and the GCA is keen to ensure that negotiations around cost price pressures do not lead to non-compliance with the code. In 2022, the GCA published the seven golden rules to remind retailers of best practice when agreeing to prices.
Justin Madders
I have quite a bit to get through, so if the hon. Lady does not mind, I will carry on.
The statutory review is focused on the powers and duties of the GCA as set out in the 2013 Act and the 2015 order. These powers include providing arbitration between suppliers and retailers, conducting investigations into retailers suspected of breaching the code, and enforcement powers where the adjudicator is satisfied that a retailer has broken the code. Enforcement can take the form of the adjudicator making recommendations against the retailer, requiring retailers to publish details of the breach, or imposing financial penalties of up to 1% of the retailer’s turnover. The adjudicator also publishes advice, guidance and best practice statements, and can make recommendations to the CMA about suggested changes to the groceries code.
Contrary to a common misconception, which I am afraid has been repeated by a number of Members today, the adjudicator does not need to wait for a complaint to be made before launching an investigation. What the Act requires is that the adjudicator has reasonable grounds to suspect that a retailer designated under the code has broken it or failed to follow a recommendation following a previous investigation. It is for the adjudicator to determine how to use those powers, but it is absolutely possible for it to pursue investigations without a formal complaint being made.
I heard a number of Members making reference to concerns about reprisals—that was also raised in the previous debate. As part of the review, I am keen to hear how we ensure that the system is robust enough, so that people in the chain covered by the code feel confident that they can raise complaints. Clearly, there will always be an element of concern when someone raises their head above the parapet, but it is possible to raise concerns confidentially. Indeed, the survey undertaken by the adjudicator is done on a confidential basis. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), referenced his scepticism about the high level of satisfaction in that. I note his comments, but it is the case that the survey is taken confidentially. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also raised the question of anonymity. I am genuinely interested to hear from Members how we can find a way ahead so as to ensure that people can raise complaints confidentially and with confidence.
In general, the adjudicator has ensured a collaborative approach with suppliers, which has helped to prevent problems from escalating and reduced the need for time-consuming and expensive formal dispute resolution. A number of Members raised the question of resourcing, but it is for the adjudicator to set the level of the levy that is applied. That is always a matter of discussion, but I am sure that if the adjudicator wished to increase the levy, it would be able to do so within the powers it already has.
I am conscious that I need to give the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings an opportunity to respond. I have not addressed all the points that Members raised in the debate, but where I am able to provide a further response, I will write to those Members. I would encourage all Members to engage with the review. It is important that a number of the issues that we have heard about today are fed into it.
Sir John Hayes
With that pledge that I can continue to communicate with the Minister, I am delighted to thank all colleagues who contributed to this debate. It is perfectly possible to feed the nation at a fair price without fuelling the excessive profits of greedy plutocrats. To do that, we need to extend the power of the adjudicator in the way that has been set out by a considerable number of Members from across the House. It is vitally important the food chain is relinked, to make sure that all those involved in the production, distribution and sale of food can act in a way that is commercially viable but fair. It is not fair now.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Leasehold Reform
(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
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I will call Ruth Cadbury to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered leasehold reform.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. This is a well-subscribed debate, but as it is only half an hour I have said that just a couple of hon. Members can intervene, and hon. Members understand that we are not accepting any speeches apart from mine and the Minister’s.
It is a pleasure to lead this debate on leasehold reform in England and Wales, one of many that I have already spoken in during this Parliament. I want to start by thanking the dozens of constituents who have written to me in the last week to let me know about the problems they have faced: high service charges, rising building insurance, safety problems, unclear management contracts and a wall of silence from their management companies and freeholders. Most of those issues have been raised with me by leaseholders in my constituency since I was first elected to this place 10 years ago.
The common theme, as hon. Members know, is a lack of control. Many leaseholders assume, when they sign their contracts, that they are moving into a home. They have to pay a service charge, but they expect that to mean that communal problems will be fixed and they will be able to get on with their lives. Sadly, that is not the case.
Many leaseholders are trapped in a complex, legalistic maze. I want to cover three things today: the situation for my constituents, how we got here, and how the Government are working to fix it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate, which I spoke to her about beforehand. Does she agree that issues with developers and management company rates can stem from the fact that the new homebuyers are often not informed about the nature of the leasehold agreements and the additional costs that come off the back of that for labour and materials? Does she therefore agree that estate agents and solicitors must have a duty of care to ensure that prospective owners are under no illusions as to how management companies and associated fees will be dealt with annually?
Ruth Cadbury
I am grateful to the hon. Member, because I was going to come on to that and to the insidious links between those selling the flats, particularly the developers, and the solicitors who they recommend to the buyers—often first-time buyers who are unaware of the challenges.
On how we got here, the answer, to be blunt, is greed. Hedge funds, investors, solicitors and developers—many based overseas—started meeting up at conferences about 15 or so years ago to learn how to use the weaknesses in English freehold law to fatten the golden goose. Members can see my rant on this subject on the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership website. Leasehold blocks of flats, often in urban areas, were valuable properties that guaranteed an extremely high return.
In one current case a freeholder called Oakdene, which is refusing to pay to fix fire safety faults, sent me a letter from a solicitor at a rather high-priced legal firm—the letter alone probably cost hundreds.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I have been working with some residents in Cavalier Way in Wincanton. They contributed £40,000 annually to Plymouth Block Management, their previous leasehold management company, which did not complete any repairs and deposited no reserves as it was transferred to the new company. The residents now have a 500% increase in their charges. Does the hon. Member agree that companies must be accountable to residents and mandated to hold annual general meetings to ensure financial transparency?
Ruth Cadbury
A lack of transparency is a theme that comes up again and again, particularly for the people who are effectively the victims. I will press on because I want to get to the end of my speech if I can.
The complex state of leasehold means that many different parties have realised that they can fatten the goose with ease, and often without scrutiny and enforcement as the hon. Member has said. First, that was often done through ground rent. Properties would often charge a ground rent of between £250 and £1,000 a year in London. I would call it money for old rope, but that would insult old rope.
That tactic was later replaced as more buyers and solicitors became aware of it, particularly around the sale of flats, so we then saw service charges being used as the new cash cow. A typical building in my constituency, which is often a flat built since 2000, has a service charge of £6,000, but some have charges as high as £7,000 or £8,000 without anything like that value of service being delivered.
For too long, it has been possible to raise service charges without limit—often vastly above inflation and with no clear breakdown. Leaseholders will buy a property and think that the service charge is paying for services such as—to take examples from my constituency—the post room, receptionist, home cinema, car park and security. In fact, they find that the post room and the home cinema are closed, the receptionist is not full time, the car park gets flooded and the security is non-existent.
If a person bought such a product on the open market, trading standards would have a field day—but leasehold is not a fair market. If we invented this market system now with its wide cast of cowboys and profit strippers, it would appear like something out of a Victorian novel. Ted Heath called it the “unacceptable face of capitalism”, but that is how we have got here.
I will not regale the House with the efforts to tame and reform leasehold over the past decade. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, I know that many hon. Members have been working on it. The previous Government’s changes were welcome, and MPs from both sides of the House have stood up, spoken and acted, particularly thanks to the support of the APPG and the work of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign. I know that the Minister gets this issue and knows it inside out too.
I want to talk about my constituents’ experiences. For many people in west London, the high cost of property means that buying a house is out of reach, but people on good salaries can, just about, afford a flat for upwards of £500,000.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this incredibly important debate. One of the issues in my constituency, which is very similar to hers, is that people are buying new flats or houses under the freehold system, but with so many covenants involved that they are also being charged the sort of service charges that she has mentioned. Does she agree that whatever the Government do— I welcome the good approaches in this place—they must also cover some of the covenant issues around freehold?
Ruth Cadbury
I agree with the right hon. Member. There are so many issues that the Government have been looking at, and are going to have to look at, particularly to ensure against unintended consequences.
With prices of upwards of half a million, even with the help of the bank of mum and dad, many of my constituents have no choice but to buy a leasehold flat, even when they have a good income and perhaps help with the deposit. That means that a whole generation in London risks getting trapped as leaseholders.
The key problem is that at first the terms can seem straightforward. A person pays their mortgage and then they pay their service charge and ground rent, and for the first year, it might be okay. They might notice some problems in the communal area, but the real kicker comes when they get the first increase in their service charge. I have seen constituents whose service charge has increased by 50% or even 100%.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk about leasehold we have to include fleecehold as well? In Priory Vale and St Andrews in my constituency, residents pay astronomical fees without receiving the services that they should receive for such fleecehold charges.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again and again, bills for service charges come in that are not properly itemised. There are items that do not actually exist, such as landscaping maintenance, and there is a refusal to open up. Some leaseholders are even getting charged by solicitors for what should be a right.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that such service charges are an outrage? There should be some form of guarantee associated with what services are in fact provided. I, too, have had many constituents complain to me about the complete lack of services that they pay for. As she says, if those services were something that was being paid for on the open market, trading standards officers would be involved.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the Minister is noting these points and will address how we can ensure transparency and a minimum quality of standards in the billing of service charges and the other activities of management companies.
I now want to get to the end of my speech. Given the popularity—sadly—of this debate, I hope that there will be many more debates on it in this place where everybody will be able to make a strong speech about these issues that are so important to many of our constituents.
I will give some examples from constituents. In one case, a constituent was rightly concerned about the costs they faced and asked for a breakdown of them, but was refused. They issued the necessary legal action to get the breakdown, but six months later they are still waiting for it. There is also the specific problem that many constituents are frankly outgunned when they get into legal disputes. Another constituent faces a legal bill in the thousands because they have to represent themselves.
One Hounslow resident who lives in a badly converted office block summarises the issue well:
“Our building’s service charges and insurance costs average just over £2,000 per flat annually”—
which sounds all right—
“yet the quality of service is alarmingly poor. We have regular incidents of theft, with leaseholders having to rely on personal security measures”.
They say that is because the management company are not interested. They continue:
“The service charges increase each year with little transparency, covering inflated management fees, audit fees, and security charges, with no consultation with leaseholders on providers or costs. This imbalance of control leaves us vulnerable to arbitrary charges without accountability.”
On top of ever-rising service charges, many people have also faced sky-high building insurance costs since the Grenfell tragedy. In one case, council leaseholders saw an increase in their costs of more than 500%. People who get the right to manage by setting up resident management organisations have the right to hire and fire managing agents, and to get rid of companies such as FirstPort, but that has not always been plain sailing. I hope that the Minister will address the issue of minimum standards for managing agents when he responds to this debate.
When my constituents try to sell their flats, they often find out the major problems with leasehold: either the asking price has decreased due to the ground rent or service charges or—even worse—banks will not lend on their flats. When one of my constituents inherited a property, they found out that there was only 40 years left on the lease. They can extend the lease, but they have been told that doing so would cost a six-figure sum. They told me that
“the only future I can see is that of a bleak one.”
Another constituent wrote to tell me how, despite paying a record-high service charge, their lift is constantly broken down. At one point, excrement fell from a broken pipe through the lift shaft for a rather long time. I will leave Members to picture that scene.
Another problem was raised by the resident of the converted office block who I quoted earlier. They said that
“we have faced significant distress from ongoing attempts by our building’s freeholder to add two additional floors to our development. While Hounslow Council initially rejected the application due to objections raised by the leaseholders,”
the decision was overturned on appeal. That was on the basis that the project was
“aligning with wider housing targets, but disregarding the wellbeing and concerns of existing leaseholders. This decision now leaves us anticipating extensive disruption, with no realistic recourse or meaningful consultation. Put a little more colloquially, imagine if some UK millionaire had the right to build two additional storeys above your home!”
Many local residents are trapped and unable to sell their homes because of the web that leasehold has left them in. I hope the Minister can address that, as I know that the Government are working on it. Whether it is capping ground rent, reforming service charges or making lease extensions easier and cheaper, we need to fix the blockage for those trying to sell.
There are also problems for those who bought via Help to Buy. I have heard that the single provider that runs the service is still very slow in responding about valuations and about the other hoops that those who used Help to Buy have to go through when selling their property.
Finally, I will move on to the Government reforms. I am proud that it is a Labour Government who have promised to end leasehold. However, I know that it cannot be done overnight. How is the Minister’s Department ensuring that fire safety reforms and leasehold issues go hand in hand? Constituents tell me that fire safety remediation work at developers’ cost via the developers’ building safety pledge is being done only to the mortgage lenders’ B1 standard, rather than the A standards delivered when using the Government’s building safety fund. The former not only pay high higher insurance charges but, if selling, do so at a massive discount, thus creating one of the two-tier splits in leasehold housing.
That touches on another two-tier system that many leaseholders are worried about. The Government rightly plan to end new leasehold ownership, but what will happen to the 5 million existing leaseholders when that change happens? Will they get any retrospective benefit? In London, the gap between house and flat prices is already increasing rapidly, and I fear that we risk leaving many of my constituents with an asset that they cannot sell.
The Government rightly have an ambitious housing target, and I want us to build more affordable homes. I am, however, worried that in London we will see more homes being built that are purely shared ownership, where the tenant-leaseholder part rents and part owns the flat but is liable for 100% of the costs. I am extremely sceptical of that business model as I have seen example after example where shared ownership looks attractive, but the service charge rockets, the rents surge and, when people try to staircase up or even sell, they face many problems. Shared ownership has a role, although I suggest that the name is a tad misleading. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that the new homes being built do not simply create a new generation of trapped leaseholders?
In conclusion, our leasehold system is an antique relic. It has left 5 million people trapped and now they are unsure of their future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this debate, on the case that she made and on the passion with which she spoke. This degree of turnout is uncommon for a half-hour debate, which shows the strength of feeling on this matter across the UK. Anybody writing legal letters to my hon. Friend with the idea that it might stop her using her platform to advocate for her constituents is likely to be deeply disappointed. Nevertheless, the debate has reinforced the case for major reform of the leasehold system. My hon. Friend highlighted the broad range of issues faced by leaseholders every day. We are committed as a Government to honouring the commitments made in our manifesto and to doing what is necessary to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end.
I will cover the legislation as it is, how we are going to commence those provisions, legislation that we committed to in the King’s Speech and, hopefully, some other elements at the end. We heard from my hon. Friend and other colleagues that there are unfair and unreasonable practices that require urgent relief. As my hon. Friend said, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, with the cross-party support that it garnered, provides scope for some of that relief. In November, the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), made a statement on the next steps for leasehold and commonhold reform that set out our intended sequencing for bringing those provisions of the Act into force, including an extensive programme of secondary legislation and consultation.
The parts of the Act that can be implemented quickly have been implemented. A number of provisions relating to rent charge arrears, building safety legal costs and the work of professional insolvency practitioners came into force in July 2024. In October, we commenced further building safety measures. In January, we commenced provisions to remove the two-year qualifying rule in relation to enfranchisement and leasehold extensions. In March, we switched on the right-to-manage provisions, which allow for expanding access, reforming costs and voting rights. Some things in the Act require secondary legislation, and we have been able to turn them on.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I welcome the early pace that the Government have shown on this, but given the urgency of the issues that the leasehold scandal is causing for my constituents and those of many hon. Members, does the Minister agree that we need to bring forward further, more substantive solutions at pace, including answers for existing leaseholders, to ensure that we are doing justice to the urgency of this moment?
Alex Norris
I do. I appreciate that there is frustration about consultation, but some of the challenges within the Act show why it is important that we get this right, and that we have a process that delivers the relief that people are so desperately waiting for. One such consultation that has now concluded is around insurance commissions, which relates to service charges. We are consulting on how to replace that with a fairer and more transparent permitted insurance fee.
This year, we will also start the consultation on relevant measures related to service charges and litigation costs more generally. On new consumer protection provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) mentioned, for the up to 1.75 million homes on private and mixed-tenure housing estates that are subject to estate charges, we will bring the measures into force as soon as possible once we have the correct model.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the interest that he has shown in the issues we have in Stockton North at Queensgate, Willow Sage Court and Wynyard. I am pleased to provide the update to the Minister that, following my intervention, in Queensgate we now have 98% of the roads completed. Does he agree that the issue here is a lack of consumer choice? There is a market failure; in local areas such as Stockton, people who want to buy a house have very limited opportunity to do so without entering into one of these agreements.
Alex Norris
I commend my hon. Friend for his work there; it will be of great succour to a number of his constituents. However, he is right, because this is a confluence a failure to build enough houses and a system that has been left to govern itself and act in the ways that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth set out, leaving people with no choice but to enter into arrangements that lead to them having to live with these long-term consequences. That is why we must build more houses and address those behaviours.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that part of ensuring that we can take more control and offer more choice to residents is allowing residents to take greater control for themselves and, in the process, ensure better value for the services that they need on their estates?
Alex Norris
I absolutely agree, and I will turn to that in a second.
We will also be consulting on the valuation rates used to calculate the cost of enfranchisement premiums, and would welcome hon. and right hon. Members’ views on that. However, there are some deficiencies in the Act that need to be rectified in primary legislation, so we do need to legislate. That gives us the opportunity to bring forward, in line with what hon. Members have said, a new era of commonhold being the default tenure for new flats.
That is why we committed in the King’s Speech to a leasehold and commonhold reform Bill. It is part of our commitment to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. We have committed to publishing draft legislation on this in the second half of the year. It will make commonhold the default, and it began with the publication of the White Paper in March. Alongside that, in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth about the 5 million leaseholders, we want to make the conversion process easier. Once commonhold comes back into public prominence as a model, I think it will be more popular, but we want it to be easier as well.
We want to reform the existing system by legislating to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, as was mentioned, to remove the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture, to act to protect leasehold from poor service from managing agents, as many have said, and to enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage. We will address private estate management in that.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work for my constituents. I am sure that he will sympathise with the latest victim to have been in touch with me. He said that with an unsellable and unmortgageable flat, due to the charges that the Minister has mentioned, he is now on the verge of bankruptcy. Does the Minister agree that real change for leaseholders is now beyond urgent, and can he assure us that this year, residents will see not only legislation but real change?
Alex Norris
I absolutely can. My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for buildings in Southampton. We are meeting later to discuss one of them. I assure him, and those residents, that we know that they need change and relief now. That is why we have made the changes that we have been able to make so far. We want to get the changes right so that when the relief comes, it sticks, does not get mired and has the right impact. However, we appreciate the urgency with which my hon. Friend speaks.
Several hon. Members have mentioned service charges and managing agents. Service charges have become a particular pinch point, highlighted by the cost of living pressures in recent years. The LAFRA gives us measures to increase transparency and to remove barriers that prevent leaseholders from challenging them, including more standardised information. However, this year, we will consult on the Act’s provisions on service charges and litigation costs so that we can bring them into force as quickly as possible.
We will also consult on reforms to the section 20 major works procedure, which landlords must follow when leaseholders receive big bills for large works, as has been mentioned in the debate. There is much more to do in that area.
On the subject of managing agents, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth that we have heard her call about minimum standards.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
My constituents have been defrauded by Initiative Property Management, are suffering at the hands of Scanlans Limited, and have had to deal with the Residential Management Group, representatives of which I am meeting later today. I welcome this Labour Government’s action to hold companies such as those accountable, to challenge unfair charges and hidden fees, and to end leasehold. What is the Government’s message to rogue management companies? I ask so that when I meet the Residential Management Group, I can convey the will of the Government.
Alex Norris
I am keen to say clearly from the Front Bench that we will legislate in this area to close the dark corners that unscrupulous managing agents use to maximise profits. However, they do not have to wait for that in order to do the right thing. They have a duty to residents. There are many great examples of managing agents and landlords doing the right things by their residents. That is good for them, their building and the individuals who live there. They can do that today. I know that my hon. Friend will continue his work until they do so.
That brings me to an important point that was raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth when she opened the debate, about the regulation of managing agents. They play an important role, particularly in multi-occupancy buildings, and that role is likely to increase in importance as commonhold becomes the default tenure. Many provide a good service, but there are too many examples like those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East. I know that all hon. Members here could tell me about similar examples. In 2018, the previous Government committed to regulating the sector. The report came back from Lord Best and they did not respond to it. We are looking at it closely and we will set out our position in due course. However, we have said that as a minimum, we will include mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents, to ensure that they have the skills that they need to carry out their role to a high standard.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned building safety and fire, which are part of my brief. As a Government, we understand that as part of our remediation acceleration plan, we need to give clarity about what a remediated standard is. I have talked to insurers about it, including about what they are asking for. The cladding safety scandal is being addressed through remediation. That cannot lead to a half a dozen other issues for leaseholders. We are pushing industry in that area, but we have been asked for certainty and we will deliver it.
There has been a lot to consider in this debate, and it could easily go on for another hour, which I think would be important. However, I know that colleagues will not let the matter lie. The subject is frequently on Parliament’s agenda, and rightly so. There are people living under intolerable strain. We are committed, as a Government, to giving them relief as quickly as possible, and in a way that sticks. I will be working on it with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth and colleagues over the coming weeks and months.
Question put and agreed to.
Animal Welfare in Farming
(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
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered animal welfare standards in farming.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate to give a voice to the voiceless here in Parliament.
The treatment of farm animals in the UK is a reflection of our values as a society, yet millions of animals endure lives of confinement, pain and neglect. I am proud to have convened this debate on an issue that has been very close to my heart since I was old enough to understand: animal welfare. The debate could not be more timely, with a number of grotesque infringements of legal and accepted norms exposed in recent undercover footage. From the mistreatment of piglets to the rampant impunity found in a few of Scotland’s salmon farms, shocking incidents have rightly caused public outrage.
However, we must be clear: these are sadly not isolated incidents, but a symptom of policy and enforcement failings in our food and farming systems. The way we treat farmed animals is not only the biggest animal protection issue we face here in the UK, but deeply entwined with the climate crisis, nature loss and the viability of our food systems. It speaks to a moral failing, a disconnection from the suffering hidden behind supermarket shelves. Ultimately, we need a food system that recognises the need to reduce demand, raise legal baselines and support better farming systems.
I am pleased to note that today’s debate has been linked to the petition titled “End the use of cages and crates for all farmed animals”, which has now surpassed 100,000 signatures and calls on the UK Government to
“ban all cages for laying hens as soon as possible”
and to extend the ban to all cages and crates “for all farmed animals”, including farrowing crates for sows, individual calf pens and cages for birds. Despite the ban on barren battery cages in 2012, about 10.6 million hens —28% of the UK laying flock—are still confined in so-called enriched cages, which severely restrict natural behaviours such as wing flapping, perching and dust bathing, and contribute to frustration, bone weakness and chronic protection issues.
I congratulate the petition sponsor, Dame Joanna Lumley, and commend her courage and compassion. Her lifelong dedication to humanitarian and environmental causes is matched in this case by her powerful advocacy for animals, who cannot speak for themselves. I also want to recognise the tireless work of the many non-governmental organisations, including Compassion in World Farming, the Humane League, World Animal Protection, FOUR PAWS and others, represented in the Chamber today, that have been campaigning for decades to end the cruelty of cages, crates and inhumane farming systems. Thanks to their persistence, these issues are finally being heard in Parliament with the seriousness they deserve.
However, accountability is woefully lacking. Prosecutions for animal welfare violations in farming are extremely rare. Between 2011 and 2021, only 28 such prosecutions were brought—fewer than three per year, despite tens of thousands of inspections and numerous breaches. The regulatory system is led by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is under-resourced and overly reliant on industry self-reporting. We need independent inspections and meaningful penalties for breaches.
Many people believe that labels such as “Red Tractor” or “RSPCA Assured” guarantee good welfare, and consumers want to trust that such schemes deliver in good faither. It is the Government’s job to ensure that those labels mean something. Sadly, far too often that is not the case, as we have seen from many investigations on certified farms that still use crates, cages and other cruel practices.
One such practice that must be urgently reviewed is the use of farrowing crates on pig farms. A recent poll commissioned by Humane World for Animals found that 73% of people in the UK had either never heard of farrowing crates or knew very little about them—a stark reminder of how this suffering is hidden from the public eye. Yet in the UK, approximately 50% of sows are confined in these small metal cages, which prevent them from turning around or expressing natural maternal behaviours. Compassion in World Farming describes farrowing as among the most extreme forms of confinement. Pigs are widely regarded to be highly sentient animals, but they are forced to give birth and nurse their young while virtually immobilised. The European Union has committed to phasing out cages for all farmed animals by 2027, but a recent letter from the National Pig Association suggested another 20 years of suffering to phase them out.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have already indicated this to you, Mr Vickers, but I apologise to colleagues now for the fact that I will have to leave before the end of the debate, which is why I will not make a speech—a constituent is coming to see me, and the votes in the House have screwed up the timing.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I entirely share his view; I guess that probably everyone who will speak in this debate does. One of the supposed advantages of our leaving the European Union was that we would be able to control what came into the country in the form of food. It would be quite wrong, would it not, if, while seeking to drive up animal welfare standards in this country, we disadvantaged our own farmers and at the same time allowed into the country products from other countries where those standards are lower? Therefore, does he agree with me—I am the patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation—that we need to call upon the Minister to ensure that that does not happen, and that our farmers are not disadvantaged while we improve our standards?
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I always enjoy hearing his thoughtful remarks and strongly agree with his words today, which show the cross-party concerns on this issue; I will come on to the issue of international trade later on.
On the issue of farrowing crates, I urge the Minister to set out a clear and swift timetable for the banning of farrowing crates; I hope he will address that issue specifically in his remarks at the end of the debate.
We must also speak to the plight of broiler chickens, which are the animals most intensively farmed in the UK today. Around 90% of chickens reared for meat in the UK—nearly 1 billion animals per year—are fast-growing breeds, often referred to as “Frankenchickens”. These birds have been selectively bred to grow up to 400% faster than chickens did in the 1950s, reaching slaughter weight in just 35 to 40 days. To put that in perspective, if a human baby grew at the same rate, they would weigh nearly 300 kg—the size of a fully grown tiger—by the time they were two months old.
Such rapid growth causes immense suffering, including chronic lameness, organ failure, respiratory problems and open burns, as these chickens spend their final days lying in their own waste, often with broken bones, too heavy to stand. That cannot be right and I hope the Minister directly addresses that point as well. There are alternatives—slower-growing breeds, with significantly improved protection outcomes—but without Government leadership, market incentives will continue to favour the cheapest and cruellest options.
On the subject of pigs and chickens, many campaigners will have rejoiced at the rejection of a new mega-farm at Methwold in Norfolk; I know the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) was heavily involved in campaigning against it. The sheer scale of the Methwold proposal was staggering—up to 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs, confined in barren indoor sheds. Chickens would have been packed into high-intensity units, with barely any space to move, no access to daylight and no environmental enrichment. Animal protection groups raised serious concerns about the dangerously low staff-to-animal ratio, which would have made it almost impossible to monitor suffering or to intervene in time.
Methwold is not an isolated case. There are many applications around the country, including a growing number in my constituency, for new or expanded intensive livestock units. That is deeply worrying for constituents, who are concerned not only about animal protection, but about air and water pollution, odour, and the long-term impact on communities and our countryside. The proposed Cranswick farm at Methwold was rightly opposed by the local council because of its cumulative environmental risks and wider ecological impact.
We should not be pursuing this model of farming, yet World Wide Fund and AGtivist.agency report that the number of US-style megafarms in the UK has increased by 21% in about a decade. That is going in the wrong direction, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government will address it.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that, through the Government’s programme of planning reform, we must not create any loopholes that could be exploited to facilitate the destructive, large-scale farming operations that he refers to?
Adrian Ramsay
I strongly agree. As we all closely scrutinise the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we need to look carefully at whether loopholes are creeping in that will allow horrific developments such as more mega-farms to happen at a greater scale.
Mega-farms are bad for animals, bad for nature and bad for people, and not at all necessary for food security—that is a key point. The UK already meets 100% of its recommended protein needs, so these mega-farms are surely being developed with exports in mind. UK pigmeat exports have grown by 4% in the past year, driven by increased shipments to China. Methwold was a line in the sand, a signal that local communities will not accept industrial so-called farming that sacrifices everything for profit. To stop its unchecked proliferation, we need the Government to put their own line in the sand and say, clearly, that this must stop.
To pick up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), as we debate domestic welfare standards, we must also remain vigilant about how international trade could undermine them. Since leaving the European Union, the UK’s rating in the World Animal Protection index has been downgraded, reflecting growing concern that our historical leadership on animal protection is under threat. In upcoming trade deals with the US, India and the Gulf, there is a real risk that our markets will be opened to products produced in systems that would be illegal in the UK.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to undertake a strategic review of UK border controls to ensure that UK food security is protected from the introduction of diseases such as foot and mouth, as we have had on the continent, or any other exotic disease?
Adrian Ramsay
I agree with the hon. Lady, who speaks with first-hand experience of the farming sector.
Around 6 million breeding sows in the US are confined in gestation crates, which are banned in the UK. More than 70% of laying hens are still kept in barren battery cages. US beef can be produced using growth-promoting hormones, and antibiotic use in livestock is up to five times higher than in the UK. Such practices not only cause immense suffering, but undermine our farmers and our food safety standards. That is why we must commit to banning imports produced to standards that would not comply with those in the UK. We must also defend the hard-won ban on live animal exports, a recent step forward that must not be weakened under trade pressure. Our values do not end at our borders, and neither should the protections that we afford to animals.
Let us not forget that cruelty is not limited to land-based farming. Investigations by Compassion in World Farming and others have exposed horrific conditions in offshore salmon farms. Our high-end salmon from romanticised Scottish fish farms often has deeply unpalatable origins: salmon are cramped into cages where they suffer from lice, disease and injury, mortality rates are shockingly high and immense pollution pours into once-pristine marine environments, threatening wild fish populations. The farms are intensive by design, prioritising scale and profit over animal protection and environmental sustainability. We need a moratorium on new intensive aquaculture permits and a rapid transition to higher-protection, lower-impact systems. I hope the Minister will address that point in his response.
That brings me to the last substantive area that I want to discuss before concluding: the less-visible consequence of industrial farming. Due to cramped and unhygienic conditions, disease outbreaks are controlled with routine antibiotics, but evidence shows that that fuels antimicrobial resistance in consumers and presents a dire global health risk. The World Health Organisation has warned that antibiotic resistance could become a bigger killer than cancer by 2050, and farming practices are fuelling that trajectory.
Animal protection in farming is not a niche concern, but a public health issue, a climate issue, a biodiversity issue and a moral issue. Polling consistently shows strong public support for ending cages, crates and other cruel practices, which are unnecessarily barbaric, tragically wasteful and entirely avoidable. The public are ahead of the Government on this issue: more than 80% support a ban on cages for laying hens. The number of Members here shows the force of support for legislation to catch up.
This debate is about system change, not demonising farmers. We must bring farmers with us through clarity, fair incentives and certainty about the direction of travel. They should be supported to make adjustments on their farms, which is another reason why I strongly defend the preservation of the environmental land management schemes’ animal protection grants, and I urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to commit to that being a core part of the sustainable farming incentive, not an add-on. The Welsh Government’s animal health and welfare framework sets out the admirably worthy ambition that all animals should have a good life, even if a short one.
As we look ahead, I urge the Minister to recognise that real leadership on animal protection requires action on multiple fronts, including banning farrowing crates and cages, mandating method of production labelling to inform consumers, and strengthening enforcement through higher penalties, independent inspections and proper resourcing. It means defending our domestic standards in international trade and ensuring that imports produced using sow stalls, barren battery cages or hormone-treated beef are not waved through in deals that betray British values. Above all, we must confront the fact that more than 70% of farmed animals in the UK are reared in intensive conditions. That is not sustainable, ethical or inevitable.
The Government should set procurement targets to reduce meat from industrial systems, promote more plant-rich diets and reward farmers who are working with, not against, nature. In aquaculture too, we need environmental impact assessments, legal protection at slaughter, mandatory CCTV and protection standards equal to those for land animals. Those are not radical demands; they are practical, evidence-based steps towards a kinder, fairer and more resilient system that reflects the compassion of the public, supports responsible farmers and enhances the UK’s position as a global leader in animal protection.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, which, due to the delayed start, will now conclude at 4.31 pm, subject to there being no further Divisions. We will start with a four-minute time limit on speeches, which may have to drop if there are many interventions.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I want to focus on import standards, which the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) began to talk about.
Farmers in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire play by the rules and abide by the regulations. For example, since 1999 they have stopped using sow stalls because UK law rightly declared those cramped conditions cruel. But every day, when my constituents go to local supermarkets, the shelves are stocked with bacon from overseas farms that still use those banned methods. I think everyone agrees that that is unfair both for animal welfare and for our farmers.
The recent weeks have been historic for British trade. The Government secured groundbreaking agreements that will boost our economy while, crucially, remaining firm on our higher food standards. When we negotiated with the US, we held the line on hormone-treated beef, delivering on our manifesto promise to protect farmers and consumers alike. This is Labour in action, proving we can expand trade without compromising our values.
We now need to address the inconsistency still visible on supermarket shelves across Britain. Nearly 50% of pork imports come from countries where pregnant pigs remain confined in narrow sow stalls, unable even to turn around. Lamb imports from Australia, where farmers practise mulesing—cutting skin from live sheep without pain relief—have surged following the Conservatives’ flawed trade deal. Such practices were banned here because they do not align with British values or public opinion.
British farmers follow our welfare regulations—no battery cages, no sow stalls and humane transport conditions—yet we continue to allow imports that undermine those standards. Instead of preventing cruelty to farmed animals, the effect of many of our laws is to simply offshore that cruelty to other countries, sometimes those with standards far lower than our own. Imports should meet our domestic animal welfare standards. If certain practices are too cruel for our farms, they should also be too cruel for our borders.
We already have a precedent for this approach—for example, current UK legislation requires that all meat imports comply with our slaughter standards. We now need to extend that principle to how animals are kept throughout their lives, not just how they are killed. That would mean legislation requiring that imported animal products meet UK standards on key welfare issues, which means no eggs from barren battery cages, no pork from farms using sow stalls and no lamb from farms practising live lamb cutting.
The European Union is already moving in that direction, with proposals to end caged farming by 2027 and extend that rule to imports. Aligning our policies would improve our trade relationship with our largest partner, further benefiting British farmers. That change would directly improve animal welfare, aligning both with our values and with public demands. For our farmers, it would right a wrong, preventing grossly unfair competition from low-welfare imports and allowing British producers to uphold higher standards while remaining competitive. That would also complement the £5 billion support package we have already delivered in that space.
That is also what the British public want: recent polling has shown that around 84% of people, including a significant backing among rural communities, support applying our animal welfare standards to all imports. The policy is not controversial at all, and it is fair for farmers, animals and people. It builds on the trade successes that we have already achieved while closing a loophole that undermines our farmers and our values.
Alongside our trade successes, it is time to show that our approach to trade is both principled and practical. We can grow our economy while standing firm on the standards that matter to British people. I hope that the Government will consider some legislative interventions on this issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I commend the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for setting the scene so well. He mentioned some graphic things that get under many people’s skin. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, although we do not farm the land any more—the neighbours do that for us.
To illustrate the matter, I will say what my neighbours do in relation to it. The people I know who farm close to me—and many others too; it is not exclusive to where I live—love their animals. They have a commitment to their beef and dairy cattle and to their sheep. Last year, or perhaps the year before, they got a robotic dairy. For those who do not know what that means—I did not really know until I visited—the cattle are much calmer and they have access to food every time they want it.
Usually when you walk through a field of cattle, they scatter in all directions. I walked into those cattle along with the boys who own the farm and the cattle did not even budge out of the road. There was music going in the background as well—I cannot remember whether it was Tchaikovsky, Elvis Presley or whatever—and the cattle seemed incredibly calm. Was that their choice of music? I am not sure that they had any input into that, but they were the best looked-after cattle that I have seen for some time. The farmers that I see strive hard to do it right. I know the hon. Gentleman recognises that, but others do not, so it is important to say it.
I want to comment on the dreadful Windsor framework. Issues arose recently and the Ulster Farmers’ Union expressed serious concerns about the implications of the recently announced UK-US trade agreement. In other words: we keep the standards and do things right, but then they are going to produce some stuff in the USA where they do not have the same standards that we have. There will be a serious impact on our livestock and high standards. The Ulster Farmers’ Union president, William Irvine, said
“This is not a traditional free trade agreement and we recognise that it is an early-stage framework. But the fact remains—UK agriculture, including sensitive sectors like beef and cereals, is again being asked to shoulder the burden of securing trade wins for steel, aluminium and cars. That sets a worrying precedent.”
It also sets a worrying precedent for our standards, which I am very concerned about, but unfortunately I do not have the time that it needs to go into it.
US beef is produced on a scale and in a system that gives it a cost advantage. If the UK Government open the door further, we must be ready to protect our standards to ensure a level playing field. On the bioethanol element of the deal, Mr Irvine said that the Ulster Farmers’ Union will be seeking urgent clarity from the Government on the expected impact on Northern Ireland’s arable sector. In a conversation before the debate started, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to bovine TB.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Bovine TB across the UK is not just a farming issue, but an animal welfare one, and is causing a financial crisis. Thousands of healthy cattle are being culled and wildlife remains trapped in a vicious cycle of infection. The cost to the public purse in Northern Ireland is now sitting at £60 million a year. In England, there has been a science-led approach. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister needs to engage with England and do exactly as has been done here, with a wildlife intervention project that culls badgers, so that we improve animal health and protect our wildlife?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is wise in her intervention. In fairness to the Minister, he regularly visits Northern Ireland. We have had been fortunate to have him twice at Colin McKee’s in my constituency, because he loves the scones and the coffee. He also loves seeing how a farmer can look after his animals better than others. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of bovine TB, and perhaps the Minister could tell us if he has had engagements, correspondence and discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland.
The Ulster Farmers’ Union is calling for the UK Government to provide greater transparency about how sensitive sectors will be protected in future. It is important to get that right. Northern Ireland farmers are proud to produce food to world-leading high standards of animal welfare, traceability and environmental care, but those standards must be reflected in trade deals. We should not be held to an example of European overreach. The effect of the US trade deal may be another example of how the special circumstances in Northern Ireland are especially difficult rather than especially beneficial.
There must be standards in place for animal welfare, and we must remove the EU overreach and have UK-wide standards. I ask the Minister to take that back to the Cabinet. We must all do better to support farmers in the same way throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe the Minister does that and I look forward to his response.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for enabling us to speak on this important topic.
I will start by sharing how valuable it was to spend a day of last week’s recess at Staffordshire’s county show. As always, I came away full of admiration for our farming community. I am a little biased, but Staffordshire is a shining example of some of the best of British farming, and everybody at the show seemed to agree. That is not just in terms of productivity and innovation but in the deep care many of our farmers have for animal welfare.
That brings me to the complex and often uncomfortable balance we are trying to strike in this debate between raising animal welfare standards and the environmental, financial and logistical realities of making that happen. When we talk about moving away from practices such as caged systems—a move that, for the record, I absolutely support—we are also talking about the need for more barn space, more land use and more infrastructure, all of which mean higher running costs for farmers and sometimes greater greenhouse gas emissions.
To be clear, those are not reasons for rejecting higher animal welfare standards, but they are reasons to approach the issue with farmers in mind. That must be our starting point, because farmers are not charities and, more than ever, they have to look at the bottom line, which all too often is dwindling. Let us be frank: supermarkets will always demand higher welfare, but they are not always willing to pay more for it. That is disingenuous to consumers and squeezes producers even further, pitting welfare against farm viability.
An area where we could make a real difference is animal welfare labelling, which is being looked at by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member; I am glad that the Committee’s Chair is present. For the average shopper, labelling is a minefield. Information on nutrition and the country of origin has been simplified in the past decade, but in the animal welfare space we have statutory minimum standards and the “Red Tractor”, “RSPCA Assured”, EU organic and Soil Association organic labels, all representing different standards.
Consumers need to understand what labelling means in practical terms and how to interpret it when they shop. That will not be easy, but I believe that is a challenge that we can and should take on. However, in doing so, we must make sure producers have a say, alongside consumers and animal welfare organisations, so that they can realise the benefits of clearer labelling too. The lack of coherent and clear information on welfare on the shelf is a concern for farmers who are producing to higher standards because they do not have a clear way of differentiating their products for consumers. They therefore do not reap the rewards from the quality of their goods that should incentivise higher welfare standards. Research indicates that the current systems of farm assurance, regardless of the label, are not working as best as they could for farmers, consumers and, most importantly, animals.
Sir Roger Gale
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. Does he also agree that there is a significant error in not properly labelling animals subjected to non-stunned slaughter?
Josh Newbury
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that that is a perfect example of where stronger, more consistent animal welfare labelling would give consumers that kind of information. In other countries, such as Germany, systems take that into account, and consumers should have access to that information.
On farm assurance, for example, the campaign group Animal Rising has uncovered failings in “RSPCA Assured” farms and abattoirs.
We also have to ensure that fairness for the farming sector is paramount. I raised that in Select Committee sessions and it has been raised today, but it bears repeating: we cannot ask our farmers to invest in higher standards and then leave them exposed to undercutting by imports. We are all in favour of better welfare. In fact, a 2022 poll revealed that 71% of the British public want the Government to pass more laws to improve animal welfare, but we cannot hold our farmers to a gold standard while turning a blind eye to imports that are produced to far lower standards. Trade deals without adequate safeguards will negatively impact the UK’s animal welfare standards for decades to come, undermining our farmers and the hard-won animal welfare improvements that we need to build on. That risks putting more farmers out of business, jeopardising our food security and offshoring animal cruelty.
To put it simply, if it is too cruel to produce here, it should be too cruel to import. If it is not good enough for our farms, it is not good enough for our shelves. Ultimately, we need to get the balance right by supporting our farmers to raise standards, making sure that consumers understand what they are buying and ensuring that the whole system—domestic or international—reflects our values as a nation of animal lovers.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers.
Britain has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We should take real pride in that, but we must also protect it, both for the sake of the animals in our care and the farmers who work hard to uphold those standards every single day. Pride alone is not enough. If we want consumers, both at home and abroad, to understand and support the standards we have set, we must clearly communicate them. That is why I would strongly support the introduction of a standardised mandatory animal welfare labelling scheme on meat, eggs and dairy—not voluntary but mandatory. Such a scheme would allow shoppers to make informed choices about the products they buy and to support British farmers, who uphold some of the highest standards in the world. Data from the Labour Animal Welfare Society suggests such a scheme could boost profits for British farmers by over £40 million per year, and improve the welfare of up to 110 million chickens, 700,000 hens and half a million pigs annually. That is not a marginal improvement; it is transformational.
While we rightly lift our own standards, we must ensure farmers are not undercut by imports produced in inhumane conditions abroad that would be illegal here in the UK. Our farmers are proud to meet high standards, but they should not be punished for having to compete against cheap imports raised in low-cost, low-welfare conditions abroad. Phasing out low-welfare imports within five years and requiring all imported food to meet our domestic standards would level the playing field for British farmers and end the silent support of animal cruelty abroad, which I know many of our constituents have contacted us all about over the years. Humane slaughter rules already apply to meat imports—as we have heard—so why should welfare standards afforded to animals during their time on the farm be any different? That is not protectionism; it is moral leadership. As one of the world’s largest economies, and with a particularly large amount of our food imported, we must use our influence and privileged position to encourage others to rise to our standards.
Across the North sea, Denmark has already launched an animal welfare labelling scheme, and we have its eight years of experience to draw on. Under the slogan, “A hold on your heart”, that welfare labelling scheme has seen knowledge of animal welfare conditions skyrocket among the populace and has led to a profound change in shopping habits for the better, for consumers and animals alike.
Animal welfare is not a niche concern. According to a poll conducted by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board last year, 84% of shoppers think animal welfare is important, yet they are currently given little information about the standards involved in the products they buy.
Labour has pledged to boost animal welfare in a generation. Let us make good on that promise while shoring up the competitiveness of our struggling farmers. By introducing animal welfare labelling, we can reward those who work hard to treat animals well. We can empower consumers to reject low-welfare imports and encourage countries that wish to access our large and lucrative market to rise to our standards—a win for all.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
Much of what I was going to say has already been raised, so I will make just a few brief points, because I care deeply about this subject. First, I should declare an interest: right after the debate, I am hosting an event in the Jubilee Room with Humane World for Animals about ending the use of cruel mother pig cages. At the event, there will be a life-sized replica of a farrowing crate to show just how confined mother pigs are when they are kept in them for weeks and weeks. I encourage hon. Members to come along.
As we have heard, every year in the UK 200,000 sows are confined in farrowing crates. Those sows can spend almost a quarter of their adult lives in crates where they do not even have enough room to turn around. That is unacceptable. The vast majority of Scots care as deeply about this issue as I do. When polled earlier this year, 84% of Scots said that farrowing crates should be banned, either immediately or at least within the next five years. I know that the Government are looking carefully at the issue, alongside ending the use of enriched cages for hens, and I very much welcome that. It is important to be aware that around 8 million laying hens live their lives in tiny and cramped cages, in what must be a somewhat miserable existence followed by, ultimately, a sad death.
I think most of us here would agree that Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and that we should be proud of the many high animal welfare standards that we currently have. In fact, 95% of the UK’s 88 trading partners have lower animal welfare standards than our own domestic requirements, and we have heard quite a lot about that already. For example, over half of UK pork comes from countries that have sow stalls, which, as we have heard, have been banned in the UK since 1999. UK sheep production is at a 39-year low while Australian imports surge; we heard about that earlier.
Phasing out low animal welfare imports that do not meet our own animal welfare standards is urgently required. Additionally, mandatory animal welfare labelling —for example, of eggs, chicken and pork—could help consumers make more informed choices. We have heard about that already. DEFRA proposed a mandatory method of production welfare label in a public consultation that closed in March 2024, and I think the discussion so far today suggests people would like that to go ahead.
Another area that has not been raised yet is that of male chicks. In the UK, between 40 million and 45 million male chicks each year are culled in a process called “hatch and dispatch,” as they cannot lay eggs or be grown for meat. Sometimes chicks are crushed with rollers or minced with blades while they are fully conscious. However, in France and Germany, this practice is banned. In-ovo sexing technology allows the sex of the egg to be identified before the chick can feel pain and it is estimated that implementing this technology in the UK would add less than the cost of 1p per egg. That is definitely worth considering; there is a whole lot to consider today.
Finally, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for introducing the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on all the points and ideas that have been raised so far.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing this important debate. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have always championed the highest standards in animal welfare, not just because it is the right thing to do but because it reflects the compassion and integrity of our society.
Our Welsh farmers take pride in producing food to some of the highest welfare standards in the world. However, that proud tradition is under threat—not from our own farmers but from the last Conservative Government’s careless approach to trade. Take the UK-Australia free trade agreement: that deal, which was rushed through, without proper scrutiny, allowed tariff-free imports of beef and lamb from Australia, despite serious concerns about the farming practices there. In Australia, about 40% of beef cattle are reared in intensive feed lots in barren, crowded environments, where animals are fattened on grain, not pasture. Those conditions would be unthinkable here in the UK. Even worse, growth-promoting hormones are still used in Australian beef production, a practice banned in the UK for decades. Meanwhile, the painful mutilation of sheep through mulesing remains common; again, that is something we rightly prohibit here. Let us not also forget that Australian hens can still be confined to barren battery cages, which are long banned in the UK and across the EU.
Those double standards are indefensible. Our farmers are being undercut by products that would be illegal to produce here. That is not just unfair; it is a betrayal of Welsh farmers, of animal welfare and of the trust of the British public. Polling consistently shows that the British people support stronger laws on animal welfare and oppose low-welfare imports. In Wales, where our agricultural communities are close-knit and values-driven, the issue matters deeply. That is why the UK Government must act to ensure that if it is too cruel to produce in the UK, it is too cruel to import.
We are calling on the UK Government to ban cages and crates for farmed animals, to require all imported meat, eggs and dairy to meet UK welfare standards, and to introduce clear, mandatory labelling so that consumers can make informed, ethical choices. All new trade deals should be put to a vote in Parliament, and we should ensure that they are all subject to impact assessments across every nation and region of the UK. We have a moral duty to protect the welfare of our animals, and to ensure that our farmers are rewarded, not punished, for doing the right thing.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), my constituency neighbour, for securing this much-needed and timely debate. It is one that I called for in the Chamber several weeks ago, so I am pleased to be here today.
There was recently outrage and shock about footage from a Lincolnshire farm, where the abuse of animals was caught on film. I was glad that supermarkets took a stand, suspended their trade with that farm and confirmed that they regard such abuse as unacceptable. However, it is particularly saddening and concerning that that was not a one-off case or an outlier. Sadly, we see such animal abuse time and again at various locations across the country, including in my own county of Norfolk.
It has been made clear today that animal welfare comes in various forms, from imports to labelling and intensive farming, a subject I am passionate about. It is clear that we need to rethink animal welfare policy, and intensive farming is a particular concern for me. Freedom of information requests that I have submitted to the Environment Agency have shown that in the past decade, industrial farms have breached regulations more than 7,000 times. That is 7,000 breaches of regulations in less than a decade. It is clear that the whole regulatory system is currently completely toothless. For example, one farm operated by a large corporation has been found to be stocking more than 400,000 animals, instead of the permitted 357,000. Evidence suggests that regulatory nonconformity is the norm, yet regulators are taking enforcement action only in a tiny minority of cases. Rather than feeling the pressure to comply, intensive livestock companies are being invited to wield significant influence over public policy.
Intensive farming practices are on the rise. Between 2016 and 2023, there was a 20% increase in the number of intensive livestock units in the UK. Now, about 80% of broiler chickens are reared in fully housed, intensive systems. A process of consolidation and industrialisation of farming has seen more than 100,000 livestock and poultry farms go out of business between 1990 and 2016. It is no wonder that so many small farms in my constituency are nervous about speaking out against the big boys.
The Minister might be pleased to know that I did not intend to mention the Methwold mega-farm today. However, seeing as it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, I will bring it up. I am delighted that it was rejected due to what was very much a joint effort among local residents, charities and elected representatives, from councillors to myself, as an MP. It is true that it was rejected in part over animal welfare concerns, but importantly, the effect on the environment and climate played a role as well. In Norfolk, the environment is crucial to our economy. It is suggested that if I am against intensive farming I am anti-growth, but tourism is worth more to us in Norfolk than it is in Cornwall; it is crucial to local jobs. Intensive farming impacts jobs in our county—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
As a result of the Division in the House, the debate’s revised end time is 4.44 pm. I will call the shadow Minister and the Minister to wind up at 4.06 pm. I know that we have two speakers to come and that Terry Jermy is coming to the conclusion of his speech.
Terry Jermy
Unfortunately, Sir John, you have missed the first 80% of my speech. I was coming on to how crucial the environment in Norfolk is to the local economy and the threat that intensive livestock farming poses to the environment. It is also a threat from a disease and an animal welfare point of view.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
On the subject of disease, the 2023 national risk register states that the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and the presence of exotic diseases, such as foot and mouth disease, represent a threat to our food sustainability. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming calls from the National Farmers Union for the Treasury to fund a cross-Government plan to tackle such diseases?
Terry Jermy
I absolutely support that proposal. Intensive farming presents a significant risk from a disease point of view, so we need to heed such calls.
I will quickly conclude. Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, introduced under the previous Labour Government. Last year, I was very proud to stand on a manifesto to further strengthen animal welfare legislation. As we have heard today, frankly, that cannot happen quickly enough.
In my constituency, farming is our lifeblood, as is the environment, and therefore we must have a serious conversation about what sort of farming we want in future. I sincerely hope that it is one that protects our communities, our agriculture and our nature, while also furthering our animal welfare standards.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing this debate.
Around one third of my constituency is agricultural land, so it is no surprise that animal welfare in farming is a big issue for many of my constituents, as it is for me. As the Minister and the Shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), no doubt remember, we had long debates in Committee in the previous Parliament on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Although that Bill had its faults, it would have been a step in the right direction. Sadly, it was unceremoniously dropped by the last Government after the Committee stage, which stalled progress on these issues.
I know that the Minister has picked up on these issues since being re-elected, and I was proud to stand on a Labour manifesto that made clear commitments to improve animal welfare. These are not fringe concerns; they reflect the values of people across the country who want to see animals treated with decency and respect. Animal welfare must be at the heart of farming, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because people deserve to know where their food is produced and that it is produced to standards that they can trust.
We have photographs on cigarette packets that show the harms of smoking. If we had similar images that showed the harms caused to animals by the ways in which they are kept, I imagine that the sales of the products we are discussing today would fall through the floor. The reality is that many animals are still kept in conditions that fall far short of the general public’s expectations. Hens are confined to cages that, as we have heard, are barely larger than an A4 piece of paper, and pigs are kept in farrowing crates and are unable even to turn around. These are not isolated cases; they are widespread practices that cause real suffering.
Animals kept in such systems experience chronic stress, frustration and pain. That is not just outdated; it is indefensible. The science is clear and the public are clear that we must legislate to ban cages in farming, and without delay if possible. We also need to support farmers through that transition. Many farmers are already doing the right thing, often at financial cost. They deserve a system that rewards higher welfare standards, not one that pits them against cheaper, lower standard imports. I know the Minister will agree with that.
This issue is not about choosing between farming and welfare; it is about recognising that the two must go hand in hand. A fair and sustainable food system depends on both.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this debate.
I last spoke about eggs in a debate just before Easter, but eggs are not just for Easter; they are for all year round. As other hon. Members have already said, we are still in a situation where the space that many hens have to live in is the same size as a piece of A4 paper. That is just not good enough. Such cages are known as “enriched cages”. The marketing people really earned their stripes that day, because I think that if we started calling them “confinement cages” we would go a long way towards stamping out this horrible practice.
I am very keen to hear from the Minister about the recent EU reset, because some of our European friends and neighbours already have better standards than us; indeed, some of them, for example Germany, are thinking of introducing even higher standards. Does that mean that there is now a real need for us to catch up? I would be keen to hear the Minister’s views.
I am also concerned about the welfare of lobsters—the first time that lobsters have got a mention today. I did a bit of googling last night and found out that it is possible to buy fresh lobsters on the open market. The advertisement that I saw said:
“Upon receipt of delivery, store your live lobsters in the fridge until ready to cook. Lobsters can be boiled, poached, grilled or barbecued.”
Imagine that referred to any other kind of animal. Imagine saying, “A live chicken or lamb will arrive; put it in the garden and then, as an amateur, smash its skull in and boil it alive.” Is that the kind of situation that we want to see, in a country that talks about being a nation of animal lovers? I would be keen to hear from the Minister whether that is something that he wants to get his claws into.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
We are moving ahead with alacrity, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for allowing us to do so. Without more ado, I call Sarah Dyke, the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate. It is also a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
Glastonbury and Somerton is synonymous with farming. I have spoken many times about how Thomas Hardy described Blackmore vale, where I call home, as the “Vale of Little Dairies”. My connection with farming runs deep, so I know that farmers have a deep and complex bond with the animals they rear, shaped by the daily care, emotional attachment and professional responsibilities they have towards them. Farmers form concerned attachment for individual animals and feel empathy, even though the animals are part of their livelihood.
Hundreds of farming businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton take great pride in the high animal welfare standards they implement. Take the Slow Farming Company near Castle Cary, for example: it produces beef, pork and eggs to the highest welfare standards, as certified by A Greener World, and recognises the value of doing so not just for the animals that are reared, but for human health. This weekend, the Slow Farming Company is hosting an open farm weekend to celebrate Open Farm Sunday and showcase the concept of slow farming and slow food.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to improving standards of animal health and welfare in agriculture. We know not only that it is important to support British farmers to implement such measures, but that we must not punish farmers by importing animal products with low welfare standards from abroad. Given the Government’s flurry of recent trade deals, this is an opportune time to remember why we must continue to keep high animal welfare standards at home and must not allow the Government to offshore poor animal welfare practices.
The new report from Animal Policy International, Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals notes that 95% of potential UK trading partners have lower animal welfare standards. The Liberal Democrats are aware of the threat that new trade deals could pose, and there is the ongoing risk that the deals will further undermine British farmers by allowing in animal products that simply would not be produced in the UK, such as foie gras and food produced with antibiotic growth promoters. We are clear that we must not allow that to happen. The Liberal Democrats want to ensure that all imported food meets UK standards for health and welfare, while introducing robust food labelling that is simple to understand. That is paramount, because maintaining high food standards supports environmental sustainability and public trust in farming practices.
Last month, the Government announced a trade deal with the US. The deal included £180 million-worth of beef, and UK tariff exemptions on US beef expanded from historical levels of 1,000 tonnes to 13,000 tonnes. At the time, many right hon. and hon. Members demanded reassurance that British farmers would not be undercut by the deal. Although the sanitary and phytosanitary aspect of the deal is in line with UK standards, animal welfare concerns remain because US beef is produced to lower standards.
Last week, I attended the Royal Bath and West show and spent a morning with the National Farmers Union, speaking to local farmers. We were all horrified to learn that Asda is now stocking Uruguayan beef under labelling that could be described, at best, as misleading. I am not suggesting that the meat is of a lower standard, but it calls into question the wonderful work that Asda is doing on sustainability in its beef supply chain and in supporting British farmers, including the work it does to make UK suppliers jump through various sustainability hoops.
World Animal Protection has given the US an animal protection index rating of E for protecting animals used in farming, highlighting the stark contrast between the UK and the US. Therefore, as further details of the agreement are finalised, it is critical that the Government ensure that US—or any—beef entering the UK has been produced not only to equivalent food safety standards, but to animal welfare standards. Not to do so would be a betrayal of British farmers and the British public. Some 84% of the British public support restricting or banning low-welfare imports that do not meet UK standards. As a country, we are proud to support our farmers, who produce food for our tables to the highest animal welfare standards in the world, so we must make sure we do not kowtow to foreign Governments who want us to open the floodgates and fill our supermarket shelves with low-welfare animal produce. We must not stand by and expect our farmers to compete on an unlevel playing field. The Liberal Democrats are clear: we must instead lead the way to raise standards around the world, while continuing to raise them at home.
The previous Conservative Government signed trade deals that undercut our farmers. The CPTPP agreement—the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—could allow Mexican farmers who use battery-cage production to export to Britain large numbers of eggs produced in a manner that would be illegal in the UK. A former Environment Secretary criticised the free trade agreement with Australia that he helped to secure, stating that the deal was not good for the UK and
“gave away far too much”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
We must not let that happen again.
The recent EU-UK agreement is a positive step in beginning to reverse the damage caused by the Conservatives’ deal with Europe and so was welcomed by the Liberal Democrats. We are committed to deepening our trading relationship with the EU and called for a comprehensive veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. However, half the pork sold in the UK comes from countries that permit sow stalls—a practice that we banned, as we have heard, in 1999. Most comes from EU countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Poland. The requirement in the common understanding that exceptions to dynamic alignment must not
“negatively affect European Union animals and goods”
could prevent welfare-based restrictions on those imports. The fear is that that provision could systematically prevent the UK from applying its higher standards across the market. The UK must preserve its sovereign right to maintain and enhance domestic animal welfare standards for all products entering the market. The Government’s trade strategy is expected soon, and it is clear that that must ensure that animal welfare standards are not undermined by the Government’s approach to trade.
The Liberal Democrats also recognise the need to work on standards domestically. That is why we want to introduce a new comprehensive animal welfare Bill that would ensure the highest standards possible. In the UK, 11 million egg-laying hens, representing 18% of the egg-laying industry, are kept in “enriched” cages; and, although we banned sow stalls in 1999, farrowing crates are still legal and used for up to 60% of sows in the UK. Therefore we still have further to go if we are to continue proudly leading the world in animal welfare.
The Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to launch a consultation on the use of farrowing crates for pigs, and to end the use of cages for farm animals. However, I worry that some recent policy decisions might limit farmers’ ability to make progress. DEFRA transferred support for farmers looking to convert to organic out of the countryside stewardship scheme and into the sustainable farming incentive months before its abrupt closure, meaning that for the first time in 30 years no Government funding is available for farmers looking to convert to organic farming. Cuts to the nature-friendly farming budget, expected to be outlined in the forthcoming spending review, will limit farmers’ ability to improve animal welfare standards further. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the impact that these measures will have on farmers across the country. Farmers have a huge role in hitting the Government’s environmental and climate change aims, but short-sighted decisions will make those aims impossible. The Liberal Democrats instead have pledged to add an additional £1 billion a year to the farming budget, which will help farmers to keep standards high while producing food for the country.
We must improve the UK’s food labelling with regard to animal welfare. Under the last Conservative Government, DEFRA, to its credit, undertook a consultation on introducing mandatory methods of product labelling. The assessment for that found that food labelling could improve animal welfare standards. It found that the policy would improve the welfare of 110 million meat chickens, 510,000 pigs, 250,000 beef cattle, 180,000 dairy cattle and 1 million sheep, while also financially benefiting farmers by around £40 million a year. The Liberal Democrats have called for labelling that includes the locality that the animal was reared in, the conditions they were kept in, the methods of slaughter and the environmental impact of the product. We can improve the lives of farmed animals while helping farmers increase their profitability.
The future of animal welfare standards in farming and farming businesses are intertwined. As a country, we are proud of our standards, but we can and should go further. This must come with a firm commitment not to undercut British farmers through trade deals, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss this critical matter further. We have heard powerful contributions from right across the House. I declare a strong professional and personal interest in animal health and welfare as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
In the United Kingdom we have brilliant farmers, who farm to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that fact. In that regard, we have heard today that we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. I am extremely proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on improving animal welfare standards in farming and right across the board. That includes the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export from Great Britain of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for slaughter and fattening; the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which enshrined animal sentience into UK law and established the Animal Sentience Committee so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare; and the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022, which created new financial penalties for those who commit offences affecting the health and welfare of farmed animals, zoo animals and pets.
Furthermore, in 2023, the Conservative Government launched the animal health and welfare pathway—a partnership between farmers, vets, the wider industry and the supply chain that supports continual improvement in farm animal health and welfare. It includes access through funded vet visits to testing for priority diseases and to advice, to continually improve the health, welfare and productivity of farmed animals.
His Majesty’s official Opposition support banning cages or close-confinement systems if there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal or bird health and welfare. For example, the keeping of calves in veal crates was banned in 1990, the keeping of sows in close-confinement stalls was, as we have heard today, banned in 1999 and the use of battery cages for laying hens was banned in 2012.
The market itself has also been trying to drive the move towards alternative systems for laying hens—primarily towards free range and barn—and away from the use of cages. That transition to non-cage egg production has been accelerated in recent years by the major supermarkets that pledged to stop selling shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages by 2025. Some supermarkets extended that to products containing liquid or powdered eggs.
Egg producers and consumers should rightly take pride in the quality of British eggs, with around 75% coming from free-range, barn and organic production systems. I hope the Government will continue to work with our farmers, supermarkets and other retailers to help ensure that that figure increases in the years to come.
Positive action taken by the previous Conservative Government is ensuring that animals are slaughtered domestically in high-welfare UK slaughterhouses, which have been fitted with CCTV since 2018. However, Members will be aware of the challenges facing the small abattoir sector, including a shortage of skilled workers, primarily because the jobs are relatively low paid and many people do not consider it an attractive industry to work in.
In 2007, the UK was home to almost 100 small abattoirs. Now it is estimated that only 49 small red meat abattoirs remain in England, Wales and Scotland. If closures continue at the current rate, it is estimated that none will be operating by 2030. It is important to mention that small abattoirs make a significant contribution to supporting the rural economy, enabling farmers to sell their meat locally in farm shops. Importantly—this goes to the point of this animal welfare debate—that maintains good animal health and welfare by reducing journey times to slaughter. The last Government launched the £4 million smaller abattoir fund to support small abattoirs. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what action the Labour Government will take to ensure the long-term viability of the small abattoir sector so that we can reduce journey times for animals to slaughter.
Following our departure from the European Union, the last Government prioritised ensuring that we had some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We must ensure that we do not row back on those standards. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will not weaken any of our high animal welfare standards as part of any shift towards dynamic alignment? Where we have higher standards than the EU—for example, with our ban on live animal exports for slaughter and fattening—does the Minister agree that we should use our influence to encourage the EU to adopt those higher standards?
Furthermore, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 laid the foundations for breeding animals and birds that are protected from contracting harmful diseases. That could, for example, mean that birds are resistant to avian influenza, and we have seen the scourge of avian influenza across our country in recent years, devastating some of our poultry flocks. It could also mean developing pigs that are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. This technology can be a win for animal and bird health and welfare, in addition to protecting the environment and public health and—as we have heard today—mitigating antimicrobial resistance by reducing the usage of medicines. Can the Minister therefore assure us that the Government intend to lay the secondary legislation that will enable precision breeding in animals and birds, as they recently did—with cross-party support—for plants and crops? Can he also confirm that, as a result of the recent UK-EU summit, vital legislation on precision breeding will not be repealed or derogated?
We have heard a lot today about negotiating trade agreements, and it is important that within those agreements we uphold our high animal welfare standards. The last Government secured vital animal welfare chapters in both the Australian and the New Zealand trade deals. The UK Government must establish clear red lines in any trade deal with the USA and other countries, ensuring that products such as chlorine-washed poultry, hormone-treated beef and ractopamine-fed pork, or products in which antibiotics have been used as growth promoters, are not permitted to enter the UK market.
Just last year, when the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), served as Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she suspended trade negotiations with Canada due to its insistence on including hormone-treated beef in the agreement. That decisive action sent a strong message that the UK will not compromise on its ban on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork and chlorine-washed chicken products, which are illegal in this country. Standing firm on those standards demonstrates our commitment to animal welfare and signals to the world that if other countries want to trade with us, they must meet our values and our standards. I hope that the current Government continue to follow that Conservative example.
To have and maintain high animal welfare standards on farms, and to ensure the viability and resilience of the sector, the Government must prioritise biosecurity—I have deep affection and respect for the Minister, and he knows where I am going with this. The official Opposition recently supported the statutory instrument, which we laid the foundations for, that removed the 16-week derogation period. As a result, free-range egg producers and packers can label and market eggs as free-range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, as called for by the chief veterinary officer in response to avian influenza, however long that may last.
We have heard a lot today about labelling. The last Government ran a consultation on food labelling, which considered proposals to introduce clearer labelling requirements on the country of origin and the method of production for certain foods. Those proposals sought to improve transparency and consistency around food labelling, making it easier for consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing food and allowing them to choose products that align with their values. The current Government are yet to respond to that consultation, so I would be grateful if the Minister can update us on where they are with that.
In addition, will the Minister please clarify when the Government will close the loophole in the Government buying standards for public procurement, whereby public bodies can deviate from high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost? To set an example to the world, we must get our own house in order, so I would be grateful if the Minister can update us on that.
To have high animal welfare standards, we need healthy animals, and for that we need strong biosecurity. I have long called on the Government to rapidly redevelop the Animal and Plant Health Agency headquarters is in Weybridge, in Surrey. We are extremely grateful for all that it does to keep us safe and for its vigilance in terms of disease surveillance and management on the frontline. It is pivotal in protecting against devastating diseases such as foot and mouth disease, seen this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, and African swine fever, which is advancing up the continent of Europe. Will the Government finish the work the Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion in 2020 to redevelop the APHA headquarters? Labour has repeatedly reannounced £208 million. That is a start, but when will it commit the further £1.4 billion for that critical national infrastructure, for the sake of UK agriculture and our national security?
I pay tribute to all our farmers, growers and producers and to everyone else involved in producing food in our country. Food security is paramount for us, and we must uphold high animal welfare. We owe the people working on the frontline a debt of gratitude; thanks to them, we in this country enjoy a wide range of high-quality meat, poultry and dairy products that have been produced in high welfare standard conditions.
Sadly, farmers face an array of challenges because of the Labour Government’s punitive decisions, from the family farm tax to the closure of the sustainable farming incentive scheme. For the sake of our food, national security, animal health and welfare, and rural mental health, I strongly urge the Minister to consider the consequences of those policies and to stand up for farmers and animals in this country.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I ask him to leave a little time for the mover of the motion to sum up the debate.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate all those who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate.
We are a nation of animal lovers, as has been made very clear to me since I became an Environment Minister. As Members would expect, animal welfare issues consistently form a significant proportion of the correspondence that comes across my desk. I want to start by saying a bit about people, because I have “food security” in my job title, and I take it very seriously. I am very proud of the people across our country who, at this very moment, whether on land or at sea, are producing the food that we absolutely expect to be available. It is an extraordinarily complicated and sophisticated system; of course it can be improved, and we have heard suggestions for improvement, but it is important that we register just how extraordinary the food system already is. When there are transgressions—it occasionally happens that people in this place transgress—we should not see people as guilty by association. We should celebrate the success of the system, as well as the challenges.
We are rightly proud that this country’s animal welfare standards are very high; in fact, they are one of the selling points of our agricultural sector. They are greatly valued by consumers at home and are part of our sales pitch to people abroad. We want to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection they deserve.
The Labour party has a proud history of improving animal welfare. Next year will mark 20 years since the previous Labour Government introduced the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, which still represents the most fundamental change to our animal welfare law in nearly a century.
All farm animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health and welfare legislation. The Animal Welfare Act makes it an offence to either cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 set down detailed requirements on how farmed livestock should be kept. There is also legislation that sets out specific conditions that need to be met for permitted procedures, such as tail docking, to be performed on certain species of animals.
In addition to farm animal welfare legislation, my Department has a series of statutory species-specific welfare codes, such as the code of practice for the welfare of meat chickens, which farmers are required by law to have access to and be familiar with. That encourages high standards of husbandry. As we have heard, we want to do better, and I absolutely understand that the keeping of farm animals in cages and close confinement systems is a topic that has exercised many of us over many years in this place. It is one that I absolutely assure hon. Members is currently receiving my very careful attention.
I am well aware of recent and long-running campaigns that have urged the Government to publish consultations on phasing out the use of enriched colony cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs. Many Members have spoken passionately about that. I am sure Members are aware that the Petitions Committee has selected a recent e-petition on the use of cages and crates for debate, and many of us will be back here in a couple of weeks’ time to discuss those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) raised a series of points around those issues. She also raised the culling of male chickens. I followed that subject very closely. Clearly, the technology, as she rightly pointed out, now allows chicks to be sexed within the egg. We very much welcome the UK egg industry’s interest in the development of day zero sexing technology. This is one of the areas on which we can move forward.
I also want to address the points on trade, because that has been one of the key themes in this debate. It is very topical and there is a lot going on in the world. Ending the use of these systems is an issue that our European trading partners are also carefully considering. We heard a number of interventions, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake)—she and I have debated these issues on many occasions over the years.
I was also delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), who is a genuine friend. She raised a particular issue around decapod culling. My Department is talking to both the industry and relevant animal welfare non-governmental organisations on potential non-statutory guidance on which methods of killing decapods are or are not in line with the existing welfare at time of killing legal requirements. I hope she will find that encouraging.
As a number of Members have pointed out, with any change to our farming systems we need to evaluate the implications for trade. When considering welfare standards at home, it is crucial that we consider the potential for unintentionally replacing UK production with lower welfare production overseas—that point was well made by my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling). Replacing a UK egg with an imported caged egg would be not only bad for the consumer and bad for the producers, but bad for animal welfare as well.
These are complicated questions. I am not going to go into the fine detail of all the trade points, but I will make a few observations. We have been absolutely clear as a Government that we will use our trade strategy to promote the highest food production standards. We are determined to prevent farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) all raised those points. I will say a little about some of the recent trade deals with the United States, India and, of course, the European Union, which I think are to be celebrated, frankly.
The United States deal does not change our own sanitary and phytosanitary regime. This—and any future agreement—only concerns US food products that have existing access to the UK market. We are absolutely committed to our high welfare standards and high consumer standards. I assure colleagues that chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will remain illegal in the United Kingdom.
On the EU agreement, the European Union has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. It is still subject to negotiation, but we have been absolutely clear about the importance of being able to set high animal welfare standards, support public health and use innovative technologies. The shadow Minister raised the issue of precision breeding. We have clearly been closely involved in that debate over a long time. I am determined to ensure that we protect our position.
On factory farming in general, I do not agree with some of the comments about large-scale production. The key issue is not size but ensuring that every farm complies with comprehensive UK law on animal health and welfare, planning, veterinary medicines and environmental legislation. Stockmanship and high husbandry standards are the key to ensuring appropriate welfare standards for all farmed animals. I appreciate the nervousness about large farms, but I have seen less than wonderful standards of biosecurity on smaller farms—although that has not always been the fault of the people involved. I do not think the issue is size; it is quality, and the ability of that business to carry out its work in a correct and safe way.
On the animal health and welfare pathway, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Epping Forest and his colleagues in the previous Parliament on this important point. Improving animal health underpins the welfare of farmed animals, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, slows the rise of antimicrobial resistance, better protects farmers and the public against the economic impact of disease, and helps to demonstrate a commitment to rising standards of animal health and welfare to our current and future trading partners across the world. It is really important, and we are good at it—we should be proud and celebrate it.
The pathway aims to promote the production of healthier, higher-welfare animals at a level beyond compliance with regulations, and to deliver sustained improvements over time, which address the challenges of the future as well as those of today.
Carla Lockhart
The Minister will be aware that access to veterinary medicines is key for animal welfare. He will know that Northern Ireland continues to face a cliff edge with regards to access to veterinary medicines. Will he commit to update hon. Members interested in this issue quickly, given its impact on the industry?
Daniel Zeichner
I assure the hon. Lady that we are very aware of that issue. I can also assure her in passing that I have regular dialogue with Minister Muir on the issues she raised.
I would like to say something about the funding that has been made available to help farmers. In early 2025, we announced £16.7 million of funding for a new round of animal health and welfare grants delivered through the farming equipment and technology fund. Applications are currently open, with livestock farmers able to apply for funding towards the cost of equipment and technology that delivers benefits for animal health and welfare.
On the poor behaviour that has been referenced, like all of us I have been shocked by some of the things we have seen. I listened closely to my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). He is absolutely right that such unacceptable behaviour must be taken extremely seriously. It is imperative that any suspicion of animal cruelty is reported to DEFRA’s Animal and Plant Health Agency as quickly as possible, so that timely investigations can take place and the welfare of animals safeguarded. I am told that there can be a gap between some of these incidents and the reporting, which makes it difficult to move forward.
More generally on enforcement, the Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors and local authorities conduct inspections on farms to check that animal welfare standards are being met. The vast majority of owners and keepers both comply with their duty of care and follow the law, but there are occasions when some fail to do so. It is absolutely the responsibility of enforcement authorities to use appropriate enforcement tools to ensure that the law is upheld, to protect animals and people and to encourage animal keepers to be compliant now and in future. To ensure that we have a transparent enforcement regime, we are actively working with enforcement authorities to reform the way they collect and publish data of on-farm enforcement activities and the actions they take to support compliance and act on non-compliance.
I am aware of your strictures on time, Sir John, so I will finish by saying a little about the important points made by a number of hon. Members about labelling: my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), and the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest. We are looking at labelling extremely closely. There are so many things that people want to know about, and I am talking to a whole range of stakeholders about how we can get the issue right and take it forward. The points that have been made are very important. There is a real opportunity to improve the welfare side, but there are many other things we can do with it as well.
I am also mindful of the points made about some of the farm assurance schemes. I think they are an extremely important tool and lever, but they are, of course, independent—and that is part of their strength and importance. We need to make sure that we can achieve, with them, the kind of improvements that we wish to see. I reassure the shadow spokesperson that £208 million has been made available to the National Biosecurity Centre; I am sure he would join me in being pleased to hear that. I also assure him that we are working very hard to ensure that the future is secure.
Let me conclude by saying that the Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Our farm animal welfare policy is backed by robust science and evidence, and supported and shaped by input from expert advice groups, including the Animal Welfare Committee, as well as funded research and development. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently undertaking a series of meetings with key stakeholders as part of developing an overarching approach to animal welfare. I very much look forward to coming back to talk to hon. Members in more detail about that in due course.
Adrian Ramsay
Sir John, I believe that I have two and a half minutes, under the updated timings for this afternoon.
Adrian Ramsay
Thank you Sir John, Mr Vickers, and everybody who has contributed this afternoon on this important topic. We have seen how much interest there is across the House in driving up the animal welfare standards and I very much appreciate the Minister’s response, which set out the plans he already has in train.
I want to respond briefly to some of those points. On the Minister’s plans to review farrowing crates and cages, I look forward to seeing the outcome of that—I think everyone here today does—and I hope there are some big steps forward as a result. I was pleased to hear the answer in relation to maintaining standards in trade, but I did not quite hear the Minister go so far as to say that the Government will not allow imports of products that do not meet UK standards. I would invite him to do that. On enforcement, I did not quite hear the Minister address the need for higher penalties, independent inspections and proper resourcing of agencies for when standards of welfare are breached. That is critical.
Lastly, on size: I take the Minister’s point that it is not the only factor, but look at the size of the Methwold application—it would have involved 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs. How could welfare be maintained at that size, with a tiny handful of staff and a huge impact on sewage and pollution? Given the proliferation of mega-farms, those issues must be tackled.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered animal welfare standards in farming.
Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses
(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
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will call Susan Murray to move the motion, and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of Inheritance Tax on family-owned businesses.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and a privilege to lead this debate on a matter of real consequence to our economy. I begin by paying tribute to the extraordinary contributions that family-owned businesses make across the country, not least in my own Mid Dunbartonshire constituency. They are not just economic actors; they are part of the fabric of our communities. They offer good local jobs and apprenticeships, sponsor local sports teams, support local charitable activities, and keep our high streets and industrial parks alive with character, energy and local pride.
According to the Fraser of Allander Institute, in 2025 family-owned businesses are in turbulent and uncertain times. They are facing national insurance increases, with many scaling back plans for workforce expansion and recruitment as a result. The latest quarterly economic indicator from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce network presents a stark picture, as businesses face pressure that threatens to derail growth, investment and competitiveness. Taxation is now the No. 1 concern facing Scottish businesses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She is absolutely right to highlight the issue of taxation. Does she agree that taxing businesses at 20% based on their value at the time of the owner’s death cannot possibly take into account the owner’s personal input into the business, and leaves a situation that can run a successful business into the ground? There is only so much that one person can be taxed before the burden is too great, and the taxation the Government are pushing is definitely going to destroy the farming sector.
Susan Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue; I completely agree.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research found that nine out of every 10 privately owned businesses in the UK are family owned, and that they provide employment for nearly 16 million people and contribute more than £200 billion in taxes annually.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and I congratulate her on securing this important debate. Did she see the research published yesterday by Family Business UK, which points to the disastrous impact of the inheritance tax reforms on family-owned businesses? In my West Worcestershire constituency alone, the changes will lead to a reduction of £18 million of gross value added and of 286 full-time equivalent jobs.
Susan Murray
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. I have seen the research and will refer to it later in my speech. That was a timely publication.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being generous on this important issue. When she spoke about the contribution that family businesses make, she could have been talking about J. W. Lees, a brewery in my constituency that has a nearly 200-year history of making contributions to the local community and brewing very good beer, or to Joseph Holt, which is on the edge of my constituency. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that the proposed changes to business property relief will lose the Government nearly £1.9 billion. Does the hon. Lady agree that before the Government go through with the changes, they should have a consultation that looks at the impact on tax and local family businesses?
Susan Murray
I completely agree: it appears that there are many factors the Government have not taken into account.
The situation was brought home to me by a local company in my constituency: Archibald Young Ltd Founders and Engineers, a family-run foundry that has been operating in Kirkintilloch since 1959—not quite as long as the business mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer). I thank Ian Young for sharing his company’s position and highlighting the vital role that it plays in defence by producing high-precision critical components. Since it was established, the company has grown steadily over three generations. At one time, Scotland had over 260 foundries; it now has 12, of which 11 are family-owned, and all are third generation.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Will she make the point that we do not really understand where the Government are coming from? I understand why they want to claw back money from big estates, or from people who buy farms just to avoid inheritance tax—not Jeremy Clarkson of course; he is a fantastic chap—but I cannot understand why they are focusing on family farms. Will the hon. Lady make the point that the National Farmers Union has offered various compromises, and the Minister should meet the NFU in a positive way to ensure that we keep our family farms run by families?
Susan Murray
I agree; it is important we understand that these businesses and family farms exist in their own right and are not simply personal property, even though they are family owned.
Today, under Andrew Young, Young’s foundry continues to provide skilled and specialist manufacturing from its bases in Kirkintilloch, Motherwell and the north of England. Like so many of the family-run firms we are here to talk about, its success has been built over decades of hard work and reinvestment in its business and workforce, yet recent Government policies are putting that at risk.
Clearly, family-owned businesses can cope with challenges in the economic and business environment, which they have navigated over generations, but when Government policies are hostile to their success and survival, their ability to create jobs and grow the economy is eroded and their future is uncertain. Whether it is rising energy and employment costs, burdensome business rates or disproportionate regulatory hurdles, these enterprises face challenges that their multinational competitors are often better equipped to absorb, or that they do not face at all.
The reforms to business property relief and agricultural relief announced in the 2024 autumn Budget have dealt family businesses a blow that risks undermining the very principle of intergenerational succession that has been at the heart of their success. They must retain profits to reinvest in business assets, to enhance business competitiveness and invest in product development.
Prior to the reforms, the shares held in private family-owned businesses could be passed on upon death to the next family generation, free of inheritance tax. This was enabled by the shares qualifying for 100% business property relief. The 2024 Budget introduced a new £1 million relief cap beyond which inheritance tax is due, with business property relief of 50%, resulting in an inheritance tax charge of 20% being applied to such transfers upon death. This sudden change means that family financial planning opportunities are much more limited. Under the new rules any lifetime transfer of business property relief or agricultural property relief assets made on or after 30 October 2024 will be subject to the new relief limits if the donor dies on or after 6 April 2026.
GAP Holdings Ltd is another family-owned business based in my constituency. I thank Mark Anderson of GAP for allowing me to share his company’s position in this debate. He has also met the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and colleagues. Founded in 1969, GAP’s tool-hire business has grown dramatically. By reinvesting in its assets over the past 10 years, it has tripled its turnover and now employs over 2,000 people across the UK. GAP’s annual profit to March was £44 million, and its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation were £132 million. For GAP, the potential inheritance tax charge arising upon the death of the second generation would amount to tens of millions of pounds. The proposed £1 million relief cap would make no meaningful difference to the size of the problem. Three months ago, GAP exceeded the £1 million mark in its total donations to charitable causes. That is the kind of benefit that these businesses bring to the community.
The inheritance tax changes would require the independent valuation of companies. Will the Minister clarify whether there is a consistent and defined methodology for that activity? When a family business owner dies and leaves shares to the next generation, there is no cash available to pay inheritance tax liability and no windfall to successors. In practical terms, it is business as usual, and the business continues to use its assets to trade and contribute economically to the local community. It is not the same as selling a business; however, it may force the company to be sold completely to pay the liability.
Will the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention that a family-owned business that has been passed down through the generations is forced to be sold as a result of the change, or forced into failure by having to take on unsustainable levels of debt?
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on a very important issue. Like herself, I have spoken to GAP, as well as other family businesses in my constituency. Does she agree that although the Government are absolutely right to ensure that we have enough funding to pay for public services through tax changes, one option might be to allow businesses to pay inheritance tax in the way proposed if that business is passed on to another family member, so that the tax liability is still met, but in a way that does not impact on future generations and allows the businesses to succeed and thrive?
Susan Murray
It is important to look at all ways to make sure we have a system that does not cause the demise of family-owned businesses.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs states that, at present, where there is 100% relief, valuations for BPR are done on the basis of the book value, which is, as my hon. Friend will know, often very different from an asset’s actual value. That being the case, I wonder how easy it would be for the Government to have reached any reasonable understanding of the actual value of the assets that they now seek to tax.
Susan Murray
That was the point I was making when I asked the Minister whether there is an established methodology to make sure that the valuation of companies reflects the current situation.
This change does not target the ultra-wealthy or global conglomerates. In many parts of the UK even modest enterprises, especially those with land and equipment, which are often the biggest local employers, exceed the £1 million relief cap. Unlike large corporations, family businesses cannot just offshore ownership structures or use complex tax arbitrage to avoid the costs.
I am sure that every Member present, including the Minister, agrees that preserving the businesses at the heart of our communities should be the Government’s priority, not erecting barriers that create an environment too toxic for family businesses to survive. Will the Minister consider raising the relief cap to £2 million, as requested by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce network? That would make more family businesses exempt from this dangerous inheritance tax, thereby protecting jobs and local businesses.
The reality is that the Government have not undertaken an impact assessment, and according to estimates by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief will raise only around £1.8 billion over a four-year period. That amount comes with a high uncertainty rating, because behaviour change might alter it significantly, and it cannot be compared with the £27 billion of VAT, late PAYE and national insurance that HMRC is yet to collect.
Forcing family businesses to reduce investment, withdraw capital, dispose of assets or sell or shut their business entirely to release cash to fund inheritance tax liability will weaken the competitiveness of not only the businesses themselves, but the wider UK economy. The changes may be well-intentioned, but they are misdirected in their execution. They risk treating genuine business owners in the same way as passive investors, and in doing so they ignore the fact that these reliefs were originally designed to protect the continuity of real working businesses in real communities.
In conclusion, will the Minister consider amending the proposed legislation to ensure that the changes do not weaken genuine family businesses—
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech. Before she closes, it is important for us just to home in on the figures. A Family Business UK report shows that in my constituency the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief will result in a £23.63 million reduction in gross value added and the loss of 381 full-time equivalent jobs, as well as being the end of many family farms. Multiplying those figures out across the United Kingdom means the loss of 208,000 jobs, a £14.8 billion reduction in GVA and a net fiscal loss to the Government of £1.9 billion. Does she agree that the death tax is immoral and should be scrapped?
Susan Murray
I certainly agree that we need to protect our family-owned businesses and do everything we can to help them to thrive, rather than putting them in a position whereby the economy is at risk of losing both jobs and growth.
I will finish the question that I was putting to the Minister. Will he consider amending the proposed legislation to ensure that the changes do not weaken genuine family businesses, and make the transfer of shares in a family business to the next generation exempt from inheritance tax for seven years, provided that the business is not sold in that period? If it is sold within that period, inheritance tax would become payable, along with the capital gains tax, both of which could be funded from the proceeds of the sale.
This Government have stated that growing the UK economy is essential, but attacking the backbone of the economy—the family businesses that have proved they can adapt and change rapidly to meet changing market needs and conditions, and that support supply chains and local jobs—must not happen. Family businesses should be supported, not raided for a relatively de minimis gain to the Exchequer.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I hope he will leave me a couple of moments at the end of the debate to put the question.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure, Sir John, to speak in this debate with you as Chair, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing it—I notice that the debate is being opened and closed by a Murray.
I know that some Members are very concerned about the impact of forthcoming reforms to inheritance tax reliefs on businesses in their constituencies, and I understand that people feel very strongly about inheritance tax. I should be clear that the Government believe that our reforms to business property relief and agricultural property relief get the balance right between supporting farms and businesses and fixing the public finances in a fair way. The reforms reduce the inheritance tax advantages available to owners of agricultural and business assets, but still mean that those assets will be taxed at a much lower effective rate than most other assets.
Let me make clear that, much like the hon. Lady set out, the Government recognise and greatly value the huge contribution that small and family-owned businesses make to their communities and the economy. Businesses large and small, including family businesses, will create jobs and wealth and be the engines of growth in the economy. Those businesses and their workforces are the backbone of our economy, and they are fundamental to kickstarting economic growth, which is the Government’s No. 1 mission. Those businesses need a Government who will take the right decisions in the national interest, including when they are difficult, to support our security and prosperity.
People who own, run and work in businesses of all sizes will remember the economic context that we inherited last year. They know how important responsible financial management is within their own businesses and how the success of businesses and their workforces depends on economic stability and public services that function well. I believe that many of them will understand that, since taking office, the Government have taken a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services. None of these decisions, including the decision to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief, was taken lightly, but those tough decisions were left to us by the previous Administration, and no responsible Government could have let things carry on as they were.
Alongside our work to stabilise the economy and restore discipline to the public finances, the Government are determined to do everything we can to support businesses to grow. We are overhauling the UK’s regulatory system to reduce burdens on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament. We have secured trade deals that will slash the cost of doing business abroad, reduce border checks, cut tariffs and axe red tape. Those trade deals will support jobs and create opportunities for Great British businesses in our biggest current markets and in one of the world’s biggest future markets, too.
The Government expect to publish an SME strategy later this year. It will set out the Government’s vision for SMEs, from encouraging entrepreneurship to boosting scale-ups across key policy areas, such as creating thriving high streets, making it easier to access finance, opening up overseas and domestic markets, building business capabilities and providing a strong business environment.
Despite the tough fiscal inheritance at the election last year, we have also taken decisions to continue supporting small businesses through the tax system. We have chosen to increase the employment allowance to £10,500 to take many small businesses out of paying national insurance contributions altogether. We froze the small business rates multiplier to protect small properties from inflationary bill increases, and we will introduce permanently lower business tax rates for small retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from 2026.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
In rural and coastal communities such as South East Cornwall, family-run businesses and farms are the backbone of the local economy. Does the Minister agree that any changes to inheritance tax must be carefully shaped to support our local businesses and farms to plan for their future so that they can pass on their hard-earned success?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is a great champion of businesses and farmers in her constituency. When we were deciding how to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief, we made sure that generous tax reliefs still existed in the tax system precisely because we want to continue to support small and family-owned farms and businesses in particular. I will come to those in a moment.
I am conscious that you asked me to give you a few moments at the end, Sir John. Do you mean at the end of my remarks?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I need about 15 seconds at the very end of your remarks.
James Murray
Got it. To conclude my remarks on the wider support that we are giving to businesses, I also draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that we committed in the “Corporate Tax Roadmap”, which was published at the autumn Budget, to maintain the small profits rates and marginal relief at their current rates and thresholds, as well as the £1 million annual investment allowance.
I know that many Members are concerned about the reforms to inheritance tax that are the subject of the debate, so I will now turn to them. The reality is that the full, unlimited relief introduced in 1992 has become unfair and unsustainable, particularly in the economic context that we inherited. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates, which is clear from the latest HMRC data from 2021-22. More than 50% of business property relief was claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That means that the wealthiest few per cent of estates claimed £558 million in tax relief. That contributes to the very largest estates paying a lower average effective inheritance tax rate than smaller estates. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances. It is for that reason that the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief.
Under the reformed system, estates will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined assets from April 2026, and on top of that there will be an uncapped 50% relief on further assets. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Those reliefs sit on top of the standard nil-rate bands and other exemptions, such as transfers between spouses and civil partners.
Susan Murray
Why do the Government not consider taxing large digital multinational corporations trading in this country in order to raise the extra revenue that is being raised from this measure, which effectively punishes the businesses that run the supply chains that export to those markets? Those businesses have relationships with specialist suppliers and are being put at risk.
James Murray
I believe that the hon. Lady is asking about the taxation of large multinational firms operating in the digital space. I am sure that she is aware of the digital services tax, which is currently in operation. The Government are committed to maintaining that until the pillar 1 international solution is implemented, and I am sure that she is familiar with pillar 2 of the OECD deal on a global minimum corporate tax rate. Large multinational firms are well dealt with on the international level, which is why, in opposition and in government, we have supported the OECD’s two-pillar solution.
I do not want to be distracted from the design of the reforms that we are talking about today. Where inheritance tax is due, those liable for a charge can pay any liability on the relevant assets over 10 annual interest-free instalments. That benefit is not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system.
There has been a lot of discussion of the impact of this policy, so let me set out the numbers, based on HMRC claims data. It is expected that, under these reforms, about 1,500 estates claiming only business property relief will pay more inheritance tax in 2026-27. Two thirds of those estates—about 1,000—are expected to only hold shares designated as not listed on the markets of recognised stock exchanges, such as the alternative investment market. Under these reforms, about three quarters of estates claiming business property relief in 2026-27, excluding estates only holding shares designated as not listed, will not pay any more inheritance tax in 2026-27.
The reforms to relief have generated a lot of commentary about the wider impacts, but hon. Members should take care when relying on analysis based on self-selecting surveys from members of representative groups campaigning against the reforms. Indeed, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility is clear that it does not expect this measure to have any significant macroeconomic impacts, and it certified the costing at autumn Budget 2024. It said that the reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief are forecast to raise a combined £520 million in 2029-30.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I recognise the need for the Government to raise funds, given the economic context that they inherited, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said, a number of family businesses have come forward with alternative proposals that would raise the funds in a different way. Would the Minister and his team be prepared to meet and consult with family businesses to ensure that they have input into the plans? That would enable those businesses to inform them of their experiences and raise alternative proposals that might raise funds differently.
James Murray
I reassure my hon. Friend that I, and the wider team of officials, have had a number of meetings with representatives of family businesses and the agricultural and farming sector. We have listened to ideas raised by a number of people we have met, as well as ideas raised in debates in the Commons and in meetings in the Treasury and elsewhere. We have listened, but we remain confident that our approach is a fair way to balance supporting farms and businesses with fixing the public finances, so we stand by our reforms.
I should probably conclude. I thank all hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire, for their contributions to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Serious Fraud Office
(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
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Serious Fraud Office and tackling fraud and economic crime.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Economic crime affects us all. The fraud, money laundering, grand corruption and bribery that the Serious Fraud Office was established to address can threaten the integrity of our markets, the functioning of our economy, the security of our nation and even the very fabric of our democracy, and fuel misery and corruption around the world.
Confronting the challenge posed by serious economic crime is crucial, but sometimes lost in this conversation is its link to a second kind of economic crime: the fraud that affects our constituents directly and touches millions of lives every year in our country. All too often, those two strands of economic crime are talked about separately. Although I have only a few minutes today, and cannot touch on every facet of economic crime, I will take this opportunity to talk about the two strands together; as economic crime evolves, they are becoming increasingly entwined and, if we are to tackle the corrosive impact of economic crime, we must address both.
I want to start by telling the House about a constituent of mine; let us call him Brian. Brian is a hard-working, community-spirited man who has spent his life playing by the rules. He is not naive—he has decades of experience and a sharp eye for detail—but last year, he was caught out by a sophisticated scam. Within hours, Brian lost more than £40,000—his entire life savings. The impact has been devastating, not only financially, but emotionally. His trust, confidence and sense of security have been shattered. Sadly, that is far from an isolated incident. Virtually every MP I speak to has similar stories of constituents who have suffered.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He mentions constituents: two of my constituents in Ealing Southall were victims of the collapse of JVIP Group, a complicated network of 100 companies. Although some victims were compensated by their banks, the collapse of the company was not properly investigated by police or the Serious Fraud Office. Does he agree that it is important to take a consistent approach to allegations of complex corporate crime and that the Serious Fraud Office should look at these issues seriously?
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I am sorry to hear about what has happened to my hon. Friend’s constituents. She is of course right that these kinds of crimes must be investigated—we must see consistent and robust investigation, a point I will touch on later in my speech.
The figures are stark. Under the last Conservative Government, fraud surged at every level. Between 2010 and 2024, reported fraud cases in the UK more than doubled, making it the single most prevalent crime type in the country. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, fraud now accounts for more than 40% of all crime. That is more than 4.1 million incidents in 2024 alone—or, put another way, one incident every 10 seconds.
It is a sign of how ubiquitous fraud has become that we have almost stopped noticing the fraud attempts we all face every day—the dodgy emails and texts, the suspicious phone calls, the fake listings on online marketplaces. Many of us now just accept the regular attempts to defraud us as part of the weft and weave of modern life.
The economic impact has been enormous. UK Finance estimates that more than £1.1 billion was stolen by fraudsters last year, including nearly £460 million in authorised push payment scams. The public purse has also come under attack, with up to £55 billion in public money lost to benefit and procurement fraud and other types of economic crime. But it is not just about the economic cost: the human cost has been enormous too, paid in the currency of suffering and lives turned upside down. It is hard to overstate how shattering fraud is for its victims.
This explosion in scams, great and small, has been driven by increasingly sophisticated, increasingly transnational and increasingly organised criminality, and sharpened by rapid innovation and technological evolution. Some 67% of all fraud in the UK is now cyber-enabled. Fraud is no longer just about opportunistic criminals and simple phishing emails; criminals have become highly sophisticated, harnessing the power of technology in alarming ways.
The use of artificial technology and deepfake technology is now commonplace, not just in social media, but in the execution of daring scams against major companies. For example, in February last year, a company lost more than £20 million as a result of a chief executive officer scam, where AI was used to fool executives into thinking that they were dealing with their boss. Meanwhile, sophisticated fraud-as-a-service websites such as Russian Coms have helped domestic criminals to use advanced technology to defraud the public. Our institutions are caught in a never-ending arms race against ever more adept and advanced criminality.
All too often, the growth of fraud has also been enabled by the inaction of some players across the ecosystem. Banks and financial institutions have generally stepped up their efforts to limit retail fraud, and last year stopped more than £1.4 billion of fraudulent payments, as well as paying out £1.2 billion in compensation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for major tech companies. They have often failed to take sufficient steps to combat the fraud propagated on or through their platforms and have not put in sufficiently robust “know your customer” and transaction monitoring controls, or even used the systems they already have. Their failure to act has left the social media and online commerce landscape vulnerable and has exacted a large price on others.
Law enforcement has also struggled to keep up with the threat. Under the last Government, despite its accounting for almost half of all crime, fraud received only between 1% and 2% of police budgets, and enforcement was often hamstrung by poor infrastructure and limited collaboration between forces.
The story on major fraud, bribery and economic crime shows strong parallels. The threat has grown significantly and is increasingly transnational in scope. Just as the authorities have historically struggled against the evolving fraud we see in our daily lives, so the institutions focusing on major fraud and the enforcement of our anti-bribery laws, in particular the SFO, have often struggled as well. I need not rehearse here some of the challenges the SFO has faced with failed prosecutions, insufficient powers, questions over leadership and a lack of resources.
However, in recent times under the current Government, we are beginning to see real change. The Government are driving a strategy to tackle the fraud challenge. There is renewed focus on tackling the frauds that affect us all. The police and the National Crime Agency are seeking to invest in increased capacity and strengthen inter-force collaboration to tackle cross-country and transnational threats.
Central Government are also strengthening the tools available to combat fraud in the benefit and procurement systems with, for example, the measures in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which had its Third Reading in the Commons recently. After years of the previous Government failing to update the powers that Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions had, leaving them with 20th-century powers to fight a 21st-century problem, this Government are finally getting the modern, anti-fraud tools they need.
Critically, the SFO is undergoing positive change. Under new leadership, the organisation has published a five-year strategy focused on upgrading its capabilities, making smarter use of intelligence and driving co-ordinated enforcement. There are more reforms on the table aimed at further improving its reach and effectiveness, from enhancing international co-operation to bringing in financial incentives for whistleblowers. There is of course further to go, but the Serious Fraud Office is evidently becoming more effective, and has recently achieved some notable successes.
However, if we are to tackle fraud and economic crime at all levels, these welcome improvements in policy and institutional effectiveness will need to be matched by changes across the whole anti-financial crime landscape. We will need to see stronger partnerships and collaboration, including among the police, better implementation and some actors, especially the big tech firms, stepping up to the plate. Online platforms should, for example, implement effective identity verification for commerce, enhance their monitoring and takedown procedures and, crucially, contribute to compensation when fraud occurs.
I am sure that, over the course of the debate, we will hear discussion of many facets of this problem, and I am conscious that I have not had the opportunity in my remarks to touch on issues ranging from the policing of money laundering to making progress on issues such as ultimate beneficial ownership. However, all these points ultimately have in common the essential nature of this fight.
This is a national challenge. The human cost of economic crime is devastating. We cannot afford to treat small fraud as trivial, or grand fraud and economic crime as inevitable. Both are corrosive; both must be tackled, and that must be done across Government and in banks, big tech and law enforcement. It is a necessary fight that this Government are already taking on, and a fight we can ill afford to lose.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate; I can see that some have already taken that advice.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) on securing this debate on the important work of the SFO in tackling economic crime. The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax recently met with the Serious Fraud Office team and its director. I have the pleasure of chairing that APPG, a role I inherited from our current anti-corruption champion Baroness Hodge. I thank the SFO’s staff and leadership for taking on incredibly complex cases in the national interest. It was clear that the SFO has an ambitious agenda to tackle serious economic crime, but it was equally clear that without sustained political and financial backing from Government, and cross-Government work to prevent economic crime and fraud, the agency will not be able to fulfil its potential.
I am therefore pleased that this Government have committed to a new cross-Government anti-corruption strategy, led by the joint anti-corruption unit at the Home Office. I hope that that strategy will include some of the policies that will help deter and prevent economic crime and fraud in the first place, and I will mention a couple of them before moving on to some recommendations for the SFO. The first, which has long been debated in this Chamber, is the role of UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies as facilitators of economic crime and fraud. We asked the SFO for an estimate on the volume of fraud and economic crime that has a connection to the UK overseas territories, and we are waiting for an answer.
However, needless to say, it is common practice to use shell companies in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to launder the proceeds of crime to facilitate tax evasion and avoidance. I commend the Government of Gibraltar, who have taken an important step towards publishing a transparent register of company ownership. A few weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) and I met the Gibraltar premier. Our request is this: if Gibraltar can do it, why can the British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos, Cayman Islands and others not meet their obligations to Parliament on transparency over beneficial ownership? That will help us to follow the money, and it will help investigators in the SFO to bring successful cases.
The last deadline for the overseas territories was 30 April. That deadline was only set in the autumn, when we had the last joint council meeting, chaired by the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Only two overseas territories met that deadline for enabling legislation on publishing information on beneficial owners. What consequences will there be for those that have not met the deadline, and what support can be provided to get those registries up and running so that our investigators can follow the money?
The second area in which I think the public expect more co-ordination is the proliferation of economic crime and fraud on our high streets. In Kensington and Bayswater, a number of constituents have contacted me about our latest Harry Potter shop, souvenir shop, candy shop, barber shop, vape shop, nail bar and so on. Obviously legitimate businesses conduct those trades, but we know from the National Crime Agency’s recent Operation Machinize on barber shops across the country that there is a significant link between economic crime and fraud and serious organised crime. There are serious organised crime links on our high streets, but also VAT avoidance and business rate avoidance from companies that phoenix. We need co-ordination across the enforcement agencies, with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the NCA and the SFO working together to enforce the law on our high streets. I think that a lot of our constituents would thank the Government for an additional push on that front.
I want to mention three areas where I think that the SFO could do with our support under its strong new leadership: first, on whistleblowing reform; secondly, on sustainable funding for disclosure; and thirdly, on enforcement on foreign bribery, which comes under the SFO.
First, I strongly welcome the SFO’s commitment to progressing a new incentivisation scheme on whistleblowing. In the United States, such schemes have unlocked more than $50 billion in recoveries, and significant numbers of UK whistleblowers have contributed tips to US authorities because the scheme incentivises them more than if they did so here. It is beyond time that the UK had a comparable mechanism, and I hope that the Government will look at ways to develop a properly resourced whistleblower reward scheme, subject to the outcome of the independent review by Jonathan Fisher KC on what exactly that would look like.
Secondly, despite recent progress, disclosure continues to consume a staggering portion of the SFO’s capacity at approximately 25% of its budget and 40% of its staff time. We know that the SFO can be one of the most effective agencies in tackling financial crime, but that means we must properly fund and support it, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned, with modern technology. Independent reviews have already shown that disclosure remains an Achilles heel for the justice system, particularly in the prosecution of complex economic crime. Support in this area would go a long way.
Thirdly, there is a lack of enforcement on foreign bribery, in particular by UK small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries. According to recent analysis, there have been zero successful prosecutions of UK SMEs for such offences since 2016, when the NCA’s international corruption unit took over responsibility for pursuing that kind of bribery. That enforcement gap undermines the UK’s credibility and efforts to promote clean business globally, and we want to support our SMEs to go out and make those deals in a fair and transparent way. The SFO must therefore be properly resourced and supported to take the lead in this area. The Government should ensure that there is sufficient funding for the SFO to take a lead role in prosecuting all UK firms who commit bribery overseas, including SMEs.
To conclude, the SFO must be supported to improve outcomes, with additional resources for trained staff, modern technology and digital disclosure tools. The responsibility now lies with us—with this Labour Government, who have rightly put tackling economic crime at the heart of their agenda. The Foreign Secretary has said that we want to
“be the anti-corruption capital of the world”,
and I support that entirely.
Our APPG strongly supports the creation of an economic crime-fighting fund, which would allow enforcement proceeds to be reinvested into frontline agencies such as the SFO, which returned £3 to the taxpayer for every £1 invested. That is a sound investment for taxpayers and would help to ensure that the SFO is equipped to tackle some of the disclosure challenges that I mentioned, and to close the enforcement gaps on foreign bribery. I believe that the SFO is setting the right direction through its business plan and its newish leadership, and it is now for us to provide the funding and political backing to allow it to contribute to the UK’s leadership on economic crime.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I intend to begin the winding-up speeches at 5.50 pm, and we have two more Back-Bench speakers, so it would be lovely if I could get you both in.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I will start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for introducing this important debate on an issue that affects so many across the UK. I would like to focus on the real human impact, and the effect that the crime can have on individuals.
Fraud is the single commonest crime in England and Wales, making up 40% of all crimes against individuals last year. That includes authorised fraud, where the victim is tricked into paying money into an account controlled by the criminal. Fraud of any kind is traumatic, but authorised fraud is not just a financial crime; it can feel like an emotional and psychological assault. One of its most devastating and insidious forms is romance fraud. Those fraudsters exploit loneliness and trust by building fake relationships and then vanishing with a person’s savings, dignity and sense of security. Victims suffer a double hit: financial loss and emotional betrayal. The real damage is hard to measure, with 69% of fraud victims reporting a mental health impact, and more than a third saying that they have become less trusting of others.
Unlike victims of burglary or assault, many fraud victims do not see themselves as victims of crime. They blame themselves. They feel stupid. They are embarrassed. Lloyds bank found that 23% of people who lost money to fraud said that they were unsure whether what happened was even serious enough to report. That tells us something deeply troubling about how fraud is viewed and how society, including Government and enforcement, has downplayed it. It is not a clever ruse or a trick; it is exploitation, and the trauma it leaves behind is real.
That is why we must break the stigma around being scammed and take a victim-centred approach that recognises both financial and emotional harm, treating victims of fraud as what they truly are—survivors of an often life-altering crime. Our constituents are not just losing money; they are losing trust, and it is time we fought back, not just with systems, but with the empathy and urgency that will give this crime the attention it deserves.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for leading the debate.
Economic crime remains a significant issue across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Worryingly, especially in the last few months, my office back home has heard almost every day about strange phone calls and strange texts, with people asking whether they are scams. If we get a phone call or a text message from a Nigerian general, we can be pretty sure it is a hoax, but most people are not being sent messages by a Nigerian general; they are receiving texts or phone calls asking what seem to be ordinary questions. More often than not, we are talking about vulnerable people—the very people that the hon. Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) mentioned—who feel under so much pressure. There is much work to be done on this wide issue.
It is important that I always give the facts from Northern Ireland. Fraud and economic crime are massive issues not only in my constituency, but across Northern Ireland. Between November 2023 and October 2024 there were more than 5,200 reports of fraud to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, with reported losses approaching £19 million. A mathematician could work it out, but £19 million divided by 5,200 is an excruciating amount of money.
Furthermore, in the 13 months leading up to January 2024, approximately £23.1 million was reported lost to fraud in 5,412 recorded incidents. We have a particular association with former paramilitary groups on either side of the divide in Northern Ireland, but they are really nothing better than just crime gangs—that is all they are. Their ideals went out of the window a long time ago.
Moneylending crops up all the time, as poverty levels are high and people are vulnerable. It is not unknown for some of the so-called “boys”, for want of a better description, to sit outside the food banks in my constituency waiting for vulnerable young women to come out with their children—those young women find themselves caught in a trap that they cannot get away from.
There are so many types of fraud, but I am increasingly seeing scam calls from illegitimate 07 numbers that most people assume are lawful and used with good intention. Most people are decent—99% of people are decent—so they assume those phone calls are genuine. If they are vulnerable and they are being offered help, they will be caught.
The hon. Member for Clwyd North mentioned romance scams; I know people back home who have fallen into that trap. In Northern Ireland specifically, there has been a dramatic increase in holiday scams. Fraudsters use holiday deals that would look appealing to anyone to try to get people’s money. In 2024, a massive loss of almost £106,000 to this type of scam was reported to the PSNI, with most of them being advertised on social media. I am not technically minded, thank the Lord—my staff are, so they deal with these things. My wife, my children and, I suspect, my grandchildren are, but this old boy has not learned how to do it just yet—and sometimes it is good not to be able to do it, because there are scams out there.
Benefit fraud is also a real problem in Northern Ireland, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to addressing it. The Department for Communities back home estimates that there were £240 million of overpayments in 2023-24—just think about that; it is massive—up from £174 million the previous year. I was shocked to see that statistic. Just think what good that money could do for our NHS, our Department of Health—the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety as it was—or our education system in Northern Ireland. That money should be spent doing good, but unfortunately it is increasingly lost to fraud.
There is much more work to be done on addressing overpayments in the benefits system. The Minister is not responsible for that, but I hope she will commit to interacting with my colleague Gordon Lyons in the Department for Communities back home on tackling this. It is time we worked better together. Those are conversations that we should be promoting with the Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I look forward to what the Minister can say on that.
Fraud poses a significant threat to the livelihoods and prosperity of people in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the statistics show that the situation is getting worse. The hon. Member for Hendon is right to outline the issue and to the state the facts, but the evidential base tells us that things are getting worse. If this is getting worse, it is time for a consistent and focused Government strategy to address it. I am always impressed in the House when we put questions to Ministers and they come back and say that all the regional Governments are working together. We need to work together on this one, because that is how we will address the issue.
Fraud accounts for some four in 10 offences against individuals. In addition to financial loss, fraud can cause emotional, psychological and health impacts, so more must be done. I look to the Minister for both her response and her commitment to raising awareness and protecting the financial livelihoods of the people who have worked hard for their money but find themselves in difficulties from fraud throughout this whole great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for securing this important debate. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just pointed out, last year alone fraud accounted for a staggering 40% of crimes against individuals in England and Wales. This is not a faceless crime; behind every one of those statistics is a victim, someone who has been left not only financially worse off, but emotionally distressed, fearful and often devastated. Whether it is a vulnerable pensioner scammed out of their life savings or a small business misled into paying false invoices, the human impact of fraud is real and growing.
We have already heard about the devastating impact of romantic fraud, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Clwyd North (Gill German), and the hon. Member for Strangford outlined the increase in fraudulent calls offering things such as fake holidays. I have heard from countless constituents in North Cornwall—hard-working people, whether they are pensioners or young adults saving for a first home—who have fallen victim to online fraud, authorised push payment scams and identity theft. They feel ignored, disempowered and unprotected. Far too often, they felt like the system just did not care. For them, justice feels out of reach, and that is because sadly, in most cases, it is.
Despite the enormous scale of this crime, only around 2% of recorded frauds are actually referred to local police forces for investigation. The vast majority of victims never see their cases taken forward, let alone justice done. That simply is not good enough. The Liberal Democrats believe that it is time to move beyond empty promises and underfunded initiatives and take bold, decisive action. We have set out in our manifesto a comprehensive plan to tackle fraud because we recognise it for what it is: a national emergency hiding in plain sight.
We would establish a dedicated online crime agency, a national body designed specifically to tackle online fraud, co-ordinate investigations across forces and employ the kind of digital expertise that is urgently needed to tackle cyber-enabled crimes. Right now, fraudsters exploit jurisdictional boundaries; they use fake identities, offshore servers and untraceable digital accounts. Victims in Cornwall, for example, might be targeted by criminals operating from London, Lagos or Luxembourg, and our existing systems are not designed to cope with that level of sophistication or scale. A specialist online crime agency could plug that gap.
The hon. Member for Hendon rightly pointed out how big banks need to seriously step up. We would name and shame banks with the worst records on preventing fraud and compensating victims. If we do not hold institutions accountable for allowing these scams to happen under their watch, nothing will change. In 2023 alone, criminals stole £1.2 billion from individuals through banking fraud and scams. While banks have improved reimbursement rates, nearly 40% of authorised payment fraud losses still go completely uncompensated.
While it is welcome news that, from October, payment providers will be required by law to reimburse victims of authorised push payment fraud, regulation alone will not be enough. We need pressure and transparency, so that banks feel real accountability to their customers. That is why we would launch a high-profile national fraud awareness campaign, giving people the tools to spot, report and avoid scams. The Government have a duty to act, but the public deserve to be better informed, supported and empowered.
Fraud prevention must be treated as seriously as fire safety, road safety or other forms of crime prevention. We should have national guidance for at-risk groups, and there should be a visible, accessible place to report crimes and get the help they need. Most importantly, we need to do more to support victims. The emotional harm caused by fraud, which has already been laid out by other hon. Members, is often overlooked, yet for many the betrayal, fear and shame of being scammed is as damaging as the financial loss suffered.
A constituent of mine who was the victim of such a devastating economic crime wrote to me of how it not only resulted in his farm business being “crippled”, but led to a detrimental impact on his livelihood, health and wellbeing, causing him worry, stress and severe depression. He ultimately required counselling, and has since been identified as at high risk of suicide, has become a recluse, and suffers from
“a host of health issues with heart and blood pressure problems, bowel cancer, severe migraines”.
Ultimately, it has taken a huge toll on his physical and mental health.
Let me be clear: we cannot continue to treat victims of fraud as if they are to blame for their misfortune, or expect individuals to prevent it. Fraud is a crime—not a mistake or bad luck. It is a deliberate act of deception, and the victims, whether they are small business owners, retirees or university students, to name a few, deserve justice and redress.
That brings me to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, currently making its way through Parliament. On the surface, it offers important tools to recover public money lost to fraud, especially in the welfare system, and of course every pound stolen through fraud is a pound not going to our schools, hospitals or those genuinely in need. However, the Bill as drafted lacks a comprehensive impact assessment. Without that, we risk placing enormous emphasis on clawing back money from ordinary claimants, without matching it with investment in the prevention or prosecution of high-level economic fraud.
What about the billions lost through covid support schemes? Let us not forget that under the last Conservative Government, fraudsters were allowed to get away with billions of pounds of covid support funds. Meanwhile, revenue worth an estimated £38.9 billion a year goes uncollected due to tax evasion and criminal activities. We need a clear, cross-agency, strategic and well-resourced national effort to tackle economic crime and fraud, and the Serious Fraud Office has a central role to play in that. The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has already called for a much more joined-up approach between the SFO, the NCA, HMRC and other agencies.
The SFO is the very agency tasked with investigating some of the most complex and serious frauds in the country, yet it remains under-resourced, underpowered, and far too often underperforming. We have seen well-publicised failures, with high-profile cases being dropped, poor conviction rates and concerns raised about its investigatory capacity. The SFO has been left to firefight with nowhere near the scale of investment it needs to pursue the most complex, high-value economic crimes.
If we are serious about tackling corporate fraud, money laundering and criminal networks exploiting our economy, we must give the SFO the independence and resources it so desperately needs. We need a Serious Fraud Office with teeth. That means increasing funding, improving oversight and ensuring that its leadership has the freedom to pursue complex cases without any interference. It also means ensuring that it works hand in hand with the National Crime Agency, local forces and international partners.
Fraud is not victimless. It targets the vulnerable and undermines trust in our financial systems. It is draining billions from our economy. I urge the Solicitor General and the Government to act—not just to reform the SFO but to lead a co-ordinated and compassionate national effort to protect our constituents from fraud and economic crimes. This Government and every Government have a moral duty to offer more than token support. We must build a justice system that investigates fraud robustly, prosecutes it swiftly and protects those most at risk of harm. The people of my constituency of North Cornwall, and communities across this country, expect and deserve nothing less.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) on securing such an important debate, on an issue that affects all our constituents.
In our time in government we took decisive action to combat fraud, including benefit fraud, and economic crime. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we introduced the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. That legislation enabled faster sanctions against oligarchs, and removed barriers to the use of unexplained wealth orders. In 2023, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act received Royal Assent. That legislation further enhanced the UK’s ability to target organised criminals and those seeking to abuse our open economy. New powers were given to Companies House to stop criminals using false names or registering companies with fictitious characters. The legislation was welcomed by many, including the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
In 2019, the Government published the economic crime plan 2019-2022. The plan represented a step change in our response to economic crime, and had 52 action points and seven strategic priorities. It was followed by the economic crime plan 2 in March 2023, which the hon. Member for Hendon assured me he has read in full. The second plan aimed to deliver real-world outcomes, and
“to cut crime, protect our national security, and support the UK’s legitimate economic growth”.
The Association of British Insurers called the plan
“a landmark in the fight against economic crime.”
In May 2023, the Government published a fraud strategy. It outlined the actions that the Government would take to further reduce fraud. It was especially welcomed by the Crown Prosecution Service and the City of London police for the additional investment it proposed. In February 2024, the Home Office announced that fraud had been reduced by 13% since the launch of the strategy.
Clearly, good progress was made by the Conservative Government during our time in office—but there is, of course, always more to do, so I have some questions for the Minister. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer them all today, given the time, so I would welcome her response in writing in due course.
What steps is the Minister taking to improve the number of prosecutions undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office and the speed at which those prosecutions progress? Is she confident that the SFO has the technical knowledge and digital technology for cryptoasset-related fraud? Does she agree that deferred prosecution agreements should be used more frequently to ensure swift justice and financial resolution for victims? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the enhanced powers given to Companies House under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act are effectively implemented? Finally, will she assure the House that her Government will maintain the important momentum established by the Conservative-led economic crime plans?
Tackling fraud and economic crime is about safeguarding the livelihoods of our constituents and businesses across the UK. We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the UK is a safe place to do business and we urge the Government to build on the robust foundations that we laid during our time in office. We will continue to hold the Government to account and push for stronger enforcement, greater transparency and more effective prosecution of economic crime.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I ask her to leave a few moments for the Member in charge to wind up the debate and for me to put the Question.
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) on securing this important debate on fraud and economic crime and the work of the Serious Fraud Office in combating those threats. The debate has been thoughtful and considered, covering different types of fraud and plenty of personal stories and experiences.
Fraud, bribery and corruption undermine economic security and prosperity, and undermine the very significant majority of people in this country who play by the rules. That is why the Government are so determined to stamp out such crimes and to support the SFO in its core mission. That is how we will protect our economic security and prosperity, as well as the reputation and integrity of the UK as a leading international financial centre. It is also how we will protect working people from the pernicious types of fraud that have been so aptly described today.
As my hon. Friend said, the economic crime landscape has been fundamentally transformed by rapid technological advancement. Criminals now exploit new and powerful tools, from cryptoassets that enable money laundering to AI-generated audio or images, that have fundamentally changed how we traditionally tackle fraud. Those new types of intricate scams acquire new victims, as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) mentioned. As has been covered already, the human suffering is heartbreaking.
Those changes in technology also bring us great opportunities to fight such crimes, as well as tools to do so more quickly and effectively. The environment demands constant innovation and growth, and I see that exemplified by the Serious Fraud Office, with the organisation’s ambition to be bolder and more pragmatic as it continues and succeeds in tackling complex fraud, bribery and corruption.
As has rightly been acknowledged, the Serious Fraud Office is a highly specialist agency. It does crucial work to investigate and prosecute the most serious and complex cases of fraud, bribery and corruption, and it is the only agency in the country to follow criminal investigations from cradle to grave—police, prosecutor and proceeds of crime, all under one roof. The SFO has a complex and challenging caseload, reflecting both the highly specialised work it does and the difficulty of accessing meaningful intelligence on some of the world’s most sophisticated criminals. Its investigations are typically high profile and high risk, and they are invariably cross border, requiring sophisticated expertise and co-ordination.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), I am heartened to see a refreshed SFO that is taking significant positive steps forward under the strong leadership of the director, Nick Ephgrave. He is committed to a focus on using new tools, enhancing the SFO’s intelligence capacity, and working with domestic and international partners—all furthering the SFO’s ambition to be bolder and more pragmatic. During his tenure, the SFO has charged 16 defendants on 43 counts of fraud, bribery and corruption; announced 10 overt investigations; and arrested and questioned 22 individuals. Since 2020, the SFO has returned more than £1 billion to the UK taxpayer in penalties, demonstrating the impressive financial contribution it makes relative to its small running costs.
The organisation currently has 35 active criminal cases, in addition to civil cases, proceeds of crime cases and mutual legal assistance cases, which bring its total caseload to about 150. Earlier today we saw an example of the SFO’s crucial work as it announced an investigation into Rockfire Investment Finance plc, relating to an alleged £400 million fraud against Thurrock council between 2016 and 2020. I saw the SFO’s work at first hand when I accompanied it on an early morning raid as it searched five properties and made three arrests in relation to a new multimillion-pound international bribery investigation.
As I noted, recovering ill-gotten gains and returning money to victims and the taxpayer is a crucial part of the SFO’s role. It is highly skilled at recovering funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: it recovered £160 million between March 2021 and March 2024. In January, it successfully secured its first unexplained wealth order as it seeks to recover a Lake district property believed to have been purchased with the proceeds of a £100 million fraud—demonstrating that, wherever criminal assets have been hidden or dispersed, the SFO will explore new methods to recover funds for victims and the public purse.
It is vital that the SFO continues to adapt to the increasing pace of change and technological innovation. Part of that drive is being put into action with faster case progression, stricter case discipline, and the creation of capacity for more investigations through the SFO’s “sharper, faster casework” initiative, as demonstrated by the fact that charges were brought in the Axiom Ince case only 15 months after the investigation was launched.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater spoke about financially incentivising whistleblowers. It is absolutely right that, in this environment, the SFO examines new and potentially transformative tools in the fight against fraud and economic crime, including the financial incentivisation of whistleblowers. That is clearly a priority issue for the director, and I note that Jonathan Fisher KC will be considering such incentivisation as part of his independent review of fraud.
As has been widely covered, fraud does not stop at national borders, and it is therefore vital that enforcement activities do not either—that is to say that, when criminals do not observe national boundaries, nor will enforcement. That is why the SFO makes co-operation with international partners a priority. It recently launched a new international anti-corruption prosecutorial taskforce with Swiss and French partner agencies that will strengthen the existing ties with those countries and lead to greater joint working on cases, as well as a greater sharing of insights and expertise.
The SFO will continue to strengthen its key international partnerships to ensure continued, robust enforcement against international bribery and corruption, because it is firmly in our national interests to do so.
Joe Powell
Obviously, there has been some concern about the US Administration’s recent shift on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Will the Minister assure us that the SFO is looking at the impact of that, where there is international bribery across jurisdictions? I am not expecting a political judgment about whether that is the right or wrong thing to do, but we must keep our eye on the impacts, particularly in developing countries.
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that key point, and I can confirm that the SFO is keeping a close eye on it in the context of its other international partnerships.
Hon. Members rightly highlighted disclosure, which is another key area in which the SFO is driving forward change. Managing increasing volumes of data and complying with disclosure obligations have become increasingly challenging in the data-heavy cases that the SFO handles. In 2023, 25% of the SFO’s operational budget was spent on delivering disclosure operations. The SFO is harnessing machine learning technology to enhance the efficiency of its disclosure exercises. Technology-assisted review has been successfully trialled on a live SFO case that is going through the courts, and it will be rolled out by operational divisions.
Given the importance of the SFO’s work, I was delighted that in October the Government were able to confirm additional funding of £9.3 million for it, giving it a strong foundation to push ahead with work to deliver organisational objectives. I have talked about the SFO’s role and performance in tackling fraud, bribery and corruption, but I also want to detail the action that the Government are taking more broadly to tackle the threats of fraud and economic crime. We of course take the threat of corruption, alongside illicit finance and kleptocracy, extremely seriously. As a nation with the utmost respect for the rule of law, and indeed for the importance of our security, the UK is leading the fight in addressing corruption.
That is precisely why the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor announced that the Government will publish a new anti-corruption strategy this year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said. The Government are also developing an expanded fraud strategy, covering themes including enhanced data sharing, monitoring AI, tackling the impact of fraud on businesses and growth, and improving victim support and public awareness. We currently aim to publish that strategy, which is being developed by the Home Office, by the end of the year.
The Government have also published guidance to support organisations in understanding the new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent fraud. The SFO is committed to making full use of the offence once it comes into force in September.
Lastly, I will make three very brief points in response to issues raised by Members during the debate. First, I will explicitly note the Government’s action to better protect taxpayers when it comes to public sector fraud in the form of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which it is estimated will save the taxpayer £1.5 billion over the next five years.
Secondly, with regard to the overseas territories, it is vital that we work closely with them to combat fraud, financial crime and money laundering, and on the enforcement of UK financial sanctions. We need to see greater transparency when it comes to company ownership, assets and real estate, which will be taken into account in the forthcoming anti-corruption strategy. Thirdly, I am more than happy to take forward the co-operation with Northern Ireland that was mentioned to deal with the very human side of fraud that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised.
In conclusion, it is clear that the world of fraud and economic crime continues to evolve rapidly, both in the UK and globally. It is vital that we adapt at the same pace to effectively crack down on this persistent threat to our economy and our prosperity, and that is something that the Government are 100% committed to doing.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I thank you, Sir John, for chairing this debate and all hon. Members who have taken part in it for their thoughtful and stimulating contributions.
Given the time constraints, I will make just three observations about the points that have been covered today. First, this debate has thrown into sharp relief the appalling and devastating impact of fraud. I was struck by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German), who powerfully outlined the impact of fraud not just on individuals’ finances, but on their mental health. She articulated a crucial point, namely that fraud is not just a crime, but a form of exploitation. Her points were powerfully echoed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, as ever, was a forceful advocate for his area. He brought home to us not just the impact on individuals—it was really striking that everyone who spoke in the debate talked about the depth of that impact—but the particular dynamics in Northern Ireland.
My second point is that this debate has focused on a few key potential solutions. A number of Members talked about the massive progress that the SFO has made, and it is important that that progress is acknowledged —indeed, it was really cheering to hear from the Minister about the progress being made across a broad front. Many speakers also emphasised the importance of co-ordination between agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) said how important it is that existing agreements are effectively enforced. I was also struck by the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) made that we must ensure consistency of enforcement.
My third observation—the key one—is that there has been real consensus in this Chamber about the devastating impact of economic crime and the absolute necessity of tackling it. I hope that we can build on that consensus as we collectively confront the challenge that we face.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Serious Fraud Office and tackling fraud and economic crime.
NatWest Group: Government Shareholding
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Government are no longer a shareholder in NatWest Group—NatWest, formerly Royal Bank of Scotland—due to the disposal of the remainder of the Government’s shares through the trading plan on 30 May 2025. Metric Impact Net sale proceeds £13.2 billion (total proceeds from sales of shares through the trading plan) Retention value range Within the valuation range Public sector net borrowing Nil There may be future indirect impacts as a result of sales made via the trading plan. Sales proceeds reduced public sector debt. All else being equal, sales reduced future debt interest costs for Government. PSNB will also be impacted by the loss of future dividends. Public sector net debt Reduced by £13.2 billion Public sector net financial liabilities Nil Public sector net liabilities Nil Date Sale method Size of transaction Proceeds 04/08/2015 Accelerated bookbuild 630 million shares £2.1 billion 04/06/2018 Accelerated bookbuild 925 million shares £2.5 billion 19/03/2021 Directed buyback 591 million shares £1.1 billion 11/05/2021 Accelerated bookbuild 580 million shares £1.1 billion 28/03/2022 Directed buyback 550 million shares £1.2 billion 22/05/2023 Directed buyback 469 million shares £1.3 billion 31/05/2024 Directed buyback 392 million shares £1.2 billion 11/11/2024 Directed buyback 263 million shares £1.2 billion 12/08/2021 to 30/05/2025 Trading plan 4,310 million shares £13.2 billion Total £24.8 billion *Numbers may not sum due to rounding Type Amount (£ billion) Comments Sale proceeds 24.77 Total combined proceeds from sales of the shareholding between 2015 and 2025. Dividends 4.91 Total combined dividends received since the bank recommenced dividend payments in 2018. Dividend Access Share 1.51 Combined value of payments made to retire the DAS, which provided enhanced dividend rights to HMT following the provision of capital support to RBS. The DAS was retired in 2016. Asset Protection Scheme fees 2.50 Fees paid by RBS in exchange for its participation in the APS, which protected against exceptional credit losses on certain portfolios of assets. RBS exited the APS in 2012. Contingent Capital Facility fees 1.28 Fees paid in return for the provision of an £8 billion CCF to RBS by HMT in 2009. The CCF was terminated in 2013. Total £34.98 *Numbers may not sum due to rounding
This concludes nearly 17 years of the Government being a shareholder in the bank and brings to an end the public ownership of banks resulting from the 2007-09 global financial crisis.
In total, the Government raised £24.8 billion in proceeds from sales of their shares in NatWest. Also accounting for dividends and other fees, the Government received a total of £35 billion in relation to their shareholding in NatWest. This is approximately £10.5 billion lower than the amount of capital originally provided to stabilise the bank. However, the Government believe that the cost of not acting to protect the economic and financial stability of the UK economy would have far exceeded £10.5 billion.
Policy rationale
The Government have been committed to returning NatWest to full private ownership, given that the original policy objective for the intervention in NatWest—to preserve financial and economic stability at a time of crisis—has long been achieved. The Government conducted sales of NatWest shares only when it represented value for money for the taxpayer to do so.
Format and timing of the final sale
The Government concluded that selling shares through the trading plan represented value for money. The trading plan, which was launched in August 2021 and was most recently extended in April 2023, has now ended. In total, the trading plan generated over £13.2 billion in proceeds from sales of NatWest shares.
Table 1: The net impacts of sales made via the trading plan on a selection of fiscal metrics are summarised as follows:
Detail on the Government’s shareholding in NatWest
Over the course of 2008 and 2009, the Government provided circa £45.5 billion to recapitalise RBS. This was done, as part of a series of interventions made by the Government in the financial sector, to protect ordinary savers and businesses from the collapse of a bank that was vital to the functioning of the UK economy and financial system. Allowing RBS to fail would have caused significant disruption to individuals and businesses who relied on the bank to provide their accounts, loans and mortgages. In addition, it would have risked causing a loss of confidence in the UK’s financial system, potentially deepening the impacts of the financial crisis. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated, the costs of the financial crisis would almost certainly have been much greater in the absence of the interventions made to restore financial stability.
Since the global financial crisis, Government have implemented reforms to strengthen the ability to manage bank failures safely, and to do so in a way that protects the wider economy and minimises the need for taxpayer support. In addition, the development of a more robust regulatory structure ensures the resilience and stability of both individual firms and the wider financial system.
The capital provided resulted in the Government having an 84.4% shareholding in RBS. The Government sold shares through a combination of three accelerated bookbuilds (large block sales to market based investors), five directed buybacks (sales of shares back to NatWest), and a trading plan (which sold smaller amounts of shares regularly into the market). Sales took place only when it represented value for money for taxpayers.
Table 2: Details of all sales of the Government’s shareholding are summarised in the table below:
Table 3: Explainer of total amount received by Government in relation to NatWest shareholding:
[HCWS678]
Flood Resilience and Coastal Erosion Consultation
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The first role of any Government is to protect their citizens. Yet the previous Conservative Government left flood defences in their worst condition on record. This is a dereliction of duty.
Economic growth is the No. 1 mission in the Government’s plan for change. Resilience and adaptation to climate change are essential foundations to this mission—better protecting all communities from the risk of flooding increases investor confidence, the viability of businesses, the resilience of critical infrastructure, innovation, and tourism. This is why we are investing a record £2.65 billion over the two years to March 2026.
We are committed to making every pound we invest count, and to ensuring that our flood resilience and coastal erosion investment policy enables new innovative approaches that respond to current challenges and prepare us for the future. Today, the Department has launched a consultation on reforming our approach to investing in flooding and coastal erosion for communities across the country.
We have a bold, strategic vision for the future. Our objectives are for the new approach to be simple, flexible, and strategic—so that we can deliver timely, data-driven interventions that build national resilience. It will have a stronger focus on investing in our existing assets and enabling a broader range of resilience interventions, including natural flood management and property flood resilience measures. It will be informed by a 10-year pipeline of project opportunities based on the Environment Agency’s new national flood risk assessment, which brings together key national and local evidence.
We want to ensure that funding for flood defences is distributed more effectively across the country—including for rural and coastal communities. We are proposing to stop using the current outdated funding formula entirely and replace it with a simple two-step process. The first step determines how much Government funding a project will get. We are proposing to fully fund the first £3 million of all projects and apply a flat rate of 90% Government contribution towards the remaining costs. This approach means that more schemes will see their funding gaps filled. It will make it simpler and faster for all risk management authorities to calculate their funding—benefiting all councils, including poorer councils that have less resource to commit to the application process.
We have also listened to stakeholders who have told us about their difficulties in securing external funding contributions for capital works to existing assets. We are therefore proposing to fully fund the refurbishment of existing flood and coastal erosion risk management projects to reduce these pressures.
The second step will be to prioritise projects for funding. We are seeking views in our consultation on a range of options, including prioritising by value for money; weightings to bolster priority outcomes, such as for deprived communities and natural flood management; and providing incentives for projects to secure additional external funding contributions.
The new approach for flood resilience investment will be launched in time for the start of our new flood investment programme in April 2026. Transitional arrangements will be put in place for existing projects in construction to ensure that all those projects are completed.
The Government are also opening a call for evidence on two wider areas. The first looks at how we can effectively find alternative sources of funding for flood and coastal erosion projects to achieve better outcomes for more stakeholders. The second explores opportunities for English devolution to support flood resilience, including how to deliver more local choice in flood risk management decisions and achieve wider benefits. It also invites views on the potential for mayors to help fund flood projects using mayoral revenue raising powers, on opportunities for improved partnership working and on the potential to devolve funding for local flood risk in the longer term.
We have recognised the challenges that our inherited approach to floods funding presents to communities across the country, including in rural, coastal and poorer council areas. This review of floods funding marks a step change in our approach to flood risk investment. Everyone with an interest in flood risk management—from local floods action groups and individuals to flood risk management authorities and private businesses—is encouraged to share their voice and help shape the future of floods funding.
[HCWS680]
Independent Water Commission
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Today, the Independent Water Commission has published an interim report setting out its preliminary conclusions on water sector reform.
In October 2024, the UK and Welsh Governments appointed Sir Jon Cunliffe, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, to chair the commission and make recommendations to reset the water sector in England and Wales.
The Government set the Independent Water Commission a considerable task in reviewing the water sector in its entirety. Our water system must serve both its customers and the environment, but we inherited one that did neither. I thank Sir Jon for his interim report.
Today’s report focuses on five key areas:
Strategic direction and planning
Legislative framework
Regulatory reform
Company structures, ownership, governance and management
Infrastructure and asset health.
I remain of the view that transformative change across the water sector is needed. We need to create the conditions to attract future long-term investment, ensure resilient finances and contribute to economic growth, while supporting affordable customer bills.
The Government will review Sir Jon’s interim findings in detail and look forward to receiving his final recommendations later this summer.
We will respond in full later this year following the commission’s final recommendations. This will include a detailed transition plan for the water sector. This will form the basis of further legislation to reset the sector and attract the investment we need to ensure its resilience for decades to come.
[HCWS677]
UK-Morocco Partnership and Regional Stability
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
I should like to update the House on the United Kingdom’s deepening partnership with the Kingdom of Morocco, and our new position towards Western Sahara.
The UK and Morocco are long-standing partners, working together across a range of shared priorities. Our bilateral trade relationship is worth over £4 billion annually. We are strengthening this partnership to advance mutual goals in security, prosperity and sustainable development—delivering tangible benefits for British businesses and supporting the Government’s plan for change to boost economic growth.
On 1 June, during my visit to Morocco, I announced a series of partnership agreements that unlock opportunities for UK businesses across a range of sectors, including access to public procurement markets in Morocco, where opportunities are estimated to be worth approximately £33 billion over the next three years. On behalf of the Department for Business and Trade, I signed a Government-to-Government partnership that strategically positions British businesses to compete for contracts to develop Moroccan infrastructure for the 2030 FIFA world cup. In addition, I announced closer UK-Morocco co-operation on migration and counter-terrorism, and joint action to tackle water scarcity and climate change.
In parallel, the Government are advancing regional security, stability and prosperity by supporting efforts to resolve the long-standing Western Sahara conflict, which has persisted for nearly five decades. The conflict has undermined regional stability and hindered economic development, and particularly affects Sahrawi refugees residing in the Tindouf camps.
Approaching the 50th year of the conflict in November, and with renewed international engagement, there is a window of opportunity to shift the dial on this intractable conflict, and to support the parties and the UN to reach a just, lasting and mutually acceptable solution, based on compromise, which conforms with the purposes and principles of the UN charter, including the principle of respect for self-determination. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is redoubling its efforts to help realise this opportunity.
To this end, while in Morocco, I announced the UK’s endorsement of Morocco’s autonomy proposal as the most credible, viable, and pragmatic basis for a solution to the conflict. In parallel, I welcomed Morocco’s willingness, detailed in our joint communiqué, to engage in good faith with all relevant parties to provide further details on what autonomy could entail, with a view to restarting serious negotiations.
[HCWS675]
Local Government Re-organisation
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
On 24 March I updated the House on the latest steps on local government reorganisation. This set out the commitment that all areas had shown to reorganising local government in order to achieve sustainable, efficient and streamlined local government for taxpayers. We are shifting power out of Whitehall and delivering strong, sustainable, unitary councils, capable of leading their communities, shaping neighbourhoods and convening local public service providers to improve outcomes for local residents. This is part of the wider project to fix the foundations of local government, and to create a system that is fit, legal and decent, with improvements to audit, finance, standards and structures, complemented by devolution, fair funding and a resetting of the relationship with central Government to gives councils the power they need to get things done. Area Allocation Cambridgeshire and Peterborough £318,816 Derbyshire and Derby £350,582 Devon, Plymouth and Torbay £383,326 East Sussex and Brighton £302,024 Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock £514,318 Gloucestershire £266,855 Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton £542,174 Hertfordshire £378,077 Kent and Medway £514,410 Lancashire, Blackburn and Blackpool £449,075 Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland £365,888 Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire £357,246 Norfolk £321,389 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham £369,754 Oxfordshire £285,046 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent £367,336 Suffolk £290,288 Surrey £380,734 Warwickshire £258,565 West Sussex £315,172 Worcestershire £257,837
All 21 two-tier areas produced interim plans with this Government’s commitment to support them, including by giving feedback on interim plans, providing £7.6 million to support the development of final proposals and practical advice and support. I am now updating the House with a summary of the feedback provided to areas, and the proposed allocation and payment of proposal development contributions.
Proposal development contributions
In the statutory guidance I outline my expectation for all local leaders to work collaboratively and proactively by sharing information and data to develop robust and sustainable unitary proposals that benefit the entire area. Ideally, I would like areas to submit their final proposals as a single submission, underpinned by a shared evidence base, that includes all options being put forward by councils.
Consequently, I expect proposal development contributions to support this effort. Each of the 21 areas will receive a flat rate of £135,000, plus an additional 20p per person based on the latest Office for National Statistics population estimates. The allocation is as follows:
Areas have been asked to agree on up to three councils to receive an equal share of the funding, which will contribute towards facilitating the development of a shared evidence base that will underpin the final proposals as well as contributing to the development of these. This includes areas sharing non-public data to ensure that all proposals are supported by the same robust evidence and analysis. This could include shared baseline data, which has been quality-assured, on key issues such as financial sustainability, service expenditure, impacts on outcomes, service delivery quality and potential changes in sources of income. This could be supported by a memorandum of understanding and a data-sharing agreement. The Local Government Association has published helpful data-sharing principles and a checklist that areas could utilise. The Department will be continuing to engage closely with areas as they develop proposals, to ensure that data is being shared as required. Shortly, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and F3 Consulting will also release a template to support the presentation of financial information in proposals. This template, or any future templates, are not mandatory, but I expect all areas to agree on the consistent presentation of evidence for their area, recognising that it may still be used to support a range of alternative proposals.
Once areas have notified their Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government area lead of the authorities to receive the funding, we will make payments as soon as possible. If areas are unable to reach an agreement on up to three authorities to receive an equal portion of the fund to support the development of proposals across the area, or meet my expectations for a single submission and data sharing, we are ready to provide support.
Feedback and support
I know that areas are seeking further clarity on developing their full proposals. My officials have provided individual written feedback to each area and are in the process of meeting with areas to discuss that feedback. Areas have been encouraged to share that feedback with MPs. Today I am publishing a summary of the feedback to support all areas in progressing their proposals and in the interests of transparency; I will deposit a copy of that document in the Library of the House. Included in the feedback is a reiteration of the Government’s position that a population size of 500,000 or more is a guiding principle, not a strict target. We understand the need for flexibility, especially given our ambition to build out devolution and take account of housing growth alongside local government reorganisation. All proposals, whether they are at the guided level, above it or below it, should set out the rationale for the proposed approach clearly. The approach that we have taken from the outset encourages and allows for councils to determine the right fit for their area. What works in one area may not apply in the same way in another, and so it is right that the process allows for flexibility.
Local government reorganisation should facilitate better and sustained community engagement, and I welcome the steps that areas are taking to consider how to maintain strong community voice. A simplified and standardised system of local area-working and governance is needed, and neighbourhood area committees, led by frontline ward councillors, are the best route to achieve this. Neighbourhood area committees support local authorities to deliver their commitments to community partnership working at a neighbourhood level. There are also opportunities to bring other service providers into broader membership of neighbourhood area committees—for instance, town or parish councillors, where they exist, and co-opted members from other local community organisations. This allows for the benefit of structural efficiencies from local governance reorganisation while deepening localism and engagement across every community.
The priority for the next phase is supporting areas to establish a shared evidence base that will underpin the development of final proposals, and to co-produce solutions to challenges identified by areas in this first phase—whether it is improved service delivery, funding reform, maintaining a strong community voice, achieving sensible geographies or preparing for devolution in tandem.
We are committed to working with colleagues across Government, and with the LGA and its sector support group, to ensure that councils have the information, tools and expertise to develop the solutions that are right for their area, so that new authorities are set up for success. No proposal will be perfect, but nor should we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Local government has proven its adaptability and resilience, so the most important thing is that we establish new authorities that can continue to evolve and develop with their communities.
Surrey
I am pleased to inform the House that we received proposals for unitary local government from councils in Surrey, and I will provide the House with a full update shortly.
Conclusion
I understand that developing proposals and preparing for local government reorganisation is demanding, and that for areas with new councillors and leaders this is a particularly busy time. I want to reiterate my commitment to working with every area to deliver on this ambitious programme. I am also aware that developing proposals could distract councils from their essential day-to-day activities. However, residents and businesses depend on councils to provide vital services and continue the work necessary for creating successful new unitary councils. This is especially true for progressing local plans, to allocate land for the new homes that we so desperately need. Accordingly, as stated in my invitation letters, I continue to expect local planning authorities to work towards the adoption of an up-to-date local plan as soon as possible. Local government reorganisation should not hinder this essential work; and neither should the introduction of the new legal framework for local plan-making later this year, or our strategic planning reforms. Significant financial assistance has already been provided to eligible authorities to support plan-making, and I urge authorities to make the most of other support available through the LGA’s planning advisory service. Together, we can ensure that our reorganisation efforts are successful and deliver the high-quality public services that our residents deserve.
[HCWS676]
Machinery of Government: Cyber-security and Defence Exports
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government changes.
I am today announcing that responsibility for Government and public sector cyber-security will move from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This change will strengthen technology resilience and policymaking across the public sector by better integrating cyber-security responsibilities and expertise into the Government Digital Service. This change is effective immediately.
I am also confirming that responsibility for defence exports promotion—comprising the majority of UK Defence & Security Exports—will move from the Department for Business and Trade to the Ministry of Defence. In line with the defence industrial strategy, this will enable the Government to develop a single defence exports offer, driving a significant and sustained improvement to performance while giving stronger backing to our world-class defence industry. It will directly connect exports with the MOD’s wider procurement and international activity. The creation of a single Departmental lead for defence exports will deliver on the Government’s first mission of delivering economic growth as well as their first duty of protecting the UK. Responsibility for security and cyber exports will remain in the Department for Business and Trade. This change will take effect on 31 July.
[HCWS679]
Introduction: Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson
Farmers: Competitiveness
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the competitiveness of English farmers with neighbouring nations and countries, and what assessment they have made of the impact of the Budget and recent policy changes by DEFRA.
Lord Roborough (Con)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are supporting farmers with a new deal to boost growth and strengthen food security. We will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals and back British produce. A multitude of factors influence agricultural competitiveness, and international comparisons are challenging due to factors such as differences in the structures of agricultural sectors in different countries. Defra and devolved administration officials meet routinely to share insights regarding our respective agricultural policies.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, farmers in Scotland and the EU enjoy area-based payments of around €280 per hectare, with minimal environmental obligations, while farmers in the US are reported to receive subsidies worth $30 billion. Our own farmers receive de minimis area-based payments and no further access to SFIs while planning for inheritance tax. What will this Government do to ensure that our farmers can compete on a level playing field in their trade agreements while also restoring nature in line with the obligations of the Environment Act?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have pledged £5 billion towards farming over the next few years, which will be spent through our environmental land management schemes. We are currently working to reform SFI to allow us to align it with our work on the land use framework and the 25-year farming road map. That is designed to protect the most productive land and boost food security while at the same time delivering for nature. We have published the update of a £30 million boost to HLS that recognises and rewards the vital role played by farmers in restoring habitats. We are also looking at how we can work with the farming sector in order to target those who would most benefit from future payment systems.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the Opposition seem to be obsessed with millionaire farmers? Is it not about time that they worried more about families in poverty? They call for more resources for farmers, but have they indicated where that resource is going to come from? They used to accuse us of having a money tree, but I think they have found an orchard.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend raises some interesting questions. It is clearly important that we target our resources and funding on those who are most in need. That is one of the reasons why the delinked payments are reduced the most for those who have the most and the least for those who need more time to make the changes.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, in that context can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of the main factors identified by Professor Julia Aglionby behind the cause of upland farmers’ incomes falling to half the minimum wage by 2027? They include the phasing out of the basic payment scheme, the recent negligible rise in HLS, insufficient financial reward from new environmental land management schemes and barriers to scheme transition, which is being done at a much slower pace in all the other devolved nations.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I should probably declare an interest here as I know Julia extremely well and meet her to discuss exactly these issues. Julia does an awful lot of work on uplands and common land, and it is important that we are able to support the farmers, particularly in uplands, who have a much more challenging environment to farm in. That is one of the reasons why we are looking at reforming the SFI to target those who need it most. Previous schemes have not always benefited those, such as in the uplands, who need the most support.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Can the Minister confirm that in New Zealand, which is probably the pioneer of subsidy-free farming, there is no inheritance tax?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am afraid I have to admit to the noble Lord that I know nothing about New Zealand’s inheritance tax law, but I am more than happy to look into it.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests in asking this question. Does the Minister accept that it would be helpful for farmers in England, Wales and Scotland if all the supermarkets in the UK were required to show the flags of the countries of origin of meat that they sell in their supermarkets, particularly in view of the possible threats coming from imports from the USA?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there was a consultation on labelling fairly recently, which we are looking at. There are certain issues. What do we want on our labels? Country of origin is clearly something the public are particularly interested in. Also, what are the standards and the methods of production? There is a lot of interest in what labelling could include. We also need to be careful to ensure that the labelling that exists currently, and any future labelling brought in, is honest, because sometimes things that look British are not necessarily so.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Is the Minister aware that since the start of 2024 the level of sheepmeat imports is up by 59%? During the same period, the number of sheep in the UK is down by 40%. Why are the Government not doing more to help sheep farmers and upland areas?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned in response to the noble Baroness, it is important that when we reform our SFI we look at how we can support upland farmers more. It is also about getting the right balance between levels of grazing and environmental support. I will give a quick shout-out for Cumbrian sheep. Herdwick sheep are extremely important to our landscapes in Cumbria. I think it is important that our supermarkets and our butchers support locally bred meats as well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, to correct the record—I live partly in a village with very small farms—it is not just rich people who have farms. What are the Government doing to support food production in this country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have a number of plans to support food production, partly through the farming road map, which we are developing. We have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, to lead Defra’s farming profitability review, which will look at things like this. We are also looking at government procurement and buying British produce, which will support British farmers. There are a number of activities that we are currently doing.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, within the senior Defra team—and, sadly, I include all the Defra Ministers—we do not have a single farmer or land manager. If we did, they would explain that the last Budget and recent policy changes have created a lose-lose outcome for British farmers and the British public. Is Defra monitoring the number of farms going out of business, the increase in food prices the public are having to pay and the inevitable decline of our home-grown food security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I take issue with the idea that our home-grown food security is declining. The data we have does not support that. Regarding the senior Defra team, including Ministers, not having any farming experience, although I spend far too much time in London these days and not enough time in Cumbria, I am actually a registered farmer on our smallholding, so that is not quite true.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that competitiveness should include not just price but environmental costs? Given that our farmers can produce meat and dairy products from our sheep and cattle with substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions than the global and even European averages, should we not be buying British, trying to minimise imports and exporting as much as we can to protect our farming industry and benefit the planet?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes some important points. Interestingly, since Brexit our exports have gone down by 21%. We are very hopeful that the new agreement we are working on with the EU at the moment will enable our farmers to export more, help our agri-food trade be cheaper and easier, and help us align more with the EU. On costs, environmental costs clearly have to be taken into account as well. It can also save farmers money if they buy into the different innovative options available at the moment. For example, grants are available to reduce pesticide use. There are lots of opportunities through the different environmental schemes for farmers to become more productive and more competitive.
Health: Ultra-processed Food
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address health harms associated with ultra-processed food.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, a nutritious diet is key to living a healthy life. Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the extent to which the processing of food itself negatively impacts health beyond poor nutritional content. We have commissioned research to further understand the health impacts of ultra-processed foods. We are focused on taking firm action to reduce the intake of foods and drinks that are high in saturated fat, salt or sugar, which also captures the majority of ultra-processed foods.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. Research shows that ultra-processed food causes disease, disability and premature death. It costs the UK economy £268 billion a year, in the form of additional costs for the NHS and social care, welfare payments, productivity loss and lifelong human suffering. Instead of a free ride, manufacturers of ultra-processed food must bear the true cost of their trade. This could be in the form of a 5% levy on their turnover. Does the Minister agree and, if so, when will the Government introduce it?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am interested to hear my noble friend’s suggestion. This Government do not have that as part of their plan. However, on my noble friend’s point about the need for research, I heard what he said about evidence, but that is not the evidence that I have available. I assure your Lordships’ House that the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition repeatedly reviews evidence and assesses the impact of processed foods on health in position statements, and it has made two recent publications on that. We continue to invest in research on ultra-processed foods.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. We will hear from the Cross Benches next.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as recorded in the register. Last year, the author of the best-selling book Ultra-Processed People, Dr Chris van Tulleken, gave evidence to the Food, Diet and Obesity Select Committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member. He said that ultra-processed food
“is not a regulatory tool—I do not know anyone credible who is talking about using that definition to slap labels on things … the regulatory tool, in my view, should be fat, salt, sugar and calories”.
Does the Minister agree with Dr van Tulleken?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing his expertise and commitment to this area. It is indeed the case that the majority of foods classified or considered as ultra-processed foods also tend to be high in calories, saturated fat, salt and sugar, for which there is more definitive evidence, as the noble Lord has referred to. It is the case that many UPFs are already captured by the Government’s considerable programme of work to improve the food environment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government in general, and the Minister in particular, on taking such a sensible view about the great red herring that is ultra-processed food. There is no scientific evidence that it specifically causes obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much of anything, and the answer is to reduce the amount of food that people eat.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his appreciation of the Government’s efforts in this regard. I believe we have to consider the role of ultra-processed foods, but that has to be based on evidence and scientific truth, rather than speculation. That is why the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has shown concern but cannot prove a direct link. It is not necessarily about the processing, but we know that high fat, salt and sugar is a problem for healthy living, and that is mostly a very good description of UPFs.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, in February last year, the British Medical Journal reported research involving 10 million people that found evidence highly suggestive of diets rich in ultra-processed foods being linked with the increased risks of premature death, cardiovascular disease, mental health disorders, diabetes, obesity and sleep problems. What is the timescale for the Government’s further research on the dangers of ultra-processed foods? How will reversing aspects of the ban on junk food advertising help?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Lord will be aware, we are committed to implementing the TV and online advertising restrictions for less healthy foods and drinks. That is one of a number of steps that we are taking to tackle obesity, as per the question from the previous noble Lord. There is a direct link between advertising and intake, particularly with children, so I am glad that we will be introducing regulations to take effect in January—in fact, the industry has agreed to comply in advance of that, which shows a constructive approach. As for further information, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition will consider evidence again in 2026, next year, and make dietary recommendations. The Government continue to invest in research through the NIHR and the UKRI.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Further to the regulations that the Minister mentioned that are coming in January, the Labour manifesto promised to prohibit unhealthy food ads online and before 9 pm, which was to come into effect in October. Can the Minister confirm that the rules that are coming in January are in fact watered down and will not forbid the advertising of brands? Does she think that advertising a brand but not a product—say, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken or Greggs—will promote the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
First, I do not accept that the advertising restrictions represent any watering down. In May, a Written Ministerial Statement set out, to the noble Baroness’s point, that the Government will provide a brand exemption in legislation. The restrictions will come into force officially on 5 January. I realise that the noble Baroness regards this as not the position that she would choose, but I believe that it will provide certainty for businesses to invest in advertising campaigns with confidence and encourage them to develop more healthy products—that is the situation that we want—as well as protecting UK children from the harms of junk food advertising.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the Minister for the answers that she has given so far on the evidence, because it is really important that any policy in this area is evidence led. When I looked at the British Heart Foundation website, I saw that it said that additives in ultra-processed foods
“could be responsible for negative health effects”
and that the
“actual processing of the food could … make a difference”.
It also says:
“Another … theory is that … ultra-processed foods could … affect our gut health”.
But what it says overall is that there is insufficient evidence here. We really need more research to be done. We are not sure whether it is something in the ultra-processed foods or the processing itself that makes them unhealthy. The Minister has touched on this already. We have talked about the timeframe for research, but when people are looking for a source to consider the dangers, or otherwise, of ultra-processed foods, are there any particular websites or sources that the Government could point people to, so that people are more aware of and more educated on the research on ultra-processed foods?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The important point that the noble Lord raises is that our role is to encourage people to ensure that they are choosing a healthy diet and can achieve a healthy diet. As the noble Lord said, the word “could” is a bit of a problem. That is why we continue to invest in research and, as I say, work closely with the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, several speakers have alluded to the evidence available that associates ultra-processed and processed food with disease or health conditions. Would the Minister agree that all the evidence cited is from observational studies? No studies report as a causative factor a direct link between processed and ultra-processed food and any disease—including the British Heart Foundation, the BMJ and the one that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, mentioned. It is right that we should fund research that associates the causation of these food processes to disease.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. There is concern, and I am very aware of it, about the effect of ultra-processed foods, but nobody knows whether it is the processing or the content. What we do know is that it is definitely the content. We also know that high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt foods damage people’s health. Our focus is on what we know, and it is important that we continue to do that while researching what other links there may be.
Reservoirs: Protection from Contamination
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the protections in place to prevent reservoirs being contaminated by malicious state actors or others with hostile intent.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s first duty is to protect our national security and keep our country safe. Defra recognises that the drinking water supply is a potential target for hostile actors. It works with water companies and partners across government to understand and monitor threats to water supply and to consider responses as appropriate to protect the security of our water system.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. As she knows, yesterday’s strategic defence review talked a lot about hostile actors sabotaging critical infrastructure. I wonder whether my noble friend’s department is being a tad complacent in talking simply about monitoring the threat rather than looking at what practical arrangements can be made. For example, how do we deal with a drone which is flown over a reservoir and deposits something in there? The panic effects of that being known to have happened and not necessarily knowing what the substance is would be enormous. Is my noble friend able to tell us what further steps are going to be taken to address this, perhaps with a little more urgency given yesterday’s defence review?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I refer my noble friend to a lot of the cross-government work that is taking place regarding security and state threats. Tackling the diverse range of state threats—not just drones but many other threats—requires a cross-government and cross-society response. We need to draw on the skills, the resources and the remits of different departments and operational partners. In Defra, we work closely to look at the threats and the appropriate levels of response, specifically drawing on expert advice from the National Protective Security Authority, the National Cyber Security Centre and the Home Office, as well as carrying out threat assessment with policing partners.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I apologise to the House and to the Minister that in my earlier question, I did not declare my farming interests as set out in the register, and I do so now.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the Minister undertake an urgent review of the Reservoirs Act 1975, which is the relevant legislation for safety in the event of a possible breach of a reservoir? There is a lack of competent panel engineers, as they are called, to undertake this work. I think the noble Lord who asked the original Question would accept that we are too reliant on large reservoirs. Will the Minister also review the de minimis rule in the 1975 Act to see whether we could build smaller reservoirs in a greater number of places?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware of the Government’s pledge to build nine new reservoirs, and we are currently fast-tracking two of those, one in East Anglia and one in Lincolnshire. As we look at the future of reservoirs in this country, it is clear that the Reservoirs Act is a few years old now and it makes absolute sense to consider whether it is fit for the future. I will certainly take that back and discuss it with the department.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put his finger on a really worrying thing about our infrastructure. For about 15 years, I have been worried about the water supply: the large and small reservoirs, the pipes that connect them and, of course, the water treatment plants. I worry that there is sometimes confusion between the Home Office, Defra and others about who is looking after security. One simple question the Minister may want to ask is what the police response rate to alarms is, because it can be a testing of the system as well as a false alarm, or a proper alarm about people entering certain premises or doing something to the water. It needs to be higher in the priorities than it presently appears.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that we discuss these matters with the Home Office. As I said, much of what we need to do is across government—one thing that we have been trying hard to do in Defra and other departments since we came into government is to work better across government; that is an important point to make. The noble Lord asked an interesting question about police responses, which I am happy to mention next time I have a meeting with the Home Office to see whether I can get a better understanding about that.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, given Thames Water’s inability to secure private investment with its £20 billion debt burden, can the Minister confirm that, should it have to go into special administration, contingency plans include ring-fenced funding for critical security upgrades at its reservoirs? Specifically, will the Government commit to independent audits of cyber defences and physical protections during any transitional period, which has been highlighted as a period of vulnerability that might be exploited by hostile actors?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The main point is that our water supply absolutely has to be secure. We have to know that we are doing everything we can to protect it from hostile actors, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend mentioned. That is why the cross- departmental work is so important. On Thames Water, I assume the noble Baroness refers to the fact that the preferred bidder has now pulled out. Thames Water has assured us that there are other potential bidders. We need to look at the current situation and, clearly, any investment needs to include security. The PR24 investment that has been made includes a substantial sum for improving security as well as infrastructure. It is important to make the point that it is part of our ongoing discussions with water companies.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, our country has frequently been at war or under threat in our history, and our water infrastructure is always one of our vulnerabilities. Can the Minister inform the House whether there has ever been an attempt or a plan uncovered to contaminate our water supply, and what lessons have been learned if so?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I asked about that earlier today, because it is important that we understand it. My understanding is that there has not been such an incident, but that does not mean that we should be complacent. We know that our water and energy infrastructure are both potentially vulnerable to hostile attacks.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, if I could correct my noble friend, because she is probably not aware of it, in 2008 there was an attempt by eight al-Qaeda operatives to poison north London water supplies. I am pleased to say that our agencies worked brilliantly to stop it happening. As a result, in the Home Office we put in hand a whole series of work on police response times, indicators of where the outflows from reservoirs went and new barriers. Where has all that work gone? These things somehow seem to disappear. There should be some reports, and hopefully someone did something about it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is extremely interesting and very helpful of my noble friend. I will certainly look into it, because it is an important point. Clearly, the department did such an excellent job when there was a potential attack that it has never been picked up. However, if he would ever like to take over the Defra brief, I would be very happy to swap with him.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, we know from the Covid incident that we lacked experience of simulations of such incidents and were therefore not well prepared. When did we last simulate a situation where our water is contaminated and what did we learn from it? If we have not done so recently, is it time to think of doing it soon?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is an interesting question. I do not know when we last simulated such a thing, but there was the issue quite recently in Devon, where there was accidental water contamination. There was quite a rapid response to that, including, importantly, communication to consumers and to the public. One thing we are looking at now is how we learn from that accidental contamination, because contamination does not have to come just from hostile actors.
Lord Swire (Con)
Will the Government consider increasing their investment in desalination plants to ensure the provision of safe drinking water in the event of a national crisis?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, safe drinking water has to be an absolute priority, and I am sure the department would consider all options.
Gulf States: Trade and Human Rights
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to safeguard human rights in their proposed trade agreement with Gulf states.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK is a leading advocate for human rights around the world. We remain committed to the promotion of human rights. This Government are in negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council, comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. An FTA such as this one with the GCC can increase UK influence and help us have open conversations with partners on a range of issues, including human rights. Where necessary, the UK will draw on our full range of tools and levers, including our independent global human rights sanctions regime, to hold to account those involved in serious human rights violations and abuses.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Obviously, there is some variation among the six countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council in their attitude to human rights, but it is widely recognised that there are major failures in the areas of migrant labour, the position of women, LGBTQ people, freedom of expression, and access to justice. We understand that there will be some mention of human rights in this proposed trade deal, but would it not be much more effective if it was made legally binding? Surely we should not go for a good trade deal —which of course is very beneficial in itself—at the expense of recognition of human rights by the countries with which we are trading.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
Free trade agreements such as this are hugely beneficial to both economies, and I do not think that is at the cost of things such as human rights. It is really important that we all hold dear to us our own standards and become huge ambassadors and advocates for those standards around the world.
Where you are best able effect change is by having standards such as labour provisioning and against forced labour, and where you are able to articulate those within free trade agreements, you should really consider and use those opportunities to do that. When it comes to much broader policies about how you set out and articulate much wider, free-ranging ambitions, I do not necessarily see that those free trade agreements are always the place to do that. Instead, those are conversations that are being had between organisations such as the FCDO and direct counterparts within each of these countries, to work with them collaboratively and co-operatively, to share best practice, to help and support and to raise their ambitions. I do not think this is something that you can simply document as an ambition on a piece of paper and put it away in a cupboard for years and years until it is renegotiated; it is the consequence of consistent and live ongoing conversations.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I do not understand the answer that the Minister has just given, because when Labour was in opposition, this House, in the ping-pong on the Trade Bill, insisted on a Labour amendment—which these Benches supported wholeheartedly—that every trade agreement would have a human rights chapter. So have the Government have done a really regrettable U-turn on human rights and trade agreements or has the human rights scenario in the Gulf improved so much that the Labour Government do not think it is warranted?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I do not believe that is what I said. What we are seeing is a combination of understanding that human rights are complex and broad. It is a much broader range of things: modern slavery and thinking about our labour standards, cultural things, same-sex marriages and how we think about women in the workplace. It is broad and far-reaching. Things such as labour standards can be clearly articulated and clarified in agreements such as this, but there are broader aspects that are a consequence of much wider-ranging conversations, and which happen as an ongoing conversation. Yes, there are places and tactical specifics where free trade agreements stand as an opportunity, but there are also much broader, more encompassing conversations which happen collaboratively.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I actually agree with the Minister on the importance of FTAs. Can she confirm that the Government will continue to focus on the strategic dialogues that the previous Government initiated, where human rights were a key pillar of our discussions and co-operation? In doing that with our Gulf partners, we accentuated the positive; for example, in countries such as Bahrain, major strides were made on alternative sentencing and workers’ rights. We have seen—in an area close to my heart: the freedom of religion or belief and the initiation of the FoRB envoy role—great strides not only in Bahrain but in the UAE and other parts of the Gulf. While I accept that we need to move forward on human rights, I note that something I always did, as the Human Rights Minister for seven years, was to reflect on our own journey of human rights. Before we preach to others, we need to learn from our journey, share those lessons and work constructively.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his agreement. The key point is that there is never an end state; the work here is never done. We are continuously building on our standards, sharing best practices and learning from what other countries are doing. One thing is clear: we really value our standards on human rights, and we will never compromise on those for any free trade agreement.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I take my noble friend the Minister back to her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I think I heard her say that, while the breadth of human rights is considerable, there is a place in a free trade agreement for specific, relevant, binding obligations; for example, on labour standards, which might cover third-country workers.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
First, there is no signed agreement with the GCC yet; it is under continuous negotiation. However, one of the opportunities we have is to reaffirm what standards a country should have and how it can rearticulate them within the terms of a free trade agreement. Then there are other aspects: consider the Modern Slavery Act here in the UK, which requires any business, anywhere in the world, trading with the UK to comply with efforts towards transparency around its supply chain, to identify forced labour and to eradicate that wherever possible. Where we have opportunities to expand those trading relationships, such as with this free trade agreement, we will only increase the number of businesses that will then be bound by those standards of transparency.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. Will she confirm that trade agreements are about trade? They are about the removal of barriers and other obstacles to the free flow of commerce. All the other things that we are hearing about—women’s rights, freedom of expression and workers’ rights—are terribly important, but they do not belong as a coda in a trade agreement; they are matters to be addressed in their own terms. Here is a terrific opportunity for us to increase the value of our trade by getting on for £2 billion with these old allies of ours, the former Trucial States and other Gulf monarchies. Is that not good for us, good for them and —in a world that is increasingly moving to protectionism —good for everybody else as well?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
Trade is the consequence of a relationship: working with someone across the table with whom you have a shared ambition to work together. That drives both economic benefit and influence, and I do not believe that one ever comes at the cost of the other.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, over £42 million of UK government spending from 2020 on the Gulf strategy fund has failed to demonstrably improve many of the human rights abuses detailed by the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy and Human Rights Watch across the Gulf states. I note that this free trade agreement lacks robust and enforceable human rights provisions. Will the Minister explain how this combined approach helps uphold the UK’s commitments to human rights in this region?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
What I am hearing from the noble Lord is that our work here is not yet done. It is a long way from being done, and it is a constantly evolving situation where all of us are raising our own standards—here in the UK but in other countries as well. Where we are able to work together to share ideas, continuously, in every conversation, and to articulate the benefits that those high standards have to our society, where we have trade agreements, that only increases the number of opportunities to articulate and continue to drive that change. I accept that we still have a long way to go and there is still much we could be doing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that in the course of these trade negotiations with the Gulf states the Government will take steps to ensure that the UK’s commitment to a free and independent press is in no way compromised—that includes the press’s ability to report on human rights abuses?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I confirm that we hold our standards around human rights, and value our press, incredibly dearly and we would not do anything in a free trade agreement that takes away or dilutes any of those assets that we hold dear within the UK.
UK Nuclear Deterrent
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, on these Benches we wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s ironclad commitment to the nuclear deterrent and its modernisation. It is the backbone of our military deterrence capabilities and is so valuable to all our NATO allies. But we know that, historically, nuclear projects have eaten up enormous portions of the defence budget and—not unsurprisingly, due to the nature of the challenge—always tend towards overspending. With the raft of recommendations from the strategic defence review and the sheer number of projects that the Ministry of Defence will have to fund, is there not a possibility that the proposed increase in the defence budget could be consumed by the cost of the Dreadnought and nuclear warhead programmes? In light of this, can the Minister guarantee that there will be sufficient funds within the plans for the highly necessary renewal of the nuclear deterrent, as well as the equally necessary boost in what we now understand to be conventional capabilities?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Earl for the ironclad commitment that His Majesty’s Opposition have just given to the strategic nuclear deterrent. That is the most important point that has been made today, and I thank him for that. The co-operation between all of us on that has been a source of strength to this country for many decades and will continue.
On the question of funding, the Government make it absolutely clear they will fund the nuclear deterrent. On the Dreadnought successor programme to Vanguard, we have made commitments to the four submarines, and noble Lords have seen the Statement about the nuclear warhead programme. I remind the noble Earl that, in 2015, the last Government put a package out of £31 billion for the nuclear modernisation programme with a £10 billion contingency, and I can confirm that the budget is within those parameters.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Urgent Question asked in the other place came from the chair of the Defence Committee. It came because there was speculation in the press that the SDR would propose not just renewing the continuous at-sea deterrent, which from these Benches we also support, but a move to a second platform for nuclear deterrence; that appears not to be the case. How does the Minister think such speculation came about? Would it not have been better if, rather than floating the SDR to the press, it came first to the other place and your Lordships’ House and we could have avoided unnecessary speculation?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On the issue of nuclear weapons and the point that the noble Baroness makes, I will read the following for the purpose of clarity because she makes an important point. Neither the UK nor NATO talks about nuclear weapons being tactical. Any use of nuclear weapons would fundamentally change the nature of a conflict. I can say that the UK continues to view its nuclear deterrent as a political tool rather than a war-fighting capability, and it will remain the case that none of the UK’s nuclear weapons is designed for tactical use.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
We will hear from the noble and gallant Lord.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I was in command of the crew of a nuclear-armed Falcon on quick-reaction alert over a number of years, and I realise the cost of maintaining the V-Force on alert over many years as well. Will the Minister return to the first question as to whether the cost of maintaining new nuclear capability, which has been talked about, can be met with less than the 3% guaranteed for the defence budget?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
To be absolutely clear for the noble and gallant Lord, whatever the debate about the levels of funding for the defence budget, the nuclear deterrent will be funded both as it stands and for its renewal. That is a cast-iron guarantee from the Government.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to the nuclear deterrent, but does he agree that the problems we are facing now with the deterrent replacement are the failure to replace submarines in the 1990s by the Conservative Government, the delay from the coalition Government in ordering the replacement, and the movement of the actual finance for the replacement into the defence budget, whereas before it was always ring-fenced? Are not this Government trying now to play catch-up after the mistakes that were made in the past?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. We are trying to ensure that, whatever may have happened in the past, we move forward in a way which guarantees our strategic nuclear deterrent. That is the fundamental point that must ring out from this Chamber: there is unity of purpose across the Chamber that the strategic nuclear deterrent, particularly in the geopolitical times of today, will be maintained and renewed by this Government.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, does not the Minister crystallise in what he says the stupidity of the situation in which we find ourselves? The declaration that at all costs, at any cost, the nuclear deterrent will be retained, must mean, under a time of fiscal pressure, that the balance of the MoD’s programme—the conventional methodology for deterring attacks—is further undermined. Is this not a ridiculous situation, and should we not return to the time when the nuclear enterprise was funded completely separately from the conventional requirements of defence?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. Clearly, others will have heard the points that he made. All I am saying to this Chamber is that, at this geopolitical moment in history, it is particularly important that His Majesty’s Government, plus His Majesty’s Official Opposition and all parties, are united in saying to others that the nuclear deterrent will remain at the heart of our defence policy, whatever the debates about the budget.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is an independent nuclear deterrent, or is it tied in? Would it work if we did not have support from the United States? One of the problems that we have had in the past is that it has not been an independent nuclear deterrent; it has been dependent on support from others. I would like to have an independent deterrent.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I just say to the noble Lord that it is an independent nuclear deterrent. The person who decides whether, God forbid, that nuclear deterrent is ever used is the Prime Minister of our country. It is only the Prime Minister of our country who can determine whether, God forbid, that nuclear deterrent is used. That guarantees its independence.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that our nuclear weapons will be used only when our supreme national interest so requires, and in no other circumstance?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course it will be in the most extreme of circumstances that the nuclear deterrent would even be considered for use. I just say that the whole point of the nuclear deterrent—this is something I have said many times at the Dispatch Box—is to deter people. It is that whole concept that sometimes seems contradictory: that by preparing for war, you prevent war. The strategic nuclear deterrent is the most significant example of that.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, it has always been the case that the nuclear programme has been at the very limits of our technological, industrial, scientific and cost profiles. The speed at which we produced Blue Danube bombs, for example, was excruciatingly slow, and so was the Beard process beyond that, and the other weapons. Now we have a lot of pressure from civil nuclear as well. Does my noble friend agree that we have to have a really national endeavour among all departments to pull together so that we can get the training of scientists and everyone focusing on this particular issue, because otherwise we will find it very hard to deliver—certainly within the cost parameters, but very hard to deliver anyway?
Just as an aside, when I was in government, the Prime Minister asked me to go and check on the independence of our deterrent. I was allowed access to all sorts of things, and the answer is that it is independent. Clearly, over time, over 20 or 30 years, that becomes more difficult, because of maintenance of missiles, for example.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really good point with respect to the nuclear enterprise and the need for it to be a national endeavour. It is true of the defence nuclear enterprise, as it is true with many other aspects of defence, that the need for us to upskill, to have more apprentices and to have more of the systems available to us in order for us to be able to deliver the defence programmes and projects that we want is a challenge. Let me be clear that we will make sure that we have all the necessary skills and capabilities required to maintain our nuclear deterrent.
Diego Garcia Military Base
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, this is an extremely important Statement concerning the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. I begin by expressing my disappointment with the Government’s handling of the timing of this announcement. This is a matter of national security and territorial integrity, and this decision directly affects how our country is perceived on the international stage. To slip in an unscheduled Statement moments before these Houses rose for Recess shows a disregard for Members in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. Matters of this significance deserve to be discussed, and the Government’s actions scrutinised, in good time, and it is my view that the Government timed their announcement to disrupt that duty of scrutiny, despite efforts made the Official Opposition to raise this question on parliamentary time on the Thursday before Recess. I hope that the Minister can start his response by addressing this question.
The Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place was effusive in highlighting the importance of the Diego Garcia base. He said:
“For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad”.
Can the Minister explain why, given that this is the Government’s latest assessment, they are surrendering that very same British sovereign territory to a foreign power—a power that only recently has agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia?
Once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. The text of the treaty also includes the provision that the UK must
“expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia”.
Does the Minister believe that it is in the interests of our national security to share advance information on military operations with third countries? Can he promise that this information, which we are now obliged to share with Mauritius, will never be shared with China, Iran or Russia, with whom the Mauritians are becoming increasingly friendly?
I, like many other noble Lords—and honourable Members in the other place—took exception to the comments of the Prime Minister during his press conference. He said that those of us who oppose the deal are on the same side as Russia and China. That is not only deeply offensive but entirely false. Just last week, we saw news reports of China’s ambassador to Mauritius hailing this deal as a “massive achievement” for Mauritius and then confirming that China would welcome it into the belt and road initiative. It is vividly apparent that, contrary to the Government’s claims, Mauritius is becoming ever more under the influence of China. It is no surprise that China welcomes this deal; it plays right into its strategy of weakening western democracies and hobbling our abilities to operate internationally.
Over the weekend, noble Lords will also have considered the renewed US views on China’s intentions towards Taiwan as context. Has the Minister considered how this treaty makes us look on the world stage? The Prime Minister has signed an agreement which will surrender a strategically vital resource to a foreign Government. He has also, it appears, committed us to sharing military information with that same Government, who show increasing signs of support for our enemies. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have both argued that this agreement is necessary to safeguard our ability to operate from the Diego Garcia military base, in the face of legal challenges. However, the legal case is entirely opaque. Noble Lords will know that this all stems from a non-binding advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, a court which counts among its number a Chinese judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist Party and who voted against condemning Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine.
We also know that the International Telecommunication Union does not have the power to issue binding rulings against the UK in respect of the base on Diego Garcia, and it is unclear whether a case would be brought against us in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Even if it had done so, it would have been a case that we could have opposed and appealed. Everyone seems to agree that the British Indian Ocean Territory is a critically important asset, not just to the UK but, by direct or indirect association, to all our allies.
To crown it all, we are paying for the privilege of surrendering our own territory. The Government, to the incredulity of Members across both Houses and people throughout the country, hail this as a success. In reality, I can find no positive report of this chosen route in any media or other channel not linked to China. Does the Minister honestly believe that this is a good deal that benefits the United Kingdom? When he responds in a moment, can he say with his hand on his heart that handing the Mauritians £30 billion over 99 years to lose one of our vital strategic assets is something that we should welcome and be proud of?
The Minister will be well aware that those payments are front-loaded. The agreement laid before Parliament states that, for the first three years, the United Kingdom will pay Mauritius £165 million per year, then £120 million for each of the next 10 years and an additional £45 million every year from year one for infrastructure improvements in Mauritius. That is for the next 25 years, which means that, over the next five years, we will be paying Mauritius £1 billion.
Let me put that into a defence context. £1 billion could pay for 10 new F35 Lightnings, 30 Apache attack helicopters, 125 Boxer armoured fighting vehicles, or an entire Type 26 frigate—which must rankle with the noble Lord, Lord West, among many others.
Given that the strategic defence review, revealed yesterday, contained 62 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Government, and at a time when the Chancellor is warning of additional tax rises and spending cuts, does the Minister not agree that a far better use could be found for this money? Can the Minister tell us exactly how this will be funded? Can he help the House to understand how the obligations to the British people are being fulfilled by pursuing this deal at the taxpayer’s expense? More importantly—and this is a simple question requiring a yes or no answer—will this money be paid out of the defence budget? If so, how can the Minister justify that, given the Government have spent the last few months attempting to talk up their increase in the defence budget?
This agreement must make the United Kingdom less secure, weaker on the global stage and at greater risk than under the current status quo. There are good deals and not so good deals. One of the key skills in deciding to complete a deal or not is knowing when it is wiser to withdraw than continue, and that is exactly what the previous Government did.
We should be mindful of the critical fact that, once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. It is also somewhat ironic that, as the Government announce their strategic defence review on the one hand, they are wilfully disposing with the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory on the other, along with significant amounts of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.
Finally, but just as importantly, what of the Chagossian community, which is already widely displaced? A one-off token payment of £40 million to assist resettlement and readjustment to an unknown and distant sovereign power—and its intentions—in the light of the overall magnitude of the Mauritian gains, both territorial and financial, seems almost derisory. Can the Minister advise the House how this sum is to be allocated, tracked and ensured, for the benefit of all Chagossians?
Noble Lords will be aware of the Motion against ratification of the treaty, tabled by my noble friend Lord Callanan. Let me be clear: we do not do this lightly, but this arrangement poses such harm to our nation and, indeed, international security, and is such a flagrant violation of the rights of the Chagossian community, that we feel it our duty to bring this fatal Motion to the House. We hope noble Lords across the House will weigh the agreement carefully and support our Motion. This deal cannot be the right thing for our country to do.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I find myself in a rather unusual position. On most defence issues, it is very easy for the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson to agree with the Official Opposition, and to find that the Minister will also be saying very similar things. On most issues, we find ourselves saying how vital the defence of the realm is, and that we are broadly on the same page, with a few minor differences.
On this issue, however, there seems to be such a clear difference of opinion between the Official Opposition and the Government Benches that I will ask only a few clarificatory questions for those of us who are not Privy Councillors, have not been briefed on Privy Council terms and are therefore unable to express the effusive views on the importance of Diego Garcia that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, mentioned the Secretary of State had expressed. For anyone who read the Statement delivered in the other place just before Recess, the Secretary of State was indeed crystal clear about the importance of Diego Garcia to the security of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State particularly made the point that the deal is vital because we retain control over Diego Garcia, but he also pointed out how important it is as a joint US-UK military base. So what role does the United States play on Diego Garcia? I realise that the Minister may feel that this is privileged information that he is not able to articulate in open session, but we need to understand what is going on with our relationship with the US in this regard.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that the only people who are really in favour of this are the Chinese, yet the Secretary of State pointed out that none other than Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump have said that this is a “very long-term” and “very strong” deal. So whose interests is it in? Is it in the UK’s national interest or is it primarily about the US’s interest?
Finally—because I want to give the Minister time to reply—this deal has apparently been two and a half years in the making. His Majesty’s Government have been in office for only 11 months. That means that, for over a year and a half, the negotiations were under the Conservative Government. What has changed between the two Governments to make one party now think that this is a vital deal, and the other implacably opposed?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his comments and the articulate way in which he presented an opinion that I do not agree with. But that is the point of scrutiny and that is the point I am making back to the noble Earl. Whatever the process is, that he could stand here so that we can debate this—and others will debate it—is important to democracy and the way our country works. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her comments.
The Government’s position is quite clear: none of us disagrees that Diego Garcia is of huge significance and importance to the geopolitical security of us and our allies, in particular the United States. The discussion is about the best way of securing that base for the future. The Opposition’s point of view is that there is no legal jeopardy, that we can carry on ignoring the ICJ’s judgment, because it was just advisory, and that we may reach a point when a binding judgment is made. The question then becomes whether we ignore only binding agreements, if we get to them.
That was clearly what the previous Government were wrestling with. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it is clearly why, at some point, officials and Ministers under the previous Government—under Rishi Sunak if not before—decided that they needed to negotiate and discuss the future of the Diego Garcia base with Mauritius. Otherwise, what was the point of those negotiations? Were they just a delaying tactic: “We’ll just negotiate and pretend that we’re discussing something when we don’t mean it”. I can see the noble Earl’s noble friend shaking his head, but the consequence of what the noble Earl said is that the previous Government were negotiating with a country with no intention of coming to any agreement. I do not believe that. As much as I do not agree with much of what the last Government did, I do not believe that the lack of integrity in Ministers or officials was such that they would have done that. So I believe that negotiations were going on about the best way forward, and this Government have come to the conclusion that there is judicial or legal jeopardy in allowing the situation to continue.
I will try to cut my remarks short to make sure that Back-Benchers get a proper opportunity. We negotiated a treaty, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny when it comes before Parliament to be debated. That treaty guarantees, with many conditions, the security of Diego Garcia. Our international partners are far from disagreeing. I will read what Secretary Hegseth said for the noble Baroness—and yes, the US is a really important partner for us on Diego Garcia. Of course it is. We work really closely with the US on this, and we make no apology for that.
Pete Hegseth said:
“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region”.
Secretary Rubio said:
“Today, the United States welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory—specifically, the Chagos Archipelago”.
Canada said:
“Canada welcomes the signing of the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty agreement”.
Australia said:
“Australia welcomes the signing of the historic agreement between the UK and Mauritius”.
I will tell the House what I would do if I were China: I would say what a brilliant agreement it is to sow confusion, upset people and cause people to debate it. I will tell the House what I want: I want this country and our allies to determine what we should do and to tell China that we are going to act in what we consider to be our own interests, irrespective of what it might say to try to disrupt us.
New Zealand said:
“As a strong supporter of the international rules-based system, New Zealand welcomes the agreement”.
India said:
“We welcome the signing of the treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius”.
So, far from us being an international pariah because we have signed this agreement, many of the most important countries in that region have welcomed the deal because it confirms the security of that base.
We are worried about the law of the sea. The noble Earl asked about that situation. We do not have to share information about actions taken from Diego Garcia in advance of us taking any action. I say that on the record because the noble Earl specifically asked me about it. We do not have to let Mauritius know in advance about it and then potentially share that information.
The Government Actuary says that the cost of the treaty arrangements is £3.4 billion over the lifetime of the treaty. If the noble Earl and others want to take issue, let them argue with the Government Actuary, because that is the way that all Governments throughout the past few decades have costed government projects in this sense, so we are not changing that or moving any goalposts.
The noble Earl talked about the Chagossians. This was a UK-Mauritius state treaty discussion, but the Chagossian community itself is not united in its response. On 22 May, two prominent Chagossian groups—the Chagos Refugees Group and the Chagossian Committee Seychelles—said that they regretted the legal action that aimed to halt what could be a landmark agreement that serves the long-term interests of Chagossians as a whole. That is Chagossians commenting on this agreement.
The argument I put on behalf of the Government is that, far from undermining the base’s sovereignty in terms of its operational independence, and our ability to use Diego Garcia in the way we would all want—to protect our national security and defend our global interests—we have negotiated a treaty that is subject to parliamentary approval, which gives it the scrutiny the noble Earl would like, strengthened it and ensured that we protect our national interests and those of our friends and allies, including the US.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement. He is right that this gives a long-term future to a strategically vital base not only for this country but, as he read out with his quotes, for our Five Eyes partners. China is being used as an example of why this is a bad deal. Does he agree that Mauritius’s main interlocutor in the region is not China but India, and that if China were to do anything in that region, India would certainly have something to say about it?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. He is right. That is why I read out what the Indian Government said about the treaty and the agreement that has been reached. They say clearly:
“The formal resolution of the longstanding Chagos dispute through this bilateral treaty is a milestone achievement and a positive development for the region”.
I for one am pleased that the Indian Government have made such a positive statement, in the face of some comments.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, if the military base on Diego Garcia is just as important to the US as it is to the UK, was the US ever asked to split the costs of leasing it back?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not sure of the answer to that, but I suspect not. All I can say with respect to this is that, whatever the payment is that the UK Government are making, through the MoD and the FCDO, to the Mauritian Government for the use and protection of the base, we should be clear that the US’s ability to use the base, with its equipment, its facilities, and the soldiers, airmen and sailors of its military, is the massive contribution that the US makes to it. Whatever arrangements we have, the fact that the US and the UK are standing together on that base sends a massive signal to China, the rest of those who stand against us and our adversaries. We are a proud country. We are going to stand with our friends, and we will deter those who seek to undermine us.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, may I perhaps inform the Minister? He is, of course, right that the previous Government engaged on this in good faith to try to seek a resolution. The reason why it could not be agreed, as has been said before in your Lordships’ House, was the principal issue of security. I visited at the behest of a previous Prime Minister and directly met the Prime Minister of Mauritius. One assurance that he could not give me at that time was about the long-term security of both the maritime waters and the Diego Garcia base. Linked to that, my specific question is about the other islands that make up the British Indian Ocean Territory. What assurances and, indeed, guarantees are there that there will not be a separate negotiation on them?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will have negotiated in good faith. I know too that if there had been an agreement that he felt was in the national interest then he would have recommended to his Government that it should be supported.
The point that I am making is that the principle was established that negotiations were happening to see what arrangement or agreement, if any, could be made between the UK and Mauritius with respect to Diego Garcia. This Government’s judgment is that we have reached such an agreement. The noble Lord is quite right to point out the security guarantees that we have. He will know that in the treaty there is a 24-mile buffer zone around the island, and the US and the UK can veto any development within that zone. He will also know that there is a further exclusion zone beyond that encompassing the rest of the islands, which means we can prevent development that we are opposed to there as well. That is why we felt we could sign an agreement containing the sorts of security guarantees that the noble Lord himself sought but did not manage to achieve, and therefore did not feel there was an agreement that he could come to or recommend we agree to. We feel that we have guarantees that will protect the integrity of the base by excluding others who would seek to undermine it.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, the Statement twice refers to guaranteeing the UK full continued control over Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond. What is the exact legal position that the Government have negotiated regarding the situation beyond the year 2124, which, after all, is little more than a single lifetime away? What concerns me is that the wording available to the public suggests that any extension depends entirely on obtaining the agreement of the Mauritian Government at the time, which does not sound much like a guarantee of full UK control of Diego Garcia beyond 99 years.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that, in addition to the 99 years, there is in the treaty an option for a further 40 years. He will know the importance of respecting a treaty, which is a legally binding agreement between two Governments, whether through an international court, national courts or sovereign Governments themselves. The important principle is that what is in the treaty is what has been negotiated. As far as I am concerned, we will ensure that the treaty is respected, and that is the legal basis on which we go forward.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I support all that my noble friend has had to say about the significance of the islands to our defence and that of our allies, but these kinds of exchanges tend to be very much about high politics. We should remember—and even though it has been said before, it needs to be repeated, preferably from the Front Bench here—that this cannot be done without a reflection on the gross abuse that took place all those years ago to the people of the Chagos Islands. There were shocking stories about Chagossians who were on holiday when the takeover took place and the military base was established who were unable even to get back into their own homeland. I really feel that there should be some additional statement from my noble friend on precisely what this deal does for the people who inhabited those islands and their descendants. I know there are differences of opinion, but what exactly will the rights of Chagossians be as and when this deal is ratified?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On the rights of the Chagossians and what happened in the past, of course there is a lot to be regretted about the situation that occurred and what has happened with the Chagossians. The Chagossians in the UK, primarily in Crawley, receive support from the UK Government to facilitate their living here. The treaty provides £40 million for a trust fund to be set up for Chagossians living in Mauritius. Notwithstanding what I think is my noble friend’s point about resettlement and the opportunity to return, this was a UK-Mauritius agreement to protect the long-term integrity of the Diego Garcia base, and alongside that we have tried to provide some support for Chagossians whether they live in the UK or Mauritius.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Successive Governments of all political backgrounds have behaved disgracefully towards the Chagossians. I presided in a case for the Court of Appeal in which we were unable to help the Chagossians but learned a great deal—I am talking about 20 years ago—about what had happened. What the Minister has not said is whether any Chagossians will be allowed to return to the other islands.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Rather than misinform the noble and learned Baroness, let me check that—I am not 100% certain of the particulars on the return of Chagossians to other islands. If she will allow me, I will check that, write to her and, with due respect to everybody, put a copy of that in the Library.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, following on from that question, there seems to be no guarantee in this agreement that Chagossians will be able to return to any of the islands. I understood that that was going to be in the agreement. Perhaps the Minister can tell me where I can read up, because obviously I am ignorant on this as I can see nothing that shows why Mauritius has such a claim on the Chagos Islands.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will copy the letter that I said I would send to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, directly to the noble Baroness. Diego Garcia has been regarded as part of Mauritius. It is something that Mauritius has links to. It is recognised through the international order. As part of the negotiations that have taken place, we have negotiated with that Government to come to an agreement around the future of Diego Garcia.
The noble Baroness will know, with the interest she takes in security matters, that it is important for the Government to ensure the future of the Diego Garcia base. That is protected under this treaty. That is a hard and difficult position, and sometimes Governments have to make those decisions. The alternative would be a situation of judicial jeopardy and the future of the base would be uncertain. People are quite able to oppose that deal, but their position would be to let us continue with a situation that is uncertain and where there is judicial jeopardy. We think and believe that an agreement that protects the future of one of the most important bases in the world for our geopolitical security is something that—if we can agree it, and we believe we have—is worth agreeing. It protects the base, and that is the all-important principle to which we have adhered.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I came to this matter with an open mind. I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and I have some background in the region. I conclude that the Minister has made his case on this matter.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord very much for that. That means there are two of us in this Chamber. For any journalists reporting this, that is a joke—just to ensure we have clarity. Seriously, I thank the noble Lord. At the end of the day—this is the point about scrutiny—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has done nothing but shake his head the whole debate. There is a legitimate debate and discussion to take place. The noble Lord has articulated a point of view that says this is essentially a sell-out. I take the view that, on the contrary, it is nothing like that. It is a Government taking seriously their responsibility to try to come to an agreement in difficult circumstances, as we have heard from some of the questions, and negotiate with the Mauritian Government to protect a base of huge, vital strategic significance.
The noble Lord does not agree with the vital strategic significance, but we have sought to protect it through a treaty that we believe helps guarantee that and will guarantee it. For those who oppose it, I repeat that there is judicial jeopardy and no certainty that the base can be protected. The idea that we can just ignore international judicial opinion and not worry about where that may take us is not the right way forward. The challenge the noble Earl made, and the one I have heard time and again, is that nobody supports this and it makes us a pariah internationally. I read out statements from many of our most significant partners and allies, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and India. All those countries said they support the arrangement and the deal we have come to.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, may propose a fatal Motion—he is entitled to do it; I am not saying he should not, and he will anyway. My point is that Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Rubio, the Indian Government, the Japanese Government, the Australian Government, the New Zealand Government and many others all support it. Those who oppose the deal will have to say why they are opposed to something supported by all those. They will say, “Because China is the real voice”. Let me say this: China can say what it wants. This Government know the malign influence of China, as the previous Government did. None of us needs any lectures about standing up to the Chinese, and we will.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Perhaps I might take the Minister back to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about the wrong that was done to the Chagossians, and the agency and will of the Chagossian diaspora population. The Minister said at the beginning that they were divided, which is of course true—they are not a single block. I think it would address concerns on all sides of this House if this deal were made subject to a consultative referendum among the Chagossian population. Noble Lords may say that that is difficult to do because they are scattered—some are in the Seychelles and some are in Mauritius—but it is not logistically impossible. I voted not long ago on who should be the next chancellor of the University of Oxford—I voted for the noble Lord, Lord Hague—and there were people on five continents for that. You establish your credentials and then you vote, so I do not think it would be logistically unfeasible. If the Chagossian people voted for it, I think people would get behind it. Will the Minister consider giving a voice to the people who have more at stake here than anybody else?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The answer is no. The British Government have made, and will make, their case. The treaty that has been agreed will be subject to parliamentary approval, and there will be a debate on it. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to put forward that point of view at some point. But the British Government have taken a decision on the basis of our national security and the geopolitical security of that region and beyond. Let us be clear: some of what happens at Diego Garcia has implications reaching far beyond the region, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and many others here will know that. The geopolitical significance of Diego Garcia is not linked just to that region; it has a global impact. As the noble Lord will know, Governments sometimes have to make very real and difficult decisions and, in the interests of the geopolitical needs of our nation and those of our friends —to combat China and others—we have taken the decision to ensure, through this treaty, that we protect the integrity and future of the Diego Garcia base so that it can continue to operate in the interests that we all share: democracy, human rights and the international rules-based order.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
The fact that the Minister has made this case so effectively raises a question about what happens next. With great respect, I do not think he has answered the question about what happens when the treaty comes to an end. I cannot imagine that the needs of security will come to an end. Are we to take it that the treaty says nothing about this? If so, what happens?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will reflect on that—I note that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, was shaking his head when I answered. I will see whether I can add anything further to the points made by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. Clearly, the treaty lays out 99 years, with the 40-year further option on that. If the noble and learned Lord is asking me what happens at the end of 139 years, I will reflect on that so that others who may follow me can consider their options in 139 years’ time.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I will clarify my question. My understanding, from what I read—which is available to the public—is that the Mauritian Government have to agree even to the 40-year extension, let alone what happens at the end of that 40 years.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will clarify that. I tried to be open and frank in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I will reflect on that and whether I need to write to the noble Lord to ensure that we have correct factual information. We may differ on opinions, but it is important that we have factual information in front of us. If I need to, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and put a copy of that in the Library, as well as giving a copy to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, just for clarity’s sake.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (3 Jun 2025)
“Prohibition of unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) “No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons participating in a scheme designed to provide work experience for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.””(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert— “41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking work experience(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to a person undertaking work experience with the same employer for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months, beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking such work experience who has ceased to be of compulsory school age, but has not attained the age of 26, is eligible to receive the national minimum wage at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (Meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.), and also includes any organisation which provides an individual with work experience;“work experience” means observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation, industry or work-related activity.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that unpaid work experience cannot be used to avoid National Minimum Wage regulations.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance TV producer. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, whose amendment this is, has waited and waited to be able to debate it, but now, when the big moment arrives, he is prevented from taking his place in the Chamber by an unbreakable commitment—so the Committee has me.
This amendment is an attempt to address the wretched, exploitative workplace faced by far too many people wanting to enter work. It attempts to create a new definition of “work experience”, which would ensure that participants are educated, and not exploited, as they attempt to join the workforce. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it is important for new entrants to spend time in a workplace, finding out whether they like the work environment and, even better, whether they are seen as a possible fit for the company.
Much energy has been spent focusing on how to get young people, and people returning to employment, back into the workplace. I am glad that there has been reform and improvement to the apprenticeship schemes, but that is for those who want training in a specific sector. However, many people do not know what they want to do and, for them, internships have been a way to discover whether they can engage with a particular industry and whether it can engage with them. Unfortunately, so many of these internships have turned out to be exploitative.
I have worked in the creative industries all my career, so I have first-hand experience of young people coming in to find out about the industry, only to discover that they are expected to work for either no pay or well below the minimum wage. This is happening not just in the creative industries but across the economy. I have been told about a strengthening coach, working for a major professional sporting body, who was initially on a short-term internship, which became a two-year, daily commitment. During all that time, he was not paid. He loved what he was doing so was afraid to ask for payment and was forced to take a second job to sustain himself.
Internships are essential, and they are covered by the National Minimum Wage Act, so any intern who qualifies as a worker, under the criteria laid out in the Act, should be paid. A new survey by the broadcasting union BECTU reveals that 49% of people joining the creative industries have been pressurised to work for free. In their desperation to get into this competitive industry, many succumb and work for free. The highly respected Sutton Trust found last year that 61% of internships undertaken by recent graduates were underpaid or unpaid. The largest percentage of these jobs are in the south-east, where accommodation is notoriously expensive. It means that those people from the regions and nations, or from more socially disadvantaged families, who cannot afford the accommodation, are prevented from taking up those places. For a Government who are determined and dedicated to getting people into work in well-paid jobs, this is a failure that must be rectified rapidly. Social mobility realises the talent of the whole population; it is the only way to ensure that our nation succeeds economically.
The body charged with enforcing the minimum wage Act is HMRC. Part of the problem is that if the intern is not paid, they do not appear on HMRC’s radar. This is not helped by the fact that so many small companies do not have anybody focusing on personnel issues and, even when they have an HR department, surveys show they are not well enough informed about the law. I ask the Minister: how many prosecutions against employers have there been under the National Minimum Wage Act for unpaid internships?
Amendment 129 is an attempt to sort out the complicated and often exploitative system for those trying to get into the job market. It is crucial to ensure that there is a difference in law between interns, who should be paid, and those undertaking work experience, who should not. Proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment sets out a new legal concept of “work experience”, defined by
“observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation … or work-related activity”.
The most important criterion for what constitutes work experience is that it is voluntary, and participants are not under the control of anyone else. It has to be a learning experience, and must ensure that participants are shadowing and not actually doing the job. Work experience is already part of many T-level courses for young people. Some universities facilitate work experience, but not nearly enough of these places are available. It is a crucial pathway into work life. At a time when we are hearing of so many people who are out of the workforce, it is important that this stage of their career is clearly established and legally defined.
I am pleased that the amendment has a time limit on what counts as work experience. A maximum of four weeks seems like a good duration. It would allow the participant sufficient time to get a grip on what happens in a specific workplace and to decide whether they want to embark on a career there, but, in my view, is not enough time for them to become established as an unpaid intern. So many underpaid or unpaid internships carry on for many more than four weeks, and this amendment would ensure that that does not happen.
The highly respected Sutton Trust says that access to the workplace is a central obstacle to social mobility. I beg the Government to take the suggestion in this proposed new clause seriously. I ask the Minister to examine it as part of a possible solution to the crisis facing new entrants to the creative and other industries. I hope your Lordships will discuss this further when the Committee gets to my noble friend Lord Clancarty’s Amendments 286 and 287 on establishing a freelance commissioner.
Meanwhile, this amendment is focused on the many thousands of young people who want to get into work but do not know what they want to do. If the Government take up the work experience category laid out in this amendment, it will give those people a taste of the workplace, which is crucial to engaging them and crucial to getting them engaged in the job market. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, as somebody with long experience of campaigning against unpaid internships, I have a huge amount of sympathy with the motivation behind this amendment.
Certainly, it is true that a key reflection of the reversal of social mobility in this country has been the growth of unpaid internships. It started with the creative industries, where, in the past, a young person from a working-class background used to be able to start as a runner in broadcasting, or as a cub reporter on their local newspaper, and then found their path to national newspapers or progression within broadcasting blocked by the parachuting in of very often young people from wealthy backgrounds, often to senior positions, on an unpaid internship that nobody from a working-class background could afford to take. It costs thousands of pounds, particularly if the position is located in London and you do not live in London. I absolutely agree that unpaid internships have been a block and a major barrier to young working-class people’s progression.
My concern is that, from my perspective, the problem is not the law but the enforcement of the law. As trade unions, we have campaigned to get HMRC to take this seriously. There was a flurry of action around cracking down on unpaid internships, but, since Covid in particular, there has been an uptick—you have only to scan any recruitment agency website and you will see that they are brazenly advertising unpaid internships that lock young working-class people out of the professions, and doing so in flagrant abuse of the law.
Sadly, I cannot support this amendment. I fear that bad employers would be able to offer rolling unpaid internships, shoving young people through a revolving door of not getting paid as they are entitled to be for the productive work that they do. They should be paid at least the national minimum wage. What I would support is the proposed fair work agency launching a major crackdown on young people being robbed of their dreams and opportunities through the exploitative practice of unpaid internships.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 129, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, ably articulated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I also have some sympathy with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on the matter.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for tabling this amendment and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, with his perspective from the creative industries, for introducing it so well.
This amendment highlights an important issue: ensuring that work experience opportunities do not become a means to circumvent minimum wage regulations, thereby protecting young people and others seeking to gain valuable experience in the labour market. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, noted, it is important to recognise that many charities, non-profit organisations and others rely to some extent on unpaid work experience placements, partly to deliver their valuable services but also to provide opportunities for individuals who might otherwise struggle to enter the workforce. We must acknowledge that many young people who leave education not knowing what they want to do, as the noble Viscount noted, find them a useful way of testing various sectors. The practical impact of this amendment on such organisations merits careful consideration to ensure that their ability to provide meaningful work experience is not unduly restricted, while maintaining fair treatment for those undertaking such experience.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short but focused and interesting debate. I too regret that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, was unable to attend; with my Whip’s hat on, I note that perhaps if we had made better progress on earlier days of Committee then we would have heard from him directly. I pay tribute to him for tabling Amendment 129, which seeks to prohibit unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for stepping into the breach and making a more than worthy understudy in moving the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for contributing to this debate. This is an important issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others are right to raise it. I pay tribute on the record to his previous work campaigning on this issue, not least through his Private Member’s Bill in the 2017-19 Session.
This Government made a commitment to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This includes tackling unfair working practices. As we heard from the noble Viscount, there are examples not simply in the creative sector—although that area of our economy is rife with them—but beyond it. This Government absolutely stand by the national minimum wage, and on 1 April delivered an increase of 16.3% to the 18 to 20 national minimum wage rate to make it £10 an hour—a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, making progress on closing the gap with the national living wage. This is an increase of £2,500 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the NMW. It was the first step in the Government’s plans to remove the discriminatory age bands and ensure that all adults benefit from a genuine living wage, making a real difference to young people.
I think it is worth saying in passing that we welcome, on this side of the House at least, the Conservative Party’s conversion in recent years to supporting the national minimum wage. However, as a member of the party that introduced it in the first place, in the teeth of some quite vehement opposition at the time, I assure noble Lords that this Labour Government are absolutely committed to supporting it and making sure that it applies in all cases where it should.
Work experience or internships can offer individuals, especially younger people, invaluable opportunities and experience. We do not want to close the door on these opportunities, but we do want to ensure that they are open and fair. Most importantly, where workers are due payment, they should be paid the wages they are entitled to, and I have to say that the current legislation already protects them.
As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway—to whose years of campaigning in this area, through the TUC, I pay tribute—said, there is an aspect of this amendment, very well-intentioned though it is, that would create unintended consequences and raises the spectre of, as she put it, rolling internships of four weeks, on and on.
As we know, according to the Department for Education’s 2022 employer skills survey, around 5% of employers had offered internships, either paid or unpaid, in the preceding 12 months, and there were around 200,000 people on internships. The vast majority of these—88%—were of two weeks or more in duration, and nearly 30% were over six months. It is only right that these people should be paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.
As we have heard, the national minimum wage legislation provides for a number of exemptions to recognise the importance of gaining work experience. It is important to recognise that these examples have a strong and firm place in the economy, including students on placements for up to one year, as required as part of a UK course of either further or higher education, pupils below the compulsory school age, participants in certain government programmes to provide training, work experience or temporary work, and—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, made this point—voluntary workers employed by a charity or voluntary organisation, providing they receive no monetary payments, except for expenses.
The Government are committed to banning unpaid internships, unless they are part of an educational or training course. Because of the way legislation is drafted, they are already largely banned. For national minimum wage purposes, the crucial fact is whether someone is considered a worker due to the nature of the work they do. Employers cannot simply call someone an intern or say they are doing work experience and not pay them. What matters is whether the arrangement they have makes them a worker for minimum wage purposes. However, one valid exception is work shadowing, which is where individuals are observing others perform tasks and are not performing any work themselves.
There is a risk that the broad-brush nature of this amendment could create loopholes, leaving interns or individuals on work experience open to abuse. Where an intern is carrying out tasks, they are a worker and therefore entitled to the national minimum wage. Accepting the amendment could mean that these individuals could be recruited for short-term roles and lose their entitlement to the minimum wage, even if they are performing work. The Government will be consulting on this issue soon. We want to engage with businesses and individuals who carry out internships or work experience. This is how we introduce change to ensure that individuals are protected and treated fairly.
We have heard from both the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady that enforcement is the issue here. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked about the number of prosecutions. I am afraid I do not have that number to hand, but I will certainly undertake to write to the noble Viscount. Enforcement of any law is important, and I am sure that part of the consultation will cover issues of enforcement. Creating more laws but not solving the problem of enforcement would not actually get to the heart of the issue, which is making sure that, when people work, they are paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.
In that vein, I hope that we can deal with the issues the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address most effectively outside the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Viscount, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw Amendment 129.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, this has been a short but informative debate and I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed. I listened very hard to the comments from both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on making sure that we enforce the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage has been in force since, I think, 1998. That is a long time for it not to be enforced, and it includes a time when there was a Labour Government. I very much hope that this will be an extra nudge to make sure that it is enforced and HMRC is given very direct instructions to make sure it happens. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the lack of enforcement is very deleterious to getting working class people into work.
On the noble Baroness’s and the Minister’s concern about it creating a revolving door, surely it cannot be beyond the wit of us to work out that, after you have done your four weeks of work experience, you are not allowed to go back or to stay—that is why we have a four-week block. It is useful to carve out a particular role for people who are there just for educational or work experience reasons, which is quite separate from being an intern.
I hope very much that the Minister and the Government will take on board this amendment and these thoughts as they contribute to the effort to stamp out unfair work practices. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Right of refusal to undertake instructions which would lead to inaccessible goods or services(1) A worker has the right to refuse an instruction or direction from his employer or anyone acting for his employer such as a manager which would—(a) cause the worker to undertake work which would result in the creation, development, deployment or sale of an inaccessible good or service,(b) cause the worker to undertake work which would result in the development, deployment or sale of a good or service, previously accessible, made inaccessible as a result of this instruction.(2) Any worker receiving such an instruction described in subsection (1) may report the nature of that instruction and their reason for refusing it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as we have already heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond cannot be with us today, so I will move his amendment on his behalf and speak to the others in this group. In doing so, I declare a past interest as a consultant to the Royal National Institute of Blind People. For many years, I worked with Ian Bruce CBE, who was the director-general for many years, to promote access to work for those suffering blindness. That is particularly relevant to Amendment 297, but I will speak first to Amendment 131.
Amendment 131 raises important questions about accessibility, accountability and the role of workers in upholding inclusive standards in the goods and services we create and deliver. The principle at the heart of this proposal—that workers should not be compelled to participate in making a product or service less accessible or in producing something that excludes by design—is serious and worthy. As technology and infrastructure continue to evolve, ensuring access for all, including people with a disability, is a matter not merely of compliance but of basic fairness and social responsibility. The amendment seeks to give workers a right of refusal where they are being asked to carry out work that would knowingly—that is, knowingly to them—result in the development or sale of inaccessible goods or services. It also establishes a route for reporting such an event to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I can certainly see the intent here to empower those on the front lines of design and delivery to raise concerns and to prevent regressions in accessibility. There are of course many questions about how this would operate in practice, particularly around definitions, scope and the safeguards needed to ensure clarity and fairness for both workers and employers. These are not reasons to dismiss the amendment, but they suggest that further discussion may be needed around implementation, enforcement and the supporting mechanisms that would then make such a right meaningful and workable.
We all have a role to play in embedding accessibility into our systems and structures. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will engage with the substance of the proposal and give thought to how the principle behind it might be taken forward, whether through this amendment or through other means.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 131, 297 and 314 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, so movingly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Each of these amendments seeks to address long-standing inequalities that disabled people continue to face, particularly in the context of work and access to goods and services. Amendment 131 raises the important principle that workers should not be compelled to contribute to the development or sale of products that are knowingly inaccessible—which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised. I hope that the Government, through the Department for Business and Trade, will publish clear guidance on what constitutes inaccessible products and services. Such guidance is needed. It would be invaluable in informing decision-making for businesses and helping workers recognise when they may be asked to contribute to the creation or sale of goods that fail to meet accessibility standards.
Amendment 297, meanwhile, calls for a royal commission. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, I veer towards saying that we do need something formal such as a royal commission to investigate the persistently low employment levels among blind and sight-impaired people, a disparity that deserves serious attention. The questions that these amendments raise are valid and warrant a considered response from the Government.
I am also interested in the reasoning behind Amendment 314, which calls for a programme and timeline to develop an action plan aimed at closing the disability gap. Recent research from the TUC revealed that the disability gap stood at a staggering 17.2% in 2024, which was an increase on the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from 2023. The same figures do not reoccur every year—they are going up—and these figures show that. The amendment represents a measured and practical approach, reflecting a growing consensus on the need for greater transparency and accountability in tackling workplace inequality.
Even if the Government are, unsurprisingly, not minded to accept the amendments in their current form, I hope that Ministers will consider how their intent may be taken forward through alternative means—and there can be alternative means. These are not radical demands but thoughtful suggestions for achieving progress in areas where it is long overdue. I hope that the Government’s heart will be in favour of the reasoning behind these amendments, and that we can all work together towards bringing the legislation into line with what our conscience is saying.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his amendments in this group, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for introducing them on his behalf. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his contribution.
There is no doubt that those with disabilities, including blind and partially sighted people, face different challenges in the workplace, and the more we can do to increase awareness and representation in the workplace for these people and these groups, the better. We must also recognise that for many disabled people, the challenges begin long before a job interview. Structural barriers, from education and training to transport and technology, can compound over time and create a labour market that is harder to enter and harder to stay in. If legislation can help remove those barriers and create conditions for more equitable access to work, it is our responsibility to act.
It is also important that employers are supported and not penalised, so legislation should provide clarity and encourage inclusive practices. It should offer the right incentives and should not raise the cost or the perceived risk of hiring somebody who may already face disadvantage. Unfortunately, some elements of current legislation do just that.
I hope that the Government and the Minister listened to the concerns that were so well articulated by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. These are not radical demands, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, and I hope the Government will address them.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for moving Amendment 131 and speaking to Amendments 297 and 314, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I go back a long, long way. When I was in the T&G, he was frequently instructed by my union to defend workers, so I appreciate that he is absolutely on the right side of this agenda.
Of course, this is an issue that we have been debating for a very long time. I particularly pay tribute to the late Alf Morris, Lord Morris, who absolutely focused on this agenda and was responsible for the Disability Discrimination Act, which has been the foundation of all the other changes since then.
On Amendment 131, it is important to be clear that the Equality Act 2010 already places a duty on providers of goods, services and facilities, and persons exercising public functions, to make reasonable adjustments for disabled service users. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Great Britain’s national equality and human rights body, safeguards and enforces the laws that protect people’s rights to fairness, dignity and respect. In the context of this debate, it monitors and has powers to enforce the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination, harassment and victimisation in a variety of settings, including work. The commission has been active in monitoring disability equality, including as part of its regular comprehensive reviews of how Britain is performing on equality and human rights, as well as its work in monitoring compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The commission’s powers do not extend to monitoring the accessibility of manufactured goods or the development of services and, as such, it would not be able to respond to reporting of the kind suggested in the new clause. Therefore, the Government are unable to support the amendment.
Turning to Amendment 297, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking to this amendment and drawing attention to this important issue, and of course I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who has been a strong voice on this and recognise his contribution in championing the rights of blind and sight-impaired people. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, can go back to the days when my union heavily supported the National League of the Blind and Disabled—a union that had been representing blind and disabled workers for nearly 100 years, certainly when we were engaged with it.
I agree that addressing the level of employment for blind and sight-impaired people is still an important issue, which is why we have a range of existing specialist initiatives in place to support individuals, including those who are blind and sight-impaired, to stay in work or get back to work. Our existing measures provide tailored support to disabled people more broadly and are designed to be flexible to meet the range of needs, including the needs of those who are blind and sight impaired. I repeat the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made: existing measures include work coaches and disability employment advisers in jobcentres —working with employers, absolutely right—and access to work grants, again to facilitate and support employers in doing this, as well as joining up health and employment support around individuals through employment advisers in NHS, talking therapies, individual placement and support in primary care, as well as WorkWell.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, who always responds positively to any suggestions that I make, particularly in the corridors of this House. I should have declared not only my long-standing work with the Royal National Institute of Blind People but the much-appreciated instructions that “Brother Hunt” used to receive in substantial form from the Transport and General Workers’ Union. I was delighted, when I was Secretary of State for Employment, to be invited to the retirement party of Mr Albert Blighton, who was much cherished by all those who worked so hard for him.
I thank the Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. We disagreed a little about royal commissions. I recall being told that they took minutes but wasted years—I think it was a previous Labour Prime Minister who said that. There is a problem in that, as soon as you set up a body, you are postponing the opportunity to make the key decisions that are necessary. I guess the Minister did recognise that in his response; we do need to move on. These statistics have been at a seriously low level for a long time, and we have to find a way to break through so that people with disability are much more widely recognised as people of great talent who can contribute to the growth and competitiveness that we all so desperately want to see.
I recognise that the Government have taken a number of initiatives, and I will consult with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond as we consider how to approach this issue on Report, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Independent advisers(1) Section 288 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (restriction on contracting out) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (4)(c) insert—“(ca) if they are a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and have been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (4B) insert—“(4BA) In subsection (4)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (4BB).(4BB) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(4BC) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4BB) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(2) Section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (restrictions on contracting out) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (3A)(c) insert—“(ca) if they are a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and have been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) In subsection (3A)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (4B).(4B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(4C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(3) Section 49 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (restrictions on contracting out) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (5)(c) insert—“(ca) if they are a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and have been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) In subsection (5)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (7B).(7B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(7C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(4) Section 58 of the Pensions Act 2008 (restrictions on agreements to limit operation) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (6)(c) insert—“(ca) is a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and has been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (8) insert—“(8A) In subsection (6)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (8B).(8B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(8C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (8B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(5) Section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 (qualifying settlement agreement) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (4)(c) insert—“(ca) a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice;”;(b) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) In subsection (4)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (6B).(6B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(6C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (6B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This clause expands the independent advisers who may advise employees and workers on a settlement agreement.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 132 as a probing amendment to highlight some of the concerns from the perspective of small businesses. Amendment 137, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, may perhaps be a different side of the same coin. I refer the House to my register of interests.
The intention behind the amendment is to explore the scope of possible options for better supporting both employees and employers, particularly small employers, who often lack access to in-house HR support, legal expertise or representation from trade unions. This legislation rightly seeks to strengthen workplace protections, and with that comes the need to ensure that small employers are equipped to meet their responsibilities fairly and confidently without being overwhelmed.
A one-size-fits-all approach risks overlooking the structural disadvantages that many small businesses face in navigating employment disputes or resolving workplace issues informally. One concern in this context is the potential for so-called ambulance chasing. I use the phrase cautiously, but it reflects a genuine anxiety among small employers. In the absence of good advice or proper guidance, a small employer may feel compelled to settle a claim, not based on merit, but because the cost, stress and complexity of the legal process makes fighting it feel simply unviable. That can undermine confidence in the system for everyone.
The aim behind the amendment is to consider how we might increase the availability of qualified independent advisers—professionals who can support employees in entering into a settlement agreement with full confidence and understanding, but in a way that is accessible, affordable and proportionate for small businesses too. This could help reduce the number of cases that unnecessarily escalate into formal litigation.
The presence of a well-informed independent adviser can give both parties clarity and reassurance. In such circumstances, access to credible professionals of the kind that organisations like the CIPD can recommend or help bring forward would seem both helpful and sensible. I fully acknowledge the concerns raised by colleagues on these Benches, particularly the risk of diluting the role of unions, especially in larger workplaces, where collective representation plays such an essential role. I value constructive conversations with colleagues and recognise the importance of safeguarding that voice and that function.
At the same time, I believe it important that the voice of business, particularly small business, is heard clearly from these Benches. Too often, the debate around employment rights can polarise into assumptions of employer versus employee or big business versus organised labour. But many of us bring experience from the front lines of running businesses that are small, community based and deeply invested in treating their staff fairly. It is essential that these perspectives are represented not to dilute rights but to ensure that they are designed in a way that is practical and sustainable and that supports good employment outcomes for all.
I also welcome the Government’s broad commitment to improving the enforcement system, including through proposals for the fair work agency and reforms to the tribunal process. These are important developments, and I hope that they lead to a more accessible and efficient workplace landscape for all parties.
Nevertheless, I believe that the specific issues raised here, particularly those that affect small and micro-businesses, merit further reflection. We know that many small employers genuinely want to do the right thing but, without access to the right structures or advice, they may find themselves exposed. That can have an effect on not just the business owner but employees, who may not get the resolution they deserve. Just as we rightly ensure that employees feel heard and protected, those of us with business experience also want to ensure that employers’ concerns are reflected, especially where they lack the infrastructure to manage complex processes alone.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment following the debate and the Minister’s response, but I hope that the reflections it prompts will help shape the implementation of the Bill in ways that are proportionate, inclusive and fair to businesses of all sizes, as well as to the people they employ. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 137 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, said, is probably the other side of the same coin.
My amendment seeks to expand the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. As it stands, the law allows workers to be accompanied by only a fellow employee or trade union representative. My Amendment 137—the other side of the coin—would broaden that right to include individuals certified by a recognised professional body as having relevant experience and training in supporting workers through such processes. It also provides for the Secretary of State to regulate which organisations may be authorised as professional bodies for this purpose to ensure that a proper standard is maintained.
At the heart of any disciplinary process is the need for transparency, fairness and due process. This is especially true in the workplace, where livelihoods and the professional reputations of individuals are at stake. Workers should never have to undergo the difficult procedures of disciplinary or grievance hearings alone. The presence of a colleague, union representative or other chosen companion ensures that employees not only are supported but have a safeguard against any unfair treatment or misunderstandings during the process. Not every individual is able to cope with this on their own. Some may well do, but they will need some help.
In fact, the presence of a properly trained professional companion is often the difference between an employee being able to make their case cogently or being denied a fair hearing. The law currently goes some way towards recognising this, but I am afraid that it is increasingly inadequate for the 21st century.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise with the soothing balm of cross-party collaboration to support the excellent amendments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. I declare at the outset an interest as a member for more than 20 years of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, an estimable professional body. More importantly, I have been made redundant twice. My experience of redundancy is that it is often a difficult and traumatic experience if you are working for a small company or if you are relatively new to the company. I certainly had a great deal of sustenance and support from my trade union representative in securing and expediting a reasonably successful outcome in what could have been a very difficult period financially for me in that situation—this is many years ago.
I think the benefit of these amendments is that they look from the perspective of the small employer in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and from the employee’s perspective in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I think that, for people who have, for various reasons, chosen not to join a trade union, it is important that not just anyone, not their mate from the pub, but a professional accredited person can accompany and support them in this.
Normally, I would not want to amend a Bill unnecessarily, but I genuinely think it would not be administratively and financially onerous for these amendments to be added to the Bill, and in fact they would improve it. I would not say they are cost free, but they would be important in saving potentially significant amounts of money if, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, has said, they would alleviate or ameliorate the possibility of an escalation to expensive litigation and an employment tribunal. Having an expert in the room with you can sometimes dissipate the anger, the frustration and the sense of a battle between two sides, and in that respect it is sensible.
For those reasons, with the proviso that I have experienced these issues myself, I think the amendments are sensible and I look to the Minister to give them due consideration. They would not add to the burden of businesses, and in the long term they would save significant amounts of money.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 132 and 137. Both of them seek to expand the list of organisations recognised in law to represent workers. Amendment 132 relates to representation in reaching settlement agreements, while Amendment 137 refers to representation in hearings at workplace disciplinary and grievance hearings.
At present, the law specifies that individuals can be supported by trade unions, fellow workers or, in respect of settlement agreements, lawyers or other qualified people from, for example, the respected network of citizens advice bureaux. Both amendments propose that the right to representation be extended to professional bodies specified by the Secretary of State, and Amendment 132 refers in particular to CIPD members. I have to say I am genuinely puzzled about which other professional bodies would wish to take on this new role.
In short, the law should rest where it stands. Workers should be represented, where they are present, by workers’ organisations—trade unions—that, where appropriate, can provide legal representation. The CIPD is widely respected as an organisation of HR professionals, but it essentially represents employers’ interests and would surely be conflicted if it were to take on this very different role.
I know my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley is motivated by a wish to ensure that people working in small and medium-sized businesses without trade union representation should have relevant expertise available to help resolve difficult workplace issues. I support that aspiration, but ACAS—which I chaired for six years, to declare an interest—has the responsibility and the independent, impartial expertise to conciliate in such matters, and a considerable track record of success in doing so. Far better to ensure that it has increased resources to provide this vital service in the interests of both parties in any such dispute, rather than muddying the water on the issue of who is competent and appropriate to represent workers. I hope that both these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, it seems that, yet again, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and I are not going to quite agree. I support both these amendments, particularly the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.
I would like to look at the amendments from the point of view of the employee. When an employee finds themselves in a disciplinary or grievance hearing—we heard from my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough earlier—it signifies a profound breakdown in their relationship with their employer. It is a moment fraught with stress, uncertainty and fear; one where an individual may feel their professional life is unravelling before them. They may question how they will continue to support their family, whether they can afford to remain in their home, and what their future may hold.
Large corporations, such as the one I work for, have the benefit of HR departments to guide them through such proceedings, ensuring that their position is well-organised and profoundly represented. I have had the dubious pleasure of having to make people redundant; it is not fun, even with HR beside you, but they had nobody. In smaller companies, personal relationships between employer and employee can add an additional layer of complexity to the situation. In either case, the individual facing the hearing is often isolated, and struggling to recollect past events and present their case clearly.
These amendments, particularly Amendment 137, propose a fair and practical position: the right to have the assistance of a certified individual—someone equipped to review the facts dispassionately, organise events in logical sequence and provide the employee with a much-needed sense of reassurance. As we have heard, the trade unions already fulfil this role, particularly in large companies. However, many employees, myself included, choose not to join a union for a variety of personal reasons. The absence of union membership should not mean a lack of support in such critical moments. This amendment would ensure that every employee, regardless of union affiliation, has access to a certified individual who may provide guidance when facing disciplinary proceedings, fostering a fairer and more balanced process. For this reason, I support these amendments to uphold the right of fairness in our workplaces.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing their Amendments 132 and 137.
As has been said, not all workers have or want access to a union representative. In fact, the latest statistics that I have from the Department for Business and Trade suggest that only 22% of all employees are unionised. Not all workers have access to or can afford legal advice, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, pointed out, those in smaller workplaces or those performing more precarious roles. Allowing trained, certified HR professionals to provide advice could help ensure that more employees are supported when making important decisions about their rights.
It is important to recognise the valuable support already available through organisations such as ACAS—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barber—citizens advice bureaux and others, which provide free and impartial advice. This amendment complements those services by seeking to expand the range of qualified advisers accessible to workers. The principle of widening access to competent support is a reasonable one, especially where safeguards are in place through certification by recognised professional bodies. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, if nothing else, that ought to serve to ease pressure on employment rights tribunals, which, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Committee, are stretched to breaking point.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, that that was a classic case of the TUC advocating for a closed shop, and I applaud him for that. However, not so many employees are now members of trade unions, as I have pointed out, and the majority of trade union members are in the public sector.
The question of genuine independence will be critical, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that. I would also say, perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, that, without wishing to quibble too much with his amendment, I think that as currently written it gives the Secretary of State rather too much discretion in determining what is a professional body. If he wants to have a think about that, I am available for a chat.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Before I turn to the amendments, may I wish the noble Lord, Lord Fox, a speedy recovery? I am just sorry that he was not cast in the next “Mission: Impossible”. I wish him a speedy recovery and return to the Committee, as we miss him here as well.
I turn to Amendments 132 and 137. Amendment 132, tabled by my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, seeks to expand the scope of independent advisers who can advise individuals entering into settlement agreements. Settlement agreements in this context are a way in which employers and workers can settle potential claims. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, had such a great experience with his trade union rep and got a really fair settlement. I hope he was pleased with that experience.
However, it is important that individuals understand the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and its effect on their ability to pursue claims in an employment tribunal. That is why legislation requires individuals to receive advice from a relevant independent adviser. Legislation outlines a range of advisers that can be used, including qualified lawyers and authorised officers of an independent trade union.
My noble friend’s amendment would expand the list of relevant independent advisers to include a certified member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, an association of human resources professionals. This amendment would also give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to include other professional bodies whose members would also be capable of giving advice.
While I understand that my noble friend has put forward this amendment on behalf of the CIPD, we believe current arrangements are working well and strike the right balance. I appreciate my noble friend’s passion and thank him for his contribution to this debate. We are happy to engage further on this issue at another time, but we do not think this amendment is required.
I now turn to Amendment 137, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, which seeks to expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings, as supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe. The law already provides that, when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing, they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion in disciplinary or grievance hearings. Employers can now allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed earlier —for instance, a professional support body, a partner, a spouse or a legal representative.
The current law seeks to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces, given that they are one of the initial steps in resolving tensions in a worker-employer relationship. Expanding the types of organisations that could be involved in representing workers at disciplinary and grievance meetings could lead to these hearings requiring legal representation for both the worker and the employer. This would therefore increase the costs of these hearings and reduce the chances of an amicable outcome. In addition to introducing legal expertise at these hearings, it could also reduce the likelihood of ACAS conciliation or mediation as the next step to resolve a dispute, as legal arguments will have already been made during an internal hearing. This could increase the likelihood of a tribunal claim being made. An amicable solution is, therefore, the fastest way to justice, as set out by my noble friend Lord Barber.
It is unclear where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces would benefit. There are, of course, certain organisations, such as those that provide casework and legal services, that would benefit. But, as I have already set out, should an employer wish to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers, they can set this out in the terms and conditions of their workplace.
I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 132.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important debate. I appreciate that my amendment may seem controversial to some, not to mention unfeasibly long, but I believe it is vital that the voices of all in the workplace are heard. I am pleased that they have been today. I emphasise that small employers are just as committed to their workforce as larger firms, and they want to attract and retain the best people too. This Bill is, in my view, both pro-worker and pro-business, and we should keep all sides in mind when we shape its final form.
I particularly appreciate the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale. I reassure him that I do not raise this amendment in the spirit of confrontation, as I am sure he knows, and I am sure these are conversations that we will continue. I know that we both want to achieve the best for all workers. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Impact on farm businessesWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act on farm businesses in the United Kingdom.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 133 in my name.
I have to start by saying that the family farm tax introduced by this Government is a disastrous policy. According to the NFU, it has put 200,000 jobs at risk—a staggering number that should have stopped Ministers in their tracks. I am disappointed to see noble Lords opposite are laughing at that number. A recent economic report on the combined effect of these measures lays the facts bare. It estimates the direct cost to the Treasury at £1.9 billion by 2030, stemming from lost tax revenues and increased benefit claims due to job losses and reduced productivity. More than 60% of farmers are expected to cut investment by over 20%, choking off future growth and innovation. The cost to the wider economy will be staggering—a staggering £14.8 billion blow to gross value added, all for the sake of political posturing masquerading as employment reform. The effect on food security alone could be catastrophic.
I must also highlight a concern that has been brought to light by recent tragic events and official responses, and that is the case of a farmer who took his own life just before the Government’s Budget, which is a heartbreaking example of the immense pressures our rural communities face. These pressures are exacerbated by the looming inheritance tax changes that threaten the very future of family farms.
Despite the seriousness of this issue, the official statistics on farmer, landowner and family business owner suicides are woefully inadequate. There is a significant delay, often of years, before accurate data is published. This delay means we will not see reliable figures for suicides in 2026 until 2028 or later, and that is simply unacceptable. Without timely, detailed data, broken down by occupation, policymakers cannot fully understand the human cost of these policies. Would the Minister acknowledge the urgent need for this and commit to working with the Office for National Statistics and other relevant bodies to improve the frequency and detail of suicide data by occupation, particularly for farmers and rural workers, so that we can properly address and understand this crisis without delay?
Turning to this legislation, it represents a further devastating blow to British agriculture. This Bill introduces unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment without a shred of evidence that it is workable in sectors such as farming. The extension of unfair dismissal protections from two years to day one of employment is being pushed forward with no clear guidance, no transitional arrangements and no defined probationary period. There is only speculation, and speculation is not a legal framework.
The Minister will say that this is currently being consulted on, but in the meantime farms are exposed. Every hiring decision becomes a legal and financial gamble. If a worker turns out to be unsuitable, which can happen quickly in physically demanding and safety-critical environments, the employer may be already too late to act without risking litigation. In farming, where work is seasonal, strenuous and sometimes requires immediate action, farms cannot afford to spend months navigating HR processes. They cannot afford legal exposure every time a hire does not work out, and that is exactly what Bill sets out.
Then there is the matter of zero-hours contracts. This Government, in their detachment from rural life, believe that these contracts are exploitative, but on farms they are essential. Harvests do not run on clocks, and weather does not obey timetables. Labour demand swings sharply: one week it is quiet, and the next week it is all hands on deck. Therefore, flexibility is all. Without zero-hours contracts, many farms simply cannot function, so replacing them with rigid guaranteed-hours contracts is not just unrealistic but destructive. The Bill would force the farmers to guess months in advance how many workers they will need—or pay the price when nature does not co-operate.
Rural employers, particularly farms and estates, rely heavily on seasonal and zero-hour staff to meet unpredictable and time-sensitive labour demands. That is not a loophole but a necessity born of reality. But the Bill introduces a new legal obligation that completely fails to take account of how agriculture works. Under the proposals in Part 1, if a casual worker ends up working a regular pattern—say, 20 hours a week over a few months—the employer will be legally required to offer a guaranteed-hours contract reflecting that pattern. That will fundamentally alter the nature of seasonal hiring.
Instead of flexibility, farmers will be locked into fixed commitments, which mean guaranteed pay even if the work disappears. In farming, it often does: crops cannot be harvested in a thunderstorm, livestock routines change, and machinery breaks down. Labour needs fluctuate by the day and employers have to adapt. The Bill removes that option, forcing them to guarantee wages based on past patterns and not future needs, and the result of that inevitably will be higher staffing costs, less flexibility and more legal risk. Farmers will no longer be able to adjust hours week to week based on workload and may instead reduce hours across the board, or simply hire fewer workers to avoid triggering these new obligations. That is not security for workers; that is lost opportunity.
Then we come to flexible working—another ideological insertion into a sector where it simply cannot apply. The Bill increases the burden on employers to justify denying flexible working requests. But who in this Committee honestly believes that lambing can be done from home or that dairy herds can be milked on a four-day week? Farming needs people physically present on time and able to adapt to sudden changes. This measure will destroy farms and open the floodgates to legal claims, rather than improve their working conditions.
I turn to another deeply flawed proposal in the Bill: the changes to statutory sick pay, which will hit farm businesses with immediate and unsustainable costs. Under the current system, employees are entitled to SSP only after three consecutive days of sickness absence. That allows employers, especially small family farms, to absorb short-term minor absences without being penalised for every cold, sprain or missed morning. The Bill proposes to remove that protection entirely, and statutory sick pay will become payable from day one of absence. For most farms, this is not just a technical change but a fundamental shift in financial exposure.
Agricultural work is physically demanding, often outdoors and highly seasonal. Casual absences are common and often unavoidable. But, under the Bill, every single one of those absences now comes with an automatic cost from the very first missed shift. Under the current rules, if a farmhand calls in sick on Monday and is back by Wednesday, the farmer pays nothing. Under the Bill, the employer must pay statutory sick pay from day one. Multiply that by three or four casual workers, each with intermittent absences through lambing or harvest, and you have a significant unpredictable cost burden for a farm with already razor-thin margins.
It does not stop there: the Bill also proposes to reduce the lower earnings limit—currently £123 per week—meaning that even fewer workers on minimal-hours or short-term seasonal contracts will now be eligible for sick pay. These are precisely the workers whom farms hire during calving, lambing, crop picking and harvest, often working flexibly as needed. Under this system, a farm might be required to pay sick leave to a casual labourer who worked only a handful of hours the week before and might not be scheduled for any in the week ahead—that is not financial protection.
Farmers are also now expected to put in place formal absence tracking and management systems. That means logging each instance of sickness, reviewing attendance histories, holding review meetings, drafting improvement plans and, if things do not improve, potentially going through a formal dismissal process. If that were not enough, we now face the proposed cancellation payments. Farms will be penalised for calling off shifts at short notice, even when the reason is pouring rain or a late-season frost. These changes will force employers to choose between operating at a loss and paying people not to work, and in what rational universe is that considered progress?
The Bill, particularly Part 1, is not reform but sabotage. Amendment 133 is therefore essential. It does not block the Bill or repeal any of its measures; it simply demands what the Government have utterly failed to do, which is to deliver a detailed impact assessment of how these reckless changes would affect UK farm businesses. If the Bill proceeds unexamined, the consequences will not be theoretical: more farms will close, more jobs will disappear, and rural economies will contract. The very people this Government claim to support—working families, small businesses and so on—will be left to pick up the pieces. I reiterate my point about the necessity of food security in troubled times.
If the Government have nothing to hide, they should have no objection to analysing the impacts of this legislation on farm businesses, and they should accept Amendment 133. I beg to move.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I hope the Minister listened with great care to what my noble friend said. I declare an interest as a partner in a small farm. I was walking the fields only yesterday, looking at the disastrous effects of the fact that we have had practically no rain. It is not much more than a year ago that I had to look at the disastrous effects of having too much rain. We are an organic farm, and therefore we have looked after the soil very carefully and suffered less than others during that period. But many farmers were not able to get a harvest or plant because the weather was so bad, and they therefore lost two years.
I believe that we have a real problem of diversity here. We often talk about diversity as if it is about race or ethnic minority, but it is so interesting that no member of the current Cabinet represents a rural constituency or is, as far as I can discover, a country person at all. There are 9 million people who live in the countryside and who are hardly represented at all. To be perfectly fair, the shadow Cabinet does not have, as far as I can find out, anybody who is a country person of the sort we are talking about. This is something that has happened to our society, and we who are country people find it extremely difficult. Therefore, I want to say to the Minister, who is known for his generosity, that it is crucial for this Government to show that they are listening to and thinking about this section of the community.
The seat that I once represented is now represented by a Labour Member. She must find it very difficult to appeal to many of the people who voted for her because it does not appear that the Government whom she supports have really understood how the countryside works—in other words, what agriculture is. I could, of course, make a great statement about the terrible situation of the IHT changes, which were rather peculiar given that no previous Labour Chancellor has ever thought them a good idea. I could make all those arguments, but I want to tone down what I might have said to one single concept: Governments can get the support of the nation only if the nation feels that they understand it—not just bits but the whole of it. The introducer of the previous amendment, who I am afraid is just leaving—I was going to be polite about it—rightly talked about the Bill having to represents both sides of industry. I ask that the Bill also represents different parts of industry, and one of those parts is the rural agricultural scene. My concern is that this has not been looked at through the eyes of the countryside.
It may be that, when the Government do that, they do not want to make any changes, but it does not seem possible for the Government to convince people that those changes are not necessary unless they have done what Amendment 133 asks them to do. All we ask is that the Government look in detail at the effect of the Bill on the agricultural industry.
In ending, I want to say something true and really serious. We are entering a period in which food security will be crucial. Climate change means that we will have less and less opportunity to import from wide areas of the world. I remember, when I was Minister of Agriculture, being interviewed by the cleverest man in Europe, Peter Jay, who said, “We don’t need a Minister of Agriculture because we’ll always be able to import food from somewhere else”. How madly wrong that was. Climate change will mean that we find it more and more difficult to fill our shelves at home. Nothing undermines a Government more than two or three days of people being unable to eat what they want to eat.
Therefore, I say to the Government that I hope that this is a helpful amendment—and, if the Government say that they will not do what it asks, that says something to the 9 million people who live in the countryside and, even more, to the many people who keep food on our plates. No farmers, no food. If farmers are to do the job properly, the Government have to recognise that the weather that farmers deal with, which has always been the thing that is different about agriculture compared with any other industry, is now going to be a difference that is made very much worse, as we have worse and worse examples of more extreme weather. In general terms, the Government—unlike other parties—have been extremely good on climate change and I ask them not to let themselves down on this but to say, “Yes, we will look and see exactly what these provisions will do for agriculture—and, if we find that they need alteration, we will be able to come back with the facts”.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 133 from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Deben. In doing so, I draw attention to my registered interests, in particular as a dairy and livestock farmer.
I am most grateful to my noble friends for their supportive comments for British farmers. I have asked in Written Questions and in debates whether the Government would commit to keeping detailed and timely data on the number of farmers and family business owners taking their own lives in the run-up to the introduction of the reduced inheritance tax reliefs, due in April next year. So far these requests have been denied or ignored. We know that a number already have taken that dreadful step—and, as the deadline approaches, the risk will only rise. It would appear to be callous in the extreme that the Government refuse to take responsibility for this tragic human cost of their Budget decisions. Will the Minister commit to keeping and publishing the data in a timely manner?
Farming has unique employment challenges, as others have already mentioned in this short debate—and as indeed the whole country is now aware, thanks to the popularity of “Clarkson’s Farm”. Arable crops and silage need to be harvested when the weather allows and when they are ready for harvest. This leads to high-pressure operations at short notice and often at anti-social hours. It is not unusual to see harvesters and wagons operating well into the night until the dew starts to form. If staff are not available to operate that equipment at the optimum time, it can lead to reduced yields, higher drying costs or even the failure to harvest a crop at all.
In the livestock and dairy sectors, staff are also required to be available to work flexibly. In livestock, this can mean being available for callout to inspect the health of animals, assist in lambing and calving, and recapture escaped animals. In dairy, cows need to be milked at regular intervals from one to three times a day, depending on the system being employed. If that regular schedule is not followed, animal health can be threatened and milk yields suffer.
In the fruit and vegetable growing industry, the fruit and vegetables need to be picked when ripe and when the market demands it. Contracts governing the supply of these goods to retailers and processors can be highly onerous and punitive when conditions are not met. It is essential for this industry that it can employ workers to meet these needs and contract terms.
Unfortunately, agricultural employers need to have staff who are committed to working flexibly, and access to staff who are willing to work when the work is available. The Bill makes it more difficult for employers to refuse employee submissions for flexible working requests. While these submissions can already be made from day one, employers can refuse them on the grounds of inability to fill the gap from reduced hours, or the detrimental impact on business performance or meeting customer demand. The higher bar set by the Bill is likely to make it harder to protect the business.
The Bill applies unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment versus the two years currently in law. We are yet to see the timetable to be proposed, creating significant uncertainty. I have first-hand experience of the damage that a new, unsatisfactory employee can do to a business, even without any malice, and being able to remove them at short notice when the poor performance is revealed is critical. In that case, due to the nature of dairy farming, it took over a year for the poor performance to come to light. The widespread industry reliance on casual workers is threatened by restrictions on zero- and low-hours contracts and the potential for those to obtain a right to guaranteed-hours contracts.
Paying fees for cancellation of shifts at short notice is also impractical in farming. While it is easy to see why the Government might want to penalise employers for potentially capricious and harmful decisions around shifts, the timing of work in farming is often not predictable. Therefore, it does not make sense to penalise farmers even more than they are already for changing weather.
The Bill is a massive threat to the viability of British farming. The extent of that threat will be known only when the Government have decided when employees’ probationary periods will end, when a casual employee gains permanent employment rights, and when notice has to be given of a shift cancellation. I ask the Minister why this work has not been done already and why are we debating a Bill when the extent of its negative impact is unknowable.
The English farming industry has been targeted by this Government, with dramatic reductions in delinked payments, the abrupt cancellation of SFI applications, the imposition of inheritance tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant being the highlights. We now read in the papers that the spending review is likely to slash the farming budget, offering little hope that government support will improve. Farmers also now face greater competition from heavily subsidised overseas farmers with little or no environmental obligations. On top of that, as my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted, our arable farmers are struggling with low crop prices and extremely dry weather damaging yields.
Let us at least accept this modest amendment to the Bill to allow an open appraisal of the impact on the sector after a full annual cycle, when the terms of the Bill are fixed and in force, and ensure that the information is available to make changes that might prove necessary. This Government have claimed to be pro business and pro growth. Will they, at last, show some support to this business? I hope that the Minister will listen to this debate, depart from his brief and offer encouragement.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I rise with some trepidation to comment on the proposal of an impact assessment for farming businesses, as I am not a farmer and have never lived on a farm. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that there are lots of people who support the farmers and the culture, as well as the steadfastness of an industry that is so reliant on the weather. I do not think that any other industry has to try to run a business, make a living and make a small profit with the weather this country has—unfortunately, I cannot blame the weather on the Government, or on any Government. It is literally the force of nature.
In considering the implications of the Bill, it is important that we pay close attention to the needs and circumstances of the UK farming sector. Agricultural businesses operate within a complex and fragile environment, where changes to employment law, however well intentioned, can have disproportionate effects. Recent debates around the family farm tax further highlight concerns about the punitive financial pressures on farmers, underscoring the need for careful assessment of any new burdens placed on this sector. This amendment proposes a structured approach to understand the impact through a formal assessment within a defined timeframe. While views may differ on whether such a provision needs to be set out in primary legislation, the underlying concern is legitimate and should be supported. We should ensure that policy changes do not inadvertently place additional strain on a sector already facing considerable challenges.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have listened to every noble Lord’s concerns. To be fair to the Secretary of State for Defra and my fellow ministerial colleagues at Defra, I should say that they are in regular contact with the farming community and farmers. The Secretary of State has recently spoken at the National Farmers’ Union conference. My noble friend Lady Hayman comes from a farming community and understands the problems that noble Lords have raised.
I turn to Amendment 133, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. As I have repeated multiple times throughout the debate in this place, we have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments, based on the best available evidence, on the workers likely to be affected by these measures. This includes an assessment of the economic impacts of the Bill, including impacts on workers, businesses, sectors and regions. We intend to publish further analysis in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and, as I have said previously, further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations to meet Better Regulation requirements. The 23 amendments on impact assessments tabled by the Opposition would pre-empt work that the Government are already planning to undertake.
It should also be mentioned that this Government are steadfast in our commitment to Britain’s farming industry. It is why we will invest £5 billion into farming over the next two years, the largest amount ever directed to sustainable food production in our country.
It is with immense sadness that we hear about suicides in the farming community, and I agree with noble Lords that we need to have accurate and timely data. I promise noble Lords that I will speak to my ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS as far as their request is concerned.
It will be no surprise to the noble Lord that we oppose Amendment 133 and ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Roborough for their expertise, which I think noble Lords around the Committee will agree shed great light on this tricky subject. I also greatly appreciate the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for what is a very modest amendment, and I am therefore disappointed with the Minister’s response, although pleased that he will consult Defra further.
On the subject of inheritance tax, the noble Lord asserted that Defra has been steadfast in its support for the farming community, but it is not clear that the farming community has recognised that steadfastness, because over a dozen leading farming organisations, including the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association, have condemned the Government for a lack of transparency. Those groups have written directly to the Treasury demanding the release of modelling and evidence behind the policy.
When pressed to explain why they rejected the fairer clawback option for inheritance tax reforms, Treasury Ministers offered nothing more than vague assertions—no consultation, no published impact assessment—and when challenged under freedom of information laws, the Treasury responded by saying that it was
“not in the public interest”
to disclose this analysis. How can the Government possibly claim this is not in the public interest? Are they really arguing that the means of food production and all that pertains to it are not in the public interest? We are talking about reforms that could rip through the foundations of multigenerational farms, force land sales and strip the viability from small rural businesses.
If this Government’s approach so far was not reckless enough, a fresh report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has added yet more weight to the call for caution and transparency. The cross-party group of MPs has urged the Government to delay its proposed reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief for two years, pushing back the implementation date from April 2026 to April 2027, with any final decisions postponed until October 2026. That is because the reforms are intended to tighten inheritance tax reliefs on farms and agricultural businesses and were introduced without adequate consultation or any formal impact assessment. The committee highlighted that rushing ahead without proper analysis risks serious consequences, including impacts on land values, tenant farmers, family farms and food production, and it warned that this could disrupt the food supply chain, potentially driving up supermarket prices and hitting consumers across the UK. Noble Lords should take seriously my noble friend Lord Deben’s warning about food shortages and what it does to government popularity.
What is particularly striking is the committee’s citation of a March 2025 survey which found that 70% of farmers were optimistic about their rural businesses before the Autumn Budget, but that figure plummeted to just 12% afterwards. That collapse in confidence speaks volumes about the uncertainty and fear that these policies have created within rural communities, and the same attitude is now evident in this Employment Rights Bill. Once again, we are seeing major legislative changes with profound economic impacts pushed through without proper consultation, without proper published impact assessments and without any serious recognition of the realities facing British farmers, and that is precisely why this modest amendment is so important.
At the bare minimum, before further damage is done, we should demand an independent, published assessment of how these employment law changes will affect UK farm businesses—not months after the fact and not hidden behind opaque Treasury memos. It is in the public interest, so it should be within 12 months of this Act passing. That is a modest, proportionate and entirely reasonable request. I will withdraw the amendment on this occasion but reserve the right to return to it. Again, I refer to my noble friend Lord Deben’s suggestion, or perhaps warning: 9 million people are watching.
Lord Lucas
“Notice periodsWhen—(a) an employee’s contract of employment contains a notice period of more than two weeks,(b) the employee gives notice of their intention to leave, and(c) their employer enforces any part of the notice period beyond two weeks,the employee may require the employer to pay them, for the enforced notice period beyond two weeks, at whichever is the higher of their current rate of remuneration and the remuneration offered to them under any new contract of employment that they have secured.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to incentivise shorter notice periods.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I thank Tim Leunig for drawing my attention to this proposal. The standard in the UK when a person has a job and contracts for a new one is that he or she has to serve a three-month notice period. In the United States, notice periods are typically two weeks. There is no legal requirement, but that is the convention and any longer is considered unreasonable. It is quite clear, looking at things in the round, that three months is not necessary to run a dynamic and effective economy—it is inefficient. Shifting the notice period down would be a contribution to productivity and a benefit to workers. Most people get a pay rise when they move jobs. Getting it 11 weeks earlier would mean a direct rise in the individual’s income, as well as a rise in GDP and tax revenues. It is of all-round economic benefit.
The most important effect is indirect. If notice periods are short, a dynamic company can scale up more quickly and easily than is currently possible. It can go out and bid for contracts knowing that it can get the staff in time to honour them. If an entrepreneur has a good idea, they can make it happen. If demand rises for one firm, it can respond more easily. Making it easier for dynamic firms to grow quickly is definitely an economic benefit.
Finally, knowing that employees can leave more quickly would give firms an incentive to think more carefully about them. If their leaving is a big nuisance, firms will want them to stay, and will therefore have an incentive to think more about pay rises, promotions, new training opportunities and other things that make the employee feel that his current job is worth having. In contrast, allowing firms to set long notice periods helps incumbents, particularly firms not seeking to grow and that do not want to respond to growth opportunities. That is not a productivity-enhancing strategy.
My amendment suggests a gentle way of seeking to change current practice in the UK—to incentivise a change without requiring anything. If the Government can see a better way of getting to the same outcome, I should be delighted to support them. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, this amendment raises questions about notice periods and how they are handled under employment contracts. I make no particular case for or against it, but it draws attention to a more pressing issue: the complexity introduced by this Bill around notice periods and contractual exits. For many employers, particularly those without specialist legal support, understanding and implementing these new requirements will not be straightforward.
I am appreciative that this amendment attempts to bring some clarity and firmer parameters to that part of the framework. Striking the right balance is crucial: while shorter notice periods can support quicker recruitment and flexibility, they may limit employers’ ability to ensure a smooth handover or maintain continuity in key roles. Any reform should therefore weigh the benefits of agility against operational realities.
If the Government want compliance, they must ensure that the legislation is not only sound in principle but clear in practice. That means providing details on how these provisions interact with existing arrangements and what precisely is expected of employers. A complex system with vague guidance helps no one. That is not the first time we have made that point to the Government tonight, and we will keep doing so.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendment and the gentle way in which he introduced what could be a very important move to simplify what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, rightly reminded us is becoming a hugely complicated employment situation, with so many differing, complex and contradictory requirements.
It could be said—and is being said by a number of HR departments—that this is just the sort of Bill that will give an enormous boost to human resources as a profession. There are already queues of people lining up to join HR departments. My noble friend seeks a simple aim: to incentivise shorter notice periods and avoid situations where individuals are financially disadvantaged for moving jobs, especially when their employers insist on enforcing long notice terms.
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 thank noble Lords for this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 140.
When we were developing the plan to make work pay, we were clear in our ambition to establish a fair deal that balances employees’ rights and protections with employers’ confidence to hire the talent, skills and expertise they require to grow their business. A notice period is a period of time put in place to ensure a smooth transition, allowing the employer to manage minimum disruption to business requirements while the employee hands over their responsibilities. We therefore feel that, in the round, our proposals are beneficial to employers and fair. Many employers do not want their staff to leave too quickly, so that fairness is built in. Although the statutory minimum notice period that an employee must give an employer is currently, after one month’s employment, no less than one week, often a longer contractual notice period is agreed between the employer and their employees. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I do not recognise three months as the standard; for many workers, it is considerably less.
This is all about fairness and balance. In practice, employers and employees recognise that both parties require stability and certainty to maintain a fair agreement. Of course, if an employment contract specifies a notice period longer than the statutory minimum, an employee is entitled to receive that longer period of notice, but the employer sets that out in the contract at the outset.
The current minimum notice periods legislation entitles an employee to their normal contractual pay rate during a notice period, as you would expect. This measure would require an enforcement mechanism of employees’ rights to increased notice pay, which would result in more disputes being taken to employment tribunals or the fair work agency. It would create a requirement for an employee’s current and future employer to confirm their salary offer, adding an additional step in the process of offboarding an employee. It also presents the possibility of increased financial burdens on employers.
So, the Government feel that it is not necessary to make a further assessment of this. They have not made an assessment of the costs and the impacts of making this change to employment rights. To do so would require careful consultation with employers and employee representatives. However, we have not received lobbying or any suggestion from employers that they particularly want the sort of proposal that the noble Lord has put forward.
The Bill is delivering the commitments made by the Government to improve workers’ rights in the plan to make work pay. I have listened to the noble Lord, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hunt, that we want a simple process. Our process is simple. It is also fair to both sides: to the employer and to the employee. If those arrangements need to change, by and large, that can be done within the workplace, based on negotiations—so we do not feel the pressure to make the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proposing, but I thank him nevertheless for the suggestion.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am sorry she does not feel sympathy for the direction I was taking. It seems to me that when you are addressing the question of productivity in the economy, there are no big solutions. It is rather like the way British cycling came to win: you make a very large number of very small improvements, all in the same direction.
This was intended to be one of those, to increase productivity but at the same time to make life a bit better for employees. I am inclined that way. I spent last weekend at a Premier Inn. Premier Inn does not provide toilet brushes. I do not see why the cleaners who come after me and other people should have to scrub out the toilet bowls when I could do that myself. Having a campaign with Premier Inn to change its policy on that would be worthwhile. It is a small change but, by making small changes enough times, you make some progress. Indeed, one of the secrets of this House is to make small changes. So I am sorry that this small change has not appealed to the Minister, but I will try again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Prohibition of unpaid trial shifts(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons working trial shifts. (3B) In subsection (3A), a “trial shift” is any form of work which a person undertakes in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.”(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert—“41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking trial shifts(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to persons undertaking trial shifts.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking a trial shift is eligible to receive the national minimum wage for the period of that trial shift at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.);“trial shift” means any form of work which a person undertakes in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that persons are paid for trial shifts they perform in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I rise to move Amendment 141 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is, about now, talking about net zero to students at Oxford University. It was an engagement that was made some time ago, but she wishes to express her thanks to the Minister for arranging a meeting to discuss this and later amendments, and for the constructive dialogue that followed.
This amendment speaks for itself, but I would like to describe a case where it would have been applicable. It is that of 19 year-old Ellen Reynolds, from Glasgow, who worked a five-hour shift in a restaurant. She told the BBC:
“I ran food and drinks to customers … I cleaned the tables, set up the tables, swept the floor, took people to their seats … took a few payments on the card machine”.
Before that shift, she had to buy a shirt and trousers as a uniform, costing £20. Then, she got paid nothing, and she did not get a job out of it.
The Department for Business and Trade’s guidance on national minimum wage eligibility includes a section on unpaid work trial periods, which discusses to what extent the national minimum wage applies to work trials undertaken as part of a recruitment process. It says that work trials can help employers to
“decide whether the individual has the skills and qualities … for the job”,
and that unpaid work trials can be a
“legitimate practice”,
so long as they are not used
“to obtain work or services for which at least the minimum wage should be paid”.
That, I believe, is an invitation to abuse: the kind of abuse that Ellen suffered, being expected to work for nothing—not getting less than the minimum wage, but getting nothing at all. We hear reports of employers who do this to a succession of workers.
For those who would like to explore this issue in more depth than I have time for today, I point them to a debate in Westminster Hall on 29 March 2023, secured by Stewart Malcolm McDonald MP. That followed the introduction by the same MP of a Private Member’s Bill in 2017 seeking to achieve the same outcome as this amendment. That Bill that won the backing of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Students, among others. The commendably persistent MP reintroduced it last year. So, it has been an issue that has been around a long time but still has no solution.
If the Minister feels that the amendment is not properly drafted, I have been assured by my noble friend that she is in no way attached to the detail of how it is written, although she thanks the Bill Office for its assistance so far. The point is to act and to actually create a solution for an abuse that is enacted on people who can least afford it.
I have heard some very familiar phrases in the past few groups: we need more information, this is not the right time, there is legislation elsewhere that deals with this and this is not the Bill. But if not now, in the Employment Rights Bill, then when and how? We have to protect workers such as Ellen. They are often young and vulnerable, and sometimes English is not their first language. Surely the point of an Employment Rights Bill is to protect people from exploitation such as unpaid work.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind this amendment. There are risks of exploitation, which the noble Baroness has just set out. Where I am somewhat more concerned and have more sympathy with the amendment debated earlier today is about how people continue to do these sorts of jobs and still do not get paid.
To give a real example, the Department for Work and Pensions runs a programme called SWAP. It is quite a short-term programme and it is not quite the same as a boot camp, principally run by the DfE. It is often for people perhaps wanting to go into a new sector or who are open to new experiences, so there is an element of training. However, a key part of the SWAP is that you work and try out. There is no guarantee that, at the end of that, you will get a job with that specific employer, but what really matters is that it will give you a sense of aptitude and of getting back into the workplace, while you continue to receive benefits.
Let us not pretend that receiving universal credit for a week is necessarily the same as being paid the equivalent of a national minimum wage. But my principal concern with this amendment is that, while wanting to avoid exploitation, it would unwittingly or unknowingly shut down these broader opportunities and programmes which the Government run to help get people back into the world of work. That is why it needs to be considered carefully by the Minister, but ultimately rejected.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I will speak briefly to this amendment, which proposes to prohibit unpaid trial shifts by ensuring that those who undertake such shifts are paid at least the national minimum wage. This issue echoes concerns raised in earlier debates on unpaid work experience.
The amendment seeks to clarify that shift trials, defined as work undertaken in the hope of securing a temporary or permanent position, should be fairly compensated. This would address that potential gap in existing legislation and offer clearer protection for workers, ensuring that their time and labour are respect and valued. Such clarity is important for both workers seeking fair treatment and employers, and in maintaining transparent and ethical recruitment practices.
At the same time, it is important to consider the practical implications for employers who may rely on trial shifts as part of their recruitment process. I therefore invite the Minister to consider carefully whether this amendment strikes the right balance between protecting workers’ rights from exploitation and allowing employers reasonable flexibility in assessing candidates.
I look forward to the Government’s view on the best way to achieve a proportionate and effective approach that serves the interests of all parties involved.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively brief group. I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey. At first glance, the idea of banning unpaid trials seems fair, because no one wants to see people, especially young people, exploited under the guise of a try-out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out when she was introducing the amendment.
However, we also need to be honest about the likely effect of the change, particularly for those very people it is trying to protect. In many sectors—in particular hospitality, retail and care—trial shifts are often the only realistic way for somebody without a formal CV to show that they can do the job. Trial shifts can therefore open doors for young people, school leavers and those coming back into work.
If we start requiring every short work trial to be paid at minimum wage then the reality is that many of them simply will not happen at all. Employers, especially small ones, may decide that they are just too risky or costly. The obvious result will be fewer opportunities and fewer chances for somebody to get in front of an employer to show what they can do. I worry that this amendment, although well intentioned, could have the opposite effect: closing off relatively informal routes into work for those who need them most. The measures in the Bill already create the wrong incentives, and we do not need any more of them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this short debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for stepping in very ably. There seems to be a pattern of noble Lords needing to step in during the groups I respond to, but I very much appreciate her moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
We are somewhat repeating the first debate we had today on Amendment 129. Amendment 141 seeks to ensure that persons are paid for the trial shifts they perform in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position. It basically boils down to the same thing: how do we make sure that people are not exploited when they are in a position where they need to be flexible to try to gain work? It is very much the Government’s objective to ensure we can get more people working. However, it is also our objective to ensure we make work fair and make fair work pay.
That is obviously the intention underlying Amendment 141. In that light, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue and for using the case study of Ellen to outline how vulnerable people in vulnerable situations can be exploited by unscrupulous employers. I assure the noble Baroness that that is absolutely not the intention of the Bill nor, indeed, our attitude towards the amendment. However, I will go into detail as to why we are taking our position on this amendment.
As I have said, we are committed to making work pay, and we have been delivering on this promise through the actions we have taken since the Government came into office last year. At the risk of repeating myself, I note that we have delivered an increase in the national minimum wage of 6.7% to £12.21 per hour for eligible workers aged 21 or over. We have also, as I said, delivered a huge uplift for the lower national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20 year-olds, which has increased by 16.3% to £10 an hour. That is a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, and it closes the gap with the national living wage, because, as I have said, a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay.
However, hand in hand with fair pay is the flexibility for workers and employers to decide whether a job is right for the candidate and, indeed, whether the candidate is right for a job. Government guidance sets out helpful and practical information on how the national minimum wage applies in the context of unpaid work trials. The guidance is clear that employers can ask individuals to carry out tasks or trial shifts without payment only if it is a genuine part of the recruitment process.
Short, genuine work trials—such as the DWP scheme that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to—whether paid or unpaid, give employers and individuals an opportunity to test whether the role or the candidate is right for them. They empower individuals to seek out and test whether the role is suited to them and their needs. They allow employers to test whether a candidate can do the job and reduce the risk of taking on someone who might not have the right skills. As the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, rightly said, it is about finding the right balance.
Unpaid work trials can also provide a stepping stone for individuals who have been out of work for a long period of time but might want to get back into the workplace, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said. There are also government schemes where individuals in receipt of benefits can participate in an unpaid work trial and continue to receive their benefits. The flexibility of genuine—I stress “genuine”—work trials can benefit workers up and down the country, and the Government feel that an outright ban would see these opportunities for individuals diminish. However, I repeat a point I made earlier because it is worth emphasising: employers cannot rely on unpaid trial shifts for free labour. If someone is carrying out work that goes beyond a short demonstration of their suitability for the role, they are most likely to be entitled to the national minimum wage.
We are committed to protecting workers and will monitor this issue closely. If changes are needed, those issues should be dealt with outside the Bill, so that the national minimum wage legislation can remain clear on how unpaid work trials can be used and ensure workers are protected.
As noble Lords will be aware, HM Revenue & Customs is responsible for enforcing the minimum wage legislation and ensuring that employers meet their legal obligations. Any individual concerned that they have worked on a trial shift or period that does not appear to be part of a genuine recruitment process can and should complain to HMRC, or they can contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for advice.
In the light of the safeguards that already exist in legislation, and despite the fact that we very much agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, we ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 141.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. If this amendment is so similar to Amendment 129—I was not in the Chamber during that debate, I am afraid—I wonder why they were not grouped together. That might be something to think about.
The Minister talked about genuine work trials. I argue that “genuine” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there: how on earth do you judge whether something is genuine if you are not monitoring it extremely closely? He also mentioned a “short demonstration”. How long is that? Are there criteria for them? Are they only two hours long, for example? In Ellen’s case, she worked for five hours—that is a fair amount of continuous time to work.
In speaking to this amendment, I am influenced by the fact that, in the Green Party, we are not allowed to take any unpaid work at all. We have no unpaid interns. If we have an intern, we pay them, and we pay them properly. This influences my attitude towards anyone working for nothing if they do not intend to do so voluntarily.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that there might be fewer opportunities, but workers are still needed and companies still have to find those workers. If companies cannot afford to pay the national minimum wage to somebody on a work trial, they are not solvent businesses, so perhaps they ought to go out of business. I have no sympathy for employers who do not pay for work.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, gave me conditional support, but I am not really sure; perhaps he will on Report.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that an amendment can be written to cover such schemes as the government scheme she mentioned. It does not necessarily exclude paying somebody for genuinely working for five hours continuously.
On balance, this is a good amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Right to disconnect(1) All workers have the right to disconnect from work-related communications outside their working hours.(2) An employer must not—(a) require a worker to monitor, read or respond to any work-related communications outside the worker’s working hours;(b) contact a worker outside the worker’s working hours except in an emergency as defined in subsection (6);(c) take any action to the worker’s detriment, or treat the worker less favourably, because the worker has exercised or sought to exercise the right in subsection (1).(3) Every employer must—(a) establish a written disconnection policy, in consultation with workers or recognised trade unions,(b) specify the technological and organisational measures implemented to ensure respect for the right to disconnect,(c) establish clear protocols for necessary exceptions, and(d) provide workers with information about how to report violations of the right to disconnect.(4) The right to disconnect does not apply where—(a) a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty,(b) a worker has explicitly agreed to be available during specified periods outside working hours, with this agreement recorded in writing, or(c) in genuine emergency situations affecting public health, safety, or essential services.(5) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that their employer has infringed their right to disconnect under this section.(6) In this section—“emergency” means a situation that—(a) poses an immediate risk to health, life, property or environment, or(b) requires urgent intervention to prevent serious harm to the business, customers or other workers;“working hours” means the hours a worker is contractually required to work, including any agreed flexible working arrangements.(7) The Secretary of State must issue a statutory code of practice containing guidance on the implementation of the right to disconnect within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would implement a framework for a “right to disconnect”, whereby workers cannot be required to handle work related correspondence outside of their working hours.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will again speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Amendment 141B is a no-brainer; I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to it as blindingly obvious. It would give workers the right to disconnect, which is already available to French workers; I am sure that many noble Lords have heard about that, since its introduction was seen to be world leading at the time. I am sure that many British workers expected to have exactly the same right as a result of this Bill, given the widely covered promises that the Labour Party made over recent years before it was in government.
I quote the Labour Party 2022 Green Paper on employment rights, as it is unequivocal on this issue. It says:
“Labour will bring in the ‘right to switch off’, so working from home does not become homes turning into 24/7 offices. Workers will have a new right to disconnect from work outside of working hours and not be contacted by their employer outside of working hours”.
That is very clear. By June 2024, the party had fleshed that out with an explanation in the document, Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay:
“The pandemic has led to a step change in flexible and remote working practices in many workplaces, which … inadvertently blurred the lines between work and home life”.
That is extremely worrying. The headline in that 2024 text is: “Right to switch off”.
Unfortunately, backtracking is already evident, but the promise to the electorate is more equivocal:
“We will follow similar models to those that are already in place in Ireland or Belgium, giving workers and employers the opportunity to have constructive conversations and work together on bespoke workplace policies or contractual terms that benefit both parties”.
However, the headline was: “Right to switch off”. I think most people would have read that and hoped for a more balanced and less harassed life.
The Green Party is always keen to help any Government. Here, we would like to help the Government live up to the promises they made to an exhausted and overstretched group of workers, who find themselves trapped with a boss who expects them to answer emails from the sideline of their child’s netball match or to take a client’s call when they are on holiday. The promise from the Government has been that they intend to introduce a statutory code of practice instead. That does not mean that such contact will be illegal or even prohibited, but if an employee can prove that they are routinely being contacted outside of their contracted hours then this can play a role in an employment tribunal payout. On the previous amendment, the Minister mentioned that it is possible to make complaints. Most people do not do that; it takes too long and they do not have the expertise to do it, and they may not even have the energy to do it—that is fair enough. Tribunal cases are possible but they are extraordinarily rare and extremely slow.
We have a health crisis in the UK—an overworked crisis—and a huge imbalance in the power relationships between employers and employees, as many other parts of the Bill point out. In the Green Party, we are always constructive. This amendment provides the Government with a chance to live up to their promise to the electorate to empower workers and to help them remain healthy and engaged in their family and community lives, not for ever distracted by having to check their phone. After all, the economy is there to serve people; it is not for people to serve the economy. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly clarify the situation. I have just checked with my party, and we are not in coalition with the Green Party, that is for sure. But the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, makes a valid point. It is valid because of the societal change post Covid, where the number of people working from home now is exponential to what it was before Covid.
I go back to my days as a British Gas engineer, when I had a bleeper and was on call. We would dread the bleeper beeping, but I was on emergency calls and so I had to go out and do it. That was then and this is now.
There are so many people who are working from home who cannot switch off—the emails and alerts come through on their mobile phones. There needs to be some recognition of that within the legislation. Clearly, some organisations may need to contact people, but that should be by an arrangement that is agreed and supported by both parties. We are almost in a cowboy society again, where an unscrupulous company director of a small business with a small number of people wants to get things done and the deal has got to be made tonight—at 10 pm or 11 pm, when children are in bed—and so the phone goes and you have got to do it. If you do not, you face the consequences. These employees are probably not unionised, so it is difficult for them to resist. It is a never-ending circle.
I would like the Government to understand the importance of considering the framework set out in this amendment to provide a fair and practical approach that looks after the worker but protects the legitimate needs of the employers. It comes back to this idea of reasonableness and proportionality—the thread that seems to run through all this legislation. If it is reasonable and proportional then by and large it is fairly acceptable, but you have always got the unscrupulous person on either side. I have seen employees on call who have not replied when they should have, and they have been disciplined. That is correct; if you have an agreement and are on call, but you do not do it, there is a price to be paid.
The pendulum swings very slowly one way but very fast the other, to all those people who are working from home now and have no protection from the unscrupulous employer who just wants results 24 hours a day. We live in a 24-hour society—there is no escape from it. It happens with Ministers, spokespeople and friends I know. I have to turn my phone off—sometimes at 9 pm I switch the thing off until the morning, and then I get messages asking why I did not answer it. My answer is, “Because it was quarter to one in the morning and I was fast asleep”. These messages are from friends and colleagues. If you put that in the context of a work environment, where it is about your livelihood, marriage and children, it comes more into focus. I want the Government to look at this and see that there must be a way that we can strike a balance between the needs of an employer and the rights of a worker.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has pointed out, this idea was in both the 2022 Green Paper and in the paper that the Labour Party published during last year’s election. Clearly, there is an expectation that this needs to be addressed in this huge Bill, the main purpose of which, as I have said to this Committee before, could have been achieved through a statutory instrument.
However, one of the important things in the amendment, which has been carefully written by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, sets in place the idea that:
“The right to disconnect does not apply where … a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty”.
In trying to get into this debate, which is a fair debate to have, we find that the legislation already addresses the majority of situations where this would already happen, and so all that would happen if this were to become law is that contracts would be written in such a way that, in effect, if necessary, everybody would be on call—which would not be a desirable outcome.
I want to build on that. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to a variety of anecdotes and his personal experience. Personal experience matters in considering how a good employer can act. For what it is worth, in my private office, which was very busy, and in my parliamentary office when I used to employ people, I required everybody to have their “do not disturb” setting on. The setting works such that if somebody really needs to get hold of you—if you are a Minister, say—switch will get through to you eventually. I have to say to the people on the Front Bench that that is the case even if you do not have your phone on. Those situations are already addressed.
One of the things the Bill is trying to do overall is to get that balance. However, it is fair to say that not everything needs to be put into legislation. It is about having a positive relationship, and some of that can be done through ACAS and in other different ways, such as guidance. Trying to micromanage every single relationship that the millions of workers have directly with their employer risks overcomplicating things. The fear that I have, given that this is in the Government’s manifesto, which they seek to put in place—it will be interesting to see how they want to make this happen—is that this will make for very tricky legislation. Although there may be instances where this would work, ultimately, it comes down to employment tribunals and somebody else’s judgment.
For what it is worth, we have an evolving variety of workplaces. A lot of people who used to work at home have now come back to the office so that they can leave their job behind, as opposed to feeling that they will open something up after dinner or whatever.
I look forward to hearing the Minister set out how the Government are planning to fulfil their manifesto commitment while trying to make sure that they do not micromanage every single element of how a job can be done in the workplace.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness said, because this is about fairness and making sure life works. There are a lot of companies, big and small, where, to a great extent, what has been proposed is already working. However, there are a number of instances—including somewhere like where I work—where I do not think this would work.
I will just give your Lordships one quick example. I work in insurance for a huge insurance broker. We had a client in the United States who by 5 pm had not decided whether to renew his insurance contract in London. If he had not renewed it by 1 June—which I guess was a Sunday—he would have had no insurance on that specific part of his business. A member of my team kindly stayed online, for want of a better word—he was probably out and about with the phone in his pocket—and the call came through at some time after 9 pm. Looking at the way the clause is drafted, I am not sure whether that would be considered enough of an emergency to get a member of staff out of bed, so to speak. Equally, that company might have had to stop working, doing whatever it was doing in the oil and gas industry—I know that will not endear me to the noble Baroness, but that is a fact. But we had to bind that insurance contract once we got the order. It was all ready to go; it was just a question of sending a number of emails to say that it was done. So there are huge swathes of the country where it is in fact in place already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has said, but in some of the big City environments where you are working across time zones particularly, it is extremely difficult to enact.
On working from home, we all worked at home for some time; personally I loathed it—I am back in the office almost as much as I can be. However, I have members of staff who like working at home, and, let me tell your Lordships, they know how to turn themselves off when they do not want to talk to us anymore, and they are good at it. So they should be, and I respect them for it. But if you really need them, you can always find them.
Finally, you can turn the damn machines off. Be it a telephone, a computer, an iPad or whatever it is, there is an off button out there. Certainly when I was a child, we were told never to call anybody after 9 pm, and that was friends and family. So there are some unwritten rules out there that are already very effective.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing us to a fascinating debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put us in touch with the real world, and then my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Ashcombe reminded us about what happens in real life. I suppose I have immediately to declare my interest as a practising solicitor. My phrase, which I always used to share with Albert Blighton, was that I was available 168/52. The number 168 is 24 times seven. So you quickly appreciate that, as a solicitor, you have to be available all the time.
When I won the contract to represent cricket with the England and Wales Cricket Board, they wanted to know whether I would be available on a Sunday evening when there was an incident at a Sunday league match, and I said, “Yes, of course I would”. So it is very much up to the individual to make themselves available.
When I was asked to join the Front Bench in the House of Commons in 1977, I do not think anybody expected that I would refuse to answer an Adjournment debate, even though it might have been at 3 am, which it was on one occasion. Therefore, you set your working parameter in the way in which you develop your own workaholic tendencies, but you should not expect it of everyone, and I think that is what the amendment is all about.
Do you have the right to disconnect? Although I am sympathetic to the idea that you should be able to switch off, which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, put in context, when the Bill is already introducing considerable uncertainty for employers around shift notice periods, payment for cancelled shifts and wider questions of how flexible working is to be managed in practice, we have to be very cautious about layering on yet another rigid and potentially burdensome obligation.
The noble Baroness may have put forward what appears to be a straightforward proposal, giving workers a right not to respond to emails or calls outside their contracted hours, but in reality, as the Government have quickly realised, despite what they may have said in advance of the election, this whole proposal raises serious practical and legal questions. What does “working hours” mean in a world of flexible, hybrid and self-managed work? How do we define an emergency? What happens in small teams, in customer-facing sectors, which my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, and in businesses operating across time zones?
Employers, especially small businesses, already face growing compliance costs. This would add yet another administrative requirement. There would have to be a written policy on the right to disconnect, a consultation process, enforcement procedures and, of course, exposure to tribunal claims. So, we must ask: is this really the right moment to introduce such sweeping regulation?
The Bill already creates new rights and obligations that will take time to bed in. There is uncertainty around shift scheduling, compensation for cancellations and the cumulative compliance burden. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I believe the effect of this amendment would be to increase that uncertainty further and risk undermining flexibility for both sides. Most workers and employers already navigate these boundaries reasonably and sensibly. A blanket legislative approach risks making day-to-day communications feel legally fraught, especially in smaller organisations where roles are not so rigidly defined.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 141B, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
We firmly recognise the vital importance of achieving a healthy work/life balance. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, can be confident that we will indeed introduce a right to switch off. We understand that, in today’s fast-paced world, it is more important than ever to ensure that individuals and families are able to manage the demands of their work alongside their responsibilities and needs at home.
Our close consultation with businesses and civil society since the election has shown how important it is that we develop this policy in collaboration with those who will be affected: workers and the firms who employ them. The right to switch off must account for the full diversity in types of employment and sectors that exist in our modern economy. It represents a substantial shift in the way some businesses operate. This amendment does not account for that diversity and the need for collaboration. That is why we have decided to take a careful and considered approach to introducing the right to switch off, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe.
The focus for now is the Employment Rights Bill, which contains decisive and immediate action, such as reforms to flexible working that will make it easier to strike a better work/life balance. These reforms are not just policies; they are practical steps to support everyday lives and help people to draw clearer boundaries between their work and personal lives.
To add this amendment to the Bill would not do the right to switch off any justice. As drafted, it could create unnecessary burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Significant new requirements in proposed new subsection (3)(a) to (d) would force all employers, no matter their size, to produce written disconnection policies and specify new technological and organisational measures and protocols, while also establishing reporting systems for any violations. These new rules would be onerous and inflexible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed, and I say how deeply disappointed I am in the Opposition. I am trying to hold the Government to account to actually bring in a measure that they promised to do, and they have given them an easy ride, I would say. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that she is being far too kind to the Government, in my view. I am sure they are very grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was much more supportive of this amendment, so I thank him very much.
To the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, I say that we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also pointed out, in a very privileged position. The noble Lord sounds like a very kind man and is probably a very nice employer, so probably his employee would be free to say, “No, I can’t do that”, if they had to pick up a child from school or something like that. This is to protect people who do not have that sort of privilege, who feel obliged to do the things that their employer tells them, or supposedly asks them, to do. This is to protect the most vulnerable, the people who are not in our sort of position. I do not want to be here now, quite honestly. It is seven o’clock. I would much rather go home and have something to eat. I certainly did not want to be here at 10.35 last night—I would rather have been home in bed—but I do it out of a sense of duty, and I do it willingly. There are people who would not be able to do this but would not be able to deny their boss that work.
To the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I say that I am always very dubious when people start talking about “real life”, and I wonder how much real life they actually have. I grew up in a very poor working-class family, and I still have a lot of friends from my childhood who are not in the privileged position that I am in now, so I get a taste of real life when I am at home. In real life, there are people who would not be able to deny their employer this sort of overtime, or whatever.
I thank the Minister very much for his response. I am very glad to hear that the Government are going to introduce it. But, if this is too prescriptive and premature, why did the Labour Party commit itself to that? Why do the Government not just do what they promised? This is something that I struggle with. We see parties, before they are in government, promise all sorts of things and then they scrap them, and it is just not right. It is betraying the voters, and I do not understand why. Consult, by all means, but do it in a sensible and fairly fast way and just get it done.
By the way, nothing I have said in the last five minutes is to do with my noble friend Lady Bennett, so noble Lords should not blame her for it. I very much hope that she will bring this back on Report and that we will push it to a vote, because if you promised, you should do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(B1) Subsection (A1)(a) shall not apply where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings.(C1) Where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings, the duty to consult shall arise only in accordance with subsection (1), by reference to the number of employees proposed to be dismissed at a single establishment within a period of 90 days or less.(D1) For the purposes of subsection (B1), “relevant insolvency proceedings” has the same meaning as in regulation 8(6) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that employers in formal insolvency proceedings are not subject to the new entity-wide redundancy consultation trigger. Instead, the existing “20 or more at one establishment” threshold would apply. The amendment relies on an established definition of insolvency proceedings, consistent with Regulation 8(6) of TUPE 2006.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 141BA to 142B stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Collective redundancies often occur in the context of an insolvency. Increasing the penalty for failure to inform and consult will exacerbate the difficulties for insolvency practitioners. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, administrators are required to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. However, keeping employees in employment beyond the 14-day window afforded to administrators to decide whether to adopt the contract, to carry out an information and consultation process, in effect makes those employees super-priority creditors. This would elevate their claims above those of other creditors and reduce the funds available for ordinary creditors. In some cases, the resulting employment costs could make administrators reluctant to take on their role. This may lead to fewer contracts being adopted, increasing the liabilities that ultimately fall on the National Insurance Fund. Amendment 141BA gives insolvency practitioners clear legal guidance to apply the single establishment rule during consultations. This helps them make faster decisions without dealing with complex, entity-wide assessments, reducing delays and protecting insolvency processes. It supports rescuing businesses and, of course, maximising creditor returns.
I turn to Amendments 141C and 141E. Clause 27 significantly expands the duty to consult on collective redundancies. It requires employers to start a consultation if 20 or more redundancies are proposed in total across multiple establishments, even when those redundancies are unrelated. This overreaches, because simultaneous job cuts can result from distinct decisions, such as automation in a warehouse, reduced demand in customer service or restructuring in head office, affecting different people in different locations. Yet, under Clause 27, those decisions could be swept into a single mandatory consultation process simply because the total number affected crosses the arbitrary threshold. This means that HR and management teams would have to delay necessary action while they co-ordinated across unrelated departments. This means that representatives and employees would be dragged into consultations about matters with no relevance at all to them, and it risks undermining the quality of consultation itself by overloading it with conflicting priorities and timelines.
This would introduce legal uncertainty, particularly for mid-sized employers who may not have the resources to second-guess whether redundancies in different divisions are connected enough to trigger a combined consultation. If they get it wrong, they will face a protective award. If so, the risk-averse approach is to consult everyone about everything all at once. These amendments would make it clear that where redundancies across different establishments arise from a common underlying business reason, or from a connected series of events, a combined consultation is indeed required. However, where they are unconnected, made independently and for distinct reasons, the employer may conduct separate consultations at the level where the impact is felt.
Moving to Amendment 141D, we have continued to make the point that the one-sized central planning approach that this Bill uses is not appropriate. Many sectors rely heavily on seasonal or fixed-term workers. Agriculture, hospitality, logistics and retail businesses scale up and down, predictably, year in, year out. They take on workers for peak periods—the summer season, the Christmas rush, the harvest—and release them at the end of the contract. These are not sudden decisions; they are built into the business model and are clearly understood by all parties. For example, a national employer may let 12 seasonal workers go at a distribution hub in the north in July. A month later, it may make seven short-term administrative contracts redundant in the Midlands. In September, it might end six fixed-term roles in a tourist-focused retail unit in the south. Those are unconnected, expected and localised decisions. However, under Clause 27 as drafted, those 25 redundancies must be aggregated, triggering a full collective consultation process across all three events as if they were part of one co-ordinated business strategy. Is that really the policy intention?
Amendment 141F tackles the risk of retroactive liability—the possibility that employers who have already commenced consultations in good faith could be told after the fact that their earlier actions were invalid or insufficient, simply because the later redundancies pushed the total over the threshold. This problem arises from the way in which the 90-day window operates. It is measured forwards and backwards from any given proposal, which means that an employer making a set of redundancies today must ask, “Did I make others 30, 60 or 89 days ago?” If so, they now need to be bundled into a new retroactive consultation process. Let us say that an employer consults properly with a small team—five redundancies, full process, representatives informed; and then some weeks later, it identifies the need to make redundancies in another part of the business. The total now crosses the threshold and suddenly, it faces legal uncertainty. Was the earlier consultation valid? This creates a legal trap for employers acting in good faith. It penalises those who move early, communicate openly and begin consultation promptly—the very behaviours the law should be encouraging.
This amendment would bring common sense to the process. It says that where meaningful consultation on a proposed dismissal has already begun, whether individually or collectively, those redundancies are not to be re-counted towards a later threshold. It prevents the law demanding the impossible: that employers retroactively reconvene consultations that were lawfully and properly carried out before a threshold was even triggered.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, good evening. I rise in support of Amendments 141BA, 141C and 142B, and it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on these amendments. I declare an interest as a businessman and as one who wishes to see the wheels of commerce and thus the economy moving smoothly and not unnecessarily clogged up.
As far as insolvency goes, this Bill presented an opportunity—one that I still urge the Government to grasp—to make insolvencies more efficient and less destructive of the economy. The law currently says that, in most cases where workers are to be made redundant, a 90-day consultation is required, regardless of insolvency or not. But, if a company is insolvent, consultation is necessarily spurious. The employees have lost their jobs, period, and the receivers have to move instantly, not wait 90 days to realise the assets. So, they do not wait 90 days and, because of this rule, they then break the law, because they are required to give 90 days. Two laws are in conflict with each other and one of them has to be broken. The more swiftly the assets of a failing organisation can be reorganised, the more likely it is that productive economic activity can be continued from these assets.
In the US, where these things are done much better, a study some time ago found that only 4% of assets were lost in a bankruptcy: 96% went on to be productive assets under a new organisation. Anyway, because the law has been broken, necessarily, in these cases, because the receivers are doing their duty to achieve a speedy liquidation, the lawyers move in.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, who I am delighted to see is in his place, referred earlier to ambulance chasers. There are many lawyers in this House and every single one of them is, of course, honourable and valuable; but we are talking about no-win no-fee lawyers, who can be deeply pernicious in both practice and effect. These lawyers advise all affected employees that they have a case they can take to the employment tribunal because they have not been consulted, and that they will certainly win that case. These no-win no-fee lawyers refer to this case as “free money”: “Dear employee, you’ve got free money because you haven’t been consulted on a 90-day period”. These employees already get their redundancy money, their statutory sick pay, their holiday money and so forth. They get it all ahead of any other creditors. They are not disadvantaged.
This 90-day money that they get by going to the employment tribunal is three months’ bunce on top of everything else. I do not think that can have been intended, but it is certainly what the outcome has been. Who pays for this—because, as we know, there is no such thing as a free lunch? If the company was truly insolvent, there will not be enough money for everybody, so there will be losers when this money is paid to the employees: losers such as suppliers and HMRC, also known as the taxpayer, of course. And they will lose more as those workers get their 90 days’ pay.
I refer to one of many examples, Go-centric, a Glasgow-based call centre that suddenly went bankrupt on 19 December 2022, laying off around 600 employees just before Christmas. There is a whole story behind that that all of us can derogate. The receiver was faced with 600 employees who had to be laid off immediately. That is what receivers do, and they are honourable people running a very important economic activity for this economy. Enter the lawyers into this Go-centric situation, writing to redundant workers and advertising “free money”. That is what they actually wrote in the letters to employees, which the employees replied to. They went to the employment tribunal and the money was obtained for 200 workers who had already received all their statutorily due redundancy payments. I really do not think this can have been intended when the legislation was written, but so it was.
Now we have a wonderful opportunity in the Bill to rectify this, most likely unintended, clash of legislation by removing the 90-day consultation requirement in an insolvency, since, as we know, consultation is irrelevant, indeed impossible, in a liquidation. Have the Government wisely seized this opportunity? Have they rushed to validate their claims of fiscal prudence? They have not—far from it. Indeed, they have, bizarrely, proposed in the Bill to increase the 90 days to 180 days. A full six months of free money on top of statutory redundancy money, taking precedence over HMRC, suppliers and others. This all makes it more likely that their claims cannot be met, potentially precipitating further bankruptcies among suppliers. Noble Lords will have heard many pitiful stories of suppliers stiffed out of payments by a larger company going bankrupt and themselves then having to go bankrupt. This provision makes that more likely. There is no free 180-day lunch here.
We have a further problem, which may not have been considered by the Government in putting forward the Bill, which is that, if these payments fall short, which necessarily they will in many cases, the redundancy fund is called upon to pay moneys to workers. That is the redundancy fund that reports to HMRC, which reports to the Treasury. Have the Secretary of State and the Minister informed the Chancellor that they are legislating to increase the Treasury’s outgoings by a significant amount in future years, not to mention increasing the nation’s welfare bill, which the Government actually have a commitment to reduce? I suggest that the Government should speak to themselves and have a discussion about that.
The same concerns apply to the extension of the limit to 20 employees across an organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, and to encompass distressed businesses—businesses that are in distress, which are calling for financial advice, but have not yet gone into immediate insolvency. An opportunity is being missed to sort all that out.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s amendment and have little to add to what he and my noble friend Lord Moynihan have said. I emphasise that we ought to support such amendments for reducing the levels of collective consultation for companies involved in insolvency proceedings. We should do so in the interest of reducing the escalating costs to a company as a result of compliance and protracted timing. I support these amendments for that reason.
As we have heard, the Insolvency Act 1986 obliges the administrator to act in the best interests of the creditors. The more time and compliance are demanded of a company, the more it will cost and the less there will be for creditors. These costs will escalate under Clause 27 as drafted. As a result, the creditors will have less available to pay their bills and their employees. We will see a domino effect on companies left short of cash flow and on their ability to pay their bills and their employees. These amendments are very important, because we cannot afford a domino effect, with businesses left short of cash because of the compliance costs and protracted timings posed on companies facing insolvency proceedings. They are suffering anyway; their bills have not been paid. In the end, the less that is available to pay them, the worse the outcome will be for the whole economy, for employment levels as a whole and for the cost of living.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on this really quite interesting clause. I have carefully read Hansard from the other place in trying to understand what it is really putting in place. I am concerned by aspects of the comments made by the Minister at the other end, Justin Madders. He said that it really means only that businesses have to consult on their location and only with trade union representatives, and that, “By the way, these things get sorted in legal debate in the courts, and we hope the courts will understand”. That is not good enough when we are writing primary legislation.
In thinking this through, it is important for the Committee to consider what is happening here. Why is this needed? It has apparently been done to reduce the pressure on people with a vulnerability. Let us take the example of a pub chain, which has quite a big estate and has decided that it is going to reduce its number of hours. That could be a consequence of some of the other measures being brought in by the Government or just a trend that is happening. So it starts to think about what it is prepared to do in terms of how many people it employs in its pubs. It may not want to do that straight away; it may want to think about it in different sections and to leave that discretion to local managers. The man or woman in the street would think that that is perfectly sensible.
However, the businesses that gave oral and written evidence to the Bill Committee are worried—which the Minister recognised in saying that they should not worry—because that is exactly what the legislation is saying they will have to do. They could be undertaking consultation at huge expense, right across the country, while recognising that some of those situations could be very localised.
We already have sensible measures in place. When there are going to be significant redundancies across the country, it is already a legal requirement for them to go before Ministers, whether from the Department for Business and Trade or the Department for Work and Pensions, who can then mobilise local jobcentres and the like to prepare for those redundancies. Imagine going back to the business considering the impact of that on what can be quite localised operations. The Explanatory Notes are silent, frankly, which is why I took to reading Hansard from the Commons.
I am concerned and would be grateful to hear from the Minister why this is the right approach and how, despite the uncertainty still left in this legislation, the Government want this to be in place. Instead, they should accept the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt to make sure that these situations are well considered and that we do not end up in a situation where, despite the primary legislation, we have to go to an employment tribunal again and again. For that reason, I hope the Minister accepts my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for tabling these amendments. We have been listening to feedback from businesses on the clause as introduced. It requires collective consultation whenever 20 or more redundancies are proposed to be made across an employer’s organisation. Businesses told us that this would put them in a constant state of consultation. That is why we have made amendments in Clause 27 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; they aim to limit the burdens on employers while still expanding protections for employees, by ensuring that collective consultation is triggered when a threshold number of employees are proposed to be made redundant across an entire organisation.
The purpose of Clause 27 is to strengthen collective redundancy rights. The Government worked with stakeholders, including businesses, to address their concerns, which include not counting employees who are already being consulted on redundancy. We will set an appropriate threshold number in due course, via secondary legislation, following further engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation. We will look to balance the interests of both employers and employees when setting this threshold. Business stake- holders have welcomed the Government’s engagement on this clause and the opportunity to input to the threshold number via a public consultation.
Amendment 141BA seeks to exclude employers going through insolvency proceedings from the scope of a new trigger for collective consultation. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, about how one expects an employer which is going insolvent to consult employees across the entire organisation. The Government believe that collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees. The benefits of consultations are felt by both. I heard what the noble Lord said, and I must say that employees are an important part of the organisation, as are the suppliers and the whole supply chain. Whatever is due to them should be paid, as is the same for other creditors.
The law already recognises that consultation may not always be fully practical in insolvency situations. That is why Section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 includes a special circumstances defence for employers to depart from the collective redundancy obligations where it is genuinely justified and they have shown that they have taken all practical steps to comply. That flexibility should be applied on a case-by-case basis, not by removing that duty altogether.
Amendment 141C seeks to ensure that obligations are triggered only where redundancies are linked to a connected reason. We recognise that collective consultation will be most productive when workers and employers are focused on a common issue. However, employers and unions have told us that they believe it is not possible to define what is connected or “common reasons” in a suitable, clear way and that this could lead to more litigation. They tell us that attempting to restrict these new rights to connected redundancies in this way would create further burdens, rather than relieving them.
Amendment 141D seeks to exclude seasonal workers or those on fixed-term contracts from the scope of collective redundancy measures in the Bill. First, it may reassure the noble Lord to know that the expiry of a fixed-term contract at the end of its term does not trigger collective consultation obligations. Therefore, any fixed-term contract expiring at the end of its term will not add to the running total for the new threshold introduced for collective redundancies. We will consider further how employees on fixed-term contracts should be counted for the purposes of calculating an employer’s overall workforce that might be needed for the purposes of a national trigger for collective redundancies.
Amendment 141E aims to avoid an obligation to combine consultation by inserting two new subsections into Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but new subsection (2A) already strikes the right balance here. Employers will be well placed to determine how to divide consultations appropriately where the national threshold has been met. We agree that each group should receive meaningful collective consultation and intend to set up guidance on this point in a new code of practice.
On Amendment 141F, it is already the case that where collective consultation on redundancies has already begun those redundancies will not be counted when determining whether subsequent new redundancies reach the threshold for collective consultation. We do not believe that this should be extended to exclude employees who have been individually consulted, as individual redundancy consultations have a different character and purpose from collective consultations.
On Amendment 142, we agree with the noble Lord that the threshold number that will trigger collective consultation should be proportionate and not overly and unnecessarily burdensome on employers. However, this amendment is unnecessary and disproportionate to address this issue.
On Amendment 142A, the term “establishment” has already been settled and is well understood in employment law. It works well in practice, so we consider that attempts to change the definition here would create confusion and lead to more litigation with very few clear benefits in return.
Finally, Amendment 142B would undo the Government’s extension of the protective award period to 180 days. This change was made following a full public consultation in October 2024 and has been carefully considered. It makes it harder for unscrupulous employers to price in non-compliance with their collective consultation obligations, as we saw in the case of P&O Ferries. The Government are committed to strengthening employment rights in this landmark legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 141BA.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
The Minister started off by referring to government amendments. I just wonder which amendments he is referring to, because I am not aware that any other government amendments to Clause 57 are planned.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I apologise. I can be much clearer. I said the amendments tabled in the other place which are now under Clause 27.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
This has been a very valuable debate on a very important clause, Clause 27. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, Lady Lawlor and Lady Coffey, who gave some practical examples, particularly of the unintended consequences of previous legislation. A lot of questions have been raised by the Minister. I do not want to prolong this debate now, so I summarise by saying that there are many questions that we still want to ask and we will be returning to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Strategic Defence Review
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, first, I add to the widespread praise that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, General Sir Richard Barrons and Dr Hill have rightly received for leading and delivering this comprehensive and thorough strategic defence review document. It is indeed a transformational and genuinely strategic review and goes into great depth as to the purpose, intention and delivery of the defence of our nation and our interests abroad in its widest sense. Their emphasis that as a nation, and a proud one at that, we need the entire people of these islands to share, comprehend and be openly supportive of defence and all that we expect of our brave and committed Armed Forces is a point extremely well made. I also thank the Minister for taking the time to meet me yesterday prior to publication of the review. It was much appreciated.
As technological advance changes defence and our preparedness at a frightening pace, it is absolutely right that the entire country supports and has a broad understanding of what the future might hold. The review proposes some 62 recommendations, all of which the Government have accepted, and a number of which have already been in progress from the previous Administration. However, as the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in the other place, the world we live in now contains novel threats that are arguably more dangerous than we have ever faced before. As the spectre of Putin’s Russia looms over Europe’s eastern flanks, we can no longer take peace for granted. The case for transformation is both compelling and immediate.
It is in that vein that we on these Benches welcome the contents of the review: the commitments to continuing the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine programme, to GCAP, to increasing munitions production and to stockpiling are all most positive steps. However, I have a number of concerns. The first, I am sure, will come as no surprise to the Minister: there has been much consternation as to the correct level of funding required, but it is evident that the Overton window on defence spending is shifting rapidly. We on these Benches welcome the Government’s announcement that they will increase the Ministry of Defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. However, the recommendations in the review all come with a price tag, and the authors were clear that the plan is really affordable only if and when the Government commit to 3%.
As of yet, the Government’s messaging has appeared rather mixed, to put it politely. Most confusing were the Defence Secretary’s comments this morning on “BBC Breakfast” that the Government have an ambition to reach 3% by 2034, then that he was 100% confident that 3% was achievable in the next Parliament and then that reaching 3% was predicated on economic growth. It appears that all the Government have given are vague statements that—in the fullness of time, in due course, when conditions allow and at the appropriate juncture—they may raise defence spending to the 3% required. It is surely a position that Sir Humphrey would be thrilled with, so can the Minister confirm that all the recommendations in the review can be paid for in full within the current spending limits?
That becomes even more important when we consider the recent overtures from NATO. We have seen today that the Secretary-General will strongly push member states to bolster their budgets to 3.5% annually, plus 1.5% for defence infrastructure. The Danish Prime Minister has stated that waiting until the 2030s to boost defence spending will be “too late”, and the former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders, has said that he is “really worried” that the Government are not acting fast enough on defence. Can the Minister confirm that the UK will follow NATO’s likely new targets when they are set at the Hague summit?
I have two further observations. First, there appears to be a slight lack of focus on amphibious capabilities. In fact, there are only three mentions of the word “amphibious” in the document. Given that the Government have scrapped HMS “Bulwark” and “Albion”, thereby leaving the Royal Navy with no landing platform docks and relying solely on the Bay class ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, ships that themselves are ageing rapidly, can the Minister provide further clarity on the future of the UK’s amphibious capabilities?
Secondly, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I would have hoped for further measures on the reform of the structures within the Ministry of Defence. There is no doubt in my mind, from the albeit limited time that I served there, that there is considerable scope for streamlining, updating and commercialising large components of the overall modus operandi. In my view, the MoD has outdated views and practices, particularly in the areas of risk management, the concept of change and commercial imperative, that restrict the productivity and effectiveness of such a critical and large organisation.
Page 65 of the document mentions the increasing use of AI within the MoD to enable the department to redeploy staff currently working in finance, human resources and commercial functions, thereby aiming to reduce the Civil Service costs by 10%. That is of course a positive step, although perhaps a little unambitious, but it also states that the focus should be on productivity rather than headcount. Given that the MoD civilian personnel headcount was 61,706 as of 1 April 2025, almost as large as the British Army itself, is there not a compelling case for looking at how we might streamline the Civil Service radically within the Ministry of Defence?
Further, the review calls for the creation of a number of newly formatted bodies: a defence investors’ advisory group, a defence innovation organisation and a defence research and evaluation organisation. My concern here is that these new bodies could simply add to the already intricate web of overlapping and competing organisations and agencies of the MoD, thereby confusing the structure rather than enhancing it.
As the Minister knows well, many additions are made for valid reasons, but rarely are existing structures dismantled to make way for innovation. For example, we already have the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which was split from the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in 2001, with responsibilities for advanced technological research. How will the new defence innovation organisation and defence research and evaluation organisation fit in with DSTL? We must ensure that there is no duplication of functions if we are to have, as the review sets out, a policy of “one defence”. The critically creative work undertaken by DSTL needs as much freedom from interference as possible for it to flourish and deliver exception.
I have a final question for the Minister. Given the importance of the review and the significance of its recommendations, I hope the Government will provide time for a full debate on the strategic defence review to allow the House to fully consider the UK’s vital new strategy for defence. The challenge now is how to fund it in full to fulfil the hopes and expectations of the reviewers and the contributors to the limit.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I start where the noble Earl, Lord Minto, finished by suggesting that it would be extremely welcome for your Lordships’ House to have a full debate on the strategic defence review. It is a full, thorough and detailed review that merits detailed reading. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team have clearly put in a huge amount of work, and it would repay noble Lords and the Armed Forces if we were able to explore at least some of the 62 recommendations in detail.
The review gives many recommendations, some of which have been trailed but some have not, and which are sometimes much more complicated than we might imagine. There are commitments to our Armed Forces, to recruitment and retention and to increasing the number of the reserves. That is the headline, but the detail of the recommendations says that we should increase the size of the reserves “when funding allows”. That gets back to the fundamental question raised by the noble Earl: 2.5% is not going to take us far enough. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to enable us to implement the 62 recommendations. assuming that the other place and your Lordships’ House, after due scrutiny, agree with the Government that all 62 recommendations should be implemented?
There is clearly a need for a lot of detailed scrutiny because many issues are raised in the review, starting with the essential context that the world has changed a lot since the start of the post-Cold War era, and indeed since the start of the review. Many issues need to be thought about, some of which we have had the opportunity to think about over months and years while others have been floated recently. As the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out at Questions, the commitment to the nuclear deterrent is obviously important and welcome. I was expecting to see the noble Lord, Lord West, here to take up the discussions on the future of sea capabilities; the transformation of the carriers is presumably something on which he could run a Question for Short Debate by himself.
There are many detailed questions about capabilities and procurement but also about transitions—for example, the upgraded Typhoons. Are we sending back the existing Typhoons for an upgrade or procuring more of them and keeping the production of the Typhoon going, pending the introduction of Tempest? There are a lot of questions about procurement that are worth considering.
There are also questions not just about the headline figure of 2.5% of spending but about savings. On page 5, there is a suggestion that £6 billion of new savings will be found, and then there is talk of spending £11 billion. Does the £11 billion include the £6 billion that has just been found from savings and is now being recycled, or is the £11 billion new money? There are a lot of issues that would probably merit longer than the Minister will have for his response today.
There is one welcome point in terms of recruitment. It is very welcome that a little bit of recommendation 16 suggests that the medical requirements will differ from role to role, because that has clearly been part of the recruitment difficulty. That is very welcome, as are the commitments to improving accommodation and the defence industrial base. There are many more questions than I have time to ask and the Minister has time to answer, but we welcome the review and look forward to working with the Government over the next decade and beyond.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their contributions and their overall general welcome for the review. I turn to my noble friend Lord Robertson and say how fantastic the report is and how professionally he has conducted himself with the experience he has brought to bear on this.
The contribution that my noble friend, General Barrons and Fiona Hill have made is not only to the report but to the overall effectiveness of the security of our nation, the security of our allies and the pursuance of the goals that we all hold dear. That is something that, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, is shared across this House. Many congratulations to him for that.
I take on board the points that both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness made. It is not a matter for me in terms of a day’s debate or whatever, but I will ensure that that point is made to my noble friend Lord Kennedy, the Chief Whip. I am sure the usual channels can consider that so that we may get the opportunity to discuss this in more detail.
Before I deal with some of the detailed points that have been raised, I will say that what is really important about this debate, which is why perhaps we need longer, is that different Members of this House will have different points they will wish to make about the report and the review. There is a debate about funding but the overall direction of travel this sets out for us is something that this place and the country can get behind. We face the new geopolitical challenges of today, the state-on-state threat that we thought had gone. We are now in a new age. We need to reconfigure our Armed Forces in a way which meets that challenge. We need to look at homeland defence. We need to look at the reserves. We need to look at the new threats such as those to underwater cables and underwater technology. We need to look at the threats that cyber presents to us. We need to look at how we protect the critical national infrastructure of our country. We need to look at the alliances we can build, not only in Europe but across the globe.
There is one thing laid out in the report and the review which is really important as we discuss this. It sets out that, yes, this is a NATO-first policy—it sees Europe as the priority for the defence and security of our nation—but it also says it is not a NATO-only policy. It recognises the political and geopolitical contexts in other parts of the world where we have a responsibility as well. I just say to my noble friend Lord Robertson and those who have contributed to this report that I think the direction of travel is the really important thing for us to discuss, and there are many points that many of us could make.
To address some of those points, it is quite right for the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to point to AUKUS and the development of that—the commitment of up to 12 additional nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS development and the AUKUS treaty. Time and again I was asked in this House about the commitment to GCAP. GCAP is maintained in that.
On the munitions stockpile, time and again many of us have thought about the way in which Ukraine, which has been a wake-up call for us, has led to the situation where we have not had sufficient stockpiles. The report lays out £6 billion for that, of which £1.5 billion will contribute to six new munitions factories. I have already had discussions about who in private industry may work with that and others have had discussions as well. All of that is taking place.
On funding, there will be debates and no doubt question after question will be that it is not sufficient—the demand to have 3.5% at NATO. If some other noble Lords were here, they would be demanding 4%. What about the 5% that they have heard President Trump may want? All I can say is that the Government’s policy is well known in this House. It is 2.5% by April 2027, with the ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament. All the things in the report from my noble friend Lord Robertson and others have been brought about with the understanding that that is the financial envelope within which that works.
On some of the other questions, we are committed to amphibious capabilities. The noble Earl will know that we have the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships which provide that at the moment. He will know that fleet support ships will be built in Belfast to help support that. He will also know that the new First Sea Lord, with his background, will ensure that there is no shortage of amphibious capability, which will be important as well.
The noble Earl talked about reform within the Ministry of Defence. He will know just alongside this that defence reform has seen the creation of a military arm headed by the CDS, who is now in charge of all the service chiefs; the department of state; the new national armaments directorate, which will try to deliver the procurement savings and the more effective delivery that the noble Earl quite rightly points out are needed; and the nuclear arm as well.
The use of AI is another area that the report mentioned, and the use of that with the research that will be available to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked whether the noble Lord, Lord West, was here. I am sure he would welcome the carriers and the suggestion in the report, which I think is a really good one, that carriers are adapted to that hybrid-type platform which not only allows jets to take off but has all sorts of autonomous capability both above and below the sea to operate off that, with missiles able to be fired. I think that is a use of the carriers. If noble Lords remember, there was some discussion about all of those, so I think that is a really good suggestion.
On recruitment and retention, many noble Lords have talked about the need for more in the Army. They will have seen the Secretary of State’s point that our ambition is to increase the Army to 76,000. But we cannot, as it stands, get the number of regular soldiers that are budgeted for. We have just over 70,000—70,500, I think I am right in saying—when the target figure is 73,600. The recruitment and retention points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, points to are crucial if we are to deliver that. Some of the changes we have brought about—pay, accommodation, housing, childcare —seek to address that point. There are so many other issues around reserves and all that sort of thing which may come, quite rightly, from noble Lords, who will question how we are going to achieve those things.
I finish by saying that this House can unite around the fact that we have had an excellent report from my noble friend Lord Robertson, which sets out a direction of travel. There will be debate and discussion within that report as to what the correct balance is, what should be funded, what perhaps should be given a greater priority. We have accepted all those 62 recommendations. We are delighted with the way that the report sets out for us a sense of where this country can go in terms of establishing Armed Forces who fight the battles of today and the future and not those of the past. In that way, we can defend our democracy, defend our continent and stand up for our interests globally. As such, I think we should unite behind it.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, there is significant interest in this Statement. Can I urge brevity from both noble Lords and my noble friend the Minister in order to get in as many colleagues as possible?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I join all previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team. Would my noble friend the Minister agree that, since the end of national service, there has developed a worrying gap between the citizens and the military? One way of bridging that would be to ensure a fair regional distribution of the new jobs that will be created by this review. Will the Government commit to that and perhaps produce some map or plan showing that jobs will be created across the whole of the UK?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On the first point about the need for us to reassert and highlight the link between the Armed Forces and the general population, I think my noble friend is right. I have some optimism about this, although I think the Government could reflect on how we do it. The report talks about greater use of the military in terms of education in our schools in the appropriate way. I think that might be one consideration. I do not know whether my noble friend agrees, but I thought that the VE Day celebrations—the increase in cadets and the numbers of young people out on our streets celebrating and commemorating the sacrifice of those in the Second World War—give us some optimism that that link can be re-established. Perhaps as politicians we should be more proactive in standing up for that, and not being embarrassed to call for that recognition.
On my noble friend’s second point, page 52 of my noble friend Lord Robertson’s report has a map that illustrates some of the ways in which the jobs and industries of defence will be spread across the nations and regions of the UK. My noble friend Lord Dodds, who sometimes thinks—as I do—that Northern Ireland is missed out, will be delighted to see that Northern Ireland is included. All the nations and regions are mentioned; these are just some illustrated examples. There are many more, and we should make sure that is a reality.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I declare my registered interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I refer to the Statement:
“We will establish continuous submarine production through investments in Barrow and Derby that will enable us to produce a submarine every 18 months”.
That is a pretty ambitious timetable. Could the Minister say a little more on how we will co-ordinate this, not only in Barrow but across government, so that we can meet that timetable?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can I apologise? I always forget this, and if the standards people come after me, I am really sorry; I should have mentioned that my son-in-law is in the reserves. I apologise to the House for not stating again that my son-in-law is an active member of the reserves.
On the ability to produce the number of submarines the noble Baroness mentioned, she will know there has been huge investment in Barrow in order to be able to deliver. There is now dual-line production, which will mean the ability to produce more submarines at speed will be possible. That sort of adaption and need for investment shows the fact that, over a period of time, we have allowed the sovereign manufacturing capability of this country to develop the defence equipment it needs perhaps to not have the priority it deserves. One of the things my noble friend Lord Robertson’s report says is that we need to ensure we have a sovereign capability to produce the equipment and munitions we need. Submarines will be part of that.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make a contribution and ask a question. I have spent 10 months answering questions, so there is a slight difficulty involved in that. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether in future, to this House and the public outside, he will emphasise the fact that this was not a Labour defence review? It was designed specifically to be a strategic review that would incorporate other elements of the country. Not only did we consult as many people as we could—we got 8,000 submissions through our invitation—but I asked a former distinguished Conservative Minister for defence procurement, Sir Jeremy Quin, to be part of our team. Throughout the whole of that, he was of invaluable assistance.
This report is not simply about warships and missiles. It is about reforming the whole way in which we deliver defence. After all, defence expenditure is the premium we spend for an insurance policy, not only for the current generation but for generations to come. I hope that is something Ministers will be making clear to the outside world.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I think my noble friend has just demonstrated why the report has been such a success. There may be things that divide people in this Chamber. There may be debates to be had, and quite genuine disagreements. I have always said, and I have always tried to reflect as a Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, that that is a real privilege. It is predicated on the basis that I do not believe that anyone in this House wishes to undermine the defence and security of our nation. We all have that at the front of our minds. My noble friend is right to point out that the public should understand that. We believe that we have the interests of our country and of our alliances—of our friends and allies—at the forefront of our minds.
My noble friend’s remark about the fact that the right honourable Sir Jeremy Quin has been involved in the review is a good example of that cross-party support. I also know that, in my time in this office, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, and many others, including the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, through his responsibility as chair of the International Relations and Defence Committee, have contributed, along with many of my noble friends who have experience. That brings together a wealth of experience and talent that can only make any report better.
On the noble Lord’s last point, an important point needs to be made. It is not only about the amount of money that we spend; we have to be clearer about what we spend it on in order to meet the threats of the future. That is an important point that the report makes as well.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer. Page 70 recommends only a modest increase in the active reserve of 20%, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, pointed out. Finland’s reserve—albeit it uses a different intake model—consists of over 800,000 trained soldiers, and that is warfighting readiness. Will a defence readiness Bill be forthcoming and much more ambitious and robust in respect of the active reserve?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will make one suggestion to the noble Lord: perhaps he and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and others in this Chamber who have professional experience and expertise with respect to reserves, will set up a meeting with me about how we might more effectively reach the target of an increase of 20% by the 2030s. I would appreciate the experience and ideas that the noble Lord might have on that.
The defence readiness Bill will come after the Armed Forces Bill in the autumn. The concept of defence readiness is, again, that we face a new type of threat, not only potentially of missiles or state actors but of cyberattack and the disablement of critical national infrastructure. I do not know whether the noble Lord realises, but the Defence Secretary pointed out yesterday that the MoD has had 90,000 state actor threats in the last two years—that is an astonishing figure—and we have seen big business bodies affected by cyberattack. The defence readiness Bill will be about asking how we protect critical national infrastructure and what we need to do to prepare for something happening. Are we ready to defend ourselves, protect our population and ensure that things continue? The defence readiness Bill will help us understand that and develop the sorts of structures we need to do that. Of course, people will be at the heart of it. That Bill will come some time at the beginning of 2026.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, thanks are indeed due to my noble friend Lord Robertson and his team for this review, and to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the vigour with which they have addressed the challenge of redressing the balance in the priority we give to the defence of our nation. They ought to be congratulated. However, my experience of two comprehensive spending reviews has taught me that CSRs never fully meet the expectations of the Ministry of Defence. I speak from experience of a time in which we were spending more on defence, as a proportion of our GDP, than we are today. Having said that, can the Minister therefore give us an assurance that his department and the Treasury are looking at innovative mechanisms to supplement defence spending, potentially including peace bonds? There has to be a conversation with the British people about how we fund defence. The strategic defence review gives us an honest and clear basis for that conversation, but we have to be prepared to spend more and we have to be prepared and willing to spend more effectively. We have to use innovative mechanisms to raise the money to do so.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that, as this progresses, it may be that we have to look at innovative and different ways of funding. I am no expert on all these things, but I am not averse to looking at any novel or innovative ways in which funds may be raised.
There is a more general point to be made. The current threats mean that we have to ensure that our Armed Forces have the funds and resources that they need—I think people recognise that. Difficult decisions were made about funding the increase to 2.5%, and people accepted that because of the new threats that we face. We need to continue to make the point that there cannot be security for nations or countries without armed forces. You cannot do anything about poverty or refugees being moved and a whole range of other things unless you have security. Security delivers the stability that we need to live the lives that we want.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
I briefly add my congratulations to the authorship of this review. It is, in my view, the most considered, professional and comprehensive review that I have ever seen at close quarters. However, the spectre of fiscal pressure attends every chapter and every page. If this is not funded, it is not a review but a delusion. The reviews that I have known—as vice-chief, chief and all that—have fallen foul of the same problem: a delusional delivery through some alchemy of efficiency, technical superiority, lethality or a new design of battle. The Ministry of Defence will not be capable—it is not viable—of funding this by some internal alchemy of efficiency. As the previous speaker said, we need to find the money elsewhere. This country can easily afford the Armed Forces it needs. If it does not, it will be a laughing stock. What it cannot afford is 9 million people of working age drawing benefits.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for the warm welcome that he gave to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I know that the direction of travel that it sets out is supported by the noble and gallant Lord, and I thank him for that. He lays out the challenge for the Government. He knows what the Government’s position is with respect to funding. People will have heard his continuous campaigning and demand for additional resources. We are, as a Government, committed to ensuring that the recommendations of the report from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, are implemented, and we will do all that we can to see that that happens.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and generally offer my support for the review. Everything that we have talked about has to be underpinned by good logistical and operational support. The Minister will not be surprised that I immediately looked to find where the RFA sat within the report. I was pleased to find that page 106 acknowledges the critical role played by the RFA. Is the Minister and the MoD more widely concerned—notwithstanding my noble friend Lord Minto’s point about amphibious capabilities—that the RFA has only three Bay-class vessels, aged between 16 and 25 years old, and that the newest vessel, “Stirling Castle”, has been acquired by the Royal Navy due to lack of personnel? I do not really understand what the review means when it says that the Royal Navy will be
“using commercial vessels and burden-sharing with NATO Allies to augment the … RFA … Fleet … in non-contested environments”.
Does the Minister agree with the review and with me about the essential need to support the RFA, which underpins everything?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the point about the RFA, which is crucial. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the long-running dispute with respect to pay was resolved as part of our attempts to ensure that the RFA was properly supported and its personnel properly respected and given the pay that they deserve. On the issue of commercial vessels, it is about the innovative ways—that is part of the report—of seeing whether, in certain circumstances, commercial ships are required to support the RFA in its function to deliver the supplies that may be needed to support our warships. Obviously, you would do that in situations where it was safe to do so—but that would be augmenting the RFA, not replacing it. Those sorts of imaginative solutions to deal with some of the problems will give us the capacity and capability that we need.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his second very fine strategic defence review. He has done a service to all of us on that. I want to ask about a very specific point. In response to the changing nature of conflict, the review includes plans for several things, including a new digital warfighters group, the creation of a cyber EM command and the creation of a digital targeting web. I know that the Minister cannot be specific on timelines for that, but can he give some general indication, because it seems to me that that is a vital element of modernising our capability?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Some of the timelines will clearly need to be clarified. On the general point, all the things that my noble friend has mentioned are critical to move from the forces that we have to the integrated force that is essential—not the joint force but the integrated force. We need to make that happen as soon as we can.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the recruitment gap earlier. I had the privilege last week of spending the week with the Royal Gurkha Rifles, and I must say how impressed I was. We take only 250 Gurkha recruits every year, out of 12,500 keen applicants. I suggest that there is a potential opportunity there, and one that the Government might take.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a good suggestion, and I will look at it and try to take it forward.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Council of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations, with a bit of a history with the Reserve Forces. I thank the Minister for his call yesterday, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team. My welcome of the SDR is caveated slightly on the apparent gulf between the ambition, which it is difficult to fault, and the funding, which is more concerning. There are a number of issues that I would like to debate, but I will pick just one for this evening. The SDR places a welcome emphasis on home defence and resilience, yet it also acknowledges that:
“A more substantive body of work is necessary to ensure the security and resilience of critical national infrastructure … and the essential services it delivers”.
The Minister mentioned just now that he would address the issue of timelines. I am asking him to include in that thinking about and telling us about the timelines for that important piece of work.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
In a similar vein to my answer to my noble friend Lord Reid, some of these timelines will need to be discussed and worked out to ensure that they are deliverable. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that his point is well made; clearly, we need to get on with that task. There is an urgency to much of this, and we need to address that and ensure that we make much of this happen as soon as possible.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (3 Jun 2025)
Lord Hendy
“(2A) In section 189 (complaint and protective award), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Any such declaration may be enforced in the High Court as if it were a declaration of the High Court and, for the avoidance of doubt, such enforcement may include—(a) an Order to comply with the declaration of the employment tribunal,(b) a Declaration that any dismissal which should have been but was not subject to compliance with section 188 or section 188A is void and of no effect, and(c) in relation to any failure to comply with an Order of the High Court, proceedings for contempt of Court.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to provide a remedy for a breach of s.188 or 188A given that the doubling of the protective award appears may be unlikely to deter employers such as P&O Ferries where the value of the protective award can be calculated to be outweighed by the benefit of reduced wages over time.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 143 is intended to provide a tougher remedy for breach of the obligation, which is a very modest one, to consult in cases of collective redundancy. At present, the remedy is an award of loss of earnings capped at a maximum of 90 days, which the Bill proposes to increase to 180 days. My amendment is not concerned with that. It proposes judicial intervention to prevent the breach, or at least to restore the position prior to the breach. So, where a declaration has been made by an employment tribunal, the union should be entitled to go to the High Court to obtain an order to enforce that declaration. The employment tribunal does not itself have the jurisdiction to make such an order; indeed, it does not have the power to enforce its own orders. That is why it is necessary for workers to issue further proceedings in the county court if their employer fails to pay a tribunal award.
The amendment makes it clear that any dismissal which should have been subject to Section 188 of the 1992 Act but was not will be void and of no effect, so the obligation to continue to pay wages and to honour the other incidents of employment will continue until the employer has fulfilled its legal duty. I should add, in case any of your Lordships doubt it, that the High Court does indeed have the power to restrain dismissal and declare a purported dismissal void and of no effect. The court has often done so where the dismissal was unlawful because, in breach of contract, the power is still more apposite where the unlawfulness is breach of a statutory duty.
Finally, the amendment puts beyond doubt that the normal consequences of non-compliance with an order of the High Court will apply: that the company and any officer personally frustrating the order may be subject to proceedings for contempt of court, including fine, sequestration and, in the most egregious cases, imprisonment.
The rationale for my amendment is obvious. We are talking about a situation in which an employer has broken or proposes to break the law by throwing a significant number of people out of work without properly consulting on measures which might have avoided that situation. A very limited financial penalty is plainly not enough to dissuade lawbreakers, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recognised. What is required is not just a more dissuasive remedy but one which prevents the unlawful situation, or at least restores the situation to lawfulness, so far as it can be restored. Only the High Court has the power to do that.
There is another reason: the need to comply with international law which the UK has voluntarily ratified. Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization will need more detailed consideration in later amendments, but for current purposes it is enough to note that, together, they require member states—not just ratifying states—to respect and protect freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. Compliance with international law is the eighth of Lord Bingham’s principles of the rule of law, and the importance of compliance with international law was emphasised by the Attorney-General in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute last week. It matters not whether the provision in question relates to trade, the environment, security, labour or any other matter, and compliance is not restricted to the black letter of the treaty but also required of the decisions of the bodies appointed by the treaty to supervise compliance with it.
One such constitutional body of the ILO is the tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, which consists of representatives of government, employers and workers. On 8 November 2023, it published its decision on a complaint brought against the United Kingdom by Nautilus International, the RMT, the TUC and a number of international trade union federations. This arose out of the P&O Ferries scandal mentioned earlier this evening. At 7 am on St Patrick’s Day 2022, the employer summarily dismissed 786 seafarers, with security guards escorting them from the ships past waiting coachloads of agency staff from third-world, cheap-labour countries recruited to replace them.
The report says that the committee notes the complainants’ indication that
“while breaches of the UK law entitle claims to be made in an employment tribunal, such claims are subject to statutorily fixed (and very modest) maxima; for this reason, the company was able to quantify with precision what the cost of the dismissals would be and to assess how long it would be before that cost could be recouped from future profits generated by the poverty wages and diminished terms and conditions of the new crews. The complainants thus allege that the dismissal of 786 seafarers to replace them with non-unionized agency workers constitutes an act of anti-union discrimination. The complainants further allege that the existing legislation is insufficient to deter anti-union discrimination as in practice, employers can, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by the law for cases of unfair dismissals, dismiss any worker for being a trade union member with better terms and conditions under a collective agreement. The Committee recalls in this respect that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination would appear to be inadequate if an employer can resort to subcontracting as a means of evading in practice the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining … The Committee considers that it would not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as set out in Convention No. 98, is granted by legislation in cases where employers can in practice, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal, dismiss any worker, if the true reason is the worker’s trade union membership or activities … The Committee recalls that the Government must ensure an adequate and efficient system of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, which should include sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasizing reinstatement as an effective means of redress … Furthermore, the compensation should be adequate, taking into account both the damage incurred and the need to prevent the repetition of such situations in the future … The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure an adequate and efficient system of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, which should include sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasizing reinstatement as an effective means of redress”.
Of course, there the committee considered that the collective dismissals were in order to avoid long-standing collective agreements which provided for notice of dismissal and consultation over proposed redundancies, which it regarded as anti-union discrimination. That situation will not occur in every collective redundancy—of course that is the case—but it will be true in many, though not all, collective redundancy situations. I should add that what we are looking at here are really bad employers. The remedy that I am proposing will not be used against good employers that do their best to deal with the situation.
The tribunal remedies which the committee considered very modest were not just for failure to consult over collective dismissal but included compensation for unfair dismissal. Here we are considering the even more modest, statutorily capped compensation for failure to consult. As the committee held, what is needed are
“sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasising reinstatement as an effective means of redress”.
Only an injunction will achieve that outcome. That would have stopped P&O Ferries in its tracks.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that I can see no reason not to add this remedy to those available to restrain such unlawful activity. While the increase in maximum award, from 90 to 180 days—as the tribunal has to assess compensation as what is just and equitable up to that cap—is not sufficient in itself, since injunctions are available for breach of contract, why are they not for breach of statute as well? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his powerful and clear speech; he has said it all. I just want to add that this issue has arisen from the P&O scandal that took place three years ago. The maritime unions are particularly concerned about this, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide some comfort for the arguments that have been presented. The issue of pre-emptive injunctive relief for seafarers and other workers is a crucial issue and it is possible that we will need to return to it on Report.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the intent behind Amendment 143. After all, we are all familiar with the high-profile cases, such as P&O Ferries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred in his introduction.
I cannot pretend that I was au fait with the case details that the noble Lord explained, but we have some concerns about the practical and legal consequences of what is being proposed here. It seems to us that the amendment would allow employment tribunals to declare dismissals void and as having no effect; therefore, in effect, reinstating employees regardless of circumstances.
That is a major departure from the current legal framework, where the remedy for a breach is compensation, not nullification. That obviously raises serious questions. What happens if a dismissal is declared void months later? Is the employee reinstated, and are they entitled to back pay? What if the role no longer exists or has been filled? For many businesses and many workers, that would create uncertainty and not protection.
There is also the issue of enforcement. Giving tribunal decisions the force of the High Court, and allowing contempt proceedings for breach, risks confusing two fundamentally different judicial systems. Tribunals are meant to be accessible and the High Court is not.
I also question whether this change would meaningfully deter bad-faith employers. Those who already factor in the cost of breaking the law may simply budget for this risk too. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized employers acting in good faith could face disproportionate legal exposure for administrative or technical errors. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for tabling Amendment 143.
The Government agree that employers should not be able to deliberately ignore their obligations, and it should never be financially beneficial to do so. However, this amendment would offer a disproportionate response to address the issue. First, employment tribunals have jurisdiction over the majority of employment matters, including the enforcement of protective awards in cases of collective redundancy. It would not be appropriate to amend this jurisdiction solely for collective redundancy cases and it would lead to a disparity within the legal structure governing employment rights and their enforcement.
Furthermore, Section 15 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 already offers routes for affected individuals to pursue unpaid employment tribunal awards via the county courts, for England and Wales, and the sheriff courts, for Scotland. Finally, the amendment may have the unintended consequence of an increase in scenarios where employers are forced to become insolvent in response to both paying a protective award and requiring the reinstatement of affected employees.
Responsible employers across the country already go further than the current obligations to consult collectively. They agree with the Government that collective consultation with their workforce is a valuable tool in finding solutions to some of the challenging situations that employers find themselves in. Clause 29 closes a loophole in our collective redundancy legislation which meant that P&O Ferries could not be prosecuted when it dismissed people without warning, including because they worked abroad on foreign-registered ships. This goes some way to addressing the ILO’s concerns about the lack of an effective remedy. Our measure to confer powers on Ministers to create a mandatory seafarers’ charter will also help to create a level playing field in the sector and prevent such events happening again. A couple of amendments in subsequent groups will address that issue.
Doubling the protected period means that employees who were not afforded any consultation when being made redundant will now be awarded up to 180 days’ pay. Employment tribunals can award a further uplift of up to 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement. Taken together, these measures increase the potential statutory payout per person far beyond that which P&O Ferries offered to dismissed employees. This clause will provide a balanced approach that gives certainty to employers, employees and tribunals, and will provide an increased deterrence against deliberate breaches of the collective redundancy requirements, without disproportionately penalising employers which attempt to comply with their obligations.
I hope that this provides some assurance to my noble friend, and I therefore ask that his amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. In response to him, I note that the proposal is not that employment tribunals should make a declaration that a dismissal was void and of no effect. Instead, the idea is that the High Court will make a declaration based on another declaration already made by the employment tribunal that the employer has breached the law by failing to consult—or by failing to consult properly.
The remedy I am proposing, since it is going to be in the hands of a High Court judge, will not be granted for technical or administrative errors; it will be for only the most egregious breaches.
On the point that an injunction might be granted months later, that cannot be so because delay will always defeat an injunction. Injunctions are only ever granted if the application is brought in a timely fashion, and whatever the court orders can be fulfilled.
I am grateful for the Minister’s very full response. I am not sure that the measure I propose is disproportionate —it is intended only for the most egregious breaches of the duty to consult—or that it distorts the remedies available for employment matters. As my noble friend pointed out, employment tribunal awards already have to be enforced in the civil courts and not by tribunals themselves. I am not sure about the unintended consequences. I know everything he says about The Seafarers’ Charter; my concern is with those on land. I have heard everything he says with sympathy, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the provisions for collective redundancy notices for ships’ crew to ships providing a service entering a harbour in Great Britain on at least 52 occasions in the relevant period.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I ask noble Lords to cast their minds back three years to 24 March 2022, when the P&O Ferries chief executive officer Peter Hebblethwaite made it clear to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that he knew that his decision to sack 786 British seafarers broke the law. He went on to explain that he knew there would be penalties to pay, but these were simply, in his view, a cost of business. He even had the audacity to say that he would make the same decision again.
My noble friend Lord Hendy has already dealt with this, but it is a crucial issue which has raised important questions about how industrial relations operate in this country. The gross premeditation of the company’s action was evident to the whole country, as private security guards boarded ferries to physically force the crew out of work, to be replaced by cheaper agency crew recruited internationally and oblivious to the circumstances.
I have been relatively modest in putting all my proposed amendments in a single group, given the extent of the degrouping of amendments that has taken place. There are three issues being dealt with here: first, the need to widen the scope of the promised seafarer’s charter, mentioned by my noble friend the Minister; secondly, the need to reduce the threshold for the application of The Seafarers’ Charter in terms of visits by ships to UK ports; and thirdly, to ensure the necessary monitoring of the effectiveness of the legislation.
On the need to increase flexibility in The Seafarers’ Charter, the key amendment is 200AD; the rest are consequential. These amendments provide the flexibility to strengthen the mandatory seafarers’ charter, in addition to standards on pay and roster patterns. They are constructive in spirit and look to explore the Government’s position on mandatory employment standards for seafarers at work today and in the future.
Back in 2023, on the first anniversary of the scandal, Labour’s shadow Employment and shadow Transport Ministers committed the party to a mandatory seafarers’ charter as a direct response to this appalling episode. In a joint article in the Independent they wrote:
“The P&O scandal was … supposed to draw a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. But for too many low-cost operators, their business model is based on exploitation. That is why we will introduce a strong, legally-binding Seafarers Charter that smashes the business model dependent on the cruel manipulation of vulnerable workers from around the world. This will mandate an agreement between unions, government and employers on minimum protections for pay, roster patterns, crewing levels, pensions, taxation and training”.
The unions, together with many MPs and Peers, continue to support that explicit aim for the charter set out by the Labour Party.
I also understand that the RMT was given ministerial assurances only last December that there would be flexibility to add employment conditions to the mandatory charter. Regrettably, DfT and DBT officials now tell us there will be no flexibility, citing difficulties around compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are told that UNCLOS prevents the Government adding other employment conditions such as sick pay, holiday pay and pensions. This is hard to understand, and I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain. Even the voluntary seafarers’ welfare charter, introduced by the last Government in July 2023, includes sick pay and pension rights, as does the French Government’s legally binding seafarers’ charter, introduced on ferry routes to the UK in June 2024.
I beg the Minister to help us understand why national legislation on pay and hours of work for seafarers on international routes from UK ports is UNCLOS-compliant, but other areas of employment, including remuneration such as sick pay, holiday pay and pensions, are not compliant. If the Minister cannot do so in reply to this debate, a summary of the Government’s position should be circulated before Report. I ask the Minister to meet with the unions to explain why we have ended up in this situation. I reiterate that a public promise was made by the then shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the then shadow Minister for the Future of Work that the charter would cover not just pay and rosters but other issues, including sick pay, pensions and training.
Amendments 200AA, 200AB and 200AC deal with the threshold for application of the seafarers’ charter created in Schedule 5. We of course welcome the seafarers’ charter, but its effectiveness is set by the criteria which apply in terms of the rate at which the ships concerned visit UK ports. Clearly, the lower the figure for the number of visits required, the greater the proportion of seafarers who will have the necessary protection. In simple terms, the proposed amendments bring ships that call weekly in UK ports within scope, in contrast with the Bill, which requires more than twice-weekly visits.
I make no secret of my desire to see as many seafarers covered as possible, and not, in effect, limiting this to those who work on roll-on, roll-off ferries. Most ships that regularly work in UK waters are not that type of vessel. According to DfT statistics, over 160,000 seafarers are employed in the UK shipping industry and where possible, we must use the Bill and future legislation to equalise their employment rights with land-based workers.
The previous Government introduced a threshold of 120 calls per year in Section 3 of the Seafarers Wages Act. When that legislation was going through the Lords, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, responded to an amendment from my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on this matter, stating that 52 calls per year
“would catch too many vessels that we did not intend to catch and would be overreach in terms of the current settlement with the international shipping community”.—[Official Report, 12/10/22; col. GC 102.]
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to my Amendment 200ABA. Our seafarers are the engine of a vital part of our trading economy, but their conditions of work are often out of sight and out of mind. Among other problems, as set out by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, the gender imbalance and isolation on most ships has resulted, sadly, in risks for women which need clear measures of protection.
Of the 23,700 United Kingdom seafarers counted in 2024, only 16% were female. These were mainly among ratings and uncertificated officers—that is, those with the least authority and power. I heard of a nasty case of rape on a cruise ship, where the victim, significantly, said that she had no help from the HR department because she was too shocked to report it immediately. She was advised that her only recourse was to leave the ship, because the perpetrator was needed on board—a not uncommon reaction. Some privately owned super- yachts require applicants for jobs to submit photographs and “be comfortable with nudity”, which gives a flavour of the work environment.
Research from the Seafarers International Research Centre at Cardiff University shows how fearful women seafarers on cargo ships are of sexual assault and how lonely they can feel in their workplace. We have now the seafarers’ charter, announced by the Government last December. This provides the vehicle for vastly improved standards for seafarers’ working conditions, but it needs to clarify that it will specify protection against sexual harassment and bullying—hence my amendment.
Our shipping force is declining, not least in the retention of women, and there are skills gaps. This has put pressure on workplace standards, resulting in seafarers in general having a higher rate of sickness and accidents than onshore workpeople. There are industry initiatives to encourage recruitment, but little thought on making workplaces safe, convenient and welcoming to women. We can attract more people into it if everyone feels safe.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for so clearly setting out the case for a range of amendments. As he made clear, the matters under discussion go to the heart of how we uphold standards for those who work at sea, an essential part of our economy and infrastructure. Of course, we are all well aware of the extent to which the events surrounding P&O Ferries in 2022 were a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that are faced by seafarers operating in and around UK waters. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for reminding us of some pretty stark situations that are faced by people who work in this environment.
I was very pleased and proud when the Conservative Government took clear and concrete steps to improve protections, most notably through the Seafarers Wages Act 2023, the introduction of the voluntary seafarers’ charter and a broader nine-point plan aimed at promoting fairer treatment and higher standards across the sector. These reforms represent a record of action that reflects the seriousness with which we take the obligations owed to maritime workers and our determination that what happened—that unacceptable practice that we all saw and were so concerned about—must never happen again.
Today’s amendments reflect continued concern for the welfare and rights of seafarers. They raise, though, a number of detailed questions about scope, enforcement and the role of harbour authorities. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, here to reply to this debate, because we want to hear from him how the Government see these provisions fitting alongside the reforms already undertaken. We await with bated breath his reply to this important debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I will first speak to government Amendments 200B and 200C. These amendments relate to Clause 54, which amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to provide powers to make regulations giving effect to international agreements relating to maritime employment. Amendment 200B provides that such regulations cannot be used to bring into force an international agreement, or an amendment to an international agreement which requires ratification, before the UK has ratified it. By implication, the effect of this amendment is that such regulations can be made ahead of ratification of the agreement or amendment. For the UK to ratify an international agreement, it is usual for any necessary implementing legislation to be passed or made in advance of ratification, so the amendment helps ensure that the UK can fulfil its international obligations. Amendment 200C is simply a consequential drafting amendment.
Amendments 143A and 143AA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, seek to amend the requirements of the collective redundancy notification provisions to apply to services calling at a port in Great Britain at least 52 times a year, rather than 120 times a year. We are, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, related, yet again dealing with the appalling events surrounding the P&O dispute in March 2022. As with the Seafarers’ Wages Act, the frequency requirement of this measure was designed to ensure that it applied to those services with a close enough connection to the United Kingdom to justify it. Any broadening of the scope would require further consideration of the impact of bringing further vessels into it. I will come on to the proposed amendments to the scope of the Seafarers’ Wages Act, but we do not accept the proposal to amend the scope of those measures. We will apply a consistent approach to the proposed changes to the scope of the collective redundancy requirements, which has the same frequency requirement. Any change would require stakeholder engagement and full consideration of the impacts on industry. However, having listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, we will agree to meet the trade unions, as he suggests, where a number of the issues that he has raised tonight can be further discussed, including the requirement for a summary of the Government’s position before Report.
Amendments 200AA, 200AB and 200AC, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, seek to apply the measures under the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 as amended by this Bill to weekly services rather than those calling 120 times a year as drafted. The existing minimum frequency requirement for the new remuneration and safe working declarations is consistent with the requirements under the existing Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023, which was brought into force on 1 December 2024. It is important that this measure be limited to services with a close enough connection to the UK to justify intervention in their working practices; the current requirements in the Seafarers’ Wages Act and in the Act as amended in this Bill have been designed with this in mind. Extending the scope of this measure would require careful consideration of the international law implications of bringing into scope less frequent services to the UK, as well as the impacts on the market. With these considerations in mind, we think that the existing scope strikes the correct balance. It would also not be right to accept this amendment without undertaking a full public consultation, which cannot be done in the timescales required to make this change as part of the Bill.
Amendment 200AD and the consequential Amendments 200AE to 200AK would go beyond the existing powers in the Bill to make safe working and remuneration regulations. It would provide further powers to specify conditions relating to sick pay, holiday pay, pensions and other training, and to require harbour authorities to request the associated declarations from operators, following the approach taken by the Government in relation to the remuneration and safe working regulations.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her amendment. In introducing the group, I should have said that I strongly support what is proposed there. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his measured comments and I thank my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to a meeting— I am sure it will be useful. Maybe I am an optimist, but I also thank him for a slight glimmer of hope that there will be some movement in relation to the measures. Some might express doubt, but I am a natural optimist, and I hope that the meeting will be constructive and that we will also be able to address the issue of information, as well as the specifics of the charter. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(f) a higher education provider as defined by—(i) section 3(10) of the Higher Education Research Act 2017;(ii) section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;(iii) section 56 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;(iv) Article 30 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.”
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 143B standing in my name, regarding outsourcing measures and their applicability to higher education providers across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Universities, like other employers, are preparing for the enactment of the Bill and will be adapting to the new legislative expectations around workers’ rights. I want to stress from the outset that universities wholeheartedly support the Bill’s objectives to ensure fair employment practices for workers. They do, however, have some technical concerns about Clause 30. I hope that, through Amendment 143B, my noble friend can provide helpful reassurances to the higher education sector—so this is a probing amendment.
As noble Lords will be aware, Clause 30 outlines expectations that contracting authorities must treat any employee transferred from a contracted body no less favourably in the terms offered than core employees. Many universities consider themselves to fall within the definition of “contracting authority”, meaning they may inadvertently be caught by this clause. This is of great concern to the higher education sector and, so far as I am aware, does not appear to have been scrutinised in the Bill so far.
The enormous financial challenges facing universities are well documented, and I know are of grave concern to many Members of this House. The potential imposition of further costs for universities from Clause 30 should therefore be of concern. For the many universities that constitute as contracting authorities, there are likely to be significant cost implications, as well as increased difficulty in finding contractors as a result of this clause. Crucially, unlike with public bodies, these additional costs for universities will not be met by the Government.
In addition to the financial implications, there is also the potential for policy divergence across the UK. Given that Scotland and Wales will be able to set their own regulations and code of practice, there may be inconsistency in arrangements, which could discourage agreements with suppliers. This would have a particular impact in the complex environment that the higher education sector operates in and could have a significant impact on its moves towards greater efficiency.
I would appreciate assurances from my noble friend on three questions. The first is whether, and in what circumstances, universities will be considered to be contracting authorities for the purposes of this legislation. Has my noble friend’s department or the Department for Education made an assessment of the likely impact of Clause 30 on the university sector? Secondly, are the outsourcing measures defined in Clause 30 applicable to pension provision? Where employees are transferred to another organisation, will their pension arrangements form part of the requirement that they be treated no less favourably? Thirdly, what consideration will be given to the impact on shared services where many providers, including across UK nations, will work with the same body as a key driver of efficiency efforts? If my noble friend is unable to provide assurances from the Dispatch Box today, a letter would be very warmly received.
I urge my noble friend and her department to engage closely with the higher education sector to ensure that the implementation of Clause 30 does not inadvertently undermine the financial sustainability and operational flexibility of our universities. While of course we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to fair employment practices, we must also ensure that the legislation takes full account of the distinct nature of the higher education sector and supports our universities to continue their vital work.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Warwick on an issue that, as far as I am aware, has not appeared anywhere else but is of some importance. There is growing unease in the higher education sector about the potential implications of Clause 30. Universities UK has said it is frustrated that its letters to both officials and Ministers—they would be the same thing, I imagine—remain unanswered. UUK is probably being a bit polite in saying that it is frustrated; I suggest that it is unacceptable for a letter from any UK-wide organisation not to receive a response. If nothing else, I hope my noble friend will be able to give an assurance in her reply that she will ensure that Universities UK receives a considered response to its very legitimate concerns.
As my noble friend said, the higher education sector is concerned at the potential impact of measures proposed in Clause 30, which relate to outsourcing, on current arrangements within the sector and on the viability of steps that universities have taken or are planning to take in order to stabilise their financial position. Many universities consider themselves as falling within the definition of contracting authorities and may therefore be inadvertently caught in this clause of the legislation.
As originally introduced, the public sector outsourcing provisions applied to contracting authorities in England only. However, Ministers introduced an amendment in Committee in another place, and provisions now apply to contracting authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. Again as my noble friend said, the major point on which clarification is essential is whether and in what circumstances universities will be considered to be contracting authorities for the purposes of this legislation.
There is also the question of whether the planned separate outsourcing rules for different UK nations will or even might create complex and prohibitive arrangements for universities. As an example, if an institution is working across the UK nations—a good example would be the Open University—that could mean it is subject to two or more sets of outsourcing rules, potentially providing a conflicting legislative framework for its operational practice. I hope my noble friend will be able to clarify how the Government envisage such separate outsourcing rules will operate, and that in doing so she will provide reassurance to many in the higher education sector who, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said, are very supportive of the Bill in general but fear that universities could become victims of unintended consequences.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for her introduction to her Amendment 143B. We think it is important to recognise the unique position of higher education providers when considering worker protection in public sector outsourcing. Because universities and similar institutions operate outside the traditional public sector framework, they possess a level of autonomy that sets them apart from government bodies, so applying the same regulatory requirements to these institutions clearly risks imposing unnecessary burdens that could affect their ability to focus on their core missions of education and research.
The amendment seems to us to thoughtfully acknowledge that difference by excluding higher education providers from the scope of these specific worker protection provisions. Such an approach would allow the focus of these protections to remain on core public sector organisations, where procurement processes are more standardised and closely tied to government accountability. At the same time, it would respect the operational independence of universities.
The fair treatment of workers remains an essential principle across all sectors, including higher education. Encouraging good employment practices within universities should continue through other means, but the amendment recognises the practical realities faced by these institutions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.
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 thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for her thoughtful contribution to this debate on Amendment 143B. We fully recognise the need not to impose disproportionate burdens on smaller procuring organisations such as universities. However, it is important that we consider fairness and equality of treatment for all workers providing key outsourced services to higher education providers—for example, cleaning and catering services—so that they receive fair and equitable employment conditions comparable to both those transferred from the public sector and those working for local authorities or departments that provide the same services. As a result, there would need to be compelling arguments to exempt higher education providers.
Secondly, it is essential that we first consult with key stakeholders and seek their views before deciding on the ultimate content of the reinstated code and the extent to which certain public authorities, including higher education providers, are required to follow its provisions. I can assure my noble friend Lady Warwick that we will carefully consider the particular issues relating to higher education providers and the difficulties they might experience during this process. However, our view is that to carve out higher education providers completely on the face of this Bill at this stage would not be right.
My noble friend highlighted the particular financial challenges currently being experienced by universities. We are committed to creating a secure future for our world-leading universities so that they can deliver for students, taxpayers, workers and the economy. The Office for Students will continue dedicating significant resources to ensuring the sector’s financial sustainability. The DfE has appointed Professor Edward Peck as the substantive chair of the OfS, where he will play a key role in strengthening this commitment while also expanding opportunities in higher education. We have also made the tough decision to increase tuition fee limits in line with inflation. As a result, the maximum fee for a standard full-time undergraduate course in the 2025-26 academic year will increase by 3.1% from £9,250 to £9,535.
Finally, I stress that the code is being designed to be flexible so that it does not impose undue burdens. There are a range of options available here that could be pursued, for example by specifying to which bodies the code should apply or applying the code only to higher-value contracts, which could exempt low-value procurement activities such as those often carried out by educational establishments that may have fewer procurement resources. These are the sorts of issues that the consultation will examine in detail.
I am very conscious that my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lord Watson asked very specific questions. Given the lateness of the hour and the very specific nature of them, I think it would be helpful if we could write and put that on the record to provide, I hope, the reassurance that the higher education sector seeks. It is for that reason that I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and her attempt to reassure me and other Members of the Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie for his staunch support for what I am trying to do here. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his support; it was thoughtfully put, and I appreciate it.
I understand that the Minister is seeking to reassure me that she is very aware of the need to support the future of our universities. I do not think she really addressed, though, the issues around the impact on the different nations and the way in which that could affect the competitive advantage of the universities and the way in which they are seeking to increase efficiencies. I hope that, in writing to me, she will also undertake to meet the higher education sector once it has digested the detail of her response—I appreciate that my questions are technical. I hope she will undertake to do that because I think that would be enormously helpful and the most reassuring thing that she could do. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am proposing that we remove Clause 31 from the Bill. That would remove the power of the Secretary of State to require largely private sector employers with more than 250 staff to develop and publish equality action plans showing what steps they are taking in relation to the gender pay gap and supporting employees going through the menopause. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is, sadly, not in her place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who is in her place, for their support.
This is a probing amendment because I am not at all clear exactly why this clause is deemed necessary or indeed exactly what it entails. On the latter point, I note with some dismay that much of the detail is to be left to regulations in terms of the content of an action plan, the form of an action plan, what manner it will take and even its frequency. There is no detail at all on what sanctions employers face if they do not comply with the yet not detailed regulations. It is very difficult to scrutinise such vagaries, and I fear it reduces the issue to nothing more than a virtue-signalling clause to claim that something positive is being done—action is being taken. What action? We do not know.
What we do know is that here is another clause that requires workplaces to create more paperwork. I fear that the noble cause of women’s equality is being reduced to bureaucracy. I am a tad cynical because, since 2017, employers have been required to publish gender pay gap data annually. Now the demand is for actionable steps, yet what is the problem that we are trying to solve here?
The implication is that more needs to be done to crack down on gender discrimination in the workplace, but I am not convinced that that is such a major problem today as is inferred. Which actions would be deemed acceptable might help us understand what this clause is trying to do, but it is never considered. For example, we are frequently given a reference statistic that men earn roughly 20% more than women. But such figures are misleading, as this is an on-average figure reached through combining part-time and full-time earnings and takes no account of age or employment sector.
Are women continually disadvantaged in the workplace in 2025? When we compare how much women and men are paid for doing the same number of hours each week, there is virtually no pay gap. Of course, it would be illegal to pay men more than women. To illustrate the complexities of age, occupation and hours worked, it is worth noting that women in their 20s earn more than men of the same age—not just like-for-like but also on average. Even for all women under 40 working full-time, the pay gap is negligible. Indeed, it was acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, when she was a Government Minister bringing in the pay gap notices. She said then:
“We’ve virtually eliminated the gap for full-time workers under 40 and the gap for the over-40s is shrinking too”.
If we only look at these issues in a technocratic way, do we not we miss nuances?
You could say that a decline in jobs traditionally associated with men earning more is actually a decline in old industries, because there has been a decline since 1979, when 40% of GDP was those old industries in which men earned more. But I am not sure that is something to celebrate. In other words, if you only view equality through the gender pay gap, you could actually end up arguing for the suppression of men’s pay or celebrating its decrease.
More to the point, what are employers being asked to action here, when many of the changes are broad social and cultural shifts, rather than sexist employment practices? It is true that, in the past, the labour market was rigidly segregated according to sex. As a consequence, men and women in their 50s and older today entered a labour market in which women were often not treated fairly. There was a cultural situation where women were more likely to take considerable time out of work to raise a family. This alone explains pay differentials that are still being felt today. But, as I say, as young women are earning more, these things are less of a problem. If we end up thinking that the reason the pay gap exists is older women and those differentials, I am not keen that we end up dumping older female employees so that, on paper, the gap is narrowed. I am not suggesting that anyone is saying that, but I am saying that we should not deal with this in a technical fashion.
I now arrive at something in which I have more expertise: older women. We arrive at the menopause part of the new section to be inserted by this clause. My concern here is that the Bill may end up amplifying the problems caused by the menopause for female employees, unintentionally presenting menopausal women as victims unable to cope. This could re-stigmatise the menopause—the opposite of what is intended. We should remember that the menopause is a natural life stage that all women go through and experience, and they all experience it differently in its duration and symptoms.
I worry that some of this has led to awareness raising that can mystify the menopause and turn it into an imagined horror story. I remember talking to a group of young students some years ago. I made a quip about being menopausal and they all said, “Oh no—how awful. That’s grim. How are you coping? Are you feeling all right?” They seemed terrified at the prospect. The menopause suddenly appeared to be an insurmountable series of anguishes that they would never cope with. Inevitably, they had been on a well-being course that had given them awareness training on the menopause. Do we want such attitudes becoming embedded in attitudes to female staff in the workplace, along with the association that, if you are menopausal, you are a delicate flower who needs to be worked around?
What exactly will employers be required to do to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the specific needs of menopausal women? I have read activist demands that include the widespread availability of cooling fans; menopause champions and ambassadors in every workplace and department to encourage anti-stigma dialogue across the workforce; therapist sessions, including the availability of therapy dogs; and training courses for HR and management to look at everything from thermostat levels to developing menopause-sensitive language codes. To be honest, lots of these ideas stray dangerously close to condescending women. It might well be that this is not what the Government have in mind at all, but we have no idea if that is true because there are no details in the Bill—in fact, the details are all deferred until after the Bill is passed.
Do not get me wrong—I have been a vocal supporter of improving access to HRT on the NHS and, as a woman of a certain age, I am rather too familiar with some of the debilitating symptoms. But we should be wary of the calls, for example, for menopause leave and time off, with no questions asked, when using the word “menopause” would be enough to mean that—without any evidence and based on lived experience—employers are just meant to accept that there is a problem. There is a danger of green-lighting a mission creep not dissimilar to the crisis of so many not in work citing mental health problems—and I am really pleased to see that the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has raised this. That is a new social problem, and I do not want the menopause to become another one.
Again, possibly none of this is what the Government intend, yet we are using legislation to demand that employers must take steps to support employees going through the menopause. That seems completely inappropriate and unjustified, and it is bound to lead to mission creep if this legislation is used to that end, with this clause in it.
I will make two quick points as a PS. Can the Government please be careful with their language? Usually, it is the Government lecturing people like me on the Back Bench about watching our words and what language we use, but, whether we like it or not, the word “gender” has been corrupted by ideology. The pay gap that the Government seek to tackle is between the two sexes—a fear that biological women may be discriminated against as women. I am not being pedantic or referencing the culture wars here; I have been at a number of official corporate events over recent years where businesses were patted on the back for helping women break through the glass ceiling and for their work on the pay gap only for the examples of success given to be trans women—that is, men who identify as women—on corporate boards. I want to avoid that con happening.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am against Clause 31 standing part of the Bill. The 2010 Act protects against gender and other types of discrimination. It replaces earlier Acts, as your Lordships will know, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The principles of equality are commonly supported. The aims are those on which people agree and under which employers are bound. Section 78 of the Equality Act stipulates that:
“Regulations may require employers to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees”.
We have an Act that is commonly agreed on and obeyed, and known by those to whom it is addressed.
Clause 31 proposes to add a new Section 78A after Section 78, which stipulates:
“Regulations may require employers to … develop and publish … an ‘equality action plan’”
in respect of gender and equality,
“showing the steps that the employers are taking in relation to their employees with regard to prescribed matters related to gender equality, and … publish prescribed information relating to the plan”.
This will oblige more compliance, more bureaucracy and higher costs on employers—and it is unnecessary because we have the law.
We have just been listening to the discussion of the strategic defence review. We are going to have to spend a lot of money on defence. There are going to be lots of demands on the public purse. To oblige more compliance and bureaucracy on employers at a time when things are tight will not be a great help to the other demands on the public purse. It is not only about compliance and bureaucracy; much worse than that it leads to something beyond the principles of the Equality Act. It prompts institutions in practice to devise and interpret action plans that result in a 50:50 balance between men and women, and steps will be taken to achieve that level playing field and to discriminate positively.
Take the example of academic shortlisting, where, in order to achieve a 50:50 balance, things can be so ordained at the shortlisting stage in order to appoint women, and as they are so ordained, discrimination takes place against men and appointments are made not on merit but on gender. This results in action plans under which men are discriminated against. It is also unfair for women because, once positive discrimination comes into play, women too suffer. The women who are appointed are perceived to have been appointed not because they come first on merit, or in a fair competition, but on account of their gender.
I shall comment briefly on new Section 78A(4), which sets down that
“matters related to gender equality include (a) addressing the gender pay gap, (b) supporting employees going through the menopause”.
New Section 78A(4)(a) is too broad. Take the case of a male and female employee appointed at entry level to similar positions. They start with the same salary, but one may do far better than the other, be given far more responsibility and be promoted eventually to a higher role. How is the gender pay gap to be addressed, given that the talent, resourcefulness and ability of one employee naturally results in more responsibility and higher payment?
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has already mentioned new Section 78A(4)(b), which has no place in the workplace. It is discriminatory in its assumption that women need special help at certain times of their life. It also violates the professionalism of a good workplace in treating the personal as public, and it puts the employer into a discriminatory role in requiring special support for a select group of employees, rather than acting as a dispassionate employer who treats all employees well and fairly.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I also support the proposition that Clause 31, on equality action plans, should not stand part of the Bill. We meet tonight with the knowledge that the OECD has downgraded the UK’s likely GDP for this year and next year. Less than an hour ago, the Minister said, I think I am right in saying, that it was not the intention of the Government to impose any onerous obligations on businesses as a result of the Bill. This is an example of exactly that.
I am very concerned about this clause, because it is very widely drawn and relies disproportionately on regulations that will be tabled, or laid before the House, once the Bill becomes an Act. I pay tribute to the very powerful intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Is it really the duty and responsibility of a Minister in the sixth-biggest economy in the world, a mature economy of 68 million people, to impose by ministerial fiat, in primary legislation, the minutiae, the weeds, of
“the content of a plan”
for every business that has more than 250 employees,
“the form and manner in which a plan or information is to be published; when and how”
that plan is published, and, in new subsection (5)(d)—maybe I am being obtuse, but I do not even understand the meaning of this—
“requirements for senior approval before a plan or information is published”?
What does that even mean? Does it mean the chief people officer, the chief executive, the managing director or what?
It would be much better were the Government to use their energy, and the good will that is behind significant parts of the Bill, to work with people such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, ACAS and others to develop professional, timely briefings for employers. But they are not doing that. They are instead insisting, in the Bill, that they will direct these equality action plans, irrespective of what type of business is being transacted and whether it has a workforce of 251, 25,000 or 250,000.
In fact, the clause does not even define “employee”, “employer” or “descriptions of information”. It fails to define them and says that those details will be reserved for regulations to be laid after the Bill gets Royal Assent. New subsection (7) is also very opaque when it states:
“The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed”.
Again, that is very loosely drawn. We do not know what it means or what sanctions will be in place and available for Ministers to lay down in regulations. New subsection (6) states:
“The regulations may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently”.
It does not say “must not”, so Ministers can still use regulations to enforce periodic publications of and changes to these regulations.
For all those reasons, this is an unnecessary clause. It will add costs and administrative burdens. It will certainly take a significant amount of time, for instance, to get in specialists in human resources as consultants to draw up these plans on perhaps a 12-monthly basis. It will take a lot of administrative time and take away from employing people, for the bottom line and profit, which will impact employability. For that reason, I support the proposition that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to express a view that I did not think I would be expressing in your Lordships’ House. I am utterly appalled by this proposition and the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who, lest there were any doubt, has given the clearest possible indication of her political journey from the extreme left to the extreme right, which is there for all to see.
It is an absolute disgrace to suggest that to seek to help women in the workplace gain equality is somehow to treat them as victims. I did my university dissertation in 1974 on the Equal Pay Act, when the gap between men and women was 25%. Half a century later, it is down to something like 7% or 8%. Yes, that is a huge improvement, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others who have spoken have said, “Well, that’s okay. We can leave it there. We don’t want to push it any further, because it’s going to burden industry with costs”. What about the women who are burdened with wages lower than they are entitled to get for the job they do on a day-to-day basis?
It is well known that inclusivity in the workforce increases levels of production, is good for problem solving and enhances job retention. I am talking not just about gender issues but wider diversity. The speech that the noble Baroness made and others have echoed will be cheered to the rafters by Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, because it is exactly the sort of thing they have been saying, and I think it is a very dangerous line for Members of this House to push. It is a perfectly legitimate expectation in a Bill such as this that an equality action plan is something that employers should be expected to have. Many already do—they do not need to be told. Good employers have one in place and are benefiting from the standard of output they are getting from employees who are more satisfied because they are clearly better valued. To suggest that we just leave it there is absolute nonsense.
I will not talk about the menopause, but I just could not believe what I heard—that, somehow, women are being painted as victims. As a man, it is difficult for me to comment, but there is a broad spread of opinion that the issue has to be dealt with by employers. To be perfectly fair, some employers do, but others do not, and there should at least be the opportunity for women who want to take advantage of this to be able to do so. To try to slam that door in their faces is an absolute disgrace.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, what a relief to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Watson—I thought I was going to be on my own with the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. They were prophets of doom and living in another world.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Jackson of Peterborough because they rightly question whether this clause is necessary to establish what we all agree should be the vital place for equality of opportunity.
It is vital in the workplace that merit should win the day, but there should also be equality of opportunity. Women and men should have equal opportunities, fair treatment and the freedom to thrive regardless of their background. So I hope all those who have spoken, including the noble Lords, Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, would agree that we all support equality of opportunity, not just in principle but in practice.
Therefore, it is right that every time there is another step, particularly when it creates more paperwork and more bureaucracy—as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, put it—it is important that we just question whether this is the right way to proceed, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, because this is really giving the Government power to do whatever they want to do whenever they wish to do it, by regulation. We do not know what the Government will do because they have not yet consulted on the power that we are about to give them. It is exactly what this House has always preached long and hard against. We should not give Henry VIII powers to the Government to do whatever they would like to do by statutory instrument.
I would have thought that my successor as chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie—would know that more than anyone else. Giving the Government this power has to be justified. My noble friend Lady Fox of Buckley does not need me to defend her against the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, as he saw her move across the political spectrum, but she is right to question this in the way she did. As my noble friend Lady Lawlor put it, we are, in a way, promoting positive discrimination, which undermines achievement on merit.
I hope that the Minister will give very serious thought to explaining exactly what is proposed, rather than wait for the secondary legislation. Let us know, straightaway and in detail, what additional equality action plans are being proposed. We have to pause for a moment to worry about the serious and often unintended consequences that policies such as these can have, particularly for women on the margins of the labour market. The principle behind the measure is commendable —to close the gender gaps, to support women through challenges such as the menopause, and to shine a light on structural inequalities—but, in practice, these kinds of top-down mandates too often result in box-ticking compliance, statistical quotas and public relations targets, and never in real progress.
What gets measured drives what gets managed. When employers are judged by headline figures—gender pay gaps, representation in senior roles—there is an inevitable temptation for them to focus their efforts where the optics are best improved, on high-status, high-visibility roles. As a result, employers might feel pressured to hire or promote individuals with certain characteristics into elite positions just to improve those diversity statistics, rather than genuinely supporting a larger number of people, who are often the minority, who hold lower-paid, insecure or part-time roles and who would benefit most from meaningful reform.
Regardless of sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation, merit should always be the basis for the advancement of an individual. I worry that we risk a situation where the beneficiaries of an equality policy are disproportionately those who are already relatively privileged, while those in cleaning jobs, care work, warehouses, and food processing and service are pushed further to the margins. Even worse, if statistical appearances become the basis of legal or reputational risk, employers may become reluctant to hire minority women at all into lower-paying roles for fear of what the data might suggest. That is not progress; it is perverse.
I warmly applaud the fact that this debate is taking place. Equality is not achieved by engineering the statistics; it is achieved when every person, regardless of sex, class, race or role, has access to fair work, safe conditions, proper pay and genuine opportunity to get on in life. I ask colleagues to consider: will these equality action plans bring meaningful change for working-class young men, people from ethnic minorities and women on zero-hours contracts, or will they largely serve the HR departments of large organisations by helping to polish their diversity reports while little changes on the ground? We cannot effect equality by appearance; we must demand equality by substance.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for initiating this probing debate on Clause 31. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, highlighted—I like to call him my noble brother after all these years of working together—it enables us to put forward a very strong case. One can always be concerned about Henry VIII powers and secondary legislation, especially when employers are not consulted and the objective is to undermine good industrial relations. I remind my noble brother about the debates we had on the strikes Bill, which was precisely about those issues of unintended consequences.
Ensuring that women can remain in and progress in work is crucial—vital—to economic growth, and yet the national gender pay gap remains at 13.1%. We know that women often face barriers in the workplace that impact their pay, progression and economic participation. Eight in 10 menopausal women say that their workplace has no basic support in place. This lack of support is a barrier and can lead to a significant loss of talent and, just as importantly, productivity.
This is not new. As a trade unionist, I, and my noble brother opposite, know full well—we have heard about all the legislation that has been brought in—that real progress has been effected in the workplace by supporting and amplifying that legislation and giving people the tools to ensure that that legislation has an impact. As a trade unionist, I have seen many initiatives that have delivered better facilities and ensured that women can remain active in the workplace.
I remember a campaign in the 70s and 80s about breast cancer. Many women would not even dare talk about it, but the trade union movement launched a campaign for workplace screening and opened up a debate, so that people could acknowledge the risks and address them, rather than live in isolation and fear. It is important that women are able to talk about the menopause openly and can address it. Breast cancer does not make women victims. We should all be focused on how we can deliver for women. That is really important, and there are many examples.
Since 2017, large employers have been required to publish gender pay gap data. The additional publication of an action plan is precisely to do what the noble Lord opposite has said. How do we see and assess the impact? The additional publication of an action plan has been encouraged, but it is voluntary. However, analysis in 2019 discovered that only half of employers reporting data were voluntarily producing a plan on how they can make improvements. What the noble Lord described is what has happened: they produce the data and do nothing. That is why this legislation is so important, and the next step for improvements for women in the workplace is to make that mandatory.
Of course, we recognise and applaud the best employers, which already recognise the value of supporting women to thrive and are already taking action—many noble Lords addressed that. Following their lead, large employers will be required to detail the actions they are taking to improve gender equality and support employees during the menopause. The intention is to motivate employers to take meaningful action, to break down the barriers and help all women to thrive.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke, some of whom were more sympathetic than others to what I was trying to raise.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, made an important point when he talked about the importance of accurate data. I agree, but data and statistics are not flat lines; they are complicated. I tried to indicate, without boring your Lordships with lots of statistics, that the gender pay gap number in relation to statistics is to do with age, the past, the change in relation to young women, and so on, which nobody has come back on. In fact, there are books written, and I have papers, and I have read them all—I will not bore your Lordships now—but I suggest that this is not the key issue facing women at work today.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, came back on a lot of the points in terms of the aspirations, and I agree with him. However, the Government are overcomplacent about the problems of delegated powers and legislative oversight, which I also raised as a substantial part of my complaint. There was no comeback. I supported the Government when they were in opposition. They constantly raised these issues, and I went along with them and supported them.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, suggested, I thought this was a modest proposal, but somehow I have managed to be accused of fuelling Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, and this was called an illustration of my political journey from far left to far right. I will not do a full critique of the attack on me, which was very personal and personalised, but I would like to point out something.
I was and am a member of the left, and the fact that the Labour Party and the left have moved in a different direction from mine does not necessarily mean that I am the one who has moved to the right. I spend a lot of time talking to ordinary working-class people—women and men—who are tearing their hair out at the attacks on the living standards that they are going through under this Government. Therefore, to be lectured about not understanding the fight against inequality, and the idea that anybody who stands up and challenges an orthodoxy on a potentially bureaucratic plan—by the way, I never mentioned employers and costs; I said it was an insult to women that we got reduced statistics and bits of paper, which was a different point. But anyway, it is crucial that we should challenge the orthodoxies of gender equality when they are presented in this way without being treated as though one is a far-right pariah. It is unworthy of the nature of this House, which is to debate and scrutinise, in my opinion. I simply try to do that.
I still want to push this—more so now than before—on Report, but for now I will not oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Use of positive action in the workplace(1) In this section—(a) “P” is a public sector worker who reasonably thinks that the application by P’s employer, in relation to P’s employment or a working practice, of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 has caused or risks causing detriment to P,(b) “R” is P’s public sector employee, and(c) P reasonably thinks that R is responsible for the detriment in subsection (1)(a).(2) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations make provision for—(a) forms through which P may anonymously question R on any matter relevant to subsection (1),(b) forms through which R may answer questions by P, and(c) such forms to be made publicly available.(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, R must publish a report setting out―(a) the number of forms received under subsection (2), and(b) a summary of the nature of the complaints to which they relate.(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations require R to report on the use of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010.(5) This section does not apply to activities undertaken by R under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a mechanism for public sector employees who believe they have been disadvantaged by their employer’s use of positive action under sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010. It would require the Government to create a process allowing such employees to anonymously question their employer and requiring employers to respond.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 145 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. This amendment introduces a mechanism for public sector workers who reasonably believe that they have been subjected to detriment as a result of their employers’ use of positive action under Sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010. It does not seek to outlaw such action, nor does it obstruct efforts to promote fairness. Rather, it seeks to ensure that fairness extends to all employees, not only those whom the state or the employer happen to deem underrepresented.
We must confront the uncomfortable truth that some public bodies have begun to apply positive action in ways that no longer reflect the careful balance envisaged by Parliament when the Equality Act was passed. We have now entered territory where lawful positive action shades into unlawful positive discrimination —where the scales of justice have been not merely tipped but turned. For example, let us consider West Yorkshire Police, a force whose conduct in this area raises urgent and serious concerns. It has come to light through both media investigation and internal whistleblowers that recruitment processes have been operated in a manner which in practice delays, restricts or even excludes applications from white British candidates. Candidates from certain ethnic minority backgrounds were allowed to apply early and, in some cases, were mentored through the process by dedicated positive action teams. Meanwhile, white British applicants were told to wait until a general window opened, often for as little as 48 hours. This, we are assured, is not discrimination but rather the fair operation of the law. I do not agree. This is not the spirit nor, arguably, even the letter of the Equality Act. It is a distortion of the law, and it demands redress.
What makes this all the more troubling is that these actions are being taken not by private corporations but by the state, or at least by institutions that act in the name of the state and are funded by the public purse. The taxpayer in this case is being forced to subsidise policies that they might find discriminatory and from which they may be excluded. There seems to be something especially perverse, indeed, almost Orwellian, about that.
This is not merely an abstract concern. West Yorkshire Police, for example, reportedly spent over £1.4 million in recent years on equality, diversity and inclusion staff—more than any other force in the country. That is public money. It is money earned by ordinary citizens, some of whom now find themselves effectively barred from entry into public service not because they lack ability but because their ethnic background does not satisfy an internal diversity target. When questions are raised, when whistleblowers from within these forces speak up, what happens? We hear of them being silenced, reprimanded or warned not to interfere. We hear of secret job listings marked “hidden” in the system, visible only to certain candidates. We hear of candidates greeted with hugs and reassurances that their interviews are merely a formality. That is not recruitment, and it is not equality. It is institutional manipulation.
The amendment before your Lordships seeks to restore a measure of transparency and accountability. It proposes a system by which a public sector worker who reasonably believes that they have been harmed by the operation of positive action can submit a formal question anonymously to their employer. The employer, in turn, must respond. Moreover, employers will be required to publish data on such queries, allowing Parliament and the public to monitor the use and potential abuse of these provisions. This is not a punitive or burdensome requirement; it is the most basic form of procedural fairness.
Let us be clear. This amendment does not challenge the principle of inclusion; it does not deny that discrimination has existed; but it says unequivocally that the answer to past unfairness is not the imposition of new unfairness, that the pursuit of diversity must not come at the expense of justice, and that inclusion must include everybody. Equality before the law is not a suggestion or a secondary consideration to be weighed against modern ideological preferences. It is a constitutional principle that underpins this very Chamber. When we allow it to be weakened quietly and gradually by well-meaning policies that turn into arbitrary practices, we invite division, resentment and, ultimately, more injustice.
The Minister may say that everything that I have described—the delays, the exclusion of white British applicants, the unequal mentoring and the hidden vacancies—is perfectly lawful under existing legislation. He may say that this is precisely how the Government intend for positive action to operate in the public sector. However, I sincerely hope that is not the argument that is to be advanced. Alternatively, the Minister may offer reassurance to the Committee and to the public that existing law already contains sufficient safeguards, and that what we have heard from West Yorkshire Police, Thames Valley Police and others would not and should not be permitted under any reasonable interpretation of the Equality Act. If that is the case, I would welcome that clarification. I would also welcome assurance that there is already a functioning system of redress for individuals who believe that they have been mistreated on the basis of how positive action has been applied.
If the Minister agrees with the points that I have made—that West Yorkshire Police should not have discriminated against white applicants and that there is no mechanism to stop this—then I very much look forward to the Government accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I came into this debate by chance, but it seems to me that this is part of a very undesirable development: an attack on the principle of equality, diversity and inclusion policies. These principles are at the heart of my politics. I have fought for racial equality ever since I was a student, when I went on marches against Enoch Powell and what he stood for. I thought that the response of the Labour Government in the 1960s—to make racial discrimination illegal—was very important. In more modern times, when I was chair of Lancaster University and looking at the question of student admissions, I always thought that we should make allowance for the fact that some working-class people had not had the best chance in life and take this into account in admissions procedures Therefore, I rather regret what the Opposition Front Bench is trying to do, which is to undermine the political acceptability of these policies.
There is a danger here. I have seen it from some people in my own party who say that, in response to the alleged great Reform upsurge, we should start abandoning EDI. That would be catastrophic for a social democrat like me, who has always believed in these things. I hope that the Members opposite will withdraw their amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I would gently advise the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to have read the amendment before he pontificates down memory lane on his great campaigns of the past for equality.
This amendment is about fairness. It ill behoves his party to lecture us on equality when it needed the Supreme Court to tell its own Prime Minister what a woman was. We will take lessons on equality from many people but not from a party that was found to be institutionally racist by the Equality and Human Rights Commission not that long ago.
Let us move on from there because, if noble Lords read this amendment, they will see that it is an amendment that speaks of fairness. All it says, very simply, is that anyone who construes a situation where they have felt themselves personally discriminated against should have a proper, legal and transparent opportunity to question the decision of a person who is taking a big decision in their life: whether to appoint them to a post or not. It is not draconian and does not include fines; it is merely an occasion for that person to challenge a decision taken by authority in a fair, open and transparent way.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I hardly know where to start.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Certainly, I believe that everybody at work—whatever background they come from and whatever their class, sex, gender or sexuality—should have the right to be treated fairly. I believe that our legal system, our Equality Act, precisely provides that protection for people, but that we can build on it through equality action plans and so on. But I have to say that maybe some noble Lords opposite also need to consider people’s real experience.
I was elected as the first ever woman general secretary of the TUC. Clearly, we were not a movement that rushed things, because it took an awful long time to get to that point. I have enough self-awareness to know that it was not because there were not talented women, black or white, who could have been elected and who had the talent, skills and ability. There was something else going on, and I hope that there would be enough honesty in this House to recognise that black people and women face real barriers that will not be overcome unless we take positive action.
The other point I would just like to reflect on is that, whenever I spoke about seeing more women playing active roles in not just the trade union movement but in public life, including, by the way, lending my support to women who were arguing that we needed more women in the boardroom—I supported that principle—I was always fascinated that, whenever I raised those issues, people, largely men I have to say, would start talking about merit. Well, I have to say, when I look at the upper echelons, I do not always see in those male-dominated and white-dominated ranks people who got there on the basis of merit. I have never seen an advert for a position on a board. I have never known any board member to go through an open recruitment process to get that position. It has very often been a case of a tap on the shoulder.
If we look at how many judges and newspaper editors we have, and specifically at race, sex and gender, yes, the picture has progressed, but we still have a very long way to go. Therefore, I think this amendment is a little disingenuous in trying to suggest that people who have been held back for years because of their class background, race or gender, if given a helping hand and a bit of encouragement to go for it, will somehow cause a meltdown of society.
Achieving what my noble friend said is, quite rightly, part of my history and our history. I hope that it is part of our progress as a country that we value equality. We know that ultimately it is good for all of us, and long may we keep struggling to achieve that goal.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friends on this side of the House have commented on this amendment in far better terms than I could, but I will make a supplementary point. I was very surprised to see this amendment, because one of the perennial themes that we have heard throughout all stages of the Bill in this House has been a complaint about the alleged level of extra bureaucracy that it is supposed to impose on employers. Yet here we see a veritable feast of form-filling and requirements to report on those forms at regular intervals. I suggest that this amendment is not needed; it is surplus to requirements because it places unnecessary burdens on employers.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be very brief. It is very important that we do not suggest that giving a helping hand to those who have been politically deprived of equality equals equality. It can also equal tokenism. Working-class people, women and people from ethnic minorities have been promoted to positions in authority, and people basically point them out and say, “Look at them: they succeeded”. That is the opposite of equal treatment, and condescension is not a good look.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I can hardly follow my noble friend Lady O’Grady in being the TUC’s first woman general secretary, but I was the first woman leader of Newport City Council after decades and the first woman leader of the Welsh Local Government Association—and am still the only one.
I was also a public service employee for 35 years, when I taught in schools in London and south Wales, so I know about positive action. When I became a public service employer, as the leader of Newport, what I tried to do with positive action was to actively take a range of measures and initiatives to encourage people from communities that were underrepresented. We wanted them to bring their talents, experiences and expertise to our organisation, and we wanted them to join us.
Our selection process was no different: through the use of positive action, we did not seek to remove competition; rather, we wanted to allow everyone the same level of opportunity. That final selection for a post was always made on the merit of the applicant. We built our workforce so that it reflected the rich diversity and complexities of our community of Newport and we attracted the best talent from the widest pool of people.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on positive action, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for initiating it. It raised important issues but, when the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, spoke of straw-man debates, I thought he was a good example in the issues that he raised, because we are not talking about positive discrimination here. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, acknowledged, all Governments have supported positive action, for very good reasons.
The positive action provisions in the Equality Act 2010 enable, in a work context, both public and private sector employers to prioritise the recruitment of and promote people who have protected characteristics that are underrepresented generally or at certain levels in their workplace.
This is permissible only where the available candidates are considered equally qualified for the particular role. In other words, it is a tie-break based on workforce diversity. We therefore do not accept the premise of the new clause that another employee has suffered an unjustified detriment by not being selected. Of course, we are absolutely clear that it is illegal to positively discriminate, and I will give reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised something that I read in the Daily Telegraph about West Yorkshire Police. One of the things that, sadly, many of our newspapers fail to do is to issue the full statement. I thought West Yorkshire Police issued a commendable statement. It said:
“In West Yorkshire Police, we are committed to improving equality, diversity, and inclusion within the organisation, and strive to be more representative of the communities we serve.
Our Diversity, Equality and Inclusion team supports and consults with those with different protected characteristics such as sex, disability, sexual orientation, and race to ensure their views can influence and improve the service the force delivers. They also work to improve the wellbeing of everybody in the organisation and inclusivity overall.
The most recent census found that 23 per cent of people in West Yorkshire identified as being from an ethnic minority background. Our current police officer representation from ethnic minority backgrounds is around nine per cent. To address this under-representation, we use Positive Action under the Equality Act 2010. Our use of this was recently reviewed by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services in an Activism and Impartiality inspection and no issues were identified.
Positive Action allows people from under-represented groups who express an interest in joining the force to complete an application, which is then held on file until a recruitment window is opened. No interviews are held until the window is officially opened to all candidates. Enabling people from under-represented groups to apply early does not give them an advantage in the application process, it simply provides us with more opportunity to attract talent from this pool of applicants”.
I think that is the point that my noble friend Lady O’Grady was making. It is a pity that the Daily Telegraph did not report the full statement from the police because I think it sets this whole thing in perfect context.
A detriment arises where someone is treated unfairly by their employer—for example, where someone is promoted over them who is clearly a weaker candidate. If the reason for that was based on a protected characteristic, it would be unlawful positive discrimination under the 2010 Act and would be rightly challengeable, but this is not the situation under positive action. I think that has been extremely well illustrated by West Yorkshire Police in terms of how it adopted that policy.
We also have doubts as to whether the processes envisaged could be truly confidential. This could have undesirable implications for both the successful candidate and the complainant. Lawful recruitment decisions are confidential for good reason, and opening them up to this kind of probing risks creating interemployee bad feeling, particularly in smaller departments where the identification of people by inference or guesswork is easier.
The Bill is about improving employment rights, not creating new and unnecessary conflicts. Positive action can work effectively only as part of a confidential recruitment process, where transparency is often good for equality. What is proposed would, I fear, work against that, and as such the Government cannot support the proposed new clause.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this quite lively debate. I have to say I was disappointed that the greatest lady of them all who did not need a helping hand did not get a mention, so I will mention her: Margaret Thatcher.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that we are not seeking to undermine anything in this; I was very clear about that. I want to make it clear that, as I said in my opening remarks, this amendment does not seek to outlaw such action, nor does it obstruct efforts to promote fairness. It just seeks to ensure that fairness extends to all employees, not only to those whom the state or the employer happens to deem underrepresented.
I am grateful to the Minister for his extended quote from the Yorkshire case, but I also mentioned the case in Thames Valley. A tribunal there ruled that the three white police officers who won a claim after they were passed over for promotion were overlooked by Thames Valley Police because of their race and an ethnic-minority sergeant was promoted—this is the killer line—
“without any competitive assessment process taking place”,
which is precisely not the spirit of the laws that we have just been discussing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is why we were asking these questions and laying this amendment. It is good to have it out in the open. The amendment sought not litigation but clarity. It sought not courtroom battles but a simple mechanism for transparency and accountability. It would have been a route for asking questions and a structure for reporting. It would be a reminder that positive action must remain within the bounds of the law and fairness, and not become a euphemism for sanctioned discrimination. However, I have heard the arguments from the Minister and, not least because of the lateness of the hour, I am content to withdraw the amendment.