Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Economic growth is this Government’s top priority, and the Chancellor put growth right at the heart of her spending review, announcing more than £92 billion of capital investment in transport infrastructure to give people access to jobs and opportunities. This includes long-term funding for our largest city regions, billions of pounds of investment in roads, hundreds of millions of pounds for walking and cycling, and delivering transformative projects such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade and East West Rail. This will make a real difference to people’s lives up and down the country, now and in the future, showing the difference a Labour Government make.
Chris Curtis
Every French city with a population of more than 150,000 has a mass rapid transport system, yet over 30 UK cities or towns of that size still lack it. Research from Centre for Cities shows that poor connectivity holds back growth and productivity by limiting mobility. A key reason why we have so few is cost, because building a kilometre of track in the UK is twice as expensive as the European average. Can the Secretary of State set out what her Department is doing to bring down costs and help kickstart a tram-building revolution?
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter with me in person a few days ago and for sending me further information on the report and the research. Trams do have the potential to support growth at much lower cost than heavy rail, but he is right that the cost per kilometre of new tramline is much more expensive in the UK than elsewhere in Europe. I have asked my officials to look into what we can do in this area as we look to unlock growth across the UK.
Kanishka Narayan
We have a proud community in St Athan in the Vale of Glamorgan that is both growing and thriving thanks to the economic opportunity provided by the Bro Tathan enterprise zone. Will the Secretary of State work with Welsh colleagues to progress funding for a new railway station in St Athan to support that growth and provide dignity for the residents?
Heidi Alexander
As we have seen in so many areas, the previous Government may have made promises about this station, but they allocated no feasibility or development funding to get the project moving. Through the spending review and infrastructure strategy, this Government will provide at least £445 million of rail enhancements over the next 10 years to deliver long-term infrastructure needs in Wales, including new stations. Details of how this funding will be allocated will be announced in due course.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My local economy on the Isle of Wight is entirely reliant on ferry services for the movement of people, the delivery of products and, in the case of tourism, for customers. Will the Minister acknowledge just how important unregulated ferry services are for the entire economic wellbeing of the Isle of Wight?
Heidi Alexander
I do recognise that issue. The hon. Member and his colleague on the Isle of Wight have raised this matter with me previously, and I am meeting his colleague directly after this question time to talk further. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), hosted a meeting recently and we are considering what further we can do as a Department to support local leaders in finding a satisfactory resolution for his constituents.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
A number of immediate airport expansions are now planned around the London area, which is fair enough, but there is some concern about the protection that is required for vital links to airports in the regions and nations of the rest of the UK. Will the Minister provide an assurance that work will be done to protect those links and the local economies that rely on them?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have invited Heathrow to bring forward proposals for a third runway and we are expecting further information on that this summer. We are clear that part of the expansion of Heathrow is about improving regional connectivity. He will also be aware that we have provided airports such as Doncaster with Government money to support that reopening.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
To achieve growth, businesses rely on our world-class logistics and haulage sector. Given that Logistics UK said that it was “disappointed” that the logistics sector had not been identified as one of the foundational industries in the industrial strategy this week, what happened? Did the Department for Transport go into bat for our logistics sector? Did it lose the row? Or did it not bother? What will the Secretary of State be doing to ensure that our logistics sector is seen across Government as foundational to any growth mission?
Heidi Alexander
It is my understanding that the logistics sector was pleased to be recognised as a case study in the industrial strategy. I know that it welcomed the announcement in the spending review of £590 million to progress the lower Thames crossing, which is a key strategic freight route. For many years the sector has been talking to us about improving the route from the south-east to the midlands and the north. Unlike the previous Government, this Government are finally getting on with the job. We have taken the planning decision to grant consent to the crossing and are making money available through the spending review to improve the country’s critical freight routes.
Greg Smith
The Secretary of State clearly has not listened to Logistics UK—I hope that at least she knows where the lower Thames crossing starts and ends. Let us turn to another foundational industry to transport and growth: fuel. Elizabeth de Jong, chief executive of Fuels Industry UK said about this week’s industrial strategy:
“we are disappointed not to be named explicitly as a ‘foundational industry’ today, given the vital role of the fuels sector in enabling growth”.
Why has our transport-critical fuels sector also been left behind by the Government?
Heidi Alexander
This Government’s industrial strategy sets out the sectors that have the potential to deliver economic growth and for which are competing internationally for mobile capital investment. My colleague the Minister for the Future of Roads and I meet repeatedly with the industry, be that to discuss fuels or freight and logistics. We are determined to get our economy firing on all cylinders, and we know what critical role the sectors he talks about play in that.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
My party and I were pleased when the Chancellor recently announced funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail to improve connectivity. However, we still do not know on what the money will be spent. Any plan to boost the northern powerhouse must surely include a new main line between Manchester and Liverpool—a vital link that would not only drive economic growth across the north-west but strengthen connections between two of our greatest cities. When will we finally see the detail behind the Chancellor’s announcement, and will she meet with me and my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) to discuss proposals for the better linking of Manchester and Liverpool?
Heidi Alexander
The mayors of Greater Manchester and Liverpool—Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram—have made a strong case for improving rail connectivity between their two great cities. The hon. Member is right to say that this Government are committed to improving the country’s rail network. I hope to say more on schemes for the north in the weeks and months ahead. I assure all hon. Members that I will come back to the House swiftly when I have more information so that they can question me further.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The Government are kick-starting a revolution in bus services across the country, delivering the right services in the right places at the right fare levels to serve local communities. Our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will overhaul bus service operations, protecting vital routes, including in rural and deprived areas, and delivering on our commitment to improve living standards across the country. The Government have confirmed over £1 billion of funding for buses to support and improve services in 2025-26, and we are keeping fares low by maintaining the £3 bus fare cap.
David Williams
It is no surprise that Stoke-on-Trent’s bus service improvement plan is among the best in the country. Thanks to funding from this Labour Government, dozens of new services have been delivered, such as the 36, connecting Kidsgrove to Hanley and Meir, and the 501, helping people get to Wolstanton retail park. Will the Minister join me in recognising the progress that Stoke-on-Trent has made with its bus network, and will he meet me to discuss how we can ensure that progress continues when funding ends next year?
Simon Lightwood
I congratulate Stoke-on-Trent on its success. It is great to hear that local ambitions are being realised through new bus services, lower fares and more accessible buses. Funding has been announced for 2025-26: Stoke-on-Trent city council was awarded £9.8 million, and Staffordshire county council was awarded £11 million. Future allocations for individual local authorities will be confirmed in due course.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I am grateful to the more than 300 residents who took part in my bus survey. Many expressed frustration about Arriva’s decision to cut the X5 service, leaving schoolchildren stranded and people unable to get to work. Fortunately, on this occasion, Red Eagle Buses stepped in, but what happened speaks to the wider issue of bus companies not putting residents’ needs first. Will the Minister join me in asking Buckinghamshire council to take up the new franchising powers in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill to fix exactly that issue?
Simon Lightwood
The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill puts the power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders right across England, enabling them to choose the bus model that works best for their areas. The Government will support local transport authorities that decide that the franchising route is the best option for them, delivering improvements to services in their area. I hope that my hon. Friend’s local council will work with her and her constituents to find the best local solution.
Paul Davies
Reliable and accessible local bus services are vital for our communities, connecting people to work, education, healthcare and each other. Yet too often, services are reduced or withdrawn due to low usage, leaving many isolated. To ensure that those services remain viable, we must not only improve them but encourage more people to use them. What steps are the Government taking not only to improve local bus services but to commit to running national or regional campaigns to boost bus usage and protect those essential routes?
Simon Lightwood
We will encourage operators and local authorities to work together to run their own regional campaigns to help boost bus usage. Funding provided to local authorities through the local authority bus grant to improve services could be used for that kind of campaign, if those authorities feel that will help them to meet their bus service improvement plan objectives.
Chris Vince
After decades of failed bus deregulation under the Tories, I am pleased that this Labour Government truly understand the importance of delivering better bus services for millions of people. How will the Government support local leaders to take back control of their bus services, and how will that benefit my constituency of Harlow? I am thinking particularly of rural areas in my constituency, such as Roydon, Nazeing and Hatfield Broad Oak, where residents often talk about how a lack of connectivity causes issues of isolation and a lack of job prospects.
Simon Lightwood
The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will put power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders. It is intended to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities that rely on them, including in rural areas. Leaders in places such as Harlow will be empowered to deliver reforms to their bus services. We will also be reforming bus funding, giving local leaders more control and more flexibility to deliver their local transport priorities.
Matt Turmaine
I welcome the extension of the £3 fare cap and the new powers enabling local authorities to deliver bus services that local residents need. In my constituency of Watford, the recruitment of bus engineers to keep services running remains a major problem. What are this Labour Government doing to work coherently with the sector to meet that need?
Simon Lightwood
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns about the recruitment of engineers. Although it is, of course, primarily bus operators’ responsibility to ensure that they meet their staffing needs, the Government will continue to support the bus sector to meet its current and future labour requirements. The greater long-term funding certainty that the Government are providing through the spending review confirms that the bus sector is a great one for engineers to build their careers in. It was great to meet some of the rising stars in the Go-Ahead Group just yesterday.
Liz Twist
My constituents in Blaydon and Consett rely heavily on buses. Thankfully, with the support of the North East combined authority and our Mayor Kim McGuinness, my constituents have benefited from subsidised fares as a result of the Government’s continuation of the bus service improvement plan funding, for which I am very grateful. That funding is due to expire in March ’26, but it is crucial that we are able to plan how bus users across the north-east can continue to benefit from those fares. Will the Minister agree to meet me and members of the combined authority to discuss how we can continue to provide value for money for bus users in the north-east?
Simon Lightwood
I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are benefiting from reduced fares, below the Government’s national £3 bus fare cap. I was pleased that we were able to allocate £23.8 million to the North East combined authority under the leadership of Mayor Kim McGuinness. I am, of course, more than happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As I mentioned to the Minister when he appeared before the Transport Committee, I sent a transport survey to every household in Weald of Kent and received hundreds of comments about our buses. Many are dismayed that villages such as Smarden, Egerton, Frittenden and Pluckley now have no bus service at all, while others observe that small villages are served by massive buses carrying one or two passengers. What further assessment has the Minister made of the role of demand-responsive services in rural areas such as mine?
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Member will be aware that the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill contains powers to ask local transport authorities to identify specific routes that are of social value and need. That will be particularly important when considering rural areas. She will also be aware that the Department has been supporting a number of design-responsive transport schemes, of which we are undertaking review.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In my constituency, Hammersmith bridge has been closed to vehicles for over six years. During that time, buses have been unable to cross, emergency vehicles have experienced delays and businesses on both sides of the bridge have lost out. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury was recently unable to confirm on the radio whether the structures fund will be put towards the bridge’s repairs, so will the Minister tell me whether we can expect funding for Hammersmith bridge to reopen?
Simon Lightwood
I entirely appreciate the problems that the hon. Member and her constituents have experienced as a result of Hammersmith bridge. Further information on the structures fund will be announced in due course.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Several of my constituents have written to me, concerned that Arriva, which provides local bus services, has cancelled or reduced some of their local routes, such as the 322 in Maple Cross and the 328 in South Oxhey, leaving them with no other transport options aside from costly taxis. What will the Minister do to ensure that everyone has access to public transport, such as those vital bus services?
Simon Lightwood
I will expect the hon. Gentleman to walk through the Lobby with the Government when our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill comes forward. It is exactly designed to take back control of our bus services, which the Conservative party completely and spectacularly failed to do.
The Bill will empower local leaders to choose a model that works best for their area. It includes, as I mentioned, a socially necessary local services measure. Local transport authorities that operate under an enhanced partnership will be required to identify local services that they consider to be socially necessary and put in place requirements that must be followed before such services can be changed or cancelled. They also need to consider the alternative options available to them.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Bus usage and services in rural and semi-rural areas such as Wokingham were particularly hard hit during the pandemic. Will the Minister confirm that councils such as Wokingham will not see funding for local bus services reduced, and will he recognise that rebuilding bus usage in rural areas is a unique challenge that requires extra resources?
Simon Lightwood
I completely understand the challenges, particularly in rural areas. That is why the package of measures in the Bill to give local areas the powers that they need to take control of those buses is so important. I already mentioned socially necessary bus routes. In the Budget, we confirmed £1 billion in support to improve bus services and keep fares affordable, including in rural areas. That funding has been devolved down to local leaders to decide how to spend that in any way they see fit. That will improve bus services in their area, including in rural areas.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
A blind resident in my constituency, Marilyn, relies on her guide dog and the local bus network to live independently. However, changes under the Government’s £1.7 million active travel grant, including floating bus stops on Rifford Road in my constituency, force her to cross fast, bidirectional cycle lanes just to board a bus. That goes against safety advice from the Guide Dogs organisation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People and is causing real distress. Does the Secretary of State agree that Government-funded infrastructure must be safe and accessible for everyone, and will she commit to reviewing active travel guidance to consider the role of floating bus stops that put blind and visually impaired people at risk?
Simon Lightwood
During the passage of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill in the other place, we committed to writing to all local transport authorities asking them to pause the installation of a specific kind of floating bus stop, where passengers get off the bus straight into a cycle lane or an island. That is because they have been identified through research as problematic for people, particularly those with vision issues. We have already done work with Active Travel England and Transport for London to identify a design standard. Fundamentally, this Government believe in accessible transport for everyone, and that is exactly our ambition.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
If we are to deliver local bus services, we must deliver buses that are efficient and technologically modern to ensure we can meet those targets. With that in mind, will the Minister assure the House that any action taken by Government to provide buses and local bus services will support bus manufacturing across all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, in particular, Wrightbus in North Antrim?
Simon Lightwood
Absolutely, and that is why I was so proud to chair the first bus manufacturers expert panel in March. That is a year-long project with bus operators, bus manufacturers and mayors across the country to try to forge a smooth pipeline of orders to support our fantastic UK manufacturers.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Government know that bus franchising is commercially risky and very expensive for any local authority. We know that because Transport for London costs taxpayers £650 million a year in subsidy, and Andy Burnham’s Bee Network in Greater Manchester is currently on course for an annual deficit of £226 million, when its business plan was for a forecast profit. What is the point of giving risky franchising powers to every local authority in the country when the Government do not provide the money to support them?
Simon Lightwood
I will not take any lectures from the Conservatives under whose watch we saw 300 million fewer bus miles. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman in Committee and in various exchanges, the full fat franchising—as it is commonly known—in Greater Manchester is only one kind of franchising available to local authorities. Various other methods are available to different areas, including the model adopted in places such as Jersey, which is a partnership between the private operators and the local transport authority so that they can benefit from its skills and knowledge.
I do not recognise—and I have corrected this in Committee—the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes for Greater Manchester, which is performing fantastically, delivering better, more affordable, greener, smoother and reliable services for the people of Manchester.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that answer, and we have four hours of Bill Committee later today to rehearse the arguments yet again. In an earlier answer, the Minister said that he is providing £1 billion of support for buses in this financial year, but surely he knows that £700 million goes to help local authorities navigate the huge administrative burdens that come with franchising and the other schemes that the Government have in mind. That leaves just £255 million for actual bus services across the whole of England. That is only enough to satisfy Andy Burnham for a year, yet we have full fat being pursued by Liverpool and West Midlands. I ask again: where is the money to support those ambitions?
Simon Lightwood
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, places such as Greater Manchester are part of the group of authorities that have received £15.6 billion to spend in their local areas. It is important to recognise the extraordinary performance of buses in Greater Manchester. Once again, we are not telling local areas which model to adopt for buses: it could be franchising or enhanced partnerships, as well as removing the barrier to municipal bus companies.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I am all too aware that rail performance has been sub-par for many years in this country, but following a decade of decline, we are now starting to see train performance stabilise, with passengers returning to the railway. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear focus areas to recover performance, including timetable resilience, staffing and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events.
Josh MacAlister
The energy coast rail line in Cumbria is in desperate need of upgrading. It has Victorian-era signalling, and parts of the track suffer from coastal erosion. Upgrading the line would be of huge benefit to passengers, improving the reliability and speed of journeys, and to critical freight for the nuclear decommissioning work and for the shipyard work at Barrow. Businesses, other Members and I will meet the Minister for Rail next week to push for funding to get the final business case over the line. Will the Secretary of State confirm that her Department will work with me and others to ensure that the project is in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline when it is published?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has been a great advocate for his constituents on this topic and makes a strong case for the scheme. My officials are working with Cumberland council and across Whitehall to refine the business case he refers to. I know the Rail Minister looks forward to meeting him next week to discuss it.
Chris Webb
In 1911, Blackpool was home to the busiest railway station in the world—a testament to our town’s rich transport heritage. Today, the Blackpool South line urgently needs a passing loop to enable trains to pass each other and deliver the reliable, frequent rail service that our community in South Shore deserves. The Government’s recent £4 million investment in Blackpool’s local bus services was welcome. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the long-overdue need for investment in the Blackpool South line to finally deliver that passing loop?
Heidi Alexander
This Government are committed to investing in local transport around the UK. I am pleased that we have been able to make such a substantial investment in bus services in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Fylde council’s business case found that there was potential to increase frequency on the south Fylde line. I know the Rail Minister would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
Mr Speaker
The lead question is on Cumbria. We are putting general questions into what is a lead question, and I do not think it is good to join them up. We are now going round the country on what should have been a Cumbrian question, which is something we could think about for the future.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Rail services are important in Cumbria, but they are also important in Sleaford. For some time, I have been campaigning for lifts at Sleaford railway station for those who have difficulty with stairs. I was pleased when the previous Government included Sleaford in the Access for All scheme, and having raised it at previous Transport questions, I was delighted when the Rail Minister wrote to me to confirm that the feasibility studies will go ahead. When I met Network Rail yesterday, I found that it is stuck. Network Rail has done as much as it can, but the money ready for it has not been officially unlocked. Could the Secretary of State look into that and ensure that the work goes ahead as soon as possible so that people can access the second platform even if they have trouble with stairs?
Heidi Alexander
I understand the importance of accessibility at rail stations, such as Sleaford in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and she is right that feasibility work has been done on 50 schemes across the country. That feasibility work shows that the cost of those individual schemes will vary from place to place. We are reviewing that work and looking at the overall quantum of funding we have available. I must say to her and other Members of this House that it is unlikely that we will be able to fund all 50 schemes, but I will provide an update in due course on which ones will go forward.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Much like Cumbria, my constituents and rail users in Chichester share a part of the Brighton mainline when commuting into London. Unfortunately for them, the journey time into London Victoria—on the rare occasion when everything is running on time—is nearly 100 minutes, which is above average for cities of a similar distance from London. The complaint I hear most often about the journey is the lack of a fast service. Will the Secretary of State work with me to encourage Southern rail to implement such a service for the benefit of my constituents?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady will know that these matters are constantly kept under review. We have constrained capacity on the rail network and need to balance the number of fast services we have with local stopping services, but I am happy to discuss the matter further, both with the train operating company and Network Rail.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
We are unlocking growth through the power of aviation by progressing airport planning decisions and driving airspace modernisation, including through the new UK airspace design service. We have also invited proposals for a third runway at Heathrow, which will have benefits across the UK and could result in billions of pounds invested in our economy. To help the sector grow in a sustainable way, we have introduced the sustainable aviation fuel mandate and a Bill for a SAF revenue certainty mechanism.
Alison Taylor
Has the Minister had discussions with the Scottish Government on how best to use the substantial increase in the Scottish budget to support the aviation sector? In particular, what do the Government plan to do to make up for the lack of investment in connectivity around Glasgow international airport in my constituency?
Mike Kane
My hon. Friend is a champion for Glasgow airport, and as she knows, Scotland needs investment in transport and infrastructure of the kind we are now seeing across England and Wales. The Scottish Government will receive the largest real-terms settlement since devolution began in 1998 as a result of this month’s spending review. I hope this budget increase will be put to good use.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It was good to see Doncaster regional airport recently attract £30 million from this Government. The public service obligation flight route between Newquay airport and Gatwick is a vital regional connection between Cornwall and the capital, but with the current service ending in July, it is now up for renewal. Will the Minister please meet me as a matter of urgency to ensure that this vital link remains in place?
Mike Kane
Public service obligations are vital for connecting the UK economy, and I think we currently have three. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the one affecting his constituency.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I understand that this will be a deeply concerning time for workers at Alexander Dennis and their families. It is important that the Government, at all levels, support British manufacturers, which is why I was proud to chair the launch meeting of this Government’s new UK bus manufacturing expert panel on 13 March. The panel aims to explore ways to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus manufacturing. My officials and I have been in close contact with Alexander Dennis, and I remain committed to working with it and relevant Government Departments to find a way forward.
Brian Leishman
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which details my membership of Unite the union.
Once upon a time, Scotland was an industrial powerhouse—we made things—but last week, Alexander Dennis started a 45-day consultation with employees. As it stands, hundreds of jobs will be lost from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). Unite and the GMB have called for both the Scottish Government and the UK Government, the company and the unions to come together to find a solution to save those jobs and Scottish bus manufacturing. There are changes to policy and legislation that could achieve this. My constituents, the Alexander Dennis workers, want and need to know whether the UK Government are willing to do what it takes.
Simon Lightwood
The £15.6 billion for regional transport projects over five years that we announced earlier this month will help to create a pipeline of investment for the zero emission bus market in the UK, while improving local transport for some of our largest regions. As I said, we are in close contact with all relevant parties to consider how we can support Alexander Dennis.
Euan Stainbank
I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses. As the Minister has outlined, this Labour Government will double real-terms transport spending in city regions by the end of this Parliament. While this should be very good news for bus manufacturing in this country, Alexander Dennis—in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman)—is, in a contradictory move, seeking to end more than a century of bus manufacturing in Scotland and put 400 workers in Falkirk out of their jobs. What actions will the Secretary of State and Ministers, in conjunction with Cabinet colleagues and the Scottish Government, take to maintain strategically necessary bus manufacturing in Falkirk?
Simon Lightwood
Labour mayors across the country are putting in orders for UK-manufactured buses, as we support bus travel in our towns and cities. The Scottish people will be asking questions about why the Mayor of Greater Manchester has managed to buy almost four times as many buses from Scotland as the SNP Scottish Government have. My officials and I are in close contact with Ministers and representatives from the Scottish Government, the Department for Business and Trade, the NFI Group—the owner of Alexander Dennis—and Scottish Enterprise to explore avenues of support.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Potholes and poor road surfaces are a nuisance for drivers, cause damage to vehicles and can pose a real danger to road users. To tackle the poor state of our roads following a decade of decline, this Government will provide £24 billion of capital funding over the spending review period to maintain and improve local roads and motorways across the country, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys.
Jim Dickson
I thank the Minister for her answer, and for reassuring residents in Swanscombe and the surrounding areas that, two years after the collapse of Galley Hill Road, hope for a solution is in sight, thanks to the structures fund announced as part of the comprehensive spending review. Can the Minister confirm the likely timescale for the structures fund being up and running and open for bids? Will she undertake to ensure that her officials in the Department are working closely with Kent county council to maximise the chances of a successful bid to the structures fund, as I am sure she will for other parts of the country?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his steadfast advocacy for people and businesses in his constituency, which I know has been blighted by the collapse of the A226 at Galley Hill. It was visiting places such as Galley Hill that led us to invest £1 billion to enhance the road network, and create a new structures fund that will repair rundown bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels. Details on how that fund will be allocated will be announced in due course.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Minister is familiar with the campaign that I and neighbouring colleagues have been running for many years to improve the A180. When will she have some good news for us?
Lilian Greenwood
I can already give the hon. Member the good news about the £24 billion allocated in the spending review for improving our nation’s roads, and as he knows, National Highways is looking closely at what can be done on the road that leads to his constituency.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
Peacehaven in my constituency is a growing town, but it remains a one-road-in, one-road-out town. The daily gridlock and frequent roadworks on the A259 is the single biggest frustration and barrier to opportunity for my constituents. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can unlock that and provide a real boost to Peacehaven and neighbouring towns?
Lilian Greenwood
I appreciate how frustrating the situation is for my hon. Friend and his constituents. My officials are continuing to discuss details of the business case for the scheme with East Sussex county council, and I would of course be happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Rapid Transition Alliance tells us that we can improve the quality of our roads if we support more people to use rail as a form of public transport. That is one reason why I am campaigning to restore the direct train between Eastbourne and London Bridge that was discontinued during the pandemic. Will the Minister back my campaign, with a view to helping to improve our roads and improve economic growth for Eastbourne too?
Lilian Greenwood
That was a creative way of asking about railways in a question about roads. This Government are committed to improving all forms of transport, so that people have a real choice about the best mode to use for their journey. We are keen for people to have the choice of sustainable transport modes, including rail, walking and cycling, as well as driving and travelling on buses. As the hon. Member will see, the Government are investing huge amounts to support our rail industry, just as we are doing to support the state of our roads.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Rail services in Sutton and Cheam are supported by requirements on train operators to plan services and timetables to meet current and future passenger demand, ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Govia Thameslink Railway and South Western Railway are required to work collaboratively with the Department for Transport to develop future plans, and our Department holds them accountable for delivering for passengers.
Luke Taylor
Earlier this week I was contacted by a long-suffering commuter using Worcester Park station. She wrote:
“As a teacher my days are already demanding, often filled with pressure, high energy, and very little downtime. Sadly, commuting to and from work now feels just as stressful. Trains during peak hours are frequently so overcrowded that they feel unsafe and extremely uncomfortable. What should be a straightforward journey has become an exhausting and frustrating part of my day.”
Now that South Western Railway is under Government control, will the Minister tell my constituents when we can expect to see the service and timetable finally improve for Worcester Park station?
Simon Lightwood
Services returning to public ownership is a watershed moment for our railways and the beginning of our efforts to build Great British Railways, a new publicly owned organisation that runs our trains. We want passengers to see improvements to their services now and, starting with SWR, each operator will have to meet rigorous bespoke performance standards on things such as punctuality, cancellations and passenger experience, so that we can begin to build a world-class public service.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Worcester Park is a station that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and I know well as it is on the boundary of both our constituencies, and I confirm that my constituents face the same issues of overcrowding. SWR acquired 90 high-capacity Arterio trains to address this issue back in 2019, yet six years later only a handful have entered service. The UK taxpayer is currently spending over £5 million every month on leasing the Arterio fleet, and over £0.5 million additionally every month to store the unused trains. Will the Minister confirm how many Arterio trains are now in use, whether the issues delaying roll-out have now been addressed, and whether he thinks that spending millions of pounds every month on unused trains is a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Simon Lightwood
I am aware that another two of those trains are now in operation. The new managing director is aware that this is a challenge and we are already beginning to see progress.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I know that many learners are still struggling to book a driving test. We are working hard to reduce driving test wait times and help more people get on the road. In April, the Secretary of State announced further measures, including doubling examiner training capacity and offering overtime pay incentives. In May, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency launched a consultation on improving car driving test booking rules, which currently has over 30,000 responses. Over 630,000 learners now have a test booked. That number will rise as the DVSA increases test availability.
Lincoln Jopp
The post-covid backlog in driving tests was trending down under the last Government. At the time of the general election, it had got to 521,000, which was still too high, but it was coming down. Since this Government took over, the number has rocketed up to 600,000, a new record high, meaning that constituents like Oliver, in my Spelthorne constituency, have had to wait six months for a driving test. The increasing delays in driving tests are putting a handbrake on growth and productivity, so whatever the Government are doing, can they do more of it and faster please?
Lilian Greenwood
We recognise that demand for driving tests has grown not just because of a covid backlog, but due to a long-term change in behaviour and demand for driving tests. I am pleased to report that the changes we have introduced, particularly on overtime pay incentives, are making a difference. The DVSA expects to deliver thousands of additional tests this month and is working to increase test availability further over the coming year, so that constituents like the hon. Gentleman’s can obtain a test as soon as possible. I understand how important this is, particularly to young people, and we do not want to curtail their life chances.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I now have to move on to topical questions. There will be disappointment for hon. Members whose questions are next on the Order Paper, but that is because of the way questions have been grouped. We really do need to think about why we are grouping questions that are not relevant to each other.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Earlier this month, the Chancellor’s spending review made it clear that national renewal must be felt everywhere, in every place and in every journey, and that is what this Government are delivering, starting with the biggest ever regional transport investment outside London: over £15 billion towards metro extensions in Newcastle and Birmingham, mass transit in West Yorkshire, and a new bus fleet in Liverpool.
But that is not all. We are putting billions towards the trans-Pennine route upgrade, as well as East West Rail, and we are protecting the £3 bus fare cap until at least March 2027. Today, we are going further: we are proud to announce that we are improving mobile connectivity in over 50 rail tunnels, and using satellite technology to strengthen wi-fi on all mainline trains to transform rail travel for passengers.
Finally, last week I revealed our shocking HS2 inheritance. Make no mistake: we will fix that appalling mess and get the project back on track. Our plan for change is under way, with better journeys for passengers and value for money for taxpayers.
Wera Hobhouse
The transport sector generates Britain’s highest emissions. Through collaboration with France, we have the opportunity to transform the world’s busiest ferry route, across the strait of Dover between Britain and France, into the world’s first high-volume green shipping corridor. Will the Minister commit to championing this great initiative in the UK and at the upcoming COP30?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady is entirely right to highlight the importance of decarbonising our maritime industry and ensuring that our ports have the grid connections to enable fleets to purchase new vessels, so that we can get carbon emissions down on the seas, as well as elsewhere in our economy. I would be very happy to talk to her further about what more we can do to champion that important work.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Both Grand Central and Hull Trains have seen their passenger numbers increase dramatically since the pandemic, by more than 50% and 20% respectively. That is a significant increase compared with other operators. Why does the right hon. Lady think that might be?
Heidi Alexander
If the hon. Gentleman wants to trade statistics on the rail network, I can tell him that we have seen a massive increase in passenger numbers on TransPennine Express and LNER. In fact, last year we had a 7% overall increase in passenger journeys and passenger revenue overall went up from £10.6 billion to £11.5 billion, which is good news for the taxpayer and a clear sign that people want to come back and use our railways.
Gareth Bacon
I was not hoping to trade statistics— I was hoping that the right hon. Lady would answer the question. I will provide the answer: it is because they are open access operators. They have to compete for passengers by providing a service that passengers want at a price they are prepared to pay, and it is clearly working. Why have the Government indicated to the industry that they are not supportive of open access by stating their opposition to eight of the nine proposals submitted in February?
Heidi Alexander
I have said repeatedly at this Dispatch Box that we see a role for open access operators when they open up new markets and add value. We have to balance that against the revenue that they abstract from the public sector operator. We cannot have a situation in which we import too much congestion on to the rail network, because there is constrained and finite capacity. I am keen to see a mixed model of delivery going forward, but I need to reduce the taxpayer subsidy going into the rail network at the moment. We are supporting—
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his local constituents. We have provided an extra £500 million for councils this year to end the pothole plague, and the East Midlands combined county authority will receive almost £20 million extra, taking the total to £76 million. For Nottinghamshire to unlock its full uplift, it needs to show that it is following best practice and publish a report on its highways maintenance activities by the end of this month.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Lilian Greenwood
I am aware that at least the certainty of a decision was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate that. The Department is happy to discuss any alternative plans with him and with Cornwall council. We have met before, and I am very happy to meet him again.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I am sorry to hear about the impact that that is having on Dorothy. As my hon. Friend will know, bus services are a devolved matter in Scotland. In England, we are taking action to put power over buses into the hands of local leaders through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Simon Lightwood
Participants in the bus fare cap are only able to increase bus fares by inflation, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to speak to me outside the Chamber, I would be happy to take that matter up for him.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
Everyone should be able to travel with dignity and ease, which is why we launched the aviation accessibility task and finish group last year. I expect to be able to provide an update soon, when that group publishes its findings. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the Civil Aviation Authority’s airport accessibility performance report 2024-25 demonstrates that improvements are still required in some areas.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Devon and Torbay combined county authority will receive just £40 million between 2026 and 2030 in local transport grant funding—less than half the amount awarded to York and North Yorkshire and a fraction of the billions given to the city regions, despite Devon having the longest road network in the country. A large local operator says that just £1 million a year would make a transformational change in Devon, where rural deprivation is well hidden. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issues facing the bus network in Devon and the Government investment that is needed?
Simon Lightwood
Our long-term bus investment will support rural areas to improve local bus services. That is on top of the £712 million we have allocated to local authorities in 2025-26.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I met taxi drivers in Derby, at a meeting organised by the GMB, who are proud of the work they do. They want high standards across the board; what actions is the Minister taking to review taxi licensing, so that everyone can have confidence that the taxi and private hire industry is reliable, sustainable, and safe for passengers and the drivers themselves?
Heidi Alexander
I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking this issue very seriously. We are reviewing licensing authorities’ compliance with existing guidance, and we will hold those who do not follow that guidance to account. We will go further following the publication of Baroness Casey’s review, and we have committed to taking legislative action to close the loopholes in the current licensing regime to achieve higher standards of safety across the board.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Dawlish sea wall collapsed in 2014, causing a devastating loss to the south-west’s economy of about £1.2 billion. It was not the break in the sea wall that closed the railway for eight weeks; it was the collapse of the cliffs. Will the Minister prioritise the project to secure those cliffs, which is yet to be carried out, or will she meet me? Perhaps she could even visit Dawlish to see how important this fix is going to be.
Lilian Greenwood
I know how important that rail line is to the people of the south-west, including the hon. Member’s constituents. We are working to determine which rail enhancement projects will be taken forward following the Chancellor’s spending review statement on 11 June. More information will be made available shortly, and I am sure that my colleague, the Rail Minister, will write to the hon. Member in due course.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), last week the Casey review showed us yet again that private hire vehicles are a dangerous place for many children and young people. Nationally in 2023, 96% of taxi licences were issued in one local authority—Wolverhampton, one of my neighbouring local authorities—yet only 10% of the applicants lived there. What action is the Minister going to take to ensure local taxi licensing is done locally and to high standards?
Heidi Alexander
Baroness Casey has rightly brought this issue into sharp focus, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), we are committed to addressing it. We will work as quickly as possible and consider all options, including out-of-area working, national standards and enforcement, in seeking the best overall outcome for passenger safety.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister may be aware that the outline business case for improvements to the A31 at Hickley’s Corner in Farnham will come before her in a couple of months’ time. While I understand that she cannot make any promises now, will she at least agree to look kindly on that application and meet me to discuss it?
Lilian Greenwood
I look forward to seeing that business case when it comes forward, and I will of course be happy to discuss it with the hon. Member at the appropriate time.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
A new report from the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking warns of the growing public safety risk posed by the widespread use of unsafe, illegally modified bikes, and the fire risk caused by their cheap but powerful batteries bought from online marketplaces. What assessment has the Minister—along with his colleagues in other Departments—made of the risks posed by those fake e-bikes?
Simon Lightwood
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. I am studying the APPG’s report in detail. Illegal e-bikes are clearly dangerous and have no place on our roads. I would be happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My constituent Paul cycles more than 1,000 km a month all across the country, but he tells me that Cheshire’s roads are among the worst. Poor roads are dangerous for all road users, so does the Minister agree that national guidance for pothole repair policy must properly reflect the needs of cyclists alongside motorists? We must urgently improve road conditions for everyone.
Lilian Greenwood
I absolutely agree that the poor state of the roads that has been left to us after 14 years of under-investment poses a serious risk to cyclists. That is precisely why we have given that extra £500 million to councils across England, and it is precisely why we are holding them to account and asking them to follow good practice in roads maintenance.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, I welcome the £445 million being invested in Welsh rail over the next five years, but will she help me to secure a meeting with the Rail Minister, so that we can discuss the need to start off building the Burns stations with the Magor and Undy station in Monmouthshire?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has been a fearsome champion for this rail investment, and I am delighted that over the next 10 years we will be spending more than £445 million on rail enhancements in Wales. I will certainly help her to secure the meeting that she requests.
Business of the House
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I shall. The business for the week commencing 30 June includes:
Monday 30 June—Second Reading of the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill.
Tuesday 1 July—Second Reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.
Wednesday 2 July—Consideration of Lords message to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.
Thursday 3 July—Debate on a motion on financial redress for 1950s women impacted by Department for Work and Pensions maladministration of state pension age changes, followed by a general debate on mobile phone thefts. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 4 July—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 7 July will include:
Monday 7 July—Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill.
Tuesday 8 July—Remaining stages of the Football Governance Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 9 July—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.
Thursday 10 July—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 11 July—Private Members’ Bills.
Jesse Norman
I am afraid to say that the past week has been another horror show for the Government. This is Armed Forces Week, as the House will know. It is a time to celebrate and champion all those who serve and have served in our armed forces, and nowhere more than in my own county of Herefordshire. We must also note that, far from celebrating the armed forces, this Government deliberately opened the door last year to unfair and vexatious prosecutions of veterans who served decades ago in Northern Ireland, and they have kept that door open.
What else? The original Abortion Act was debated for more than a year, but the Government allowed no notice for public debate on the abortion amendment last week, and they gave just two hours of debate in the Chamber on the biggest change in abortion law in nearly 60 years. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the issue, that is a scandalously bad way to make legislation.
What else? Defence Ministers were left out of the loop on the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and were unable to say whether they supported this action by our closest ally. A Government Whip resigned, expressing her deep concerns over the welfare Bill, and the Government have promised to bring the Bill forward next week, as we have just heard—let us see if they do.
Talking of U-turns, the Government, having only just U-turned on the winter fuel payment, and again on grooming gangs last week, have prepared themselves for a U-turn on the two-child benefit cap less than a year since they suspended seven Labour MPs for voting against the cap.
This is just one week. Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister’s personal reputation has continued to plummet? Only yesterday, The Times of London said:
“Not quite a year has passed since his landslide general election victory and already his political stock is trading at junk status, akin to a Zimbabwean dollar or Weimar papiermark.”
Mr Speaker, you may recall from your intimate knowledge of German history that the papiermark was a monetary instrument that led to hyper-inflation and political collapse. That is coming from The Times of London.
Shall we dig a little bit further into one specific reason why the Prime Minister’s reputation might have fallen so much? Following the record pay settlements of last year, the junior doctors have announced that they are “excited” at the idea of six months of strike action. Meanwhile, hospital consultants are balloting to see if they will strike as well. Doctors received a 22% increase last year after Labour took office, and now the junior doctors are apparently demanding a further pay increase of 29%. These are eye-watering numbers and, of course, we will all end up paying if the increases are granted, but I am afraid this is exactly what we would expect from a Government who have taxed and splurged the cash since the election.
It is hardly surprising that the unions now think they have an open door to extract money from the Treasury, and the Government have actually made the situation even worse through their rolling programme of nationalisation, and by abolishing NHS England. Whatever else it may have been, NHS England acted as a firebreak on union lobbying, because it operated semi-independently of Ministers. By abolishing it, the Government have now removed one of the few means they had to face down extortionate demands for more pay and more restrictive practices.
The same is true with the railways: as each one is nationalised—including South West Railway only last week—so the obstacles to the unions’ demands are progressively being removed. The House will recall the massive pay settlements given to the rail unions last year, with no attempt to negotiate any efficiency gains. It is only a matter of time before those unions come back for more, as the doctors are doing. These are not pay bargains; they are an abject surrender. Of course, Ministers themselves do not mind—after all, 90% of them are reported to be union members. As far as I can see, the Leader of the House is an exception: she is not a union member, and all credit to her for that.
Jesse Norman
Ah, okay. I am very sorry to say that the Leader of the House has corrected me. She is, in fact, a union member and therefore fully complicit in the same problem.
The Treasury itself is now the only hold-out against union demands. Little wonder the Chancellor has looked so unhappy and out of sorts—and that was before the Deputy Prime Minister started leaking memos calling for billions of pounds a year in tax increases. The unions know the Government are vulnerable, and they have come back for more. Labour Back Benchers also know that the Government are running scared and, led by their Select Committee Chairs, they are starting to get organised. Can the Leader of the House positively and personally now confirm that the welfare Bill vote will take place next Tuesday?
Lucy Powell
May I start by wishing two Deputy Speakers a happy birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is Armed Forces Week, when we thank and show our support for the men and women who serve, or who have served, in our armed forces over many years. It is nice to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place again this week, because we have missed him quite a bit recently, but I might gently suggest that if he had been here last week, he could have asked last week’s questions last week instead of asking them this week.
He asks me about the welfare Bill. As I have just announced to the House, the Second Reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill will take place next Tuesday, and the remaining stages of the Bill will take place on the Floor of the House the following week. I want to reassure colleagues that we take parliamentary scrutiny and the process of Bills extremely seriously. That is what our parliamentary democracy is all about: Bills are introduced; principles are considered at Second Reading; and the details receive robust debate and discussion, and are often amended in Committee, before we consider Third Reading. As the House would expect, the Government actively engage with parliamentary opinion throughout a Bill’s passage, as we are doing intensively with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.
I am sure that the whole House can agree that our welfare system needs reform. Too many people are consigned to benefits for life without support to work and to get on. During the pandemic in particular, the number of those on sickness and disability benefits rose significantly, and the previous Government did nothing to re-engage people with the labour market afterwards. One in eight young people are now not earning or learning. Many post-industrial communities have been scarred over generations by worklessness and little job creation. As constituency MPs, we have all seen the inadequate and, frankly, degrading nature of disability benefits reassessments.
Addressing these deep-seated problems is at the core of our Labour principles and what we are trying to do with our welfare reforms. I just remind colleagues that these include: the biggest permanent increase to the standard out-of-work benefit since 1980; an end to reassessments for all those with serious health conditions; creating a more holistic and professionally-led assessments process; the biggest back to work programme in a generation; the right to try work; and ending the era of consigning people as unable to work.
To be clear, it is the Conservatives’ legacy that this Government now have to sort out—their legacy of one in 10 working-age people on sickness or disability benefits; their legacy of a generation of young people with no mental health support and poor skills; their legacy of over 7 million people on NHS waiting lists; and their legacy of inaction on welfare reforms over years and years. Quite honestly, the right hon. Gentleman has a brass neck, because the Conservatives have written the book on Government chaos, have they not? There were three Prime Ministers in three years; they sent the markets into chaos, with Budgets done on the back of a fag packet—they really did write the book on that one—there was by-election after by-election for misconduct; over 40 Ministers resigned in a single day; billions were wasted on crony covid contracts; public services were left on their knees; and industrial action was sweeping the country, costing us all dear. All of that left ordinary people paying the price with higher bills, higher mortgages and longer waiting lists.
However, this is not just about welfare reform; it is also about the context in which this sits in, and that is what this Government are getting on with doing—this Government’s mission to create good, decent, well-paid jobs in every community; this Government’s mission to bring down waiting lists and deal with the deep-seated health inequalities in this country; this Government’s mission to tackle child poverty; this Government’s mission to build more affordable and social housing, giving people a bedrock in life; and this Government’s mission to revolutionise skills and opportunities for young people. That is this Labour Government, with our Labour values, getting on with the job and delivering for people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am going to allow business questions to run only until 11.30 am, because of the important statement that is to follow, so I ask Members to help each other, and there will be a good example from Afzal Khan.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I know that many colleagues in the House share my frustration with the leasehold and management companies that leverage excessive and ambiguous service charges on leaseholders and tenants. In my constituency, I am facing ongoing problems with Glide Property Management, which demands unreasonably large sums from constituents without providing suitable services, and which is refusing to respond to the numerous complaints that have subsequently been submitted to it. Does the Leader of the House agree that such companies should not continue taking advantage of leaseholders and tenants, and must be held fully accountable for all complaints?
Lucy Powell
I fully share my hon. Friend’s frustrations with our leasehold system, and the charges and difficulties that many leaseholders face. He will know that we are acting quickly to implement the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, and there is more coming on that very soon, including the measures to drive up the transparency of service charges and ensure that they can be challenged more easily by leaseholders.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in congratulating the Deputy Speakers on their birthdays, and in celebrating our armed forces.
Earlier this year, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced the welfare reforms, her argument to this House was that they were all about getting people back into work. That argument was undermined somewhat by the timing; in the spring statement the following week, we discovered that the £5 billion saving we achieve from the welfare reforms makes up fully half of the fiscal headroom that the Chancellor is relying on. When we take a closer look at the reforms, we find that most of the savings are generated by changes to the eligibility criteria for the personal independence payment. Entitlement to PIP is given to those in work, those out of work and those unable to work. It follows that many of those who stand to lose out as a result of the reforms will not be incentivised into work, because they will already be in work, or will be unable to join the workforce any time soon. No wonder, then, that when the Bill was published last week, there was condemnation from all sides of the House. If the books need to be balanced, we need to make sure that they are not balanced on the backs of the disabled.
The Leader of the House will be well aware of all the rumours circulating around this place that the Government are preparing to make concessions on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. What is the procedure for doing that? We understand that a reasoned amendment, if one is tabled, would kill the Bill off entirely. What are the options for the Government to make concessions? Will they have to withdraw the Bill and re-present it, or is there some other mechanism by which they can make compromises with their Back Benchers before next week?
Lucy Powell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. He has done a very good job of standing in for his excellent colleague, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), with whom I also enjoy working.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that reform to the welfare system has to be done with compassion and be carefully managed. I am sure he also agrees that the system does need reform. He is absolutely right that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, but a benefit that helps to support disabled people with their living needs. We have to ensure that it is sustainable for the long term, and is there for those who need it most. As I have said, we are listening closely to colleagues from across the House—including, I am sure, Members from his party—who have a lot of experience of dealing with the PIP assessment process. I am sure we all recognise that for too long it has been a box-ticking, degrading process that has not been fit for purpose. That is why we have been reviewing it and listening closely to colleagues. We want to get this right for disabled people, their carers and others.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the parliamentary process. As Leader of the House, with responsibility for legislation across the piece, I struggle to think of many Government Bills brought in this Session that have not been amended during their passage. Most Bills are amended, and those amendments are usually made in Committee and on Report. I am sure that this Bill will be considered in the usual way during its parliamentary passage.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House extols the virtue of parliamentary democracy, yet over half of MPs reject the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. We have spoken to our constituents and to organisations representing disabled people. They reject the Bill, because it will cause harm to disabled people. Their voices have not been heard, much though we are trying to amplify them in this place. Will the Leader of the House urge the Cabinet to withdraw the Bill, and instead allow a general debate on how we support disabled people?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend has campaigned on these issues for a long time. We have not yet voted on, or even considered, the Bill. We will have an extensive and, I am sure, thorough parliamentary process in which to do that. I ask colleagues to think about the principles of welfare reform on Second Reading, and to then really drill down into the details of the Bill as it passes through Parliament. We have engaged with the disabled community. We will continue to engage with colleagues from across the House and with stakeholders as we consider not just this Bill but the further welfare reform that is needed, which has to be, as I say, compassionate and considered, so that we have a system that is there for the long term for those who need it most.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Following the successful seven-year experiment on estimates day debates, the Chairs of the Procedure and Liaison Committees, the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), met me yesterday, and we agreed that we would bring forward proposals for changes to the Standing Orders, which I am sure the Leader of the House will look favourably on.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, there will be a debate on Thursday 10 July in the Chamber on the attainment and engagement of boys in education, followed by a debate on children’s health. In Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on regulatory powers over billing of energy supply to businesses on Tuesday 1 July, and debates on the future of music education and on safeguarding children with allergies at school on Thursday 3 July. There will be a debate on alcohol and cancer on Tuesday 8 July, and debates on state support for victims of terrorism and on London’s contribution to the national economy on Thursday 10 July.
Tomorrow, across India, the annual Ratha Yatra festival will take place. In Ahmedabad, the Rath Yatra festival has been held since 1878, and there is a procession through the streets of the deities that Hindus worship. In Harrow, we will celebrate on Sunday, when the annual procession will take place. This year, it will be between Stanmore temple and Kenton temple—a seven-mile route, in 31° heat, taking about four hours to complete. The good news, of course, is that it is downhill this year, and not the uphill route from Kenton to Stanmore. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing all Hindus celebrating this most important festival Jai Swaminarayan, Jai Shri Krishna and, indeed, Jai Jagannath?
Lucy Powell
I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for once again highlighting to the House all the forthcoming Backbench Business debates, and look forward to receiving from him and colleagues representations on how we hold estimates day debates. I am sure we can all agree that that probably does need to be looked at.
I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing everybody who is celebrating this weekend in his constituency and beyond a happy chariot festival, as I think it is also known. I hope that he and others keep cool, wear suncream and drink lots of water on their downhill walk.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Yesterday’s resignation of the Reform leader of Warwickshire county council and his replacement with an 18-year-old will be of real concern to my constituents. We desperately need a functioning council to fill in potholes, deliver our care services and end the crisis in education for those with special education needs and disabilities. While I am sorry to hear about Councillor Rob Howard’s health challenges and wish him and his family well, questions remain about how he came to resign after just six weeks in the job, and about the qualifications of his 18-year-old replacement. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the need for competent and effective local government that delivers for communities around the country?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of Rob Howard’s ill health. My hon. Friend raises a much broader and more important point about the Reform party in local government. Reform is committed to reducing the head- count in local government, and its councillors clearly got the memo and are acting on it; they are resigning in droves.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The constituency of Bromsgrove and the villages is 89% green belt. Under this Labour Government, our housing target has gone up by 85%, yet nearby Birmingham has had its housing target reduced by 20%, despite there being at least 140 hectares of brownfield land in the south of the city alone. Surely the Leader of the House agrees that that does not make sense. If it does make sense to her, could she explain it to my constituents?
Lucy Powell
We make no apology for having the most ambitious house building programme in a generation. That programme is locally led; it is about local plans that bring together a strategic view of what land is available and its best use. Those decisions should be taken locally.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
My constituents regularly contact me about the need to improve dementia care. I remember the impact that dementia had on my grandparents and my family, so I sympathise profoundly with everyone impacted by it. I was therefore delighted when my constituent Joy Watson was awarded the British empire medal in the King’s birthday honours in recognition of her inspiring work as a dementia champion. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Joy on her fantastic achievement, and send the best wishes of this House to Joy and her husband Tony, and will she consider a debate in Government time on how we can enhance dementia services?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Joy Watson, and we send our best to her and her husband Tony. Like thousands of others across the country, they live with dementia every day. We thank the carers who support those living with dementia. This Government are committed to dementia services and making sure that we have the best research and innovation on dementia. The Health Secretary will continue to keep the House updated as part of his 10-year plan.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
June is Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month, celebrating the colourful histories and contributions of those communities. People are drawn to Glastonbury and Somerton as a place of pilgrimage, because of its unique spiritual heritage. After the Conservative cuts, we have no sites across Somerset for our Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities. Can we have a debate in Government time on support for the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community?
Lucy Powell
As the hon. Lady is the MP for the Glastonbury festival site—or an area close to the site—may I join her in welcoming all those going to the festival this weekend, where it is likely to be very hot? She raises an important point about the Gypsy/Roma community and the need to support it where we can. This would make a really good topic for a debate.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
This is Armed Forces Week, and as we celebrate the contribution of our armed forces, we must do more to support those who serve our country. Too many of our veterans return home with post-traumatic stress disorder, for which there are few treatment options. Since December 2023, the Home Office has been sitting on a response to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report on barriers to research on schedule 1 substances, including MDMA and psilocybin, which are used in other jurisdictions such as Australia to treat PTSD. Can the Leader of the House please find out where this response is, and arrange for a debate in Government time on novel treatments for mental health conditions?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter during Armed Forces Week. I am really sorry to hear that there has not been a response forthcoming. She is absolutely right to raise the issue of the mental health trauma suffered by many of our veterans, and the need to do more to support them in the community. I will make sure that a response is forthcoming.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my excellent local schools in Romford and Hornchurch—Ardleigh Green infant school, Dame Tipping Church of England primary school, Hornchurch high school, Parklands primary school, Squirrels Heath junior school, St Edward’s Church of England primary school, the Frances Bardsley academy for girls, and Towers infants school—for their superb Ofsted reports, both good and excellent? Will she join me in promoting, as my local schools do, more British values, more patriotism, singing the national anthem at assembly, and flying the Union Jack outside every school across our country?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Member in congratulating schools in his constituency on their recent Ofsted ratings. The schools in all our constituencies do an amazing job in not just educating our young people, but giving them that full life experience about how to be good citizens—and good British citizens as well. We thank them for all their work.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced the largest devolution settlement in the history of the United Kingdom. It is deeply concerning that despite the Government giving Scotland the funding that it needs to deliver vital public services, the SNP-run East Renfrewshire integration joint board has launched its second attempt to close the Mirin and Milldale day care centres, which provide essential services supporting people with learning and physical disabilities, autism, and older adults and children. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning those savage cuts by the SNP-run integration joint board, and call on the SNP to rethink and save those services?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a very strong case. She is absolutely right that, after decades of failure under the SNP Government, local people are crying out for change. We gave the Scottish Government the largest budget settlement in their history, and they have no excuse for not using it well.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
My constituents are facing a crisis endured by people across the UK: a lack of access to basic dental care. Siân Gwenllian, Member of the Senedd for Arfon, has commissioned a report that provides a compelling case for a dental school at Bangor University. While the Welsh Government have acknowledged the potential benefits of the proposal, they cite financial constraints. Given the promise of two Governments at both ends of the M4 working together, does the Leader of the House agree that time should be found to revise Wales’s financial settlement to make this vital proposal a reality?
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of dental deserts, which we see across the country, not just in Wales. She will know that the previous Government did not invest in dentistry, and that has had a knock-on effect in Wales. Many colleagues have raised with me the need for more dental schools. I suggest that she clubs together with some colleagues to get a debate on that subject.
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
My constituency has recently hosted some fantastic community events. We have had the world coal carrying championship, the annual Ossett and Gawthorpe maypole procession, the Horbury craft fair, the annual Shelley French lunch, and plenty of beer festivals—not to mention the upcoming galas across the constituency over the summer. Could the Leader of the House support me in finding parliamentary time to celebrate the hard-working volunteers behind all these events, including Visit Ossett, and acknowledge their contribution to Yorkshire’s community, culture and local economy?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend gives us a great advert for all that is going on in her constituency. These sorts of events are important for attracting visitors and tourists to her constituency, Yorkshire and beyond.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The latest data from the Environment Agency shows nearly 17,000 reports of waste crime across England in the past year, with the west midlands sadly showing the highest concentration of incidents. Waste crime costs the UK economy around £1 billion annually, and no doubt the Labour-led Birmingham bin strikes are not helping. Can we have a debate in Government time on the problem of waste crime and the need to take action to tackle both waste crime and the bin strikes, which have been going on for over 100 days?
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Lady is right that fly-tipping and waste can blight communities and are a real problem, though I must say that incidents sky-rocketed and prosecutions fell under the previous Government. That is why we are taking steps through the Crime and Policing Bill to give police and local authorities more powers to take off-road vehicles off the streets and to take tougher action on fly-tippers.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support from trade unions. This week we have heard extremely disturbing news that Northumbria police have destroyed all documents relating to the miners’ strike, including on Orgreave. That is absolutely alarming. The Labour Government have pledged an inquiry or investigation into the strikes, yet the wanton destruction of that vital, critical evidence has been allowed to happen. Is this a sinister attempt to obscure justice? I am not sure that anybody is prepared to answer that question. Who gave the police permission to destroy these documents, and what is behind it? Can we have an urgent debate into how the Government can instruct all police forces and all authorities—everyone that holds any detail on the miners’ strike and Orgreave—to retain that evidence for when the Labour Government maintain their pledge and hold an inquiry into the events of 1984? Justice cannot be served if evidence is systematically and deliberately destroyed.
Lucy Powell
That sounds like a deeply worrying development in the case, and I am sure the whole House will be shocked to hear it. My hon. Friend has long campaigned for justice and answers to what happened at Orgreave, 41 years ago. He raised the issue with me last week and I will continue to raise it with Ministers on his behalf. I join him in telling anyone involved that they must retain their records, and when questions are asked, they must come forward with every bit of information they have on what happened, as they would be expected to.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
My constituents constantly tell me that Thames Water is failing in its duties and has no financial future. In spite of its failings, we are reliant on it for the most basic human needs of water and sanitation. Will the Leader of the House allow us Government time to scrutinise in detail the merits of turning Thames Water into a public benefit company?
Lucy Powell
We urgently need to restore public trust in the water sector; that is particularly true of Thames Water, whose performance has been extremely poor over many years. There are lots of concerns about it. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we brought in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, the first step to reforming our water system. We have commissioned a deep look at the water governance sector. Further announcements will be coming on that, hopefully before the recess.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Sadeq Nikzad has been convicted of a horrifying sexual assault in Falkirk in October 2023. Shamefully, Mr Nikzad continues to maintain that he has done nothing wrong; during sentencing, his lawyer claimed that this was due to cultural differences. To be clear, no one from any culture or background in our community believes that his actions were anything other than disgusting and criminal. Will the Leader of the House clarify that, once it is in force, clause 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will ensure that those who commit such serious offences will be unable to claim refugee status in our country ever again?
Lucy Powell
Obviously, I cannot comment on specific cases, but this one sounds truly shocking. Clause 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will give the Home Secretary powers to refuse refugee status to those convicted of any sexual offence, even when it does not result in a prison sentence of 12 months or more. We are determined to ensure that those who commit such crimes do not get the right to stay in this country.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Brilliant organisations such as citizenAID, which was co-founded by two of my former bosses, Major General Tim Hodgetts and Professor Sir Keith Porter, provide brilliant education about civil resilience and emergency preparedness. In an increasingly uncertain world, will the Leader of the House commit to Government time for a debate on that really important issue, so that we are upskilling our citizens in case of serious incidents?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking all those involved in citizenAID in his constituency. It sounds like a great initiative. He is absolutely right: we need more contingency provision and to train people up so they know what to do during these kinds of incidents. When they happen, we always rely on volunteers and volunteer organisations like the one he has described. This sounds like a good topic for an Adjournment debate.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
HS2 has impacted many residents across Tamworth, with businesses and farmers having been forced to sell their land. One resident has been trapped for nearly 10 years with a property that borders HS2. He is unable to sell because 50% of the land occupies what HS2 claims is safeguarding territory. Despite the involvement of three solicitors, HS2 has failed to explain that ruling. May I therefore ask for a statement to the House on when the statutory blight will be lifted on land no longer needed for HS2, so that my constituents, along with those of other hon. Members, can move on with their lives?
Lucy Powell
That case in my hon. Friend’s constituency sounds really difficult. As she will be aware, the Secretary of State recently came to the House to explain more deeply the shocking mismanagement of HS2. We are determined to get a grip of that and get delivery back under control. We are reviewing the position on HS2 phase 2 and will set out more plans shortly, including about the safeguarding of land.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My constituent Liz was thrown out of the RAF in 1969 when a love letter from her girlfriend was discovered. Not only did she lose her career but, as she recently discovered, she has had a criminal record for 50 years. The compensation scheme for veterans has been open since December last year, but the discharge of funds for those suffering such injustice is slow: 1,000 veterans have applied, but only 44 payments have been realised. Will the Leader of the House please make time for a debate about the process, so that those who have waited for decades can finally be compensated?
Lucy Powell
We have all been shocked by these cases; I am sorry to hear about what Liz has suffered. For so many years, those who were gay were not able to be in the armed forces. That they were treated in such appalling ways, getting criminal records and losing the jobs they adored, is truly shocking. I was really pleased that we recently had a debate on these matters on the Floor of the House, but I will absolutely ensure that she and other Members are updated on the delivery of that compensation scheme and of justice for those involved.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
This weekend, the England women’s football team play their final friendly before they defend the Euro championship trophy they won so brilliantly in 2022. I am delighted to say that Rochdale’s very own Keira Walsh will again wear the No. 4 shirt at the heart of our midfield. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking and wishing Keira and the Lionesses all the very best of luck and in thanking her proud mum and dad, Tracy and Peter, for what they did in producing such an inspiring figure for women and girls across the country?
Lucy Powell
I am sure that the whole House will join my hon. Friend and me in wishing the Lionesses well in defending their title. What joy winning the Euros four years ago brought to us all. I join him in thanking Tracy and Peter for bringing up their daughter and for all the drop-offs and pick-ups, and all the time and energy, that go into creating someone as brilliant as Keira Walsh.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I do not know if the Leader of the House is aware that if we installed just 15% of floating solar panels on the man-made reservoirs in this country, we would double the installed base of solar power without having to put a single new solar panel on agricultural land. I know what she is thinking: “If only some plucky Back Bencher had secured today’s Adjournment debate, the House could learn more.” I am happy to say that I have, so will she encourage Back Benchers from across the House to attend today’s debate to learn more about floating solar?
Lucy Powell
I am pleased to confirm that the hon. Gentleman is a very plucky Back Bencher indeed. I am sure that many will be interested in his Adjournment debate. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, because it sounds like a great idea.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
My constituent Danielle Wiseman is desperate to pass her theory test, but she was recently told that she cannot get a theory test in Gateshead until 2026. Will the Leader of the House make time for the urgent debate needed on access to theory tests and driving tests—an issue that bedevils people in Gateshead and across the country? Also, if she will allow me, will she congratulate Danielle and her partner David on the upcoming birth of their child?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Danielle and David on the upcoming birth of their child. It is so important, as a parent, to be able to drive around, so I am sorry to hear about the delays they are experiencing. This matter gets raised with me lots at business questions. The Government have recently taken steps to deal with the abuse of and the huge backlog in the driving test system. We are delivering around 10,000 additional driving tests, but I will ensure that the House is updated on the matter.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
In recent weeks and months, Harrogate has been gridlocked, with seemingly unco-ordinated roadworks blocking our town. It is particularly difficult for businesses when those works go on for protracted periods of times—and when they already face Labour’s jobs tax. Will the Leader of the House agree to look at a compensation scheme for businesses affected for long periods by roadworks?
Lucy Powell
Really badly delivered roadworks, which are often unco-ordinated, can be a huge blight on local businesses, town centres and others. I hear what the hon. Member is saying. These are the responsibilities of local councils and we are putting more money into making sure that roads can be put right, but I will definitely ensure that he gets a reply.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
One in four women experience mental health challenges during pregnancy or after birth; in fact, it is the most common complication of pregnancy in the UK. Last month, almost 50 hon. Members of this House pledged their support for improved maternal mental health provision at an event that I hosted with the Maternal Mental Health Alliance. Will the Leader of the House advise on further opportunities to embed better maternal mental health provision in the Government’s 10-year plan for the NHS?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right that maternal mental health is a critical issue to the development of a child. I have long been involved in the initiative on the first 1,001 days—from conception to the age of two—with former Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom, and I will be visiting such services in my constituency tomorrow; let me get that plug in. I assure my hon. Friend that these sorts of issues will be covered in the NHS 10-year plan, which will come to this House very shortly.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Research shows that 91% of farmers see poor mental health as the industry’s biggest hidden issue. Last year, Kelso farmer Neil Stewart very sadly took his own life. His friends and family have since raised over £80,000 for RSABI, which provides support for people working in farming. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to them and may we have a debate on mental health in farming?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear that Neil Stewart took his own life, with the impact that must have had, and is still having, on his family and friends. To hear of their extraordinary fundraising efforts for RSABI is heartwarming. Mental health and mental health support, whether in rural communities, young people and other aspects, are a priority for the Government, and more will be announced shortly in the 10-year plan.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
On 5 July, Renfrewshire hosts the annual Sma’ Shot Day parade, as it celebrates the victory of weavers over their employers in the 19th century. For more than 30 years, Mr Tony Lawler, a Paisley Buddy, has led the procession, beating the Charleston drum. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Tony as he retires from the role, and does she agree that celebrating workers’ rights is a worthwhile topic for a future debate?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in wishing everybody a happy Sma’ Shot Day celebration and all that involves, and I congratulate Tony Lawler on 30 fantastic years of service to that rich history and festival. She is right: as a Labour Government, we celebrate the advancement of workers’ rights and all the history involved.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Surfers Against Sewage has just published its 2025 water quality report, showing that more than five people a day fall ill after entering the water at UK beaches, with many requiring GP visits or hospitalisation for chest infections or serious gastro bugs. Given the serious public health consequences of sewage pollution, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time about the health and economic impacts of untreated sewage discharges?
Lucy Powell
Water quality has been shocking in recent years, whether in our rivers, seas or lakes. It is a huge public concern and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it has a number of consequences. That is why one of the Government’s first acts was to bring in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which is now an Act, and we will go further. We have the commission on wider water governance reform, and further details of that will come shortly.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
At a time when the Government are reducing NHS waiting lists across England, they continue to rise in Scotland. Just yesterday, the SNP Government announced plans that could see investment in NHS services reduced by a shocking 12%, resulting in a significant reduction in frontline NHS staff. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people in my constituency deserve a Scottish Government focused on improving our NHS, as has been the commitment of this Government since the general election?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right. The SNP’s record on the NHS is shocking. We have seen years of mismanagement and growing waiting lists, including eight-hour waits in accident and emergency and 100,000 Scots stuck on NHS waiting lists for more than a year, which is truly shocking. The SNP Government have had the biggest settlement they have ever had under this Government, and they now have no excuse not to sort it out.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Earlier this month Family Business UK confirmed what was obvious to many on this side of the House—but not, apparently, to Labour Members—that the Government’s changes to business property relief will cause more than 200,000 job losses and cost the economy nearly £15 billion. That includes 250 jobs in my constituency and more than £60 million lost to the local economy in West Yorkshire. Can we have an urgent debate on the catastrophic consequences that the Government’s changes to inheritance tax, through business property relief and agricultural property relief, will have on many of our family businesses from April 2026?
Lucy Powell
As someone who also represents many family businesses, I know this is an issue of concern, but we had to take difficult decisions in our Budget to ensure that we have money going into our national health service to reduce waiting lists, and into our skills sector and education, and that meant looking at those with the broadest shoulders, including inheritance tax, so that we can restore our public services to where they need to be.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Black Country Living Museum in my constituency, which was recently named the best large visitor attraction in the country by VisitEngland? The museum brings to life the Black Country’s rich heritage through the reconstruction of shops, houses and industrial areas, telling the story of this revolutionary period in our history. Will she also make time for a debate in Government time on supporting world-class visitor attractions, which contribute so much to our local and national economies?
Lucy Powell
It is wonderful news that the Black Country Living Museum won that award—it pulled a real peaky blinder. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these kind of visitor attractions are critical to bringing people into our communities and ensuring that our high streets and town centres thrive.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Reference has already been made to Armed Forces Week. Like Members from across the House, I will be taking part in events this weekend. North-east Lincolnshire is staging the major national event, and around a quarter of a million people will descend on Cleethorpes this weekend to take part in the events. Unfortunately, due to a constituency engagement, I cannot take part in this afternoon’s debate, but I want to put on the record my thanks to Alex Baxter and the armed forces major events team in north-east Lincolnshire and, indeed, to all the volunteers across the country who put together the events that mark this occasion.
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Member in taking the opportunity to thank Alex Baxter and all those in the hon. Member’s constituency marking Armed Forces Week. We join together, as we always do, to thank all those who have served and are serving this country.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
New figures today from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show that the equivalent of one child in every UK classroom is born through IVF. Yet funding for IVF is a postcode lottery and there is not enough support in the workplace, as Fertility Matters At Work highlighted in Parliament yesterday. Can we have a debate in Government time on this issue, and will the Leader of the House advise on how we can address it across Government because we need cross-departmental action?
Lucy Powell
The Government recognise, and we all recognise, that access to fertility treatment is variable across the country. We are considering these issues as part of our broader plans for the NHS. I will ensure that my hon. Friend and the rest of the House are kept updated.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to raise the urgent situation facing Christians in Syria, where a suicide attack on a Damascus church recently claimed the lives of at least 20 people and injured many more. The brutal assault is a devastating reminder of the threats that Christians and other religious communities continue to face in Syria, amid years of conflict and displacement. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Office gives the House an assessment of the attack and the wider security situation for religious minorities in Syria? What steps can the Foreign Secretary take with international partners to support those vulnerable communities, ensure humanitarian access and hold the perpetrators of these atrocities to account?
Lucy Powell
Once again, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. We strongly condemn the horrific terrorist attack in Damascus and continue to monitor the situation closely. We do note on this occasion that the Syrian Government’s response was swift and robust, but we will of course keep monitoring it.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
This week is also Small Charity Week—a chance to celebrate the work of small charities in all our constituencies. I have had the privilege of meeting many such organisations, whether that is Home-Start Hillingdon, Hillingdon women’s centre or Trinity Homeless Projects. Despite their important work, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations found that only 3% of charities are confident about their long-term financial future. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate to celebrate Small Charity Week and talk about how we can continue to support their work?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those small charities in his constituency. We recognise that the last few years have not been the easiest for charities. We are taking a number of steps to keep them going, including with the charitable tax reliefs and exemptions. We are also ensuring that local government, on which many charities rely, has the long-term secure funding to support them.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Under the last Government, fly-tipping skyrocketed while prosecutions fell, and places like Burnt Oak, Colindale and west Hendon in my constituency paid the price. It is fantastic to see this Labour Government acting where the previous Government failed, bringing in stiffer penalties and giving the police powers to seize and crush vans. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how we can use those powers to consign fly-tipping to the dustbin for good, and would she join me in Hendon to crush a van?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. Fly-tipping and littering are a blight on many of our communities, which is why I am proud that this Government are finally acting by giving councils and the police the powers they need to seize and crush many of these vehicles. My hon. Friend will know that I recently took part in a vehicle-crushing exercise with my local police, and I recommend it to others.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
My constituent applied to have his case against his pension provider considered by the ombudsman, and he contacted me because of the delay in receiving a determination. I, in turn, wrote to the ombudsman, who advised that my constituent was in the correct place in the queue and would be allocated to an adjudicator in September 2025. My constituent made his original application in May 2020. I am sure the Leader of the House would agree that this timescale is not acceptable, so will she find time for a debate to shine a light on why such inefficiency and poor response to constituents is happening?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about this case. My hon. Friend is right that five years is unacceptably slow. The performance of the Pensions Ombudsman has been raised with me in previous business questions, and I am happy to take this up directly for her. She is right that such delays are just not acceptable.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Last week at Bishop’s Stortford carnival, I met Katie from Blues pre-school and nursery, which is taking part in this week’s Small Charity Week. Any donations to the nursery, which will be matched by partners, will be used to upgrade its outdoor area so it can be used by the children in all weathers. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the nursery well as it raises funds, and in encouraging my residents to visit the donation page?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in hoping that the nursery raises the funds it needs to support its work.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Last Saturday, I launched the first Bournemouth town centre citizens panel, which brings together 50 local residents and the council to co-create an action plan for our town. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the more than 250 people who applied, and the participants for their energy and ideas to restore pride in our town? Will she also consider making time to debate how we can support more meaningful engagement on the future of our town centres and high streets?
Lucy Powell
A citizens panel in Bournemouth sounds like a fantastic initiative, bringing people together to revitalise the great town she represents.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
My border terrier, Jack, always receives a very warm welcome in Stockton North, but too many pet owners are choosing to have their animals put down for fear of sky-high vet bills. I received a positive response from the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on 8 May to my request to review the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. Can we have Government time to debate the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority because, just like Jack, I am not letting this go?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend sounds like a dog with a bone. This is an important issue that is raised with many of us by our constituents. I will ensure that the Minister updates him and, if necessary, the whole House.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
This Government have secured record investment in the NHS, which for local people across my constituency means more appointments, earlier diagnosis and access to efficient, high-quality care. After years of under-investment and increasing waiting times, can we have a debate on how these are the first steps to restoring a health service that is fit for the future and is there when people in my constituency need it?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government have taken swift action to bring down waiting lists, which are down by almost 200,000 in a year, with 100,000 more patients treated in that time. We are putting extra money into the NHS because reducing waiting lists is critical to our economy and the health of everybody in this country.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On my recent visit to Greenways primary academy in Stockton Brook, pupils were busy decorating plates kindly donated by the brilliant Steelite, showing off the artistic flair for which our creative city of Stoke-on-Trent is known.
I learned during my visit that more than 70 children are now attending the school’s brilliant breakfast club, an initiative made possible by this Labour Government. Does the Leader of the House agree it is important that kids have hungry minds that are ready to learn rather than hungry bellies?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. We are proud of the free breakfast clubs that we are introducing. We are also proud that we are extending free school meals to all those on universal credit, because it is critical to every child’s learning that they are not going hungry.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Prime Minister to make his statement, I note that it will cover two separate substantial subjects—the G7 summit in Canada 10 days ago, and the NATO summit in The Hague this week. For that reason I will allow a degree of latitude and, unusually, I will allow hon. Members who wish to ask about both subjects to do so. I urge colleagues to keep their questions brief for the benefit of those who are still waiting to be called. I call the Prime Minister.
G7 and NATO Summits
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This Labour Government are focused on delivering security for the British people—national security, economic security, and social security. On social security, I recognise that there is a consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform of our welfare system, because the British people deserve protection and dignity when they are unable to work, and support into work when they can. At the moment they are failed every single day by the broken system created by the Conservatives, which achieves neither. I know that colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I; all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I. We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. That conversation will continue in the coming days, so that we can begin making change together on Tuesday.
Mr Speaker, with permission I will update the House on the G7 and NATO summits, where the middle east was at the forefront of our minds. For decades, it has been the stated policy of the UK and our allies that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. No one who cares about the security of our country, or the future of the middle east, could live with that eventuality. For decades we have worked to prevent it, and on Saturday night the US took a big step towards resolving that threat.
There is now a window for peace. We urge Iran and Israel to honour the ceasefire and seize this opportunity to stabilise the region. That is our priority—to get Iran back around the negotiating table with the US. Ultimately, that is how we will ensure a complete, verifiable, and irreversible end to Iran’s nuclear programme. We are using every diplomatic lever to support that effort, because further instability would pose grave risks to the region and beyond, taking us even further away from freeing the hostages and easing the intolerable suffering of the Palestinians. There is also an opportunity now to push for a ceasefire in Gaza, and we must seize it. I have been discussing this with other leaders, and we will keep pushing to put the region on a better path. I have also spoken to the Emir of Qatar to express our solidarity after Iran’s unacceptable attack on the Al Udeid airbase. We took the necessary action to protect British military personnel ahead of that attack, and we will continue to support all our citizens in the region.
Mr Speaker, this crisis has punctured once again the mistaken idea that domestic and foreign policy concerns are separate, and that action in one area is at the expense of the other. The truth, now more than ever, is that international problems rebound on us at home, impacting our security and our economy. Our national security strategy is clear. In this era of radical uncertainty, faced with growing conflict, state threats, illegal migration, organised crime and terrorism, the only way to respond to these issues is by being strong, both at home and on the world stage, by pursuing a foreign policy that answers directly to the concerns of working people. That is the approach I took to NATO and to the G7.
NATO is the most successful military alliance the world has ever known and the cornerstone of our defence for over 75 years. Our duty is not merely to reflect on that success; we must equip the alliance for the future. I have long argued that this is the moment for Europe to make a fundamental shift in posture. That is what the UK has done, delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war and setting out a landmark shift in our defence and deterrence in the strategic defence review.
Yesterday, NATO allies stepped up as well, to meet this moment and create an alliance that is stronger, fairer and more lethal than ever. Together, we signed a new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, including, for the first time, wider issues of homeland security and national resilience, like protecting our cyber-security and our energy networks. This is in lockstep with our national security strategy and we are already investing in these areas. Under NATO’s new definitions, we estimate that we will reach at least 4.1% of GDP in 2027, on the way to 5% by 2035. Allies also agreed to review both the balance and the trajectory of these requirements in 2029 to coincide with the scheduled review of NATO’s capability requirements, ensuring that we keep pace with threats and technologies as they evolve.
With this historic commitment, we are continuing our proud tradition of leading in NATO, picking up the torch from Attlee and Bevin. And now, following their lead, we will seize the opportunity created by this moment to align our national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since the 1940s, renewing industrial communities the length and breadth of our country, boosting defence production and innovation. Our investment in Britain's nuclear deterrent alone will support 30,000 high-skilled jobs.
I want to speak directly about our deterrent capability. It has kept this country safe for decades, but we recognise the grim reality today that the nuclear threat is growing. So we are renewing our existing at-sea capability and we are going further still. I can tell the House today that we will procure at least 12 F-35A fast jets, and we will make them available to bear nuclear weapons, if necessary. That marks the return of the Royal Air Force to nuclear deterrence for the first time in three decades, the biggest strengthening of our deterrence posture in a generation, keeping our country safe while also supporting 20,000 jobs.
The NATO summit sent a message of intent that will be heard around the world, but this must be joined by renewed support for Ukraine, because if we let Putin succeed there, the deterrent effect of NATO’s new plans would be fatally compromised. So I told President Zelensky at Downing Street on Monday that we will harden our resolve. We struck an agreement together to share battlefield technology, accelerating our support for Ukraine’s defence, while boosting British security and British jobs. We committed to providing hundreds more air defence missiles, paid for not by the British taxpayer, but with money from Russia’s frozen assets.
And, together with Europe, Canada and our Indo-Pacific partners, we announced that we will deliver €40 billion of military aid to Ukraine this year, matching last year’s pledge in full. There is a path to a just and lasting peace, but it will only come through flipping the pressure on to Putin. His position is weaker than he claims, so I urged all our partners, including the US, to step up the pressure now, with more sanctions and more military support to bring Russia to the table, to agree an unconditional ceasefire, leading to serious negotiations.
Let me turn to the G7 summit, where, again, my priority was to deliver in the national interest. Again, I can report some significant progress. Leaders agreed to take decisive action on illegal migration, following the UK’s lead in using hard-headed measures such as sanctions. We marked an export contract with Canada worth over £500 million, creating jobs here at home. We secured Canada’s agreement to ratify Britain’s entry to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—a trading bloc worth $12 trillion.
We secured President Trump’s signature to fully implement our trade deal, which will slash tariffs on British goods. His executive order will remove aerospace tariffs completely and cut tariffs on cars from the 27.5% that British car makers face now to 10% in a matter of days, saving thousands of jobs in the west midlands and around the country. I have been to Jaguar Land Rover many times now; I have looked those workers in the eye, and I know what this means to them, their families and their whole communities. That is who I am representing at summits like this—the working people of Britain.
Navigating this world requires cool heads. It defies simplistic answers and knee-jerk judgments. We do not pretend that we can fix every global problem, but we can carve a unique path through these dangerous times to secure and renew Britain in an era of global instability. That is what our plan for change is all about: putting Britain’s national interest first.
After years of economic chaos, we have delivered economic stability for the British people. After years of our armed forces being hollowed out, we are building up our military, firing up our industries, leading in NATO, supporting Ukraine and keeping Britain safe. After years of fraying alliances, we are rebuilding and shaping them to serve the British people. We have focused every ounce of our global influence to deliver for working people and to deliver in the national interest, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. He has evaded Prime Minister’s questions for two weeks, only to come back here to tell us what we already heard on the news. This is a weak statement from a weak Prime Minister, which can be characterised in two words: noises off.
In his statement, the Prime Minister said:
“We urge Iran and Israel to honour the ceasefire”.
He said:
“We are using every diplomatic lever to support this effort”.
What diplomatic levers? Are they the same levers he is using with his Back-Bench rebels? Is he just asking them to please play nice? Let us be honest: nobody cares what this Prime Minister thinks—why should they, when he does not even know what he thinks? Clearly no one cares what he thinks, because he was not involved. We used to be a strategic player on the global stage, advancing Britain’s interests with confidence—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. You may not wish to hear the Leader of the Opposition, but I do. It does not do anybody good in this Chamber to try to shout down somebody who is speaking.
Mrs Badenoch
Labour Members can shout as much as they like, but we all know the truth. We used to be a strategic player on the global stage, advancing Britain’s interests with confidence, and now we are on the sidelines.
Over the last few weeks, historic events unfolded in the middle east, and at every stage Britain has been out of step with the US and out of the loop with Israel. Last week, the Prime Minister came back from the G7 insisting that there was nothing President Trump said that would indicate he was about to get involved in this conflict. Days later, the US launched its attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the Prime Minister had no idea what was going on.
The week before, Israel launched an attack on Iran, and it became apparent that the UK was not even informed about the attack in advance, despite us having been involved in previous preventive action. How is that standing up on the world stage? On Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary—a lawyer—repeatedly could not say whether the US strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities were legal. This is a Government who do not know what they are doing. Let me make the Conservative position clear: Iran has been a direct threat to the UK for years, plotting terrorism on British soil. It must not get nuclear weapons. This is a time for Europe to step up, and the UK should be leading; instead, we have an Attorney General using international law to constrain and restrict the UK while the Prime Minister hovers indecisively on the sidelines. What we need is a leader—instead, we have three lawyers.
Last week, I wrote to the Prime Minister about how this conflict has underscored the folly of the Government’s £30 billion Chagos surrender deal. The Diego Garcia base is of obvious strategic importance for conflicts in the middle east. [Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads—they do not understand. It is obvious; Diego Garcia was used extensively during the war in Afghanistan, including by the United States.
At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that this Chagos surrender had been
“opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran”.—[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 302.]
Since then, it has been widely reported that China has offered massive congratulations on the deal and conveyed that it fully supports Mauritius. Will the Prime Minister now admit that he was incorrect to state on the Floor of this House that China opposes the Chagos deal, and can he confirm whether he still views China as an adversary? Under the terms of the Prime Minister’s deal, if the US were to launch an attack from the military base on Diego Garcia, we would have to inform the Chinese-allied Mauritius Government. Will he abandon the deeply flawed surrender deal? If not, when will he introduce the legislation setting out the details of the Chagos surrender, so that Parliament can consider and debate it?
We welcome the announcement that the UK will be buying F-35A fighter jets, and I am pleased that the Labour party has now moved on from its previous position of not supporting NATO and advocating against the nuclear deterrent. [Interruption.] Labour Members pretend that it never happened, but we have the receipts. Conservatives are proud of exceeding the NATO baseline of 2% of GDP spent on defence, and we led NATO in getting there. However, the Government’s aspiration to get spending on national security to 5% is just hope—the reality is that Labour does not have a plan to get to 3%. It is all smoke and mirrors, and we do not know what the Government will spend the extra 1.5% component on. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is money we are already spending, or whether there will be any new money? So long as this plan remains unfunded, these are just words.
Instead of using smoke and mirrors to inflate defence spending, Labour should heed our call to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament with a fully funded plan to get there. Look at the money the Government claim they are going to save through their welfare Bill—£5 billion is nowhere near the tens, if not hundreds, of billions we are going to need to find if we are to meet that defence spending target. This is the problem, Mr Speaker: it is one thing to talk about spending money on planes and infrastructure and to make announcements about reviews, but it is another to be clear about where the money will come from and how it will be spent efficiently to secure the defence of our nation. [Interruption.] Labour Members can mutter all they like; we all know that they are terrified of doing anything that is even remotely difficult.
It is crucial that there is a clear, united front in full support of Ukraine that secures peace on Ukraine’s terms. The stakes could not be higher. We need the Government to be leveraging British influence in every way they can for Ukraine, so can the Prime Minister tell us whether he pushed for clearer language in the NATO communiqué about Russia being the aggressor in this conflict? Can he update us on the UK’s current position on Ukraine’s accession to NATO, given the absence of detail in this year’s communiqué? We must ensure that our leading role continues, but that requires strong leadership and an ability to influence.
The Prime Minister may have finally returned to this House after a fortnight away, but in truth, he is all at sea—irrelevant on the world stage and impotent in the face of rising illegal immigration. Now, with 126 of his own MPs openly undermining his authority, his Government are incapable of making even the smallest changes to bring down the cost of our ever-expanding welfare bill; there is no way that they are going to be able to pay for our defence. This is a Government who are paralysed by their own legal advice, paralysed by their rebellious Back Benchers, and paralysed by the fear of being found out for having no real vision for this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to those who were late into the Chamber, please do not stand. I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
We live in more volatile times than many of us can remember, with conflicts in many parts of the world that are evolving in a very fast and dangerous way. There has never been a more important time to work with our allies and to be absolutely serious in our response. That response was unserious.
To suggest at a time like this that the Prime Minister attending the G7 summit and the NATO summit is avoiding PMQs is unserious. What happened at NATO yesterday was historic. It was very important that, at a time like, NATO showed unity and strength, with a commitment to the future, not just to the past. That took a huge amount of work with our allies over the last few days and weeks. We were centrally involved in that, crafting the final outcome, and were recognised as having done so. I am proud that we helped put that summit into the right place yesterday, and the world emerged safer as a result. That was the unanimous view of 32 allies on leaving NATO yesterday. For the Leader of the Opposition to belittle it just shows how irrelevant she and her party are becoming. They used to once be serious about these issues, and they used to be capable of cross-party consensus, but all of that is slipping away. We have led on Ukraine and secured three trade deals.
The right hon. Lady talks about the prospect of US attacks. She must have overlooked the fact that on Tuesday, when I returned from the G7, the first thing I did was go straight into a Cobra meeting to plan for all contingencies, including a possible US attack on Iran. I will tell her why I did that, although we did offer a Privy Council briefing, so she knows this. We have military personnel co-located in nearly all the bases across the middle east, and I was therefore extremely concerned immediately upon my return to take every step to ensure that I had the highest levels of assuredness that we had the preparations in place to keep our people and our assets safe, should the need arise. Far from being blindsided, we were planning through last week, we were talking to the Americans, and we were put on notice about everything they did. She simply does not understand the nature of the relationship at that level.
In relation to Diego Garcia, let me disabuse the right hon. Lady. We do not have to give Mauritius advance notice under the treaty. That is absolutely clear.
The right hon. Lady talks about defence spend. We are the party that has increased defence spend to the highest level since the cold war—2.5%. The Conservatives talked about it; we did it. She says we do not know where the money is coming from, but she was pressed on this in an interview not so long ago, and she said that
“we talked about getting to 3% by 2030 and we couldn’t make the numbers work.”
She went on:
“We need to find a way to make the numbers work”.
I was intrigued by this interview, and I thought she was about to lay it out. Then she said:
“This sort of thing requires real thinking.”
Then she said:
“Let’s start looking at what we can do…It’s about us setting up task forces”.
That is how unserious they are.
The right hon. Lady asked about the Ukraine communiqué. As she will know, had she actually studied it, the way that NATO works is an iterative process. Therefore the position on Ukraine has not changed for NATO, and it has not changed under this Government. On the contrary, we are recognised as leading on Ukraine and as the closest ally of Ukraine, working with them the whole time. That is something I am proud of. I think it is something the House is proud of, because we had been doing this on a cross-party basis, and the sooner we get back to that, rather than the unserious response of the Leader of the Opposition, the better.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
In the year since the election of this Labour Government, Britain is back as a force for good on the world stage. Following the outbreak of conflict in the middle east last week, I was proud to see the Prime Minister lead calls for calm, cool heads and de-escalation. In its aftermath, we must take seriously the renewed defence commitments that the Prime Minister has made at NATO, but we must also proudly wield the soft convening and convincing power that the UK has in spades. That soft power has historically been the key to successful diplomatic efforts in Iran, securing the joint comprehensive plan of action, and in the wider middle east and around the world. Can the Prime Minister confirm what the Foreign Affairs Committee has learned from our conversations with our European allies, which is that Britain is quietly and effectively stepping up to lead the fight against Russian disinformation and cyber-warfare, and that the investment we will be putting in will be well spent?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. The need to de-escalate was the central focus going into the weekend and coming out of it, and I am very pleased that we have reached a ceasefire in relation to the conflict in Iran. We absolutely need that to hold.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the soft convening power of the United Kingdom. It is an incredible asset and, yes, I can confirm that we are working with others in relation to Russian disinformation and cyber-attacks, which, as the House knows, are a regular occurrence.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for early sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats agree that it would have been wrong to leave an empty chair in front of the Union Jack at the table for the G7 and NATO. It is astonishing, and I share his surprise, that it is now Conservative policy not to attend the G7 and NATO.
I am glad that the Prime Minister has signalled retreat on his welfare plans. I hope that he will now listen to everyone and not just his Back Benchers.
On the G7, despite the progress that he outlined, it remains extremely damaging to the world economy that the United States and Donald Trump continue their policy of protectionism. Can the Prime Minister update the House on whether he has had discussions with other G7 and, indeed, NATO colleagues about how we could persuade President Trump to resile from protectionism?
On NATO, the Prime Minister is right to say that Putin’s imperial ambitions present a once-in-a-generation threat to our security. Last week, I travelled to Estonia to meet British troops and Estonian leaders, including Prime Minister Michal. The Estonians have not forgotten the repression enforced by Russian tanks, nor the murder of four former Prime Ministers at the hands of the Kremlin. They are under no illusions about the threat posed by Putin, and we must not be either, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to NATO’s new spending target.
In the face of Russia’s war machine, the British Army remains an essential guarantor of our country’s security and that of our allies. When I met our incredible troops stationed in Estonia, I was inspired by their skill and professionalism. We need to get more brilliant people like them into the military, so will the Prime Minister consider the Liberal Democrats’ proposals to move more quickly to reverse the Conservatives’ cuts to the Army, and back our new £10,000 bonus for recruits? It is vital that we take such measures, as Putin continues his barbarism in Ukraine.
Our commitment to Ukraine’s defence must be increased, not reduced. In addition to the actions that the Prime Minister outlined, can he confirm whether he has held more discussions with partners on not just using the interest from frozen Russian assets, but seizing those assets, so that we can bolster our support for Ukraine and pay for a faster increase in defence spending? The Estonians believe they have a plan to deal with all the complications that he mentions when I ask him questions about this. Is he prepared to meet me to discuss the Estonians’ ideas about how to break the backlog so that we can seize those assets?
The Prime Minister also spoke about the conflicts and crises in the middle east. He is right to push even harder for a ceasefire in Gaza. People around the world will question whether military action, rather than diplomacy, will actually make us safer in the future. We must redouble our efforts for a just peace in the region, and that must include self-determination for the Palestinian people. Will the Government finally commit to recognising a state for the Palestinians?
The Prime Minister
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions? He started by asking whether I have discussed with other G7 partners the question of US tariffs. Yes, we frequently discuss trade, the economy and, frankly, the challenges that those tariffs put in place for all economies. That is the sort of co-ordination and discussion that goes on all the time, and it will continue.
On the troops in Estonia, I have visited them a number of times myself. They are incredibly brave, and they have a real sense of purpose. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, at NATO, the frontline states on the border with Russia were leading the charge in relation to the work that we had to do yesterday to renew and take forward the pledges that we make.
The right hon. Member asked about reversing the cuts to the Army. We will begin the work of reversing those cuts. When the Conservatives came into government, there were 100,000 in our Army; when they left, there were 70,000. I think that is what Ben Wallace meant when he said they had “hollowed out” our armed forces.
On the question of the assets, and whether they themselves can be seized rather than just using the interest, I have been discussing that with colleagues, as the right hon. Member would expect. It is complicated, as he knows. There is not one view, frankly, on this issue among colleagues and allies. I am very happy to see the proposals that he has received from Estonia, I believe, or any others, but it remains complicated. I have to say that allies are in different places on this, but we will continue to discuss it.
On a ceasefire in Gaza and recognition, I think it is very important that we have been pressing the case, particularly, in recent days, quite urgently and in close collaboration with our colleagues—the E3 of Germany, France and the UK are working very closely together at the moment—to say that this is the moment to press on from Iran to a ceasefire in Gaza, and I mean that that should happen in days, not weeks or months. I do think there is a window of opportunity here. I hope that it happens but I cannot predict that it will. I do think that all of us should do all we can to ensure that, along with a ceasefire in Iran, we push to that ceasefire in Gaza.
On the question of recognition, it has long been our party’s policy—this Government’s policy—to recognise Palestine at the right time in the process to bring about the peace, because I think that without a two-state solution there is little prospect of lasting peace in the region, and that remains our policy.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Last week, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited NATO headquarters in the UK, where I met fantastic young men and women who are learning great skills as they prepare to defend Britain abroad. However, my constituents, when they see cuts of such great amounts—for example, as proposed in the welfare Bill—may well ask why defence spending is rising. For the benefit of my constituents, could the Prime Minister simply and briefly set that out?
The Prime Minister
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her elevation—I have not seen her personally since then—which is very well deserved.
My hon. Friend raised a really important point. It is right that we recognise that the first duty of the Prime Minister is to keep the country safe and secure in a volatile world, and that is a duty that I take extremely seriously. We do live in a volatile world, and it is not just something that happens overseas and has no impact on us. What has happened in the Ukraine conflict has already had an impact on her constituents in relation to their energy bills, the cost of living and so much else. We can see, from the last week or two, the impact that the conflict in Iran was having on oil prices, which again has a direct impact on her constituents. So it is absolutely right and in our own interests that we take the necessary measures in relation to defence spend. I should also say that we are determined to ensure that, as we spend more on defence, that is reflected in good, well-paid jobs in the United Kingdom, including in her constituency. On all three fronts, that is the answer I give to her constituents.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
The Iranian regime has long presented a threat to the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister and I have both experienced, our security services have foiled almost 20 Iranian-backed plots here at home. The prospect of such a regime having nuclear weapons is unacceptable, so I welcome the US and Israeli action. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we and our European allies should now trigger snapback sanctions unless Tehran admits the International Atomic Energy Agency and allows it to fully verify that all efforts to enrich enhanced uranium have ceased?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question and endorse what he says about our security services, which, as he knows very well, do an incredible job in the most difficult of circumstances and at great speed, and they have foiled a number of plots that would have caused widespread panic, violence and destruction.
On snapback—I thank the right hon. Member for raising this—that is a consideration that we are discussing with our allies. I do think that it has to be part of the pressure that we apply. Exactly when and how snapback is applied will obviously be a question for discussion, but he is absolutely right to say that that is the very discussion we should be having at the moment, and I thank him.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement and his commitment to increase defence expenditure, but given that we are looking to improve public services—the health service, social care, education and the police—is it realistic to do that within the current tax envelope? Has the time not come for us to review how we tax wealth, as opposed to work, to ensure that those who can bear the heaviest load do so?
The Prime Minister
On defence spend, when we set out the commitment to 2.5% by 2027-28, I set out at the same time how we would fund it. We will continue to take that approach to any spending commitment we make. My hon. Friend will know that we made a commitment in our manifesto to not raise taxes on working people. We will keep to that commitment.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I welcome the element of the Prime Minister’s statement where he explicitly links defence, diplomacy and domestic security. He is absolutely right to highlight that interconnection. Therefore, will he revisit the spending review, which sees 4.5% and 5% real-terms reductions in Home Office and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets, to make sure that they can actually do their jobs within that interconnected system? To pay for that, will he ensure that his Chancellor removes the job-destroying taxes on employment and reduces the tax burden, which is seeing entrepreneurs and wealth creators leave the country in their droves? Will he show real leadership and ensure that his Back Benchers do not prevent his Front Benchers reducing the cost of our welfare bill so we can pay for these incredibly important governmental functions?
The Prime Minister
On Home Office responsibility for domestic security, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why it is important that, under the new definition of NATO, resilience at home is now included, because cyber-attacks are commonplace, energy has been weaponised, and many counter-terrorism operations have to be carried out in relation to state threats. We were very careful in the spending review to ensure that there was adequate money on all those threats. I went through that myself, so I can give him that assurance. On money coming in and out of the country, he will no doubt want to celebrate that we have had record investment under this Labour Government in the past 12 months: £120 billion, including the single biggest investment of £40 billion two days ago from Amazon, which is a sign of confidence in this Government that will be measured in many jobs across the country.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Rochdale has been a proud home for Ukrainians ever since they were forced to flee Soviet starvation, murder and oppression in the 1930s and 1940s, so many in my constituency will warmly welcome the decision to send 350 advanced air missiles to Ukraine, built in Britain and paid for by the interest on seized Russian assets. Does the Prime Minister agree that Russia, not Ukraine, should pay the price for Putin’s barbaric war?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. It is very important that when we send those missiles to Ukraine, we emphasise: first, that we are supporting Ukraine, as we have done throughout; and secondly, that that is paid for not by the British taxpayer, but with the interest on Russian assets that have been frozen.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the context of the threat posed by Putin, we must provide more guidance and support to Britons to prepare them for the possibility of a future conflict, and that that should involve a national resilience campaign?
The Prime Minister
I do think we need to focus on resilience. In a sense, the shift to 5% is a reflection that national resilience is becoming ever more central in our own national defence, in particular on: cyber, where there are frequent attacks from other states; energy, where we have seen from the Ukraine conflict that energy has been weaponised; and counter-terrorism, with state-backed actions in this country, many of which have been thwarted. But the hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to do more on resilience.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
While the Prime Minister was in his rightful place at the NATO summit this week, I was in my constituency for the opening of the Janet Harvey hall, a £250 million installation that will turbocharge shipbuilding in this country and put it in the service of our defence sector. The Prime Minister knows Govan shipbuilding very well. Labour recognises that the defence of our country is now inextricably linked with the growth of our economy and investment in our public services, but that view is not universally shared. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to urge the SNP Government to back our defence sector as we do, for the sake of jobs and prosperity in Glasgow South West and beyond.
The Prime Minister
I urge the SNP to back our defence spend and the jobs that brings with it, but also our defence stance. As I understand its position, the SNP is against the single most effective capability we have, which is our nuclear deterrent, at a time of the greatest volatility we have seen for decades. That is simply wrong in principle, and I urge the SNP to change it.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
At the NATO summit, was the Prime Minister able to add his voice to the congratulations and thanks that the NATO Secretary-General paid to President Trump for the successful military strike on Iran’s nuclear programme?
The Prime Minister
We have long argued that Iran should not be capable of having a nuclear weapon, and what happened on Saturday night was a big step to alleviating that threat. That was the subject of many comments at the NATO summit, along with the congratulations for the ceasefire that has now been brokered and the emphasis we now need on getting Iran around the negotiating table, because if it is to be irreversible and verifiable, it is important that it is done through negotiation. That is what we are focused on.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, especially on defence. Politics is about priorities and, as I know he knows, the most important responsibility of Government is the defence of the country and its people. I echo the sensible points made by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak)—sadly, they were not made by those on the Opposition Front Bench—and in particular his point about our intelligence services, who are the finest in the world. There are those whom we will never know and never see, but who have kept this place, our democracy and our communities safe. Will the Prime Minister assure me that, as we seek to invest more in defence, there is a particular focus on supporting our intelligence services?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our intelligence services do an incredible job, and I pay tribute to them. As he will know, from now on, where the intelligence services are contributing to our national defence, that will be included in our defence spend. It will not be included in the 2.5%—that is core defence, as always understood—but will be added to it, taking it to 2.6% in 2027-28.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that while the Prime Minister was rightly away at the G7 and NATO summits, he made tens of billions of pounds of unfunded spending commitments, yet next week he expects Members of Parliament to vote with him to remove money from disabled people who need help to go to the toilet. How can he justify making a moral argument for security abroad while removing security from disabled people at home?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will know, when we announced the 2.5% increase in defence spending, we made it very clear where that money was coming from, and it was not coming from welfare spend, as he very well knows. I do believe in the moral duty—and it is a moral duty—to defend our country, which means working with our NATO allies to ensure that we have the most effective deterrent. He cannot give lectures on the moral duty to protect our country while maintaining a position of casting aside the single most effective deterrent we have. That is unserious.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I recently visited a NATO air force base in Poland as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme I am taking part in with the RAF. There, I saw at first hand the importance of working closely with our NATO allies to defend our nation and keep us secure, as we witnessed the scramble to the skies to ward off Russian fighter jets. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is prioritising the wellbeing of our armed forces personnel, both at home and abroad, so that they can continue to keep us and our allies safe?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is, of course, Armed Forces Week. Among other things, we have given the armed forces their single biggest pay increase in many years, and made a strong commitment to other aspects, including their accommodation. It is important that we recognise and reflect what they do for our country, and that we ensure we are able to retain the brilliance of our armed forces.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much welcome NATO’s commitment to 3.5% core defence spending, and 5% on a broader definition by 2035, for all NATO member states. However, the Prime Minister and the Government have published spending figures only up until 2030. When will they publish public spending plans for 2030 to 2035? Is it not incumbent on them to show how the target of 3.5% for core defence spending will be met by the Government? Otherwise, it is just an unfunded promise.
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will know, when we presented the strategic defence review, we had already set out the path to 2.5% and the ambition for 3%. I think it is right that all NATO allies have now agreed the 5% by 2035, subject, of course, to review in 2029 of both the trajectory and balance. The reason for that, as he will understand, is that NATO itself is reviewing its capabilities in 2029, and the reviews will therefore coincide.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Diplomacy is the best way to prevent and de-escalate risk and ensure long-term security. What discussions took place on how to escalate the focus on diplomacy in the middle east in order to resolve the situation in Gaza—clearly, the architecture is not delivering at pace—as well as on the forgotten war in Sudan?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I reassure her that we are having discussions with other leaders not just at NATO and the G7, but on a daily basis about the architecture and the path, and how we can use diplomacy to get to a ceasefire in Gaza, and to a much better place in Sudan; I thank her for raising Sudan, which is not raised often enough. We are doing that at speed, and are trying to bring as many allies with us as possible. If the Iran ceasefire holds— I hope that it will—that will create the space to say that now is the time for that ceasefire in Gaza. That is only the first step, of course, in the route first to recovery, and then to a two-state solution.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
After a worrying start, President Trump has now strengthened NATO, both by extracting promises of more money and with the positive comments he made at the end of the summit. Has the Prime Minister had a chance to assess whether that means that President Trump’s love affair with Vladimir Putin is beginning to cool?
The Prime Minister
First, I think it was really important that NATO was united in the way that it was last night, and I do not just mean the comments of President Trump—I mean having the whole 32 countries on the same page at a really important moment for NATO. The right hon. Gentleman will understand how much hard work, guile and diplomacy went into ensuring that was the outcome. I think there was a real sigh of relief around the world that this was the position. On Putin, we are urging that this is the moment to push further to get Putin to the table for an unconditional ceasefire; President Zelensky has said for many weeks that he is prepared for those talks. We discussed that as allies, and I have discussed it many times with President Trump, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Would the Prime Minister care to comment on what our adversaries will think when they hear the Leader of the Opposition mistakenly say that we cannot afford our defence commitments? Does such a fatuous response keep our country safe?
The Prime Minister
No, it does not. It was frankly embarrassing to suggest that I should not have been at NATO or the G7, and I think the Leader of the Opposition’s Back Benchers recognise that. That is not the traditional position of the Conservative party, and the sooner the Conservatives get back to their former position, the better.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Was there any discussion about the killing zones that currently constitute the provision of humanitarian aid in Gaza?
The Prime Minister
Yes, there was. There is real concern about the intolerable position in Gaza and what we can do to alleviate it. We have repeatedly said that it is intolerable, and that the current arrangements for aid are never going to work and cannot be maintained. Urgent diplomacy is under way to alleviate that situation, and we will continue with those efforts.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement on defence spending, especially during Armed Forces Week. Does he agree that this is a landmark, historic commitment, reflecting both the scale of the threats that we face and this Labour Government’s commitment to the security and defence of our country?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend: the commitment is landmark. It is very important, it shows the resolve of NATO, and it reflects the resolve of this Labour Government. I am pleased that we were closely involved in crafting and bringing together the agreement that was reached yesterday.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Democratic primary in the most cosmopolitan city in the world has demonstrated that people will no longer support hypocritical and disingenuous politicians. I am sure that the whole House agrees that Iran must not have nuclear weapons, but as a lawyer, the Prime Minister will understand that the attack on Iran by Israel and the US did not engage the Caroline principle, which allows for a pre-emptive strike. Does the Prime Minister agree with that analysis? If he does not, can he say from the Dispatch Box that he supported those attacks?
The Prime Minister
If we all agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, it is about time that we did something about it. What happened on Saturday night was a big step towards alleviating that threat, which is important. We now need to complete on that. The way to do that is through the talks that are now needed to get Iran back to the table, in order to make sure that the position is irreversible and can be verified, and that is what we are focused on.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in recognising the need for a strategic response. It has been 35 years since the Options for Change defence review began bringing down defence spending from 4.1% of GDP. We have spent that dividend, gambling that we would not need to defend our values, and a generation has benefited from that bet, but now we must take our chips off the table and reinvest in our security. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must level with the public about the threats that we face and the cost of under-investment in our armed forces?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do agree. That is why we have begun the hard work of reversing the damage done under the previous Government. My hon. Friend is right about the dividend that has been enjoyed, but we must now make sure that there is a defence dividend—that higher spending in that area is reflected in good, well-paid jobs in the United Kingdom that boost our economy across all parts of our communities.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The former Prime Minister has just welcomed the US military action against Iran at the weekend. Why cannot the Prime Minister bring himself to welcome it, too?
The Prime Minister
I have said that we need to alleviate the threat, and that we have taken a huge step towards alleviating the threat. I have discussed that with G7 and NATO colleagues, and with President Trump. Everybody was very pleased that there was such unity on it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The forced deportation of children is illegal under international law, yet Russia continues to steal Ukraine’s future, one child at a time. Was the issue of Ukraine’s stolen children discussed with our allies? What more is being done to return those children to their homes and families?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. She has campaigned hard on this. It is central that if there is to be a ceasefire and a lasting peace in Ukraine—and I hope that there is—it must involve the return of the children. We have discussed that many times, and will continue to do so.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Since the second world war, our national security has been based broadly on three pillars: our physical defences, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement; the alliances that we have built, which he also mentioned; and the international rules-based order, which he did not mention. What discussion did he have at either summit about the importance of international law, and the undermining of its credibility through the inconsistent way that it has been applied in the conflicts in Ukraine and in Gaza? In particular, did he try to persuade President Trump to lift the United States sanctions on the International Criminal Court?
The Prime Minister
I have long been an advocate of the international rules-based order, and I discuss that regularly with allies. NATO itself is a rules-based framework, and an important one at that. We need to maintain these rules-based systems to make sure that they are fit for purpose. I would add that the same is true for trade and the economy.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
As a member of the cross-party UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have had the opportunity to meet Ukrainian Members of Parliament, who make the powerful case for continuing support from NATO allies. It has become clear in recent months that other countries in the region—Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia —are growing ever more nervous about their vulnerability to invasion by Russia. Can the Prime Minister comment on the UK’s efforts and dialogue with those countries at this unsettling time? Does he agree that the security of the Baltic states is important for our national security?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Baltic states are incredibly nervous at the moment. That has been the case for the past three years or so. We engage with them regularly, and I engage with their leaders regularly. They have been brought into the coalition of the willing, and on the occasions when they cannot attend, I have a special session with them, because their concerns are of such importance to us.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the increase to defence spending and the revised targets. Earlier this year, at the spring statement, we saw cuts to official development assistance—the overseas aid budget—to fund defence increases. The ODA budget is integral to our international security abroad, so will the Prime Minister rule out any further cuts to this budget for defence spending increases?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is right to emphasise the importance of overseas aid, and that was a difficult decision. I want to put it back up to 0.7%, rather than taking it down. In the meantime, I am exploring other ways that we can find funding for overseas aid, and working with other countries to that end, because I do not think that we can just wait until we are in a position to increase the funding again.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, and the leadership that he is showing on the world stage in really uncertain times, which, beyond the confines of this place, I know are genuinely welcome in my community in Hertford and Stortford. As we mark Armed Forces Week, veterans and servicemen in my constituency will welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening our national security, so for the benefit of my constituents, can the Prime Minister set out a little more how we are supporting our armed forces to keep us safe and honouring the service of veterans across the country?
The Prime Minister
Let me first pay tribute to the veterans in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We have already put in place a number of initiatives, particularly in relation to homelessness and veterans, and more broadly in relation to accommodation and the support for not just veterans, but our armed service personnel. That is vital not only as a reflection of their contribution, but to ensure that we deal with the retention crisis among those serving, which was caused by the Conservative party.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Although we may disagree on the detail, I agree with the Prime Minister that, as far as possible in this place, it would be better to keep partisan politics out of national security issues. Who knows, I may get the Whip withdrawn for saying that, but so be it. There are things that go beyond party politics. I thank the Prime Minister for all his hard work in the national security interests of this country.
On the G7, the Prime Minister mentioned sanctions. In his statement, he said that he urged the United States to do more on sanctions. Is he aware that the United States is actually urging the United Kingdom to do more on sanctions when it comes to Russia? Can the Magnitsky legislation be widened and deepened, so that it captures more Russian assets, and possibly other countries that may have sanctions imposed on them soon—for example, Georgia?
The joint expeditionary force was mentioned at the NATO summit. The Prime Minister will know, having attended the Norway meeting some weeks ago, that Ukraine is a JEF partnership nation. Does the UK support Ukraine becoming a full member of the joint expeditionary force? If so, when might that happen?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his questions; they are all good ones, so I will endeavour to answer each part of them. Sanctions are being discussed intensely, as he will understand, and there are two elements. The first is the immediate application of sanctions in relation to Russia. We are attempting to ensure that we all act together—the US, the UK and the EU. That is the focus of our discussions and what we are urging on the US. The right hon. Member will know that there is a piece of legislation in the US that is ready to go; that needs to be co-ordinated with what we are doing. In the longer term, we need to look always at whether there is more we can do within the framework on sanctions, and we can discuss that in this House.
The right hon. Member raises an important point about Ukraine and the JEF. We have been a leading advocate of Ukraine having a role in the JEF. Ukraine already has an enhanced partnership with the JEF—the first of its kind. That was done the last JEF meeting that we had in Norway a few months ago, where we were one of the leading nations pushing for that greater involvement. We will see over time whether that partnership can be taken further, either with the JEF or NATO, but it was an important first step—not only a reflection for Ukraine but also a message to Russia.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership in representing us around the world in the last two weeks—exactly where he should be. Does the Prime Minister want to remind the Conservatives that it was a Labour Government who last spent 2.5% of GDP on defence, and can he set out how increasing our defence spending will keep our country safe and support high-quality manufacturing jobs in West Bromwich and the whole nation?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to remind the House that we had 2.5% of GDP on defence spending under the last Labour Government, and we will have it under this Labour Government. In 14 long years, the Conservatives did not do that.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I welcome the increase in defence spending. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain where the money is coming from, particularly as his Government continue to weaken our economy and when another expensive benefit U-turn—on top of the winter fuel U-turn—is on its way?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady must have missed the record investment in our country in the last 12 months of £120 billion, the four interest rate cuts, and the fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year. Every time we have increased defence spending, as we did with the 2.5%, we have at the same time set out where the money is coming from.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I found the Leader of the Opposition incredibly disappointing, so goodness knows what those on her own Benches think. While she is talking Britain down, may I commend the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown this week? Could he say a little more about how businesses in the defence supply chain, particularly in the Teesside defence and innovation cluster, can contribute to the national mission for defence and security?
The Prime Minister
There are two or three principles here. First, we need to see the increase to our defence spend reflected in good, well-paid jobs in constituencies across the country. Secondly, the big sectors in defence will obviously benefit, but we have also put together a hub for smaller supply chain businesses—which, whether defence-specific or not, are in pretty well every constituency —to ensure that they take advantage of the contracts and extra spending on defence. In that way, we can ensure that there is a dividend back in the United Kingdom from the extra spend we are putting in place.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
There has been some recent confusion from Defence Ministers surrounding the purchase of 12 F-35A nuclear-capable fast jets. Can the Prime Minister please inform the House of the proposed in-service date for this important capability?
The Prime Minister
We made the commitment to that capability, and we are now talking to allies about precisely what the timetable will be; I will update the House. The important thing is that the commitment is there. It is a commitment to the NATO initiative, and it brings us within that initiative. Therefore, there are a lot of moving parts, but we have made a very firm commitment, and I will set out the timeline and progress on that in due course.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
F-35As—hard power; BBC World Service—soft power. Does the Prime Minister agree that the World Service is a crucial element of our soft convening power?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I have long been a supporter of the BBC World Service. My hon. Friend’s question chimes with other questions about the soft power of this country. We have incredible soft power and incredible strength in our diplomacy, and that very often achieves results in a way that then makes it less necessary to use the hard power.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
There is scepticism in my constituency that the increase in defence spending might create good local jobs there. As I have already pitched to the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary, and earlier this month to the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, alongside my local authority CEOs, I know that Huntingdon is recognised as the home of UK defence intelligence capability and of US operations in Europe as well as NATO’s. Given that 10% of the equipment budget is now pledged for developing new technology, along with the £400 million defence innovation fund, will the Prime Minister back my commitment to leveraging the designation of RAF Wyton as a Ministry of Defence trailblazer site to build a defence technology cluster that will create highly technical local jobs and build new defence capability from Huntingdon?
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Member is in discussion with Ministers about this, and we look forward to taking that forward. In relation to the scepticism of his Huntingdon constituents, I reassure them that this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his leadership. The International Development Committee recently published a report showing that international humanitarian law is under threat like never before and that attacks on aid workers are rising. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the UK will be a champion for IHL, and could he elaborate on conversations about upholding it in relation to Gaza as well as Sudan and the many other countries around the world ravaged by conflict?
The Prime Minister
We have an absolute commitment to international humanitarian law, and it is extremely important that we keep to that, whether in Gaza or Sudan. It is the framework through which we make our decisions.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
When it comes to the evils of terrorism and aggression across the middle east, all paths lead back to the Iranian regime—be that the sponsorship of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis or, indeed, at the heart of the regime, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Although I fully appreciate that the Prime Minister will not speculate on proscription from the Dispatch Box, will he at least reflect on how it can be that, despite calls from both sides of the House over many years to proscribe the IRGC, it still has not happened, not least given that he took the right and proper action to proscribe Palestine Action after the attack on Brize Norton last week? How is it that the IRGC still sits un-proscribed?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we keep proscription under constant review and will not hesitate to take the most effective measures against the Iranian regime. He will know that we have already sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, including individual commanders, but we do keep the matter under constant review.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I praise the Prime Minister for his work on the new 5% target and on ensuring that we reach it for our national security and core defence. Does he agree that just as the Labour Government in the 1940s helped to found NATO, this Labour Government could help found a multilateral defence development bank that would ensure that we reach 5% by the mid-2030s?
The Prime Minister
There is a debate going on across allies as to how we can work together on the increased spending: on the spend itself; on the financial arrangements, be that development banks or others arrangements; and on ensuring that we co-ordinate our capability, because the last thing we want is everybody spending more money in an unco-ordinated way. There has been intense discussion about that.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The situation in Scotland is very difficult. I welcome the news that we are to go further with our at-sea deterrents, and of course the nuclear missile Trident boats are based at Faslane. But as we have heard, First Minister John Swinney and his SNP Administration do not back nuclear weapons. Further, they have created a hostile environment for defence firms in Scotland because they will not back any firms that make ordnance. This week we have also heard former First Minister Humza Yousaf claim—wrongly—that allowing our American allies to use the Prestwick air base to refuel is some kind of war crime. What can we do to nullify the threat to British security from these fifth columnists?
The Prime Minister
Beat them. This is not just the usual politics; it is a serious question of national security. The at-sea nuclear deterrent is housed in Scotland, and just a few months ago I went and saw one of the subs coming back in. It was a very humbling experience, quite frankly, and I got an even deeper sense of what they do for our country. It should be supported in its own right and as an essential deterrent. That matter is among the reasons that we need a change of Government in Scotland.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which shows that international co-operation and the ability to forge relationships of trust and human empathy are signs of strength, not weakness. Our country is stronger for his leadership and pursuit of peace globally through diplomatic means.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we can deter war and defend our allies such as Ukraine only if outward-looking diplomacy is backed up by ever stronger armed forces and an ever stronger economy; that those matters ought to unify all in the House; and that it is very unfortunate that we have seen petty, party political games from the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister
I agree. All I can say is that, in fairness, I see on the faces of some Conservative Members disquiet at the approach that the Leader of the Opposition took. That is not surprising.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Under the 5% defence investment pledge, resilience spending appears to include energy infrastructure. Given the evidence about Chinese-made cellular internet modules and kill switches, will he say categorically that China must be kept out of all critical infrastructure, including wind turbines and solar panels?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. Obviously, we carefully review and monitor any Chinese involvement in any elements of security. But it is right that we now include resilience in our overall definition of national spend, and act accordingly.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to keeping our country safe and for his effective diplomacy to that end. While our international aid budget is now diminished, it remains my belief that the work we do to prevent and respond to humanitarian crises around the world plays a crucial role in global stability and security and, in turn, in our own. Can the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to that vital role for the UK in the world?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue and describe it as she did. We are a leader on this and continue to be. We want to get our aid budget back up, but in the meantime I want to work with other countries to find other ways of financing that support as a matter of some urgency.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I welcome the increase in defence spending, but how on earth is the Prime Minister going to pay for it when his party cannot agree on a small reduction in the welfare bill?
The Prime Minister
When we went to 2.5%, we set out in clear terms both the date and the way we would pay for it. That is the way we do business on the Government side of the House. For 14 years, the Conservative party lost control of the economy, left our armed forces hollowed out and left a £22 billion black hole. Frankly, they are in no position to lecture anyone about these issues—still less after the response of the Leader of the Opposition, which shows exactly why the party is sliding into irrelevance.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is clear today that the Leader of the Opposition should never represent the United Kingdom on the world stage —it was absolutely outrageous.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. Following the comments of other hon. Members, may I ask him what assessment he has made of the potential opportunities for Scotland-based defence and aerospace industries, which already support hundreds of jobs in Coatbridge and Bellshill, arising from the expectation that spending will reach 4.1% of GDP by 2027? Does he share my concern that the SNP’s disjointed defence policy risks jobs and investment in Scotland? We need to fight that at all costs.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend should not worry too much about the Leader of the Opposition representing our country—she never will. If she did, presumably the chair at the NATO summit would have a little sticky note on it saying, “Busy at PMQs”. That is how unserious her point is.
On the substantive question of jobs in Scotland, there is now the real potential to build on what Scotland does. It has a proud history in relation to our defence and security. This provides an opportunity to build on that platform.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement. Nobody in the House can doubt the sincerity of his careful words and commitment to what is best for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the G7 and NATO summit. The Prime Minister will be aware of my support for Israel and that of so many in this great nation. The situation was, I believe, one of the major issues of the summit. Can the Prime Minister please outline whether time was taken, with our closest ally, the United States of America, to discuss steps that can be taken to cut the head off the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ensure that the USA bombing of the Iranian nuclear programme was a success and thereby secure a truce and lasting peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have that discussion with our US allies, both at leader level and between our teams, on an ongoing and constant basis. Israel has the right to be safe and secure, and it is neither safe nor secure at the moment. We have to be absolutely clear about that and about the right of Israel to defend itself. That means discussions about the IRGC and Iran, which has been a constant source of threat, terror and conflict in the region. Yes, we discussed not just the attack on Saturday, but the further measures that can be taken to ensure that Iran never has the capability to develop nuclear weapons.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his leadership—something that I am sure is welcomed by our allies around the world, if not by the Opposition.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentions that there is now a window of opportunity for peace in the middle east. I am sure that we would all want that to come to fruition. However, given the continuation of deadly attacks on Palestinian people seeking food, can the Prime Minister advise, following his discussions, whether there is any prospect of Israel allowing the United Nations and other humanitarian organisations to resume food distribution in an ordered and fair way?
The Prime Minister
They should do that, and we are urging that they do. The current arrangements are intolerable and are never going to work; we need to be really clear about that. We will continue to urge that, with our allies and talking to leaders across the region, as my hon. Friend would expect. But now is also the time to push on for the broader ceasefire, to alleviate the situation more generally and allow a path to open for the long-term conflict resolution that is needed.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is the first duty of any Government and Prime Minister to keep this country safe. The Prime Minister takes that role incredibly seriously, in stark contrast to what we have seen today from the Leader of the Opposition.
The Prime Minister has visited Blackpool many times since becoming leader of our party. At Blackpool sixth-form college, young people told him that they were crying out for local jobs in the Blackpool area, to keep them there. Will he ensure that the defence increase to 5%, which is welcome, creates the decent, well paid jobs on the Fylde coast so that young people in Blackpool can get those jobs where they live?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I have visited Blackpool many times, as he knows. I know first hand just how important it is for those young people to see money going into their economy, with jobs in Blackpool for them. I profoundly remember asking a group of 17-year-olds, I think, at a sixth-form college in Blackpool how many were proud to be from Blackpool. They all put their hands up. When I asked them how many thought that their future jobs would be in Blackpool, only one put their hand up; the rest all thought they would have to leave Blackpool to get the jobs they wanted. We need to turn that around. This gives us an opportunity to start doing that.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. From a personal point of view, I thank him for his recent visit to Harlow and Downs primary school, which recently received an excellent Ofsted report.
Does the Prime Minister agree that to achieve the sustainable and long-term peace that we all so desperately want—in the middle east, in Gaza, in Ukraine and in Sudan—we must work together with one voice and with all our NATO allies? That is why his leadership on a global level is so important and why it is so important that he attends all these events to represent our proud nation.
The Prime Minister
My most recent visit to the primary school was to roll out our free school meals policy. I was happy to do that by serving school meals myself—if all else fails, I’ve got a back-up.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a time like this, the House usually comes together and speaks with one voice, and we are the more powerful for it. President Zelensky has told me on a number of occasions how much that means for his people. In fairness to the Conservative party, it has always been resolute on Ukraine. The Leader of the Opposition needs to look again at her approach. At a time like this, the sooner we get back to the kind of cross-party unity that we had, the better. Our adversaries know that when they see unity here, that is much more of a problem for them than when they see unserious division.
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 2) Bill
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Armed Forces Day
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.
This week, our nation comes together to give profound thanks to the men and women of our armed forces, their families and veterans—the heroes who give and sacrifice so much for their country at a time when the world is becoming increasingly dangerous, unpredictable and insecure. Right now, our armed forces are helping Ukraine to defend itself against the might of Russia by supplying kit and equipment, nearly three and a half years into a war that Putin thought would be over in three days. Our armed forces are in Singapore with the UK carrier strike group led by HMS Prince of Wales, strengthening Britain’s ties with the Indo-Pacific. They are operating as part of every NATO mission alongside our allies, keeping the peace in zones of potential conflict, and our people are working in the middle east to de-escalate tensions and stabilise the region. Our armed forces are contributing to UN peacekeeping forces around the world, helping to bring hope to war-torn communities, and they are protecting our shores at home, ready at a moment’s notice to respond to any emerging threats.
The members of our armed forces are truly the best of Britain, recognised globally for their professionalism and dedication. This week, in Armed Forces Week, we have a chance to say thank you: to them for their service; to their families for their understanding at the times when they are away; and to the people in the defence industries, the supply chain and the technology companies who support our men and women in uniform and help them continue to have the fighting edge that keeps our country safe.
Apart from the years affected by covid restrictions, 2024 was the first since the inception of Armed Forces Day in which there was no national event. This Government are proud to have restored that this year, backing three days of celebrations in Cleethorpes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) knows, it is a community that carries a long tradition of not just honouring our armed forces, but shaping and supporting them. From the local RAF station at North Coates, which was home to the Coastal Command strike wing during world war two, disrupting enemy supply chains with great success, to today’s active veteran groups such as NEL4Heroes, which does outstanding work in North East Lincolnshire helping veterans to return to civilian life.
Although the biggest celebrations will take place in Cleethorpes, where the Defence Secretary will be this weekend, there are more than 180 other events taking place across our nation. Earlier this week, my ministerial colleague Lord Coaker was among the large crowds that turned out in Northern Ireland to celebrate Armed Forces Day.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was fortunate to be there and had the opportunity to meet Lord Coaker. I was clear to him, as were the 60,000 people who turned out to commend and celebrate such a wonderful occasion. Will the Minister outline later on what can be done to recruit more Territorial Army soldiers? Will there be flexibility with employers and jobs and courses that people can do to enlarge the numbers of cadets?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his years of service. It was in Westminster Hall yesterday that he added up all the years that he served in uniform. I think it was 14 and a half years in total in various roles.
Luke Pollard
I thank him for his service to our country. It is vital that we address the retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited from the previous Government. We are making good progress in that regard. A key part of that is not only recruiting new people to our regular forces, but making it easier to join the reserves. Whether people serve full time, part time or in their spare time, there is an opportunity for people around the country to contribute to our armed forces.
The Minister for Veterans and People will set out further steps as to how we will improve our reserves as we approach the armed forces Bill in the next session of Parliament. He will make the case that improving our reserves makes us safer, but also provides more opportunity for the nation to have a closer connection with those people who serve as well.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
One of the 180 events that the Minister mentioned will be Armed Forces Day in Andover, which I will attend on Saturday. As the Minister knows, Andover is home to the Army’s land forces headquarters. Will he reflect on the importance of the work of celebrating the armed forces in the communities that physically embrace their headquarters, camps and residences, to sustain that connection between the non-uniformed civilian population and those who protect them on a daily basis?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Member for his attendance at an Armed Forces Day event this weekend. As someone who represents Devonport, which is home to western Europe’s largest naval dockyard, I am acutely aware of the relationship, the important history and the connections today between our military, the civilians who, in Devonport’s case, support the fleet, and our wider community, including veterans. It is absolutely right that we tell the story of that connection, not just by looking back at the battles of previous years and those people who never returned from wars, but by making the case that investing in our defence today creates good, well-paid jobs. It provides opportunities for our young people and it is one of the sources of great pride that our Army, our Navy and our Air Force all feature among the top five employers of apprentices in the country. It is a huge opportunity to celebrate the skills that we have and the connections between our people. All our communities are proud of our armed forces, and this weekend is a great opportunity to say that again.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend knows that recently I had the great privilege of visiting our base in Erbil, in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, where I saw for myself the dedicated service of the troops and their officers, who are doing huge work to help that regional government, thereby enhancing regional and British security. They are a credit to this country and we owe them a debt of gratitude. We should also remember that there are so many servicemen and women overseas who are doing difficult work, sometimes in harm’s way. On Armed Forces Day, we must remember all those serving officers and soldiers as well.
Luke Pollard
May I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks? It is a good reminder that on Armed Forces Day and in Armed Forces Week, there will be parliamentarians from all sides of the House visiting local communities and making the case for the armed forces in their communities. There will be people from communities right around our country, however, who will not be at those celebrations because they will be serving on the frontlines overseas, helping to project UK power and influence, helping to stabilise regions and helping to ensure that we de-escalate tensions. The work that our forces do in the middle east may have been in the news quite a lot recently, but the work that they do that is often not covered in the news is just as vital for our national security and worthy of our praise and thanks. I am sure that there is cross-party support for the work that they do across the middle east.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry will be in Liverpool this weekend, celebrating alongside her community of Liverpool Garston at Armed Forces Day events. The Minister for Veterans and People will be in Coventry, having completed a tour of many of our communities nationwide making the case for further investment in services to support our veterans. Indeed, supporting those who have served is a vital part of this Government’s work. Many celebrations will take place across Scotland and Wales, including in Edinburgh where the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill) will be attending. I will be back home in Plymouth, which is home not only to Devonport but to Stonehouse, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines. We will be out in force on the Hoe on Saturday. For those people not familiar with Plymouth’s geography and our international viewers, the Hoe has a wonderful clifftop view of Plymouth sound—it is nothing more sinister than that.
As the son of a Royal Navy submariner, I am proud to represent my home town, which is not only steeped in military history, but plays a pivotal role in protecting Britain today. Having grown up as a Navy brat, I know that many remarkable people in defence tend to dismiss their achievements as “just part of the job”—a humility that defines service in our country. But I know what they do, how they go well beyond the expectations of a normal day job, how they shoulder immense responsibilities with great modesty and, supported by their families, how they perform the ultimate public service.
Through the Government’s strategic defence review and defence reform, we are putting much more emphasis on our people and on renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. The most troubling thing I have seen recently in relation to our people was the continuous attitude survey, which revealed that only a quarter of our service personnel believe that they are valued by society. I encourage Members who have not read the latest continuous attitude survey to do so: it tells the story of what our people think. Although we are now seeing morale stabilising, after a decade of it falling across all three services, the fact that they do not feel valued by society should be a wake-up call for all of us in thinking about how we talk about and support our armed forces.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the Minister referred to my constituency earlier. This weekend we will host the national Armed Forces Day event, which will be fantastic. He mentions remembering our veterans and our people, and Saturday will be a true celebration of all the work that so many people put into making sure that we are safe and secure every day.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she put into making the case for Cleethorpes to host the first of the renewed national day events. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to attending events in Cleethorpes this weekend and to hearing not only from those people who serve today, but the young people of the cadets in her community, who may be those who serve in the future, and the veterans who have served our nation. I am looking forward to events in Plymouth, but I know that the events in Cleethorpes will be the centre of our national attention this weekend, and rightly so.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise that the UK’s armed forces are a visible manifestation of the philosophy and values that underpin the country? If society does not value the armed forces, would he concede that it might be because we have consistently failed to defend the principles and values that underpin our society? We should confront the accusations, for example, that this is an inherently racist country, which it absolutely is not, and that our history is not something to be proud of. Perhaps then wider society would appreciate the men and women who defend not just the physical country but our values, our history and our philosophy.
Luke Pollard
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s passion for telling our nation’s story. To tell our full story, we have to explain the good bits and, sometimes, the bad bits, but at all times we can look at the bravery, courage and service of our armed forces as a source of national pride. I also look at our armed forces today as the embodiment of some of our British values. I believe in equality: it is very important to me personally. When I think about our soldiers operating in Estonia at the moment, ready to deter a Russian move across the border, the colour of their skin, their religion, where they come from or their accent do not matter. All that matters is that in that unit, everyone has each other’s backs and is proud of our country, proud of their service and proud of the reasons they are there.
Armed forces week is an opportunity to remind people of the difficult jobs we ask our people to do and to thank them for it. The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the values that stand behind the uniform and why the flag they carry on their arms matters so much—it is not just a piece of cloth; it represents British values that we should all be proud of.
For that reason, it is important that we recognise that our service personnel need to feel more valued. The figure has plummeted over the past 12 years. We know that words will not address the problem. Only action will, and that is why it was so important to award our service personnel their biggest pay rise for more than two decades and to follow that up with another above-inflation pay rise this year. It is a source of great pride to me as the Minister for the Armed Forces that, for the first time, we can say that every single person in uniform is now paid the living wage. That should always have been the case, but sadly it was not; it is now.
Our armed forces deserve a lot more than just a decent salary. The cold, damp and mouldy homes that many have been living in are a betrayal of their service. After buying back 36,000 homes from the private sector that were sold off under a previous Conservative Government and saving taxpayers more than £600,000 a day in rent payments, we are delivering a generational renewal of military accommodation, with at least £7 billion of funding in this Parliament to tackle the poor state of forces housing.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I take this opportunity to mark an important week for our armed forces. I welcome everything my hon. Friend says about support for our armed forces and their families by way of investment in their homes and more money in their pockets. Does he agree that supporting our armed forces goes way beyond just the equipment that they need on the frontline? It is about making sure that their families are valued through the support that the Government can give them and that they receive from the communities they live in.
Luke Pollard
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more: that is so important. I am somewhat guilty of this myself, but many of our defence debates have been about kit, platforms and—if I have anything to do with it—frigates. We talk about the equipment, but we need to talk about our people. At the heart of the strategic defence review, and the Government’s policies, is talking more about the families of those who serve. That is why I hope that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will become law soon. It puts an emphasis on allowing service families to access the commissioner to make the case that it is the whole defence family—those who serve in uniform and their family members who back them in their service—that needs to be valued by this nation. I believe that view is shared on a cross-party basis, and we now need to ensure that it is featured in our legislation and in the day-to-day operations of our military. There is more to do on that.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On the selling off of military homes and the buying back of them by the Labour Government, will the Minister acknowledge that the negotiations for that deal started in May 2024 under the Conservative Government and were completed by the Labour Government?
Luke Pollard
Indeed, and when the announcement was officially made, I recall standing at the Dispatch Box and thanking the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is not here today, for his work on it. It was a terrible privatisation—truly awful. It represented the worst value for taxpayers and it has doomed many of our forces families to appalling accommodation for far too long. Now that that privatisation has ended and we have brought those homes back into public control, we can invest in them. We need to do that at pace, because people are living today in accommodation with mould and damp. That is not good enough. We need to proceed at pace, and the Minister for Veterans and People who leads on this work in the MOD is as impatient as I am to see the improvements—as I know the hon. Gentleman will be, as someone who represents a military constituency.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
For the record, the shadow Defence Secretary is not here because he has a very important personal family commitment today. I am honoured to stand in for him.
Has the Minister seen our proposals for a ringfenced armed forces housing association, to provide better quality accommodation for armed forces personnel and their families?
Luke Pollard
I am sure the House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman is by no means a poor substitute for the shadow Defence Secretary.
We plan to publish our defence housing strategy later this year, which no doubt was not at all in the minds of the shadow Front-Bench team when they published their proposals ahead of time. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to wait for the full work to be published in due course, but improving defence housing has to be a priority, because for many years as a nation, we have not delivered what our forces deserve—that will now change.
This year, we extended the ability to reclaim the costs of wraparound childcare to many of those deployed overseas, and next year we will go further and cover all overseas areas to help make family life a little easier. We are legislating for an Armed Forces Commissioner—an independent voice to help improve service life. We made a manifesto commitment to bring the armed forces covenant fully into law—a promise made by the nation that those who defend it will be treated fairly and will not be disadvantaged because of their service. That includes, for example, ensuring that service children have the same access to education as other children. We are transforming recruitment, and hope that many young people will be inspired to join up after attending Armed Forces Day events this weekend. We are also overhauling access to care and support for veterans through the Valour programme.
I turn to veterans because although Armed Forces Day is an opportunity to thank those people in uniform, we should also use it as an opportunity to thank those people who have served.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I very much welcome the work being done to bring the covenant into wider, and legislative, effect, with consequences where it is not applied. That will be important in delivering services to our armed forces right across the public sector, but there is a financial consequence. Parliament and Government need to seriously consider how that financial consequence is borne and distributed to ensure that those public services are empowered and financed to support armed forces personnel and, just as importantly, their wider families in the best way they can.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is important that the pledge is made in action and deeds, not just words. If we look at the implementation of the armed forces covenant across the country at the moment, some areas are exceptional and have embraced not just the words of the covenant but the spirit behind it, and others are perhaps a little further behind on the journey. When we look at central Government compared with local government, there is a distinction between the services and the offer. That is why we are putting it fully into law. I hope that one thing we will be able to do in having a debate on putting the covenant fully into law is to share the best practice we see in local councils up and down the country.
In this place, there is sometimes a temptation to believe that all good ideas must come from the Dispatch Box. I certainly do not believe that, when I can see brilliant councillors of all parties making the case for improving the lives of veterans, those people who serve and, perhaps most importantly, their families. Where the covenant grips most successfully is where we can improve provision for children who may suffer disadvantage because their parents who serve move around so frequently, which means they sometimes do not get the same access to educational support, special educational needs and disabilities support and other aspects. When that debate happens—it will probably be later this year or the beginning of next year—I hope that all hon. Members will be able to participate and take something from that debate to amplify the work of their local councils. Probably each and every Member in this place will have something good to share about the work being done in their area.
We owe a substantial debt of gratitude to all those who have served their country. The Government have an enduring duty to recognise their extraordinary contribution and to support them after service. The majority of veterans go on to have successful careers and lives. We are helping them to make the best use of the diverse skills and experience that they have gained—for example, through the career transition partnerships and Op ASCEND—but a minority do not find the transition easy and may need extra support. We are creating a new £50 million network of Valour-recognised support centres across the UK to give veterans easier access to essential care and help.
Just today, we launched the Valour pilot in the north-west region, at the Imperial War Museum North. We have announced £75 million to recognise the historic wrongs experienced by LGBT veterans in the armed forces, which is significantly above the level recommended in the Etherton review. We have also committed additional funding to maintain veterans’ homelessness support programmes, ensuring that those at risk of homelessness have continued access to specialist help.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I appreciate that the Government are working on this issue, but could the Minister update us on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth service personnel?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member will know that the Ministry of Defence recently published a written ministerial statement on how we can improve recruitment from the Commonwealth. It is not just about how we expand the pipeline coming into our armed forces; we also need to recognise and support those who might be at the end of their service to get the support they need. We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretary about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.
The magnificent VE Day commemorations, as well as the equally historic 80th anniversary of VJ Day in August, have been widely acknowledged as perhaps the last major opportunity to thank those who fought in the second world war. But we are also slowly losing the generation who did national service after the war and, with them, the living bridge they provide to our armed forces. We need to reconnect society with our armed forces and widen participation in national resilience. This weekend’s festivities are a great way to kick-start that process, but, as our strategic defence review made clear, we have to be much more proactive as a country about rebuilding those connections, particularly with young people.
Half of the Army’s current crop of regimental sergeant majors were once cadets, so we will boost the cadet forces by 30% by 2030, creating opportunities for 42,000 more young people to be a cadet. We will introduce a voluntary gap year scheme for school and college leavers and develop a new UK strategic reserve by 2030—a fitting objective considering that yesterday was Reserves Day, when we were able to thank the many thousands of reservists who serve this country. They greatly bolster our capability at times of crisis, serving across defence, from the back office to the frontline. They give us the skills, scale and ability to meet the threats we face at home and overseas in a cost-effective way, as the Minister for Veterans and People can attest after serving alongside them on various tours.
I have seen personally the enormous benefits that experience with our armed forces can offer people, particularly young people: purpose, adventure, social mobility, and a unique sense of camaraderie and self-achievement. For many people, it is a route to a much better life. We want to make many more young people aware of the opportunities on offer and the chance to see where service life can take them.
As I noted earlier, we are taking decisive action to address the recruitment crisis that we inherited. The tortuously slow process that caused so much frustration is being transformed. For example, we have eliminated more than 100 outdated medical recruitment policies and we are slashing the time it takes to access medical records from weeks to hours. Our objective is to reduce the time of flight from application to starting at a training establishment. The new 10-30 policy introduced by the Secretary of State, which means applicants will get a decision on a provisional application within 10 days and a start date within 30 days, is a good step towards improving this process, but we know there is much more to do.
Army recruitment has been completely restructured, and we have acted to keep hold of valued staff who are most at risk of leaving—for example, by introducing retention payments for Army privates, lance corporals and aircraft engineers. The results speak for themselves: year-on-year inflow of recruits is up by 19% and outflow is down by 7%. The Royal Navy has exceeded its yearly recruitment target, and Royal Air Force applications are up by a third compared with early 2024. Applications to join the Army are at their highest level for seven years.
John Slinger
As we are discussing the armed services’ recruitment problems, does my hon. Friend agree it is very helpful that this Government were able to deliver an above-inflation pay rise of 4.5% for service personnel, recognising their extraordinary professionalism? In combination with last year’s 6% headline award, that represents a cumulative pay award of 10.5% since July 2024, which can only help with the issues he is discussing.
Luke Pollard
It absolutely does. The strategic defence review talks about a whole-of-society approach, and I view that from both an inside and an outside perspective. As a society, we need to value our armed forces more, recognising that we all have a role in building resilience and improving how our nation is defended, but we must also recognise that armed forces personnel need to feel more valued by the whole of society. Ensuring that our people are paid well and live in decent homes is the foundation of that, and I hope that one day this House will not need to debate the quality of our military accommodation, because the quality will be such that, when we ask our people to move around the country—whether into single living accommodation or service family accommodation—it is simply a given that it is decent. That is our objective, but we have a lot of work still to do.
I hope that Members across the House will join our armed forces and our communities this weekend to celebrate the work of our service personnel. As we set about reconnecting the nation to its military, we must remember that service and sacrifice are not values confined to the history books; they are just as important today as they have ever been, and they are just as visible if we tell their stories. Those values are embodied in Britain’s armed forces. There has never been a more important time to thank them for the fantastic work they do, or to promote the benefits of an armed forces career to young people. To all who serve, all who have served and all their families, we give our deep thanks. To those who might serve in the future, we say: come along to an event this weekend and find out what our brilliant armed forces could do for you.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am conscious that some Members arrived after the start of the debate. Ordinarily, that would preclude them from speaking, but I understand that the Prime Minister’s statement has slightly thrown our timings. My intention is therefore to accommodate all those in the Chamber who wish to speak, but inevitably those who arrived late will have to take their turn. I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Given the topic, I am genuinely honoured to open this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on the subject of Armed Forces Day. I had the honour to be present in New Palace Yard on Monday to watch members of the armed forces raise the armed forces flag in Parliament, in a ceremony presided over by Mr Speaker and his Chaplain, the Rev. Canon Mark Birch MVO. It was a joyous occasion, and I am pleased to say it was very well attended by many MPs.
My opposite number, the Armed Forces Minister, is the proud son of a submariner, and I am the equally proud son of Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, who served on the minesweeper HMS Bressay on D-day. We are both naval brats, as he put it—at least after a fashion.
It is now established that Armed Forces Day is held on the last Saturday of June. This Saturday there will be many ceremonies across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, including in my county of Essex, and I hope to attend the celebration in Basildon, the town in which I grew up. This is a time when people across our four nations come together to celebrate the role of the whole armed forces family—regulars, reserves, veterans, cadets and, of course, their loved ones—in defending our country and our democratic way of life. I will say something about those four categories—regulars, reserves, cadets and veterans—in my remarks this afternoon.
Beginning with reserves, Armed Forces Day and, indeed, Armed Forces Week normally enjoy bipartisan—perhaps I should say tripartisan—support in Parliament. Touching on this allows me to say something about the value of the reserves to our armed forces. In doing so, I declare an interest having served as an infantry officer in the 5th Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, in the Territorial Army, in the 1980s during the cold war, when —this dates me—the Berlin wall was still up. I greatly appreciate the extremely important role that our reserves in the Royal Naval Reserve, the Army Reserve, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the RAF Volunteer Reserve and others play in supporting our regulars in the defence of the realm.
In that context, I recently saw an analysis showing that, following the 2024 general election, there are now 17 Conservative MPs who have served or are serving in either the regular or reserve armed forces of the Crown. However, the Conservatives have no monopoly on military service, as the same survey rightly showed that Labour has 13 MPs in a similar position and the Liberal Democrats have eight. For completeness, I should add that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also served in the Territorial Army, so he is with us on that point. I sometimes feel that he is always with us—he is virtually omnipresent in the Chamber.
It is therefore true to say that the armed forces enjoy support across the political spectrum, at least from those of us who are here. I merely note in passing that, yet again, when defence is being discussed in this Chamber there is no Reform MP present to grace our proceedings. It is ironic and telling that Members of a party that likes to wrap itself in the flag—a flag it does not own—cannot be bothered to turn up to debate the service of those who loyally serve under that flag. Bluntly, Reform does not do defence. Nevertheless, I hope that most of what I say in the next few minutes will be broadly consensual, with perhaps one exception, which I will come to near the end.
The role of our armed forces in defending our way of life down the centuries is just as pertinent today as it has ever been, with the war in Ukraine, where brave Ukrainians continue to resist Vladimir Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of their country, alongside the continued turmoil in the middle east.
On the regulars, those who serve in our armed forces deserve our unstinting and ongoing support. Numerous studies show that the vast majority of people who serve in the armed forces benefit greatly from the experience. As well as serving their country, they often learn valuable skills and trades that make them highly marketable in the civilian jobs market—indeed, that can be a problem for retention, as the Minister intimated. When I served as a Defence Minister, albeit over a decade ago, one powerful statistic was that 80% of those who left the armed forces found a job within six months, and I believe the figures are equally good, if not better, today. People who are smart, disciplined and trained to turn up on time and to be resourceful are always likely to be attractive to employers.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Veterans play an important role in my Glastonbury and Somerton constituency, where 11% of households include at least one veteran. However, female veterans are more than 10% less likely to be employed than male veterans. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must put more support into helping female veterans find the right employment after their service?
Mr Francois
I agree. We should do everything we can to help all veterans, whatever their gender, to find good employment after their service, and that certainly includes female veterans.
Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but as it is taking place in the hon. Lady’s constituency, why on earth are Kneecap being allowed to appear at the Glastonbury festival? Why on earth have the organisers allowed that to take place? [Interruption.]
Moving on, we need to bear in mind that without—
Sarah Dyke
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I may just correct the right hon. Gentleman, the Glastonbury festival site is not in my constituency.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I think it is helpful to have the record corrected.
Mr Francois
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We need to bear employability very much in mind, as without skilled regular personnel to maintain and operate even the most expensive and sophisticated kit, from Typhoon and F-35 fighters to Type 45 destroyers and main battle tanks, we cannot achieve operational success. In short, without well trained people, the equipment counts for nothing and does not have the deterrent effect that we seek. When asked at the Royal United Services Institute earlier this week about the single biggest challenge that the Royal Navy faces, the fleet commander, Vice-Admiral Andrew Burns, replied:
“It’s people right now. It’s the quantity of people, and it’s not just recruitment, it’s retention.”
For context, this is not a uniquely British problem. All our Five Eyes partners face similar challenges, even the United States, and I shall return to that in a moment.
Let me turn to cadets. We in this country are fortunate to have an active and enthusiastic cadet movement, and while we welcome the proposals in the White Paper to expand the cadets even further, we would like to see more detail about how exactly that will be achieved. Cadet units play a vital role in fostering disciplined teamwork and a sense of service among young people, providing invaluable opportunities for personal development, and serving as a pathway to a career in the armed forces, should the young person desire that.
Whether we are Ministers, shadow Ministers or otherwise, we are all ultimately constituency MPs, so I pay tribute to the Army cadet detachments in Rayleigh and Wickford, which are part of C company in the Essex Army Cadet Force, both of which I have visited. I hope to see the Rayleigh detachment again shortly, not least as it appears that it will need to find a new home within the next several years. I also highlight the valuable work undertaken by 1474 (Wickford) Squadron of the Air Training Corps, and their sister unit, 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron Air Training Corps; I declare an interest in the latter, as I recently had the honour of being appointed honorary squadron president. Its motto is “Amanogawa”, which is Japanese for heavenly river, and I can confirm that they are in full flow.
Over the years, I have heard a number of hon. Members pay full tribute in the Chamber to their cadet units; I will chance my arm and say that I am sure we will rightly hear praise for more cadet units before the debate is out. They are a fundamental part of the armed forces family. I thank not only the young people who sign up, but those adults who give of their time, voluntarily, to provide instruction and leadership for these outstanding young people.
Let me turn to veterans. As one example of work that can be done to protect veterans, I commend to the House an initiative known as the Forcer protocol. The idea is named after Alan Forcer, who served in the British Army for a number of years in several theatres, but who sadly took his own life after a struggle with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. His widow, Claire Lilly, came to see me at my constituency surgery a number of years ago, and told me that she was determined to channel her grief in a positive way, by establishing a system to help find and protect veterans who go missing. When I met Claire, I was struck by her absolute determination to succeed, and I am pleased to tell the House that that is exactly what she did.
In short, the Forcer protocol is now a standard operating procedure for many police forces. It is similar in some ways to the Herbert protocol for people who go missing with dementia, but it has special features that are designed specifically to assist former service personnel. In essence, it works like this. People who have a veteran in their family who they believe may be vulnerable can register their details confidentially, including known associates and favourite haunts, with an organisation known as Safe and Found Online. In the event that a veteran goes missing, the family, by releasing a PIN code, can make that information immediately available to the police, to assist them in their search for the potentially vulnerable veteran. The initiative was trialled by Greater Manchester police over six months. The trial was an outstanding success; GMP reported that it had allowed them to make positive and timely interventions that undoubtedly saved the lives of dozens of veterans in the Greater Manchester area.
As a result of that highly successful trial, the Forcer protocol is being rolled out across police forces nationwide. We had an event to encourage progress in the Commons in November 2024, and I am pleased to tell the House that at very short notice, the new Minister for Veterans and People attended to give his personal support, for which I thank him again today. In an equally bipartisan spirit, I pay tribute to the actor and TV celebrity Mr Ross Kemp, aka Grant Mitchell, for his unwavering support for that initiative, for the work that he has done for veterans more widely, and for his amazing documentary with the Royal Anglian Regiment—my old regiment—in Afghanistan. Thank you, Ross, for everything you do for our armed forces, past and present. We know your heart is absolutely in it, and we are grateful.
I am delighted to report that my constabulary in Essex is formally adopting the Forcer protocol today at a ceremony at Colchester. It is deliberately doing so in Armed Forces Week. Thirteen forces, including Essex, are now using that life-saving procedure. It is estimated that since the initial trial with GMP and the roll-out across other forces in this country, the process has saved literally hundreds of veterans. I commend Claire Lilly for everything that she and her loyal band of supporters have done to make this possible. We have another event in the Commons this November, by which time I very much hope that all 43 police forces in England and Wales will be fully signed up. Well done, Claire. Alan would be proud of you.
As I mentioned earlier, despite the tri-partisan nature of this debate, there is, I am afraid, one issue on which I feel that the Government and the Opposition will not agree: the Government’s proposed treatment of Northern Ireland veterans. More than 300,000 regular British soldiers served in Northern Ireland during the troubles between 1969 and 2007. That highly challenging task, known as Operation Banner, was one of the longest-running continual exercises in the history of the British Army. During that long and at times highly dangerous deployment, more than 700 British soldiers were killed assisting the Ulster Defence Regiment and the then Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Many thousands of soldiers were maimed for life by both Republican and so-called loyalist bombs, while trying to hold the line in an incredibly complex and dangerous situation.
I have seen many memorials in my time, but perhaps one of the most poignant was the Royal Ulster Constabulary memorial at its headquarters in Knock, on which are commemorated hundreds of officers who gave their life, working alongside the Army, to attempt to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Imagine the utter dismay of those veterans who served in the British Army in that highly complex theatre at the news that the Labour Government intend to drive through a remedial order, under the auspices of the Human Rights Act 1998, effectively to remove key provisions in the Conservative-inspired Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That will have two very important effects. First, it will reopen the endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation, often via coronial inquests, to which many British Army soldiers have already been subject. Secondly—I wonder whether many Labour Members are aware of this—that same remedial order, which their Whips will urge them to vote for later this autumn, will make it easier for Gerry Adams and his associates to sue the British Government, and ultimately the British taxpayer. This is two-tier justice at its absolute worst.
The veterans have initiated a parliamentary petition, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which amassed more than 100,000 signatures in well under a month. As of noon today, the petition has achieved more than 145,000 signatures, and it is still going strong. As a result of that public support, we will debate that counter-productive policy, which is a looming disaster for armed forces recruitment and retention, in Parliament next month. We Conservative Members vigorously resist that wholly misguided remedial order, which is designed to aid Gerry Adams while throwing our brave veterans to the wolves. We warmly welcome the Daily Mail’s campaign, launched this morning, to defend our veterans. As the Daily Mail’s editorial powerfully put it this morning,
“It is profoundly unfair that frail ex-servicemen will continue to live in dread of a knock on the door, by the authorities, while IRA murderers sleep easily, with letters of immunity, handed to them by Tony Blair.”
I think that puts it rather well.
It is worth recording that many of the soldiers who served in Northern Ireland were recruited from what we might now call red wall towns, from Blackburn to Bury and from Bolton to Burnley. They were then ordered across the Irish sea to help uphold the rule of law. Many of those surviving veterans are now in their 70s or even their 80s, and I suspect that many Labour MPs would find it extremely difficult to explain to them and their loved ones that they are taking this action just because their Government are literally obsessed with the Human Rights Act 1998. Conservative Members will bitterly oppose the remedial order; Labour Members will need to look into their consciences and, hopefully, when the Division bell rings, do the same.
With that important exception, I hope that hon. Members from across the House who are in the Chamber can agree that we value immensely the work of the whole armed forces family, and everything that they do to keep our country safe. Without those people who have the courage to take the King’s shilling, as the old phrase has it, put on a uniform and, if ultimately necessary, risk their life to keep this country free, we would have no guarantee of our precious democracy.
Perhaps the most fitting way to end my humble contribution will be to quote the words of Rudyard Kipling from his famous poem, “Recessional”, which was written in 1897 to commemorate Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. Those who know the poem will know that there is no hint of jingoism about it—indeed, quite the reverse. It warns about the power of divine judgment and the humility of kings. As Kipling put it:
“The tumult and the shouting dies;
The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!”
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for sharing with us those powerful words by Kipling, which have sunk into our national consciousness. I appreciate the cordial nature of the debate between the Minister for the Armed Forces and the shadow Minister. We three were together earlier this week for a debate on recruitment in the north-east, which was also incredibly cordial. This is a great opportunity to continue that conversation.
In Stockton, we celebrated Armed Forces Day early, on Saturday, with a flag-raising ceremony, many celebrations on the high street, and a service led by Rev. Paul. I was pleased to see representatives of our local armed forces. Members of the Yorkshire Regiment, which largely serves my constituency, were there, although people in the north of my constituency might tend to join The Rifles, and we had representatives from our local cadet forces, including the Royal Marines Cadets, the Sea Cadets and the Royal Air Force Air Cadets, who are based in Norton, in my constituency. There were also representatives from the Royal Military Police Reserves, who I am proud to say are also based in Norton. Stockton has strong representation from the armed forces in our local community; I am pleased to say that one in 20 people in my constituency are either serving in the armed forces or veterans.
I mentioned the Royal Military Police. I wondered if they were not mentioned enough in the House, so I thought this would be a good opportunity to commend their work. They can claim to be the longest-established regiment or corps, with a history stretching all the way back to the 13th century and the appointment of the first sergeant of the peace. Today, they are a vital part of our armed forces, with around 2,200 soldiers and civilian staff. They support operations in conflict zones, peace- keeping missions and humanitarian efforts. This is perhaps a suitable moment to pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her service as a captain in the Royal Military Police, and for her continued advocacy for the armed forces community.
The Royal Military Police are much like other skilled units in the armed forces, but they have three main roles: the policing of the Army, special investigations and close protection. In policing the Army, they will be attached to a unit in the field, and will ensure that captured members of enemy forces are treated appropriately, legally and humanely, which is clearly an important role. They were recently deployed in Ukraine as close protection for staff of the Foreign Office. There are airborne RMP, based in Colchester; they were part of Operation Market Garden at Pegasus Bridge.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Would he accept that the actions of the Royal Military Police attached to fighting units are a direct reflection of the Army and of our national character in upholding the rule of law even in warfare?
Chris McDonald
I would. I may go on to develop this point, but that role creates for members of the Royal Military Police a unique duty and a serious responsibility that puts them in a slightly different position from their comrades, which must be quite difficult. That is why I wanted to highlight the role of the RMP.
Members of the RMP can also find themselves in incredibly dangerous situations. A friend of mine, who is a member of the RMP reserves, highlighted to me the role of Royal Military Police officers during the second world war and in other conflicts in managing traffic points. Those fixed grid reference points are vital in managing the traffic flow of equipment and personnel appropriately for our logistics, but they also mean that RMP personnel are easy to target by artillery and aircraft. They carry out that role with great bravery; I commend them for that.
As I have mentioned, policing puts individuals in a difficult and unique position. That is also true for the civilian police force, but I think there is a particular additional burden on members of the Royal Military Police in how they discharge their duty. I was struck by the story of Royal Military Police veteran Kate Green, which she told 20 years after the lifting of the LGBT military ban. When she served in the Royal Military Police, the thing that she feared most was being asked to investigate those suspected of hiding their sexuality from the Army. If an LGBT serviceperson admitted their sexuality, they were out and that was the end of their military career. Eventually, Kate decided that she could not continue with her service anymore and that she did not want to continue to live a lie herself, so she handed in her one-year notice. The LGBT ban was lifted on 12 January 2000, just a short time after her career ended. Kate now works with the Royal British Legion and maintains a strong connection with the Army, despite no longer serving. This is an opportunity for us all to welcome the lifting of the LGBT ban and to recognise the service of LGBT veterans.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Nearly 30 years ago, when I was at the University of Exeter, I argued vociferously to make sure that our armed forces were allowed to recruit from our campus and that they got people like us into the military, so that we could create a military that was receptive and reflective of our society, so that people from LGBTQ+ communities could serve alongside us, without any impediment. Does my hon. Friend agree that inclusion comes from being part of an institution and helps to change it from within, and that it is necessary that we do not put in place impediments to armed forces recruitment on campuses today?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his service and his continued advocacy in this place for the armed forces. He spoke powerfully, and I agree with him. It is no small task to change the culture in an organisation; it starts and ends with leadership, so we must thank the leaders in our armed forces, who have done exactly as he said.
I will share the story of Rachel Webster. She is a Royal Military Police veteran from the north-east, and she is another example of how it is possible to break down barriers and overcome some really quite entrenched stereotypes. Rachel chose engineering over cookery when she was at school—that was her interest—but she was told that she would not be able to weld because she was a girl. I do not know if any hon. Members have ever had a go at welding, but I have; I am a boy, and I am terrible at it.
Rachel was unable to pursue welding at school, but, like me, she left school and joined British Steel. It was better at teaching her welding than it was at teaching me, because she took a four-year apprenticeship programme and learned how to weld. But her ambition was to enter the armed forces; she wished to join the Royal Engineers, where many of her compatriots on the British Steel apprentice scheme went, but when she applied she was told that women could not be in the Royal Engineers at that time.
Undeterred, Rachel joined the Royal Military Police in 1989. She trained with the Women’s Royal Army Corps, and then with the RMP, and she was deployed to Germany. Her career took her across the world, from Northern Ireland during the troubles to Afghanistan in 2001, but one of her proudest moments came in Iraq in 2003. She was helping to build a girls’ school and impressed the local men, who did not realise it was possible for women to weld—so she was able to use her welding skills on behalf of the Army.
Both Rachel and Kate have really powerful stories. They show us that courage does not know any gender or sexuality, and I hope that their stories will inspire my constituents in Stockton, Billingham and Norton and people across the country. Let me take this moment to very much thank all our armed forces—particularly the Royal Military Police and its reservists in my constituency, across the north-east and across the country—for their valuable service to our nation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is an absolute privilege to speak in today’s debate on Armed Forces Day—a day on which we recognise and celebrate the bravery, dedication and sacrifice of those who serve and have served in our armed forces. We honour and thank them.
Earlier this week I was proud to attend the armed forces flag-raising ceremony in Epsom. Such events are held in communities across the country, and their meaning runs deep. They are a visible reminder of something that should never be taken for granted: the courage of the men and women who step up to defend our freedoms, often at great personal cost.
This week is personal for me, because I served in the British Army as part of the Royal Military Police, who vital operational work was quite rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). My journey began with the desire to lead, travel and make a difference. I joined Sandhurst, which was gruelling and inspiring in equal measure. As one of the few women there at the time, I trained in boots that were not designed for me, but I emerged with unbreakable friendships forged in resilience.
I was first deployed to Bosnia as part of NATO’s peacekeeping mission. Later, I served in Iraq with 1 Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment during Operation Telic 4, helping to retrain the Iraqi police force in a dangerous and volatile area. We operated under constant threat. A year before my arrival, six of my Royal Military Police colleagues were killed in Majar al-Kabir. I still remember the fear of that first night in Maysan, travelling in a blacked-out bus and unsure of what lay ahead; the fear of the unknown and of not making it home is one that many serving personnel still face today. We carried out our mission with professionalism and camaraderie—British troops working shoulder to shoulder with brave interpreters, local allies and international partners—but I saw at first hand how overstretched and under-equipped our troops often were compared with our allies. We got on with the job, but we should not have to make do.
Armed Forces Day is not just about parades and flypasts; it marks a time for action. Our service personnel deserve more than warm words. They deserve a fair deal. That is why I am calling for a fair deal commission to overhaul the conditions facing service personnel, veterans and their families. From housing to pay and from diversity to transition support, our service personnel deserve reform. Unfortunately, too many military families still live in substandard accommodation, too many veterans struggle with poor mental health and inadequate support, and too many LGBT+ veterans are still waiting for proper justice and compensation. We were pleased to see the Government accept the Etherton report’s recommendations, but speed is of the essence because many of those affected are elderly or seriously ill.
Women in the armed forces still face unacceptable levels of harassment and misogyny, as the Atherton report revealed. We must do better, and we will push for full implementation of those recommendations.
When it comes to troop numbers, the reality is stark: our armed forces are overstretched and under-resourced. We are calling for a new bonus scheme to help to bring into and keep more new recruits in the British Army, and the expansion of the current rejoining scheme to attract former soldiers to re-enlist.
I left the Army earlier than I planned. Like many servicewomen, I was forced to choose between motherhood and military service. There was no support, no nursery and no flexible career path. Those are the real barriers that drive people out of uniform, and the military lose many experienced people. We must change that. If we want to recruit and retain the best, we need to support families. The Liberal Democrats would create a one-stop shop for military families to access housing, education, healthcare and career support.
I am proud of my constituency’s military history. Langley Vale was once a world war one training camp for more than 8,000 soldiers, and it is now a place of reflection. Our local Royal Engineers, the 135 Geographic Squadron, recently celebrated 75 years of proud service, marching with bayonets fixed through Ewell.
In this volatile and uncertain time, let us honour the legacy of our service personnel not just in ceremony, but in policy. Let us make Armed Forces Day a starting point for serious change.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to speak today to mark Armed Forces Day 2025—a moment for our country to show its deep and enduring gratitude to all the men and women who serve and have served in our armed forces. Their service underpins our national security, our values and our way of life. Whether it is on the frontline or behind the scenes, at home or abroad, those individuals commit themselves fully to something far greater than themselves, and they do so not for recognition but out of duty.
Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Mansfield, I have had the opportunity to meet veterans, serving personnel and their families. I have seen at first hand the strength of character, discipline and resilience that military life builds. It is clear that those who serve bring with them skills that enrich every part of our society once they return to civilian life, but we must be honest about the reality that many of them face after service.
By its very nature, military life is unique. It often means frequent moves, long separations from family and sudden transitions. Although the vast majority of veterans make successful moves into civilian life, there are still far too many who encounter disadvantage, whether in housing, employment, access to healthcare or mental health services and so forth.
Mr Calvin Bailey
I served for 25 years. At times—for almost 10 years at a stretch—I had month-on, month-off deployments, where I was away from my family. During this Armed Forces Week, we must remember, give praise to and celebrate our armed forces families, who, as my hon. Friend describes, suffer unseen pressure and burden.
Steve Yemm
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Certainly, when I speak to the families of serving personnel in Mansfield, that subject is always very close to the top of the conversation. It is very important to recognise those issues, and it is for those reasons that it is so important that we recognise the armed forces covenant—our collective promise across government, society and public services that those who serve should not be disadvantaged by virtue of their service. That is not just a principle; it is important that it be recognised in law, but the covenant can be effective only if those in positions of responsibility understand it and implement it properly.
That is why, earlier this month on 4 June, I was proud to host the first ever all-party parliamentary reception for the armed forces covenant here in Parliament. That event was held in partnership with the Royal British Legion and the Ministry of Defence’s covenant team, who do outstanding work to support veterans and promote awareness. I formally put on record in this House my thanks to the Royal British Legion, and to the Minister for Veterans and People for his attendance at that event. Its aim was really simple: to help Members of the House and their staff members better understand how the covenant operates and the support it provides, and how we can use it to serve our constituents more effectively. I found it very encouraging to see Members from across the House and across the political spectrum in attendance, absolutely united in their belief that no one who serves this country should face barriers when their service comes to an end.
Armed Forces Day and Armed Forces Week are not just about parades and flag-raising, important though those things are; they are really about recognising and reaffirming our commitment to the people who defend our freedom day after day. As we rightly thank our armed forces today, let us recommit ourselves in this House to ensuring that their support is matched by our support, that their sacrifice is never met with silence, and that their families are never left behind. Let us move forward on this day, not just with gratitude but with purpose.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
It is an honour to speak today ahead of Armed Forces Day—a day not just of pageantry, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, but of principle. I congratulate the Government on reinstating the pageantry as well—it is a good thing. It is a day to recognise the men and women who serve, or who have served, in His Majesty’s armed forces: the quiet professionals who carry the weight of our security, often in silence and too often without thanks. As we have heard, we owe them and their families a debt of gratitude that we can never really pay, but gratitude alone is not enough. As the Minister said, only a quarter of veterans feel that their service is properly recognised, and there is a reason for that. I will speak plainly about it, and I hope the Minister will not take it as partisan. I hope he will take what I have to say, in what will be a difficult five minutes of listening for him, as a call for action and assistance—or, if he likes, a call for help.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, there is a shadow that hangs over our armed forces: the political and legal vendetta targeting the veterans of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. Those men answered their country’s call in one of our country’s darkest hours. Without hesitation, they stood between the innocent and the terrorists, often literally—they were often in the way of the bullets. Now, decades later, they are treated not as heroes but as suspects. The frankly inadequately informed inquest into the SAS-IRA conflict at Clonoe is just one incident in which elderly veterans are being persecuted; there will be many more.
We should never forget that terrorists killed 722 British soldiers during the troubles. The people who carried out those murders have effectively been exonerated by the British state. I do not blame the state for that—it was necessary at the time—but today, we witness a legal crusade against the men who risked everything in the service of peace. This is not justice; it is an attempt to rewrite history. It is prosecution driven by politics, not facts. While the killers walk free, authorities hound the soldiers who stopped them from killing and treat those soldiers like criminals. The legacy Act—forgive my shorthand —was designed to put an end to this travesty. For their own reasons, the Government have decided to repeal that Act, but if they do not properly replace it with effective legislation, they will hand the initiative back to those who spent decades glorifying violence. I hope the Minister will pay attention to every detail of the paragraph I have just spoken, because it is important.
The Government must decide whose side they are on in this exercise. Our veterans, who are now in their 70s or even older, deserve peace in retirement, not a knock on the door and questions about battles they fought to defend the public half a lifetime ago. Those battles were fought under orders, under supervision and under yellow card rules, and immediately afterwards, everybody faced close judicial examination of their behaviour to ensure they had obeyed the law in every respect. To refer back to the speech made by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), the military police were often involved in those investigations—it did not always make them popular, but it was a necessary part of the process. Not one of the conditions I have described applied to the psychopathic murderers those soldiers were up against.
I have repeatedly asked the Government to end this shameful campaign of retrospective injustice, and I will continue to ask until I get a meaningful answer and a resolution to this running sore of injustice. That is why I support the petition that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford referred to, with its 145,000 signatures—an astonishing number in such a short time. However, this is just the start. This issue is not just massively important to our veterans; if this rewriting of history succeeds, this weapon of lawfare can be used against soldiers in any future conflict, destroying the effectiveness of our troops in future operations.
This morning’s edition of the Daily Mail carried a powerful headline announcing the start of a campaign to highlight that very problem. When we look at that headline, though, we should remember that this is not just about our special forces; it is about the whole of the armed forces. There are at least 20 inquests into actions by Government agencies and forces that could potentially be restarted by the Government after the end of the legacy legislation. Only a minority of those inquests are about special forces; most are about conventional forces, or about the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment.
If we continue down this path, not only will we betray our past; we will jeopardise our future. This campaign of persecution sends a chilling message to the next generation: “Serve your country, risk your life, and face prosecution in your old age.” Why would any young man or woman sign up for that? The truth is that many will not. I know that the Minister referred to better recruitment and retention figures, but that will not last if this battle is lost by the British state.
This challenge has been most high-profile when it has struck at our elite units, such as the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment—the Det, as it was once known—but it applies to every rifleman, soldier and member of the military who carries and wields a weapon in defence of his country. Those soldiers, who operate in conditions of extreme danger and uncertainty, are required to make impossible decisions at great speed while under fire, or in terror of being under fire. They expect neither recognition nor reward, but just one thing: the support of their Government. We expect our soldiers to put their lives on the line for our country, but why would they do that if their country will abandon them after their service? Instead, they face doubt—doubt that creeps into the field, into the command and into mission planning.
If soldiers must weigh every trigger pull against a future court case, we cripple their ability to act. What is the point of the armed forces if we render them useless through legal ambiguity? I am the last person to tolerate unnecessary killing or misbehaviour by our troops. Those who were in the House at the time will know of my past campaigns on torture and rendition. I will not stand for that, but we must balance properly the rule of law as it applies to each environment. We already have thought-through rules of lawfare established in the Geneva convention, and that is where we must look first when conducting a war.
From 2005 to 2007, during the operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq, our military achieved, along with the Americans, spectacular results in saving lives. I reiterate that that was about saving lives. In Baghdad, the number of vehicle-borne suicide bombings fell from 100 a month to just one after we engaged. Sectarian assassinations—once rife—all but ceased, care of our military. That was not the work of indiscriminate bombing or division-level assaults; it was achieved through precise, controlled and surgical raids into some of the most hostile environments, generally by elite forces, and backed by careful planning.
The impact was staggering. Even a hostile “Panorama” programme showed that 95% of terrorist neutralisations were captures, not kills. That was under unbelievable circumstances, and thousands of innocent lives were saved. That was a matter not just of operational skill, but of moral discipline. In the midst of close-quarters combat against some of the most dangerous men on earth, our forces showed a restraint few could match.
I have no doubt that mistakes are made from time to time, and those should be answered for, but if we allow our opponents to use lawfare to destroy these capabilities, we are left with blunt instruments—the bomb, the missile and the drone—with which, instead of capturing or killing just the guilty, we kill every innocent civilian on a bus or every guest at a wedding party. Our military has been brilliant at doing the opposite—at being targeted, lawful and effective. Dismantling that capacity would be not only militarily reckless, but a betrayal of the principles that the Minister said we stand for, which distinguish us from those whom we fight.
Let us today do rather more than clap politely at a parade. Let us act. Let us end the relentless hounding of our veterans. Let us give our serving forces the legal protection and political support they deserve. Let us recognise that if we find it difficult to recruit, it is a consequence of a state that too often turns its back on its defenders. This Armed Forces Day, let us make one promise: that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the very nation they have so bravely protected.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I rise to pay tribute to our armed forces personnel. May I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks? I start by recognising veterans for their past service and their contribution to society. They continue to serve society with their skills and leadership, shaped by their unique military experiences. I also thank our reservists for the extra time they give in supporting our armed forces, and I declare an interest, as I have a husband who is a reservist in the Army. I also thank our cadets and our armed forces families, who make sacrifices in their own way to keep us safe, which must be recognised.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
At the weekend, I attended the Royal British Legion Old Catton’s 90th birthday celebration, and I pay tribute to all the volunteers and community groups, as well as our armed forces and veterans. I met cadets from Constitution Hill, Aylsham Road and College Green in Norwich, and what they are learning is phenomenal. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to back them with support and also back the many volunteers who help make those cadet groups run effectively?
Kirith Entwistle
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Our cadets provide a good opportunity for our young people, and they should be supported and backed as much as possible.
I am proud to have attended Monday’s flag-raising ceremony in Victoria Square, in my constituency of Bolton North East. I was proud to see the strong showing of support for our armed forces at that ceremony, where the armed forces flag was raised above Bolton town hall. It will fly there proudly until the end of Armed Forces Day on Saturday. The ceremony was an opportunity to reflect on those who have served and those who are currently serving, especially those deployed overseas and in active service. I was glad to join in celebrations with Jerry Mistry, president of the Royal Artillery Association’s Bolton branch, and also members of the Royal Artillery, such as Gunner Paul Brindle. There are nearly 3,000 veterans in Bolton North East, and Bolton is also home to the 216th Battery of the 103rd Regiment of the Royal Artillery, which is the most northerly sub-unit of the 103rd Regiment, with lineage dating back to 1889.
I am deeply proud of our local military history, but on Monday I also heard concerns from members of the 216th Battery about a lack of funding, particularly around general training, meaning that there is not enough money to progress training levels. I sincerely hope that the Government will look at ways to provide more support on that.
I am also a former employee of the Royal British Legion, and as someone with experience campaigning to improve the lives of our armed forces, I strongly welcome this Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve and those who have served. Having worked on raising awareness about the armed forces covenant, I am pleased that this Labour Government recognise its importance in supporting our armed forces communities and that we have committed to enacting it in law. However, what plans do the Minister and his Department have in place to ensure that sufficient funding and budget is in place to implement an extension of the armed forces covenant duty? How do the Government intend to work with different layers of local government and our regional mayors?
As a parent, I welcome plans to expand wraparound childcare to support families deployed overseas, and I was pleased to hear that they will now receive 20 hours a week of funded childcare, saving families around £3,400 a year. I strongly commend the Minister and this Government on broadening support to our armed forces families, because I have experienced at first hand how much they struggle and the unique challenges they face.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
On that point, there are many brave men and women in my constituency who are serving or who have served. I am proud of them and their families, and I thank them for their contribution this Armed Forces Week. My hon. Friend mentioned the Royal British Legion, and I wish to give particular thanks to Tilehurst Royal British Legion in my constituency. It does a fantastic job to support our veterans, particularly Christine Lewendon, the president of the Tilehurst branch. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking them for all that they do?
Kirith Entwistle
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in that. We should pay tribute to the Royal British Legion, its branches and its teams, with all the various support that they provide to our armed forces community.
I am pleased to see that this Government are boosting cadet forces, creating opportunities for 42,000 young people by 2030, because I know how much of a difference that will make to people in my constituency. I also welcome the largest pay rise for the armed forces in more than 20 years, and I am deeply grateful that we are establishing an armed forces commissioner, which is long overdue.
Finally, I will end by reiterating the concerns highlighted by members of the 216th Battery around funding for training. I hope that the Government will look at more ways to provide more support so that we can continue to back up our words with action and help to upskill our vital defence sectors and our armed forces community. I look forward to joining in Armed Forces Day celebrations this Saturday.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to speak in the debate today to recognise the contribution of all those who serve in our armed forces and those who stand beside them in support. It is Armed Forces Week, and I will be attending the Huntington Armed Forces Day on Saturday at Sapley playing fields. I pass on my appreciation to Anna Dutton for her efforts in organising the day from a standing start. I also thank Andy Phipps of Cambridgeshire army cadet force for his efforts.
For a region with strong links to the armed forces, it is wonderful that our armed forces personnel and families, both British and American, will have the opportunity to participate locally. I say that as an MP who is very proud to have military bases in his constituency, whether they are British with RAF Wyton, the home of UK defence intelligence, or RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury, which are both run by the US air force. We have an extraordinary number of US personnel in and around our villages, which always takes people by surprise when they hear those American accents.
Armed Forces Day is about the recognition and celebration of those young men and women who give up the best years of their lives to serve their nation in a uniform. It is also about those who stand behind them, who sacrifice their time, their careers and their ability to make a home in order to support their partners, mothers and fathers to realise their career ambitions.
I spent the best part of a decade in the Army. Although I rarely, if ever, mention it, it was one of the greatest experiences of my life, particularly now that, through the passage of time, I have all but forgotten how bad some of it actually was. But I did love it, and I do miss it. The camaraderie, the experiences and the opportunities are all unique elements that make being a part of the armed forces so special. You forge bonds with those who serve alongside you, and the unspoken shared experiences allow you to meet a fellow veteran and bond over a shared love of spinning dits. Sadly, it would be inappropriate in this place to recount most of those dits, if not all.
I served in the armed forces during the highest tempo of kinetic operations since the Korean war. It placed a strain on our armed forces, the likes of which we have not seen since. I know that those on the Labour Benches often like to recall that the last time we spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was under the last Labour Government, and the PM even mentioned it in his statement earlier today. What they do not often mention is that that operational tempo just about broke the Army.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire): in my experience of serving during the same period, we went through kit and equipment very quickly. With the pace of change that we currently see on operations and in warfare, we would do well to remember—I know the Minister is listening—that we cycled through different types of body armour. In a four-year period, I think we had three different types of body armour and three different types of helmet. We changed our entire camouflage pattern, and we had to bring in urgent operational requests to have vehicles that could withstand roadside bombs. We went from patrolling in berets and enhanced combat body armour in Iraq to patrolling in helmets, and with metal detectors, in Afghanistan only a couple of years later. The pace of change is something that we must consider.
Alice Macdonald
I hesitate to interrupt what is a marvellous speech and a great testament to the hon. Gentleman’s service, but he mentioned the urgent request for vehicles that could withstand roadside bombs. I thought this might be an appropriate moment to mention that, in response to that, a new type of steel was developed in the UK: ballistic steel, which was invented at the University of Cambridge, developed at our steel research institutes and produced in south Wales. That was a great national response, and it demonstrates the importance of not only our steel industry, but our industry in general, in providing a rapid response to the requirements of those in the field.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I concur. Although I do not know anything about the detail of that steel and the armour it provided, it is worth bearing in mind the pace of change and our ability to react. We have heard a lot of talk in recent weeks about the capability that we intend to buy, but we have to remember the old adage, which is so true: no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. That is probably truer now than it has been for many a year.
We take our armed forces for granted. Although the jingoistic applause, the veterans’ discounts and the “Thank you for your service” is not for us—it is too gauche; we are, after all, British—the flip side is that there is certainly some middle ground to be occupied. We need greater societal recognition of the value of serving and an inculcation that service to one’s nation is something to be proud of, something to aspire to, and something that benefits not just the country, but the individual.
We too often look to our armed forces as a default civil emergency force and the first port of call. If there is flooding, we ask them to deliver sandbags. If it is snowing, we ask them to clear the runway at Heathrow. If firefighters go on strike, we ask our armed forces to man the fire trucks. We also ask them to provide security at the Olympics. Even the bin strikes saw the Army brought in to help. Although I appreciate that there is a specific process by which the help of the armed forces is enlisted, I wince whenever I see it activated. We should not need to rely upon a force of barely 100,000 or so available service personnel to cover everything. They should not be the default bailout for Government or local government ineffectiveness.
Our armed forces deserve better. They deserve to be paid properly, so that they do not have to take a pay cut when they are deployed on operations, as was recently explained to me by some of the personnel on NATO operations in Poland; to be housed properly, so that defence contractors do not paint over the mould on the walls because treating it is not on the contractors’ checklist, as I have been informed is happening in service family accommodation in my constituency at the moment; to be posted sympathetically, so that families do not end up split apart if both parents are serving personnel, as I have seen happen to my good friends who are still serving; and to be supported and granted stability, so that service personnel’s children can receive a stable home and education.
I could go on, but the point I am making is that the treatment of our service personnel is not good enough. Frankly, it was not good enough when I served, it was not good enough under the last Government, and I do not think it is good enough now. While I do not doubt the Government’s sentiment, I retain little confidence that the situation will drastically improve, despite the promises. We in this House often stand in this Chamber and wax lyrical about our armed forces, recounting stories of their bravery, courage, commitment and sacrifice. But they are more than just a backdrop for an announcement, and I encourage those of us in this House to remember that.
I will make one light-hearted final point. As we Members of Parliament return to our constituencies this weekend to participate dutifully on Saturday and attend the events and parades, spare a thought for those young men and women. As much as I am sure that they value and appreciate the recognition—I remember this well from my own Army experience—the irony is that the best way we could show how much we value them is by not making them work on a sunny Saturday afternoon in June.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is with immense pride that I rise today in Armed Forces Week, particularly as the national celebrations are returning to Cleethorpes this weekend. That will be a moment of real honour for our community in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, nearly 10 years after the last time we hosted such an event, in 2016—and my, hasn’t a lot happened in those years? To have it return under a Labour Government is an incredibly proud moment.
My constituency may not have garrison towns such as those that my colleagues represent, but our ties to the military run deep and proud. From American GIs camped in Grimsby’s People’s park during the second world war, to the brave men and women who gave everything to their country to support the war effort— including our towns’ fishermen, as well as my great-grandma May and my great aunt Kathleen, who both took roles as wartime wardens in their village of Healing—our towns have long stood shoulder to shoulder with our armed forces.
Those connections continue today, with the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, a reserve battalion, operating out of Westward Ho in Grimsby, and training and serving with distinction across our area and further afield. Their commitment really does reflect the values that define our area: resilience, solidarity and service. Every Remembrance Sunday, they open their doors to the whole of the local community in order to provide refreshments to the young cadets—the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) just mentioned cadets—who will be out parading this Sunday.
Mr Calvin Bailey
We must be very proud of our cadets. I was a cadet myself, and it kept me on the straight and narrow and out of trouble. In my constituency I have two amazing squadrons: 12F, based in Waltham Forest and Leyton; and 241, the best air cadet squadron in the country. Behind them is a corps of volunteers who really do not get the recognition they deserve, and it is really important that we recognise the people who prop up these organisations in our community. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising their service and commitment?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Members have said today that we will not have a future pipeline of young people who want to participate in the armed forces, who already have the training and the discipline, and who understand the lifestyle if we do not have the adults who are prepared to give up their time to support that. It is incredibly time-consuming and takes them away from their families, and it really does show a commitment not only to young people, but to their communities and the armed forces more widely.
Sarah Dyke
I, too, participated in my school’s combined cadet service, and we enjoyed many evenings and nights on Salisbury plain in the bitter cold—in fact, they were some of the coldest nights I have ever experienced. Glastonbury and Street sea cadets give youngsters an experience that helps them grow into the people they want to be, in a safe and friendly environment. It gives them confidence, friendship and leadership skills to help them launch well into life. Will the hon. Lady join me in celebrating groups such as Glastonbury and Street sea cadets, and thank them for all the amazing work they do?
Melanie Onn
I am very happy to do as the hon. Lady asks. All the organisations working with young people do an amazing job. The fact that the young people involved show up and commit themselves is testament to their resilience, and to their belief that they can achieve. They are putting time and effort into preparing themselves for their future.
The Westward Ho barracks opens its doors to our local community every year, providing hot food and drinks. It is a place for families to come to, and for everyone to get together and reflect on the day. It provides a little bit of community spirit, connection and conversation on a very important day in our constituency. We regularly see hundreds of people lining the streets as the procession goes from the minster to the memorial near the Grimsby Institute.
This year, as Cleethorpes hosts the national Armed Forces Day event—I do not want to keep saying it, but we are hosting the national event this year, and are very pleased to do so—we will be celebrating not only our nation’s servicemen and women, but the economic and cultural boost that the event will bring to our area. I have to pay tribute to our local armed forces events team. They are volunteers, and they work tirelessly at any event related to our armed forces. They are always there, and they will be working incredibly hard right down to the wire. I am absolutely sure that they will not have the opportunity to enjoy any of the events on Saturday, because they will be so busy making sure that everything is running smoothly, and that those participating and coming from outside the area to make this a grand celebration have everything they need. It will be a moment for our businesses and our tourism sector. Above all, it is about our people, and we will welcome those from around the country who will come to this national event and line the streets to give thanks to our servicemen and women.
Only recently, I had the pleasure of welcoming students from the uniformed services course at Grimsby Institute, who came into Parliament and the education centre. These young people are preparing for careers across the police, the fire service, the armed forces and the emergency response services. Their enthusiasm and discipline were a reminder that the future of our uniformed services is in good hands. They are the next chapter in our proud tradition of service, and I was very pleased to have them here.
We also have some excellent community groups. The armed forces events team have turned an old local authority building called the Knoll into a centre for signposting for veterans. It provides signposting for any kind of mental health support, housing support, or welfare and benefits advice. It is a really nice, relaxed environment, with space for veterans to have a coffee, and there are professionals to signpost them and provide additional support.
We have another brilliant grassroots group called NEL4Heroes, which is run voluntarily by ex-servicemen and women. It brings people together through food and drink, and other activities, and it really helps people who have left the services—sometimes recently, sometimes many years ago—who are finding life a little bit difficult or find themselves in a challenging situation. There is a pride that comes with service, but sometimes that pride means that people do not wish to access the help available to them. NEL4Heroes is a brilliant group that informally builds relationships and ties, and provides support. It encourages people not to feel embarrassed about requiring additional support for a period of time, and it helps them to access it. I congratulate the group on that work.
Our town’s military history runs deep and has lasting connections to our European allies. After the second world war, the Carpathian Lancers, a Polish regiment unable to return home due to the Soviet occupation, made Weelsby Woods their home. In their honour, a plaque and a wooden sculpture of their bear mascot, Wojtek, stands in the park as a tribute to their service and to the many who settled in Grimsby in 1947. I wanted to mention that, because when I was growing up, my great aunt and her mother, my great-grandmother, welcomed into their house one of those Polish servicemen, so I grew up with him, and he lived as a lodger with our family for 50 years until he passed away. I want to remember Michek Włodarczak, because he was a big part of our family’s life. I am sorry—
John Slinger
In my hon. Friend’s very powerful and moving speech, she has spoken about the efforts of the entire community. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talked about the importance of the national endeavour to remember those who have served, and those who continue to serve, irrespective of party. In that spirit, I would like to put on record that former Conservative councillor Kathryn Lawrence is doing wonderful work with her team at the Hillmorton branch of the Royal British Legion. I have met her many times and worked with her, and will continue to do so. Indeed, I will be taking part in the ceremony on Saturday. It is in that spirit that we should support our armed services.
Melanie Onn
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which was particularly timely. There are people who play a big part in our life at different periods; I know that my family are not alone in feeling that.
It would be remiss of me not to pause and remember the Grimsby Chums, the ordinary men from our community who volunteered together, trained together and, in July 1916, faced the horrors of the Somme together. As part of the 101st Brigade in the 34th Division, they stood shoulder to shoulder with battalions from Edinburgh as they launched the first wave of the British assault. At 7.28 am, the Chums advanced into what would become a day of unimaginable loss. Some managed to reach the German trenches, including Second Lieutenant Harold P. Hendin, who, with just five men, reached the enemy’s reserve trench and held out under relentless counter-attack. Of the battalion, 502 fell that day—15 officers and 487 from other ranks—with only two officers returning uninjured and barely 100 men left standing. Their bravery and sacrifice are an enduring legacy of our community’s contribution to peace and freedom.
Our losses are not just from that time. Over the last two decades, we have had a number of other losses from our community, such as Flight Lieutenant Smith, Marine Lance Corporal Ford, Trooper Pearson, Guardsman Major and Sergeant Telford, who should also be recognised.
In that vein, I welcome the commitments from the Government that show their determination to improve the lives and welfare of military serving personnel and their families, and particularly the forces accommodation improvements. Having lived in service accommodation, I can confirm the difference that it makes to have a good-quality home. The properties of some of my friends were not in such a good state. They were bringing up children, but were having to keep on top of some pretty terrible structural issues while their partners or husbands were away on service.
I also acknowledge the additional funds for homeless veterans, which will be invaluable for ex-servicemen and women who become homeless after struggling to adjust and make changes later in their life, and who perhaps feel that their community is not as strong as it was when they were in the forces. Making sure that we have the precision funding to support them is incredibly important.
This weekend, as the Red Arrows fly over Cleethorpes beach, hopefully I can share an ice cream with the Secretary of State, or perhaps a pint; there will be lots of pints drunk this weekend. As our community celebrates with parades and displays of remembrance, we will feel a fierce pride in our past and present, and a sense of unwavering support for our armed services. I know that I speak for everybody in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes when I say thank you to those who served, who serve now, and who are preparing to serve. Their bravery and sacrifice is written into the soul of our nation, and into the streets, homes and families of our communities. Let us honour them, not just on Saturday, but through the values we champion, the support we offer, and the remembrance we preserve for generations to come.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
There are many gallant Members in this Chamber, in the Scottish Parliament Chamber back home in Scotland, and in other legislatures of these islands, both national and local—Members who have served in the armed forces with distinction and bravery. I pay tribute to them, and to those family and many friends who have served, and in some cases continue to serve. I hold them in the highest regard for their commitment to protecting the freedoms that we hold dear. That commitment is demonstrated by every rank and in every location where our armed forces operate.
Scotland has a very proud and distinguished military history. Armed Forces Day has become a further focal point of community support for our serving armed forces and our veterans. In my constituency of Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, there are around 4,500 serving personnel—around 3,000 at RAF Lossiemouth and around 1,500 Army personnel between 39 Engineers at Kinloss and the 3rd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Black Watch, based at Fort George. They are supported by hundreds of Ministry of Defence civilians and military contractors, such as Boeing and BAE Systems, who jointly, with our serving personnel, deliver significant defensive and offensive capabilities for our military system. In addition, there are around 12,000 veterans in my constituency; I believe we have the highest percentage of any constituency in the UK. That reflects the north of Scotland’s very long and distinguished connection with the military. Once we add in immediate family, around one in five people living in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey have a direct military connection—quite some figure.
It is unsurprising, therefore, that the armed forces in the area are not viewed as a separate or distinct community, but rather as a significant and integrated part of the wider community. As is often the case in the north of Scotland, there is no fanfare, but rather an everyday respect and appreciation of the role of the armed forces embedded in community life. Frankly, it is something that just is. That is important. There is no “us and them”; we are a whole community.
That does not, of course, equate to the armed forces being ignored, as can be readily observed from the significant numbers that turn out, year on year, across the constituency to witness acts of remembrance. I am very pleased that those numbers have grown over the last 25 years very significantly, and show no sign of dropping off. There are military children in most schools in the constituency, and some schools have a very significant percentage of military children. Military charities are well supported in the region, including SSAFA, the RAF Benevolent Fund, Help for Heroes, and Erskine Veterans Charity, which fairly recently opened a very welcoming and well-attended facility in Forres that is providing fantastic support to veterans. They can get together for a chat, or for the more extensive support that Erskine can provide.
The military, including contractors, offers a fantastic range of opportunities to young people in the region, and many take up those opportunities. In my pre-parliamentary life, I spent some four years as leader of Moray council. During that period, we strengthened our role in delivering the armed forces covenant. We worked cross party and across the chamber in the council to do that. That has continued, with cross-party support, and the council achieved the gold standard in the employer recognition scheme. During my time as council leader, I was very pleased to support the developing civic link between the council and HMS Spey, a Royal Navy river class offshore patrol vessel currently operating in the Indo-Pacific, giving the constituency and the wider region really strong links with all three services.
I will touch on some politics. I trust this will be taken in the positive spirit in which I present it. This is not a day for hard politics, but there are some things that could be better for our armed forces. First, on the covenant —I mentioned this earlier to the Minister—I very much welcome proposals to embed the covenant in legislation. There will, no doubt, be challenges associated with that, and financial implications, but it is, in my view, the right thing to do. I look forward to future opportunities to debate embedding the covenant in law.
Secondly, one thing that frustrated me in my council days was comparatively rapid changes in numbers, notably at RAF Lossiemouth, which happened with no financial support to the council. Many councils with military bases, particularly air force bases, are in rural areas with small populations and consequently smaller budgets to operate with. That makes them less agile, because they simply do not have the money available at short notice to make the changes required to deliver services at a bigger scale. Other Members will, I am certain, have similar experiences in areas with significant changes in military numbers. If the MOD were a private developer, it would be contributing substantial sums to support growth in childcare, education and health provision, and a range of other public services. It would also be required to invest in infrastructure, such as improved roads and junctions in the area. The current design of our armed forces and the Government Departments that support them does not lend itself to doing that. This needs serious work.
I am by no means a fan of everything that the US does, but in this regard when significant changes occur to military-related populations there, there is a Government Department that steps up for a period to support local authorities, including with finance, to help smooth changes, with investment in service provision and the local economy. Councils and health boards have to absorb big bumps in demand, and that is frequently easier said than done. We have a welcome opportunity to fix that.
The Department in the US is called the Office of Local Defence Community Co-operation. It used to be known as the Office of Economic Adjustment, but I think that perhaps sounded a bit Orwellian. I would welcome further opportunities to debate this issue to see what progress can be achieved. The team in the US describes its role as helping communities to navigate the impact of Department of Defence actions and programme changes. That is exactly what we need to achieve in the UK, and it is particularly important as we move into an era of significantly increased spend on our armed forces and growth in our base numbers. There will be demand for more dentists, doctors, teachers and wraparound childcare. That puts a lot of pressure on local services and we need to navigate our way through that.
Before I conclude my contribution, I would like to make three specific mentions. First, like a number of Members who have contributed to this debate, I am taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme—in my case, the RAF course—which has afforded me many excellent learning opportunities that enable me as a parliamentarian to better understand our armed forces and to more effectively represent constituents with connections to our armed forces. I pay tribute to the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which is behind the excellent scheme, and the military officers who support the scheme here in Parliament, who have given so much time and effort to ensure that the scheme is the effective learning tool for MPs that it is. I commend the scheme to other Members who may be interested in taking it up.
Secondly, it was a real delight to give my constituent Evie Skinner a tour of Parliament earlier this week and to congratulate her in person for her well-deserved win in the Month of the Military Child poetry and art competition, set up by the excellent charity Never Such Innocence. Evie, who has a parent serving in our armed forces, should be really proud of her art piece on the theme of “Memories”, and I hope she and her family enjoyed their time in Westminster.
Finally, this morning, I was pleased to welcome to Parliament several members of the Battlefield Co-ordination Detachment with their associated ground liaison officers, who are based with 1 (Fighter) Squadron at RAF Lossiemouth. The group was led by Lieutenant Colonel Gee Jenner and Captain Ant Butler, who, alongside their colleagues, are developing their understanding of the role of Parliament and the interaction between Parliament and our military services. Achieving that mutual learning is as important to the military as it is to parliamentarians.
It is vital that we continue to support and celebrate the dedication and commitment of our armed forces, and Armed Forces Day affords us the opportunity to do just that.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Minister’s opening words.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate as both a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the proud Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North, the home of the Royal Navy and a community with deep historic ties to our armed forces. However, for me, this debate is not just about duty—it is personal. I have a son currently serving, as well as several cousins and, indeed, a grandad who wear and wore their uniforms with pride. Like those in so many military families, I know both the pride and sacrifice that service life brings. I have proudly stood on the shoreline waving off ships as they sail out of my city and sail back in—and yes, it is emotional. I thank the Minister for joining me last month as we waved loved ones off on the Prince of Wales. I will be returning again next month.
This Armed Forces Week, we honour not just those in uniform—regulars, reserves and veterans—but the families who stand behind them. Our armed forces are the backbone of our national security, and they are the very best of us. I want to make special mention of the 14th and 15th Battalions and the 16th (Reserve) Battalion, more fondly known in my city as the “Pompey Pals”, and to remember the more than 1,400 who have lost their lives, many going over the top in the battle of the Somme on 3 September 1916. A tribute to the armed forces veterans who did not survive can be found at my football club; their names also adorned our football shirts one season.
After years of neglect and underfunding, I am proud that this Labour Government are turning the page. We delivered the largest pay rise in more than 20 years for our armed forces and, as we heard from the Minister, we are increasing recruitment and have committed £1.5 billion more for military accommodation, tackling years of decay and poor conditions that too many forces families have had to endure. I am proud to have brought the Minister for Veterans and People to Portsmouth to meet residents and armed forces families and to see what can be done with accommodation, and I look forward to this Government changing homes for the better.
We must also look to the future and at boosting the cadet forces, which I am pleased we are looking to increase by 30% by 2030, opening doors to 42,000 more young people from every background to develop the skills, discipline and confidence that service life can bring. I want to mention the Royal Navy Cadets, Royal Marine Cadets, Sea Cadets, Army Cadet Force, Air Cadets and Combined Cadet Force, as well as the teachers at City of Portsmouth college who teach the uniformed protective services BTEC levels 2 and 3, and who do a great job showing our young people that there can be a life in the military.
To ensure those who have served are not forgotten, we are launching Valour, a £50 million programme creating a nationwide network of veteran support centres. I urge Portsmouth city council to sign up to and wholeheartedly embrace this programme, as we have veterans who deserve and need our support. I also look forward to putting the covenant into law and promoting this service to our armed forces and their families, many of whom do not know it exists, so that we can follow best practice across the country and deliver for our people.
We proudly commemorated VE Day in Portsmouth, where it was fantastic to join the residents of Knox Road at their street party. I look forward to joining many other street parties on VJ Day in August.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
We owe a huge debt of thanks to the whole of the world war two generation, but I would like to pay special tribute to a remarkable local hero from my constituency, Jack Dark, the last surviving member of the Pathfinder squadron. The Pathfinders played a crucial role in world war two, flying ahead of bomber formations to mark targets for attack. To say it was a tough mission is an understatement: Pathfinder crews survived for an average of just six weeks. Against all the odds, Jack will celebrate his 102nd birthday on 11 August—an extraordinary milestone that speaks to his incredible spirit and determination. I am very much looking forward to meeting Jack in person tomorrow, and I hope the hon. Lady will agree that his story is a powerful reminder of the bravery and resilience of all our armed forces.
Amanda Martin
I thank the hon. Member for that wonderful intervention and send my best wishes to Jack for his birthday. In remembering that, I would also like to remember John Jenkins—one of our very own veterans from Portsmouth.
In Portsmouth, we also proudly celebrated Armed Forces Day last Saturday, honouring the service and sacrifice of our military community with events across the city. It is a day that I have attended since I was a kid, and it shows our city at its very best. On Monday, we raised the armed forces flag—a visible sign of our respect and support for those who serve and have served—but in my city the armed forces are remembered every day, not just on one day.
I also want to pay tribute to the local charities, veterans’ organisations and community groups in Portsmouth, which work year round to support our armed forces communities. Their dedication and compassion make a real difference. It has been a pleasure to work with them since coming to this place on behalf of my constituents, veterans and their families, and I have been proud to host many of them in this place.
Let us use this week not just to show gratitude, but to rebuild the bond between society and those who serve, and to ensure that our armed forces community is properly respected, supported and championed. Let us also use it to say thank you: to my Olly, to Kate, to Craig, to Kirstin, to Mark and to Jonty, who is currently away on the Prince of Wales—and, indeed, to all who serve and have served. Whether they are serving now, have served or are supporting from home, they all deserve nothing less than our full commitment on their return.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s opening speech; as a member of the Defence Committee, I look forward to scrutinising the detail of his remarks.
I wish to say a brief word of thanks to the Royal Marines Association, the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, the Veterans Charity and many others that all do good work in my constituency of North Devon, which is home to more than 4,800 veterans across more than 11% of the households. Obviously, North Devon is also home to the Royal Marines Barracks Chivenor and the Commando Logistic Regiment, and has the Royal Marines, the Navy and the Army all stationed there.
Back in January, I spent a day with a wonderful organisation called the Root Cause Project—a community of veterans and serving personnel who meet regularly around the camp fire in the great outdoors of North Devon to look out for each other and to talk. Their message is simple: being able to talk to people with shared life experience is vital to those who have served in uniform, and is good for their mental health.
I know from my time working for SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity, just how important that support structure is. When I left the Royal Air Force in the 1990s, many veterans still found the experience of being out of uniform not just strange but very isolating. I hope that Armed Forces Week continues to bolster our forces community, and shows that we all appreciate the service of those who keep us safe.
Recently, I visited the British Normandy Memorial with fellow parliamentarians, including some in the Chamber today, to lay wreaths in memory of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. It was a truly moving experience. Officially opened on 6 June 2021 by His Majesty the King as royal patron of the Normandy Memorial Trust, the memorial stands as a powerful tribute to the 22,442 servicemen and women under British command, who lost their lives on D-day and throughout the battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. I was extremely honoured to meet a veteran of the D-day landings who had just turned 100 years old. He told me that, on that day, he had landed on the beach seven times. When I asked him why, he said it was because he was the pilot of one of the crafts. I thanked him for his service and he recited some memories from that momentous day.
Walking among the stone inscriptions, I was struck by how the memorial brings together the names of individuals from over 30 different countries, all united in sacrifice. Set on a hillside overlooking Gold beach, the site offers a poignant reminder of the scale and diversity of those who fought and fell. That day certainly put a large lump in my throat, just as every remembrance service does.
We recognise that dedication to duty this Armed Forces Week. Most importantly, I hope that veterans and serving personnel know that a support structure is there for them and that they will never be alone.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, and I thank colleagues across the Chamber for coming together to commemorate and celebrate the brave men and women who keep us safe.
Before I begin, I note that a Westminster Hall debate was due to take place at around the same time today on the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, whose intelligence-gathering work of taking a staggering 26 million photographs was vital to the war effort. These men, often unarmed, operated at extreme risk, with a tragic 48% fatality rate. Their bravery and sacrifice was instrumental to our victory. I hope to contribute to that debate when it takes place so that we can rightly honour their role in protecting our freedom.
On Armed Forces Day, I want to focus on the women and men currently protecting our country. Many colleagues have spoken about the uncertain global times that we face. These challenges serve only to sharpen our focus and strengthen our resolve to honour our armed forces.
I have previously shared with the House that while I grew up knowing that my grandfather and great-grandfather had served in the war, I rarely saw their contributions recognised. Armed Forces Day is about changing that. It is about raising the flag for all those on active duty, thanking them for their service, and honouring their decision to put themselves in harm’s way for the rest of us. I take this opportunity to thank the men and women of Ilford whose names are etched in Memorial Hall, which used to be the entrance to the maternity unit of King George hospital in Newbury Park. It is a wonderful idea that they gave their lives so that babies could be born in freedom.
Armed Forces Day is about recognising our armed forces who come from every walk of life and from diverse faiths and backgrounds. Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, black, white and Asian—each individual making an incredible contribution to our collective security. If we are serious about supporting our armed forces, we must do more than hold debates to observe commemorative days. We must improve the experience of those serving now, so I am proud of the Prime Minister’s announcement of increased funding today. Improved experience means supporting efforts to make the military more inclusive, more accessible and more responsive to the needs of its personnel.
Groups such as the Defence Sikh Network are doing just that by raising the voices of Sikhs in service and working to ensure that they can serve with dignity and authenticity. In 2022, the Defence Sikh Network spearheaded the introduction of a waterproof, tearproof, camouflage copy of the Nitnem Gutka—a sacred Sikh prayer book—for use in tactical environments. This initiative revived a tradition first seen in world war one, when Sikh soldiers who served under the British Indian Army carried their scriptures with them into battle. For many Sikhs, their decision to join the military is rooted in their faith—in the Sikh principle of protecting those more vulnerable than them. The introduction of these Gutke helped serving Sikhs to maintain the connection between their faith and their duty.
It was not always like that. What comes to mind is the story of a young Oxford graduate, Hardit Singh Malik, in 1916. He was denied entry into the British Royal Flying Corps; he was going to join the French, until his tutor intervened and got him a special dispensation. He flew with great distinction. He fought against the Red Baron and, coming back, survived for 40 miles at low altitude with two bullets in his leg, his plane being shot at more than 400 times. As he himself said,
“My pursuers just did not have the bullet with my name on it.”
These small but meaningful initiatives about the Gutka are made not just on Armed Forces Day but on ordinary days, demonstrating respect for those who serve. On Armed Forces Day, we commemorate the men and women whom we may not see daily—the ones behind the scenes who work tirelessly to keep us safe, like the people in the Plessey factory in Ilford in world war two. We honour those whose names are not always remembered, whose records are lost, like those of the men of the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, and we reaffirm our commitment to implementing real change. From larger-scale policy initiatives to smaller cultural initiatives, we must make our forces stronger and more inclusive.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Rather fittingly, this debate comes in the shadow of the NATO summit at The Hague yesterday, with its headline pledge for defence spending to reach 5% of GDP by the midpoint of the next decade. I echo remarks from across the House about how we live in an increasingly volatile world —perhaps more volatile and more unpredictable than at any other point in the post-1945 era of pax Europaea and pax Americana.
We see the bloodiest conflict on European soil since the second world war and death and devastation in the middle east and across Africa, Asia and beyond. In comfort on civvy street, we are perhaps sometimes guilty of forgetting how fragile our freedoms and democracy are, and we forget the threats posed to them. Our values are not guaranteed; they have to be fought for, and we must be reminded of that. We live in an age that is the historical exception, not the norm. Our way of life at home depends on our strength to defend it and how we project ourselves abroad.
We recently celebrated the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe. Just a few generations back, still within the memories of many, this country was engaged in a fight for its very life and survival. We would do well to remember that always. Thankfully, the brave men and women who serve today need no such reminder.
I come from a military family. My late father served in the Royal Naval Reserve. Two of my three brothers have had long careers in His Majesty’s armed forces. Ben is a brigadier in what I still insist on calling the Black Watch. As officer command in Scotland when the late Queen died, he was in charge of making sure that everything went smoothly; I cannot tell you how proud I was of my baby brother Ben when it did. Johnny, now retired, was a lieutenant colonel in the Grenadier Guards. They have dedicated their lives to the service of our country. I assure everybody that their example, and that of every soldier, sailor and airperson, reinforces my knowledge that our military remains in the best of hands. I say, perhaps with a shred of bias, that Britain’s armed forces are still the finest in the world.
I speak with additional pride about my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, which is home to 4,577 veterans. It is a proud part of the country with a strong military tradition. I take this opportunity to salute the fantastic presence of the Royal British Legion and other veteran organisations in my patch, particularly the wonderful Dunkirk Memorial House at the foot of the Quantock hills and the armed forces breakfast clubs in Minehead and Bishops Lydeard, which provide a sense of community.
Having done lots of pro bono work with the Royal British Legion in a previous life, particularly on PTSD and hearing loss, this is a topic very close to my heart. I am delighted to hear the Minister announce that the armed forces covenant will be included in legislation. It is a national obligation to look after those who have served us. Before I was elected, I had to try and help young RAF veteran Owein and his family, including his young daughter, Autumn, who had just been diagnosed with autism. They had become homeless. If only that legislation had been in place then. I know that my colleague, Councillor Claudette Harrower, who is responsible for the covenant at Mid Devon district council, will endeavour to make sure that the very best has been done. The armed forces covenant is not charity; it is justice.
We must be alive to the recruitment crisis currently bedevilling our armed forces. We must close that gap. I fear, however, that we are not overly helping ourselves in this regard. Allow me to draw attention to the plight of a young constituent of mine, which I suspect is a frustratingly similar story to that of a number of young people up and down the country. In February 2024, she gave up the chance to study A-levels to attend the Lichfield assessment centre, where, in October 2024, she passed the assessment with scores that were exemplary and such that she was accepted into the Intelligence Corps. However, by June of this year—some 16 months later—she still has not been given a start date, and just receives occasional holding communications from military authorities. Meanwhile, she gets by with a series of menial part-time jobs, but has seemingly been left in the lurch by her Army recruiters.
I am not using her name because she has asked me not to, but I will give the Minister her details later in the hope that we can process this matter sooner rather than later. Young people like my constituent, who are prepared to serve their country and so represent the best of their generation, deserve better. Will the Minister comment on that privately? Will the Minister also commit to publishing detailed targets for processing applications, allocating sufficient personnel to the recruitment pipeline and providing all successful candidates with a concrete start date within a reasonable time period?
I want to put on the record that the Veterans Minister was known as a legend when he served in the Royal Marines and, to me, he remains a legend. I can send him an email and receive his response within 48 hours, which is enormously helpful to my constituents, who are the people I serve.
In finishing, I refer to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who said that he was a patriot, but not a nationalist. As I finish my speech, I reiterate his words: I speak as a proud patriot, but never, ever a nationalist.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is both a pleasure and a privilege to close today’s excellent debate on Armed Forces Day. I pay tribute to colleagues across the House for their thoughtful and passionate contributions. I rise on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to express our sincere thanks to all those who serve and have served in our armed forces—regulars, reservists, veterans and cadets—and to the families who support them every step of the way.
Armed Forces Week, which began on Monday and culminates this Saturday, 28 June, with Armed Forces Day, is a national moment to say one thing clearly and collectively: thank you. Thank you to those defending the UK and our interests around the world. Our armed forces represent the very best of our country: committed, courageous and professional. They work tirelessly, often in the most challenging conditions, to keep us safe and uphold the values that we share. Today’s debate has been particularly powerful because of the personal reflections shared by so many right hon. and hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) represents a strong military constituency—one in 20 serves, or has served, in the military. Having watched the hon. Gentleman in defence debates, it is clear to me that he is a passionate advocate for his constituency, with strong military links. He talked about the Royal Military Police, a regiment that plays a vital role that we need to hear more about. I enjoyed hearing about the airborne police officer unit—an interesting skillset that we could potentially see in the Met. He also talked powerfully about his constituents Kate and Rachel, veterans who faced internal adversity because of their gender and sexuality. As he said, rightly, courage does not know any gender or sexuality.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) talked strongly about the skills that military people bring to civilian life. Having seen many veterans in my constituency make that transition, I know how many skills they bring. He advocated for more support for them to make that transition, and mentioned the real need for the armed forces covenant to be strengthened. I was glad to hear about the reception he held here recently in support of the covenant, and it would be good to support him in future such endeavours. We must ensure that the sacrifices made by our service personnel are never met with silence, as he says, but with real lasting commitment and action.
I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) that gratitude for service is not enough on its own. Only a quarter of veterans believe that service is valued, and I completely agree that that needs to change. He spoke powerfully about Northern Ireland veterans, especially the Special Air Service, a regiment in which he served. He spoke about the injustice that group of special forces soldiers, and others in the military, face from the opening up of domestic legal frameworks. Those veterans were in battles that were fought under orders, under the yellow card legal system and under the view of the Royal Military Police. There were strong legal frameworks surrounding those operations, and my right hon. Friend made the point that those veterans joined up and served our country, but the view is now that they can be prosecuted in later life. That is not right, and I look forward to the issue being debated later this month and, I hope, overturned. The petition on the subject is currently live, and there has been a significant uptick in the numbers signing it in the last few hours.
The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) made remarks about her personal connection to the armed forces, and her husband’s service in the reserves. It was interesting to hear about the 216 Royal Artillery regiment in her constituency and her link to the Royal British Legion. She made a powerful case for greater support for training, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to it. I also echo her support for expanding the cadet programme. I spent many happy years in the air cadets, and I see what value they bring to society and as a pathway for people to join the military. I align myself with her comments.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was, as ever, a strong advocate and champion for the military units in his constituency. We regularly hear him calling for more support. He served the UK in operations during the global war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he knows first hand the challenges that come from the evolution of war and the need for kit to keep pace with the evolution of threats. As he rightly said, no plan survives first contact with the enemy, and those words remain as true today as they have ever been. It is crucial that we not only learn the lessons of modern conflicts, but ensure that our armed forces retain a broad range of capabilities to meet the demands of the evolving environments that we may be involved with in the coming years. My hon. Friend also made the fair and timely observation that making our armed forces work on a hot Saturday in late June is perhaps not the best way to honour them.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) rightly highlighted the volunteers who work tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure that our armed forces are commemorated properly. They often miss out on enjoying the events themselves, so I hope that they will find time to relax and enjoy some sunshine with their families. We thank all of them and their grassroots groups for their vital support for these commemorations. She also shared a moving story about her great-aunt and mother, which touched many of us in the Chamber. They welcomed Polish servicemen into their home and they became part of their family nearly 50 years ago, demonstrating how service personnel become deeply woven into our communities and lives. As always, I am sure the Red Arrows will deliver a magnificent display over Cleethorpes this weekend. I hope that she manages to enjoy an ice cream—and hopefully a few beers, too—with the Secretary of State when he is in her constituency this weekend.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is the proud mother of serving Royal Navy sailor, Olly, whom she has spoken about many times. She represents a city with a high number of service personnel and veterans—one of the highest in the country—and one of the homes of the Royal Navy. I say that as a Devon MP, and standing opposite the Minister, who represents Devonport. She also raised an interesting point around the protective services BTEC course. I have seen the value of that at first hand in my constituency at Bicton college, and it is interesting to see young people flourish in that environment. Again, just like the cadets, it provides a strong pathway for those who want to go into the military or other protective services.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), again, represents a strong military constituency—4,800 veterans and 11% of households. He has long been a proud advocate for the Royal Marines, with the Commando Logistic Regiment in his constituency. I was impressed to hear about the work he has done with SSAFA, the armed forces charity. It was enjoyable and interesting to go away with him recently on the trip he spoke about to Normandy to see the D-day commemoration. It was particularly poignant to meet the D-day veteran Norman Ashford, who is 100 years old. He was a Royal Marine and, as the hon. Member said, made countless trips up and down on to the beaches that day. I had a great deal of respect for him when I met him and heard his stories.
The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke about the RAF photographic units—tales of derring-do. It is a unit that I have enjoyed learning about as the campaign has been growing, and I look forward to that debate being rescheduled and brought back to the House. He made some interesting points about the contributions of people from all over the world, including the Commonwealth, to our armed forces, and the need to celebrate them this Armed Forces Day. It was interesting to hear about Hardit Malik, the first Indian fighter pilot in world war one with the Royal Flying Corps, fighting against the famous German Red Baron.
Lastly, my near neighbour in the south-west, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), has a strong military family, and I have spoken to her many times about her brother’s service. She raises an interesting and important point about the pathway for people who want to join the military. She talked about her constituent trying to join the Intelligence Corps and the waiting time to join being far too long. It would be interesting to discuss whether something can be done to provide concrete start dates.
I, too, speak from personal experience. I am proud to have served in the Royal Marines, and after leaving regular service a decade ago, I was fortunate to continue as a Royal Marine reservist with the Royal Navy parachute display team. It was—to say the least—one of the more unconventional side-gigs in public service, giving me a literal bird’s eye view of Armed Forces Day celebrations. Over several years, I had the privilege of parachuting into national Armed Forces Day events in Guildford, Cleethorpes and Llandudno. From thousands of feet above, seeing the crowds gathered to show their support was genuinely humbling. Although I will admit that, at that height, my primary concern was not so much national pride as avoiding crash-landing into someone’s picnic.
Those kinds of events are not just pageantry, as Members from across the House have said today; they are powerful tools for engagement and recruitment. I have vivid childhood memories of attending large air shows and other military displays, but one personal favourite, and one that I am sure many hon. Members attended, was the royal tournament at Earl’s Court here in London. The Navy’s high-octane field gun competition and the Royal Signals’ famous White Helmets motorcycle display team made a lasting impression on me, and without doubt helped shape my decision to join the military.
As defence spending rises, and as difficult choices are made to support that increase, it will be more important than ever to showcase our armed forces and their capabilities. That visibility ensures public understanding and accountability for where taxpayers’ money is spent.
There is also a broader point. As the national security strategy outlined this week, the threats we face are serious. The possibility of a hostile attack on the UK, which for many decades was seen as unimaginable, is now again within the realm of possibility. A time may come when we must once more defend the things that we hold dear. We must therefore forge a renewed relationship with defence—not seeing it just as a line in the Budget, but recognising it as a fundamental pillar of our national security and resilience.
Armed Forces Day is about more than capability; it is about morale. It is about recognising the extraordinary service of our sailors, soldiers and aviators. Public support matters, as it lifts spirits, strengthens bonds and reminds those in uniform that their country stands firmly behind them. That support must go further than symbolic gestures, as we have heard repeatedly in today’s debate.
The armed forces covenant is a solemn pledge—a year-round commitment from Government, businesses and communities to treat those who serve, and their families, with fairness and respect in everyday life. The message from today’s debate is clear: gratitude must be backed up by action on housing, employment and a dignified transition to civilian life. These are responsibilities we all share.
The Government’s strategic defence review rightly proposes a whole-of-society approach to national defence. It is welcome, and it is necessary. Defence is not just the task of our armed forces; it is a shared civic responsibility. True resilience relies not only on military capability, but on strong institutions, cohesive communities and national unity.
At the heart of that resilience is trust—a social contract between the nation and those who serve it. We must do all we can to honour that trust, which is why we cannot ignore the serious concerns raised by veterans, especially those who served in Northern Ireland. The strength of feeling in that community is real and justified. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington mentioned that in his speech.
I place on record my thanks to the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for his principled support for a judicial review of the Clonoe inquest, and I hope his judgment is actively being sought by his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, especially as they reflect on their plans to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Our veterans deserve clarity, compassion and fairness.
The strength of the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force lies not just in firepower or training, but in the character of those who serve. Their dedication, discipline and selflessness are a credit to our country. So let us use this Armed Forces Week not only to reflect, but to renew our commitments to serve those who serve us, to honour those who have worn the uniform, and to ensure that future generations understand the debt we owe.
We are grateful. We are proud. We will remember them. We will support them. And we will thank them.
Luke Pollard
Members who had to sit through my opening remarks will be pleased to know that I will not be repeating many of them, but I am keen to pick up on a number of points raised in their speeches, which were so ably summarised by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I thank hon. Members for their contributions. At a time when it is easy to take political pot-shots across the Chamber on serious issues, today’s debate has shown that we can come together, cross-party, to support our people, to have a serious debate about the contribution our armed forces make to our national security, and to raise genuine issues of concern with respect and thoughtfulness. Sadly, not as many people will be watching this debate as watch other proceedings in the Chamber, but if did, they would see Parliament working effectively and properly.
Mr Francois
In a bipartisan spirit, perhaps the Minister will allow me to relay a brief apology. I promised the Chair of the Defence Committee that I would explain why he and some of the Committee are not here, when ordinarily they would be. They are on an overseas trip directly related to defence business. It would help keep me honest if the Minister allowed me to place that on the record.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman certainly does not want to offend the Chair of the Defence Committee, so I am glad that he has had the chance to put that on the record.
What I heard in the debate, and what I hope our forces will have heard if they were listening, was not only support for the men and women who serve, and advocacy for the armed forces as a brilliant career choice, but support for improvement to the transition from military life to civilian roles, and support for those who have served in the past; we heard stories of heroism and courage. That makes for a good debate, and I am pleased that a number of Members were able to pick out elements from the strategic defence review. The Government have adopted all 62 recommendations from Lord George Robertson’s report, and we will implement them in full. Further announcements will be made about what we are implementing and how we are taking forward not only the SDR’s recommendations, but its spirit.
As we set a path for increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, to 3% in the next Parliament, and to 3.5% by 2035, and for spending 1.5% on resilience and homeland defence over in the same period, I hope there will be plenty of opportunity for Members to make the case that increased defence spending can mean spending not just on kit and equipment, but on our people. I expect that to be heard loud and clear across the House, so that when we hear conversations about renewing military accommodation, we know that there is an increased budget to pay for that work, and when we talk about valuing our people, we know there are above-inflation pay rises for them for the first time in a very long time. That is important.
There is one thing that I will expect to see and hear more about in future debates. We heard lots of mentions of our Army, Navy and Air Force and their traditional roles, but in future debates on the armed forces, I expect that we will hear more mentions of those who work in cyber and the digital defence of our nation. The cyber direct entry pathway that we have opened has been a success, and we look forward to announcing the passing out of the first cohort later this year. The ability for us —the armed forces and people who care about defence—to talk about cyber resilience and protecting our digital infrastructure is just as important as protecting against kinetic and more traditional military threats. Indeed, I expect that in future years there will be more discussion of how we keep our space domain safe.
I am glad that a number of hon. Members were able to talk about their role and participation in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I am the Minister responsible for that, and I am proud of the way that the scheme has been expanded in the past year. I thank the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust for its support on that. The scheme is a superb opportunity for parliamentarians who have not served, and for those who have, to experience a different perspective on military life. It allows them to understand what we ask of our people; to listen and learn from them, their deployments and their experiences; and to bring that into the House and improve our work here.
I turn to comments made in the debate. I am glad that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), talked about the Forcer protocol. Indeed, I expect all Members of the House to ask their chief constables whether their police force is going with that. I undertake to do the same for Devon and Cornwall police, as will many of the other Devon MPs, I imagine. There is a real merit in the protocol, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House’s attention.
I am proud to be Plymouth’s first ever out MP, and seeing the way that LGBT personnel and veterans are now spoken about in the House fills me with pride. When I was growing up, there were not always the role models or the public debate that enabled folk like me to feel that there was a place in the armed forces for them. The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and others were very powerful. He said that courage knows no gender or sexuality, which is absolutely right. We need to build that sentiment into our armed forces as we seek to change the culture, so that everyone is welcome and there is no place for abuse. As we move to warfighting readiness, we need the contribution of people from every background to our armed forces if we are to keep our nation safe.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for talking about the importance of payments to LGBT veterans. The priority order was established by the Minister for Veterans and People. The initial payments have gone to those over 80 and those who are sadly towards the end of their life, so that we can ensure that those payments are made before they leave this place. We have now established the procedure for paying the larger cohort of people who do not fit into that category, and the Minister for Veterans and People will make further announcements about how we will roll out the payments. We are pleased that the first payments have been made in full to the first cohort.
I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that Armed Forces Day is a starting point for serious change. I believe that change started on 4 July last year, but I take her comments in the spirit in which she made them. It is not enough to talk about change; we have to take action. Hopefully, she and Members from across the House will see the strategic defence review being implemented, the increase in defence spending, the increased pay for our forces, and the housing improvement, all of which will contribute to improvement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), who spoke about the armed forces covenant being our collective promise, which is exactly right. As we look to put that fully into law, there will need to be a conversation. If I may be cheeky, Madam Deputy Speaker, I point out to right hon. and hon. Members of all parties that questions on our armed forces covenant need not be directed only to the Ministry of Defence. If the covenant is to be effective, we need every Government Department to understand their role in putting the covenant fully into law. The Minister for Veterans and People has been undertaking cross-Government work on that, and I imagine that there will be further such work in due course, as we build towards that legislation.
Mr Francois
In the hope that other Government Departments are listening, the Minister might recall that I said in my remarks that at noon today the Northern Ireland veterans petition had just over 145,000 signatures. I looked a few seconds ago, and the figure is now just shy of 148,000. Perhaps people were inspired by the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). Will the Minister convey to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that we do not want to throw our Northern Ireland veterans to the wolves—and clearly, from this petition, neither do the public?
Luke Pollard
I will return to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, so he will not have to wait long for my response, but first I will deal with some other points.
I am grateful for the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the national Armed Forces Day event, which I am pleased to see back. She has a passion for the event and is serious about her community. She also has pride in and a close connection to the folk she mentioned—it was a very powerful speech. I am certain that the ice cream will be on the Secretary of State, especially now that he knows he is going to the event, so she should expect plenty of dairy coming her way.
I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who spoke about RAF Lossiemouth, the importance of how we base our people and valuing the wider community. I am grateful to him for mentioning HMS Spey; the offshore patrol vessel is doing a superb job in the Indo-Pacific, as is her sister ship HMS Tamar. Their contributions to upholding the international rules-based order and supporting our allies in the region are really important. She is a little ship with a big impact and is really very powerful there, so I am grateful for his comments.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to forget the opportunity to talk about resilience spending. He talked about the spending of other Government Departments and councils effectively enabling homeland defence. That is precisely why the spending pledge agreed at the NATO summit was that by 2035, 1.5% of GDP should be spent on homeland defence and other activities that bolster our resilience as a nation. I think he has a strong case to argue on that. NATO will shortly publish the full criteria, setting out what money will come into that, but I believe that the examples he gave are good ones to use in arguing his case, so I encourage him to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and I did indeed wave off HMS Prince of Wales when she left for her deployment to the Indo-Pacific. That was a good opportunity to meet members of her community in Portsmouth. The carrier and the carrier strike group include people from all parts of our country, who are all sailing together, alongside many of our allies, including our Norwegian friends, who have a frigate sailing on the entire deployment. When we celebrate the contribution of our armed forces, let us remember the contribution of our allies to keeping us safe today and in the past.
I am very grateful for the intervention from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), who spoke about Jack Dark’s 102nd birthday. I am also grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), who spoke about Norman Ashford, a D-day veteran. It is really important that we value and take extra care of those final few folks from the second world war. We must ensure that we capture their stories and retell them, so that they are not forgotten. I am grateful for the contributions of all of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) correctly raised the issue of the RAF photographic reconnaissance aircraft. I can report that the Minister for Veterans has indeed met those involved in the campaign, as I suspect nearly every single person in the House has. If there were a public affairs award for best lobbying campaign, this campaign would certainly deserve it. I understand that progress is being made, and that the campaign group met Westminster city council to discuss the issue. The cost of what is being suggested would need to be met by public subscription, and I have no doubt that it would be, so I expect positive progress. There is strong support for recognition of the bravery of the people who undertook these roles in the second world war, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am also grateful to him for giving examples of service personnel who, in recollections of wartime stories, do not always get the attention that they deserve, including those from the Sikh community, who he spoke about.
It is good to have three Front-Bench speakers from Devon; that does not always happen in this place. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who spoke about the contribution that her family made. On the issue of the time of flight, as it is referred to in the Ministry of Defence, that is the time from signing up to attending a training establishment. We inherited a situation in which that time was over a year for some of our services, and that is not acceptable. In July last year, we were losing 84% of people in the process, not because of medical problems or eligibility issues around nationality or criminal records, but simply because the process took too long. That is not acceptable.
I am strongly against the criticism made that our younger generation do not want to serve our nation, because that is not true. Last year, 165,000 people tried to join the British Army, and we hired 9,500 at the end. We lost the vast majority because the process is too long and slow. That is why we are reducing the time of flight. I am very happy to look into the casework matter that the hon. Lady raised if she writes to me. The “10 and 30” policy that I mentioned in my opening remarks should certainly make a difference when rolled out fully across all three services. I will certainly try to discourage the Minister for Veterans and People from reading the transcript of this debate; being regarded as a legend will no doubt boost his humbleness.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East for his concluding remarks, and for his story of nearly crash-landing in someone’s picnic. He did not tell the end of that story, but as he is here in one piece, let us assume that it all went well. I am also grateful for the way in which he summarised the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) raised valid questions from 216 Battery about training levels. We have inherited a situation in which training—for both regular and reserve forces—was often the first casualty of trying to manage in-year budget pressures over a number of years. We are very aware of that within the Ministry of Defence. We are conscious that the increase in defence spend could, in part, make a difference to that, but as we have a number of challenges to deal with, we need to look at the best way of delivering increased training—particularly adventurous training, which is what many of our forces want. I would be very happy to have a further conversation with my hon. Friend, so that she can raise with me the particulars of those issues.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), between making his speech and coming back, has changed his tie to look more like mine—I am very grateful for that fashion change. His remarks, particularly about the contribution of the US air force bases in his constituency, were a good reminder of the close friendship we have. I was at the US embassy earlier today as part of a conference organised by the Council on Geostrategy, looking at our transatlantic alliance. Our military-to-military co-operation underscores the value of our relationship with our US friends, and I know that America really does value the bases in the UK that it is able to operate from.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon that our armed forces personnel should be paid properly, housed properly, posted sympathetically and granted stability. That is the intent of many of the changes we are making. On the stability point, I am thinking in particular about where we are with British Army deployments, because Air Force and Navy personnel generally have greater stability than their compatriots in the Army. We are aware of that issue and are looking at it, but I am certain that the hon. Member will be sending me lots of parliamentary questions—possibly before I have even sat down.
Let me turn to the very serious issue raised by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who spoke about Northern Ireland veterans. He will know—because we have spoken about it a number of times, and he has also spoken with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans—that we on the Government Benches feel very strongly that we need to support our veterans. We are seeking to navigate through that process at the moment. The debate on the petition mentioned by a number of Members will take place on 14 July. I welcome that debate, which will be an opportunity to make the case for those people who served our nation in support of peace in Northern Ireland.
There is more work to be done in this area. After the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, I read the article in the Daily Mail about the launch of the campaign that he referenced. It is certainly true that the Government seek to repeal the current Northern Ireland legacy Act, but what one has to get to the penultimate paragraph of the article to read is that we intend to replace it as well. The right hon. Gentleman chose his wording carefully about how that replacement needs to work.
The current Act is unlawful—it has been found to be so in a number of courts—and it has not prevented some of the things we are seeing at the moment, so we have to find a way forward in this area. The Northern Ireland Office is looking at it at the moment, and we in the Ministry of Defence continue to have conversations with our NIO colleagues—indeed, I think that was the point that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, was making in his intervention —and we will continue to do so.
Chris McDonald
Coming, as I do, from a constituency in the north-east, let me say that members of our community, of course, served in Northern Ireland for many years, so the issue of Northern Ireland veterans is just as important to those of us on the Government Benches as it is across the whole House. I was in the House on 21 May when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the Government came into office committed to remedying the failure of the legacy Act. That gave great assurance to me, and I am sure it gave great assurance to veterans in my constituency. Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State’s comments?
Luke Pollard
I entirely agree—there is something that is not right, and it needs to be resolved. I do not doubt the passion that Opposition Members, and indeed those on the Government Benches, feel about this issue. I share that passion. We need to find a solution to this issue that can provide peace of mind as well as the ability to address community concerns. There is a path through, but we need to go carefully to make sure that we are cognisant of all the strong views, but I am certain that will happen. I am also certain that we will continue our conversations outside the Chamber as we work with Northern Ireland Office colleagues, who have the lead in this policy space. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington for raising the issue in this debate.
This has been a good debate for Armed Forces Day. Support comes not just from the Members who can speak in this debate; I am conscious that a number of Members present have been unable to speak, due to the vagaries of parliamentary procedure, including my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash), who sits behind me as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. She is attending Armed Forces Day events at the Motherwell United Services club on Saturday. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) was the Whip on the Government Benches earlier, and I am conscious that there are Whips on both sides of the House who might not be able to contribute verbally, but who I am certain will be supporting Armed Forces Day events in their constituencies across the country.
We need to ensure that the warm words and well-crafted speeches we have heard today are put into action all year round. It is not enough to have a day where we celebrate our armed forces; we need to recognise their service each and every day. As the nation sees an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world on their TV screens and on their phones, it is the men and women of our armed forces who are at the pointy end of the defence of our nation, but we can all do something to increase the resilience of our defence.
If everyone in the House updated the operating systems on their computers and phones, Britain would be more cyber-secure than it was beforehand. We all can do something. In this place in particular, Members of Parliament from all parts of the House can continue to make the case for our people, for defence families, for investment, for better pay and for better equipment for our forces. That is this Government’s intent, and from the sentiments I have heard from all parts of the House today, we can see that has cross-party support. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions, and I wish everyone a successful Armed Forces Day on Saturday.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.
Floating Solar Panels
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am delighted to see the House so full for this Adjournment debate. I want hon. Members who are staying to remember who was here. Indeed, people in the Public Gallery might wish to make a note in their diary, too, because I hope that I will in some way blow the House’s mind with what I am about to say and sow a seed that will grow into something fantastic. What we are here to discuss is floating solar.
Members will know that I am the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne. I feel obliged to remind the House on regular occasions that Spelthorne is not in Lancashire or in Lincolnshire. It is everything south of Heathrow until one gets to the River Thames. Hon. Members from around the House know my constituency well, because it is what they see when they take off from or land at Heathrow airport.
I was selected as the candidate for Spelthorne four days into the general election campaign. Having spent 25 years in the Army, obviously I love a map. There is a very good saying, “If you don’t understand what is going on, get a bigger map.” When I looked at a map of Spelthorne, I was struck by these four massive blocks of blue, so I looked into them. They are four raised reservoirs, which hold half of London’s drinking water. Being a practical person, I first thought to myself, “Well, there are not many votes there!” Secondly, I thought, “I cannot really build any houses there.” Spelthorne is 67% green belt and water, and a large chunk of the rest of it is floodplain, so it is difficult to know what we might do to meet our housing targets; people get crammed into the small islands where development can happen.
I was determined, though, to find some way to utilise the 2,000 acres of raised reservoir in my Spelthorne constituency. I looked into it a little further, and came upon the concept of floating solar. This is a terribly simple concept: simply take solar panels, attach them to plastic floats, anchor those floats to the bottom of the reservoir, and string some wires to take an alternating current from the floating solar panels. The clever bits, in terms of intellectual property, are the anchors—because, as I am sure hon. Members know, the depth of reservoirs tends to vary by about 1 metre from time to time. Equally, reservoirs are drained and reassessed on a rolling cycle of about 20 years.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for allowing me to intervene. We are told that there is nothing new under the sun, but he is describing something that ticks both boxes—it is quite remarkable. I learned much about reservoirs from playing by the side of the scenic Penwhirn reservoir, outside by home town of Stranraer. I also learned about them in geography classes at Stranraer academy, and it strikes me that one of the reasons that reservoir levels rise and fall is to do with evaporation, and water is obviously a precious resource. Does covering reservoirs help to combat evaporation?
Lincoln Jopp
My hon. Friend pre-empts one of the many benefits of floating solar that I will highlight to the House. He remembers his physics highers well, because the placing of floating solar reduces evaporation from the body that is covered by 70%. Given that the vast majority of the water in our reservoirs is lost through evaporation every year, we will save a great deal more water if the Government decide to pursue this technology at a grand scale.
Part of my coming here today is to speak to two large constituencies within this House. There are 543 constituencies that contain reservoirs or man-made water sources. Similarly, countless Members from across the House have very difficult decisions to make about putting solar farms on good agricultural land. Essentially, what has happened is that the whole discussion in this area has become a zero-sum game. It is a battle between food security and energy security, and there has seemed to be no way of unpicking that—until now.
Globally, floating solar has been put to practical application at large scale in China, India and Vietnam. The UK was formerly a leader in this space, because on the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir in 2016, a grand technology demonstrator was put on and plugged in, and it has been banging out 6.3 MW into Thames Water’s water treatment facility ever since. That is enough to power 2,000 homes. Given that floating solar covers less than 10% of that reservoir, I am sure that hon. Members can see the vast potential.
I want to talk about some of the benefits of floating solar, because they are legion. First, as hon. Members will have worked out already, there is the removal of the opportunity cost of putting floating solar panels on grade A agricultural land. If we do not have to put them all over Lincolnshire and we can put them on reservoirs, that land can be used for growing food.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
My hon. and gallant Friend is talking about the use of prime agricultural land, and food security is part of national security, as is energy security and, indeed, water security. However, there is a huge trend of prime agricultural land being devoted to solar plants, including in my constituency of Epping Forest, where a new plan is about to go in for a 237-acre plot between Thornwood and Epping Upland. He is articulating alternatives for the placing of solar panels, and there are plenty of such places up and down the land—brownfield sites, reservoirs, railway sidings, rooftops of agricultural buildings—so does he agree that we must protect prime farmland and the green belt, and make sure that solar panels go in the right places?
Lincoln Jopp
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope we are going to give hope across the House and therefore across the country that this alternative solution to putting solar panels on grade A agricultural land is, to a certain extent, an answer to a maiden’s prayers. Not only does floating solar remove the opportunity costs of putting it on agricultural land, but one of its beauties is that it is twice as efficient as a land-based system. Land-based systems warm up because they are on the land, and as they warm up they become less efficient, whereas floating solar panels, because of the evaporative effect on the underside, remain automatically cool and 100% efficient throughout a sunny day.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not here, unusually, perhaps I can fill in for him. We have already heard from one of my Essex colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), about the controversy in Essex over a number of solar farm developments on land. Before the 2010 boundary changes, I had a very large reservoir in my constituency at West Hanningfield, which would be ideal for the technology my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting. Does he not believe that many hundreds of other reservoirs across the country would be so suited?
Lincoln Jopp
I do, indeed. I was not 100% sure which Minister would respond to this debate, so I have had only the briefest of moments to look at the lake in Burgess park in the Minister’s Peckham constituency to see whether that may be suitable for floating solar.
We have talked about the opportunity costs and about doubling efficiency. I am sure hon. Members will have worked this out, but the 2,000 acres of reservoir in my Spelthorne constituency are raised, which means no one can see the top of them unless they are flying off to Torremolinos or landing from Dubai. Therefore, there would be none of the visual vandalism that people object to so much, and the carpeting of our beautiful country in solar panels would go away too.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I must declare that I share an office with my hon. and gallant Friend, so I know an awful lot about floating solar because he is so passionate about it. As a result, I would point out that Grafham water in my Huntingdon constituency is the eighth largest reservoir in the country by volume and the third biggest by area. It is also a raised reservoir, but, ironically, it is surrounded by solar panels to generate electricity that we can see from the ground. He obviously agrees with me that it would be a fantastic idea to use that enormous stretch of water for some floating solar.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for joining this merry band of evangelists for floating solar, and for seeking to get in on the ground floor with the inclusion of the reservoir in his constituency. Within minutes, he is immediately seeing the opportunity, and I congratulate him on that.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I am really happy to join this debate, which is not only amusing, but very educational. For me, it is a matter of great concern for this country to conserve the water supply we have. Does the hon. Member therefore agree with me that floating solar stops the evaporation of water because it avoids direct sunlight hitting the water, and that it also conserves water?
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Member, with whom I serve on the Defence Committee, makes a very important point about future-proofing the United Kingdom’s water supply from increased temperatures. In Australia, I understand that reservoirs are being covered at great expense to reduce evaporation. He might know that where floating solar panels exist, they reduce evaporation by 70. In the case of the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir, that is 100 tonnes of water a day. It is absolutely extraordinary.
I know Members are thinking, “Well, Lincoln, it couldn’t get any better,” but I have to tell the House that there are still some further benefits. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Where reservoirs are owned by water companies and the water companies want to use the electricity themselves, there is no requirement for planning permission. When we consider the turmoil that land-based systems have to go through over many, many years, and the paroxysms the nation puts itself through before it puts in a land-based system, we should note that floating solar can be deployed within a few weeks.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
This is another issue where the Conservatives can perhaps give more information to those on the Government Benches. We have real issues in many parts of rural Britain with the energy infrastructure that has to go alongside solar farms—for example, the massive mega-pylons in East Anglia. If the energy can be used onsite or if there is existing energy infrastructure, as there often is around reservoirs due to hydro and other factors, that is another great reason why floating solar is a solution that everyone can get on board with.
Lincoln Jopp
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. The Queen Mary reservoir in my constituency has a plug-in point to the national grid at one end of it. The ability to minimise the disruption that is caused by placing solar farms away from where the power is needed is certainly a consideration that plays into this.
Hon. Members will think, “Well, that must be his list complete. Those must be all the benefits of floating solar, because there can’t be any more.” But I say to the House that one of the most astonishing things about floating solar is that it improves the water quality underneath, as it is denuded of light and heat. There are things that grow in the water which the water companies subsequently have to filter out to make it tap-ready for us and our constituents. The water companies have to use fewer filtrants where the surface has been covered by floating solar. We have covered the evaporative effect, so I think I have made the case for floating solar.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend makes a strong point about being able to use floating solar to obviate the need for development on green-belt land in other parts of the country. Is he aware that a development has been proposed by Bloor Homes at Dollymans Farm in my constituency for up to 1,300 houses, which is a major issue in the ongoing by-election in Wickford Park? Does he agree that to prevent the housing at Dollymans Farm, people should vote for the excellent Conservative candidate, Lewis Hooper, before the polls close tonight?
Lincoln Jopp
We have gone from Cooper to Hooper! I am delighted to follow my right hon. and gallant Friend’s endorsement, and wish everyone there the opportunity to get to the polls today to exercise their democratic right.
John Cooper
I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving way a second time. I do wonder if I may have stumbled across another advantage to floating solar, which may not have occurred to him. If water quality is improved, will that not help the fish? Clatteringshaws loch reservoir in my constituency has some of the best pike fishing in the country. I wonder if the fish might benefit from having a roof over their heads.
Lincoln Jopp
On Tuesday, I visited the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir, which is a closed site owned by Thames Water. I am not aware that there were any fish there, but there was certainly bird life. It is important to make the point that the general planning norm and all the modelling have been based on covering only 15% of these reservoirs, in order to leave sufficient space for leisure use, including fishing, no doubt, and for bird life. The birds I saw on the Queen Elizabeth II on Tuesday were warming themselves very happily on the floating solar panels, because, of course, by being on the panels, they are predator free, as nothing can attack them there.
“How big could this be?”, I hear the House roar.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank my hon. Friend for that.
The installed base of every single solar panel in the United Kingdom is producing 17 GW. If we were to cover 15% of man-made reservoirs in this country, we would double the national capacity, adding a further 16 GW without touching an inch of agricultural land. That is absolutely extraordinary. In so doing, we would create 80,000 jobs in the construction phase and 8,000 jobs in the maintenance phase.
My plea to the Minister—who I know is putting the finishing touches to the Government’s solar road map—is that floating solar should play a much greater part in the final road map than it did in the first draft. I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their support; I hope this debate has been educational and informative, and that they are now fully signed up to the floating solar brethren and sisterhood, which will go forth from this place and evangelise for the good cause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing a debate on this important issue and for prosecuting his case for floating solar with such flourish. I also wish to put on the record that the Minister for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), was desperate to be here and is very sorry that he cannot be, but I am glad that I am able to stand here in his place. I am also glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was able to make his speech today, as I know he was not able to intervene in the recent solar debate.
Let me start by saying that I absolutely agree. The Government are very clear that, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we believe there is an exciting role for floating solar. It is a new technology, but one that we think has huge potential. Developers around the world started to come forward with utility-scale proposals in the past decade, and several large projects have been constructed in recent years, including installations with the capacity to generate hundreds of megawatts of electricity, which have mainly been in China.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has very effectively set out the upsides of floating solar, so I will not reiterate them. However, I want to put on the record that we agree, and that we recognise many of those upsides.
I will say a little about the state of floating solar in the UK today. There has been some deployment of floating solar in the UK. Lightsource led a project on the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir, which is just outside the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, as he mentioned. The project uses 24,000 solar panels to generate around 20% of the site’s electricity needs. It was, at the time of construction, Europe’s largest floating solar installation. There are now other, smaller projects across the country, but the scale is still nascent and very limited.
Ben Obese-Jecty
We have already heard about Grafham Water, which is a large reservoir in my constituency. Just to the north of my constituency, in North East Cambridgeshire, we are about to start building the Fens reservoir, which is, as I am sure the Minister is aware, a joint project between Cambridge Water and Anglian Water. It will be 50 million cubic metres, and the development consent order is expected to go in in 2026, with actual construction starting in 2029. Does the Minister agree that this is a fantastic opportunity to try out this nascent technology on a large project, which could generate so much energy in the Cambridgeshire area?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are many schemes and huge opportunities, and the Government are working with industry to think about what the potential is across the country. New proposals are coming forward, and we are trying to engage with them.
Although we see that there is huge potential, it is also important to put that in the context of some of the challenges we face as we try to grow floating solar. We are trying to do our part to work with industry, so we want to ensure that we deal with some of the obstacles and barriers to the schemes that are coming forward—for example, planning or investment certainty. Floating solar projects can apply to the Government’s flagship contracts for difference scheme, and they do.
I know that one of the arguments in favour of floating solar, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put forward, and which was reiterated by other hon. Members, is that it will reduce the amount of land that we need to use. Arguments have been made about agricultural land and constraining the amount of ground-mounted solar panels on them. I gently say, however, that if we look at the statistics, we see that only 0.1% of land in the UK is covered by ground-mounted solar at the moment—a minuscule amount. Even with the expansion that we are actively trying to encourage, we are still talking about a fraction of UK land that will only ever be used for ground-mounted solar, so it is important to put that in context.
John Cooper
The Minister is right to point to the figures now, but this is a growing problem. One of the difficulties with the land that goes under solar panels is that it tends to be south-facing land, which is prime agricultural land. That is where the crops would normally go, so this is a growing problem.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I recognise that point, but even with the expansion, we are still talking about only a fraction of land. Inevitably, regional and local government will make a judgment about the land that we protect. Everyone recognises that we must have prime agricultural land, because we need it, so we are making decisions, and local government will also be making decisions in that context.
Lincoln Jopp
I just point out to the Minister that she could save herself a vast amount of political pain, because, apart from a few swans that I saw, a couple of seagulls and one man from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, there ain’t many people who are going to complain about putting floating solar on raised reservoirs.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am always in the market for less pain. Let me say a little bit about some of the constraints. Eligible bids have been submitted to our contracts for difference schemes, but unfortunately none has yet been successful. That is because the cost of floating solar is about 10% to 15% higher than those of ground-mounted projects, and the reason for that is the cost of the floating structures on which the panel sits. And we hear from the sector that these can account for nearly half of the cost of the project. Moreover, floating solar requires expensive underwater cables, which costs more than land-based systems. Therefore, although we are very keen to encourage this technology and to encourage the sector to grow, there is more that needs to be done in order to make them cost effective. From a Government perspective, it is critical that every scheme and every project that we support is cost-effective, so that, in the end, taxpayers are not footing the bill for technology that is too expensive.
John Cooper
I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. She is making a powerful argument for looking again at the CfD scheme, which is notoriously complicated and very difficult. I think we need a two-pronged approach—we need some changes to CfD, but obviously technology associated with solar is moving on all the time, so perhaps the two could come together.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will always keep this area under review. We recognise the potential of the technology, and we will continue to work with industry to bring down costs. As the hon. Member says, there are reservoirs and waterways where there are potential problems, but there is also the potential for it to be painless. If we can help to unlock the technology, there will absolutely be appetite from the Government for this. We are trying to invest in research and development in this area, and we are putting in Government support and investment to unlock that.
Finally, the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the solar taskforce. We are working at pace to deliver the taskforce’s recommendations. The taskforce has effectively brought together industry and Government to discuss the actions needed to scale up solar deployment, in line with our 2030 clean power mission. It has identified the need for a road map to address the specific barriers to floating solar and other innovative technologies, and a sub-group has been convened to focus on this specific topic.
Lincoln Jopp
I wonder whether the taskforce has engaged with the company that runs the Queen Elizabeth solar farm; it is called Bluefield—very clever name; very clever company. It wrote to the Secretary of State earlier in the year, some four months ago, but is yet to receive a reply. I would be grateful to know whether the Department is engaging with Bluefield and whether I could nudge the Secretary of State to reply to its letter?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that; his nudge has been taken, and I will pass that on to the Minister for Energy. As a Department, we are trying to engage extensively with industry on how we will take forward the complex and difficult challenges as we try to deliver our clean power mission. If companies and organisations can lend their insights and knowledge to help us develop better policy, we are always in the market for that, so I will pass on the nudge.
We are finishing the final touches to the solar road map, and it is due to be published very soon. While I will not disclose the detail of it, I assure hon. Members that the question of floating solar will be addressed within it. We recognise that floating solar is an exciting area, and we think it has huge potential for deployment in the UK. We are seeing the technology being deployed more broadly in other countries, and we want to be part of that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has talked about the benefits for the grid, water quality, consumers of electricity and, ultimately, climate change.
There is much to like about floating solar. The challenge for us is to work with industry to ensure that we can unlock its potential. That means reducing the cost, ensuring that it is cost-effective, and ensuring that we can deploy the technology. The one commitment I will make on behalf of the Government is that we will always engage with industry as we do this work. We want the innovation, insight and experience of the brightest and the best as we try to build up our clean power sector, so we will work with industry to unlock the huge potential that we believe is there.
Question put and agreed to.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Thursday 26th June 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 June 2025 - (26 Jun 2025)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch their electronic devices to silent, to send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
I understand that we may have some people in the Public Gallery this morning who are visually impaired— I welcome them. For their benefit, as well as the benefit of others following proceedings this morning, when calling a Member to speak or to make an intervention, I will announce the Member’s name and party affiliation. I ask that Members allow me to do so before commencing their contribution. It has also been brought to my attention that those in the Gallery would like, if possible, during the break, to meet some members of the Committee.
Clause 3
Specification of areas
Question (24 June) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
Amendment 70, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “or places” and insert—
“, places or Rural Bus Hubs”.
This amendment is linked to NC35 and would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification for a franchise scheme.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 71, in clause 38, page 41, line 23, after “England” insert—
“(e) the impact, or potential impact, the establishment of Rural Bus Hubs on services to villages.”
This amendment would require a review of bus service provision for villages to include an assessment of the impact of rural bus hubs, if already established, or the impact which establishing them may have on villages.
New clause 35—Rural Bus Hubs—
“(1) Local transport authorities may consider the construction of Rural Bus Hubs in rural areas which are, in the authority’s assessment, not sufficiently well-served by buses.
(2) Any Rural Bus Hub must—
(a) be a facility where bus users can park vehicles for the purposes of transferring to a bus service for the remainder of their journey;
(b) be constructed outside of town or and village centres, and be easily accessible by road, cycle or walking routes and other modes of transport;
(c) be on newly-developed sites or on sites which have been repurposed;
(d) contain car parking, electric vehicle charging, cycle parking and other amenities as the franchising authority sees fit, at a level of adequacy determined by the franchising authority.”
This new clause would allow local transport authorities to create rural bus hubs in areas to create a hub-and-spoke model of bus service delivery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. At the conclusion of our sitting on Tuesday, I had begun to address the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, on the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in franchising. I will briefly address the outstanding points.
The Department for Transport understands that there are barriers to SMEs accessing franchise networks. That is why we are listening to the sector about how to ensure that disproportionate paperwork requirements do not hinder SME bids for franchising contracts, and that SMEs are provided with the resources to simplify bidding. My Department has also engaged directly with SME representatives through policy development and the passage of the Bill, including on additions to guidance, such as the Department’s role in facilitating pre-tender engagement between SMEs and franchising authorities.
Already, as part of the consultation on a franchising scheme, an authority must make a statement about how it proposes to facilitate the involvement of SME operators when it conducts the procurement process for franchised services. Moreover, the grant-making powers given to local authorities via the Bill will allow grants to be designed to prioritise SME bus operators, subject to other competition and subsidy controls. I hope that that offers reassurance to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Minimum period before provision of services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause is about mobilisation periods for franchising areas. Existing law states that there must be a period of at least six months between the franchising contracts being made and those services first being delivered on the ground. The clause will enable franchising authorities to set shorter mobilisation periods that work for them and their stakeholders, if they wish. That will speed up the franchising process and ensure that bus passengers do not have to wait for an arbitrary period before experiencing the benefits.
Clause 6 amends references to local services by inserting the words
“which have one or more stopping places”
in certain sections of the Transport Act 2000. That is intended to clarify that the relevant reference to local services includes cross-border services where appropriate. These technical changes support the Bill’s focus on giving franchising authorities more scope to facilitate the provision of cross-border services.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Allin-Khan.
Clause 5 deals with the minimum period before provision of services can be changed. It is not a difficult clause, but it is worth going into some of the subsections in a bit more detail. Subsection (1) omits section 123H(4) of the 2000 Act, which set out that a franchising scheme
“may not specify under subsection (2)(d) or (3)(c) a period of less than six months.”
That meant that at least six months had to expire between the authority making a local service contract and the provision of the local service under that contract.
Clause 5(2) sets out that the transition arrangements in subsection (3) apply where, before the clause comes into force, the franchising authority or authorities have published under section 123E(2) of the 2000 Act a consultation document relating to a scheme or variation of a scheme, but have not yet made the scheme or varied it. Clause 5(3) provides that when making or varying the franchising scheme pursuant to the consultation document, the franchising authority or authorities may specify a minimum period, under sections 123H(2)(d) or 123H(3)(c) of the 2000 Act, that is less than six months.
Although I understand that the Minister and his Department want to smooth out some of the hindrances and streamline the system, and in principle I am supportive of that, the question that begs to be asked is: is there no de minimis period? It may be considered that a six-month period is too long, but what about a one-week period? Is that too short? As drafted, the clause does not provide a de minimis period. What would be the impact on franchise operators if there were an instantaneous change? That is a significant issue that needs to be considered, because we are dealing with operators that are commercial beasts. They have infrastructure, and drivers and staff that have to accommodate changes to these schemes, and yet the Government’s proposed changes would in theory allow there to be no notice at all.
I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Department’s, or the Government’s, thinking on this matter. I accept that six months is itself an arbitrary time limit. Why is it not seven, or five? I accept the rationale, which is that we wish to streamline the provisions in order to make it easier for local transport authorities to undertake these changes and take advantage of some of the opportunities that the Bill provides, but it is important for it to be practical and not to have unintended consequences for bus operators and their commercial activities.
Clause 6 amends sections 123E(4)(a), 123N(2)(a), 123Q(5)(a) and 123R(5)(a) of the 2000 Act. Before I go any further, it is worth reflecting that the reason why the clause is so complicated in its nomenclature is that there have been multiple amendments to the Transport Act. Although I have not researched it, some of that presumably came about through the deliberations of this House when the legislation was drafted, but there have subsequently been multiple alterations.
It begs the question of our approach to legislation in this place when an Act is so often amended. It makes it very difficult, one imagines, for people and organisations—local transport authorities, in particular—to understand what their duties and legal responsibilities are. In many instances, these are not recommendations; they are mandatory requirements, with which failure to comply could lead to judicial review and the kind of lawfare that we as a society often rail against, because we feel that the Government—and by that, I also mean local transport authorities in this instance—cannot get anything done because they are being tripped up by incredibly complex legislation with poor drafting that requires multiple amendments. That is how we get to a “section 123Q(5)(a)”—but that was a slight aside.
Clause 6 further amends the Transport Act by adding to all those subsections the words
“which have one or more stopping places”
after the references to “local services”. In itself, it is a wholly good amendment, and I am not seeking to criticise it. It clarifies that the references to “local services” incorporate any service that has a stopping place in the relevant area, including cross-boundary services operating pursuant to a service permit. However, I wonder whether this clarification was necessary in practice. I would be interested to know whether there have been any instances of local transport authorities being misled by the current drafting—I would be surprised if there had been—or any legal challenge to the current definitions that highlighted a need to clarify an ambiguity. Subject to that clarification from the Minister, I accept that there is nothing wrong with the amendment made by the clause. It is a useful clarification of the Transport Act 2000, to avoid doubt in interpretation, if, in fact, such doubt has ever existed.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. My party has little to say on this group. We are supportive of clauses 5 and 6, although the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made a good point, and we would like to hear the Minister’s views on it.
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham spoke about the removal of minimum mobilisation periods. It is consistent with the aims of the Bill to empower local transport authorities to decide how best to design their bus services, and this will be an issue for franchising authorities to determine. A minimum mobilisation period does not need to be mandated by central Government. This is something that franchising authorities will need to consider, and it is in their interests to make sure that there is a smooth transition to a franchising scheme, if that is the pathway they wish to consider.
Franchising authorities will make their determinations about the duration of mobilisation periods based on numerous factors. The clause provides flexibility for mobilisation to occur in a period shorter than six months, where it is in the interests of stakeholders and passengers. As I have explained, the Government intend to update the franchising guidance following Royal Assent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Criteria for granting service permits
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 7, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (5), omit from ‘and’ to end.”
This amendment seeks to simplify the process for granting service permits by removing the requirement that the proposed service will not have an adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 7, page 3, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 48, in clause 7, page 3, line 27, leave out from “there” to end of line 34 and insert
“is a benefit to persons making journeys on the proposed service.”
Amendment 49, in clause 7, page 3, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 3, line 37, leave out from “that” to “will” and insert
“the proposed service has benefits to the economy of the area to which the scheme relates, or to persons living in that area,”.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 7, which is reasonably long, introduces a number of additional tests for the granting of service permits. Subsection (2) inserts a new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) to section 123Q of the Transport Act 2000. Paragraph (a) provides that the franchising authority or authorities may grant a service permit for a cross-boundary service—this is the meat of it—if satisfied that
“the benefits to persons making the journey on the proposed service will outweigh any adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.”
Paragraph (b) sets out that the franchising authority or authorities may grant such a service permit if they are satisfied that
“the benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the relevant area”—
that is different from paragraph (a), which referred to benefits to persons taking the journey—
“or to persons living in that area, will outweigh any”
adverse effect on the local service provided under a local service contract. The first paragraph refers to the benefit to passengers on the cross-boundary service and the second to the benefit to the area.
I suppose what sits behind this is the abstraction argument, which we are familiar with from the railway. In fact, those lucky enough to be at Transport questions this morning will have heard a brief rehearsal of that argument by the Secretary of State in respect of open access applications on the railway. The essence of the argument is that when a new service is proposed for a particular area, in addition to just saying, “Isn’t this is a jolly good idea? We’re getting further provision, more choice and no doubt price competition as well, and new constituencies and demographics being served by buses”—or, in the other example, by rail—before agreeing to it, we need to look at its impact on existing services. It is argued that it would be unfair if we have already contracted a franchise agreement or service operation agreement for buses, or we have a franchise operator on the railway, such as London North Eastern Railway—actually, that is not a good example, because it has open access competition. Let us take High Speed 1, where Eurostar has its operations, and imagine that we said, “We’re going to provide a new service.” Virgin, for example, is applying for an operating licence for HS1. We would then say, “What would be the impact on the provision of the existing services? Is this new service going to supply a currently unmet need, or is it going to provide two services fighting over the same customer?”
That takes us back, interestingly enough, to the original regulation of bus services in the 1920s. A major argument for the need for bus regulation in the first place was the common complaint that there could be one route with 15 different buses on it, all from different bus operators competing furiously for a key route, and for the less well-travelled routes and perhaps the suburban or rural routes, there would be no bus provision at all. The argument ran that we could not leave it up to the private sector to fight it out and let the market decide where services should be provided; we needed a degree of regulation so that we could have decent provision on the main thoroughfare and provision elsewhere. I think I am right in saying that the term “traffic commissioner” was first created following the review in the 1920s, and those commissioners still exist to this day. As we progress through the Bill, we will see reference to the traffic commissioner, which is a historical overhang from the initial regulation of the bus network in the 1920s.
I return to abstraction. The argument goes that it would be unfair to provide a new service where the impact of that would be negative on existing services or on other factors in a local area. The Secretary of State’s argument—admittedly in the context of rail, but it is relevant to this argument—is that it would be unfair to provide such a new service, but I challenge that base assumption. The person who is being left out of that consideration is the passenger. New services provide new opportunities for the passenger. Yes, it is true that new services may act as de facto competition for existing service providers, but as we know from every other aspect of our lives, competition tends to improve performance.
Before I came into Parliament, I was a businessman running a consumer-facing company. I hated competition, and I did everything I could to stifle it, because I knew the impact it would have. I will not tell the Committee the things I used to do—I should think there would be a by-election—but the point is that existing providers hate competition, because they have got a comfy little operation, they know what their activities are, they know what their likely revenue will be, they know how they deal with their customers, and they do not like change.
When competition comes in, businesses are forced to sit up and say, “Oh my goodness! This is an existential threat to us as an operator. How are we going to respond?” Businesses in aggregate respond in a number of different ways. Some of them are nicer to their customers and improve their customer service to hang on to their customers and ensure they are not tempted across by the new provider. Others reduce their fares to attract custom. Then we get a price war, as we often read about in the press—we get price wars between Tesco and Asda, and Lidl and Aldi. Those who benefit are not the businesses but the customer, who gets either better customer service or lower prices. They certainly benefit from wider provision of opportunity, because they have two services available to them instead of one, and that puts the providers on their mettle.
My submission is that new provision of whatever description is inherently a good thing, even if there is an argument about abstraction from existing providers. I suppose it comes down to the core beliefs of Government Members as opposed to Conservative Members, who at heart—my heart, anyway—believe that competition and the challenge of a competitive market is a good thing. In the vast majority of cases—not always—it brings benefits to the customer and forces a focus on the end user rather than the supplier.
If I were to traduce Labour Members’ political opinions—perhaps I am putting words into their mouths—my criticism of the Labour party more widely and its approach to legislation as demonstrated in this clause is that its instinct is to support the supplier and the operator, rather than the customer, particularly in heavily unionised sectors. We touched on this point a little bit in our last sitting on Tuesday, when I was discussing the Bee Network in Greater Manchester and the decision on whether to increase the hourly rate for bus drivers.
At the time when the contract was being let, the commercial rate was £12.60 an hour. The Mayor for Greater Manchester insisted on an hourly rate for bus drivers of £16 an hour. I rehearsed the arguments both for and against. We can look at it in two ways—we can think it is a wonderful thing that bus drivers are being paid more, but it also means that bus services are considerably more expensive to provide in Greater Manchester than they are elsewhere in the country because salaries—wages—are more than 60% of the costs of running any bus operating business. That is the heart of it. Who are we after? Are we supporting the suppliers or are we supporting the customer—the passenger?
That brings me to amendments 46 to 50, standing in my name. Amendment 46 would have the effect of removing the requirement in section 123Q(5)(b) of the Transport Act that
“the proposed service will not have an adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.”
Given my preceding comments, we can see why this is so important. As it currently stands, we have a measure that prohibits the provision of a new service if that service were to have any adverse effect on pre-existing services under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates. That is a very low bar—it is almost a veto—for the provision of new services, because one can imagine that it is very easy to assert that the provision of a new service may draw customers away from one that is already being provided.
The amendment seeks to simplify the process for granting service permits. Demonstrating that a change will not have any adverse effect is an enormously high bar and is evidentially onerous. Removing section 123Q(5)(b) from the Transport Act, as the amendment would do, speaks to the Government’s desire to streamline the process and make it easier for the supply of new services, for innovation, and for new entrants to enter the market.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The shadow Minister raises an important point about competition and the customer being at the heart of bus services. Will he share with us why so many rural bus services have been cut, if the commercial operator is king and the focus is on customers? That is not the experience we feel in rural communities. We have had cut after cut.
Jerome Mayhew
That is an interesting point, and the hon. Member is of course quite right. I did preface my comments by saying that competition is beneficial in most areas, but there are some areas where it is not. The counter-argument is that, in this instance, this is about a new operator, which does not have to be a private sector operator, suggesting an additional service. This is not about cutting services. This is about where, for whatever reason, an analysis has been done that there is additional demand—this is not about cutting a service, but about providing an additional service.
The hon. Member is quite right to raise rural areas, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk has done through a number of his amendments. I represent a rural constituency myself in Norfolk. In bald terms, the rural service in Norfolk is not too bad as long as the destination is Norwich. We have a radial provision of bus services from outlying villages directly into Norwich. If someone wants to go across the county to anywhere other than Norwich on those lines, it is very difficult. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is right that if we look to only the passenger ride and the fare box to support usable and sufficiently frequent services, it is highly unlikely that a purely commercial approach will do it. That is why, in Norfolk and many other places, the innovation of an advanced partnership has worked so well.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
On my hon. Friend’s point about rural areas such as his constituency and my constituency on the Isle of Wight, it is difficult to move between towns. On the Isle of Wight, we have a radial system that makes it easy to get in and out of Newport, which sits in the middle of the island, but it is less easy to go anywhere else. I am at a slight loss as to how we get over that fundamental issue in bus franchising—this is geography, and the market for moving between villages is clearly smaller. I am concerned that the entire franchising model and, indeed, this clause are overselling a solution to a fundamental problem. If we are to get over that hurdle, it would ultimately require a lot of public money.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no commercial case for large-scale, frequent bus services to every small rural community. I have certainly not come across such a case, even if one does exist. The solution—if there is a solution—will be one of a number of things. Under a franchising scheme, it would be open to a local transport authority to invest in and design a scheme that provides for frequent bus services to every rural community. It would be possible to do that, but it would be phenomenally expensive.
Already, one of the key criticisms of the Bill is that it has no money attached to it, so we are going to spend the next two and a half weeks virtue signalling about how wonderful franchising could be. It is not mandatory, and no one is actually going to do it—outside of the big mayoral authorities that are doing it anyway under the Bus Services Act 2017—because there is no money supporting the Bill. It would be incredibly expensive.
There is an alternative, hybrid solution: a combination of scheduled bus services on the key arterial routes from big villages into their major towns, such as from Norfolk going into Norwich, a rural hub-and-spoke system for the more remote villages, as suggested by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, and demand-responsive public provision.
On Tuesday, I described this as the “Uberfication” of public transport. It still is unlikely to make sense on a purely commercial basis, but it is the kind of focused provision of public sector transport that could work in a highly rural area where the aggregate cost would be less than the blind provision on frequent, full bus services to every community, which would be monumentally expensive.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Amendment 46 would remove the requirement for the service not to have an adverse effect on local services. Bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the impossibility of commercial viability for some rural services or non-radial routes in cities, is it correct that the amendment would allow commercial entities to come in and take away part of the market, even where a local transport authority had built up the potentially profitable part of a wider, well-planned public network? The requirement as it stands is intended to prevent commercial companies from parasitising on a market that has been built up with public money. The Minister is not proposing that it should be easier for commercial entities to come in and develop new markets where there is potentially pent-up demand in rural areas.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Lady is right that there is a risk of challenges in some areas, but in other areas there is the opportunity to increase provision for new markets. The difficulty is that the clause as drafted says that “any adverse effect” will be sufficient to prevent the application.
Amendment 47 would replace the word “may” with the word “must” in clause 7(2)—in reality, proposed new section 124Q(5A) of the Transport Act 2000—if a local transport authority is satisfied with the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b). In such circumstances, why should the local transport authority be given discretion to refuse to grant a cross-boundary permit? It will have accepted that there are no adverse effects; nevertheless, it is given discretion. The clause says that it “may” grant the application, but why? If someone wants to provide an additional service and the local transport authority has satisfied itself that there is no adverse impact, why would it say no?
That is the purpose behind amendment 47. If the applicant—it could be the municipal bus company, given that there is nothing to prevent it from doing this—has satisfied the local transport authority that there is no adverse impact, as set out in the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), why should the provider not, as a right, be able to create the service?
Siân Berry
I just want to give an example in which “may” is more appropriate. Proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) talk about a local service that is provided. If a local transport authority is building out a planned network and, in the very near future, a service will be introduced in an area, it may want to prevent disruption of the benefits of an integrated local service there by such an application. I believe it is very appropriate that “may” remains in the clause.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Lady is bending over backwards to think of hypothetical instances in which it is possible that something like that could exist. The fact remains that we must ask—this comes down to the philosophical difference between us, perhaps—whether we are looking after the passenger or the supplier. From my perspective, the Bill should have services for passengers squarely in its sights. If passengers will benefit from a new service, the local transport authority should allow it. After all, the aim of the Bill is to maximise general utility for the wider bus service. Amendment 47 would therefore prevent local authorities from sitting on their hands, as the hon. Lady suggests they might.
Amendment 48 goes one step further. If the previous two amendments were red meat to some members of this Committee, this one will send them over the top. It would scrap entirely the convoluted assessments about balancing benefits and adverse effects in proposed new subsections (5A)(a) and (b). The authority would simply take a view on the benefits for persons making journeys on the proposed service—what is wrong with that? If the service has benefits for customers, why should we not just go for it? It is a straightforward process where applicants are in the driving seat. The amendment would provide higher certainty for applicants and therefore encourage additional service providers.
I anticipate that hon. Members may say, “What about the web—the franchise service—that the local transport authority may be trying to design?” But I seek to remind them about the incentives of providers. Again, I speak as a former businessman. We sometimes forget something in this place. We make lots of rules and we deal with processes ad infinitum, and we think that everyone will be incredibly logical. We say, “Oh yes, they have to go through this process, then that process and the other one, and then the local authority may decide to help them or not.” That ignores the basic maxim of private enterprise, which is that time kills deals. If a process is convoluted by design, it is also, by design, time consuming, and therefore expensive and uncertain in its outcome.
Let us think of a potential service provider looking through these provisions. They would say, “I’ve jumped through the hoops of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), and I’ve demonstrated the evidential basis for this application,” but then there is the discretion at the end where the local authority may, for whatever reason, choose not to award the deal based on some plan for some date in the future that we have not even heard about. Is the provider even going to bother doing it in the first place? This is an important issue of practicality. Commercial organisations respond to incentives, and if we make something long-winded, expensive and complex, they are much less likely to bother doing it. They will employ their capital, their time and their creative energies elsewhere.
Joe Robertson
The more I hear the shadow Minister unpicking all these issues, the more it transpires that the whole franchising model that the Bill offers to local authorities is really rather unattractive. Particularly for smaller local authorities, it is complicated, and there is a huge risk that when the new service is implemented, despite the best of intentions, it will not run in the way that the local authority or commercial provider thought it would. All the while, the local authority—I am thinking in my case of the Isle of Wight council or the potential combined mayoral authority with Hampshire—is taking on that risk of things going wrong. The shadow Minister is getting to the heart of a fundamental problem with the Bill: it will not sort out bus services country-wide, particularly in rural areas. It is really just a model for the big cities.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is right. In broad terms, the Bill facilitates additional opportunities for local transport authorities, which is a good thing. As I have said, allowing franchising is in fact a Conservative concept. It goes back to the days of Mrs Thatcher, but more recently, the 2017 changes allowed franchising without consent for mayoral combined authorities. In fact, any local transport authority was allowed to apply for franchising operations, but with the safeguard that it required the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport, because of the huge commercial risks associated with franchising for local transport authorities, particularly smaller ones. That was an eminently sensible safeguard that I have spoken about previously, so now we have that risk.
Even if the local transport authority is capable of managing that risk, of developing the expertise to design these complex systems in-house, as is anticipated, and of starting a municipal bus company on top of designing the franchise operation, we cannot get away from the conclusion that is expensive. Whichever way it is designed, if it is going to improve services, it will be expensive.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the entire structure of combined authority devolution, particularly in Greater Manchester, which has pioneered much of this work, is about the earn-back or gainshare principle? Early public investment results in economic growth down the line, and higher business rates and tax revenue that then fund some of this work. In other words, in the end, it pays for itself.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that thoughtful intervention. In principle, the answer is yes, which is why we legislated in 2017 to allow that in principle and why we supported Greater Manchester through the implementation of the Bee Network. That happened under not Labour, but the Conservatives. However, it comes with financial risk. There needs to be clarity on where the costs are and an absolute, laser focus on minimising them, just like in any other business.
The hon. Member did not say that the forecast in the Bee Network’s business case, which enabled it to get the go-ahead, was for it to make a profit. I accept that there will be periods where it makes a profit and periods where it makes a loss, but it should break even overall. Over the forecast period, however, the plan was for it to make a profit of £94 million—that was how it was sold. For it to make a planned loss in 2025-26 of £226.3 million and change, given the huge cost overruns that I hinted at in Tuesday’s sitting, is a disaster. It makes me wonder where that has come from.
I remember the hon. Member watching with interest on Tuesday as I talked about the more than £17 million overrun on agency bus drivers, because the transport authority had failed to provide enough qualified drivers having misunderstood the nature of the TUPE regulations regarding their transfer from the previous operators to the franchise process. There was also the massive cost overrun on the purchase of bus depots because it was the only buyer in the market. There was an explosion in costs for the purchase orders for new buses, with a surcharge of £40,000 on every bus that Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester combined authority buys because of the design requirements that he has put in, including bits of leather on the seats—we will not go into the detail of that.
If we are not absolutely laser-focused on the costs, that is what happens. The biggest overrun, which perhaps I should have led with, was the increase in wages. There has been an increase in unionised power—which arguably could be a good or bad thing—and an increase in hourly rates for bus drivers to £16 an hour, which is above the market rate. There are not just bus drivers in a bus company; there are all sorts of other roles as well.
I should also mention the failure to be efficient with the application of capital. In a private organisation, having bus washers is important, because having clean buses is part of the service and it affects the customer experience. Since the Bee Network has been in place, and the local transport authority purchased the depots, there has been a rather unfortunate occurrence whereby the bus cleaning mechanism—the washers—have been out of action for over a year.
The processes and the efficiency within the new structure have to date proved inadequate to get the funding to repair the washers, because that is capex rather than opex. I am assuming that is what the problem is—that it is an unplanned expense, so the authority has to go through the rigmarole of a public sector procurement process. No doubt it will get there in the end, but the consequence is that the bus depot is sending out buses that have not been cleaned for a year. Is that an improvement in service? No, it is not.
I say that not to denigrate franchising. Franchising can be done well—it is not a necessary consequence of bus franchising that there are dirty buses—but the evidence that we have at the moment is that even a really sophisticated operator such as Greater Manchester, with a mayoral combined authority and the financial resources, but without the experience of running buses, suffers very significant bumps along the road. That needs to be addressed. If that is happening in a large local transport authority, what is the likelihood of it happening in a small one—for example, in Norfolk county council in my neck of the woods? That is one of our problems with the Bill.
Going back to amendment 49, proposed new section 123Q(5B) of the Transport Act 2000 deals with intra-boundary services. I am applying the same logic as I did to amendment 47. Why should local transport authorities have the power to refuse to grant a service permit if they are satisfied that there are benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the area, or to persons living in that area, and that those benefits will outweigh any adverse effect on any existing local service?
All the amendment requires is for local authorities to act in the wider interests of consumers—the passengers. The proposed service might have an impact, but if we are satisfied that overall the net benefit is in the positive column and not the negative, why would we not agree to it? Let us think of the passenger—the consumer—rather than the supplier.
The amendment would be a particularly important safeguard if the local transport authority was also the owner of a municipal bus company, which was the supplier of the local services contract. There would then be an added layer of opacity in the process, because the contractor and contracted would be the same organisation. A challenger brand could then come and say that it wanted to provide additional services, and it could be assessed to be net beneficial to the economy or the people living in that area, nevertheless the local authority could refuse to grant a permit, even though it is the operator that would be adversely affected—let us imagine how that would look.
The temptation, of course, would be to say that the award was refused for wholly improper reasons: a circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. I hope that the whole Committee would agree that that would be an improper reason to deny additional access to the people living in the area, and/or to deny a benefit to the economy, yet there would be a strong temptation. If the authority has built its bus service network, and a little so-and-so comes in and demonstrates that it can go one step better, but that would have a negative impact on the authority’s cosy plans, people in the authority are going to think, “I don’t want to be troubled by this.”
Siân Berry
The shadow Minister was looking at me while making those points, and I agree that our parties have very different philosophies on this issue. The circumstances that he has just described as “cosy” relationships that are improper, are ones that I characterised earlier as public money being invested in building up a market that should not be parasitised. Those are, very clearly, different points of view, and I want to make sure that is on the record at the right time.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a fundamental difference of philosophy here. She appears to back what I described as the cosy relationship—but let us not use pejorative language; let us call it the mechanism of state supply. She thinks that that is more important than improving the experience of passengers in that location and/or improving the economy, because that is the hurdle that would have to be crossed for the change made by amendment 49 to take effect. I accept, acknowledge and celebrate that difference. As a Conservative, I stand up for the consumer—for the resident—in my constituency, not for the supplier of services, even if it is the state supplier. Those are the people who I represent, those are the services that I am trying to improve, and that is what amendment 49 would do.
The amendment would require the local authority to act in the wider interest of consumers, not that of its own suppliers. That is particularly important where the authority has skin in the game. If I am unsuccessful—as I have a sneaking suspicion that I might be—in persuading the majority of the members of the Committee to support amendment 49, we should at least expect transparency in any decision-making process where the decision taker, the local authority, is taking a decision that affects a municipal bus company owned by that authority. At the very least—as we will discuss in relation to other amendments—we should insist on absolute transparency in those commercial relationships, so that the disinfectant of sunlight can shine on the exact rationale for a commercial opportunity being refused.
Amendment 50, my final one in this group, goes one stage further. It would get rid of the complex “balance of benefits” argument entirely and replace it with a simple assessment of the application: will the proposed service have benefits for the economy of the area or persons living in the area? If yes, the licence would be granted. The impact would be similar to that of amendment 48: it would simplify the process and give agency to the applicant. If they could prove that their service would deliver benefit, the local authority would grant a service permit.
Mr Kohler
I will be more brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have two points to make. I suspect that many of the shadow Minister’s points could be drawn from Hansard 40 years ago when bus deregulation was introduced. The great flaw of bus deregulation was it allowed private providers to cherry-pick profitable routes, leaving local transport authorities no opportunity to cross-subsidise their loss-making routes. That prioritised not passengers, but private providers. I fear that all the amendments would achieve the same end; they would simply allow private providers to cherry-pick profitable routes—often built up by local transport authorities that put effort, time and public money into them—without any provision for the non-profitable routes.
I say to the shadow Minister that equating passengers with consumers oversimplifies the complex issue of rural connectivity, and ends up isolating rural communities. As he admitted, in many rural communities, market mechanisms will not work. These are simply unprofitable routes.
Jerome Mayhew
I fear that the hon. Member and I may agree more than he perhaps thinks. As I said, I accept that rural routes are unlikely to be profitable, but that does not mean they should not be provided. That is why I went on to talk about demand-sensitive transport, as well as to mention the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Norfolk about rural transport hubs. Those can be subsidised, either through an enhanced partnership or through a franchise process. I accept that they will not be part of a purely commercial result, but that is not what I was suggesting in the first place.
Mr Kohler
I heard the shadow Minister say that, and I understand it. However, there is a contradiction in his analysis. He admits that point, but constantly refers to consumers operating in profit-and-loss markets. He is making a very narrow equation, and I fear that allowing public providers in the way he wants would simply undermine the whole rationale behind what we—or the Government—are trying to do with the franchising process. It is too narrow and simply ends up completely undermining what we are trying to do.
Luke Myer
Is it not the case that these are, in fact, not private providers at all? Many are subsidised by other Governments around the world—we see this in our rail and bus networks. Other states are stepping in to make a profit where Conservative Governments have stepped back.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.
To refer to the general comments made by the shadow Minister, I am totally up for supporting things that put passengers first and are aligned to that purpose. I was regretful that the Committee disagreed to clause 1, on the inclusion of the overall purpose of the Bill, in our previous sitting.
The shadow Minister gave a long and wide-ranging speech; I was disappointed that it did not extend to his own personal tactics for rope sabotage, given the provenance of his business background—but perhaps that is for a future hearing. I will leave the Minister to respond to the issues of the words “outweigh” and “persons”, because I feel that it is his Bill to defend, but I do not fear the potential to refuse to the same extent as the shadow Minister.
Let us get back to what we are substantially talking about here, which is the cross-border issue. From my perspective—my constituency and that of the shadow Minister share many geographic characteristics—the whole point is that, however it is looked at, bus transport, even in urban areas, does not make a profit. Franchising is a welcome model because it allows the state, which is funding the operations, to contract to the providers who are going to deliver the service most efficiently and effectively. I do not see room for the entrepreneurial business model and profiteering that the shadow Minister refers to.
Jerome Mayhew
The risk of the franchising model, as we are already seeing in Greater Manchester, is that the size of the contract determines the amount of profit. Although the profit percentage is reduced, it is applied to the full size of the contract. Ironically, there is no incentive for the operator to reduce costs—for example, by pushing down wages—because wages are paid as agreed under the contract, and then the operator receives the 3% or 4% on top of that. My concern is that, as currently evidenced in Greater Manchester, we are seeing costs rise despite services being operated by private sector companies.
Steff Aquarone
The shadow Minister makes a valid point, as is always the case, but it takes us into the philosophical domain again. I gently point out that there are other perfectly profitable industries where the cost-plus model is the industry norm, and where it is possible for investors to make a return.
Nevertheless, to bring us back down to earth, I want to mention a couple of scenarios. One is from my own experience—in fact, from the shadow Minister’s constituency, which I travelled through growing up, where we had two providers leapfrogging each other from Aylsham to Norwich on commuter journeys. It was literally the same service, but if someone happened to get on the wrong bus, they could not get the same route back on the other operator. That is a fine example of why it would be appropriate to refuse a cross-border permit.
Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) sent me an example:
“We also have an issue of cross-county boundary bus routes. For example it takes maximum 10 minutes to drive from Malmesbury (Wiltshire) to Tetbury (Gloucestershire) but up to 2 hours on the bus as there is a huge diversion to another big town and then on to Tetbury through the small villages”.
These measures are about the practicalities of cross-border permits. With more rural areas likely to enter into combined mayoral authority arrangements, that will reduce the need for cross-border permits. Although I am grateful to the shadow Minister, I do not see the equivalence with open access in rail. This is, to me, what validates the franchising model overall, as well as providing for necessary moderation in common-sense, cross-border issues.
Joe Robertson
It may be tempting to think that the shadow Minister was particularly detailed, lengthy and comprehensive in his earlier contribution, but from where I was sitting, he was all too brief. There were a great range of issues that he failed to address, and I feel it is my role to address them.
Before that, I will agree with what the hon. Member for North Norfolk said about different companies providing services to similar or the same destinations, where using one service in one direction means that another service in the other direction cannot be used. Unfortunately, the Government are currently unpersuaded that that is a problem for ferry services to the Isle of Wight, which is a shame, given that the Government—I agree with them on this—are reforming public transport. I will, however, save that debate for another time.
It was good to hear some genuine philosophical disagreement between the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I am sure that the hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of members of the public listening to this Bill Committee will have noticed that it was done in a polite and respectful way. I think the shadow Minister almost went too far at one stage, and I was nudging the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to intervene—even though she is a Green MP and I am a Conservative—because I think she missed an opportunity to fight back, but maybe she will in a later sitting.
I will make a few brief points on the principle, but they are anchored in amendments 46 and 50. They concern the idea that assessing whether a new proposed service will have an adverse effect on a current local service is slightly academic, contested and possibly futile, especially if we add in the possibility that, although the analysis and conclusion may have been done in good faith, they will not translate when a service is brought into effect and the market is tested.
I therefore completely support the shadow Minister’s amendments seeking to get rid of the analysis of an adverse effect. It is entirely possible that an element of the service could be adversely affected by the introduction of a new service. To some people, that is a net gain; to others, it is a net loss. Who is to say which of those competing groups is more important than the other?
I have a completely hypothetical example. The local economy of my constituency is heavily reliant on tourism, but people also use buses to get to work and my older constituents rely on them for their daily movements, such as going shopping, visiting friends or going to appointments, including at the hospital. We could end up with a bus franchising proposal that has a net positive effect on moving visitors around between the key tourist areas. That may have an overall positive effect on the economy—on paper and maybe in reality—and that effect may trickle down and raise the prosperity of the whole area. However, that proposal could also have a negative effect on the older population, who need bus services to move around year in, year out. They do not need to travel to the key hotspots that drive the tourist economy, but to GP practices and shopping areas, and not tourist shopping areas but those that provide essential goods for residents, particularly older residents.
That example poses a very legitimate question: is it more important to provide a service that leads to a general raising of the economy and wellbeing by improving tourism, which some might say has a trickle-down effect on everyone, including older residents, or is it better to protect people who are more vulnerable and who have fewer opportunities, if any, to use a different mode of transport? People could come to fair but different conclusions about that.
Whether a proposed new service will have an adverse effect on a local service is an unanswerable question, and it cannot be fitted into an assessment. If an assessment can be made at all, it will be entirely reliant on subjective, statist, planned, expert-led analysis. One can only hope that a conclusion drawn from that analysis would translate into the real world and be correct, but it is entirely possible that it would not.
Amanda Hack
The hon. Gentleman’s analogy ignores the passenger transport strategies that local government should already be undertaking, and the fact that local government already does a large piece of work to make sure that those strategies are relevant to the local economy. The Bill gives local government the opportunity to get the funding—that has not been mentioned—to start making bus services feel like what the local population and economy actually need.
Joe Robertson
I agree with the hon. Lady, but of course, it is more complex than that. Obviously, a local strategy will and should sit at the heart of any decision making, but there are great challenges in assessing whether a new service is fundamentally having an adverse effect on an existing service. Even approaching it in that way slightly negates the idea of holistic planning—rather than considering whether a new service conflicts with an existing service, we should be treating them both as one service.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 26th June 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 June 2025 - (26 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 7, page 3, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 48, in clause 7, page 3, line 27, leave out from “there” to end of line 34 and insert—
“is a benefit to persons making journeys on the proposed service.”
Amendment 49, in clause 7, page 3, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 3, line 37, leave out from “that” to “will” and insert—
“the proposed service has benefits to the economy of the area to which the scheme relates, or to persons living in that area,”.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond.
The Bill recognises that commercial operators can play a key role in providing commercial services that complement franchising schemes and add value to the overall bus offer for local transport users. That includes cross-boundary services, which provide crucial links between communities. That is why we are legislating to introduce new tests that franchising authorities can use in determining whether to grant service permits. The tests allow authorities to consider a much wider range of benefits that services proposed by commercial operators could provide. The new tests will also allow authorities to tolerate some adverse effects to franchised services if they are outweighed by the benefits. Overall, franchising authorities will have greater scope to grant service permits and harness the additionality of the market in delivering great bus networks.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham would, however, undo many of the improvements we are making, and undermine the service permit regime as well as local transport authorities’ ability to franchise. The amendments would largely remove franchising authorities’ ability to even consider whether a commercial service would have an adverse effect on franchised services, while compelling them to grant service permits in the vast majority of cases. In practice, that would mean that commercial services could compete directly with franchised services, undermining the service finances and goals, and ultimately making franchising unworkable.
In direct response to the hon. Member’s comments, the Bill gives greater scope for authorities to grant these additional services. However, as he acknowledged, it cannot be a free-for-all, which is what the amendment would in effect cause. We understand that in Greater Manchester the vast majority of service permits have been granted under the existing test, and the Bill’s measure will allow franchising authorities even more flexibility to grant service permits with applications from operators or in the interest of passengers and local people.
Addressing the claim of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East that franchising is unattractive to smaller rural local transport authorities, the Bill aims to give local leaders greater flexibility to determine how best to plan and deliver bus services to meet the needs of local transport users. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Consideration has been given to rural modes of franchising, and there are plans to pilot models better suited to rural areas, as I have touched on in the past.
While it is for local transport authorities to decide the best option to manage their services, franchising can be an attractive option in a rural setting. It can be used to support a fully integrated network, combining core franchise routes with commercial services operating under a service permit awarded by the authority, ensuring strong branch connections to main corridors.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to try and make some progress. We have spent a significant amount of time on this.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham once again raised Manchester’s experience with bus franchising. He again quoted figures on the cost of franchising in Manchester. On the first day of the Committee I explained that the figures referred to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network. The adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester has resulted in little additional cost, and evidence to date shows that the model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.
Another franchising model in Jersey encourages both operators and local transport authorities to reinvest into the bus network. The operator keeps fare revenue, and profits that go over a certain set limit are shared between the LTA and the operator. Money is then reinvested by the LTA to improve services. The model adds flexibility and actually supports innovation and draws on the experience of the operator. This model has been tested in other areas through our franchising pilot programme.
The Bill makes some limited changes to the role of traffic commissioners in England, including changing the default position for the registration of services operating under the service permits within a franchised area. The traffic commissioner will also have powers to act against operators who breach the Bill’s mandatory training requirements; we will come on to that later in the Committee’s debates.
The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions and countries of Great Britain means that they are well placed to make decisions about the operation of bus services in different places. The responsibility of traffic commissioners extends beyond buses. To mention just a couple, it includes the licensing of operators of heavy goods vehicles and other service vehicles, and the granting of vocational licences. These responsibilities clearly extend beyond the Bill’s purpose; this Bill is not the place for a wider debate on the role of traffic commissioners.
I reiterate that passengers are at the very centre of this Government’s bus reform agenda. This is about delivering better buses, and people taking the bus more because they offer better connections and are reliable, safe, affordable and integrated into the transport network. Given that, I would ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to press his amendments.
Government amendments 4 and 5, tabled in my name, are intended to provide clarity on the type of services considered “cross-boundary” under clause 7. This means that any service that has at least one stop in an area with a franchising scheme, and at least one stop outside of the franchised area, will be considered a cross-boundary service. This change is logical, simplifies matters for franchising authorities and operators, and will ensure that the benefits of cross-boundary services to multiple communities can be considered, regardless of where the service starts and ends.
Clause 7 gives local authorities greater flexibility in how they access service permit applications from operators. These permits allow bus operators to run services into, or within, a franchised area on a commercial basis, rather than as a franchised service. The Bill introduces new tests that local authorities can use when deciding whether to approve a service permit. These tests allow them to consider a wider range of factors, such as whether the proposed service would benefit passengers outside the franchised area in the case of cross-boundary services.
It is important that franchising authorities are able to benefit from the opportunities that the commercial sector can provide in franchising areas, including for cross-border services, which are those serving a franchising area and nearby areas. These services are important, as the bus journeys that passengers want to make are not necessarily defined by scheme boundaries. This measure aims to give franchising authorities greater flexibility to provide better overall outcomes for passengers.
Clause 8 reapplies the requirement for bus services operating under a service permit in a franchised area to register their routes and timetables with the traffic commissioner. For cross-boundary services, the section of the route outside the franchised area already needs to be registered. The Bill clarifies that the part inside the franchised area also needs to be registered. This keeps the requirements consistent and easier for bus operators to follow.
In addition to the registration requirements, cross-boundary services and any services operated, under permit, wholly within the franchised area, such as sightseeing tours, must also still comply with the conditions of their service permit. This lets franchising authorities maintain control through existing regulations. However, the Bill also gives franchising authorities the power to exempt certain services from registration inside the franchised area if they would prefer to manage them solely through the service permit. Overall, these changes provide clearer rules for operators and authorities, and greater flexibility for authorities, helping to improve service delivery for passengers.
Clause 9 automatically exempts temporary rail and tram replacement services from the requirement to obtain a service permit when operating within a franchised area. As I am sure Members will understand, these services often need to be introduced quickly and to adapt to changing circumstances, so flexibility is essential. By removing the permit requirement, this measure reduces administrative burdens and saves both operators and franchising authorities the time and costs associated with applying for and issuing permits.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is jolly nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. As I spoke to the amendment before lunch, it falls to me now only to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
As amendments 49 and 50 are almost identical to the previous amendments, my discretion is not to proceed to a vote.
Amendments made: 4, in clause 7, page 4, line 10, leave out “but” and insert “and”.
This amendment and Amendment 5 widen the category of services that are capable of being cross-boundary services.
Amendment 5, in clause 7, page 4, line 11, leave out
“begins or ends, or begins and ends,”
and insert
“has one or more stopping places”.—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment and Amendment 4 widen the category of services that are capable of being cross-boundary services.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Report on assessment of proposed scheme
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 10, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).
(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;
(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert—
‘, and
(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.
(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—
(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and
(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’
(A4) After subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”
This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in clause 10, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.
Clause stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
Government new clause 4—Miscellaneous amendments.
New clause 15—Franchising scheme: restriction—
“Where a franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, prepare an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme under section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 but fail, for any reason, to make and publish a scheme under section 123H of the Transport Act 2000, they must not initiate another franchising assessment for the same area, or a substantially similar area, for a period of five years from the date on which the assessment was prepared.”
This new clause prevents franchising authorities from repeatedly conducting franchising assessments for the same or substantially similar areas within a five-year period if they do not proceed to make and publish a franchising scheme.
New clause 36—Franchising assessments to consider integration of public transport—
“In section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme), at the end of subsection (3) insert—
‘(g) how the proposed scheme will allow for or facilitate integration across modes of public transport.’”
This new clause would require an assessment of a franchising scheme to include an assessment of the impact on integrated transport.
Mr Kohler
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. While I am broadly supportive of much of the Bill, we must not lose sight of the fundamental challenge—the lack of sufficient funding and expertise in local authorities to fully take advantage of the powers that it provides.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to my new clause 36, but I will first touch briefly on my concerns about new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham.
I can see the case that the hon. Member and his colleagues are trying to make about the importance of periods of stability for bus operators. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon says, the timeframe proposed does not strike the right balance. Five years would be longer than the term of a metro mayor or local authority, meaning that the bad work of a previous mayor or administration could tie the hands of their successor and, most importantly, could leave residents stuck with the same problems for half a decade. Given the timeframes at play, I think a better compromise could be found. It would be bad news for democratic accountability if a previous administration’s botch job—or even intentional mismanagement, perish the thought—of a franchising assessment could prevent its newly elected successor for taking action over the entire course of its term.
I also have concerns about the impact of local government reorganisation under the current drafting of the new clause. It says that
“the same area, or a substantially similar area”
could be covered by a whole new authority or administration within the timeframe, where a franchising assessment is prevented. That means that a body that has been wholly abolished could leave its successors hamstrung.
I appreciate the intention behind the clause, and I am grateful to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham and his team for raising the concerns of the industry about the timeframes. However, I wonder whether a compromise could be found on Report that better balances operators’ concerns with democratic accountability.
My new clause 36 would make a very simple addition to the assessments for franchising schemes, ensuring that we look into how a new scheme can lead to better integration for different modes of transport. People feel that there is a lack of joined-up thinking between our bus and train networks in many rural areas. Arguably, that is down to the current set-up, with two private companies responsible for services but under no requirement to consult or collaborate on delivering more linked-up services.
Joe Robertson
I take the hon. Member’s point about joining up buses and trains. As I am on the Committee, might he also include ferries in that analysis?
Steff Aquarone
I thank the hon. Member for his astute point. I would be glad to include ferries. After all, the new clause proposes better-integrated transport across all modes and modalities. We do not have any ferries other than river-crossing ferries in my constituency.
My constituents have found the issue of lack of co-ordination so frustrating that they have carried out research into it themselves; I thank David and James for furnishing me with the statistics. The first bus to arrive misses the first train of the day from Sheringham by a mere six minutes. For those who are not familiar with the Bittern line, it does not quite have central London regularity, which means that it is roughly an hour until the next possible train arrives. At other points during the day, there is either a 45-minute wait or hoping for a delay so that the bus arrives before the train departs.
A more joined-up approach would benefit both bus operators and train companies, allowing seamless integration of travel and reducing the miles in the journey to be carried out by car. My new clause would add to the franchising assessment the ability to see how franchising could make that transport integration a reality.
I do not think that franchising is a silver bullet to create integrated transport, which is why we will later consider an amendment that I have tabled that would add the enhanced partnership model. However, while we are expanding how franchising works, it would be remiss of us not to add common-sense thinking about integrated transport for those who are embarking on franchising for the first time.
I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said about amendment 57. We have got to fund it, too.
Jerome Mayhew
I will start with clause 10, to which explicit reference has not yet been made, and under which section 123D of the Transport Act 2000, which refers to auditing, is to be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8). Subsection (2) sets out that a franchising authority may not proceed with a proposed franchising scheme unless it has obtained a report from an “approved person” on the assessment of the proposed scheme.
The approved person—this is important—will replace the requirement to obtain a report from an auditor. We read, under the new drafting, that the approved person must be independent, but based on that drafting we have no idea what other qualities the approved person may or may not have.
Subsection (3)(c) requires the report to state whether the information relied on in the authority’s or authorities’ assessment is of sufficient quality for the purposes of the subsections, which I will not go into. Subsection (4) will replace section 123D(3); it states that the Secretary of State must issue guidance as to when it is appropriate to appoint an approved person and what the franchising authority needs to take into account when selecting an approved person, including in relation to whether a person is independent. Subsection (7) sets out that an approved person means a person specified in regulations by the Secretary of State.
That raises the question whether the local transport authorities have the technical know-how and/or financial competence to create and then run these franchises. That is the big question that we have been debating backwards and forwards over the past few days. We know that they are expensive; we know that they are complex. I will not rehash arguments that I have made already, which we can take as read. We know that it is crucial that any plans be fully developed, properly costed, stress-tested for viability and generally fit for purpose before we press go on an entirely new system.
The requirements of clause 10 are important in facilitating that stress testing. On the face of it, the clause appears to water down the independent oversight, particularly on financial management. One of the core risks of franchising, as we have discussed, is the transfer of commercial risk from the operator to the local authority. That is a very significant change—one of the most significant changes.
Here we are, having a report on the plans: we no longer need an auditor who is financially qualified. Instead, we have an approved person. It could be an auditor, but we just do not know. The only qualification that we are told the approved person will have is their independence. That is a good thing, but subsection (7) writes a blank cheque to Ministers:
“‘approved person’ means a person specified…in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
We have not seen those regulations; I assume that they have not yet even been drafted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the point. What specifications will he seek to put into the regulations?
If the Government want the Committee to vote in favour of substituting an approved person for an auditor, it behoves the Minister to tell us the kind of people who would qualify as an approved person, beyond their mere independence. I look forward to his detailed response, so that members of the Committee can feel satisfied that we are discharging their duty properly by understanding at least the direction of travel of the regulations.
I want to know what qualities, qualifications or expertise will be required. I question why the term is not defined in the Bill, but instead left to future regulations. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to sit down now and decide what kind of person we wish an approved person to be. It is not dependent on future information becoming available. It seems to be slightly sloppy drafting to define a term in reference to a future regulation—that is no definition at all.
Simon Lightwood
I will start with amendment 57, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk, which would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central Government funding to support the provision of bus services under franchised schemes. Under the Transport Act 2000, franchising authorities are already required to undertake a rigorous assessment to determine whether bus franchising is feasible, affordable, and deliverable in their area. The franchising assessment and the independent assurance report must then be published alongside the franchising consultation, ensuring transparency regarding the local transport authority’s decision. That comprehensive planning and assurance process significantly reduces the likelihood of needing central Government oversight and intervention, making the amendment unnecessary.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked for an update on my Department’s engagement with relevant stakeholders to identify approved persons. Bodies in the accountancy sector could include the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. To identify who else may qualify as an approved person, the Department intends to hold discussions with other stakeholders, including the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and industry bodies such as the Confederation of Passenger Transport.
My Department will also look at whether those with senior and extensive experience in either the bus sector or local government could provide assurance. Guidance will be provided to franchising authorities, setting out considerations to be taken into account when selecting an independent approved person. The reason why the clause is subject to future regulations is that qualifications will change over time, so it is right to have the flexibility to respond to those changes.
The core principle underpinning the Bill is that decisions should be made at the most appropriate level, specifically by devolving to local transport authorities the power to manage bus services within their area. The amendment would undermine the intention of the Bill. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will withdraw it.
Amendment 59, also tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk, is a probing amendment on whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the approved person role within three months of Royal Assent. The Department intends to introduce secondary legislation defining “approved person” alongside updated bus franchising guidance to facilitate implementation of the new measures. That work cannot be completed within three months of Royal Assent, as it requires thorough engagement with the sector and the progression of a statutory instrument. The existing legislation will remain in force until secondary legislation is delivered; I hope that gives some reassurance. The Bill gives franchising authorities significant flexibility to specify services in ways that are tuned to the needs of local bus users. More detail on how franchising authorities can use that flexibility will be set out in guidance.
The purpose of clause 10 is to broaden the pool of persons able to conduct assurance reports of proposed franchising schemes. Under current legislation, authorities that have developed an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme must obtain an independent assurance report that looks at whether the assessment has been developed with robust financial and economic information and whether the analysis is sufficient. However, the requirement that the report be conducted by an “auditor” has meant that very few people are willing and able to carry out that assurance.
The clause seeks to remove the bottleneck and make the franchising process quicker and less costly and, by enabling expertise to be brought in from the wider industry, increase the quality of the independent review. It will also give a franchising authority more flexibility to decide when to appoint an independent assessor, allowing the assessor to provide informal feedback to the authority much earlier in the assessment process, potentially saving both time and money. The Department intends to set out further qualifications and experience in secondary legislation, which will enable a greater number of professionals to undertake assurance and remove the bottleneck that currently exists.
Clause 11 requires franchising authorities to consult disabled bus users, prospective users or representative organisations before making a franchising scheme.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am really heartened by clause 11 and I welcome it. I am sure the Minister agrees that consulting people who live with disabilities is vital for any future public transport service. Even with the best of intent, one cannot plan accessible services without understanding the lived experience of disabled users and the associated infrastructure.
Simon Lightwood
I completely agree.
The clause is intended to ensure that local transport authorities understand the perspective of disabled people and make franchising schemes that are better informed by the priorities of disabled passengers and take account of their needs more effectively. The clause sits alongside the schedule, which will introduce similar consultation requirements when authorities vary existing franchising schemes.
Government new clause 4 first corrects an issue in the Transport Act 2000. The Act currently states that when preparing a franchising assessment, authorities must consider the local transport plans of any neighbouring Scottish councils, which is unnecessary because Scottish councils do not have local transport plans. The new clause addresses the matter, while maintaining a requirement for franchising authorities to consider bus-related policies adopted by councils in Scotland. It will also require franchising authorities to consider whether a proposed franchising scheme would support the implementation of bus-related policies adopted by neighbouring Scottish transport partnerships, and require franchising authorities to consult Welsh Ministers and Scottish transport partnerships, where appropriate, as part of a consultation on establishing a franchising scheme. Finally, the new clause makes a technical change to define the term “council in Scotland” for the purposes of part 2 of the Transport Act 2000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 7 to 16.
The schedule.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 12, alongside the schedule to the Bill, sets out new, bespoke variation procedures for authorities to follow when they wish to make changes to a franchising scheme. The procedures are clear and simple, to address the difficulties that franchising authorities have faced in interpreting existing legislation. They are also streamlined to enable franchising authorities to make minor changes in a more nimble way, balancing appropriate levels of consultation and transparency. This measure will reduce costs and timescales for franchising authorities in meeting the needs of local bus users.
Government amendments 7 to 10 to the schedule relate to the procedure for varying franchising schemes. Amendments 7 to 9 would have the effect of confirming that the requirements to consider the local transport plans of neighbouring authorities apply only where an authority is required to have such a plan. Scottish authorities are not required to have local transport plans. The amendments, however, clarify that a franchising authority must consider whether expanding the area of their franchising scheme would support the implementation of any other bus-related plans and policies adopted by Scottish councils. Amendment 10 will ensure that franchising authorities consider Scottish transport partnerships’ transport policies when assessing a variation to a franchising scheme, where relevant.
Government amendments 11 to 16 also amend the schedule and will require franchising authorities to consult with Welsh Ministers and Scottish transport partnerships before varying a franchising scheme that would affect them. In the case of Wales, that is in addition to the requirement already in the Bill for Welsh local transport authorities to be consulted, where relevant. It is also appropriate to consult Welsh Ministers in the light of the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill, which is before the Senedd. The amendments future-proof the Bill, given the Welsh Government’s ambitions to franchise their entire bus network.
The schedule sets out the detailed procedures for varying an existing franchising scheme. There are separate procedures for variations to extend the geographical area of a scheme, reduce the area of a scheme, and other types of variation. There are three parts to the schedule, setting out the specifics of the different procedures, depending on whether a variation is expanding or reducing a scheme.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 12 amends the Transport Act 2000 to set out the new process for varying a franchise scheme. In particular, subsection (2)(b) removes the minimum notice period of six months before a variation can come into effect. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this, but what assessment has been undertaken of the impact of a reduced notification period on service providers? What confidence can the Minister give current service providers that the impact will be minimised? What was the original rationale for the six-month delay, and what has changed to remove the need?
Government amendments 7 to 10 are sensible clarifications to ensure that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act applies only where such policies are mandatory. I fully agree with them. Government amendments 11 to 16 tidy up the requirement for consultation with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, where a proposed franchising scheme under amendments 11 and 12, or a variation of an existing scheme under amendments 13 to 16, would affect the devolved area. Again, that is a sensible clarification that needs no further elaboration.
Simon Lightwood
I have already explained our position.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
Procedure for varying franchising scheme
Amendments made: 7, in the schedule, page 44, line 29, leave out
“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 8 and Amendment 9, ensures that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 applies only where authorities are required to have such policies.
Amendment 8, in the schedule, page 44, line 30, before “those” insert
“by neighbouring local transport authorities of”.
See the statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, in the schedule, page 44, line 31, before “other” insert
“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.
See the statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 10, in the schedule, page 45, line 14, at end insert—
“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consider the policies of a neighbouring Scottish Transport Partnership when assessing a proposed variation of a franchising scheme.
Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 46, line 39, at end insert—
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.
This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.
Amendment 12, in the schedule, page 47, line 13, at end insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.
This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.
Amendment 13, in the schedule, page 49, line 22, at end insert—
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.
This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.
Amendment 14, in the schedule, page 49, line 38, at end insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.
This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme area where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.
Amendment 15, in the schedule, page 51, line 11, at end insert—
“(ai) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation;”.
This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.
Amendment 16, in the schedule, page 51, line 39, at end insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13
Direct award of contracts to incumbent operators
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 13, page 8, line 5, after “operators” insert—
“or local government bus companies”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 35, 36 and 37, would mean that franchising authorities may directly award public services contracts to local government bus companies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 72, in clause 13, page 8, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) either the contract is a local service contract in relation to a franchising scheme, or
(b) the contract is awarded to a local authority bus company.”
Amendment 35, in clause 13, page 8, line 12, after “operator” insert—
“who is a local government bus company or”.
Amendment 36, in clause 13, page 8, line 27, after “operator” insert—
“or local government bus company”.
Amendment 37, in clause 13, page 8, line 37, after “regulation,” insert—
“‘local government bus company’ has the meaning given in section 22 of the Bus Services (Amendment 2) Act 2025 and”.
Clause stand part.
Siân Berry
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I am delighted to present a number of amendments to clause 13. The clause should be in the Bill; I can clearly see why we would want to directly award a contract to an incumbent to keep an existing contract going. This seems to me to be the ideal place to insert the opportunity to make a direct award to a local government bus company, the new type of body set out in clause 22—I believe that would be a really good move.
I have tabled several amendments to add the words “or a local government bus company” in order to make the whole thing make sense. Amendment 34 would add “local government bus companies” to the title of the proposed new regulation in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023; amendment 35 would add the choice of a “local government bus company” to the direct award options; amendment 36 would add the name of the local government bus company to the information required; and amendment 37 would add reference to the definition of a local government bus company as set out in clause 22.
We need these changes to help make integrated local transport planning simpler and less bureaucratic. There are many examples of hugely successful publicly owned bus companies across the UK, including Lothian Buses and Reading Buses. The publicly owned Nottingham City Transport bus service is consistently ranked one of the best in the country.
Councils operate very differently from the wider market. They have strict budgetary restrictions and costly rules of commissioning. That means that, without explicitly making it easier for local authorities to take advantage of the new powers in the Bill, we might just be going through the motions. These changes are necessary in order to really incentivise local authorities to get involved in providing transport, not just in planning for it. To have real weight, the Bill must make it easier for local councils to make direct awards. That would mean that they could transform local services more efficiently for the passengers who need them, which would be of real public benefit.
The tools for local authorities to do this actually already exist in secondary legislation. Regulation 13 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations states:
“(1) A competent local authority or a group of authorities providing integrated public passenger transport services may—
…(b) award a public service contract directly to an internal operator.”
If we made these amendments to the Bill, I believe that the wording in the regulations would automatically change to include the terminology “a local government bus company”.
I would really like the Government to consider making the amendments, or to take up the point in some other way. In order to plan and deliver local public transport, councils and local transport authorities must be able to act in this way. We should not simply rely on the existing regulations; we should state the powers explicitly in the Bill.
Amendment 72 is not in my name, but I note that it covers much the same ground.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 13 amends the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 to allow franchising authorities to make a direct award for the first local service contract under a franchising scheme to the “incumbent operator”—that is the important phrasing. The intention, as I read it, is to allow for a smooth transfer of operations to the new scheme, where the qualifying conditions are met. Proposed new regulations 16A(1)(a) and (b) specify that the award must be of a local service contract within the franchising scheme and where no local services are currently provided. Proposed new regulation 16A(1)(c) sets out that the operator must have provided the same or similar services for at least three months prior to the new contract.
I acknowledge the objectives of the clause, but I am concerned that it raises more issue than it addresses. The approach could look like a cosy agreement, which is a theme that I have addressed a couple of times today. Where we are awarding a further contract to an existing contractor, without going to market or tendering more widely, there is a perception, if not a reality, of a cosy agreement. It cuts out competition and favours one operator over the others, and it is not just for a short period; it is for a period of up to five years, as set out in clause 13(3).
The likelihood of a challenge from other bus operators in the area, who are angry about being excluded, may well be quite high, yet proposed new regulation 16A(2) requires the local transport authority to publish information relating to the contract only within six months of granting the direct award. We therefore have a transfer that may look like a sweetheart deal between the local transport authority and the existing service provider, which may be the municipal bus company but could equally be a private provider, while the judicial review, which is the mechanism by which an external aggrieved party can challenge that decision, has an application deadline of three months—12 weeks. Under the clause, the requirement to publish the information on which that judicial review could be based falls fully three months after the judicial review deadline, so there is a problem with the timings set out in the Bill.
What is the point of publishing the information in subsection (3) six months after the date of the award? Other operators cannot go to judicial review, because the deadline has already passed, so what use is it and to whom? I have a simple question for the Minister. What process should operators follow to challenge a sweetheart deal, as they obviously should be able to do? If the information is six months’ old, it cannot be through judicial review, because they will not have been provided with the information before the three-month deadline.
What process do the Government recommend that operators should follow, and what information will be available to them? What is the reason for such a long delay in providing information? The information is there from day one, because the local authority and the existing provider will have signed a contract, so all that needs to be done is publish it. What governance provisions will be in place to guard against improper preference, because it may well feel like that has been involved to excluded competitors looking in from the outside? They need to have extra special confidence that there is sufficient governance in place to guard against that, especially if the provider is a municipal bus company, for the obvious reason that they have skin in the game—I will not rehearse that argument.
Amendment 72, tabled by the Green party, would have an effect similar to amendments 34 to 37 by removing the ability to grant a contract to a private operator working outside a franchising scheme—for example, in an enhanced partnership.
Jerome Mayhew
I am so sorry—it is in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald).
I will therefore address amendments 34 to 37, which would allow for a direct award to local government bus companies. I fully understand the rationale behind the Bill, but looking at clause 13, I do not think that that award is excluded by the current drafting, because the term of art is “operator”, and a public bus company could be an operator.
Siân Berry
For clarity, the intention behind my amendments is not to allow for incumbent operators that are local government bus companies to be added to the Bill; it is to ensure, completely separately, that any local bus company at any time, or an incumbent operator, can be given a direct award.
Jerome Mayhew
That was absolutely not clear from the drafting, and I do not feel able to support such opaque drafting. It would not be right to slip in five words and change the whole meaning of the clause. Perhaps it would be better to draft a new clause; I suspect the hon. Lady has time to do so before the end of the Bill’s consideration.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 34 to 37, but the Bill already enables the direct award of franchising contracts to local authority bus companies.
Clause 13 allows for the direct award of franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. It would reduce transitional risks for local government authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network. It applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could absolutely be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause, as could a private operator, if that was desired by the franchising authority. Clause 13, therefore, already allows franchising authorities to direct awards to LABCos.
Amendment 35 would allow a franchising authority to direct awards to a LABCo that is not an incumbent operator. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable and controlled contractual environment for staff and assets during a transition, while providing continuity of services to passengers. It also means that operators are established in, and familiar with, the area. That greater operational knowledge will help to drive more effective long-term procurement of competitive franchise contracts through data collection and sharing.
Those benefits are most likely to be achieved by franchising authorities working in areas with operators that have an established and reliable presence in the network and with whom they have established effective working relationships. I therefore hope the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will withdraw her amendment. Clause 13 already provides most of the powers she seeks, and keeping the incumbent element is an important part of ensuring some of the core benefits of the measure.
Siân Berry
I very much appreciate that my amendments would do different things from clause 13, and I also appreciate that the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 provide the ability to make a direct award to an internal operator at other times. However, I worry that if we do not make sure that we have that ability in primary legislation—I cannot find it elsewhere in the Bill—there is a risk that private companies will issue legal challenges against direct awards. That is the key thing that I would like the Government to address, potentially in a different clause.
Simon Lightwood
I simply do not feel that that is necessary. The way in which it is set out is clear enough.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East for tabling amendment 72. Clause 13 allows for the direct award of initial franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. In doing so, we aim to reduce transitional risks for local transport authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network.
Clause 13 applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators only—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable, controlled, contractual environment for the transition of staff, as I have mentioned.
Clause 13 enables franchising authorities to directly award the first franchising contracts to incumbent operators. That is not about shutting out competition; it is about providing a stable, controlled environment to manage the transition to a franchising model. Long-term franchise contracts will be competitively tendered in the usual way.
Franchising authorities may wish to use the direct award measure to help to manage the transfer of staff and assets, gather data to inform future franchise contracts, and provide flexibility to stagger the tendering of competitive franchise contracts at different times. It may also help to support small and medium-sized enterprise operators to gain experience in a franchising model.
Direct award can be used only under specific conditions. For example, direct award contracts have a maximum duration of five years and are only for net cost contracts. In many cases, a shorter duration will be appropriate. Further, only the incumbent can receive a direct award contract for the same or substantially similar services.
Siân Berry
I do not; I just hope that the Government realise what I was trying to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Socially necessary local services
Mr Kohler
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 14, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
“(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must—
(a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities;
(b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities;
(c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.
(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting—
(a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area;
(b) users of local services;
(c) NHS providers;
(d) education providers;
(e) local employers and businesses;
(f) people with disabilities; and
(g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.”
This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 64, in clause 14, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—
(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;
(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;
(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;
(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;
(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and
(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.
(9) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.
Mr Kohler
Clause 14 is a vital provision in the Bill that seeks to strengthen the provision and protection of routes that are deemed socially necessary. I will begin by addressing the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, before turning to others.
Although I fully support the principle behind clause 14, there are several areas where it can and must be strengthened to ensure that it functions as a genuinely effective tool for safeguarding essential bus services. Under the clause, the Transport Act is amended to require that local transport authorities maintain a list of socially necessary routes and review it from time to time. Crucially, there is no detail on how that review should be conducted. That lack of clarity risks rendering the duty vague and unenforceable.
Amendment 66 seeks to address that gap. It sets out how the review process should work, requiring that gaps in network coverage be identified and that changes to improve the network are actively considered. Importantly, it would also ensure that reviews and amendments take place in consultation with relevant stakeholders. That would embed transparency and accountability into the process.
Amendment 64 would require a biannual review by the Secretary of State of the level and condition of socially necessary services across the country. Given that local authorities will already be maintaining those lists, it is not an unreasonable burden. Rather, it would create national oversight and parliamentary scrutiny—something currently missing from the system. Having consistent data on ridership, frequency and cancellations would greatly improve transparency, inform better decision making, and keep socially necessary services at the forefront of Government planning and funding.
Amendment 39, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on behalf of the Green party—
Steff Aquarone
I rise to speak to clause 14 and amendments 66 and 64, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.
I warmly welcome the clause’s protection of socially necessary services. I have spoken before about how important local bus services are for our rural areas, and I want to bring that to life because the term “socially necessary” does not do justice to the significance of those services. For many, a more accurate term would be “lifeline” services. They are absolutely vital for many small villages, and they are often far from profitable. Although they may not bring a grand economic boost to the operator or local authority, they bring a huge social benefit to the communities that they serve.
Jerome Mayhew
I rise to speak briefly in support of Liberal Democrat amendment 66, which inserts a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of the existing network of local services—through proposed new subsection (4B)(a)—and the requirement to identify any gaps in provision, through proposed new subsection (4B)(b). Proposed new subsection (4B)(c) states that what further action the local transport authority intends to take to address the gaps identified must be set out.
Proposed new subsection (4C) would require the authority to publish both the assessment and the resulting plan after the relevant consultation. It is clearly a good idea to identify the scale of opportunity in the local area as well as what is already available. Such good information would inform good future decisions, so I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
Amendment 64, which was also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a statement every six months with information on socially necessary services across a county and the number of whole routes cancelled, as well as frequency and days of the week. I am not supportive of it. Although I understand the rationale behind the amendment, and it would be interesting to have that information on a regular basis, it would be truly onerous to require the Secretary of State to provide that every six months for services right across the country. As with all things, when we are trying to design effective government, we have to balance benefit and cost. In my respectful view, such a requirement tips into being simply too onerous.
Assessments are, by their nature, local or regional, and I do not understand the practical utility of national reporting when the people who really need to know the information are in the local transport authority that would be providing the information in the first place. I therefore confirm my support for amendment 66 and my opposition to amendment 64.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for tabling a series of amendments to the clause. Amendment 66 would ensure that local transport authorities review their current local bus network to identify any gaps. I agree with hon. Members that it is important for local transport authorities to understand and know their networks. However, the desired effect of the amendment is already covered by the Transport Act 2000, which places a requirement on an authority to meet the needs of people living or working in their area. The local transport plan, which must be prepared by a local transport authority, is an important document that establishes the transport needs of local communities. Indeed, the existing measures in the Bill go even further than the 2000 Act by ensuring that members of the enhanced partnership work together to identify key socially necessary services, and to develop a robust plan in case any changes are proposed to them.
I turn to amendment 64. The Department already publishes large amounts of bus data through both the Bus Open Data Service and bus statistics on gov.uk. The Bill provides for even more data collection under clause 24, which specifically ensures that data collected by the traffic commissioner is shared with the Secretary of State. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We already deliver a large amount of information to the public that can help them to understand all services operating in their area—not just socially necessary services—and may include many of the details listed in the amendment.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 14, page 9, line 32, after “activities,” insert—
“(iv) health care services, or
(v) schools and other educational institutes,”.
This amendment would include services which enable people to access health or educational services in the definition of ‘socially necessary local services’.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 38, in clause 14, page 9, line 35, after “activities.” insert—
“(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.”
This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services.
Siân Berry
I am pleased to move an amendment that both I and Liberal Democrat colleagues had the idea of. The Liberal Democrats have withdrawn their version of the amendment, but we are essentially aiming at the same thing: to be specific in proposed new section 138A of the 2000 Act by specifically naming healthcare services, schools and other educational institutions as activities that we as a Parliament consider to be essential. I believe that that would really help transport planners to focus their efforts on those particularly essential services. It would strengthen the clause considerably.
In the past, I have worked with many young people who value bus services and feel undervalued when those services are not helping them to get back and forth to school. When they are not able to take part in after-school activities in the same way as their peers at the school whose parents can drive them back and forth, there is a social justice issue that deserves its own bullet point, as part of the clause.
I do not need to tell Members about the importance of public transport access to hospitals and other healthcare services. Later, we will discuss amendments pressing for the timing of older and disabled people’s bus passes to be extended so that they can access healthcare services with their free cards. The actual provision of the services is the absolute bottom line here, and they should be named. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose my amendment.
Amendment 38 was originally proposed by my Green party colleague, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, in the other place. It aims to include clearly in the definition services that have been cancelled. If this aspect of the Bill is to work effectively, it is essential that it works to undo the damage caused by cuts made in bus services, particularly local authority-supported ones since the start of the enormous austerity squeeze on local councils.
The proposed time period of 15 years in amendment 38 is no accident—it goes back to the start of austerity. Many figures show the loss of bus services around the country since the beginning of that period. For example, a Campaign for Better Transport figure shows that from 2012 to the second year of the pandemic, 2021, more than a quarter of all bus services across England, measured in vehicle kilometres, were lost. For the number of regulated services, which is a different measure of service capacity, the loss was 29%.
It will come as no surprise to my colleagues from the east of England that one of the regions with the biggest losses was the eastern region, alongside the north-west of England. The services lost were socially necessary, and they ought to be able to be defined as currently socially necessary, even if they do not exist. I commend both amendments to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
Amendment 39 would add healthcare services, schools and educational facilities to the list of socially necessary local services. The hon. Lady is, of course, right that those are important destinations for bus services—so important that they would without doubt come under the services side of the definition. Since the clause as drafted refers to enabling
“passengers to access…essential goods and services”,
the amendment is otiose.
I understand the political point that the hon. Lady is seeking to make through amendment 38 but, as drafted, nothing could be done with that information under the clause. In fact, the amendment would have a negative effect, because it would simply muddy the waters with historical data without being helpful in establishing the future direction of travel for local transport authorities.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I was planning to say a few words about amendment 39, but the shadow Minister has really said it: it not necessary to include healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes in the definition. Of course, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that those things are important. I can think of dozens of important and socially necessary places where buses might go, but I would not propose to add them all to clause 14(2)(c), not least because when attempting to make an exhaustive list, it is always possible to leave things out, and there is great scope for argument over issues on the periphery that some people think are important and others do not.
The measure’s wording is broad. A “social necessary local service” is defined as one that allows passengers to access: “essential goods and services”, which is very wide; “economic opportunities (including employment)”, which is very wide; or “social activities”, which is also very wide. Plainly, healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes fall within those definitions, so the amendment is unnecessary. However, I welcome the hon. Lady’s highlighting those things, because healthcare and schools plainly rank very highly.
Mr Kohler
The Liberal Democrats strongly support amendment 39, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As has been said, it is remarkably similar to, if not the same as, an amendment that we tabled in the House of Lords. It rightly proposes to expand the definition of “socially necessary local service” to include routes that serve healthcare facilities. I recognise the argument that the existing definition already covers them, but we think it is important to explicitly include hospitals, GPs and clinics. Accessing healthcare is a social necessity that should be explicitly recognised in law.
The same is true of education. From conversations with my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), to name a few, I know that there are growing concerns about school and college bus routes being cut, leaving students unable to travel independently to their places of learning.
The Government may argue that such services are already included under the definition but, if that is the case, why not make that explicit? Clarifying it in statute would only strengthen the Bill and provide clearer guidance for local authorities.
Simon Lightwood
Amendment 39 is not necessary as this issue has already been addressed during debates on the Bill in the other place. At the time, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement on the Floor of the House to the effect that the definition of a socially necessary local service encapsulates access to healthcare and schools as “essential goods and services”. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the Government’s intention. That being said, the Government will produce official guidance for local authorities on the issue of socially necessary local services. That guidance will refer to healthcare services and educational institutions as constituting “essential goods and services”.
Amendment 38 would expand the definition of socially necessary local services to include services that have been abolished in the past 15 years. In addressing it, we should consider the practical issues. A service that has been cancelled in the past 15 years may no longer meet the current needs of the community, which change over time. Furthermore, it is possible that previous services may have been folded into newer and more relevant bus routes. For those reasons, the amendment might not yield the expected beneficial outcomes.
That is by no means a prohibition or limitation on the powers of local transport authorities, however. As local transport authorities continually evaluate the needs of their communities, they still retain the power to consider implementing services along former routes, if they believe that doing so would address the needs of their communities. The amendment is therefore not necessary, so I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion not to press it.
Siân Berry
On a point of clarification, clause 14 adds proposed new subsection (15)(b) to section 138A of the Transport Act. The measure is quite specific that a current service is envisaged—it refers to a service “if cancelled”. Amendment 38 would respond to that by making sure that recently cancelled services were covered. Such services might have been taken away because operators anticipated the risk that they would be defined as “socially necessary”. Can the Minister reassure us on that point?
Simon Lightwood
I did not give way, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s additional comments.
Simon Lightwood
It is fine. I do not believe that the amendments are necessary.
Siân Berry
I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Kohler
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.
(4B) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to—
(a) the scope and nature of the service;
(b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps;
(c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs;
(d) a timeline for the operation of the service;
(e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.
(4C) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (4B)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered.
(4D) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (4C).
(4E) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).”
This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 74, in clause 14, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—
(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and
(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.
(8) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.
(9) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.
Mr Kohler
Amendments 54 and 74 would establish a real safety net for socially necessary routes. Amendment 54 would place a duty on local authorities to step in to deliver a service when no commercial operator will do so, while placing a reciprocal duty on the Government to provide financial support to enable it. Amendment 74 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State to create a formal funding mechanism for such services. The mechanism would include clear eligibility criteria, ensuring that local authorities could not designate routes as socially necessary arbitrarily, but must demonstrate clear social need. Together, the amendments would ensure that essential routes do not disappear due to market failure. They offer a practical, balanced solution to a growing problem, and I urge the Committee to support them. If we believe that these routes are socially necessary, we must find a mechanism to ensure that they are provided.
Jerome Mayhew
The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 54 would place a duty on local transport authorities to identify and then satisfy the need for all—and I stress “all”—socially necessary services, irrespective of supply, under an enhanced partnership. The amendment does not explain how the services would be supplied by the local authority—presumably, there would be a tender process—but it would require the authority to produce a report within six months. That report would identify the need, estimate the costs of provision and associated funding gaps, estimate the impact of a new service
“on local accessibility and transport needs”,
provide
“a timeline for the operation of the service”,
and specify local funding shortfalls. That measure, if adopted, would be a truly revolutionary departure for the identification of local need and subsequent funding, because it would hand demand assessment to the local authority, but the cost of provision to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong? I genuinely look forward to the Minister supporting the amendment and explaining how he will fund that.
The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74 would require the Secretary of State to advance proposals within 12 months to
“guarantee a service for socially necessary services”,
where that service has been absent for six months and
“the local transport authority is unable to run the service.”
That is a second extraordinary proposal, because it would again place identification of need—according to the highly subjective definition of social necessity—in the hands of the local authority, but would give the Secretary of State a legal duty to supply that assessed need. It envisages the Department for Transport directly running individual routes that have escaped the design of the franchise network or the enhanced partnerships. Presumably, since the Department for Transport has to supply for that need, it will be liable for procuring, right across the country, individual routes that are not part of a wider contractual arrangement. There we have it: the Department of Transport directly running individual routes, spread across the country, independent of wider bus provision. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.
Steff Aquarone
Amendment 54 is a really important protection for the safe and necessary services that I described. The shadow Minister’s points perhaps highlight the issue of funding more generally in bus franchising and enhanced partnerships.
The amendment would ensure that steps are taken within six months of identifying a route as socially necessary to ensure that the route actually runs. It would also enable the Government to provide them with support and funding to ensure that the route is available, if the financial burden on the local authority is deemed too great. This is another useful protection for the socially necessary services to ensure that they are not another victim of the funding crisis in local government. I have already made clear how important these services are and why we have to ensure that they are protected.
Looking at the perilous financial position of our county council in Norfolk, I fear that there could come a point where that spectacular fiscal mismanagement means that they cannot afford to keep these services going. In that instance, I do not think that my constituents should be the ones who are punished. The Government should step in to protect their access to all the services and opportunities that a socially necessary service provides.
To conclude, I am pleased that the importance of bus services has been truly recognised in law. I am supportive of the sentiment and much of the drafting of the clause. However, if we accept the importance of these routes, we should not make a half-baked attempt to protect them. We should ensure that all important services are considered when deciding on socially necessary routes, and that there are strong protections for both these services and our communities that they serve.
Simon Lightwood
Amendment 54 seeks to establish a process for local transport authorities to implement a socially necessary service where no operator has decided to do so. However, I believe it is unnecessary, because legislation already exists to address that issue. Under section 63(1) of the Transport Act 1985 and section 9A of the Transport Act 1968, local authorities are already under a duty to secure public passenger transport services that they consider appropriate to meet the requirements of the area, and which would not otherwise be met. Clause 14 also sets out that enhanced partnership schemes must include a requirement to investigate alternatives that can be provided if a socially necessary service is cancelled or varied in such a way as to have a materially adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access necessary goods and services.
The amendment also places an obligation on local authorities to fund specific bus services. However, as I set out before, how local authorities choose to spend their funding is a matter for them. I reflect on previous comments from the Liberal Democrats about being all for devolution, but also liking to stipulate exactly how to do it from the national centre. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on how and where to prioritise their local bus grant. Restricting the range of choices for how an LTA does so would go against the spirit of the Bill, and it is our aim to give more control to local leaders. I have outlined why I believe that the amendment is not needed, and I ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk to withdraw it.
Steff Aquarone
I am a little disappointed that the Minister did not address the shadow Minister’s accusation of passing the financial buck directly to Government in his response. The measure is fundamentally about funding to protect services. If the Minister is relying on sections in previous Acts of Parliament, the interpretation of those sections is not a given without specific reference, which the Bill does not make. I do not share the Minister’s confidence that those obligations will be upheld.
Simon Lightwood
I think it is sad that the hon. Gentleman does not share my confidence in local areas being able to shape their services.
I now turn to amendment 74, which is the final non-Government amendment tabled to clause 14. It seeks to ensure that there is a Government-backed scheme that will guarantee that all socially necessary local services continue to operate. As I am sure I have mentioned before, this Government have reaffirmed our commitment to bus services in the recent spending review by confirming around £900 million each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. Allocations for that fund will be made through the bus funding formula, which already takes account of local need. The Department is also committed to review the current formula and ensure that it is allocated as fairly as possible. That will take place in due course.
Simon Lightwood
Again, it is local areas that are best placed to use the resources given to them. We do not have a magic money tree. I know that the Liberal Democrats have a supply of those, but unfortunately we do not. The Department is also committed to reviewing the formula and ensuring that the money is allocated as fairly as possible. That will take place in due course. Once the allocations are made, it is then for local transport authorities to prioritise their funding according to the needs of their communities. It is right that they make those decisions and Government should not be asked to intervene. I therefore ask the hon. Members to seek to withdraw this amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 14, page 10, line 27, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap and of the level of employer’s national insurance contributions.
Simon Lightwood
Subsections (5) and (6) of clause 14 were inserted by non-Government amendments in the Lords. This amendment seeks to remove those subsections. Clause 14(5) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the implications of ending the £2 national fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services, as proposed in the Bill. Assessing the impact of the withdrawal of the previous fare cap on specific routes would be pointless while the current cap is in place. At the spending review, the Government took the decision to extend that cap to March 2027. Moreover, in February 2025, the Department published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 fare cap. That showed that the cap delivered low value for money. Work is already under way to undertake a review of the £3 bus fare cap. Therefore, a legislative requirement for further evaluative work is duplicative and unnecessary. That subsection is also impractical. Socially necessary local services are a new measure introduced by this Bill; they were, therefore, not in place at the time of the £2 bus fare cap and could not, therefore, have any measurable effect on it. It will also take some time for local transport authorities to identify socially necessary local services.
Clause 14(6) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of how the level of employee’s national insurance contributions may impact on the provision of socially necessary bus services. That includes an assessment of how transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities are affected. That subsection cuts across existing work of the Department for Education, which has committed to reform the special educational needs and disabilities system. It is also impractical because it is seeking to review three months after Royal Assent. Socially necessary local services are likely to take some time to be identified and agreed, making that assessment premature. I have explained why the Government are seeking to remove both subsections. Having explained why the Government are seeking to remove subsections (5) and (6), I turn to the remainder of clause 14.
Clause 14 introduces requirements in relation to socially necessary local services in areas with enhanced partnerships. Enhanced partnerships are statutory partnerships where local transport authorities and bus operators agree on binding goals to improve bus services in their area. This measure will require local transport authorities to identify the services that they consider socially necessary local services as defined in the Bill, and include them as a list in the enhanced partnership plan. Enhanced partnership schemes will need to specify requirements that apply when the operator of a socially necessary local service proposes to cancel or vary the registration of a service in such a way as is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access essential goods and services, economic opportunities or social activities. Schemes must also require local transport authorities to consider whether any alternative arrangements may be made to mitigate the effects of cancellation or variation.
This will not require additional funding. In practical terms, local transport authorities and bus operators will be incorporating the measure into their established processes. Once the legislation has passed, we will be working with stakeholders to implement the measure. Local transport authorities must vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to comply with clause 14 within one year of its coming into force. We will be publishing guidance in due course to help local transport authorities and bus operators with the implementation of the measure.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I support clause 14 and the Government’s proposed measures. Good decisions depend on good information, and in the East Cleveland part of my constituency we have seen far too many decisions made in a black hole of information, which has seen many routes disappear over many years. I now have many villages left in isolation.
It has fallen to local campaigners to step up and make the case that such routes are socially necessary, including through protests, rallies and so on, to try to save them. That is exactly what happened in the case of the Stagecoach 1 and 2 in my constituency, which was created as a result of a sustained campaign. However, that route is not sufficient, because it misses out certain villages and does not go down the high street in Brotton, for example. It also misses out several residents, of which one example is a lady called Norma Templeman who I promised I would mention in the House. She lives in North Skelton and is 87 years old. She said a few months ago:
“You have no idea how isolated this makes us golden oldies feel.”
I would never use such language to refer to her, because I think she is full of energy, even if she is 87. It should not fall to an 87-year-old lady to campaign to save and extend routes like the Stagecoach 1 and 2, or the demand-responsive transport service that she benefits from, which, again, runs out of money every few months, and there has to be a sustained campaign to try to save it. The entire model is inefficient.
I hope that the mayor in our region will seek to use the powers in the Bill and introduce a franchising model. So far, he is resistant to do that, so I ask for some clarity from the Minister on devolution—which we covered in the previous debate—with reference to clause 14. The principles set out in the various pieces of legislation on combined authorities, particularly the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, set out that the role of a combined authority is to act as it says on the tin: to be a combination of the local constituent member councils and their leaders. We have an odd situation in Teesside wherein the councils and their leaders want to have a franchising system but the mayor is resistant to doing so.
In the House on 14 May, I asked a Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government whether the Government accept the principle of subsidiarity, wherein power should sit in the lowest possible tier of government and local communities should have the strongest say. The Minister accepted that principle in his response. He said that devolution should not just be
“a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 135WH.]
He said the transfer of power is a good, but it is not the “whole job”, and communities should be able to “take control for themselves”. I hope that that is also the case when it comes to these powers. We should not have a mayor sitting above the community—above even the local authorities, which make up the LTA—and not using the powers and the funding that this Government are giving him to act.
For Norma’s sake, and the many Normas in all my communities and communities across the country, I support the clause and the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will deal with this in a slightly different order from that in which the Minister addressed it. I will deal with clause 14 in toto, and then look at Government amendment 6, which removes two subsections from the clause.
Clause 14 amends the Transport Act 2000 by requiring local transport authorities to identify and list services in the enhanced partnership area that are “socially necessary local services”—we have already discussed this at some length this afternoon—and then to specify requirements that must be followed if a bus operator of those services wishes to vary or cancel them. Subsection (2) amends section 138A of the Transport Act 2000, which talks about enhanced partnership plans and schemes, and it requires local transport authorities to identify and list socially necessary local services within their enhanced partnership plans—so far, so sensible.
The term is defined in subsection (2)(c), which inserts proposed new subsection (15) into section 138A and provides a definition of “socially necessary local service” as,
“a local service which—
(a) enables passengers to access—
(i) essential goods and services,
(ii) economic opportunities (including employment), or
(iii) social activities, and
(b) if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities.”
That is not necessarily a problem, but it is worth noting that this definition is quite subjective in its application. It is not easily measurable what such a service is, nor is it standardised between local authorities. The Minister will say, “Devolution will allow a thousand blossoms to bloom,” and I conceptually agree. However, I wonder whether, if we have different interpretations of the same term—“essential goods and services”—in different parts of the country, that raises a question about how the provisions will be applied across the board.
I understand the desire to devolve assessments to local need, but the determination does, after all, have commercial consequences for operators. As ever, where commercial opportunities are challenged or threatened, that brings with it a risk of legal challenge. That is why I raise the flag with the Minister—I am not going to do anything about it—that this is a potential future pitfall, where different local transport authorities apply the same definition differently.
If the Minister recognises that the definition is subjective, is he concerned about the risk of challenge? The route to formal challenge within an enhanced partnership structure would typically be by judicial review. Is there another form of challenge that the Minister would recognise as part of this process? What guidance will be given to local transport authorities in the assessment process? He referred to some guidance in his earlier responses; I saw him glance towards his officials. I would be grateful for more detail.
I think the issue can be dealt with through guidance, so it would be helpful to understand what form it will take for local transport authorities. Has that already been formulated? Either way, do we have an indication of when the guidance will be published? It is clearly an important document when looking to turn these concepts into practical policies.
Clause 14(2)(a) inserts new paragraph (ba) into section 138A(3) of the Transport Act 2000, requiring local transport authorities to identify which local services in their area are socially necessary services and to list those services in the enhanced partnership plan. Clause 14(2)(b) inserts new paragraph (4A) into section 138A of the 2000 Act, requiring local transport authorities to keep the list of socially necessary services under review and amend it as necessary. The idea here is presumably to ensure that the list of socially necessary local services reflects any sudden network changes in an enhanced partnership area. So far, so good.
Jerome Mayhew
No, I am pleased to say that I am not, Sir Desmond. Clause 14(6) makes specific reference to this. It was a requirement that was inserted into the Bill by the other place. I will read it to you:
“The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the impact of the level of employers’ National Insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities…and lay it before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
As such, this is fairly and squarely in the scope of not just the Bill, but this clause. Government new clause 6 would specifically remove that subsection, so I am setting the scene as to why that is a very bad idea.
We understand the effect, which will be a 15.2% increase in employment costs. If an employee works 780 hours on the minimum wage, they earn around £8,923, which is currently below the minimum threshold. In that instance, following the increase, the employer’s national insurance contribution will go from £0 to £678. That is the additional cost of that employment. Who will pay for that in a SEND contract?
The Chair
We are talking about the impact on the provision of necessary bus services, but you have strayed into taxis.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you for that indication, Sir Desmond, but exactly the same arguments that apply to the providers of bus services for a fee also apply to taxis. You can insert the word “bus” whenever I have said “taxis”; exactly the same argument applies for both providers.
The additional cost of employing a part-time worker, such as a bus driver, in a bus company would be £1,303 per employee per annum, so we have a real problem. Bus providers—and others—are being swept up in the net of increased employer national insurance contributions. It is simply a fact that a large number of the school contracts will become unsustainable under the current format, yet no payments have been offered, either as part of this Bill or elsewhere, to compensate local transport authorities, county councils or whichever authorities are responsible for the provision of bus contracts for education and special education needs, even though the actions of this Government are making these contracts unsustainable.
Thousands of these contracts around the country will need to be handed back to local education authorities. Staff will be made redundant, causing a further shortage of drivers for passengers, and thousands more schoolchildren will be left without transport unless there is movement on this. There needs to be movement of one form or another. In an ideal world, bus SEND provision would be excluded from employer national insurance contributions. However, in the absence of that, an alternative form of funding must be provided, if it is still the Government’s desire that provision be made by local authorities for bus services for SEND children.
For this reason, subsection (6), which mandates a review of how the increase in national insurance contributions from 6 April will affect socially necessary bus services, including SEND transport services for children, is so important. The provision would mandate that the review be laid before Parliament within three months of Royal Assent. This is urgent. The negative impact has already started. We need movement from the Government, or there will be real problems that affect real people. Again, these are the most vulnerable in our society. I therefore oppose Government amendment 6, which inexplicably seeks to remove this necessary assessment from the Bill.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)
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
Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 10 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
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Alex Sobel will speak on the publication of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill”, HC 789, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, Members will put questions on the subject of the statement and Alex Sobel will respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I also thank my fellow members of the Committee, Lord Alton, who is the Chair, and the staff, who worked very hard in the production of the report.
The Bill is intended to prevent loss of life at sea and to deter and disrupt organised immigration crime. The Committee welcomes that intention. The Bill introduces a number of new offences targeted at organised criminal gangs facilitating unlawful migration, but the Committee is concerned that the new offences are drafted excessively broadly and pose a serious risk of criminalising refugees and other vulnerable groups. It recommends some changes to address that issue.
Clauses 13 to 17 create three new precursor offences. Those measures are intended to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs that look to profit from organised immigration crime. The provisions engage rights under the refugee convention—in particular, article 31, which prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. Those offences could potentially also interfere in some cases with rights under the European convention on human rights—notably, article 5, the right to liberty and security, and article 1 of protocol 1, on peaceful enjoyment of possessions—which are incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Committee supports the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, the Committee is concerned that, as drafted, the precursor offences create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low and the penalties are high. In its report, the Committee proposes a series of amendments to deal with those issues.
Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to have done an act that
“caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury”—
physical or psychological—
“to, another person.”
The Government should ensure that that clause is sufficiently clear and defined, reflects the legitimate aim that it is intended to achieve and is proportionate to that aim. In particular, the Committee believes that a mental element should be introduced to ensure that only conduct that is intentional or reckless is criminalised.
The Bill will repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 in its entirety, as well as certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Repealing the 2024 Act removes the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. However, certain provisions of the 2023 Act have been kept, which raises human rights concerns. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act modifies the common-law position such that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of detention. The Committee agrees with its predecessor Committee and recommends repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act broadens the public order disqualification in section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee believes that that provision is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and article 4 of the ECHR, on prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The Committee recommends repeal of the provision.
Section 59 of the IMA amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. The Committee believes that it must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution on return to make a protection or human rights claim, which must be considered on its merits, in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government choose to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, they should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe countries, with particular consideration of the rights of minority groups. In 2023, Georgia, India and Albania were added to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries illegally, but we understand those states to be high risk in particular for LGBTQI+ people. It is therefore important that the Government take notice of the universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council of states listed, as well as other assessments, in order to judge their safety for specific groups, particularly those from the LGBTQI community.
Section 62 of the IMA means that if a person making a human rights or asylum claim does not allow the Home Office to look at everything, including private information, on their phone, then the Home Office shall take that into account as damaging the person’s credibility when deciding whether to believe the person. The Committee believes that this provision should be amended to make it clear that the credibility of a claimant who has provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to provide a password or other method of access requested by the Home Office will not be affected.
Clauses 19 to 26 introduce new search, seizure and retention powers in relation to electronic devices. The Committee is concerned that there is a risk that the new powers of search, seizure and retention may in practice lead to a blanket policy to search and possibly seize and retain items such as mobile phones from asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and children. The Committee recommends that the Government clarify in the Bill how these invasive powers will be used, in order to guard against the risk of indiscriminate searches. The Committee also recommends that guidance clearly sets out that in circumstances where electronic devices are confiscated the authorities must facilitate the contact of individuals with their close family members.
The Committee is concerned that clause 35(7) and (8), deeming transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations to be necessary for important reasons of public interest, inappropriately disapplies the normal safeguards in data protection legislation when data is transferred to third countries. The Committee recommends the removal of those provisions.
Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. The Government state that the clause is intended to clarify that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. However, the operational effect would appear to amount to retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons liable to deportation. This does not comply with article 5 of the ECHR, which requires a lawful basis for detention, and article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees an effective remedy. The Committee recommends the repeal of this clause.
The Committee believes that the requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions and curfews should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. The Committee proposes an amendment to deal with this point.
The Committee acknowledges that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important issue, and supports the Government’s intent to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the refugee convention. Individuals will be able to argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence and the danger that they pose to the community. This is important to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community.
Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the Committee believes that the threshold test for electronic monitoring should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it is appropriate. Clause 52 should be amended accordingly.
Overall, the Committee welcomes the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation but would like to see changes to ensure that the legislation is more tightly focused on criminalising those who exploit refugees and other vulnerable groups.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for making that statement. As everyone will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. It is one of the issues that I am really concerned about, in this country and across the world, and I always speak about asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and human rights abuses. Has the Committee been able to ascertain whether there has been an increase in the numbers of those seeking asylum who are religiously disenfranchised and have suffered human rights abuses? Is that something that the Government need to address?
Alex Sobel
I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to address that, as I did not include those who have come to this country to seek asylum due to an impingement of their right to practise their faith or religious belief in their home country. We have seen an increase in asylum claims—I do not have the figures to hand—but the Committee’s consideration of that area in its inquiry on the Bill was in relation to the list of safe countries. Countries might be broadly safe, but not safe for individuals who are practising certain beliefs. I mentioned three countries, and of those the one where there are issues in that regard is India.
The Government should review the list of safe countries and have regard for the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in terms of the ability of an individual to practise their religion or belief in safety. That is an important consideration that the Government should take into account.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to make a brief comment. I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and for applying to make it. I also thank the Committee for its work on the report. I assure him that the report is being read in detail and that the Government will respond in due course.
IVF Egg Donation: Young Women
(1 day, 10 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered IVF egg donation in young women.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on adverts targeting young women for their eggs and attendant consequences. I know that another debate was supposed to be happening here, but unfortunately for the hon. Member who secured that debate, it was not able to take place. That was fortunate for myself and others who have come along today, so I thank the Committee for having offered this slot to us on Tuesday.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. She always seems to come along to answer questions on health issues, and I thank her for that. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), as well as others who have come along to participate.
The issue of adverts for IVF egg donation has been brought to my attention, and we have some people in the Gallery today who have enabled me to prepare this speech—as well as the questions I wish to ask the Minister —in order to highlight this issue and raise awareness. I thank hon. Members for participating in this debate, which could not be more timely, and the Minister for joining us today. I look forward to her response.
This issue is not as widely understood in this House as perhaps it ought to be. When I made representations to the Backbench Business Committee, I was asked what I was trying to achieve. I explained that, and the Committee very kindly offered me the opportunity to have this debate. This issue must be debated. Adverts in public places asking women to donate their eggs for use by others have hugely increased in recent years. They are seen at bus stops, at stalls in university student unions, in shopping centres and on social media sites. It needs to be regularised and there needs to be departmental input into how it happens. There needs to be rules on how it takes place. I hope that my speech will illustrate the clear issues and why they are so important.
All my contributions in this House start in my constituency of Strangford. My constituents have asked me to bring forward this issue, and it has been very kindly supported by others across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Adverts are not legally required to state the health risks up front, but they should be. This is despite the process for retrieving eggs from a young woman requiring her to be put through the early stages of IVF and an invasive and often painful surgical procedure to remove them. IVF is so important. I read in the paper today about the number of IVF successes, and I welcome that. This is not about stopping IVF treatment. It is not about ensuring that people cannot have babies. Nothing makes our relationships strong like having children. I always think of those who perhaps cannot and who wish they could. IVF gives them an opportunity to do that.
In 2011, the amount a young woman could be compensated for her eggs rose to £750 per cycle. Thirteen years later, in October 2024, following advice from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, it rose again, this time to £985, with additional expenses payments able to be made in some cases. That shows that there is a cost factor, and payments should be along the lines of cost.
Women as young as 18 can donate their eggs for use by others—either for IVF for older people or for surrogacy —and demand is soaring. According to the HFEA, women can undergo as many as 10 donation rounds—a huge toll on any lady’s body. Later, I will give the price at which fertility clinics sell the eggs on, so hon. Members will see the difference between that and the figure that ladies are given for a cycle of eggs.
In 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed to me in a letter that it did not undertake an impact assessment before allowing the payments to women for their eggs to rise, nor has it undertaken a long-term study on the effects of egg retrieval on women’s bodies, but I believe it must do so. Clinics do not undertake long-term follow-up checks on donors’ health. Again, I would have thought that that happens, and I am really surprised that it does not. There seems to be no accountability in the process.
Concerningly, between 2021 and 2023, the Scottish Government also targeted women with open adverts for their eggs, and four NHS health boards in Scotland continue to do so as a result of surging demand.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Is he aware that the adverts that the Scottish Government and NHS fertility centres put out do not convey the associated risks, and that some have used disingenuous language? Does he share my concern about those advertising campaigns, and does he believe that they should be immediately stopped?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady very much for that point. That is the central thrust of this important debate. There do not seem to be any controls, and donation is almost glamourised, so for those in financial need—I will talk about them shortly—it may look too good to be true. It certainly does need regulating, and I thank the hon. Lady for coming along and making that pertinent point. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Government can regulate things in a constructive, helpful and safe way.
I do not know of any other Government in the world who ask women to donate their eggs for use by others, so why are we doing it here in a way that can undermine women’s health? It does not seem to be regulated in any way, and there do not seem to be any rules. That needs to be changed.
Research from Surrogacy Concern cited HFEA data showing that between 1991 and 2000, there were 736 egg donors aged between 18 and 25. Further research has shown that between 2000 and 2022, there were at least 78 women across the UK aged just 18 who registered to donate their eggs, 283 aged 19, and 468 aged just 20. That gives an indication of the age that this starts, and I will outline some of the reasons why this can have an impact later down the line.
Between 2000 and 2022, the HFEA registered 5,158 new donors across the UK aged 18 to 25 for egg donation. I say all those things because I believe that this is such an important issue, and that we are on the cusp of uncovering a major public scandal in the way egg donation is advertised.
The issue gets worse when we look at the socioeconomic background of the donors. In 2024, the Government confirmed to me that between 2011 and 2020, 4,147 donors came from the three most deprived deciles of the index of multiple deprivation. In stark contrast, there were 3,007 donors from the least deprived deciles. Again, as I will explain, those who may feel pressurised may see donation as a method of income without understanding all the potential side effects. Between 1991 and 2022, 23,522 new British egg donors were registered across the UK by the HFEA—21,020 from England, 1,315 from Scotland, 954 from Wales and 245 from Northern Ireland. In 2022 alone, 1,645 new British donors were registered in the UK.
Campaigners are concerned about the developing societal entitlement to women’s eggs, and that eggs are becoming a tradable commodity. They should not be, but that is the perception—indeed, that is the reality. Eggs for donation need to be of high quality, so only women aged 18 to 35 are targeted by fertility clinics. I believe that a power imbalance is developing between young and old, between poor and rich, and, in many cases, between female and male. The majority of egg donors are also not mothers, raising concerns about the psychological impact of a woman’s own genetic offspring being raised by others, which may only be realised years after donation. There is also a concerning development whereby young women’s bodies seem to be commodified resources to be assessed for the benefit of others. That concerns me greatly.
One London egg centre has an online catalogue—my goodness me—where donors can be searched for by their ethnic background, their hair colour, the colour of their eyes, their height, their skin tone and their educational attainment, raising further concerns about the development of designer babies. In other words, people think, “We’ll pick through this catalogue, and we’ll see which one we’d like to have.” It should never be that way.
Despite women supposedly not being paid for their eggs, donors have reported receiving payment, which the industry terms “compensation”. Originally £750 but now £985, it is paid into their bank accounts directly after egg retrieval, with no expenses claims or receipts needed to be submitted to the clinic. There are no rules. There are no guidelines. There is nothing to follow. Meanwhile, campaigners have seen plenty of examples of payments quoted up front and adverts directly incentivising young women to undergo the procedure for money, raising the likelihood of exploitation; the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) made that point very clearly. There is a significant risk to low-income, working-class women and to students. It also stands in stark contrast to expenses payments for British kidney donors, which must be strictly itemised with receipts provided. If that is the way to do it for kidney donors, it is the way to do it for egg donors.
The HFEA claims that egg donors largely state they are undergoing the procedure for altruistic reasons, but we must acknowledge the risk that some young women’s desire to help others, often at a cost to themselves, is being used against them. Eggs are sold in packages for thousands of pounds by egg banks and fertility clinics. The London Egg Bank offers six frozen eggs for sale at £5,500, and the Manchester Fertility clinic offers a package of eight frozen eggs starting from £11,000. That £985 against those prices gives an indication of where the real money is. The majority of British fertility clinics are now owned by private equity firms—again, there is little or no regulation, no rules and no safety measures. Something needs to be in place.
The process of egg donation is gruelling, which is sometimes overlooked. Women must inject hormones in a process known as downregulation, which switches off the pituitary gland in order to stop the ovaries working temporarily and allow the lady’s cycle, in its totality, to be controlled by the clinic. In cases of fresh egg donation to another woman, the donor’s cycle is synchronised with that of the recipient.
The donor then takes follicle-stimulating hormones to overstimulate the ovaries into producing an artificially high number of eggs at the same time. The clinic wants extra eggs, wants the donation to be larger than the lady would normally produce, and the woman then injects human chorionic gonadotropin, or HCG, which helps eggs to mature, ready for retrieval. This maturation mimics the natural process that normally triggers ovulation.
Finally, eggs are collected from the woman using a needle that punctures the vaginal wall and perforates the ovary, gathering fluid from each follicle—the fluid containing the eggs. Donors in the UK have reported that dozens of eggs, and often even more, have been retrieved in just one donation round. One British donor reported 42 eggs being retrieved in one cycle; another reported 46 eggs being retrieved in the next cycle. That stands in stark contrast to the one egg a month that the female body naturally ovulates. I hope that those who are here today will understand that if a lady’s natural ovulation rate is one egg a month, but 42 or 46 eggs are produced and farmed, that is very much going against what the body does naturally, which has a detrimental effect on some people.
Nobody fails to have sympathy for those who struggle to have a child and who therefore embark on fertility treatment. I know quite a number of ladies who have embarked on such treatment, and their joy at having their wee baby is something that words cannot describe. The look of happiness on the faces of the mum and dad is great, as is the fact that the wee child has been born. However, the use of donor eggs has real societal consequences and potentially there can be a very negative long-term physical and psychological impact on young women who donate their eggs.
We must rebalance this conversation to take into account the impact on the young women who undergo these procedures. We need to have regulation; we need to have rules in place. The process needs to be controlled, rather than the matter just being seen from the point of view of those who want access to donor eggs.
We know from the experience of women who underwent forced adoption in mother and baby homes in the 20th century that often it takes years for women to come forward and report harm done to them in the past. Some donors have reported needing hysterectomies as a result of the damage they sustained during egg retrieval. Other donors have said that when they discovered they had genetic diseases, the clinics refused to take further action and put the onus back on the donor themselves to report to the HFEA. Those checks should have been done before donation, not afterwards.
Similarly, donors are not required to undergo enhanced carrier screening, leading to a risk that some genetic diseases might be unknowingly passed on in the donor eggs and ultimately on to the wee baby who will be born. Another donor has reported donating eggs in her early 20s, only to find when she tried to start her own family in her early 30s that she was unable to do so. Other donors report endometriosis and adenomyosis developing after donation. Quite simply, the long-term risks to women’s health from egg donation are unknown and largely unstudied. Today, I am hopefully outlining where the problems are, why regulation is needed and why I believe that the Government need to step in.
Women who have undergone egg retrieval for their own IVF have reported complications and side effects, including sepsis, abscesses, perforated bowels, severe pain during or after retrieval, and even slipping into a coma as a result of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.
All this risk is borne by young people so that older people can purchase eggs from fertility clinics and egg banks. According to the HFEA, between 1991 and 2022 —some 31 years—44,760 IVF cycles involving donor eggs were made for people aged 40 or over.
Young donors are at higher risk of ovarian hyper- stimulation syndrome because of the higher number of eggs that they have compared with older women. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said that as many as 30% of women aged under 30 who undergo egg retrieval may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Complications arising from OHSS can kill. That is why there needs to be regulation and consideration of safety as part of the process.
Two women died in England from such complications in 2005-06. In 2023 there were 53 severe or critical cases of OHSS reported to the HFEA. Yet nowhere in the adverts, online or anywhere else are the risks stated, and they should be. Those donating eggs should be aware of the risks. Donors have reported that clinics mention the risks and likely side effects only briefly and not in depth. They should be stated in depth, but they are not. Counselling for donors is offered, but is not mandatory.
We must look at international comparators. I always like to see what has been happening elsewhere. In Germany there is no egg donation at all. German legislation specifically prohibits the “splintering”—that is the word used—of motherhood that egg donation and surrogacy create. In Italy, donors cannot be compensated at all so that women are not incentivised to undergo the procedure because of financial need.
We must also consider the donor-conceived child. Egg and sperm donations are not meant to create more than 10 families. How many times have I read in the press about men who have fathered, through their sperm, perhaps as many as 100-plus children in the United Kingdom and across the world? One day a young boy and girl could meet, marry, and actually be brother and sister. There needs to be a limit, which is 10, but it is clear that some clinics do not have the control that perhaps they should have.
As gamete donation and use rapidly increases, the likelihood of genetic half-siblings across multiple households, often in close geographical proximity to one another, increases. That is what I fear no controls means. Although British clinics must ensure that donor identities can be revealed to children at 18 years of age, many people resident in the UK still travel abroad for IVF, including to jurisdictions where anonymous gametes and sex selection of embryos are legal. That means hundreds, if not thousands, of children are growing up in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland unable ever to trace their genetic parents.
The evidence is strong enough to call on the Government to raise the minimum age for egg donors to 25, because of the effect it has on those under that age who donate eggs. Secondly, we should ban adverts asking for women to donate eggs—the very thing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith referred to and which we are all very aware of. Advertising for surrogate mothers is already banned, so why not ban adverts asking for women to donate eggs? Thirdly, we should end payments to donors to ensure they are not donating because of financial need. In other words, their financial circumstances could put them in a quandary when it comes to doing what they are doing. At a minimum, adverts must state the health risks up front and the minimum donor age must rise. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take the issue back to the Department and that the Government will act quickly to protect and prioritise young women and their health.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate at short notice from the Backbench Business Committee. I am a member of that Committee but did not take part in the decision on this debate.
As ever, the hon. Member has spoken about his concerns with eloquence and passion, statistics and attention to detail. I think we may all have found some of the things that have been said shocking and harrowing. It is important that parliamentarians air these issues, because over recent years, although steps have certainly been taken in the right direction and some of the shame around talking about fertility and reproductive health has lessened, there are undoubtedly still barriers for many women. Our Parliament sets an important example. If collectively as a society we are unable to speak about these issues, that is an obstacle to achieving better health outcomes. That must be our unifying purpose: no matter what our stance on the broader philosophical question of IVF, health outcomes should always be in our mind.
I do not oppose egg donation or IVF. Friends of mine have had very happy outcomes after having treatment, and problems before that for many years. I want to focus on women’s health and to ask the Minister about the broader view the Department holds on donors. Any woman who decides to donate her eggs should, as a minimum, know all the risks associated with the procedure. Some of the things the hon. Member outlined shows why that is so important.
Our understanding of the long-term effects of fertility drugs is totally insufficient and although there are no recent studies that draw a causal link between egg donation and cancer risk, several experts have argued that a longitudinal assessment of donor health outcomes is under-explored. No known long-term issues is totally different from there being no long-term adverse impacts.
Doctors from Cromwell hospital in the UK and doctors in the United States are just some of the medical professionals who have raised concerns over the years about anecdotal cancer cases and how little we know about cancer’s relationship with ovarian stimulations. Will the Minister note what discussions she has had with the HFEA on these issues? Will the Government commit to conducting systematic research on the medical and psychological health of donors over time? That must be tracked over a long period. I urge the Government to ramp up our understanding without further delay.
Secondly, I want to speak about last year’s decision to increase the compensation for egg donation and the impact that could have on the donor demographic. That is worth tracking, especially in the light of some of the figures that the hon. Member highlighted from across our nations. It was the first uplift since 2011, from £750 to £986, which reflected the impact of price rises.
As we all know, the cost of living over recent years has soared, placing immense pressure on so many people of all ages. My fear is that young women see this invasive procedure and the pain and discomfort it can generate as a way to help them make ends meet.
We want to have confidence that people are donating because they want to, not because they have no other option or have seen adverts that do not give them enough information about what looks like easy money. How little do they know? What information does the Department hold on the demographic of egg donors, and what impact has the rising compensation figure had on donation behaviour? I hope the House can agree that more must be done to ensure that those who wish to donate have to give full, informed consent and nothing less, and that those who make the decision to do so are not pushed into it for any reason, especially financial hardship.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many. Although his focus was on egg retrieval, he also identified the value of IVF to families across the UK. Like other Members present, I have family and friends who have struggled with fertility. The pain it causes, and the emotional toll it can take on families, is immense and harrowing to watch. Modern medicine has eased those struggles through IVF, which is remarkable and a credit to the many scientists and medical professionals who have worked tirelessly to develop it. If you do not mind, Mr Efford, I will selfishly mention my best friend Lottie and her husband Marvin. They were both IVF babies nearly 40 years ago, and two years ago they managed to have their little baby boy Luca without any fertility struggles. What a gift he is.
Sadly, there is currently a postcode lottery for IVF and fertility services, which undermines the generosity of those who donate eggs and shatters the hopes and family lives of many couples. In much of the country, couples are entitled to just one round of IVF on the NHS, while in other areas, people can receive up to three rounds. It is crucial that people can expect high-quality treatment wherever they live, rather than being priced out of having children simply because of their postcode. Can the Minister therefore set out what steps the Government are taking to reduce that inequality of access to these life-changing reproductive health services?
A specific inequality still exists for the LGBTQ+ community. In England, NHS-funded access to IVF is available only to women who have not conceived after two years of regular unprotected intercourse or 12 cycles of artificial insemination. In practice, that requires all lesbian couples to pay for artificial insemination cycles before becoming eligible for NHS-funded IVF. That is an insurmountable financial barrier for many of those couples, given that cycles can cost thousands of pounds. Although the Government’s 2022 women’s health strategy pledged to remove that requirement for lesbian couples, the roll-out of that new policy has been painfully slow. As of April 2024, only four of the 42 integrated care boards in England have implemented it. The Liberal Democrats are pushing for all integrated care boards to make that change a priority to ensure equitable access to IVF for all lesbian couples who are looking to start a family. What work is the Department undertaking to ensure that the requirement is removed across all ICBs?
It is important to recognise the immense contribution that egg donors make to the IVF process. The lives of couples and families across the country have been transformed by the generosity and support of those who donate eggs or sperm to help them have children. Becoming an egg donor is a complex decision, and as highlighted by hon. Members’ contributions, it can have lifelong implications, especially considering that donors can consent to have their eggs stored for up to 55 years, and children who were born through a donation and who have turned 18 may contact the donor. Added to that, donors must undergo rigorous medical screening. They are brave, selfless individuals who perform acts of love for family members, friends and strangers alike. It is absolutely right that eggs are donated rather than bought or sold, and that there are rigorous protections in place to ensure that.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady not think that the fact that payments are given, whether they are badged as compensation or fees, means that we cannot actually say at the moment that donations are being given for purely altruistic reasons?
Jess Brown-Fuller
That is exactly why the hon. Member for Strangford brought forward this debate, and we share his concerns that any attempt to create a market for egg donation could lead to perverse outcomes. Advertising for egg donors to come forward should reflect that, stressing the benefits to others rather than attempting to frame compensation as a primary motivation to donate. We must ensure that women donating eggs do so willingly, not out of financial necessity, and are provided with appropriate support throughout the process.
It is right that the donors clinic is required by law to offer counselling, but the Government should investigate whether additional steps are needed to ensure proper medical regulation of that counselling, beyond what is already provided by the Professional Standards Authority. Is the Minister satisfied that the Advertising Standards Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority are adequately resourced and have sufficient capacity to uphold essential regulations in this area?
I will briefly touch on an equally complex and emotionally charged topic: surrogacy and legal parenthood from the point of birth. For the sake of the child, the surrogate and the legal parents, the matter needs to be handled with great sensitivity. The Liberal Democrats believe that all potential cases regarding legal parenthood of a new baby must ensure that the wellbeing of all involved is balanced and respected. There are, understandably, concerns about financial incentives for surrogates. For example, the Law Commission found that there is a lack of clarity about what payments can be made by the intended parents to the surrogate, which makes the law difficult to apply in practice. We believe that any proposed legislation should be published and subject to scrutiny before any changes to current practice are made.
So many lives around the world have been transformed by the miracle that is IVF, but there remains much work to be done to address the inequalities in NHS provision, end the postcode lottery, and ensure that lesbian couples have access to IVF fairly. We must also ensure that donors are not unduly influenced by exploitative marketing, and we hope the Government will take action following the debate to investigate that.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing an important debate at such short notice.
IVF counts as a medical miracle, in many respects. Since the technique was pioneered in the 1970s, some 12 million babies have been born by IVF or associated procedures. In the UK, there have been more than 70,000 donor births since 1991, when we started counting egg, sperm and embryo donations. Such births now account for one in 170 live UK births. For many families and individuals, those treatments have given hope where they otherwise would have none. Those suffering from fertility problems have been able to pursue their dreams of having a family with the help of IVF, and success rates have increased over recent decades. The children born as a result of these treatments have given great joy, love and happiness to their families.
With that in mind, the previous Government committed to broadening access to these services. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, the women’s health strategy for England, published in 2022, included removing barriers to access for same-sex couples. The previous Government also changed the law so that same-sex couples would not have to go through specific infectious diseases screening before pursuing reciprocal IVF. Those measures were designed to ensure that as many as possible could enjoy safe and equal access to treatment.
In my constituency, I was approached by a lady who has medical reasons for her infertility, and is married to a gentleman who had a child many years ago in a previous relationship. She found that she was not eligible for access to IVF. If she said she had no partner, she would be eligible for a sperm donor. If she said she had a female partner, she would be eligible for a sperm donor. Since her partner, however, had a child from a previous relationship, she was not able to have treatment for her medical condition. Personally, I did not think she should be denied access to that, so I have been campaigning with the local ICB, which is currently doing a review. I hope that review is not disrupted by the changes the Government have made to ICB funding.
IVF is a highly complex procedure, with several different approaches now available to doctors and patients. One of those approaches involves an intending parent receiving donor eggs from another woman. That can be a lifeline for those who cannot use their own eggs, whether due to age, quality or other physiological factors. It relies on the generosity and selflessness of the donor women who contribute their own eggs so that others may have a chance of raising children. That process contains risk, and although we recognise the huge opportunities that IVF offers and the generosity of the donor women, we must make sure that the procedural risks, advertising and regulation are properly managed.
Typically, egg donors must be between 18 and 35, be in good health, have no inheritable conditions, and pass a variety of screening and suitability tests. Those requirements are designed to provide reassurance for intending parents, but in order to find as many potential donors as possible, many companies pursue aggressive advertising strategies to attract eligible donor women. When I first thought about this, I thought, “I haven’t seen any adverts for such a process.” Then I recognised that, of course, I am not in the target audience, because I am too old.
With social media, when we think about something, before we know it, it has appeared on our phone or another device, in the corner of the screen as an advert. I am advised by women who are of the right age that they feel they get a lot of adverts to encourage them to be egg donors—more than they would like to see. Does the Minister agree that the guidance on internet advertising in particular needs to be updated, especially in the light of the targeting of adverts at particular demographic groups? Will she commit to investigating how many women are targeted by adverts for a service that they would not consider engaging with, and ways of being able to avoid those?
There are also risks to the process. It is especially important that women know the full extent of the risks before they agree to a medical elective procedure, in particular one that is not for their own benefit. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is one of the main risks for egg donors and causes symptoms rising from mild discomfort and bloating to serious respiratory problems, renal failure and, in extreme cases, death. A 2023 review study in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics found that severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurs in 1% to 10% of stimulation cycles. That is quite a wide range of uncertainty, and it is partly why many donors have argued for more research to be done to support informed consent and proper regulation on how the risks are communicated to donors.
We have already heard in this debate about the long-term risks. Given that the HFEA will know who all the ladies who have generously given of their eggs are, does the Minister have any plans to look back at that data in an anonymized fashion to see whether any long-term health risks can be identified? Will she also talk about the steps that the Department is taking to ensure that high-quality research is accessible for those considering egg donation, and about whether companies are mandated to conduct and provide it as part of their advertising?
We have talked about compensation during the debate. Fertility companies make much of the altruism motivating donors to give their eggs, and that no doubt forms part of the reasoning of donors who admirably wish to help others less fortunate than themselves by contributing their eggs. It is also true, however, that fertility companies provide compensation payments. Those are capped at £986, a limit intended to ensure that women are not enticed to donate eggs due to financial need, but a risk remains that women more in need of financial assistance may be attracted by the payments. Recent coverage has highlighted that some services present donation as a second income stream.
Clearly, however, women who put themselves through a lengthy, often uncomfortable and potentially dangerous process in the name of helping others should not be out of pocket as a result. Getting that balance right requires careful attention. The Government must ensure that they review the compensation rates and how it is provided —as a flat sum or on receipt—to ensure that we get this right.
Beyond the financial cap, companies are also allowed to advertise benefits in kind, such as discounted egg freezing for women who donate some of their eggs to others. In essence, therefore, they are saying to ladies, “If you come to donate some of your eggs, we’ll allow you to store your own eggs for a much reduced price, in case you need them later.” Some women might see that as a reason to donate eggs—that they cannot afford to freeze their own otherwise. What are the Government doing to manage the kind of additional incentives that might encourage women to donate eggs when otherwise they would not? Does the Minister plan to regulate non-monetary incentives in the future?
Jonathan Hinder
Whatever we think about the motivations of the women involved, we can agree that private companies are concerned with profit, and they are the ones that are in many cases running such adverts. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is unethical to make profit out of the practice?
Dr Johnson
I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to companies making profit out of providing IVF services, or whether he is talking about those who profit from egg donation itself.
Dr Johnson
I think it is reasonable for companies to provide IVF as a service in the private sector, but making profit out of the specific egg donation itself is a separate issue. I agree with him on that.
Regarding other ethical issues, we must think about the longer-term impacts of egg donation and ensure that women are properly equipped to deal with them. Children born from egg donation have a legal right in the UK to contact the woman who donated the egg from which they were born, and to obtain their name, age and last known address from the HFEA. The first cohort of children with that right were able to use it only relatively recently, in 2023, so it may be too soon to know what the long-term impacts might be for the children or donors concerned, or to what extent it may affect their family relationships or emotional wellbeing. Will the Minister tell us how many children are known to have exercised that right since 2023? What is the Department’s assessment of the likely long-term impacts on those children, their families and the donors?
IVF offers a lifeline that can transform people’s lives for the better, but where women are donating eggs to others, we must make sure that they are aware of the risks, and that they are doing it for the right reasons, not because they are being enticed financially. The Government must ensure that compensation does not become financial incentivisation, that advertising is accurate and unbiased, that women’s wellbeing is put first, and that the public have the information they need to make informed choices about their bodies and their healthcare.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate on egg donation in young women. He raises a number of important points, which the Government take seriously. I absolutely assure him that there are rules and regulations around egg donation in this country. Hon. Members in this debate have talked about the potential concerns of the long-term impact of egg retrieval, and the potential incentive of the compensation offered for egg donation, particularly for young women on low incomes. I hope to address those points in my remarks.
For people who are struggling to conceive, which may be for a variety of reasons, receiving donor eggs can be life-changing—as we have heard in this debate—and enable them to start a family of their own. Donating eggs should be a purely altruistic act, and choosing to become a donor is a complex decision. In the UK, the average egg donor is between 31 and 32 years of age. That average has remained stable since records began in 1991. Egg donors are typically UK-based, with around 3% of donor eggs imported from abroad. There were around 3,800 IVF cycles using donor eggs in 2023, which is an increase from around 3,600 in 2019. Those donors support around 2,000 to 3,000 people a year who would otherwise not be able to have a baby. I recognise their generosity, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said, we also recognise that egg donation procedures come with risks, and they should not be undertaken lightly.
The HFEA ensures that licensed fertility clinics are following law and guidance in relation to egg donation. The Government agree with the point made in this debate that young women should be fully informed of any risks when making the decision to donate their eggs, and that clinics must ensure that women are fully informed and supported throughout the egg donation process. It is mandatory for clinics to provide counselling to women before egg donation to ensure that they understand all the potential risks, and legal and social implications, of donation. Donating eggs is generally very safe, and most women do not experience any health problems beyond discomfort during the stimulation of the ovaries and the egg collection procedure.
I do not want to minimise that experience of discomfort, but where women wish to donate eggs, the HFEA and the Government are committed to making it as safe and accessible as possible. In the short term, there is a potential risk of having a reaction to the fertility drugs used for the donation procedure. If that happens, the effects are normally mild, and can include headaches, nausea or feeling bloated. Donors are advised to let their clinic know if they experience any of those side effects.
In some very rare cases, as we have heard, women develop OHSS. It is a serious and potentially fatal reaction to fertility drugs, which happens about a week after eggs have been collected. Fortunately, it is rare, occurring in less than 0.1% of cycles. Because of the serious nature of OHSS, all severe or critical cases must be reported to the HFEA within 24 hours by the patient’s clinic. They are categorised by the HFEA as grade B incidents. A grade B incident involves serious harm to one person, or moderate harm to many. The HFEA’s latest “State of the fertility sector” report found that fewer OHSS incidents were reported in 2023-24, with 53 severe and critical cases reported by UK clinics.
In recent years, there has been widespread interest in donation, and figures show that the number of egg donors is rising. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), about the importance of having conversations and asking questions about the long-term impact on women’s health, which is generally an under-researched area. The Government recognise that and would welcome studies in this area. If there is anything I can add to that following this debate, I will follow up with hon. Members on the opportunities for understanding the wider long-term implications for women’s health in this area.
At the public board meeting last year, the HFEA discussed the rates of compensation offered to egg and sperm donors. Since 1 October 2024, egg donors have received £985, which is up from £750. That increase in donor compensation was the first since 2011, and reflects the rise in inflation. The compensation offered to them is intended to reflect their time and the nature of the procedure, rather than being an attempt to monetise donation in the UK.
I want to address some of the points raised by Members to do with the variability of access to fertility services more broadly. Infertility affects one in six women of reproductive age worldwide. It is a serious condition that impacts wider family, relationships and mental health, as we heard from the Liberal Democrat spokes- person, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). I congratulate her friends, Lottie and Marvin, on the arrival of their child.
This Government expect integrated care boards to commission fertility services in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. NICE is currently reviewing the fertility guidelines, and will consider whether the current recommendations for access to NHS-funded treatment are still appropriate. I look forward to the guidelines being published; we will work with integrated care boards to determine how best to improve their local offer and ensure equity of access for affected couples.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive review. I have three quick questions. First, will the Government commit to undertaking a long-term study into the long-term health outcomes of women? That is one of the things I hope to see happen when it comes to egg retrieval. Secondly, will the Government review the safety of offering £985 per donation, which is sometimes said to be compensation? Thirdly—I hope I am not pressing the Minister too hard; I am quite happy for her to come back to us on this—everyone who has participated in the debate has expressed concern about the adverts, so we are keen to hear her thoughts on banning those.
Karin Smyth
I have addressed the issue of compensation. It rose in response to inflation, for the first time since 2011. We have no further plans to start a study specifically on health. As I said in my remarks to others, we understand that broader outcomes in women’s health is an under-researched area. Bringing forward trials is the usual response. If we need to add anything else to that, I will make sure we do so, but there are no other plans currently.
Advertising is governed in this country by the Advertising Standards Authority, which issued a joint enforcement notice in 2021 with the HFEA to ensure that fertility clinics and others were aware of the advertising rules and treating customers fairly. I am afraid I cannot comment on Scotland, where I understand there has been a large advertising campaign. That is not in my ken, although it is covered by the HFEA, which is a UK-wide body, so that is a bit of a complication. If there is anything to report back on with regard to Scotland, without me stepping on devolved issues, I will make sure we do so.
I again thank hon. Members for securing the debate and acknowledging the altruism of the women who choose to donate their eggs and help to give others a much longed-for baby. I assure Members that this Government will monitor the issues raised this afternoon. Women’s health and tackling inequalities are central to the priorities that we will take forward in the 10-year plan.
Jim Shannon
I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) referred in an intervention to the advertising issue, which is really important. She talked about Scotland, as I did, but there is also advertising elsewhere that needs to be controlled.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) and I had a discussion at some length before the debate today, and the very things that she wants to see, we all wish to see. We all recognise that IVF gives potential mothers the opportunity to have a child; the joy that can bring can never be emphasised enough. However, we must ensure that all the risks involved are known beforehand. She referred in particular to ovarian cancer and egg donation.
The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) referred to the issue of compensation. When ladies give eggs as a donation, their reasons for doing so are above board. Whenever eggs are donated for compensation, which is the word that is used, unfortunately it can lead to other things as well.
I also thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for her contribution and for the example she gave, which showed the joy that having a child can bring. She referred to those who donate eggs willingly, without any financial obligations. She also talked about surrogacy, which is a different issue.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for her contribution. She brings a wealth of knowledge, through her doctorship. I also thank her for outlining all the cases that she did. She gave the example of one of her constituents, which perhaps highlighted what the issues are.
As always, I thank the Minister for taking the time to come along. My request to her is this: whenever we have a chance to look over this debate and check the Hansard report, we might have further questions, so would she be agreeable to coming back to us if we do?
It is very obvious to me that the Government recognise that there are issues that are outstanding and that must be resolved. With that in mind, I again thank all hon. Members, particularly the Minister, for their contributions, and I also thank those in the Public Gallery, who have come along to listen to our contributions today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered IVF egg donation in young women.
BBC World Service Funding
(1 day, 10 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 Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
We will start a minute or so early because, as everyone will appreciate, there are a lot of potential speakers and I want to give everyone maximum opportunity to get in. To ensure that no one is disadvantaged by our starting early, let me make it clear that I will also call those who arrive from 3.10 pm onwards.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the funding of the BBC World Service.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Earlier this afternoon, hon. Members may have heard the Prime Minister agree with me that the World Service is a crucial asset of British soft power. Therefore, the debate may be superfluous in some respects, but as we are all here I think we will carry on with it.
There are few institutions in the world that so consistently live up to the values we claim to cherish—truth, independence and freedom—as does the BBC World Service. Together with the royal family, the BBC is one of a tiny handful of British brands known by billions worldwide—and not just known, but trusted. It broadcasts in 43 languages to 400 million people a week, bringing impartial news to some of the most dangerous and controlled places on Earth. It is a beacon for those who are denied the right to free expression, and a trusted voice in a world increasingly awash with propaganda, intimidation and disinformation. It certainly strengthens our hand when we deal with tyrants worldwide. That is why it is so important to ensure its continued funding.
The World Service costs £366 million annually to reach an audience of approximately 400 million people every week—what fantastic value! Across the globe, rogue and authoritarian Governments are increasingly leveraging media to undermine free societies. We see that clearly in Hong Kong, where the Chinese state is targeting journalists who report on the Chinese state’s human rights abuses, and we have seen it in Moldova, where last year’s presidential elections were disrupted by Russian disinformation—false stories pumped on to people’s phones by hostile powers. Those dangers have been only amplified by recent cuts to American foreign spending. The Voice of America was silenced by President Trump.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to intervene on him as the MP for BBC Scotland’s headquarters. Given the context that he has talked about, does he agree that investment in the BBC World Service is in fact investment in the defence of our values and the defence of our ideals as a British nation?
Peter Prinsley
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Voice of America was established to broadcast truth and liberty into European nations darkened by fascism and Soviet oppression. When the editor of Russia Today heard that the Voice had been silenced, he said it was “awesome”, which only highlights the importance of the BBC and Britain on the global stage. We should encourage the United States to reconsider its decision and restore the funding, but we must prepare ourselves to fill the gap through the World Service. That will mean additional demands on resources.
The World Service is vital in the battle against misinformation, which is a modern fight unfamiliar to those who will recall a world where all media outlets provided trusted and verifiable facts. Misinformation, along with confused or false facts, has become one of the most pressing global threats, fuelling doubt, division and instability.
The BBC World Service excels in countering misinformation. BBC Verify and its language services are being used to rigorously fact-check. They use cutting-edge AI to rapidly tackle and neutralise viral disinformation. Only this week, we heard how AI has been used to establish a new Polish language service.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
This is an important debate. I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the positive influence of the World Service. Would he acknowledge, though, that on occasion—such as on BBC Arabic—standards have fallen below what we would expect, with former Hamas officials put forward as neutral observers? We need to ensure that, exactly as he said, the highest possible standards of international truth and credibility are maintained at the BBC.
Peter Prinsley
I thank the right hon. Member—my recent squash partner—for his intervention, I agree that we must be sure that whatever the BBC says is true; that must be the case. The BBC Arabic service—the language service—disappeared some time ago, and that is to be regretted.
In Pakistan, a video falsely claimed to show the aftermath of an Indian airstrike on Pakistani air bases. That went viral—it was viewed over 400,000 times—stoking widespread fear and heightening tensions with India over Kashmir, but actually it was mislabelled footage of the 2020 Beirut port explosion. BBC Verify debunked the claim and calmed the situation.
In 2023, a false story spread across the internet that alleged that the newly elected President of Nigeria had forged his university degree. There was anger and unrest until a report by the BBC global disinformation team revealed it to be false, which defused the situation.
Those are not isolated stories; they are part of a growing global pattern. The fight is particularly crucial in an era when young people increasingly consume news online. A few weeks ago, I visited a school in my constituency at Bury St Edmunds and asked the children how they got their news. I said, “Do you get your news online?”, and almost every hand went up. Among 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK, only the BBC can compete effectively with the online tech giants. To continue to compete effectively and divert attention from untrustworthy sources, the BBC needs the resources to excel in what a young person recently told me is called the “attention economy”. With appropriate funding for new digital content, the BBC can significantly expand its impact.
In recent weeks, our attention has undoubtedly been drawn to the middle east, particularly to Iran, and the power of the BBC’s digital reach is no clearer than through the work of BBC Persian. It recently reached over 32 million users on Instagram in just five days, despite the platform’s having been blocked by the Iranians. People were so desperate to view trusted BBC news that they risked their safety by using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to bypass Iran’s strict internet censors. Some posts achieved more than 12 million views.
When Iran restricted internet access, BBC Persian increased broadcasts from eight hours to nearly 24 hours a day and launched an emergency radio service. Despite the fact that there were no reporters on the ground, the team diligently verified information amid severe misinformation campaigns. With adequate funding, the BBC World Service always steps up during global crises, delivering a public good for the benefit of a whole country.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
What has been happening at BBC Persian over the past few weeks is a case in point, as my hon. Friend said. It has been narrating events in an accessible way and providing insights that are free from the talking points of the propaganda regime into how people in Iran really feel, and how they are experiencing the conflict. It is a public good for the world. It tackles misinformation and develops our soft power, but it also provides important human empathy in the fog of war. We must bear in mind that BBC Persian journalists and their families are being harassed and threatened here in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate their courageous work and back them with the resources that they need to continue?
Peter Prinsley
I absolutely agree. I first got into this subject when I met World Service refugee correspondents from BBC Persian and BBC News Russian at the Labour party conference. I so admired what they were doing, and it was a real inspiration for me.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office contributes £104 million a year to the World Service budget of £366 million. The BBC does an awful lot with its licence fee. I was told this week that, for the cost of a cup of coffee a week, it delivers drama, comedy and news across TV and radio, as well as one of the world’s most visited websites. However, money is tight and there are serious fears that its essential work will be chipped away.
Like many, I would describe the BBC World Service as a tool of British soft power. Remarkably, the entire Foreign Office contribution to the BBC World Service is roughly equivalent to the cost of a single F-35 jet. We lately agreed to purchase a whole lot more of those, and that was the right move because we need to boost defence in a dangerous world, but it would be a critical mistake to invest heavily in just one aspect of our security while neglecting another equally essential aspect.
Global inflation and rising costs are putting the World Service in increasing funding difficulties, and without more support there is a risk that it will lose critical technological capabilities, especially among younger audiences. Although broadcast services currently account for two thirds of the World Service’s reach and they remain crucial, the future is digital, and on digital platforms the BBC is not just competing with Russia and China but is up against Facebook, TikTok, Google and the others, so we need sustained investment. Despite all the funding challenges, BBC World Service journalists continue to bravely provide quality journalism in the most challenging circumstances, often at great personal risk. When it comes to Iran we rely heavily on the work of BBC Persian’s brave journalists who face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, threats, asset seizures and passport confiscations just for doing their jobs.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I do not in any way argue with the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the journalists of BBC Persian, who have endured appalling harassment, particularly of their families still in Tehran. It is also worth putting on the record the bravery of the journalists of Iran International, one of whom was attacked by a thug from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the streets of London, and who still endure enormous threats and intimidation.
Peter Prinsley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that remark. The World Service is ultimately about the listener. We must bear in mind, when considering the funding settlement for that service, that there are individuals living under authoritarianism whose freedom of expression is so very restricted. They rely on the World Service to provide an accurate and comprehensive global perspective. Funding the World Service is not just about serving elites; it is about earning respect abroad and safeguarding future freedom. Let us not be complacent when it comes to the funding of the BBC World Service. It is an important source of essential soft power and a way for the country to punch well above its weight on the international stage, to spread truth, to lighten the grip of totalitarianism, and in some circumstances prevent the need for us to use hard power at all. That is exactly what the Prime Minister told us this morning.
It has been said that we could not recreate the BBC World Service today if we started from scratch. There is not the political will and no one would be willing to take such a risk. If we lose the World Service, we simply will not get it back. I do not think we should take that risk. The Government were bold to increase funding for the World Service last year, but a more steady and long-term funding arrangement must be put in place to prevent what I fear will be death by a thousand cuts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak they should continue to bob so I can see that they do. If we are going to get everybody in, people will need to restrict themselves to about three minutes, but I am loath to impose a formal time limit. I call Sir John Whittingdale.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on calling the debate this afternoon, which is extremely topical, and on convening a very helpful panel to discuss the subject a couple of days ago.
The World Service has always been one of the great assets of this country. When we talk about the UK’s soft power, the BBC is right up there at the top. Its reach into some of the most troubled parts of the world is huge. We only have to reflect back on the stories of people like Terry Waite, who, when he was held hostage in Lebanon, spoke of how he relied on the BBC World Service. The service has become all the more important today, for two reasons. First is the huge spread of disinformation—what is called foreign interference and manipulation of information—being conducted by Russia and China.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned Moldova. I was there a few weeks ago and spoke to politicians there who were trying to counter a tidal wave of Russian disinformation on TikTok and Telegram channels, seeking to influence the parliamentary election coming up later this year. The same is happening in China, with independent media being closed down and huge amounts put into spreading Chinese propaganda. That is one aspect.
At the same time, the other reliable voice, which was provided by the Voice of America service, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, has been undercut by the withdrawal of funding by the US Administration. I hope that that will be reversed. At the moment, it is on hold; we are told it is under review. But having talked to some of the people involved, they are pessimistic. If Voice of America goes, it makes it all the more important that we have a trusted, reliable source of independent news.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), from a constituency neighbouring my own, is right that there have occasionally been questions about the impartiality of the World Service, as there are always likely to be. I heard the complaints about BBC Arabic, and in some cases I sympathised with them, but overall the BBC World Service is deeply trusted.
Until 2010, World Service funding came entirely from the Government. Then, as a result of pressures on public spending, the then Chancellor George Osborne decided to reduce public expenditure, and so asked the BBC to take over the funding through the licence fee. That continued until 2015, when I was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Government agreed that, although funding was still from the licence fee, the Foreign Office would provide a top-up. That is how it has remained: roughly two-thirds of funding comes from the licence fee, and roughly a third from Government.
But the World Service is now under a double squeeze. The licence fee has been frozen for a time. It is now going up again, but the BBC has had to find savings. The director general, if asked, will say, “My job is to provide value to the licence fee payer, and the truth is that most licence fee payers are unaware of, or certainly don’t listen to, the World Service.” It is a public good. It is for the good of the country. That is why he argues that the Government should take back overall responsibility for funding the World Service. That is an argument with which I have great sympathy.
I am deeply concerned that, because World Service funding from the Government counts as official development assistance and the ODA budget is under pressure, further cuts are to be made as part of the expenditure reductions currently taking place, even though there was a top-up last October. The latest letter from Jonathan Munro, director of the World Service, states,
“we have been asked to prepare for further engagement with the FCDO on the impact of the reduction in spend on ODA”.
That suggests that there may be further reductions. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will not only continue to fund the World Service at the present level but look to increase it, because the need for that has never been greater.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. In recent years, we have seen a rise in disinformation, with malign actors seeking to sow division and distrust within communities, across countries and throughout entire regions. One of the key problems with our global information ecosystem is that it takes significantly more time and effort to refute false or misleading information than it does to produce it. That is why continued funding and support for the BBC World Service is not just desirable but essential: it acts as a factual counterweight to disinformation.
There is documented evidence of states such as Russia employing trolls to spread misinformation internationally, in countries such as the UK and India, on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter. In 2020, Facebook uncovered a Russia-linked disinformation campaign run through a front organisation in Ghana. The operation used fake accounts to post about US social issues such as race, LGBT rights and celebrity culture, aiming to sow division while concealing its Russian origins. Those and similar actions are designed to accelerate societal division and encourage support for illegal and unethical activities such as the invasion of Ukraine.
In contrast, the BBC World Service shares a balanced view of international developments, delivered through news, speech and discussion, on TV, on radio and online, in 42 languages around the world. It is the world’s largest external broadcaster by reception area, language diversity and audience reach, with an average weekly audience of 450 million. It reflects and projects impartial, accurate and independent journalism. In an increasingly competitive global media environment in which authoritarian states invest heavily in state-run media, the BBC stands as a trusted voice globally.
The case for the BBC World Service is about not only the rise of disinformation but the decline of similar global news services, of which the closest in scale was Voice of America, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).
A striking example of the self-defeating nature of the cuts to such organisations and to impartial global journalism came when Persian-language reporters for Voice of America who had been on administrative leave were called back to work following the escalation of tensions after Israel’s attacks on Iran. Just days after returning, these journalists reportedly stepped outside for a cigarette break only to find themselves locked out of the building, and they were then informed that they had been dismissed. At a moment of heightened geopolitical instability, when their language skills and regional insight were more valuable than ever, the termination of their employment was not just poorly handled; it was a serious loss for factual reporting, both for the region and for the global audience.
That is precisely the role that BBC World Service continues to play. In the absence of other trusted international broadcasters, the BBC must fill the gap. If we do not, others will, and the voices that take the place of the BBC might not be platforms promoting informed and informing journalism. I trust that in her closing remarks the Minister will recognise the role of the BBC World Service and give her support to its continuing existence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for calling me to speak, and it is a pleasure to endorse so much of what has been said today in such a unified way across party boundaries.
The value of BBC broadcasting is to be measured by the risks that people are prepared to take in order to listen to it, ranging from people in occupied countries to people in totalitarian states. From occupied France in the second world war to oppressed Afghanistan today, the BBC World Service is many people’s principal lifeline to the truth. Indeed, its current reach in Afghanistan is believed to be almost a quarter of the entire population. As we have heard today, it reaches well over 400 million people worldwide, including 64 million people every week in the world’s 20 most fragile states. No political estimate can be put on this reach other than its colossal impact for good.
However, resources have not kept pace and we see the consequences in places such as Lebanon, where the Russian Sputnik radio channel now transmits on the radio frequency that was formerly used in that country by BBC Arabic, which had to be closed down after 85 years, early in 2023. By the end of that year, a Russian radio channel had taken over in Lebanon.
Indeed, Russia and China are estimated to be investing between £6 billion and £8 billion in media services across Africa, Asia and the middle east. As we have heard, deplorably, the US Agency for Global Media, which runs Voice of America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, as well as funding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting networks, has suffered huge cuts in funding and personnel. Normally, that overarching system of broadcasting by the USA would reach an estimated 427 million people. Are the gaps that will be created by these cuts going to be filled, once again, by countries hostile to western values? It goes without saying that Russia and China are both absolutely delighted with that development in the USA.
As we have also heard, two thirds of the World Service continues to be funded by the licence fee, yet it is primarily a service that benefits the interests of the Government and the nation as a whole, rather than the people who pay the licence fee being the consumers of the service. By definition, their listening in is a bonus; the World Service is meant to promote values and truth overseas.
Because of the three-minute limit for speeches, I will not be able to refer to BBC Monitoring, as I had hoped to, but it is another vital service. Both the World Service and BBC Monitoring used to be paid for by the Government. If the Government decide to pay for them in full again, they can at least put the money required towards the extra contribution of 1.5% of GDP on NATO spending, to reach a target of 5% of GDP, which they have now agreed to accept.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for not mentioning the thing he has just mentioned. [Laughter.]
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate.
I declare an interest, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the BBC, a recipient of BBC hospitality, and a former employee of the Prospect and Bectu unions, which represent some BBC staff.
The BBC World Service is the ultimate example of British soft power, having driven influence, stability and security across the world for almost a century. In our increasingly unstable world, with media polarisation and disinformation on the rise, the role of the World Service in countering hostile state narratives has never been more critical. Russia and China are spending an estimated £6 billion to £8 billion to use technology and communications as a tool for influence and disinformation in Africa, Asia and the middle east, and winning audience trust as a result. However, as the world’s most trusted international news provider, the BBC is uniquely placed to counter these forces, reaching an audience of 414 million people worldwide in 42 languages, across TV, radio and digital platforms every week. This includes 64 million people in the 20 most fragile states. It is the only international news media organisation still broadcasting inside Afghanistan, where it reaches 23% of the adult population, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) rightly pointed out.
Independent research shows that 62% of influential global users say consuming BBC content makes them perceive the UK more positively. However, its ability to reach global audiences has been hampered by previous moves to end the full grant-in-aid funding for the World Service. As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) noted, today, two thirds of the World Service’s budget is met by licence fee payers, with the remainder coming from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. With the licence fee generating 30% less income in real terms than it did in 2010, the BBC cannot ask UK licence fee payers to continue to invest in the World Service at a time when it is forced to cut UK content. That means that the BBC’s capacity to sustain coverage, influence and reach has been stretched to the limit, while that of malign state actors is increasing. Budget limitations have forced the BBC to retreat in some key parts of the world, with others taking their place, such as Russian-backed media now transmitting on the very radio frequency previously occupied by BBC Arabic in Lebanon—a point that we have heard but is worth reiterating, as it is shocking.
It is welcome that one of the first acts of this new Government was to resolve the funding crisis for 2025/26, increasing funding from the FCDO by 31%, to £137 million, enabling the BBC to maintain all of its existing language services and to provide emergency information services to those in crisis in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine for the coming year. However, enormous pressures remain, with £6 million of savings being announced for 2025/26, focused on a reduction of 130 roles. The recent spending review and BBC charter review process offer the opportunity to put the BBC World Service on a stronger footing. The Government should grab this opportunity with both hands, to meet this dangerous era with the stable and long-term funding mechanism needed to secure the World Service’s future from central Government budgets —as was the case for the first 80 years of the life of this beacon of British values around the world.
Previous cuts to the licence fee, rising costs and the need to keep pace with technology means that the World Service needs investment. A flat funding settlement in 2026 and the years covered by the spending review would leave the BBC unable to retain the breadth of its language services, diminishing its impact and influence. As the FCDO considers how it will spend its allocation from the recent spending review in the years ahead, I urge it to restore full funding for the World Service, recognising it as a beacon of truth and trusted British influence in an increasingly unstable and fragmented world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for bringing this debate today. For years, the BBC has been the trusted voice of impartiality across the globe. That reputation of trust has been hard earned. We have much to thank those journalists of days gone by, who put their lives on the line to report truth. They stood in times of danger, determined to ensure that the world knew what was happening and were giants in truth. However, with the polarisation of opinion and the politicisation of news beyond what was ever experienced, impartiality is hard won in any news network, and the BBC is no different. We used to have hard-hitting questions that struck to the heart of an issue, but now we often have “gotcha” moments for the sake of vanity rather than pursuit of truth—those moments annoy me. We see the demonisation of one nation while another is extolled, and when true statistics come to light, the correction is a line on a website. Meanwhile, reputations once destroyed are gone forever. This is a weighty burden and a power that should be carefully utilised.
I recognise the good things that the BBC do, but I want to give two examples of where they fall short and why they should be accountable for that. The concerns with the BBC are well documented, and they include its perceived impartiality. The list of top 10 donors to the BBC include the FCDO, as well as several UN agencies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Global Affairs Canada, and many others. The cynic in me, and many others like me, questions whether that might affect impartiality. I make no accusations, but if the shoe fits, wear it; in this case, if the lens needs focusing because it is blurred, correct it.
We rely on the global BBC for impartial news, and there is work to be done to restore that. I will give two examples. First, ask any member of the Jewish community whether they feel that the truth about the middle east has been related, and the response will be passionate, but also detailed, with numerous examples of times when impartiality has failed. That simply should not be the case.
Secondly, earlier in the year, the documentary, “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone”, was pulled from iPlayer after it emerged that a 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. This week, another documentary was pulled due to fears about impartiality. It will be aired elsewhere, but clearly the BBC has a real, substantiated difficulty that it must overcome. In my personal opinion, that must happen.
While there is a licence fee, there is a need to conform to the standards. The BBC must become the BBC of yesterday—the BBC that had that reputation for impartiality and for telling the truth without any of the bias that we have seen over the past year and a half. If it can again become that impartial organisation, I believe that it will be welcomed by everyone.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing the debate. He is not only an hon. Friend, but a running partner of mine.
On Tuesday, in Parliament, I had the pleasure of attending a BBC World Service panel, where we heard from the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on many things, such as how he regrets that the Government in which he served insisted that the World Service should largely be funded by the licence fee. The fee, paid exclusively by British residents, must now tenuously cover 75% of the cost of the World Service, a service designed almost entirely for an external audience, but which has huge public benefit to the British people, if not a huge British public consumption rate.
At the time we are debating this subject, Russia and China have invested up to $9 billion in informal soft power, which is quite a bit more than we spend. They do so because propaganda, often disguised as news, works. It works today, as it did in previous decades and indeed centuries. British children spend an average of 127 minutes a day on TikTok, a Chinese app, and we saw Russian propaganda influence in the elections in Poland and Moldova recently. This is not the time for Britain to draw back. I continue to salute the BBC Russian team, which I visited earlier this year with the right hon. Member for Maldon on an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit. That team counters misinformation with impartial and accurate journalism, at significant personal cost.
Our greatest tool for soft power must be brought back from the brink, because once that point is reached, it will be increasingly difficult for us to recover such international influence.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this form of soft power, the BBC World Service—in particular, the Farsi and Russian services—is a much more cost-effective way to try to create democracy and democratic change in countries than military action is?
John Slinger
Absolutely. Of course, military action would be unthinkable in those cases, but what is thinkable is the truth being promulgated through impartial media.
In that panel earlier this week, we heard, for example, that after closing the Voice of America service, the US Agency for Global Media has failed to regenerate any Iranian listenership, or the amount of Iranian listenership that it used to have, for its broadcasts covering the current Iran-Israel crisis. Presence breeds trust, and the presence of the truth, in my view, is an absolute must.
Currently reaching about 400 million people a week in 42 languages, the BBC World Service is adapting rapidly and becoming more informative, engaging and appealing to a broader audience in an incredibly competitive attention economy. Clearly, the World Service has immense potential to bring people and nations together, and I am delighted that the most recent Budget increased funding by 31%.
Despite the significant budgetary pressures on the FCDO, I wish to use all the soft power that I possess to encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to do all she can to increase funding for the World Service and provide a cast-iron guarantee into the future. This is the crucial moment. We have an opportunity to prevent a diminution in our international power, just as that soft power and our British broadcasting values of tolerance, truth and impartiality are needed most. More than ever, we need to increase and protect the funding. When those values prosper, so do the world, freedom, hope and democracy.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate.
I thought I would offer some of my experiences of listening to the BBC World Service over the years: from winning a T-shirt from David Lee Travis’s BBC Wild Service, a radio show on which I requested The Stranglers’ “Golden Brown” for my friends, including Kase the Dog, in Kibbutz Re’im in the early 1980s, to sitting in the back of a Land Rover with “UNHCR” painted on the side and listening to Live Aid while I filed my first report from rural Zambia on the Angolan border in 1985, and to countless other times on aid missions across the globe where the Beeb kept me and my colleagues connected with what was going on in the world. BBC World Service: I thank you.
Of course, it is not just about the Brits abroad; it is about the people of the world having a news service they can trust in their own languages. This is so much more important now with the Russians and the Chinese spending huge amounts to get their propaganda broadcast across the world. The BBC World Service is soft power personified, and I salute it.
In a world in which it is all too easy to block websites, shortwave broadcasting is still a thing, and we should continue to keep the Beeb on the air in as many formats as possible. It is our connection with the world, and the world’s connection with us. Long live Aunty!
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing today’s vital debate. I will come on to the concerns and risks regarding the future of the BBC World Service, but I wanted to start by saying something obvious that is not said as often as it should be in this place: the BBC World Service is not only an institution; as the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) said, for those who travel abroad, it is a constant friend. It reaches 400 million people in 43 languages every single week.
As many hon. Members have said, the biggest concern about any potential loss or downgrade of the BBC World Service is the vacuum that would leave behind. The issues in Lebanon, where the frequency was replaced by a Russian network, have also been mentioned by several hon. Members. That should be hugely concerning to us all. Lord Dubs said that
“the BBC World Service is…worth quite a few submarines in terms of the effect on the world and on our position within it”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 465.]
We need a sustainable settlement for the World Service. I recognise my hon. Friends’ points about the increase in funding by this Government, but the service needs a multi-year settlement that would ensure that there was no fuel added to potential claims that this was part of its managed decline.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket for raising the issue with the Prime Minister today, and I thank the Prime Minister for his recognition of its importance. It was a shame to hear a few jeers from Members who did not recognise the importance of its soft power, although I am relieved that we have strong cross-party support on the issue this afternoon. We are at our best as a Parliament when we speak as one voice.
I ask the Minister to ensure that there are no cuts to the World Service and to champion the importance of multi-year funding. Of course, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it would be wonderful to see it fully funded by the Government. I was interested in his comments about funding coming from the defence budget—maybe I will quote him on that at a future meeting.
The BBC World Service is more than just a luxury; it is a strategic asset for this country, and more and more vital as we face a more and more uncertain future in the world.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this debate and for his excellent speech.
Many of the points I was going to make have been raised, so I will keep this brief. It is great to have this debate and reflect on the importance of the BBC World Service and its value overseas as well as in the UK. The BBC is one of the most trusted brand names across the mass audience.
I used to work in the Foreign Office—I will say many years ago—which gave me a real appreciation of the value of the BBC World Service. As we have just heard, the World Service is mostly funded by the licence fee, but the remainder is funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Funding the continuation of this service is vital. BBC News, mostly through the World Service, reaches an audience of more than 400 million every week across the world in 43 different languages. It is not surprising that the BBC is the most widely recognised British cultural export and brand.
Recently the BBC started broadcasting on medium wave in Russia, which is a crucial opportunity for Russian people to receive impartial news from outside the country, given Russia’s clampdown on media freedom, both in country and worldwide. By funding the World Service, we continue to have strong cultural soft power across the globe through promoting democracy and neutrality in broadcasting. It is important that we protect the BBC World Service in this current climate of vast disinformation and polarisation in the media. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Lady and all those who have contributed for their self-discipline and collaboration, which has enabled us to make it through with everyone speaking. I now come to the Front-Bench speeches.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on securing this timely and important debate.
I must say it is a delight to see such unanimity of purpose across the Chamber. Clearly, there is a real will here to support the BBC World Service, which since 1932 has been Britain’s voice to the world. Today it reaches, as we have heard, an estimated 400 million people across some 59 countries, broadcasting in English and 42 other languages on TV, radio and digital.
In today’s uncertain world, the BBC World Service is essential, in not only reaching out to people across the world, but, as we heard from many, building British soft power. It also protects and defends UK citizens wherever they are. Just this week, I spoke to a colleague who currently has constituents stuck in Tehran, and that struck a note with me. As a teenager, I was in Tehran at the start of the Iranian revolution; my father was the naval attaché in the British embassy. I remember evenings when the revolutionary guard would practise shooting stray dogs in the empty lot next to our house, and the power cuts, when people could be heard shouting from the rooftops, and all the time we listened to the BBC World Service to learn what was going on—it was an essential lifeline.
However today, this vital institution is under threat, and has faced cut after cut in its budget, recently losing another £6 million. Since the domestic BBC took over funding for the World Service, the organisation has lost much of its autonomy, which has led to merged functions with centralised BBC productions in some cases. Language services were outsourced to local regions, which has exposed them to pressure from local Governments. Indeed, the Azerbaijani Government recently suspended BBC operations. Compounded by cuts to overseas development aid, this has put UK soft power in a precarious position.
In 2025, the UK fell from second to third in the global soft power index, having been leapfrogged by China. As both China and Russia pour billions into their international media organisations, the BBC World Service is unable to compete at the same level. We cannot keep undermining the BBC World Service, as the Conservatives did with their assault on the BBC. That hollowing out leaves a clear and dangerous information gap in the global media landscape.
China and Russia are pouring billions into their soft power initiatives, all too eager to fill that gap with disinformation and propaganda. They clearly see the value in it—and so should we. The BBC World Service is essential in building and maintaining British soft power and influence, and it requires proper funding. There is a desperate need for unbiased, impartial and fact-based reporting in today’s global information ecosystem.
The World Service must now rise again to meet its historic aim: to inform people around the world with clarity, accuracy and integrity—to be a torch shining a light on truth globally. If we are to preserve the UK’s world-leading global image, standing tall on the world stage, we must revitalise the BBC World Service and invest properly in its upkeep. The Liberal Democrats believe that Britain must stand as a strong voice on the world stage. We must invest an additional £100 million of Foreign Office funds in the World Service. That would help to restore its global reach and give it the certainty of consistent funding to secure its long-term stability.
We need action now. Will the Government commit today to reversing those damaging cuts? Will they guarantee the extra £100 million needed to restore the BBC World Service to its rightful place as Britain’s premier soft power tool? Will they ensure that short-term savings will not undermine our long-term global influence? The world is watching; Britain’s voice must not be silenced. The time for half-measures is over.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate and thank him for his powerful words supporting the BBC World Service. I think he speaks for most hon. Members of the House—in fact, I am struck by how many speeches I have heard that we all agree with. There is a consensus in this Chamber that the BBC World Service is such an important tool for soft power. I know that everyone has spoken with passion, and it is important that we ensure that it not only survives, but thrives and continues to play an important role around the world, because so many people depend on the BBC World Service.
As its name suggests, the World Service is not merely a broadcaster that serves the United Kingdom’s purposes; to some, it is a lifeline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned Terry Waite. That was an example when the BBC World Service was a lifeline to someone who was in a very difficult position. Many people around the world depend on that voice of truth, reason and liberty, and that is what the BBC World Service provides, away from so many state-controlled media organisations that promote propaganda and misinformation, which are sadly on the rise today.
It is said that power falls into three categories: military power, economic power and soft power. It is British soft power—our cultural influence, our values and our institutions, not least our monarchy, which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned —that has long distinguished the United Kingdom on the global stage. The vehicle at the heart of that soft power and influence is the British Broadcasting Corporation World Service.
In 2011, when I was a relatively new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we stated unequivocally that the World Service is a key component of Britain’s soft power. The FAC recognised its invaluable work in
“providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism”
to many countries. We said then, as I will say now, that its value far outweighs its “relatively small cost”.
As we have heard, the service reaches an audience of more than 320 million people each week. It broadcasts in 42 languages and has a profound impact on some of the world’s most repressive regimes. In Iran, 13.5 million rely on the BBC World Service; in Afghanistan, it is 4.9 million; and in Russia, it is more than 2 million. Yet today, this institution is under increasing financial strain.
This year alone, the BBC World Service has announced 130 job losses, seeking to save just £6 million—a tiny sum, measured against the service’s global influence. Meanwhile, its total deficit is expected to rise to nearly £500 million next year. There is a serious risk that the core language services, such as those that serve Iran, Sudan and Myanmar, could face cuts or be scaled back when they are most needed, so we must ensure that does not happen. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard clear evidence only in November that cuts to the BBC Arabic and Persian radio services have created dangerous vacuums, which are being filled by hostile, state-backed propaganda, including Russian-backed media in places such as Lebanon. What assessment have the Government made of the consequences of the cuts, and how do they intend to respond to the risk of allowing trusted UK-backed voices to go silent in those critical regions?
To address those issues, the BBC has called for the Government to fund the rise to £200 million as part of a three-year settlement. In the longer term, it is proposed that the Government assume nearly all of the £400 million budget after 2027. The Foreign Affairs Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the International Development Committee have echoed the calls for long-term financial certainty.
Lord Collins has indicated that a decision will be taken as part of the Government’s 2025 spending review. However, the FCDO’s own efficiency plans, published alongside this month’s review, exclude the BBC World Service from projected savings, citing uncertainty around the transition of the ODA budget to 0.3% of GNI by 2027. The Minister needs to address that concern in her remarks. I therefore say to her: have the Government set any efficiency targets for the World Service? Can she clarify what scale of reduction in direct grant funding is being considered as part of this transition?
I often discuss the wider debate about the BBC’s domestic funding with my constituents in Romford, and I am sure all hon. Members have similar discussions. I would welcome having that discussion in this House too, but the World Service is different; it stands apart. It is not a domestic broadcaster—it reaches all parts of the world—so it cannot be lumped together with the BBC’s domestic broadcasting. The World Service needs clarity and certainty if it is to continue its vital work across the globe.
One proposal raised during the FAC’s oral evidence session is for a clearer funding distinction. English-language services should continue under the licence fee, while language services should receive dedicated Government grant in aid. Do the Government support that proposal? If so, would the Minister consider, as suggested by the former director of the World Service, Jamie Angus, allowing parliamentarians to oversee and scrutinise the work of the BBC World Service?
The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised the strategic importance of the BBC World Service and took meaningful steps to support it. The £20 million boost announced in the 2023 integrated review helped to safeguard all 42 language services through to the end of 2025. That followed earlier, targeted injections of £4.1 million in 2022 and £8 million in 2021, designed to counter disinformation and expand digital engagement. Those were timely and effective interventions, which strengthened the World Service when it was most needed, but what is now required is a long-term, sustainable funding settlement that builds on that solid foundation.
Funding is not the only challenge. Modernisation must go hand in hand with financial stability to ensure that the product is viable for the future. Is the BBC doing enough to engage younger, digitally native audiences across the world? Can it continue to evolve while maintaining the editorial depth and credibility for which it is rightly respected? Do the Government have confidence that the current digital strategy is sufficiently robust to meet the demands of this new age?
On the other hand, radio remains vital in many regions, particularly where internet access is limited or non-existent. Do the Government acknowledge the ongoing strategic value of traditional radio services, and will they ensure that they are not sacrificed prematurely in the rush towards digital-only broadcasting?
There is also the question of political neutrality, which is one of the BBC World Service’s greatest strengths—I hope; it is not always the case in the UK, but I hope it is the case with the BBC World Service. Its global reputation rests on its independence. It must never speak for any Government, but it should, proudly and without hesitation, reflect the values, culture and identity of the United Kingdom. That does not mean becoming a mouthpiece for Westminster, but neither should it shy away from showcasing our constitutional monarchy, our democratic institutions or our national symbols—the Union flag or the national anthem.
There is a balance to be struck, and I ask the Minister what representations the Government are making to the current BBC leadership to ensure that balance is struck. Alarmingly, the 2025 global soft power index shows that the UK has fallen to third place, behind China for the first time. Following the announcement of the Soft Power Council by the Foreign Secretary and the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary earlier this year, will the Minister tell us what role the council sees for the World Service in its work? What progress has been made to date, or has the initiative been quietly set aside?
The British Isles, Great Britain, England, the United Kingdom—however the world sees us—have always been more than just a geographical place on the map. We have been an idea, forged through sacrifice and struggle, to uphold something unparalleled: a set of values, rich in customs, traditions and ceremony; a way of life that millions admire across the globe. The BBC World Service projects that very idea further and more effectively than any embassy, high commission, foreign aid programme or Minister ever could. If we allow the World Service to become a casualty of bureaucratic inertia or short-term budget trimming, it will be not Britain’s voice that falls silent, but the voice of reason, truth and liberty, in places where those things are in short supply.
As the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, once stated, the BBC World Service is
“possibly Britain’s greatest gift to the world”.
That gift has never been more needed. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I urge the Government to ensure that it remains the gift that keeps on giving to peoples around the world, in every continent, who look to Britain as a beacon of freedom, a nation that always upholds liberty, and one that will stop at nothing to defend the right of free speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, for what I think is the first time in Westminster Hall. I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate. It has been a really good debate, with lots of consensus across all parts of the Chamber, and I will do my best to respond to the points raised. As we are not at the exact moment of decision making, I am sure that if there are further representations to be made or particular points that remain unanswered, we will have a further opportunity to fine-tune those in the coming weeks.
Few institutions command the respect and admiration that the BBC World Service does, and I have seen that up close. I have had the privilege of visiting the World Service both as an Opposition MP and in my current role; and when I was a student in China, it was my constant friend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) described how it was a very big part of his life as well. Each time, I have come away not just more fond of the BBC World Service, but struck by its professionalism, reach and impact. That impact is rooted in its independence, which is key to its success and one of the reasons it is the world’s most trusted global broadcaster.
That is why the BBC World Service is a vital part of the UK’s soft power, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) said so eloquently in her speech. It does not just reflect the UK to the world; it builds trust in our values through high-quality, impartial journalism. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) really supporting the role of journalists, who do such a difficult job and are so brave. I was aware three or four years ago of the journalists in the Persian service, who are under tremendous pressure. The right hon. Member for Maldon told us of an awful example of transnational repression on the streets of London, and that is just appalling. I know that from this House we all want to thank the journalists who do that important work day by day, even though their livelihoods, their lives and the lives of their families are at risk.
As the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, I was particularly moved by the World Service’s response to the devastating earthquake in Myanmar. In a country with exceptionally low media freedom, the BBC scaled up its output and dramatically increased its reach. It provided accurate, timely information in a moment of crisis. That is the BBC at its best and it is not the only example. Let us take BBC Persian, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead and by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who, by the way, represents the home of BBC Scotland. BBC Persian has been operating for over 80 years, with more people than ever relying on it in a time of uncertainty. Some of you may have heard just this morning on the “Today” programme Lyse Doucet’s report, in which she mentioned the different restrictions that there are today on reporting on the important elements of conflict that are ongoing in Iran. She mentioned the particular restrictions that there always are on the BBC. I thought that was a very timely mention, given today’s debate.
There is also the work of BBC Verify, which works in partnership with the World Service. As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), said, there are so many competing channels now, which is why BBC Verify plays such an important role. I saw that at first hand on my recent visit to Broadcasting House. Due to the widespread use of mobile phones throughout the world, we see so many different videos all at the same time and sometimes with conflicting messages. That is why it is so important that we have the work of BBC Verify and the journalists who do it. During recent tensions between India and Pakistan, the BBC exposed viral videos as old footage, cutting through misinformation when that mattered most.
There are not just international audiences. Here in the UK, 500,000 people tune in to the BBC’s Urdu service. There are also the emergency, pop-up services. In Syria, the BBC launched a service just five days after the fall of Assad. That speaks to the issue of the Arabic service, which many have mentioned this afternoon. I think what we saw there was the closing of a licence and other providers stepping in. That represents a very important message for decision makers, as we approach funding over the next few years, about how we ensure that something like that does not reoccur, but that we protect the vital ecosystems of the BBC World Service and do not allow other providers to come in on top.
The Gaza service reaches 700,000 people each week, also in an environment where it is very difficult for journalists to enter, and, in Sudan, the Lifeline radio service reopened in March, responding to humanitarian need. These services are often the only way for people to gain access to accurate information in times of crisis. That is why this Government value the BBC World Service and are helping it to deliver strongly on its goals.
Despite a tight fiscal context, the FCDO provided a funding uplift of £32.6 million this financial year. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for recognising that increase, and recognising the difference that a new Government can make—the window that one has to really make a difference. That uplift takes the FCDO’s total contribution to £137 million, enabling the BBC to modernise and innovate.
Just this week, the BBC launched its newest service, an AI-driven pilot in Polish, with our beloved Tomasz Schafernaker, the meteorologist we all listen to in order to hear whether we can leave our washing out, or need to water the pot plants before we come to Westminster for a few days. Here he was, both in Polish and in English, doing the news. This is what we have with the BBC’s Polish service: the first new language service since 2017, delivering news in text and video across digital platforms, including Facebook and Instagram—a vision of modernity.
Audience surveys consistently show that the World Service is the most trusted international news broadcaster. That trust is built by relentlessly exercising accuracy, impartiality and fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) emphasised that point, particularly in relation to BBC Arabic and how difficult it is to replicate it after it was defunded by the former Government.
We recognise the concerns raised about future funding. The World Service’s grant in aid funding for the next three years will be decided through the FCDO’s budget process up to 2028-29, but our focus is not just on the short term. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow made the important point about multi-year funding, which allows an organisation to modernise and innovate because it can see through to the medium-to-long term.
We believe that the upcoming BBC charter review is the right moment to look at potential future World Service funding mechanisms for the longer term, and potentially bring in some of the other funding suggestions that have been made in this debate but are not formal yet. That will ensure that the BBC can continue to reflect the UK’s culture and values—so eloquently described by the Opposition spokesman—to the world, through high-quality, trusted journalism.
The BBC World Service is not just a broadcaster; it boosts UK soft power, promotes the UK and our values, exposes disinformation, supports our creative industries and provides critical safety and security information in conflict zones. It is trusted, agile and essential. The Government are very proud to support it, and we will continue to do so.
Peter Prinsley
I thank all hon. Members who have come here this afternoon for what I think has been a very interesting debate. It strikes me that there is more or less universal support for what is, I hope, a universal service. I was pleased that there was an increase of £32 million in the grant this year; I do not know whether that has anything to do with an interaction I had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the Labour party conference.
I went to an event put on by the BBC and listened to Katya Adler and some of the journalists there, and I was very moved by it, so I stood and asked a question about the £100 million cost of an F-35 jet, which seemed to me to be the same as the funding given by the Foreign Office to the BBC. I stood up and asked, “Do you think that we’d be better off with one more F-35, or should we just look after the BBC?”
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I were in a coffee queue about an hour later, and he asked me whether I was enjoying the conference. I said, “Well, I was.” I explained about what happened, and he said, “Oh, dear. This conference is working very well, because you’ve just been to the BBC and they’ve just told you their story. Now, you’ve just told me that, and now I shall have to give them some more money.” I am hoping that Parliament continues to work in that way, but I agree that we need to have a long-term funding solution for what is one of our most precious resources. I thank everyone very much for coming this afternoon.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have finished early, so now everyone can get into more coffee queues with Ministers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the funding of the BBC World Service.
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Downie
My constituent, Nicola Smith, works for NHS Fife. Like many people across the country, she is not paid on the same date each month. This leads to incorrect calculations for her husband Steven’s universal credit, often leaving the family without a payment or being sanctioned before the system catches up the following month, and I am aware of thousands of others in a similar position. What reassurance can the Minister provide that he is addressing these issues, ensuring smooth and fair payment for NHS workers and their families on universal credit, and will he meet me to discuss this issue in more detail?
Sir Stephen Timms
We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and all 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.
[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 822.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms):
Sir Stephen Timms
We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.
UK Trade Strategy
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I am pleased to announce that today, 26 June, the Department of Business and Trade has published the UK’s trade strategy, setting out the Government’s plan to maximise trade opportunities to support growth.
Following the publication of the Government’s industrial strategy on Monday, 23 June, which catalyses 10 years of sustained economic growth in our most important sectors and their supply chains and workforces, the trade strategy positions the UK to address the international environment and to be a key influencer on the world stage using free trade, while also reflecting the needs of British businesses in a changing world.
This Government were elected to deliver our plan for change, and, in doing so, to improve the lives of working people and strengthen our country. This included a clear manifesto commitment to publish a strategy that would set out our response to the changing trading environment. This strategy follows our landmark deal with India, the UK-US economic prosperity deal and resetting our relationship with the EU—all of which have been achieved in the first year of the Government.
Having engaged extensively with business, the UK trade strategy is rooted in data and seeks to reflect not only the changing character of the UK economy, but the challenging geoeconomic and geopolitical context of the coming decade. Our trade strategy acknowledges that the structures that we have relied on to be a successful open economy need to adapt to accommodate the changing global trading environment.
Global trade is entering a new era of turbulence, with geopolitical tensions, geoeconomic challenges and technological disruption reshaping the international order. We are witnessing a rise in protectionism, supply chain vulnerabilities and challenges to the multilateral system.
All of these factors necessitate a fresh approach to trade policy. As a services superpower, the UK stands uniquely poised to thrive amid these challenges.
Our trade strategy sets out our prioritisation of markets that present the biggest opportunity to UK businesses, encouraging the use of our varied range of trade policy tools. This will be supported by the new Ricardo fund to help UK regulators remove regulatory barriers for businesses trading abroad.
The trade strategy strengthens our business support, with a particular focus on simplifying and digitalising border processes and introducing measures to protect businesses against economic pressure by strengthening our approach to trade defence: making our trade remedies system more accessible, assertive and agile; reviewing our trade defence instruments; and ensuring businesses are supported by establishing an economic security advisory service.
Finally, the trade strategy outlines how it goes hand-in-hand with our wider Government objectives such as our support to developing countries and our environmental commitments.
[HCWS740]
Public Procurement Consultation: Growing British Industry, Jobs and Skills
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
I am pleased to announce that the Government are today publishing a consultation outlining our plans for further reforms to public procurement aimed at strengthening British industry, creating jobs and enhancing skills, building on the publication of the industrial strategy White Paper this week. This consultation is intended to inform the development of primary legislation when parliamentary time allows.
In these times of global economic uncertainty, public procurement has a crucial role to play in boosting domestic competitiveness and strengthening British businesses. With £385 billion spent annually on goods, works and services, procurement is a powerful tool for national renewal, allowing local communities to benefit from investments in skills and access to quality jobs.
This consultation builds on the Procurement Act 2023, aligns with our new national procurement policy statement, and will help deliver the Government’s industrial strategy. We will maximise value for money and enhance the UK’s economic resilience. Strategic use of our procurement spend will protect supply chains, create new opportunities for local small businesses and generate meaningful jobs, delivering better outcomes for taxpayers.
These reforms will put public procurement in the service of the people, empowering British businesses, supporting social enterprise, safeguarding our national interests and addressing today’s challenges, while fostering a fairer and more prosperous future for all.
Through this consultation, the Government are seeking the views of businesses, stakeholders and parliamentarians, to inform the ongoing development of our public procurement reforms and ensure that they deliver for people and communities across the UK. I welcome your analysis and insights, as well as the perspectives of businesses and individuals in your constituencies. The consultation is now live on gov.uk and will remain open until 5 September 2025.
[HCWS744]
Society Lotteries Sales Limits and Prize Draws
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister for Gambling and Heritage, my noble Friend Baroness Twycross:
Today I am updating the House on the Government position on the statutory limits for society lotteries and on prize draws. Alongside this, I am publishing independent research that the Government commissioned on both the lotteries and prize draw markets.
Society lotteries provide valuable funding for good causes across the country and are required to give a minimum of 20% of proceeds to good causes. The latest data showed record sales for the society lottery sector of over £1 billion in 2023-24, an increase of nearly 12% on the previous year, of which £462 million went to good causes.
In 2020, the then Government increased the annual sales limit on society lotteries from £10 million to £50 million, in response to the challenges that many society lottery operators were facing to operate within the limit. Those reforms were intended to support the society lottery sector as a whole by providing significant headroom for further growth.
In December 2023, the previous Government committed to commissioning independent research to look at the scale of the society lotteries sector, the relationship between society lotteries and the National Lottery, and the impact of any future changes to the sales limit.
The report, published here, found that five operators now have annual sales over the previous £10 million limit, with the current annual sales limit of £50 million only impacting one operator, the People’s Postcode Lottery.
The research found that the current sales and prize limits on society lotteries are not a barrier to society lottery sector growth. Overall sector sales have increased by 27% from 2019-20 to 2023-24, and PPL sales by almost 30% over a similar period. Despite this significant level of growth, there has not been a corresponding growth in returns to good causes. Since 2021, sector prizes have increased by nearly 28%, and expenses by over 25%, but returns to good causes have grown by only 15%.
The research also found that increasing the annual sales limit to £100 million could have several impacts on the National Lottery, with:
a decrease in participation, with players being displaced to society lotteries (National Lottery sales could fall by between £25 million and £148 million); and
less money for National Lottery-funded good causes, which provide a vital source of income to lottery distributor bodies.
The research also found that there was a potential for an overall increase in funding to good causes, driven by higher returns to good causes by society lotteries outweighing losses to the National Lottery.
The Government want a lotteries sector centred on one national lottery—the National Lottery—while continuing to support the hundreds of wider society lotteries that exist. This model has worked successfully for the past 30 years and created the conditions for the National Lottery to flourish and support life-changing projects, alongside a thriving society lotteries sector.
Since it started, the National Lottery has raised over £50 billion for good causes, raising over £1.8 billion in 2023-24 alone. It supports communities in every UK postcode, including local initiatives, heritage sites, iconic institutions, grassroots sport and elite sport. It is a national institution that the Government are proud of and want to protect.
As the research sets out potential negative impacts of increasing the society lotteries limits on the National Lottery, and the current transition to the fourth national lottery licence, the Government have taken the decision not to make further changes to society lottery limits at this time.
Prize draws
I am also updating the House on the Government’s position on prize draws, which is recognised as a significant and growing market. This Government have made it clear that we want people who participate in prize draws to be confident that proportionate protections are in place.
Prize draws and competitions, also known as “free draws”, are products where the outcome, and therefore the allocation of prizes, is determined by chance, and where there is both a paid and free entry route for players to choose between. These prize draws do not currently require a licence under the Gambling Act 2005 because they offer a free entry route. Prize draws are a significant and growing market. It is estimated that the UK prize draw market is worth £1.3 billion annually, with 7.4 million adult participants and over 400 operators.
I am therefore pleased to announce that we will be introducing a voluntary code for prize draw operators later this year. This code will help provide a uniform approach across the sector to strengthen player protections, increase transparency and improve accountability of prize draw operators. My Department has worked closely with the sector over the past six months to start to develop this code. The work is also underpinned by the results of independent research, which the then Government commissioned in 2023, which looked at this growing market. I am grateful to London Economics for this excellent report, which for the first time gives some firm insights into this relatively new sector.
This approach allows us to take swift action collectively with the sector. Although prize draw operators do not currently require a licence under the Gambling Act 2005, as they offer a free entry route, the success of this code will dictate whether this Government decide to take further action, including legislation.
[HCWS743]
Higher Education Regulation Information
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
One of our country’s proudest achievements is our world-leading higher education sector, which expands horizons, fosters research breakthroughs and promotes rigorous academic enquiry. Our universities and higher education providers must be supported to continue in their transformative work.
In January, I set out for the House my commitment to protecting the rights of academic staff, external speakers and students to explore and express new ideas, and my intention to implement, amend and repeal elements of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 in order to make it workable. In that announcement, I also stated my intention to publish a policy paper that would set out my proposals in more detail.
I am therefore pleased to inform the House that the technical policy paper, “The future of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023”, has been published today. The paper details the future of each provision in the Act, with additional detail and information on the rationale for my decisions.
The policy paper will ensure that the sector has full clarity on the provisions I commenced on 28 April, which will come into force from 1 August 2025, and on the remaining provisions that will either be repealed or amended via primary legislation as soon as the Government have identified a suitable legislative vehicle. The paper also provides further reasoning on my decision to keep the overseas funding measures under review until later this year.
[HCWS741]
Xlinks Morocco-UK Power Project
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the Prime Minister’s five defining missions of this Government.
The mission is made up of two pillars: to deliver clean power by 2030 and to accelerate to net zero. The mission focuses on the long-term challenges we face and seeks to capitalise on the huge growth and energy security opportunities that our net zero transition can bring.
Successful delivery of the mission and its objectives will be a shared endeavour requiring extensive engagement and investment from citizens, business and industry. As part of this we have been considering the Xlinks Morocco-UK power project—a private sector-led proposal —to supply clean power to Great Britain via subsea HVDC cables.
Xlinks approached Government requesting support for the project, including a bilaterally negotiated 25-year contract for difference under section 10 of the Energy Act 2013, that would guarantee a set price per MWh of electricity supplied for the life of the contract.
A team of officials within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has engaged with Xlinks closely to understand the details of the proposal and has been working across Government to evaluate the viability and merits of the project. This evaluation has considered if and how the project could support the Government’s strategic objectives and the risks which could impact its successful delivery.
The Government have concluded that it is not in the UK national interest at this time to continue further consideration of support for the Morocco-UK power project.
The Government have concluded the project does not clearly align strategically with the Government’s mission to build home-grown power here in the UK.
This would be a first-of-a-kind mega-project with a high level of inherent, cumulative risk—delivery, operational, and security). We acknowledge Xlinks’ excellent work in trying to mitigate these risks where possible but, nevertheless, this remains a factor in decision making.
Ultimately, we have determined that we should focus our attention on stronger alternative options to meet the Government’s plans to decarbonise the power sector and accelerate to net zero at the least risk to billpayers and taxpayers.
The Government also believe that domestic alternatives can see greater economic benefits, whether that through jobs or supply chains.
The Government would like to put on record our thanks to Xlinks and its team for their innovative proposal and their constructive and patient engagement with my Department.
The Government are grateful to the Kingdom of Morocco for its willingness to consider this innovative, first-of-a-kind project, and for the assistance its Ministries have provided my Department over the course of this evaluation. The United Kingdom is committed to further strengthening our partnership and sees Morocco as an increasingly vital trade and investment partner for the UK. Earlier this month, the UK and Morocco entered into an enhanced strategic partnership which saw the Foreign Secretary visit Morocco to sign a series of agreements covering trade, green growth, and security.
The United Kingdom believes Morocco to be an attractive and innovative investment destination and is a key strategic partner for the United Kingdom in the areas of clean energy, decarbonisation, and tackling climate change. UK companies, supported by the UK Government, are looking to increase their investment in the Kingdom. The Government’s decision regarding the Xlinks Morocco-UK power project is not, nor is it indicative of, a reflection or judgment upon the Kingdom of Morocco as either a strategic partner or as a place to do business by the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom is proud to work with Morocco as a breakthrough agenda partner, where the United Kingdom and Morocco co-lead the power workstream, and to continue supporting its ambitious renewable energy targets through the COP26 Energy Transition Council. The United Kingdom looks forward to identifying and developing new avenues for co-operation in these exciting, and increasingly significant, sectors with the Kingdom of Morocco in the future.
[HCWS745]
Gavi: UK Support 2026 to 2030
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development, Latin America and Caribbean (the right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington) has today made the following statement:
I wish to inform the House that the Government have pledged new support to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. This announcement was made at the global summit on health and prosperity through immunisation in Brussels on 25 June, reaffirming this Government’s commitment to multilateral efforts on global health.
As Gavi’s inaugural board chair, Nelson Mandela, noted over 20 years ago,
“Life or death for a young child too often depends on whether he or she is born in a country where vaccines are available”.
While we have made remarkable progress in correcting for these inequities, the job is still not done. More than 5 million children under five still die each year from preventable causes, including vaccine-preventable diseases.
The UK Government were proud to have supported the creation of Gavi, which, since its inception in 2000, has enabled the vaccination of over 1 billion children, saving an estimated 18 million lives. Today, we are proud to invest alongside others in the sustained efforts to support every child to have a fairer start in life.
The UK will invest £1.25 billion over five years, from 2026 to 2030, in support of Gavi’s mission. This will support the immunisation of 62.5 million children, saving around 1.25 million lives. But it is not just because this investment is pursuing an obvious good that we invest. We also make this commitment as Gavi remains a vital partner in delivering our ambition for a safer and more prosperous world. The threats we face are evolving. Covid-19 taught us that diseases do not respect borders, and with anti-microbial resistance already contributing to rising mortality, the link between national and global health security has never been clearer. Gavi supports UK public health—and therefore protects the NHS—by preventing disease. Gavi prevents disease both through routine immunisation and through global stockpiles of vaccines to respond to outbreaks, such as Ebola or cholera, in order to prevent these diseases reaching our shores.
Gavi works directly with UK pharmaceutical companies to develop and manufacture vaccines, such as the MenFive vaccine against meningitis and the RTS, S and R21 vaccines against malaria. This investment in the UK’s science sector supports economic growth and job creation, putting money in the pockets of British people.
As the UK pursues a modern approach to development, Gavi must also continue to deliver on its model of partnership, not paternalism. In the last 25 years, 19 countries have successfully transitioned from Gavi support to fully self-finance their immunisation programmes, and some have themselves become Gavi donors. But there is more to be done.
Multilateral health organisations must go further to maximise impact. This means putting country needs at the heart of the future approach. It requires simplifying processes, working more closely together, and strengthening national health systems to deliver. The multilateral system must help countries to take the lead in delivering universal health coverage and to accelerate the move to funding their own systems.
[HCWS746]
Legal Aid Agency Cyber-security Incident: Temporary Operational Changes
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
In my statement to the House of 19 May 2025 on the cyber-security incident affecting the Legal Aid Agency’s digital platforms, I said that I would provide a written update to the House in due course.
I therefore want to inform the House that the Ministry of Justice has introduced secondary legislation to make temporary operational changes until these contingency arrangements are no longer needed.
Contingency to date
As I outlined in my statement on 19 May, we have already put in place a number of contingency measures following the incident. In particular, the LAA has set up an incident webpage, with contingencies guidance and frequently asked questions, this is updated daily. The LAA has also set up a telephone helpline for members of the public who are concerned they may have been affected by the data breach.
In terms of contingency measures, the LAA has:
set up an average payment scheme for legal aid providers for civil legal aid cases;
resumed payments to providers on criminal legal aid cases;
put in place processes for urgent civil legal aid application approvals;
resumed processing criminal legal aid applications for the Crown Court; and
confirmed that criminal legal aid applications made in this time will be backdated.
Why is this statutory instrument necessary?
We now need to go further by making some operational changes to ensure the LAA’s business continuity because some LAA digital services, especially those covering civil legal aid, remain offline. Therefore, earlier today, I laid before Parliament “The Criminal and Civil Legal Aid (Amendment) Regulations 2025” (the Statutory Instrument (SI) and accompanying explanatory memorandum are available at legislation.gov.uk). These regulations come into force on 27 June 2025. This SI makes amendments to ensure business continuity for a temporary period until these changes are no longer required.
The intention is to make operational changes to ensure LAA caseworkers can continue to process high-profile, and contentious matters. To enable this, delegations to providers will be extended to carry out certain functions. While this delegation does not require legislation, the SI makes necessary changes to regulations to enable providers to undertake certain work during this period.
These legislative amendments together with some delegation to providers, enables business continuity and ensures the Lord Chancellor is fulfilling her obligations under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to make legal aid services available in accordance with the Act. It ensures continuity for both legal aid providers and clients, and maintains access to justice. The measures are designed to ensure these important obligations are met and maintain system stability until digital operations can be restored. In doing so, we are mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer: proportionate cost controls and assurance mechanisms are in place to manage financial and fraud risks.
The SI will, for a temporary period:
waive civil legal aid income and capital contributions for new and existing cases;
remove prohibitions on delegation of powers to enable the Director of Legal Aid Casework (DLAC) to delegate some additional decisions regarding civil legal aid determinations to legal aid providers; and
make some minor and consequential amendments relating to criminal legal aid determinations which supports other measures being taken as business continuity arrangements.
The above changes contained in the SI will be complemented by changes to the legal aid tables of delegated authorities, issued by the DLAC through a non-legislative process.
Criminal legal aid
For criminal legal aid, the practical effect of this package, that is, the SI and the consequential changes, will be to delegate to providers various DLAC functions, in particular:
the power to issue representation orders, and complete related means and merits assessments, for some criminal proceedings in the magistrates’ court where the client is passported, unemployed or under 18; and
the power to withdraw representation orders for the magistrates’ court under certain circumstances.
In criminal legal aid, there is also a provision to ensure providers will be paid for any work conducted on behalf of new clients where they have not been able to properly submit an application to the LAA since some systems first went down on 7 May 2025.
Civil legal aid
For civil legal aid, the effect of the SI package will be to waive both income and capital contributions from clients, and remove the prohibition on delegation to providers of certain functions. The DLAC will then delegate to civil legal aid providers the ability to:
amend substantive determinations for Licensed Work up to a certain limit;
make determinations in respect of certain proceedings which are related to those for which a determination has already been made by the LAA; and
withdraw non-contentious determinations on legal aid funding where: the services made available by the determination have been provided; the proceedings to which the determination relates have been concluded; the individual consents; or the individual has died.
For licensed work, where legal representation in court is needed, the LAA, acting under delegated powers, usually determines eligibility and is also typically responsible for taking decisions in relation to the potential amendment of the determination as well as its possible withdrawal, subject to the circumstances of the case.
In relation to civil legal aid contributions, there is a transitional provision which will act as a deterrent to individuals who already have civil legal aid, from stopping instructions to their solicitors to seek a refund of any contributions already paid, then making a new application for the same case under the more favourable terms provided for under this SI.
The DLAC will also be required to withdraw, rather than revoke, any emergency representation determination where the individual does not subsequently pass the means test.
The distinction between revocation and withdrawal is broadly as follows: when the LAA revokes the funding certificate, any legal aid funds paid to the provider for work undertaken in the case would be reclaimed from the individual; in contrast, when the LAA withdraws the funding certificate, legal aid funding ceases from that point and the individual faces no liability to the LAA for the legal aid costs incurred in the case.
I want to reassure the House that we are continuing to work hard on stabilising the LAA’s systems, and we have put in place these contingency plans, and those set out in the LAA’s published guidance, which is regularly updated, to ensure that those most in need of legal aid can continue to access the help that they need. We have engaged with legal aid representative bodies on these contingency plans and will continue to do so.
[HCWS743]
Food Allergens
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following recent reports of a restaurant serving a meal containing nuts to a severely allergic customer in Stoke-on-Trent, what plans they have to promote information on allergens in England and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Food Standards Agency works with businesses and consumers across England, Wales and Northern Ireland to improve allergen management and information, including offering free training and running awareness campaigns. It has recently published new guidance to help people with allergies eat out safely. The guidance sets out how businesses can provide clear allergen information, encourage communication about allergens between staff and consumers, and ensure that a consumer with allergies receives the right meal.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
Too many food-allergic customers are still being put at risk when eating out or ordering food from an online platform. New research by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation has found that more than a quarter—26%—of young adults have had, or know someone who has had, an allergic reaction to takeaway food. I understand that the Food Standards Agency has produced much-welcomed guidelines asking businesses to ensure they provide written and verbal allergen information to customers, but they are just guidelines. I therefore ask my noble friend: do the Government agree with me and the FSA that its new guidelines should be mandatory? Will she meet me and Natasha’s foundation, for which I am a parliamentary ambassador, to discuss this and its new research into the issues faced by those with food allergies when using food delivery apps?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I applaud my noble friend for her dedication and passionate advocacy on this issue. As she said, we published the best practice guidance in March this year and, as noble Lords will appreciate, any new guidance requires time to embed and be adopted by businesses. We hope to carry out an evaluation one year after the implementation of the guidance to assess both its uptake and its impact, and to better inform Ministers on the need for any potential legislation. This means that our evaluation work is likely to begin in spring 2026, and the gap between the launch and when the impact of the guidance can be meaningfully assessed ensures that our evaluation is based on a representative and reliable picture of how the guidance is actually working in practice. This will be very helpful in our understanding of the need for and any potential impact of any future legislative options. We very much welcome the opportunity to meet and to review the new research, which we have not yet had sight of. It would be invaluable to examine these findings alongside the FSA’s research in this area.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, although the guidelines are very welcome, and I applaud the Food Standards Agency’s work in this area, does the Minister share my concern about whether local authorities have the resources to do the necessary work to visit the establishments concerned to ensure that the guidelines are being applied? I think most restaurants in my area ask whether you are allergic. Does she also share my concern about the increasing amount of passing off of one food substance as another? We had the horsemeat scandal some 12 years ago, and we do not want to see a repeat of that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that we absolutely do not want to see a repeat of that. As she says, local authorities enforce allergen rules, typically via trading standards and environmental health officers. The number of trading standards officers has dropped, although staffing rose slightly in 2023, so we are looking at how we can improve that. The FSA has backed a level 6 trading standards apprenticeship, for example, and is training over 100 new officers in one year. The FSA will continue to monitor that, and will continue to support training guidance and the food law code of practice with local authorities.
Baroness Grender (LD)
If the FSA has pushed for compulsory written allergen information on menus, as it appears to have, is this not too long a wait for the Government to carry out an assessment? Also, will the Minister give us some sense of how it is possible to help smaller establishments in particular to access decent staff training in order to fulfil some of the requirements of having compulsory written information?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Of course, the law states that you have to state allergens. In the guidance, the preference is that that should be written first, verbal secondary. We will assess how that is working, as I just said. Regarding smaller businesses, the guidance has been designed with business to ensure that it is fit for purpose no matter what size your business is, because it is really important that every business can implement this effectively. The FSA has also created free tools, such as allergen icons, signage templates and a matrix, which are all available on its website. They are designed to be both flexible and low cost, because we need to ensure that all businesses, no matter their size, have proper access to the information and can ensure that customers and consumers understand what is being sold in that business.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, one in three people lives with allergic disease, which affects so many aspects of everyday living, not just in accessing healthcare but in ensuring a safe education and employment environment and, as this Question shows, better understanding in the hospitality industry. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this requires cross-departmental action and that the appointment of an allergy tsar could be a way to achieve that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is right that this requires cross-departmental work. My taking this Question today from Defra, when a lot of people assumed that it would be a health question, demonstrates that there is cross-departmental work between labelling and health issues. Regarding the allergy tsar, the Department for Health and Social Care continues to discuss this, and how allergy support and care can be improved, with NHS England and shareholders. There is an Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, which the DHSC jointly chairs, that brings stakeholders together to inform policy-making and identify any priorities in improving outcomes with people. I spoke to my noble friend Lady Merron from the DHSC about this earlier and I understand there will be a response in due course on whether an allergy tsar is the appropriate way forward.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the House will know that the previous Government passed Natasha’s law on pre-packaged food. Also, detailed ingredient listing has been in place since 2021. Does the Minister accept the concerns of Anaphylaxis UK and Allergy UK that the excessive use of precautionary allergy listing might be depriving customers of safe food?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The critical thing is the last thing that the noble Lord said: safe food. It is important that we work with industry, across government and with the different campaign groups. Natasha’s law was a very important piece of legislation. We know that Owen’s law is proposed as well. We have heard about the health tsar. We know that there are other incidents, such as the recent one in Stoke-on-Trent. It is important that we move forward together to ensure that any legislation or guidance that comes forward improves things and makes people feel safe when they go out to eat.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Is it not the case that retailers, particularly the smaller ones, would be more likely to take guidance seriously if there was a mandatory requirement to list the food hygiene scores on the premises? Why is England the only one of the four countries where this is not mandatory? It does not cost a penny in public funds. They already have the labels; they ought to be required to promote them. Those who are not doing so now would then take other guidance more seriously.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend raises a serious question. We need to ensure that the information is readily available and clear. We spent some time pulling the guidance together to address a lot of the issues that he raised while ensuring that it was accessible and flexible to businesses to ensure that they had the facilities to implement it in a way that was effective for their business. I hear the points that he made and will take them back to the department when we review the efficacy of the guidance that we have produced.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of studies showing that exposure to trace amounts of potential allergens builds resilience? I think specifically of the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy study, which tracked a number of children who were thought to be vulnerable because they had intolerances to other things, eczema or other indicators. Only 3% of those exposed to trace amounts of peanuts in infancy developed the intolerance, as opposed to 17% of those who were completely denied them. We in the public eye must be careful not to send out a message in the aftermath of cases such the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, refers to that we should clear our shelves of all potential allergens. That may be behind the increase in the number of cases that we have seen over the past 20 years.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, there has been an increase in hospitalisation, which is why this is such an important issue. I think the noble Lord was referring to Palforzia, where people take a tiny trace of the allergen every morning and slowly build it up in order to have a resilience to it. It is an incredibly interesting piece of research. I saw a programme on it and was fascinated at this new approach to tackling allergy. However, any new treatments must go through NICE to be approved for the NHS. We need to make sure that they work for everybody because this is a very sensitive, complex area.
NHS and Social Care: Joint Working
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote joint training programmes and opportunities for joint working for staff who are separately employed by the NHS and social care agencies to encourage integration between the two services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to developing an integrated health and care workforce which is skilled and well supported and has opportunities for high-quality learning, to enable staff to develop and progress their careers across an integrated system. We are also implementing joint induction for all health and care staff, a mid-career management programme and, during 2025-26, the introduction of new management standards and unified core leadership and management standards for managers.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that positive reply. Does she agree that one of the main barriers to integration between health and social care is the lack of knowledge of the skills and experience of other professionals? Should the importance of integration therefore be included in initial clinical training, and should clinicians of all kinds be encouraged to understand the work of others by job rotation, so that they can be helped to appreciate the role of other colleagues and the importance of all professionals to patient care, no matter which agency employs them?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I very much agree with my noble friend about the importance of integration. As she explained, it is not necessarily about training to be joint, but about the approach. I will feed back her particular suggestion about job rotation to Minister Karin Smyth, who is responsible for developing the workforce plan. I will also share her view—again, I am sure she will see this reflected in the workforce plan when it is published following on from the 10-year plan—on the importance of multidisciplinary teams in many areas. The one that we are talking about, health and social care, is a prime example.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her previous very positive answers, but one of the biggest barriers to working together is different terms and conditions for care and health workers: in particular, the lack of pay for care workers who have to go between different visits in rural areas and have significant dead time. If we are really to move this forward, should we not put pressure on councils to ensure that the contracts they let allow for the time travelling between people who are being cared for?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a practical and realistic point that many care workers speak about. She will know that we are implementing a new fair pay agreement that, for the first time ever, will reflect what people actually do. Also, for the first time, there will be a universal career structure for adult social care that supports care workers. The approach that the Government are now taking shows a line of movement that takes seriously the pay, terms and conditions of care workers. I should also add that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will have free range to decide how she wishes to conduct her review of social care. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, will ensure that she speaks to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, about that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that sometimes the most effective integration of care is around the decisions and choices of the care recipient themselves? To that purpose, would she agree that the NHS should be pursuing personal health budgets that can be combined with direct payments from social care entitlements, so that recipients of care can design their care, which will sometimes include the appointment of staff who are able to meet both purposes?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the individual needs of the person at the centre. For too long—and part of this is a lack of integration—the needs of the person who receives, wants and needs that care and support have not been at the front. On his suggestion, I would just counsel waiting for the 10-year plan. It may not do exactly what the noble Lord says, but it will set out a way forward on how we will resolve such matters. I am sure that he will participate in further discussions about how we can get to the place that we all want.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to hear the Minister’s words on the progress and planning for this NHS 10-year plan. I was looking through, well, everything that I could find, really, and I could not find that any progress had been made, so I wonder whether the Minister could update the House on what is happening now and when she thinks we might start implementing this programme.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am not entirely sure, but I think that the noble Baroness is referring to my first Answer.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Good—thank you. This derives from the review by Sir Gordon Messenger. The first review was in 2022 and Sir Gordon came up with seven recommendations to strengthen leadership and management. To build on that, in November, Secretary of State Wes Streeting asked Sir Gordon to deliver further recommendations. That is why we now have a new national entry-level induction for new staff. As of 25 April this year, for example, it is being used by nearly 70% of trusts and ICBs to support staff enrolment. That shows how much it was needed and how much change it will make.
Lord Rook (Lab)
My Lords, the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care identified a number of solutions to tackle the workforce challenges in adult social care. These included better pay, improved career progression and role redesign. Could the Minister outline some of the steps that the Government are taking to address low pay, and to develop better training and development programmes and a more strategic approach to career progression in the sector?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I very much welcome that report and am pleased that the Government have been responsive to identifying what we need to do. I never tire of saying that, to support the workforce in the way that my noble friend said, we are introducing a new fair pay agreement for adult social care and implementing the first universal career structure for adult social care. That will—and I know noble Lords are concerned about this—lift the status and attraction of work in social care. I believe that, alongside, for example, the apprenticeships that we are now making available and many other measures, we will get to a place where those in the workforce are doing the job we would like them to do and are being properly recognised on all counts for it.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
In the light of the 2023 Hewitt review into integrated care systems, how are the Government building greater awareness of adult social care in the NHS workforce in order to enable greater collaboration?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Well, it is absolutely part of training, and the movement towards that integration of understanding across both sectors has been continuing for some while. The right reverend Prelate gives me the chance to say that we also have a digital platform that allows skills to be recognised across. The more we can do in that way, both technically and with people, the more success we will have in being integrated and building care around the person who requires it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, as I understand it, one of the principal issues about the integration of healthcare and community social care is the lack of data integration. Many hospitals still rely on manual processes to send discharge letters to GPs and social care providers. Would the Minister be good enough to tell us what the Government are doing to drive forward automation of discharge letters and similar clinical information?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right in her observations on the need to move to much better services here. First, on her point about discharge letters, appointment letters and so on, the Government have already committed funding and direct support to local areas that are not currently providing what we might call 2025-standard communication. Noble Lords will see a considerable change; some trusts are already doing that and doing it excellently, but we want to bring that up. On the noble Baroness’s specific point, I can tell her that we are continuing to encourage the use of digital social care records to make sure that the individual’s medical record is there. Over 85% of people who draw on registered care now have a digital social care record. I hope that I have gone a bit further than the noble Baroness was asking.
Diabetes: 10-Year Health Plan
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Humphreys
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether their forthcoming 10 Year Health Plan will reflect the priorities set out in Diabetes UK’s 10 Year Vision for improved prevention, early diagnosis and access to care and technology for people with diabetes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the 10-year plan is not focused on specific diseases and conditions but will instead set out the changes that our NHS needs to be fit for the future—from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention—all of which closely align with the priorities in Diabetes UK’s 10 Year Vision.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I thank the Minister for that positive Answer. More than 12 million people in the UK now have diabetes or prediabetes, with research showing a staggering 51% increase in the last eight years in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes among under-40s in England, at an age when the condition is more aggressive and the risk of complications is higher. To help reverse this trend, will the Government embed suggestions from Diabetes UK’s 10 Year Vision into their 10-year plan, including the creation of a healthier food environment, with a ban on TV advertising of unhealthy food and an extension of the soft drinks industry levy?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can say yes to both of those because we have already committed to do that. The advertising restrictions were a manifesto commitment and will be implemented from 6 January. I can also tell the noble Baroness that from October this year, as the result of a consultation, the industry has already voluntarily agreed to abide by those restrictions. We had to make changes to make it more workable and I am glad we did that to get the right approach. I am also glad that we worked to get the voluntary agreement. I also said yes to the noble Baroness in respect of Diabetes UK’s 10 Year Vision, which we are very grateful for. I am also grateful for Diabetes UK’s interaction, which has been considerable, in the consultation on our 10-year plan. I thank Diabetes UK and I am sure the noble Baroness will join me in that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, following the report from the charity Breakthrough T1D, which found that people in lower socioeconomic groups and those over 65 were least likely to be aware of new technologies such as the hybrid closed loop systems, what plans do HMG and NHSE have to raise awareness of the latest technologies available to type 1 diabetics of all ages and socioeconomic groups?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The matter of health inequalities is, obviously, one we are very concerned about. A national review is currently under way to update on monitoring, including of various groups. NHS England supports ICBs in improving diabetes care, including through the use of the medical technologies that the noble Baroness referred to, and, importantly, in reducing the variation in care that we still see across the country. It does that by using national data and insights, funding local clinical needs and addressing health inequalities through the national diabetes prevention programme. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of raising awareness and the incredible contribution that new technology is playing. It has to be available for all and I hope we will establish that in the way I have mentioned.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of the South Asian Health Foundation. The south Asian population has a very high incidence of diabetes, particularly type 1, which is probably related to a strong gene marker. Some 50% of people with type 1 diabetes have some kind of gene marker. Those who have a strong gene marker in a particular region, the HLA region of chromosome 6, have a very high incidence. My point is that, if we screen people, particularly those with a family history of diabetes, for genetic markers, we will identify them much earlier, even in childhood. The prevention that is therefore required—changing their environment and diet—becomes more effective. This ought to be one of the preventive strategies for diabetes in high-risk populations.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right in his observations, which play to the point of the NHS that we want to see not just now but in the future. Noble Lords may have heard the announcement earlier this week that the Government are committing the necessary funding to screen babies early in their lives through the use of genomics, in order to, as the noble Lord said, identify underlying conditions that can be dealt with early on. There are some that cannot be prevented, but if they are diagnosed and anticipated, their management will be much better.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, continuous glucose monitoring and Mounjaro have helped me to come off insulin after 20 years of daily injections and have greatly improved my diabetic control. Such innovations are undoubtedly a cost saving to the NHS in the long run. Does the Minister think we are looking far enough into the future when we consider the cost-benefit analysis of their use? How can NHS spending plans take into account their long-term benefits to the economy by keeping people in work and getting many people back to work?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, knows that it is always good that we hear about his own experience, because he epitomises the changes that are possible. I believe there is an understanding—not least because, as noble Lords will know, the Chancellor very recently gave the department a settlement that was, in large part, because of not just immediate need but looking to the future and the kind of NHS that is fit for the future we will see identified in the 10-year plan when it is published. Technology is certainly a huge part of that, which is why CGM and the hybrid closed loop system—the latter of which began to be rolled out in April 2024—are so important. There have been huge advances and they will be part of that NHS of the future that we seek to build.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am delighted that the Government are producing their 10-year plan, and we look forward to seeing it. Following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, about protecting the labour force, can the Minister say something about fracture liaison clinics being rolled out across the country, to follow up on commitments made in the past that these clinics will be available across the country? These clinics can help boost productivity in the workforce; help older people, especially women, stay in the labour force; and prevent the fractures that so often force them out of work or cause accidents for older people.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Fracture liaison services do an incredible job. I refer the noble Baroness to the words of the Secretary of State—I will not quote them because I do not have them to hand and there is nothing worse than misquoting somebody, particularly the Secretary of State—who has made his intentions quite clear on fracture liaison services. We certainly appreciate their value and the need to make that kind of provision available across the country.
Lord Scriven (LD)
With regard to what the Minister said about the DNA database of children with diabetes and other conditions, what are the mechanisms in place if a child, at the time they reach Gillick competence, no longer wishes to have their data on that DNA database? Will there be mechanisms so that the child can at that point withdraw their data and prevent it being used?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
All the usual provisions will apply, but, as we develop the system, all that detail will be confirmed. I will ensure that the point the noble Lord raises is fed into that consideration.
UK Extreme Heat
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prepare for, and mitigate, the increasing likelihood of prolonged periods of extreme heat in the United Kingdom.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are taking action to strengthen the UK’s resilience, including against environmental threats such as the recent heatwave. The national risk register details the wide-ranging impacts of extreme heat to ensure that comprehensive contingency plans are in place. In response to the heatwave last week, the Cabinet Office convened the summer resilience network to ensure that departments were alert to the impending weather and were satisfied that the sectors they represent had effective plans in place. While I am here, I want to put on record our thanks to all the professionals working to keep us safe during extreme weather periods, from the LRFs to agencies including the Met Office, the Environment Agency and government departments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Prolonged extreme heat is now 100 times more likely because of climate change, a new Met Office report has found. Inescapable heat is a silent mass human killer. Our systems and infrastructure are not prepared. The recent adaptation report found that many of our plans could not even be evaluated. Will the Minister initiate better communications with our climate scientists, put heat resilience at the heart of policy with a Cabinet position and offer better climate services and advice to society and industry?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the Cabinet Office works very closely with experts in the Met Office and the UK Health Security Agency to plan for and respond to extreme heat events well in advance of the summer months. Their advice is central to communicating the risk of extreme heat to the public. We understand how extreme heat affects all of society. This is why our preparedness, as part of the national risk register, focuses on the potential impacts of heat across sectors such as health, transport, water supply and vulnerable groups. To reassure the noble Earl, COBRA speaks to our climate scientists daily. This morning’s 8 am call focused on our immediate challenges related to extreme heat at the end of this week and the beginning of next week. All this work is overseen at the Cabinet Office by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister has had a chance to read the report by the Physiological Society entitled Red Alert: Developing a Human-centred National Heat Resilience Strategy. As the House may appreciate, there is growing scientific interest in the effect of heat on human beings, which makes this Question so well timed. The report recommends that the Cabinet Office lead a task force, so my original question was going to be about whether that is happening. But, in the light of the earlier Answer, am I right in thinking that there is now a proper task force established in the Cabinet Office to tackle these issues government-wide?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I hate to disappoint my noble friend by saying that I have not read the report he references, but I will make sure I get a copy this afternoon—it is my birthday this weekend, so that will give me something to do. I referenced the summer resilience network, which is convened by COBRA as a cross-government network that brings together all relevant agencies and our devolved Governments to make sure that we are ready. With regard to this period of extreme heat, the first guidance was issued before Easter to make sure that local resilience forums were getting ready. The Cabinet Office takes this extraordinarily seriously and it will be part of our resilience strategy, which we will publish soon. As we are about to discuss the national security strategy, I reassure noble Lords that climate change and its impact as a security feature are referenced 12 times. This is something that the Government take seriously.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness a very happy birthday at the weekend. We should not take climate change in any way lightly nor, indeed, the rise in heat, but I think we should also remember that, during those wicked days of Empire, we all went to India and Africa and people managed to survive—and they still survive in India and Africa and places—so I do not think we should take this overseriously. Does the Minister agree that we should just take sensible precautions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think that is the most House of Lords question I have had so far. I think we need to remember what happened in 2022 when we had extreme heat in the UK. That was the first time ever that 40 degrees heat was registered in the UK—registered at RAF Coningsby—and there were nearly 3,000 excess deaths, 20,000 hectares were burnt, 14 major incidents were declared and 4 million birds died in 48 hours. The impact of heat in the UK is something we are going to have to deal with. The noble Lord makes an important point about heat overseas. We also have to make sure that British nationals have support when they travel, which is why we have issued guidance only this week about excessive heat in Spain, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. We need to make sure that people look after themselves when they travel, wherever they are.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, many other countries have the advantage of a maximum working temperature in statute. That has the advantage of being simple and easily understood by workers and employers, especially small employers. Will my noble friend the Minister consider asking colleagues to commission the Health and Safety Executive to conduct a fresh review of the evidence and assess whether it is time for a maximum working temperature in the UK?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. As a former trade union officer, this is something that I have discussed every summer in my adult life. My noble friend is aware of the current situation with regard to the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, which require employers to provide a reasonable indoor temperature in the workplace. Obviously, what is reasonable depends on what work you are doing and where you work, which is why in the Moses Room yesterday we had to have the doors open and the fans on. I think it is appropriate that appropriate mitigations are made, but my noble friend will be aware that these conversations are ongoing, and the very nature of this Question ensures that I had yet another conversation about it yesterday.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. Should we not be aware, in discussing this Question, that extreme heat affects us in certain ways, but extreme heat overseas can have devastating effects on crops, with drought, famine and population changes and movements, so we should not treat this lightly? Alongside the need for mitigation, resilience measures and everything that the Minister has said, is not the proof of the increased likelihood of these sorts of episodes an absolute clarion call for this country not to withdraw or retreat from our commitment to domestic progress and international leadership on fighting further climate change?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises excellent points about why we are having to have these conversations in the first place. It is clear that the chance of 40-degree days in the UK is now 20 times higher than it was in the 1960s, and we have a 50:50 chance of a 40-degree day within the next 12 years. This is changing within the UK, and obviously that has a knock-on effect on climate elsewhere, which is why we need to take this extremely seriously in terms of our impact on the environment and why I was so pleased to see in our industrial strategy, which we published on Monday as part of our plan for change, that we made commitments to green jobs, investment in green energy, embedding net zero and challenges to climate change within our plans for government across every department.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I, too, wish the Minister a very happy birthday for the weekend and hope she enjoys her cheerful reading time. During a recent debate in Grand Committee on wildfires, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, recognised the problem the Government have with accurate data collection on wildfires and referred to
“the introduction of the new fire and rescue data platform—a new incident reporting tool used by fire and rescue services”.—[Official Report, 12/6/25; col. GC 321.]
Given the higher risk of wildfires during prolonged periods of hot weather, can the Minister commit that the Government will move quickly on this and confirm when this new platform will be up and running?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the birthday wishes. It is wonderful to hear her cite my noble friend the Minister who is responsible for this. Obviously, MHCLG took responsibility for fire and rescue services only on 1 April, but we are very clear that we will be bringing forward the tool and the wildfire strategy imminently, and I look forward to discussing it with her, undoubtedly at the Dispatch Box, in due course.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, heatwaves can significantly disrupt transport such as by causing rails to buckle overhead, wires to fail and roads to crack, so what specific investment are the Government making to ensure that transport infrastructure is fit for extreme weather?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As many of us will be using trains this weekend, this is a key question, especially because I alert all noble Lords to the fact that an amber heat alert has now been issued for this weekend, so people should be careful. The April 2025 Climate Change Committee adaptation progress report rated the policies and plans of the rail and strategic road network as “Good”. DfT’s upcoming adaptation strategy will address the recommendations to empower the sector to take further action.
On the specifics of rail, Network Rail is mindful that extreme heat events such as those we saw in 2022 are difficult to predict but it needs to invest for them, so it is investing in hazard forecasting and in revising its engineering and maintenance standards to keep the railway ready for such events so far as is reasonably practicable. With regard to recognising that passengers will also experience extreme heat in stations and on trains, not just through line disruptions, DfT has tasked the 14 contracted train operating companies to each produce weather resilience and climate change adaptation strategies. Those are not due until January 2026, but that is a step to make sure that policies and procedures are in place. With that, everyone keep safe this weekend, my Lords.
National Security Strategy
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:
“Today, the Prime Minister attends the opening day of the NATO summit. That summit is expected to agree a new commitment to grow spending on national security to 5% of GDP by 2035, to be made up by a projected split of 3.5% on core defence spending and 1.5% on broader resilience and security spending. This will mark a new resolve among NATO members to make our countries stronger and, as we have always done before, the United Kingdom will play our part.
NATO’s member countries meet at a time when the security situation is more in flux than at any time in a generation—a time when Ukraine is in its fourth year of resisting Russian invasion; a time when we in Europe have been asked to do more to secure our own defences; and a time when security can no longer be thought of as just the traditional realms of air, sea and land but as technology, cyber and the strength of our democratic society.
As we have seen in recent days, it has been a time of renewed military action in the Middle East, with Israel and the United States acting to try to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb. News of a ceasefire is welcome, but, as we have seen even in recent hours, the situation remains fragile. The focus must now be on a credible plan to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.
It is of great pride to my party that NATO was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War with the strong support of the post-war Labour Government. Ernest Bevin, the Labour Foreign Secretary at the time, said
‘we must face the facts as they are’.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/1948; col. 386.]
Today, in this very different age, we too must face the facts as they are. The generation that founded NATO saw it as a powerful expression of collective security and solidarity: alliances abroad matched by capacity at home. Our national security strategy, published today and made for these very different times, is inspired by those same values and aims.
Every Member of this House understands that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe. That is and always will be our number one priority, and the national security strategy sets out how we will do that. The world has changed fundamentally and continues to change before our eyes. This is indeed an age of radical uncertainty, and the leadership challenge in times of such change is to understand, respond and explain. The British people understand that. They recognise that we are living in a world that is more confrontational, turbulent and unpredictable than most of us have experienced in our lifetimes.
When the Prime Minister spoke to the House in February, he promised to produce a national security strategy that would match the scale of the task ahead, and the published strategy does that with a plan that is both clear-eyed and hard-edged about the challenges we face. It sets out a long-term vision about how we will do three crucial things. First, we will protect security at home by defending our territory, controlling our borders and making the UK a harder target for our enemies, one that is stronger and more resilient to future threats.
Secondly, we will promote strength abroad. This means bolstering our collective security, renewing and refreshing our key alliances and developing new partnerships in strategic locations across the world. It also means a clear-eyed view of how we engage with major powers such as China, where we must protect our national security and promote our economic interests. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will make a further Statement on the China audit shortly.
Thirdly, we will increase our sovereign and asymmetric capabilities. We are building our defence industries, training our people, focusing investment on our competitive strengths and using our exceptional research and innovation base to build up advantages in new frontier technologies.
All this will make us a stronger and more resilient country, but delivering on each of those commitments will be possible only if all parts of society are pulling in the same direction. Our manufacturing, science and technology industries have to be aligned with national security objectives. Our industrial strategy will help to play to the UK’s strengths and deepen our capabilities. The investments that we announced in the spending review also deepen our resilience and strength as a country.
A health service strong enough to cope, safe and secure energy supplies, modern housing and transport for our people—all these contribute to a strong United Kingdom. That is why it is so important that all parts of the Government and business, big and small, understand that cyber security is national security, and that our core systems and the revenues of business are being targeted by our adversaries. It is why we as legislators have to ensure that our own laws, from borders to trade, fit with national security. That will take a whole-system approach that reflects today’s reality. National security means strong supply chains, controls on immigration, tackling online harm, energy security, economic security and border security. It transcends both foreign and domestic policy, and it all plays a role in how we make Britain a safer, more secure and more sovereign nation.
The document provides the blueprint of how that fits together. The strategy brings together everything we are doing across the full spectrum of national security: the commitment to spend 5% of our domestic economic output on national security by 2035, meeting our NATO commitments once again; the more than £1 billion that we are investing in a new network of national biosecurity centres; how we are stepping up in areas like cyber capabilities; our anti-corruption strategy to counter illicit finance and corruption; the expansion of our legal and law enforcement toolkit; the largest sustained investment in our Armed Forces since the Cold War; our plan to unlock real benefits for working people from this defence investment; how we prioritise NATO explicitly in our defence planning; a vision not only for deepening our alliances with the US and the EU but for growing our relationships with other emerging nations; the money we are investing in our brilliant research and development base over the coming years, such as the £750 million to be invested in a supercomputer at Edinburgh University; and our ambition to gain a competitive advantage in cutting-edge technologies and to embed national security in our agenda for artificial intelligence.
We do not underestimate the size of this task. The world is a more dangerous place than at any time since the end of the Cold War, yet it is also a place where Britain’s values, capabilities and alliances can make a positive difference. Since we came to power, we have taken a step-after-step approach to prepare Britain for what lies ahead: record investment in defence, backing our allies and resisting the false choices put before us that would only have weakened and diminished our country. This strategy represents an important contribution to all that work. It recognises that our long-term growth, prosperity and living standards all depend on national security becoming a way of life for people and businesses in the UK. This is a plan for how we protect the British people. It is a plan for today’s times but rooted in long-held values, and it is a plan to defend our national interests, deepen our international alliances and increase our sovereign capabilities. I commend it to the House”.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It was important that the Prime Minister should, in advance of the NATO summit, signal the priority the Government attach to defence and national security. On these Benches we support that approach, as we do the analysis by the Government of the perceived major threats confronting the United Kingdom. There is much in the strategy with which these Benches can agree. I am aware of the continuity of advice to successive Prime Ministers on defence and security from No. 10 sources. I think that is very helpful, and I pay tribute to that expertise.
Protecting our country and our people from threat is the primary responsibility of the Government, and that was explicitly recognised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the other place. But that analysis and that primary obligation of government bring onerous and challenging responsibilities. First, I join my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary in the other place in thanking our security and intelligence services, and all our defence personnel, for the extraordinary work they do to keep us all safe.
Secondly, I say to the Leader of the House that over the last few months a pattern has emerged from the Government of a series of important announcements concerning defence and security intentions but with two glaring omissions: no specific detail and no specific funding. These omissions seriously damage credibility, and I shall touch further on these aspects in my questions.
Let me deal first with security and intelligence. The Statement and the strategy refer to the three pillars: security at home, strength abroad and increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities. These Benches welcome actions that build on the measures that my party put in place when in government, including the National Security Act 2023, which gives us increased oversight of adversarial action. It also introduced the foreign influence registration scheme. At home, protecting critical national infrastructure is paramount and there has to be a lead body for that. Is that the Home Office or the MoD, or is it a tandem operation? Are strategic discussions taking place as to who is taking the lead? It may be that there is to be a new joint task force, but any further information the Leader of the House can provide on that would be very helpful.
Within the United Kingdom, our citizens and businesses face cyber threats on an unprecedented scale. Given the recent identification by the Government of threats posed by China, may I ask three questions? First, are the Government confident that they have appropriate vetting mechanisms in place to understand whether imported Chinese goods pose security threats, and by whom and how are these mechanisms applied? Secondly, specifically in relation to energy infrastructure, how do the Government monitor whether potential malign activity is taking place, and are they satisfied with the robustness of the monitoring process? Thirdly, I have a very simple question. Will China be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
On strength abroad, these Benches welcome the strategic defence review but express profound concern about the lack of detail on timing for many of the proposals and the vagueness surrounding money. In relation to the NATO summit, while the commitment to increase what the Government describe as national security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% of that to be spent on core defence, is in principle welcome, there is no funding plan. We have been unable to elicit how the Government will fund even 3%. That omission—that lack of material detail—undermines the credibility of the Government’s intention.
To their credit, the Government understand the urgency of the threat—but not, apparently, the urgency of the money. For example, while the strategy document is in many respects admirable, I had to get to page 27 before I found reference to any specific sum of money, which is £1 billion to establish
“a new network of National Biosecurity Centres”.
On the next page, there is reference to £520 million to be invested
“in UK-based Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Vaccine manufacturing facilities”.
That is what I mean when I say there is a threadbare character about the Government’s funding specification. Can the Leader of the House shed light on when the 3% is to come through, when the extra 0.5% is expected to materialise and what the remaining 1.5% is to cover? If she cannot answer these fundamental questions, the Government are proceeding on a wing and a prayer.
On Monday this House will have a welcome opportunity to debate the Chagos deal. In relation to the defence budget, we understand that the cost of the deal will come out of the defence funding pot, which makes answers on increased defence spending all the more pressing. Promising more on the one hand, while whisking money away with the other, is adding to the opaqueness. That is what is damaging the credibility of what I am sure are the Government’s good intentions on our defence and security.
On these Benches, we shall support the Government’s efforts to strengthen our defence capability, to improve our security and intelligence services and to make our critical national infrastructure more resilient. I commend the Prime Minister on demonstrating maturity and responsibility when dealing with acutely challenging and fast-moving global situations, but these Benches will ask questions and seek clarity when that is what our national security interests demand.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Most people in our country take for granted the liberties and freedoms we enjoy. In a way, that is a good thing, as they do not need to concern themselves with the need for vigilance against the threats we face. We enjoy our way of life as a result of the tireless work of those who have dedicated their careers to making us safe, and I pay tribute to them. Many distinguished servants of commitment are represented in this House, and I thank them too.
We therefore support a great deal in this strategy—its judgment on the threats we face and the changing security landscape, both in potential conflicts and in the emerging dangers through technological change, and the need to address them across all of government, the economy and society as a whole. There should be, of course, a high level of cross-party support. I hope the Government will bring regular updates with clear action plans of the many workstreams that fed into this strategy so that we can monitor and appraise for progress.
In many ways, the UK has a unique security need. But in many others, we can act as a global, open and interconnected country only if we secure the support and partnership of others. As an island nation, our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. We were the first country to lay subsea communication cables, 175 years ago. Today we are almost exclusively reliant on them for communications. Shipping contributed to our growth in the Industrial Revolution, and today our consumers are reliant on shipped imports and key sectors on shipped exports.
This is why, for example, I was very happy to see Taiwan mentioned in paragraph 21. Taiwanese security and the openness of the South China Sea are critical to our technology industry and wider trade. I welcome the aircraft carrier task group currently in the region. It is a key shipping route, essential for our economy. I will refer to China a little later, but the Leader of the House may not agree with me on those aspects.
We agree that the way forward comes with the need for increased defence and lethal capability. We support the Government on increased defence expenditure, as the Leader knows. It would be helpful if she could indicate the breakdown of the sources of the 5%. What is the assumed level of growth of the size of the economy to meet the level of expenditure we expect to be necessary?
We do not depart from the level of funding, but we do say, with respect to the Government, that it should not have been transferred from the official development assistance budget. With respect, this is a strategic mistake, and we are seeing considerable reductions in programmes that have been part of the UK national security platform, and successfully so, for many years. It is no surprise to me that, in recent weeks, we have seen public statements from former defence and military leaders and chiefs, diplomats, and heads of the intelligence community of the UK, appealing to the Prime Minister not to cut the very programmes that have been national security focused in conflict prevention and conflict resolution, and in supporting allies to build resilient civil society and institutions against malign interference.
The western Balkans is rightly raised in the strategy. Twice in the Chamber I have asked for clarity on the continuation of the western Balkans freedom and resilience programme, funded by ODA. I hope that it is not under threat. If the Leader can provide reassurance on our posture within the western Balkans, that would be appreciated.
The FCDO network and our excellent diplomats were raised, and rightly so. I welcome what was said, but we have to recall that, in the spending review, there are year-on-year cuts to the operational budget of the FCDO going forward.
On other threats, such as biosecurity, I agree that we are less of an island than many might hope. Last night, I looked back at the UK’s first biological security strategy in 2018. DfID and ODA were mentioned on almost every single page—a recognition that biosecurity in the UK is weakened if it is also weak in countries where we have a large diaspora community or travel relationship. There was a reason why, 10 years ago, Ebola did not become Covid: it was because of the UK, through DfID and ODA. But this document makes no mention of it at all. In fact, with regards to official development assistance, there is only the most passing reference in paragraph 30.
We welcome the elements on research and development and the reconnection with Europe to regain the ground that we lost considerably under the previous Government. Page 11 says that we will go
“further than the agreements we have already struck”
with the EU. That is good news. In what areas will new agreements be sought?
We will consider the China audit next week, but the Leader may know that we on these Benches are concerned about the Government’s approach. In January, the Chancellor hailed £600 million of growth to our economy from extra trade with China over the next five years. In June, the Government announced £600 million for security agencies to tackle the threat from China. This is literally a zero-sum relationship this year. We would like to see legislative action on transnational repression suffered by people living here in the UK. The director-general of MI5 has made public warnings that China exploits education agreements and sovereign funds for espionage on an industrial scale. Although we welcome the first scheme, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, has heard me say that we regret both that China is not on the enhanced tier and that education and sovereign funds are exempted.
Finally, I want to look further to the future. The convulsive violence in the Middle East, Sudan and elsewhere will have a lingering effect here in the UK. Community cohesion and reducing tensions will now have to be a critical part of our national security strategy, because we know from previous conflicts that there is a lag, whereby young people affected by it now may well be radicalised in the years to come. Activities such as the Chamberlain Highbury Trust that bring communities together are examples of good work that we are doing in the UK, but, regrettably, as a result of the heightened conflicts that this strategy rightly seeks to address, we may well see further radicalisation within our shores in the future. Investment now is necessary so that we do not pay the price later.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I will do my best to respond to as many as possible in the time available.
Both were right to recognise the work of our security services but also of those in our embassies and diplomats overseas. The noble Lord rightly raised soft power. The soft power embedded in our embassies and the work that they do can never be underestimated; it is an absolutely vital part of keeping the country safe and improving relations across the world.
The noble Baroness was uncharacteristically a little uncharitable to describe this as “a wing and a prayer”. This is a serious strategy document, and it brings together numerous other documents that the Government have been working on—some of which have already been presented to this House. The industrial strategy is part of that, but there are a number of them. This is not a wing and a prayer; it is a serious commitment. Both noble Lords talked about the 5%. The noble Lord’s point at the end of his comments was important. In looking at our national security, what happens here at home—community cohesion but also the resilience of our infrastructure—is equally as important as what we do overseas. This is not a wing and a prayer; it is an absolute commitment to these figures.
The NATO pledge commits to hitting a headline ambition of 5%, and we are talking about the Parliament after next, in 2035-36. Some 1.5% of that is around security and resilience spending and homeland security and resilience, which is an important part of national security, and 3.5% is core defence spending. We estimate that we will get to over 4%—about 4.1%—the year after next, and that information will become clearer. What is important in all this is that it is a collective national enterprise, as I have said, across industry, business, our embassies and the work here. This is an overarching strategy, at home and abroad.
The noble Baroness asked whether the Government are confident and a number of questions about the China audit. That is the reason why we are having the China audit: those are questions that must be addressed. Whether we are talking about energy infrastructure or anything else—I am sure we will have further questions on this—our relationship with China is one of the most complex bilateral relationships we have in the entire world. There have been various ways of looking at this in the past. There was the golden era, where we said, “Yes, we’re going to work very closely with China”, and then, moving back from that, there was a lack of engagement. Neither of those approaches serves the national interest in the way that we wish. That is why we have the China audit. We have to manage the security implications and our concerns about that but also the economic relationship that we have.
I thank the noble Lord for referring to Taiwan. That relationship is a commitment in the document. I admire his ingenuity—each time he speaks about ODA, he picks a different region that he wants a commitment on. He will understand that, as we travel around the world, if he adds all those up he will get to a point where we are committed to completely the same level of ODA. I know that would be his objective, but I cannot satisfy him on that point and I cannot give him some of the details, as they are still being worked out. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is engaged on work on the global health fund as we speak.
I say to the noble Lord that how we work with other countries, improve their resilience and support them is not just about ODA. My noble friend Lord Collins has spoken about this before; he was telling me earlier about meetings that he has with African leaders. What do they want from us? They want our support for economic diversification. They want our support for levering in private funding for business, so that they can grow their economies. They want us to facilitate and enable. All that work continues, and it is vital that it does. Our relationship with the City of London and supporting them on that also makes a real difference. I assure the noble Lord that those things will continue.
The issue of the Middle East was raised. This has been of enormous concern to Members across the House, and we have had a number of debates on the issue. It is clear that Iran cannot be producing nuclear weapons that put the world at risk, and we are absolutely committed to that. But the noble Lord is right that this plays out in what happens in this country: we see conflict abroad playing out on the streets of London and major cities and towns across the UK. That brings a responsibility to government and the whole nation as well, which is why that 1.5% of the 5% funding is so important. I do not think the noble Baroness touched on this point, but resilience happens in a number of ways: it is our food resilience, energy resilience, telecoms resilience and business resilience. Marks & Spencer had a cyberattack—I am sure there are more noble Lords than me who have not been able to use their Sparks card. The most important thing is the damage that that has done to the economy and to that business. The damage to people’s confidence in dealing with the business is considerable. In all these areas, resilience is crucial.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, emphasised that we need to know exactly where the money is coming from—what is happening on this pound and that pound. More of this will become available as the spending review information is fed out, but this is a commitment and she should not doubt it in any way. I hope that all noble Lords will recognise that if we want to keep the country safe and secure, the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, at home and abroad. I am sorry that she thinks this is, to use her words, on a wing and a prayer; I fail to accept that.
The noble Baroness mentioned the money to be spent on Chagos. Governments do not spend this kind of money lightly. They will do so only if they are absolutely confident that it is in the national interest to do so. We have taken the view, and the evidence supports this, that it is absolutely in our security interests as a nation that we have this deal around the Diego Garcia base. That is why we have done the deal. Some of the figures given out are wildly inaccurate. We will have a longer debate on this on Monday, but we are committed to this for absolutely the right reasons, which are national security and national safety.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, describes Iran, North Korea, China and Russia as “a deadly quartet”, all of which have sanctioned Members of the British Parliament, including Members of your Lordships’ House. China, as we have just heard, continues to intimidate Taiwan, to commit genocide against Uyghurs, to incarcerate pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong, and to use slave labour and transnational repression, both of which subjects are currently under investigation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of this Parliament. We should not use the deepening of trade as an excuse for diminishing our awareness and response to the threat China poses, which is why Parliament should have been able to see the findings of the China audit and why China should be in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.
I have two brief questions for the Leader. First, is the planned £600 million investment in the intelligence and security services a direct result of the findings of the audit? If it is, surely that underlines the reasons for serious concern. Secondly, regarding the mega-embassy, the Prime Minister said in his meeting with Xi Jinping during the G20 last year:
“You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone and we have since taken action by calling in that application”.
Will the Leader confirm that the call-in was as a result of the phone call with Xi Jinping?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord has great respect in this House for his commitment to these issues. I cannot confirm his final point at all. However, I think that the heart of his question is how seriously we take the threat from China, which is absolutely clear from the document. Indeed, this was raised in the House of Commons this week by David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, when he spoke on the China audit and referred to a quote, which I will quote as well, on page 28 of the strategic defence review. I do not think that we can see this review alone: as I said, it is an overarching review. It states:
“China: a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological, and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, and put pressure on the rules-based international order”.
I endorse and agree with that statement.
The noble Lord asks if our economic relationship undermines our commitment to security. I give him a categoric assurance that that is not the case. We have to manage both relationships, but security is first and foremost: it is of enormous concern, as he will know. We recognise, and I think it is highlighted in the strategy, that China is increasingly eroding the rules that have governed the international system. I do not think we have had a China audit before, but if we look at the history of our relationship with China, under a previous Government—I think it was in the Cameron era—it was a very close relationship. We then moved to not engaging at all. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. It comes back to the Ernie Bevin quote: we have to deal with the world as it is and the threats that exist now. I give the noble Lord the assurance that we stand by what is in the strategic defence review and we stand by what is in the national security strategy to protect Taiwan.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, there are 20 minutes for these questions. We will hear from the Labour Benches.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader will be aware that the National Risk Register, published in January, classifies a future pandemic as the catastrophic risk with the highest likelihood of happening. The defence review identifies engineering biology and new pathogens as a clear and present risk. The publication of the strategy came on the same day as the Foreign Secretary announced a contribution of £1.25 billion into the resources of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, we all now know about—or have had our memories refreshed on—the level of investment that the Government have promised to support the new network of national biosecurity centres. I consider all that to be security investment but, in the latter case, over what period will the £1 billion sustain these new centres?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating that security is more than just foreign security; it is also health security. One of the issues with Covid was the lack of preparedness within the NHS. We are working on that at pace. A significant preparedness exercise is about to be undertaken and we will again test the emergency alert system. We inherited a number of laboratories in a very poor condition so that their future was in doubt. That is why the investment in biosecurity is so important. So, there is the new biosecurity centre at Weybridge, with £208 million committed to that work over the next two years, but there has to be a complete network of biosecurity centres around the country. That is about disease, but it is also about health and animal products, our imports, and ensuring that we can foster innovation so we know what is coming next and can work towards it, including productivity. The £1 billion is across the current spending review period, which is three years, and it will be reviewed at the end of that period.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does the noble Baroness agree that the growing Commonwealth network, with its people involvement at all levels, its unifying soft power—and indeed, increasingly, its hard power, as we have recently seen—and its maritime data integration powers, is a key part of our national security, our influence and our adaptation to a totally changed security world that is going on around us? Can she direct me to the page in the strategy where all this is mentioned? I cannot find it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord has looked very carefully to find it, so this question of which page might be rhetorical. No, I cannot direct him to a page, but if he looks across the range of documents we have produced he will know how much we value relationships. He is right to emphasise the importance of soft power, including that of the Commonwealth. One of the problems we have had in the past is that our relationship with Europe has had to be reset and renewed. Our relationship with America is one that we value, as, of course, are those across the world, including with the Commonwealth. We must have, build and value those relationships. It is not just soft power; it is actually a harder-edged thing as well. I will find it in some documents at some point, I am sure, but the noble Lord has only to hear Ministers speak to know how much that relationship is valued.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the strategy, which is both considered and sobering. It is considered because it strikes all the right balances between reinvesting in the conventional deterrents through NATO—the deterrence of Russia by NATO—and building resilience domestically, on which it is strong. The defining feature of the strategy is that it is a fundamentally grim read. It cuts out any niceties or talk of values and looks as though it has been written to give society an enhanced sense of threat awareness and prepare it for some hard choices.
My first question is: has it been written for that purpose? If so, I further congratulate the Government on it, because the threat awareness of society needs enhancing. Secondly, does the Minister appreciate the degree to which the slowness with which investment is made—with, as the noble Baroness opposite said earlier, very little in the lifetime of this Parliament and most of it in the imagined world of the next—undermines that message? Is it too much for me to hope that somewhere within government there is a hope that this investment might be accelerated?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord. It is interesting to hear the cheers from the party opposite to his last point, because this is a generational increase in defence spending that the previous Government did not match, although their members are calling for us to go faster and further now, which we always want to do. It is worth noting that, under NATO’s new estimate, we think we will get to over 4% by the year after next.
The noble and gallant Lord made an interesting point that I had not thought of because I was not involved in the drafting of the document. The purpose is different, but he is right that we have to not only make this an issue for government but give a real understanding of how the nature of threats is changing and how we have to work across all branches of government, including local government, and society as a whole. He is right in saying that the document draws that out. It is a grim read, but in some ways it is also an encouraging read, because unless you recognise the threats and understand what you are facing, it is very hard to address them.
What came across when I read it was where the linkages are with other actions across government—whether it is the Department of Health looking at resilience or the industrial strategy looking at resilience, they link together. The strategic defence review has been so important to this country, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his co-reporters on this. Without that strategic defence review, this document would have been weaker. It has helped to define some of the threats we face and looks at ways to address them. But if assurance is needed, I can give the noble and gallant Lord absolute assurance that we will do everything we can to not only reach these spending levels but, through other avenues of government, enhance the impact they will have.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the wide-ranging nature of this strategy. However, somewhat surprisingly, the National Security Council is not mentioned anywhere, as far as I could see. Can the Leader say what the role of the National Security Council will be in the delivery of the strategy? How will government departments be supported to meet shared security objectives—as she said, it is a collective endeavour—and how will they be held accountable?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The committee that the noble Baroness referred to is a Cabinet committee and is always engaged in these issues. On the question of who is accountable, at the end of the day the Prime Minister is accountable. Through him, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary all have a really important role in delivering the strategy. As has been said, this is not for one department or one person to deal with; it is a collective government effort and if we fail to bring them together in the correct way, we will not meet the objectives of the strategy. The noble Baroness is right. I do not know exactly what role the National Security Council will have, but it will be key. We want to be held to account on this document, and we will hold ourselves to account through the Prime Minister.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, in these dangerous times, will my noble friend the Leader of the House also emphasise the importance of food security to an island nation that produces little more than 60% of its food needs? Can she explain how the Government are redrawing the perception that, as long as cheap food can be accepted and accessed from anywhere in the world, it is to be welcomed, at the expense of the long-term sustainability of home-grown, profitable and healthy food?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that. As a farmer, he will have more experience on these issues. On food security for the nation, we talk about cheap food, but I think that most people going to the supermarket these days are seeing prices rise significantly. In earlier questions, climate change was debunked as being something that we just have to deal with, but it has a huge impact on our food security, and that it why it is also part of the strategy.
Supporting farmers on this is key in two ways, the first of which is through our trade agreements. Some of the trade agreements under the previous Government, in particular those with Australia and New Zealand, undermined some of the work being done by farmers in this country. For us, in our agreements with the US and the EU, the welfare standards in which our farmers in this country have invested have been a red line in doing trade deals. My noble friend will also be aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, is leading a new farming profitability unit, tasked with recommending to us how we can reform to increase productivity and work with farmers on that.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—agreement with the EU, which is making imports and particularly exports much easier and better for our farmers, again increasing their profitability. It is a shame that was not agreed sooner after Brexit.
I could mention other things that I think would be helpful in looking at the profitability of our farmers and ensuring our food stability, including a £110 million investment in new technologies to help farmers increase the profitability and produce of their farms and to help them with seasonal workers. There are a number of ways to address this, but to reflect again on the theme of wider government engagement, the work going on in flood defences and flood protection and the work we are doing to bring down the price of energy should all help our food production and national security issues.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board. A recent sobering poll showed that fewer than one in three Britons would be prepared to fight for their country. What specific steps are the Government taking to ensure a whole-society approach to national security?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to raise this. There has been quite a fall-off in recruitment to the Armed Forces. I remember the days when the Army had a town-centre presence, where people could go to be recruited. That has been lost, and we are bringing together that recruitment as a whole. As the noble Lord opposite said earlier, most people today do not think about what the threats are, because we feel safe and we have got used to that feeling. There needs to be a resetting so that people understand that there are threats and want to play their part in protecting and serving the nation. I like to talk about people not wanting to fight for their country but wanting to serve and protect their country. We need to provide greater opportunities for people to want to play a part in that, but also show them what can be done. A lot of the work in the Armed Forces brings a whole load of issues around the skills they need and their resilience for the country, all of which will be crucial. We are committed to improving the recruitment levels that we have seen over past years.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, this is an important and wide-ranging approach and deserves both cross-party and national support. I congratulate the authors. It takes a 10-year-plus view, but success will materialise only if intermediate goals are set. How do the Government perceive that the aims of this strategy will be tracked and achieved? At present, the problems associated with illegal immigration are slipping things back alarmingly. Will regular progress reports to Parliament across the piece be made?
The flip side to this coin should be what soft power and de-escalation measures achieve. I am sorry that there appears to be rather less about what influence the Commonwealth might have here, though some such countries are highlighted, or how closer relations with the Republic of Ireland might be to our mutual benefit. Well handled, could not such ideas bring further substantial security gains to the UK?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point about relations with other countries. Our relationship with the Republic of Ireland is solid and welcome; indeed, I saw the Irish ambassador earlier this week and many Members of this House have a very strong relationship with Ireland. The noble and gallant Lord’s point about relationships, including with the Commonwealth, is extremely valid and the Government are committed to that. The issue around soft power and de-escalation is crucial. At the heart of a lot of what we are doing, including in the document, is de-escalation. Part of being resilient and having a strong diplomatic presence across the world is so that you can de-escalate.
The role that the Prime Minister has played recently, the visits he has made across the world and the bilateral and multilateral meetings he has had have been imperative to having the kinds of discussions that are needed to de-escalate. Very early on, I made a Statement on a similar issue and there were criticisms from some that the Prime Minister had made a number of overseas visits. When you visit and have meetings with other countries when relations are good, it helps you to have difficult discussions when things get more difficult and there are important international issues to be considered. The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. At the end of the day, this is overseen by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary all have an important role as well.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, in the foreword to the strategy, the Prime Minister talked about strength on the international stage, which other noble Lords have raised. I make a plea to my noble friend that, as well as their strong support for NATO set out in the document, the Government should be clear that they want to strengthen the role of other international bodies such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We can use those links with important international bodies and dialogue with other countries to improve our collective international security as well as our national security.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. A number of Members of this House are members of the OSCE, as she is, the Council of Europe and others, where those relationships at both individual and national level are hugely important. Earlier this week, an official spoke to the OSCE about our commitment to Ukraine, showing how important it is to be part of these organisations and to work together. So she is absolutely right; she has been quite an advocate for the OSCE in the House, as others have been for the Council of Europe and other organisations.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Thursday 26th June 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (25 Jun 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to be a civil servant.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this first day of Committee. I will speak also to my Amendments 2, 26 and 27 in this first group. At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords raised the issue that the commander will essentially be a civil servant with co-ordination functions: a commander with nothing to command. I have tabled these amendments and a number of others to seek to rectify the situation and probe the Government’s full intentions for the new role.
Amendment 1 seeks to replace the words
“designate a civil servant as the”
with “appoint a”, thereby specifying that the commander does not have to be a civil servant. Nothing here serves as a critique of the current border security commander, Martin Hewitt, coming as he does from a law enforcement background; rather, it is a critique of the Government’s limited ambition for this new role.
That is not just my view but that of Tony Smith, the former director-general of UK Border Force. He said in evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place that
“the first thing that struck me is that the Border Security Commander will be another civil servant. I think it will be a director general post in the Home Office. I was a director general, and we already have quite a lot of them. I am not sure he will actually be able to command anything. He is probably going to be more of a co-ordinator”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 27/2/25; col. 40.]
Those were the words of the person whose job it was to lead the agency that polices our borders. As he stated, there are already enough civil servants co-ordinating activities within the Home Office. The Small Boats Operational Command already exists, so can the Minister tell the House how it will work with the commander? How will their roles differ, and what degree of interoperability will exist?
As Tony Smith made very clear to the committee in the other place, if the Government wish to achieve their stated goals, Border Security Command needs to have expanded powers, for example to arrest and detain in the same manner as Border Force, the NCA and Immigration Enforcement. If the powers of the commander and his team remain as they are instituted in this Bill, they will be essentially toothless in their ability to tackle illegal migration. This is a role that, by the Government’s own admission, is meant to help secure our borders, disrupt criminal networks and co-ordinate multiple agencies in the face of complex cross-border threats. Surely, we can all agree that this is not a job for a generalist administrator or a nameless Whitehall official; it demands specialist knowledge, strategic leadership and operational credibility.
Amendments 26 and 27 are essentially consequential. They amend Clause 7, which relates to delegation of the commander’s functions, and Clause 8, which permits the designation of an interim commander. Just as I am concerned by the first clause, I am potentially even more concerned about the possibility of delegation. This commander might be well qualified for the task, but who will he delegate to? As the Bill stands, this will be a civil servant. We must ask whether this is appropriate for the task at hand. My amendment would ensure that only a person of appropriate rank—a similar rank to the commander—would be able to undertake any of the functions bestowed on the commander under the Bill. These amendments would therefore introduce a vital safeguard: that the commander may appoint only a person of appropriate rank and qualifications to fulfil delegated functions, not just anyone who happens to be on the departmental payroll. They would help ensure that we do not fall into the trap of creating yet another abstract, symbolic post—another title without substance, which I am afraid is what the Bill proposes.
I had the pleasure of meeting and spending an evening with the honourable Scott Morrison a few weeks ago. He explained that, when Australia began Operation Sovereign Borders, it instituted a structure that, on the surface at least, appears somewhat similar to this Government’s Border Security Command. Its job was to co-ordinate and lead the 16 agencies that had border security functions. However, there are two crucial differences: first, the Australian system came with far more robust powers than are in this Government’s plan; and, secondly—this is the crucial difference—the Australians appointed a senior military commander, Deputy Chief of Army Major General Angus Campbell, to lead their border security efforts.
This leads on to my Amendment 2, a probing amendment which seeks to gauge the type of background that the Government think most appropriate for the role of commander. I have specified that the commander should be only a former or current officer of the National Police Chiefs’ Council—meaning assistant chief constable or above—commander or above in the Metropolitan Police, a senior officer in Border Force or Immigration Enforcement or a senior military officer of at least brigadier-general, commodore or air commodore rank in the Royal Air Force. This amendment would therefore specify that the commander should be a senior police, immigration or military officer, which I believe would put the office on a stronger footing.
If we are serious about this role having teeth and want it to be a powerful, directive position that can genuinely drive change, then the least we can do is to require that the person filling it has the experience to do so effectively. We cannot afford to build this office on vague criteria and wishful thinking. The public deserve confidence that this position is not just another bureaucratic appointment but one that is fit for purpose from day one. I urge the Committee to support this, and I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I should explain that I have not usurped the position of my noble friend Lord German, who is in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not being physically on the Front Bench; from this position, I can be propped up.
Although Martin Hewitt has, as the noble Lord, said, a law enforcement and—I believe—Army background, I do not think it is necessary for the commander to have “rank”, to use the term in his Amendment 26. If the border command and the commander prove effective—in other words, if the institution lasts—I hope that the Secretary of State would be imaginative enough to think outside the box of people to whom the rank might be applied and consider those who might usefully carry on the function.
I do not want to speak too long at this point, but the noble Lord picked up the issue of delegation. It struck me—I understand it is not possible to amendment it—that the heading to Clause 7 really does not describe what is in the clause. The clause is right; it spells out where responsibility lies—that is not delegation. The responsibility remains with the commander, and I think that is correct. I do not know whether anyone can pick that up somewhere behind the scenes, at a later point.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support the thrust of my noble friend’s amendments in this first group. Chapter 1 puts the commander role and organisation on a statutory footing but, as we heard, we already have a commander in place and the Bill provides very few—if any—real powers beyond the ability to facilitate co-operation between other public agencies. Given that those agencies are already arms of government and come under the responsibility of Ministers, who could presumably direct them to co-operate in the way the Government intend, I have a slightly broader question for the Minister: why is Chapter 1 necessary? Why do we need to put the commander on a statutory footing? This leads directly to the group of amendments that my noble friend has proposed.
We always need to be very careful about legislating just to make a public statement or point. Can the Minister tell us what the commander will be able to do under Chapter 1 that he is not able to do presently under the current arrangements? Who could argue with greater co-ordination between agencies, but do we really need the provisions of Chapter 1 to achieve that?
I am sure the Minister is grateful to my noble friend for trying to flesh out the role a little bit more. It is written in five or so pages, an awful lot of which has to do with the appointment, the board, potential removal terms and so forth. There is really very little—only a few lines—about the office’s real function and responsibilities.
Looking more specifically at Amendment 2 and my noble friend’s list in proposed new subsection (5)(a), (b) and (c), he might also consider adding someone with a background in the broader security apparatus of the country.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I had not meant to take part in this debate, but I wonder whether I am the only Member of your Lordships’ Committee who is finding it rather surreal—mainly the lack of urgency, although I am not blaming the Minister for that. However, even as we speak in here today, dozens—probably hundreds—of illegal migrants are wandering up the beaches of Kent and disappearing into our country. This Bill cannot become law for some considerable time; surely a greater sense of urgency is necessary.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, that there is a great sense of urgency from this Government on the issue that he raises. The people are not “wandering up the beaches” of Dover. They are being collected by boats in the channel when the criminal gangs bring them across, and then they are taken for identification and processing. It has been a long while since people walked up the beaches of Dover—it was under a previous Government that they put their feet in that Kent sand. They are now being dealt with in an effective way.
The purpose of the border commander and the clauses before us today is not to have the limited ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, indicated he thought was behind the Bill; it is to maximise the ambition and ensure that we put it in place strongly and effectively. That goes to the heart of the noble Viscount’s comments as well, because we are very clear that the border commander has a number of key roles to play. The border commander has been put in place to co-ordinate and organise—yes—but he has a significant budget of £150 million this year and in the recent spending review has been given by the Chancellor an additional significant budget for the three years hence.
The purpose of that co-ordinating role is to do what I think is appropriate, which is to co-ordinate and bring together agencies in the UK. The commander will also, on behalf of the Home Secretary and the Government, take part in further negotiations with our partner colleagues in Europe and the Middle East, as has been seen today, to ensure that we put in place mechanisms to reduce the flow that the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, rightly highlighted as an important issue for us to take forward.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. Before he moves on from the points that I made, can he answer the question about what the commander will be able to do under the provisions of the Bill that his office cannot do currently, on a non-statutory footing? We do not need new legislative provisions to achieve co-ordination, advice and budgetary management—witness the fact that there is already a commander in place who is busy co-ordinating.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Viscount’s comments, but the clauses in Chapter 1—for example, “Duty to prepare annual reports”, “Duties of cooperation etc” and “The Board” overseeing all that—underpinned by statutory function give this House the confidence that there is a legislative background to those requirements on the Border Security Commander. The noble Viscount is right that the current Border Security Commander, appointed by the Home Secretary, is undertaking those roles as a civil servant, but it is important that we underpin that with a legislative framework so that this House, the House of Commons, the Government and the people are clear about what the roles and responsibilities are. We have taken that view, and the noble Viscount may disagree or want further clarification, but that is the purpose of the first 12 clauses of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, far be it from me to be helping the Minister out at this point, but I want to be friendly. Exactly the same issues occurred to me, particularly that the commander is in post now and has been for months, as the noble Viscount said. Presumably it would not be possible, without a statutory basis, to require, for instance, co-operation with other statutory agencies. So, at the very least, the Bill would be needed for that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, acting as super sub today, continues to make very valid points on this issue. Let me go to the heart of the amendments, if I may. The group contains various amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron. First, they seek to remove the requirement that the Border Security Commander is a civil servant. Given that the role sits within the Home Office and that the commander leads a directorate within the department, it is logical that the role sits within the Civil Service.
This does not mean that the post of Border Security Commander is reserved solely for existing civil servants. Indeed, the current officeholder was recruited externally. Any future recruitment exercises would seek to identify the most suitable candidate, irrespective of their background. Ultimately, they are acting in a Civil Service role, accountable to the Home Secretary. That is the important point, and I hope the noble Lord will reflect on that.
The noble Lord also raised the very important point about the prior experience required to be eligible to be appointed as Border Security Commander. As Members have recognised, the current Border Security Commander served previously as an officer of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. I do not believe it is prudent to limit the pool of candidates eligible to serve in this important position, and we believe that any future recruitment exercise would have the scope to identify the best talent, without limitation, ensuring that we bring the effectiveness of the role to its maximum potential.
The Government have been very clear that the Border Security Commander is responsible for requiring the step change in the UK’s approach to border security—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, addressed. We want to provide a clear and long-term vision for border security, to bring together and provide leadership to all parts of the system, to work to maintain the integrity of our border and immigration systems domestically and internationally. The significance of this role and this work is reflected in the Bill, which puts this office on a statutory footing, for the very reasons that I hope I have outlined. It creates legal requirements on the officeholder in fulfilling their duty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of the background of an individual. We want to have as wide a pool as possible—I hope that addresses her point.
The commander has already used his post and the associated capabilities to deploy key functions to date across government on the border security system. He has also helped support the Home Secretary in signing a landmark agreement with the Iraqi Government. We have struck a new anti-smuggling action plan with the G7; we are hosting an international summit on organised immigration crime; and we have meetings early next month with colleague nations in the European community to look at how we can work on this issue. Those are important roles and tasks. They add value to the work we are trying to do in very difficult circumstances to smash the criminal gangs and to stem the flow across the channel.
The House can have confidence that those roles being exercised currently will be in future on a statutory basis, and issues to do with reporting and accountability have been set down in law. Therefore, it is not for today, but I hope the noble Lord will reflect on what I have said and, at a later date, not push the amendments to a vote.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who contributed to this debate.
We have heard the words from the Government Benches about co-ordination, structure and strategic intent, but let us not lose sight of what this role is supposed to be: a commander. That word carries meaning. It is not simply a metaphor or a piece of Civil Service terminology. I have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when she says it is not about rank. Rank implies leadership, authority and the ability to direct. Without that, the title is misleading at best and meaningless at worst.
What we are being offered in the Bill is a model that risks falling flat. The important point is that it risks creating an official with no clear mandate, no operational standing and no public visibility—in short, a co-ordinator with a title that suggests much more than they are empowered to deliver.
If we fail to define this role properly now, we risk embedding a model that lacks clarity, ambition and—crucially—the power to deliver the very outcomes the Government claim to seek. We cannot risk this position becoming yet another layer of the Whitehall machine, held by a nameless bureaucrat with no real responsibilities.
The amendments we have tabled do not ask for the impossible. They do not tie the Secretary of State’s hands. They simply ensure that the commander is someone of appropriate rank, experience and credibility—someone who can command confidence not just within government but with operational partners and the public alike.
We have seen what can be achieved when such roles are taken seriously. I referenced the Australian example earlier, where a senior military figure led a co-ordinated, multi-agency border response, which shows what is possible with the right leadership and mandate.
We can do the same, but we will not get there by default or by quiet delegation within the Home Office. We must decide now whether we want this to be a genuinely powerful and directive post, or just another name in a long line of forgotten titles.
These amendments are a simple safeguard against mediocrity and a clear statement of intent that this House expects better than business as usual. We will look at this as the Bill progresses but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“(5) The Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament stating that the Secretary of State has designated the person as Commander.(6) The person who has been designated as Commander by the Secretary of State must appear before any Parliamentary committee that invites the person to appear before them.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are designed to extract some more information from the Government about who is going to be entrusted with the position of Border Security Commander. The Bill sets out that the Secretary of State can determine the terms and conditions of a designation as the commander. Our Amendment 3 seeks to tie the Government to publish these terms and conditions once they have been defined.
Crucially, our amendment also clarifies that the Government must define the KPIs that will be used to measure the performance of a commander in their role. This will allow not only the Government but these Houses and the wider public to review how effectively the commander is undertaking these duties.
The Border Security Commander is a big part of the Government’s offering on this question. We need to make sure that the person appointed is delivering a solution to the problem we are discussing, and how the Government are working to define parameters and conditions which will ensure that this is the case. If the Government are convinced that their policy will indeed tackle this issue effectively, I am sure that they will have no hesitation in welcoming the principle of these amendments as an opportunity for them to show the public how well their new policy is working, and to show their ambition in setting high standards for their new commander.
Furthermore, our Amendment 5 to Clause 2 seeks to incorporate greater oversight into the termination process for the Border Security Commander. The Government are creating a role which will be politically sensitive and upon which there will be a great deal of pressure, without necessarily the powers or duties to fulfil these demands. It is a post that demands public trust—and where public trust is concerned, silence is not an option.
To remove someone from that role without any explanation, transparency, accountability or scrutiny risks breeding, confusion, suspicion and the perception that something has gone wrong behind closed doors. That is precisely what undermines confidence in public institutions.
There is also precedent, as we know. When high-profile public officials are dismissed or step down, it is customary—indeed, expected—that a Ministerial Statement is made, and we have seen that with senior civil servants and the heads of public bodies. Unfortunately, the Government have been far too unwilling to come to Parliament to outline the reasons why they have chosen to terminate senior officials. We saw that only recently when the Government ousted the head of the Competition and Markets Authority, Marcus Bokkerink. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade issued a Written Ministerial Statement, but it took an Urgent Question from my honourable friend Andrew Griffiths for a Government Minister to come to the Dispatch Box in the other place to update Parliament. That should not be the case.
On a matter as important as this, we cannot afford to construct roles that can be managed and changed in the dark. We need to appreciate and understand the fact that the public have lost trust in the Government on this, and we need to make sure that the next steps we take command trust and regain the confidence that the public must have in us. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. It is a pleasure to participate in your Lordships’ Committee on this very important Bill.
Noble Lords will be aware that voter salience on the issue of immigration and border control is extremely high, and it is probably the second most important issue, behind the cost of living. That said, the Bill, as currently drafted, does a reasonable job, and we broadly welcome many of its measures, as the Minister will know. He started off as a bruiser, but he is now much more emollient in his reaction and in his Dispatch Box performance, and we agree on many things.
The Bill is very good on the accountability from civil servants, the Home Office and other key stakeholders to Ministers but less strong on that between Ministers and the outside world. When one looks at the level of scrutiny and oversight in, for instance, the Bundestag, the United States Senate or other legislative bodies that are performing a very vital scrutiny and oversight role of the border issue—which is, naturally, a very live issue now in the United States—one will see that there is nothing to lose by us having the opportunity to be open and transparent in seeing what the commander is actually doing.
It is vital that we put in primary legislation the ability of a parliamentary committee to bring the border commander to Parliament to answer questions at least once a year, to measure the efficacy of their policies and whether success is happening in line with what the elected politicians and your Lordships’ House require and to keep that bond of trust with the voters. There is a very low level of trust among the voters of all parties to deal, in the long term, with the issue of border control and the safety and security of the people of this country. It would be a very good idea for the Minister to at least consider that in relation to Amendment 3.
We also need clarity and openness about what the commander is doing. The worst thing about a closed system, where you have accountability only between one part of government and another, is that conspiracy theories and cynicism grow, and people cannot see that the Government are achieving their objectives. It would therefore be very useful to have the explicit terms and conditions to be laid down before Parliament included in Bill. I agree very much with my noble friend on that.
Finally, this is not an issue about the Labour Government; all Governments fall out with senior officials. It happened under the Blair Government, certainly under the Brown Government, and under the coalition Government. It is not ignoble to think that the person you have appointed no longer has the same priorities and imperatives that they should have in carrying out their role. Therefore, you have to do what they say in HR now and “dis-board” them—the opposite of onboarding and the equivalent of getting rid of them. We could say “giving them a new career trajectory”—let us be charitable. That should be the disinfectant of transparency. Bagehot once said, I think, that openness is needed to see what Governments are actually doing. The Government should therefore explain to the voters why that person did not fit in and was not able to fulfil their duties and responsibilities. That is the essence of Amendment 5.
On that basis, I ask the Minister to think about these things. As I often say, it would not invalidate the central premise of the Bill—it is very good in many respects, especially the first chapter—but it would be certainly improved by accepting the amendments. It would be a very powerful message from this Government and future Governments that they are serious about this topic, they are accountable and they are getting things done on behalf of the people who elected them.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has answered the first question that I had intended to ask on Amendment 3: whether what he was seeking was the opportunity for scrutiny and debate or a confirmation hearing of an appointment. I do not think that it is the latter.
I will just ask the noble Lord a question about Amendment 4. Would it be normal to publish such detail about a civil servant’s contract of employment? Would one really put the KPIs into the public domain in that sort of detail? What is important in this context is that determining “effectiveness”—the term used in the amendment—remains the responsibility of the Secretary of State. That will continue to lie with her. It must not be shuffled off or denied by having somebody in the role of commander.
In terms of the amendments, I am very doubtful about publishing the KPIs. But I am absolutely clear about the structure of this role and about where the responsibility for implementing policy must remain.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am again grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments and for giving us the opportunity to discuss them.
I am slightly disappointed that I have moved from being a bruiser to being emollient—but there we go. I will take that as a potential compliment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I just remind him that I reserve my right to bruise, if it is needed, but I hope it will not be on these issues.
This group contains various amendments relating to the appointment of the Border Security Commander, again tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron. The key issue in the amendments is about how the Border Security Commander will engage with Parliament. The amendments state:
“The Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament”
when an individual is designated as the Border Security Commander and to ensure that the Border Security Commander appears before any parliamentary committees when invited, and to make a Statement to Parliament in the event that the designation of the Border Security Commander is terminated, setting out the reasons for that termination.
If and when an individual is designated as the Border Security Commander—as well as the event of their ultimate termination—that would be announced in the usual way for senior officials in the Civil Service. We would make a Statement on that, and there would be the ability for a Private Notice Question or an Urgent Question to be tabled, depending on the House. There would be opportunities for the Government to table WMSs, and for Questions to be asked, on a daily basis in this House and on a regular basis in the House of Commons, about the reasons behind those decisions. The Government will certainly be transparent on these matters.
We also value the role that parliamentary committees play. If requests are made to attend committees, every effort will be made for the border commander to attend. There are already opportunities for officials across the Home Office and other government departments, who are at the level of the border commander, to appear, either independent of Ministers or in support of Ministers on key issues.
The final amendment in the group would require that the terms and conditions of the Border Security Commander and the key performance indicators used to determine their effectiveness are published. I draw the attention of noble Lords to Clause 2, which sets out the terms and conditions of the designation of the Border Security Commander. Although it would not be appropriate to disclose the detailed terms and conditions of an individual civil servant, the Border Security Commander is a director-general-level position in the Home Office and has the terms and conditions in line with that appointment.
The Government have been very clear that the Border Security Commander is responsible for leading the required step change in the UK’s approach to border security, providing a clear and long-term vision for border security, bringing together and providing leadership, and working to maintain the integrity of our border and immigration systems, both domestically and internationally. The significance of this role and its work is reflected in the Bill, which puts this office on the statutory footing we talked about earlier and creates legal requirements on the officeholder in fulfilling their duties.
The key performance indicators are the ones that the Government are setting themselves. We want to smash the gangs, reduce crossings made on an illegal basis, reduce and speed up asylum claims, and make sure that we reduce the number of hotel accommodations being used. Those are performance indicators which the Government have put in place. The Border Security Commander’s role is to help the Government co-ordinate those activities, with the budget and the staffing that they have, and to help deliver on those objectives. There is transparency and clarity on these issues. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord on the amendments that he has brought forward.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. I point out to noble Lords that these amendments are not about creating additional bureaucracy. They are very much about reinforcing something far more fundamental, which is trust—trust in the effectiveness of the new Border Security Commander, trust in the process by which they are appointed, assessed and, if necessary, removed; and trust in the Government’s commitment to openness and transparency on a matter of genuine public concern.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I just ask the noble Lord this question. Does he feel that the Home Secretary in the House of Commons and me, as the Minister in the Lords for the Home Office, would not be held to account for both the appointment and any removal of the Border Security Commander and their performance—by which I mean also the Government’s performance—as regards the issues which are of great concern to both sides of this House? That is where I think we are. This is the place to hold us to account on performance.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I fully accept what the Minister says. He can rest assured that he will be held to account in the House of Lords, and I am sure my friends in the other place will be holding the Home Secretary to account.
The Government have chosen to elevate this role, presenting it as central to their response to illegal migration and cross-border criminality, yet, as it stands, the Bill offers almost no insight into how that role will be structured, what standards of performance will apply, or what transparency will be in place if the arrangements break down. If the Government believe that this new position will be effective, and if they believe in the strength of their policy, then publishing the terms and conditions, setting the key performance indicators and offering transparency around dismissal should be welcome. These amendments would give Ministers the opportunity to prove they are serious about making this role deliver real results.
We cannot tackle this issue with platitudes and meaningless positions. The public need to know what sort of deal they are getting through this Bill. With that, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rooker
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Border Security Commander, to have regard to the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the explanation of the amendment makes its intention clear, and so I will not take very long.
I do not say that this amendment is a leftover—far from it—but, back in May, the NFU operated a very successful campaign on the need for greater biosecurity in the country, and there was an attempt to put this issue when the Bill was in the Commons. I think it simply was not selected and so there was no opportunity for it to be debated. I offered to do the necessary to get it raised here.
For an island nation like us, biosecurity is national security—it is as simple as that. We are in the same position as New Zealand, if one is looking for a comparable need for biosecurity. Our exports at the moment amount to about £9 billion of animal and plant products, and that very much relies on our reputation. We have had a few problems in the past, but our reputation is very good. The recent foot and mouth outbreak in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia is a stark reminder that it has not gone away. The consequences of failure at the border would be catastrophic for UK food producers, not just the 44,000 farmers.
Using the Bill to clarify that biosecurity is an element of border security—which is what I am asking my noble friend to do—is quite important. We look to strengthen the deterrence against and penalties for those engaged in border criminality, and to ensure, importantly, that all the agencies—the Border Force and the port health authorities—have the resources, legal powers, intelligence and political backing that they need. This is not a trivial issue, but it is not high in the political importance of colleagues in both Houses, particularly in the Government. We need to get it raised. We need to evaluate whether the current customs and inspection functions are fit for purpose. This is much needed.
I want to give a couple of examples. Since October 2022, more than 240 tonnes of illegal meat products have been seized at the Port of Dover alone. During the week commencing 6 January this year, 10 tonnes of illegal meat were intercepted and removed from the food chain. These volumes are not trivial. This will be meat that has probably not gone through official controls and has not had the hygiene care that is required. It is an ongoing threat.
Of particular concern is African swine fever—a disease with no cure or vaccine—which would cost the UK economy between £10 million and £100 million. The pig sector alone is worth £8 billion and would be severely impacted, with exports currently valued at £600 million facing greater restrictions. I have already mentioned the foot and mouth disease outbreak—the big outbreak in 2001, as opposed to the 2006 self-inflicted outbreak from the laboratory. The 2001 outbreak cost to the public sector was more than £3 billion and more than £5 billion to the private sector, including the culling of over 6 million animals. An outbreak today would devastate UK agriculture. In 2025, both African swine fever and foot and mouth disease have been detected in multiple countries across Europe.
Illegal meat is big money. The meat industry is a huge industry. It has been some years since I did any individual checking on it. Then, it was worth £6 billion—it is huge. In my experience in MAFF, Defra and the Food Standards Agency, it was one part of the food industry where there was always a willingness among certain sectors to cut corners. I had no problem with colleagues tightening up official controls. I know people complain about it, but there are plenty of people looking to make extra money with illegal meat.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said.
In my time at Defra, there was a weekly biosecurity meeting covering a variety of things, such as invasive species. In particular, the risks of African swine fever and Xylella fastidiosa were probably our biggest concerns. Those concerns continue to rise, which is why the extra investment has gone in to support Border Force. There is a bit of a debate about Dover and Sevington—or, more accurately, Bastion Point—but nevertheless, officials recommended that Sevington be the principal gateway and that it be reinforced by the Border Force at Dover.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, set out quite extensively, this matters because it was often a challenge in government to try to get other departments to realise the impact of having something like African swine fever in this country. It would entirely wipe out our pig industry. Xylella fastidiosa would wipe out species after species of flora. This is why it matters for our national biosecurity. It was great to see particular reference to investment going into Weybridge in the security strategy.
Your Lordships should not underestimate what can be done by malicious actors trying to bring in this sort of element to disrupt our country. Although I know there is collaboration between the Border Force and port health in Dover and around the country, having this issue in the priorities of this new commander would give it the prominence it desperately needs—not just among officials but across Cabinet and Ministers.
As a slight aside, I welcome the investment in Weybridge, and I pay tribute to Dame Tamara Finkelstein. She is stepping down as Permanent Secretary at Defra and is leaving the Civil Service. Candidly, I think this will be the main legacy of her time at Defra. It has taken quite a few years and money has gone along the way, but having world-class facilities is vital to recognise the importance of this to our nation.
On how this could work as a priority, a lot of effort is going into the transition from the European Union and more on the border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Of course, there is no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I fear a lot of effort is going into that at times, and I genuinely believe it has been completely and utterly unnecessary. We need to keep our focus right around the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is particularly focused on Dover, and I understand why. Candidly, a lot of stuff coming in through the classic white van is going to different parts of the country. I also pay tribute to trading standards around the country, which has been tackling this issue. It is a limited resource in local government and is trying to do many other things as well, such as tackling illegal vaping and similar things. By bringing this into the Home Office as an issue of importance, that should then extend to it becoming a priority for our local police forces around the country too.
A lot of this is seen as quite low-level organised crime, but the impact could become truly devastating. I am very conscious that the Government want to make this Border Security Commander principally about the boats, people and illegal immigration, but we have the opportunity to consider a more strategic approach. Even if this is lower down in the priorities—not that I think it should be—at least it would be a shared agenda for one of the most important posts, which this Government are creating through the Bill.
I hope the Government will consider this. Defra works exceptionally hard on this and tries to work with other parts of government. This is an opportunity to stress how big this risk is and how malicious actors can do little things to massively disrupt this country. Just think back to 20 or 25 years ago and what happened with foot and mouth: it brought the country to a standstill, so much so that a general election was delayed. That is the sort of thing we need to think about. I hope this amendment will go through.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I am a small organic farmer and therefore have an interest in this. I also was the Secretary of State and Minister of Agriculture in the key area when we were trying to deal with BSE.
Looking back, it is amazing how we got through that period. Part of the reason was that we had a real reputation for protecting biosecurity here, so it was possible to get other countries to believe us when we said what we were doing and how we were doing it. As the person absolutely in the spotlight on this, I owed my predecessors enormously, because they created the circumstances in which it was possible to fight that battle.
It is very important, and I hope the Minister will accept this, because I honour him considerably and I think the Committee recognises what a considerable role he is playing. He can usually convince us that what he needs us to do is the right thing. I say to him personally: there is a problem if you have a Cabinet in which none of the people is a countryman or has a country constituency.
There are 9 million people who live in the countryside, and agriculture is one of our crucially important industries. Therefore, I hope the Minister will understand why we are very concerned that this should be in this Bill, because it covers a much wider range than doing the things that we might otherwise do in agriculture Bills and the like.
The truth is that, although the noble Lord and my noble friend have concentrated on the gangs and the people who make a lot of money out of it, one problem with biosecurity is that it is sometimes breached almost accidentally by individuals. You can bring really serious diseases in by bringing in a ham sandwich in the wrong circumstances and dropping it. I would just be frank about that end of it. We also know that there is considerable activity in bushmeats—in other words, meat which itself is illegal, as a matter of fact, but therefore has gone through no protective system at all—and the effects of that are really serious. We do not have to go into the details of some of the human diseases which have been spread by the use of bushmeats.
I recently had to spend a lot of time trying to get the Government of the time, a Conservative Government, to take seriously the problem of the growth in the number of wild boars in our forests and the fact that African pig diseases can get into that whole community and then threaten the entire British pig industry. I can tell the Committee why it was so difficult: it was because you were talking to people who did not appear to understand, first, that pigs have two litters and produce an awful lot of piglets, which can very soon get out of hand. They did not understand how close these wild boars were to the pig industry, and they had never really seen a wild boar—as somebody who had most of the lawn dug up by one, not all that time ago, I am quite strongly affected. I say merely that I found it difficult to explain to people how serious this was, why it mattered and what the effects were if we did not get it right, so I beg the Committee to support this change.
I know that the Minister wants to control the Bill, and one does not want to expand it, and I know that the Government are very concerned about that, but it is our only chance to remind everybody of the importance of biosecurity. The challenge is getting worse and worse. It is not just animals but, as my noble friend remarked, it is also about plants, invasive species and huge costs, and I end on that issue.
If we let this get out of hand, the cost to the national Exchequer will be enormous. We need only look at what we are trying to do about Japanese knotweed and all kinds of invasive species—we know what the monster wasp is likely to do, and we think of the American crayfish. I could go through a whole series of things that we would then have to deal with. Many people will know what we had to deal with with the escape of mink, for example. The control of our borders is crucial for biosecurity reasons, but it is crucial also to the Treasury—and, if I may say so, I have never found a department less understanding of how crucial it is to them. They ought to remember the cost of foot and mouth and the cost of BSE and all those diseases. Just think of what bird flu is doing to us at this moment. Therefore, I beg the Minister to take this very seriously.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I confess to being irredeemably urban—or perhaps suburban—but “The Archers” does have a function in reminding us about pig breeding and the sizes of litters. Listening to noble Lords’ comments has made me think of a number of related issues. I think it is found in a number of parts of life that people who commit one type of crime often commit another type of crime as well. We are well aware of the flexibility, if that is the right term, of the smuggling gangs. It is entirely possible that there is some sort of read across, or at least something that we should be being flagged about.
This also made me think about health, because I believe that somebody came back from Morocco with rabies very recently. It particularly made me think about the competition for facilities at ports, certainly at Dover and, I dare say, at others as well. When I was a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, it was made quite clear, particularly by the Port of Dover, that the issue of space to undertake immigration controls was a really big issue.
The answer may be for these relationships to be governed by other authorities falling within the category of partner authorities. However, as well as the points that previous speakers have made very powerfully, there are relationships that need to be thought about very carefully, and the competition for resources of all sorts which are raised by these arrangements.
We have Amendment 19 in this group, which probes whether cybersecurity is an element of border security; it is clearly an element of security. GCHQ is not a partner authority in the Bill, so it is not within the functions of Clause 3, nor is there a general duty to co-operate as applies under Clause 5—there are to be special arrangements. I do not have a solution to this, but it is a genuine question about where cybersecurity falls within the responsibilities and how the border commander is to take account of cybersecurity.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 18 seeks to introduce another criterion to the definition of what constitutes a threat to border security. We believe it addresses a crucial and glaringly absent dimension from the definition of threats to border security—harm to the economic interests of the United Kingdom.
As drafted, the clause defines relevant threats as those involving criminality, risk of offence, or harm to persons or property. All that is right and necessary, but to leave out the economic dimension is to ignore one of the most significant consequences of border insecurity in the modern age. Illegal entry, organised immigration crime and abuse of our immigration system come at a cost, not just to public safety or border integrity but of real and measurable economic harm. This includes the burden placed on housing, healthcare and social services, and extends to the impact on wages, labour market distortions, the exploitation of workers and loss of public confidence in our immigration system.
These are some of the effects of illegal immigration which people across this country feel most keenly. We must ensure that we reflect this in our assessment of the threat which illegal immigration poses to us. If individuals are entering the UK unlawfully in ways that undermine legal labour markets, displace lawful employment or distort local economies through illicit practices, surely that is a matter of national interest. Surely that is as much of a threat to border security as any physical or legal risk. If our legal framework cannot even acknowledge that reality, how can it ever be expected to address it? This amendment would ensure that this important consideration is included in the Bill, in recognition of economic harm being one of the most serious effects of this issue.
I take this opportunity to speak to some of the other amendments in this group. Amendments 6 and 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, address an important and often overlooked issue. Illegal meat imports present a genuine risk to our agricultural sector, as we have heard, and affect our food supply chains and public health. The potential introduction of diseases such as African swine fever or foot and mouth through contaminated meat would be catastrophic, economically and environmentally. Biosecurity is a key part of our national security. The Government need to take action to ensure that this threat is addressed.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raises a matter that I hope the Government will clear up in their response. Cybersecurity is an important responsibility of the Government. I am not quite sure how it relates to border security and asylum, but this is none the less a probing amendment that I hope that the Government respond to. I share the noble Baroness’s concerns about cybersecurity. We have seen a number of high-profile and extremely damaging cyberattacks in recent months. Ministers will be aware of the urgent need to tackle this. The noble Baroness is right to raise this issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will add a couple of points to the excellent points that have been made by previous speakers. My noble friend Lady Hamwee’s point about the opportunism that is evident in the kinds of product that criminals can switch between was well made: they might one day smuggle people and another day smuggle contaminated food products, including meat.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, concerning the impact on the economic interests of the UK very much ties up with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in particular, and with trying to persuade the Treasury that the costs of foot and mouth, BSE and bird flu are important. You would think that this was self-evident, even to the Treasury. I would like to say that I was surprised at hearing that it was not, but maybe I was not.
You do not have to be a countryman to think that. I admit that you could not get a lot more metropolitan than I am, but like my noble friend I listen to “The Archers” and care about the countryside. It is not true that all of us who live in cities do not care about the countryside, but we must care about biosecurity as consumers, as well as about the impact on farmers. I absolutely support that idea, but I look forward to the Minister’s response on whether it should be part of the functions of border commander. It certainly needs to go much higher—I was going to say “up the food chain”, but that would be a bad pun—up the profile of government priorities to protect the country from biosecurity threats.
There has been a lot of concern about whether post-Brexit controls are being implemented. I am not a world expert, but the can has been kicked down the road time after time on those controls. There is also concern about whether Border Force and port health authorities are being given enough resources to stamp out illegal meat and other contaminated food imports. The Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was given a grilling by the EFRA Select Committee in the other place early last month; I do not know whether there has been any product from its evidence sessions, chaired by my friend in the other place Alistair Carmichael, but that committee is showing how importantly it takes these issues. We have noble Lords with experience of senior government posts in this area—the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—so I hope the Minister will give us a positive response.
Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned the role of trading standards, which has been so underfunded, sadly. We know what pressure council budgets are under. As a consumer, trading standards is not even on my radar, these days. Where do you go if you have a consumer complaint? I have no idea. Was it not batted off to Citizens Advice a long time ago? Anyway, we know about this function: you have the border and then you have the inside the country attention to these matters. Probably we ought to be aware that they all seem to be quite underfunded and a bit fragile in places. We know that there are so many issues that the police are unable to deal with these days, in this whole area.
There is a lot of press coverage of things such as illegal meat imports, so it would be good to hear from the Minister that the Government—not only Defra but across government—understand and will take action on the very real threats that have been raised by the amendments tabled and discussed in this group.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to all contributors to the debate. I begin by saying, straightforwardly, that the importance of biosecurity and of securing our borders on biosecurity is vital. The Government make the commitment to ensure that we prevent contaminated goods entering this country, for the very reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned—as indeed did the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford.
I will start with the amendments that seek to ensure that the Border Security Commander has regard to specific threats, namely those posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports, as tabled by my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is absolutely right that that will be a key issue for the Border Security Commander. I reassure my noble friend that the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports are implicitly included within the definition of threats to border security in Clause 3. The commander will and does work closely with colleagues in Defra and Border Force through his board to ensure that the strategic priorities for border security are tackled.
I remember the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001. In fact, I am old enough to remember the foot and mouth outbreak of 1967, when I was a child. I also remember—who can forget?—the BSE issues that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, dealt with as Agriculture Minister. My noble friend was the Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland and I know, from sharing time with him, that he put a great emphasis on the issue of bushmeat and on biosecurity generally, for the very reasons that noble Members have raised: it has a financial cost, a health cost and a border security cost. Criminals will get involved in this if they see profit but, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, also mentioned, people may bring back something from their holidays that they think is appropriate or they may have dropped a sandwich. We therefore need concerted efforts on organised biosecurity issues, but need also to be aware of the individual who breaches regulations.
I know that the National Farmers’ Union has recently written to the Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, asking for an increased focus on biosecurity issues, and he has been able to reassure them in some ways, including that sniffer dogs are operational at certain ports in the United Kingdom and that X-ray scanners at Dover are consistently used to scan vehicles that are selected as part of an intelligence-led model. There will continue to be a central focus on biosecurity by the Border Security Commander, working closely with Defra and Border Force colleagues, to ensure that we tackle the strategic priorities that noble Lords have mentioned.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I will just come back on that—I do not mean that in any aggressive way. I certainly do not doubt the Government’s commitment on these issues. It is a matter of what is within the functions of the commander. The definition in Clause 3,
“‘border security’ means the security of the United Kingdom’s borders”,
does not take us a lot further—it is a bit circular. The Minister talked about “people”. I think that he said a “person” crossing the border. I am still not quite clear whether the security issues that are not about the physical crossing of the border come within the commander’s functions. That might be something we can discuss outside the Chamber to consider whether any further amendment would be worth tabling.
I am not yet clear about where the separations or divisions come—the answer being, of course, that it is all with the Government in some form or other. However, the functions of the commander and the scrutiny of Border Security Command require a clearer answer than the Minister may be able to give today.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Before my noble friend Lord Rooker responds, I again refer the noble Baroness to Clause 3(2). It says very clearly, and this is why it is generic, that:
“The Commander must from time to time issue a document (a ‘strategic priority document’) which sets out what, in the Commander’s view, are—
(a) the principal threats to border security when the document is issued, and
(b) the strategic priorities to which partner authorities should have regard in exercising their functions”.
That is a long-term proposal for a Border Security Commander to determine in the priority document that they are going to produce under this clause the strategic threats to border security. That would include, potentially, at any one time, biosecurity, cybersecurity, economic security and the issues of illegal immigration security that we are facing as a high priority at this moment.
I hope that Clause 3(2)(a) and (b) give the potential for that document to be produced. That document is going to be shared and discussed with the Home Secretary of the day. It will be produced later in an annual plan showing what is happening. That gives an opportunity for Members of both Houses to question, debate and discuss it at any time. If there was, for example, a glaring gap in biosecurity in that strategic document, it would be for Members of this House and the House of Commons to press Ministers on that. I am saying to Members today that it is a priority for the Government. It will be in the work of the Border Security Commander. The generic role set out in Clause 3(2) includes setting a strategic priority document.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed. As far as I am concerned, my noble friend has given a positive, clear, on-the-record response for which he can be held to account. That is what it is about. He has been quite clear, and he has not tried to shove it aside.
The amendment is about border security. In my remarks, I missed the opportunity, which I always try to take, to say that the unsung heroes of food safety in this country are environmental health officers. There is no question that they are unsung, and there are fewer of them than there used to be.
I want to close with one example of joined-up government, because it covers my noble friend’s position. My first role in this House was as a Home Office Minister. I had one year. Doing immigration, asylum and nationality was my day job, and the rest of the Home Office was the other bit. During that year, I spent one complete day at Gatwick and one complete day at Heathrow watching the transfer of particular flights that were coming in—they were the bushmeat flights. This was the Home Office in 2001, so we were joined up to that extent. They were both Saturdays. I am not going to mention the country the flights came from, but the result was that we slapped visas on them. The Home Office was aware of the situation because of what was being discovered, and it was thought appropriate that the Minister should have a Saturday there and a Saturday at the other place. I still occasionally read about people with bushmeat. I do not accept the cultural argument, by the way; it is out of bounds, as far as I am concerned. It is about food safety, it is illegal, and it is crucial that it is dealt with. The Home Office in 2001 proved that safety goes across government.
I understand that my noble friend is not even paid for the job he is doing at the moment, so I will not try to force him to spend a Saturday down at the airport, away from his family. He gave a first-class answer. I congratulate the NFU as well; I know that it pushed this issue, having started a campaign back in May to improve biosecurity. The more that we talk about it, the more likely we are to succeed in protecting the country. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“(c) reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings, and(d) increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations who facilitate illegal migrant crossings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds further objectives to the Commander’s functions.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 7 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, I will speak to the further amendments in this group.
The Prime Minister said during his visit to Italy in September 2024:
“No more gimmicks. This Government will tackle the smuggling gangs who trade the lives of men, women and children across borders”.
I say to the Minister that we must be very careful that the Border Security Commander is not one such gimmick. We are told that the commander
“must have regard to the objectives of … maximising the effectiveness”
and co-ordination of other authorities, but what does that mean in practice? That is not a power of direction, it is not a position of operational command, and it is not even statutory oversight. What is more, the commander is expected to publish from time to time a strategic priority document that merely sets out what the commander thinks the threats are and what the priorities should be—and even that cannot be published without the consent of the Secretary of State and a consultation.
Border security is not an abstract exercise. It is about real threats, people smuggling, trafficking, organised crime, the movement of dangerous goods and hostile actors seeking to exploit our borders. If this role is meant to mean anything at all then the commander must be empowered to act, not just observe. They must be able to co-ordinate, direct and enforce, not simply suggest, advise and hope that someone listens. As it stands, the first few clauses of the Bill grant the commander very little in the way of real powers. Clause 3(1) gives the commander only two objectives, Clause 3(2) states that the commander must issue a so-called strategic priority document, and Clause 4 states that the commander must prepare an annual report.
In the spending review, the Chancellor announced an additional £280 million per year in funding for Border Security Command on top of the £150 million that the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Budget. That gives the commander a total of £430 million in overall budget—that is, £430 million to write two reports and adhere to two objectives. While we on these Benches welcome that extra funding, we must ask what that money will actually fund. How can the operation of the commander’s functions cost that much money? Might it not be better for the money to be funded directly into Border Force, the coastguard or immigration enforcement?
If we are to have a Border Security Commander then surely we should give that office far greater authority in its objectives than what the Bill currently delivers. That is what our amendments attempt to achieve. They seek to add further fundamental objectives to the functions of the Border Security Commander.
Amendment 7 states that the commander must have regard to the objectives of reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings and increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations that facilitate illegal crossings—or to smash the gangs, in the phrase of the Prime Minister from the general election last year. This amendment is completely in step with the Government’s stated aims. In fact, at Second Reading the Minister said that the key performance indicators for Border Security Command are
“a reduction in the number of migrant crossings, an increase in prosecutions and a disruption of the gangs”.—[Official Report, 2/6/25; col. 588.]
I ask as a direct challenge: if the Minister believes that those are the key indicators for success, as stated to the Committee, then why would he not wish to put them in the Bill?
Amendment 8 would make preventing the boarding of vessels and illegal entry and facilitating the return of those with no right to be here explicit functions of the commander. Again, this goes to the heart of tackling the issue we are discussing. In effect, we want it in black and white in the Bill that the commander will be given the objective of reducing illegal entry to the country. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Since 2018, when the figures were first recorded, more than 150,000 people have arrived in small boats. In 2024, 36,816 people were detected making the crossing. I would like to understand why the Government do not think it is worth while to give the Border Security Commander the direct objective of reducing or even ending those arrivals.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I think this may be the moment to remind ourselves that “illegal” and “irregular” are not the same thing. Amendment 7 refers to “illegal migrant crossings”. It is not illegal to seek asylum, and a crossing is not the same thing as entry. I ask noble Lords to forgive me for that slightly pompous comment, but I think it is important.
I say again that it is the Secretary of State who holds the responsibility and the liability, if you like. I may be misunderstanding this, but there is a muddling of responsibility by, for instance, including prosecutions within the functions and, similarly, running UKBI casework and returns. I would also say on Clause 8 that one cannot know whether someone does not have leave, or has leave obtained by fraudulent means, and therefore the commander cannot leap straight to making arrangements for the return of such persons.
I have never been known not to support an amendment that requires consultation, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is not here to speak to his amendment, which seems to be in the usual formula. I thought it would be a rather good hook, and I will push it a little by saying that yesterday I received, as no doubt other noble Lords did, a briefing from the Bar Council, which refers to the importance of independent oversight and suggests that the independent inspector—I can never remember the words; the ICIBI—might have a role here. But since the amendment has not been spoken to, I had better not go that far.
We have Amendment 25 in this group. Again, it is a probing amendment. Under the Bill, the board is given a function to assist. But, as the commander’s functions are co-ordinating and setting priorities, perhaps “assist” cannot mean an operational role. My amendment proposing “advise” in place of “assist” probes how the Government envisage that the board will function and seeks to understand whether there is or is not—I assume there is not—any operational role here. Amendment 71 is in this group as well, but I will leave my noble friend to introduce that.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton is unable to be here and has therefore asked me to speak to his amendment. I tried to add my name, but it was too late for the deadline.
Clause 9 requires the commander to comply with directions and “have regard to guidance” by the Secretary of State about the exercise of the commander’s functions. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to
“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate before issuing or revising directions or guidance”
under Clause 9. That is fine, but the issue is whether we will ever know what guidance the Secretary of State has given; in other words, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, when the Secretary of State issues this guidance, she shall act in a transparent manner and consult appropriate persons before issuing or revising directions or guidance under Clause 9. It is a matter of having some openness in how this thing happens; otherwise, we will never know quite what instructions have come from the Secretary of State.
I understand that the Law Society of Scotland produced a pretty good briefing on this. Although the amendment does not, of course, confine itself to Scotland but covers all parts of the United Kingdom, nevertheless, my noble friend and I are indebted to the briefing from the Law Society of Scotland. This is simply a bid for openness in the way in which the functions are to be exercised.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron, which seek to flesh out what the role of this organisation is to be and to put more detail on objectives and functions. If one looks at the functions of the commander, one sees that the meat of this is really in two points made over four and a half lines, so it is very thin indeed. It is an organisation that has already been established, as we know, and there is already an incumbent, so I think it would help the Committee a great deal if the Minister were to explain what the organisation is really going to look like. We talk about the border commander as if it is an individual, and indeed that person is an individual, but then we go on to talk about the command—the organisation.
The Minister has talked in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially, at the disposal of this organisation, or if not at its disposal, then it would have a high degree of influence over it. These are very considerable sums of money when one considers the overall budget, for example, of the Border Force, so will the Minister set out what the actual border commander’s organisation, the BSC, will look like? On what sort of scale will it be, in terms of staff, for example? A figure of £150 million was mentioned that will, in essence, be put at the disposal of the commander. What does that mean? What is the operating budget of this organisation going to be? Can the noble Lord help us? To look at this as an organisation rather than as an individual, £150 million gets you a lot of co-ordination. Can we hear more about the structure, the functions, the skills of the staff that will be working there, the type of experience, the operating budget and what returns are sought on the budgets that are being put forward?
I welcome the opportunity for the Minister, in response to my noble friend’s amendments, and indeed the others that have been discussed, to come forward and help the Committee establish what type of organisation we are talking about. He might care to illustrate it through an example of how the new organisation will interact with the Border Force. Who is going to be, in a sense, holding the strategic priorities? Which organisation is going to have influence over the other? I am sure it would help the Committee a great deal if the Minister were able to do that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 71 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord German. I had expected that it would be grouped with my mine and others’ amendments about Europol. Those are in later groups, but this one got bounced up, I guess for understandable reasons because it is about a duty on the border commander, so it makes sense to group it either way, as it were. That means there is going to be a slightly disjointed discussion on Europol, but I am delighted to raise the issue sooner rather than later.
I am hoping for a positive response from the Minister, because when the UK-EU summit on 19 May produced the so-called common understanding—it is a slightly awkward term, but it is the reset result, and a good result it was—there was, in particular, a point on internal security and judicial co-operation, and that referred back to doing better work on Part Three of the trade and co-operation agreement. In case noble Lords do not have the document under their eyes, Article 567 of the TCA is about the scope of co-operation with Europol. It talks about “the exchange of information”, including
“specialist knowledge … general situation reports … results of strategic analysis … information on criminal investigation procedures … information on crime prevention methods … participation in training activities”
and
“the provision of advice and support in individual criminal investigations as well as operational cooperation”.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has given us a foretaste of the consideration we will give to Amendment 206, tabled by her noble friend Lady Hamwee and to which I have added my name, which is about Europol. I agree with what she said. I also agree with the interventions made by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who spoke on behalf of his noble friend Lord Browne, about the importance of consultation. Of course, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. She has no reason to fear; no one will ever accuse her of being pompous. She was right to remind us about the importance of the use of words, drawing our attention to “irregular” and “illegal”.
I will speak to Amendment 7, moved very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on his behalf and that of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which spells out what the duties of the commander should be in
“reducing the number of illegal migrant crossings, and … increasing the prosecutions of criminal organisations who facilitate illegal migrant crossings”.
In some ways it seems almost otiose to include this in the Bill, as those are clearly the main reasons why the Government brought it forward in the first place, but I understand the need sometimes to use Bills as a form of semaphore to send out signals and why the Opposition Front Bench might wish to do that.
As the Minister knows, I apologised for being unable to speak at Second Reading because a group of us from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, were in Strasbourg to talk about, among other things, interpretations of Article 8 of the ECHR, prosecutions, the number of illegal crossings—as referred to in this amendment—and the criminal gangs manipulating and profiteering on the backs of often desperate people. During that visit, we met, among others, Tim Eicke KC, who has been the British judge in the European court for the past nine years. As noble Lords will know, the Government have put forward the names of three others who will take his place. I am glad to say that he has told me that he is willing to come to your Lordships’ House when he returns in September to share with us many of the experiences that he has had over these past nine years.
The European court and the Council of Europe are not our enemies; some of your Lordships were able to participate in the debate that I moved on behalf of the Cross Benches a few weeks ago on the European Convention on Human Rights—its origins, which we have been celebrating as it is its 75th anniversary, and its importance in this day and age. The Council of Europe and the European convention are inextricably linked. I wanted members of our committee to evaluate and understand that, because if one were to leave the convention it would mean also leaving the Council of Europe and disentangling ourselves from many of the things that I believe will help us ensure that the number of illegal crossings will be reduced and the number of prosecutions increased, because we have to do these things across borders and with our neighbours. If we do not, we will certainly not stem the staggering numbers of people leaving their homelands to make these dangerous crossings.
The Council of Europe and the court shared our concerns in all the discussions that we had. These are not our enemies. We discussed the exploitation and displacement of a staggering 122 million people—a number that has nearly doubled in the past decade. The number of refugees and persons in need of international protection reached over 42 million, while the number of internally displaced people rose to around 74 million. More than two-thirds of refugees originated from just six countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, South Sudan, Sudan and Venezuela. A rough but telling extrapolation from these figures suggests that around one in every 67 people on earth has been forcibly displaced. These people are the shadow which hangs over our debate on this amendment and others today.
On 20 June, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report on this Bill. It runs to over 80 pages and I commend it to your Lordships. It is available in the Printed Paper Office. At paragraph 13, we remarked:
“It was not within the scope of this inquiry to look at wider issues such as the root causes of the refugee crisis or proposals for offering safe and legal routes to those in need of protection. Whilst this Bill focuses exclusively on tackling organised immigration crime, we encourage the Government to seek to address the underlying root causes which are fuelling the global refugee crisis”.
We cannot dodge that challenge. I strongly agree with the UNHCR, which, in its recent analysis of global trends, was emphatic that, for meaningful progress to be made,
“we must address the root causes”.
It is a point that I have repeatedly—perhaps some would say tediously—made in your Lordships’ House. Simply blaming international humanitarian law will not be part of the solution.
To be clear, the Joint Committee welcomes the Bill’s overall aims to deter organised crime and prevent loss of life at sea. Of course, we would therefore agree with the terms of this amendment as it is drafted. It is right that the Government do all they can to ensure that a legislative framework is in place to help eradicate this terrible and dangerous criminality, but we will not do that by diminishing our obligations to uphold international conventions and commitments.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, does an admirable job in his role at the Home Office and I join others in paying tribute to him. I have been deeply impressed by the work he does and it is good to have got to know him over the distance. The Minister knows as well as I do that, if offences are applied too broadly, refugees, victims of people smuggling and modern slavery are being put at risk of being criminalised rather than the smugglers. We have to help the victims as well as tackle the smugglers; it is not a question of one or the other. The Bill needs to target those who are profiting from organised immigration crime. The people they are exploiting need to be protected, but at present there is a risk that the most vulnerable are caught by some of the new offences. We are united in wishing to reduce the number of illegal crossings, but we are wary of enacting laws which could have unforeseeable consequences.
I will return to some of these points in later groups. I will try not to be repetitive—we have to make progress on this Bill. I welcome the debate we have had so far on this group and the spirit in which it has been conducted. It is admirable, and far better than some of the exchanges that we had in the previous Parliament, both in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and on the Floor of the House. I hope, as we proceed, that we will keep these two objectives in our sights: first, to tackle the illegality of those who are putting lives at risk on a daily basis and, secondly, the importance of protecting those who are so vulnerable.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, but I did attend the pre-brief that the Minister kindly gave to Peers.
On Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I would be surprised if such meetings were not on the agenda of anybody holding the position. I have no difficulty with the concept of putting it in the Bill, but I assume it would be a routine level of co-operation that you would expect. However, if she feels it necessary to insist that it is in the Bill, I personally have no objection to it.
As I said to the Minister, my concern is not with the Bill itself but with what is not in it; that is my biggest worry. We have just heard figures about the international situation and, of course, we require an international negotiation to try to solve an international problem. That is why I am surprised that the Government are refusing even to talk to our allies about the 1951 refugee convention. I asked the Government last August and again a few weeks ago, and they refuse to enter into discussions with our allies on that. I would have thought it was a relatively sensible place to start, because the convention was created after World War Two and the world has changed. The problem is highlighted by what we have just been discussing. International aid is obviously another component and, of course, for economic reasons, we are moving in the opposite direction. There is a contradiction at the core of it all.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who makes a really important point about the importance of looking again at the things we committed ourselves to in the circumstances in which those were signed. I reassure him that the Joint Committee takes that view too. While we were in Strasbourg, we discussed a letter which had just been sent by nine different Governments, led by Denmark and Donald Tusk’s Poland—which could hardly be regarded as being anti-international law or on the far right of politics—urging the Council of Europe and the European court to look again at the interpretation of things such as Article 8. I know that is the position of the Government, too. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, we will hear more from the Government about what it actually is that they would like to see reformed.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The Minister will be aware that, of course, the ECHR has particular connotations for me and Northern Ireland and how we negotiated the Good Friday agreement. Equally, how its terms are being interpreted, within the United Kingdom internally in particular, gives me cause for great concern. No agreement should be unable to be reviewed or looked at with life experience and the passage and flux of time. All I am saying is that the Government need to do both. The refugee convention of 1951 is another component part of it.
Coming back to the point about the powers of the commander, I believe it has to be the Government that set the strategic objectives. If we are not careful, we are also in danger of having too many cooks here. We have Border Force, this new organisation, the Government themselves, the police and all sorts of people involved, indeed including Interpol operating internationally. My anxiety about all of this is that successive Governments and Parliaments—we are all responsible—were all part of the business model of ruthless people who exploit and take money from unfortunate individuals who find themselves in difficult circumstances.
On the other hand, there are our own failings internally about our record-keeping. I do not believe that we really know who is in this country. We do not know how many Governments are putting potential sleeper cells into our country, and we do not really know who leaves and when. Boats are not the only method of irregularly or illegally getting into this country; the old-fashioned back of the lorry and other means are still there and have to be taken into account.
We have a huge task ahead of us, but I say to the Minister that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others have substance. I do not see anything wrong with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne; it seems a reasonably sensible thing to do, and I would have no issues with it at all. However, I remind the Minister that, at the end of the day, the buck stops with the Government in setting goals, and it is within that that we should look at how a commander operates, because that person cannot simply exist in splendid isolation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am again grateful for the amendments tabled, because they have sparked a discussion on a range of issues.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I note that the Government will set objectives, will have policies on these areas and will, as they have already done, set out their proposals and plans to deal with these issues. We are establishing the Border Security Commander post to assist the Government in the effective co-ordination and delivery of those points. We have put in £150 million in this financial year to support that post. We have agreed with the SR, through the hard work of the current Border Security Commander, an additional £280 million over the three-year period. That is determined to deliver on the Government’s strategic objectives to secure our borders and to provide the security on all the issues that we discussed in the debate on the previous set of amendments.
There are wider issues, which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned, and which form part of the Government’s consideration under the immigration White Paper that they produced four or five weeks ago and presented to this House. It has masses of detail about the long-term issues that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, including the interpretation of Article 8. Clearly and self-evidently, we will examine the report that the JCHR—the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—has produced on those issues; it is a good, wide-reaching document and the Government will consider it and respond to it in due course.
This is, therefore, not the only tool in the box to address the wider issues and downstream challenges around why people are moving in the first place and seeking asylum through either illegal or irregular means. There are issues to do with the interpretation of Article 8, and there is a constant flow of activity in the Home Office assessing all the issues that the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Empey, mentioned.
I will turn my focus back to the amendments, which are about the Border Force Commander. The strategic priorities, which the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, mentioned, are very clear. In Clause 3, we are trying to give great scope to the Border Security Commander to produce a plan to deal with the challenges that are discussed with the Home Secretary on a weekly basis and to deliver effective outcomes.
Since being in post, the Border Security Commander has, for example, struck new anti-smuggling action plan agreements with the G7 and bilateral agreements with Italy, Germany, Serbia and the Balkan states. He has increased UK operations with Europol, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned. He has essentially been the driving force behind the Calais group—France, Belgium, Holland, and the United Kingdom—in looking at what measures we need to take.
There are additional resources, and the noble Viscount rightly challenged us on how they are used. They have been used to date to employ additional people under Border Security Command initial direction, to support work on a range of issues. For example, over 200 people are working in a variety of areas on the border security strategy as a whole, and there is support for 100 new officers to deal with Border Security Command as a whole. That has now closed twice as many social media accounts as before, increased the cost of gang and boat engine packages, and supported over 80 ongoing investigations with the National Crime Agency. A whole range of things is going on now, and again, I hope that, with the legal framework in place in the Bill, there will be, as the Bill says, an annual strategy and an annual report to Parliament via the Home Secretary on the outcomes of these proposals and policies.
The group of amendments which was produced by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel—again, they are perfectly legitimate questions to ask—set out effectively issues that are in the functions of the commander in Clause 3, including requirements for the commander to seek to maximise
“the effectiveness of the activities of partner authorities relating to threats to border security”.
The first of these objectives is the very one that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned. The Government have been clear that preventing dangerous crossings and dismantling organised gangs that are facilitating those journeys is a top priority. Indeed, the work of the Border Security Command and its partners is now delivering results.
Just this month, a suspected organised crime boss and his associates were arrested for facilitating hundreds of individuals entering the UK illegally as part of a surge in law enforcement activity co-ordinated by the Border Security Command. The Government are working to restore order and control of the migration system in the wider ways that we have talked about with the noble Lord, Lord Empey. That is central. I welcome, in a sense, the agreement and understanding from the amendments, but it is central to the core proposals of the Border Security Command.
A further amendment would also allow Border Security Command to issue directions to partner authorities for specified purposes. I just do not think that the power to direct is required. In oral evidence sessions in the House of Commons, we heard from the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. They welcomed and supported the role and collaboration to date with the Border Security Commander and the arrangements provided for in the Bill, which will reflect and respect the operational requirements of the various board members.
I know he is not here at the moment, but the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, raised the issue of operational responsibilities at Second Reading. We have to respect that, but there is a role for co-ordination and extra financial support and direction from the Border Security Commander centrally. Under Clause 5, partner authorities have a duty to co-operate with the commander in so far as it is reasonably practical for them to do so, and under Clause 3, partner authorities must have regard to the strategic priorities, which will have been endorsed and consulted on, supported by the Secretary of State and by the board, and in Clause 3(4)(b), the current wording in the Bill ensures that all parts of the system work coherently to tackle the very border security threats that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has raised in his amendment, while respecting the operational independence of the various partner authorities. The amendment as proposed would potentially undermine that valuable operational independence.
So I understand where the noble Viscount is coming from and the need to press on those matters—and I understand the need for the noble Viscount to intervene, which I will allow him to do.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
It is very generous of the Minister to interrupt his afternoon and his peroration to let me do so.
I asked the Minister just to give the Committee a bit more detail. He talked about some teams of people who were undertaking various different tasks. But what is the anticipated annual operating budget of the organisation, and what is the very approximate staff complement that is anticipated for the organisation once it is up and running?
He talked about various initiatives, saying that the Border Force Commander had done this and done that, all of which sounded very positive and laudable. But are we talking about the border commander’s organisation undertaking executive programmes: is it delivering some of these initiatives? The way it is portrayed in the Bill and the way the Minister has described it, the organisation’s individual will be co-ordinating but the actual delivery will be done through other partner agencies. Is that still the case?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Border Security Commander has a co-ordinating but also a strategic directional role, so, in consultation with the various partners, he will be producing a plan which brings together various partners who are currently operating independently, some of whom are not even within the Home Office’s direct responsibility areas, because there are, as we talked about earlier on, biosecurity elements of Defra and others there, to effect a strategic plan for the three-year period of the SR, for which he has been given £280 million to determine how the plan is used and implemented from the SR settlement.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed on this group. Some of the contributions were outside the subject matter of my amendments but made some very important and significant arguments, especially from noble Lords who were not able to be present at Second Reading. I particularly point to the speech of my noble friend Lord Goschen, who asked some very pointed and forensic questions about the nature of the security command. I am not sure that he received an answer that satisfied him, but we will see how this transpires.
We have heard again and again that the Bill, and the creation of the Border Security Commander, are meant to signal a new era in the Government’s approach to illegal migration and organised criminal networks. If that is to be the case, the reality has to live up to the rhetoric. At present, I do not believe that it does. Our amendments seek to give substance to a role that currently lacks it and to ensure that the commander is tasked not with observation but with action. Without clear objectives, real powers and meaningful authority, this role risks becoming the most expensive strategic document writer in the history of Whitehall.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised a question about one of our amendments including prosecutions. We are not suggesting for a minute that the Border Security Commander will be responsible for prosecuting. I was pointing to what the Minister said at Second Reading: that the success of Border Security Command would be measured by a reduction in crossings and an increase in prosecutions. These amendments simply seek to put those objectives in black and white. We do not understand why the Government should be reluctant to define in law as objectives the very outcomes that they claim to be delivering.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we do not believe that this is otiose. We think it is important. The amendments that we have proffered are the opportunity to correct that. They would ensure that the commander’s functions are explicitly tied to the outcomes that the Government say they want. They provide objectives that would lead to urgent decision-making on asylum claims. They would empower the commander to issue binding directions to the partner authorities, et cetera.
The stakes here are very high. The British people are watching. They are right to expect more than well-meaning structures; they expect real enforcement, real deterrence, real co-ordination and, above all, real outcomes. If the Government are serious about regaining control of our borders, they must give the commander the tools to do the job. We think that these amendments are a constructive, credible way forward and that they give the role meaning, direction and power.
If the Minister continues to be emollient, I also encourage him to be reflective and to reflect on these amendments, not just for the sake of the legislation but for the sake of public trust and national credibility. Let us not settle for appearances; let us legislate for results. I hope the Government seriously consider adopting our amendments in the future but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 9, alongside the other amendments in this group, seeks to amend the strategic priority document issued by the commander. The Government envisage that this strategic priority document, as outlined in Clause 3, is essential to focusing the Border Security Commander’s priorities and that its contents will outline the principal threats to border security and the strategic priorities to which partner authorities must have regard.
I therefore ask why the Government have decided it must be issued simply “from time to time” rather than annually, as proposed in Amendment 9. If the Government are so confident, should they not issue this document annually? From time to time could mean very rarely. If the role is to be taken seriously, it must come with measurable goals. It goes without saying that a vague timeframe renders the publishing of a document a somewhat arbitrary display of the commander’s responsibility, instead of a fulfilment of his strict duty to protect our borders. I acknowledge that there is an annual reporting duty. That reinforces, in my view, the need for this document to be produced annually too.
There is one point in this clause on which I genuinely seek clarification from the Minister, because it goes to the necessity of the provision as a whole. Subsection (2) requires the commander to assess
“the principal threats to border security”.
This goes to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on the last group: is the assessment of principal threats to security not properly a function to be undertaken by Ministers, most obviously the Home Secretary, with the Home Office, her 38,000 or so staff, the Border Force, Immigration Enforcement, the Small Boats Operational Command, the Migration Advisory Committee and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration? In seeking to place this duty to assess principal threats on the commander, I ask the Minister where responsibility lies.
Secondly, the Bill requires a rather slender number of inclusions in the strategic priority document. If the commander is to prepare a statement of strategic priorities, should it not be more comprehensive? My Amendments 10 and 12, and Amendment 11 from my noble friend Lord Goschen, attempt to rectify this.
Amendment 10 would require the commander to include an assessment of the most effective methods for deterring illegal entry, reducing the number of sea crossings and arranging for timely and effective removals, including to a safe third country. The Government have stated that they believe the creation of this new position is essential in deterring migration; if that is so, why not require the commander to consider those factors when drafting his overall assessment of threats to our borders?
I am afraid it is true, given the crossings this spring and early summer, that the Government have not succeeded in their mission. We know that on 21 May, 825 people crossed the channel; on 13 June, 919 made the crossing; and on 31 May, 1,195 people journeyed. The Government have presided over the highest asylum figures recorded in a single quarter—September to December 2024. Given these figures, does the Minister not agree that an explicit requirement relating to reducing illegal crossings should feature in the commander’s strategic priorities?
I welcome my noble friend Viscount Goschen’s amendment to my amendment; I believe it would a crucial addition to the strategic priorities that the commander must consider. We know that all those who choose to make the crossing across the channel have transited through a safe third country. Understanding the reasons why they do not therefore choose to remain in those safe countries is the first step to deterring them effectively. For that same reason, I and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower have included in Amendment 10 an assessment of removals to safe third countries.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 11 in this group is an amendment to my noble friend’s Amendment 10.
Before I get into the detail of it, I must support what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said in the previous group. They put their finger on one of the key issues: namely, that the Secretary of State cannot step back and abrogate her responsibility to set strategic priorities. Surely the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for setting the strategic priorities. It would be better for the Bill to say that the Secretary of State will publish the strategic priorities for the organisation, having been advised by the border commander and having consulted the commander and other relevant agencies. It seems quite a circular argument for the border commander to be invited to come up with their own strategic priorities and then set out how they intend to address them—there is an element of marking your own homework here. We will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say to the point about the strategic priorities coming from the border commander rather than from the Secretary of State. It may well be something we wish to return to.
The origins of Amendment 11 lie in an exchange I had with the Minister at Second Reading, to which he followed up with a letter. The question I had asked him was this: what is the Government’s understanding of the specific factors that drive desperate people to take their lives and those of their families into their own hands and undertake a sea crossing with, potentially, the peril of death or serious injury? Why would they come from at least one other safe country—generally France—or a series of safe countries they might have passed through? Why would they risk everything, including their lives and those of their families, to come specifically to the UK? What is it about the regulatory, commercial or cultural situation in the UK that causes people to come here?
The Minister was kind enough to provide me with a substantial letter, which I hope he will not mind me paraphrasing by saying that his answer was, “We don’t really know”. It was more complicated than that but that was the thrust of it. I think we should know and should be honest about the factors, whether they are to do with the support provided, the level of control we intend to exert over people who come here irregularly or illegally, or the organised crime gangs—all factors the Minister touched on—or whether it is also to do with the chances of deportation. I wonder whether the Minister can assist the Committee by telling us the average rate of deportation of people who have come here through illegal or irregular means or who have crossed the channel in small boats?
I believe there is another factor as well, which is the opportunity for irregular migrants to take on paid work, whatever the regulations say. I am sure the Minister is very well aware, for example, of the coverage on the front pages of national newspapers yesterday about people coming from government-funded hotels where they have been housed and undertaking work for some big companies—as a contractor, I suspect. We have to grapple with those factors and be honest about them. We need to tackle the demand side as well as the supply side. I appreciate that this Bill is very much about addressing the supply side, and quite rightly so, but it is incredibly important that we look at the specific demand factors that are driving people to risk their lives to come to the UK in preference to other European countries.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords. I will try to answer the noble Viscount immediately. It was very kind that he paraphrased my reply as “We don’t know”. A tadge unfair, I fear, but an opinion none the less. We do know about the many issues that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, refers to on a regular basis—war, hunger and oppression—that drive people to leave their homes or force people out of their homes. There are many people who are criminally trafficked across Europe. There are many people who attempt to come to the United Kingdom because of simple things such as speaking English as opposed to other foreign languages or because of the nirvana promised to them by criminal gangs. There is a range of pull factors that we know about, and we are consistently assessing those.
The noble Viscount might be interested to know that, under the previous Government, in the years between January 2018 and March 2025, 94% of small boat arrivals had an asylum claim raised, and outcomes from those asylum claims varied. People from Afghanistan had 37% of asylum claims agreed, for people from Syria it was 99%, for people from Eritrea it was 86%, for people from Iran it was 48% and for people from Sudan it was 98%. There is a variety. That is because the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly continually raises in this House are very often push factors rather than pull factors. They are push factors from areas of high levels of poverty, war or other disruptive influences.
Our model has to be to try to smash the criminal gangs and to remove their ability to traffic effectively, for the reasons that we have debated all afternoon. In that, the role of the border commander is critical. The amendments that have been brought forward by His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench look at, first, specifying the frequency with which the Border Security Commander must issue a strategic priority document. The Border Security Commander can issue a strategic priority document to partner authorities setting out the principal threats to border security, but I want the Border Security Commander to have flexibility to update those priorities as and when threats evolve. The very changes that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have mentioned might well impact upon that. Under the terms of the amendment, the production of a document annually would not allow that to happen. I want it to be a fluid operation between the Border Security Commander and others.
Members have also asked who is setting the strategic priority. The framework we have set out in the Bill is clear: the Border Security Commander will be setting strategic objectives, having consulted a board that is established under the Bill, having consulted partner agencies which have operational responsibility—as mentioned—under the Bill, having discussed it with the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary, who will themselves have discussed it with other Ministers, and having produced clear evidence of what the pressures on border security are. The plan will then be produced. We are currently looking at the issues that I mentioned earlier—the operational delivery of that and the members of staff, and so on, downstream—about which I will write to the noble Viscount.
We have a £280 million resource for the next three years of the spending review, and we will be looking at how we do that when allocations are made later this year. However, I say to His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and other noble Lords who have raised these issues that the flexibility to produce a plan with the Border Security Commander under the strategic objectives set by the Government is critical.
Other amendments set out that additional information should be included in the strategic priority document. The Government are working hard to prevent dangerous sea crossings, to target smuggling gangs, to make sure that they do not put lives at risk and to address the factors that are driving illegal immigration from safe countries. The strategic policy document is issued to partner authorities and sets out the strategic priorities that they must have in exercising those functions. Again, I hope the noble Lord will reflect on the proposals in the Bill in due course because it is not clear how suitable the assessment set out in the amendment would be for such a document.
Amendment 12 aims to ensure that the strategic priority document issued by the Border Security Commander and the UK border strategy are supportive of each other. Again, border security is a fundamental part of the wider strategic approach to the border and strategic priorities for border security, which will help to drive the wider UK Government approach. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we coherently and sensibly convene activity across the whole UK border system. It is therefore not really plausible to imagine a situation whereby the commander’s priorities, setting consultation with the board, would be at odds with wider priorities set by other agencies. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide the grasp, coherence, drive and strategic forum for the exercise of these measures to deal with the very issues that we have all mentioned in this short debate.
I hope that helps regarding the amendments. We can return to these on Report if need be, but I hope that for the moment I have addressed the issues raised.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to my noble friend Lord Goschen.
This short debate has brought to light a number of what we say are shortcomings in how the Government currently envisage the role and responsibilities of the commander, particularly with regard to the strategic priority document. We are told that it is central to the commander’s function and that it will help to shape the response to some of the complex and pressing threats to our border, yet it still seems a surprise that it need be issued only “from time to time”.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but I simply do not believe that it is a serious approach to a serious national challenge, when confidence in the system is fragile, to leave the frequency of such an important document so open-ended. For that reason, the clear solution is Amendment 9’s requirement to issue it annually. That is simply a minimum standard of accountability. It would not be excessive or difficult and, if the commander is to be held to their role, it would be a form of regularly reporting on the document.
Frequency is not the only issue, as has been said. As drafted, the document lacks substance. It offers no mandate to assess the effectiveness of the methods being used to deter illegal entry, reduce crossings or facilitate removals. Amendment 10 would address that gap directly. If the Government truly believe that the role will make a difference, they should have no hesitation in embracing clarity, direction and purpose in the remit of the commander.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I just want to add that the Employment Rights Bill is currently going through a lengthy procedure of discussion in this House. It is attempting to put down a whole range of measures which tackle some of the employment issues on illegal working that will potentially—going back to the noble Viscount’s point about pull factors—deal with that in a much more effective and strong way. I hope that, after 10 or 11 days in Committee and with Report to come, the noble Lord can reflect on that and see what support he can give to the measures in that Bill.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I will reflect very carefully on that. The amendments in this group, like the amendments in the previous group, are not about undermining the Government’s intentions; they are about giving them a credible, coherent mechanism to pursue and deliver them. That is the very reason I support Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lord Goschen, and Amendment 12, which would ensure that the commander’s work is not carried out in isolation but is aligned with the UK’s border strategy. The lack of linkage between the commander’s priorities and the border strategy is, in our view, a missed opportunity. Amendment 12 would put that right.
If the Government are serious about border reform and want to be taken seriously on deterring crossings and improving removals, they must demonstrate a willingness to embrace the structure, purpose and accountability offered by the amendments. I simply urge the Government to listen to what we have proposed today and accept these changes in the spirit in which they are intended; that is, to ensure that the commander is not just another headline but a role that delivers real outcomes for the British people. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
““illegal entry to the United Kingdom” is defined in accordance with section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences);”
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 15 I will speak also to Amendment 17; both are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. I will also reflect briefly on Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Amendment 15 is a matter of legal precision. Legal precision, especially in issues as sensitive and complex as immigration enforcement, is a necessity. This amendment would define illegal entry to the United Kingdom with direct reference to Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. That Act has long provided the statutory foundation for offences relating to unlawful entry and overstaying. If we are serious about creating a coherent framework for the commander to operate within, we must be clear about what we mean by “illegal entry”. Without this definition, the term is left open to interpretation and could result in confusion, inconsistency and perhaps even legal challenge. By tying a definition directly to the existing law, we would ensure that there is no ambiguity and no risk of the commander operating under uncertain or shifting interpretations. It is a simple, necessary fix and sets widely accepted parameters, not only for our discussion now but for the law once it comes into force.
Amendment 17 is likewise rooted in common sense. It defines sea crossings as
“journeys by water from another country for the purpose of reaching, and gaining entry into, the United Kingdom”.
That is important because it makes it clear that a sea crossing can be regarded as having occurred from any third country. It is vital that we draft this legislation now in a way that allows our enforcement authorities to take robust action to stop this threat. How we define these core terms is important to ensuring that we can do this successfully.
We note that the Government’s current intention is to include sea crossings that originate only in France, Belgium or the Netherlands, as is stated in the offence of endangering another during sea crossings in Clause 18. We have an amendment to address that in a later group, so I will not dwell on it now, but suffice it to say that we do not think we should be narrowing the scope of the definition only to crossings that begin in these three countries. They might be the countries that illegal migrants cross from now, but we must ensure that the legislation is future-proofed. Given that the strategy—indeed, much of the public discourse—centres on the dangers and deterrence of these crossings, it is only right that the Bill is clear in defining what it actually refers to. Our amendment would close that gap.
I turn briefly to Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which raises an interesting point about whether private bodies carrying out public functions are captured under the definition of “public authority”. I suggest some caution, though: although the intention is to probe and not prescribe, we must be wary of unintentionally expanding the net of liability obligation without fully understanding the operational and legal issues and consequences. If private contractors working at the border are to be brought within the scope of the commander’s influence, that should be considered through a fuller and more deliberative process, and not inserted without clear parameters.
So, although I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, I hope the Government can offer some clarification, perhaps in guidance or regulation rather than in primary legislation at this stage. The two amendments in our names are about clarity, consistency and good legislative practice, and they would support the effectiveness of the commander. I urge the Government to support them, and I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
We have Amendment 16 in this group. It is indeed a probing amendment. I am a little amused that the noble Lord has just criticised the expansionist tendencies of this amendment, given that that is what some of his earlier amendments have tended to suggest.
Clause 3(5) tells us that “public authority” means
“a person with functions of a public nature”.
Clause 3 makes public authorities “partner authorities” for the purpose of the chapter. Across the public sector—not just this one—private organisations are contracted to provide services, so I am probing whether such organisations are within the definition. Does the commander have authority over them—and, if so, how far?—or is it that, as I have been arguing for the whole of today, the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State for all this work? Of course, we know that the Home Office has contracted private sector organisations—to run asylum hotels, for instance—so my questioning is not totally theoretical.
I often worry that the Government are not always as good at procurement as one might like them to be—or, frankly, at enforcing contracts—so I hope that the private sector will not be put in an even stronger position in the sector. If it is, I for one would like to know. But this is a probing amendment, and I am not seeking to expand the territory.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful again. I hope I can answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, immediately. As she outlined, her amendment seeks to probe whether private bodies carrying out public sector functions are included in the definition of “public authority” in Clause 3(5). I hope the clarification I can give her will be of assistance. It is as follows: private bodies carrying out public sector functions, such as the contractors working with Border Force, would fall under the definition of “public authority”. I hope that meets her probing amendment, but it is on the record that that is the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, again raised a number of amendments. Amendment 15 would require a definition of
“illegal entry to the United Kingdom”
to be included in Clause 3(5). Amendment 17 would require a definition of “sea crossings”. I say to him—and I hope he will reflect on this—that, in Clause 3(5), in the chapter, we have included the words “border security”, “partner authority” and “public authority”, and they have been explicitly defined due to their presence in other clauses in the chapter. My honourable friend the Minister in the House of Commons was clear that we do not want to put into the Bill issues that will be included in the strategic priority document or the annual report, to ensure that sufficient flexibility is retained to respond to the continually evolving threats to border security. If we were to accept the amendments that the noble Lord has proposed today, we would, by defining these terms, actually water down what is in Clause 3(5). “Border security”, “partner authority” and “public authority” are clearly defined terms in the chapter, giving the Border Security Commander the flexibility to address the issues of the day. I note a little shake of the head from the Opposition Front Bench. If the noble Lord remains unhappy, he should feel free to challenge. If he wants further clarification, I will try to give it to him. If he wants further further clarification, I will write to him, and if he feels that this does not meet the objectives that he has set, then we have the potential to discuss it at further stages of the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope he recognises the constructive spirit in which these amendments have been brought. What we are seeking is legal certainty and legal clarity, and what these amendments show is that language matters. This is a Bill of great significance; it deals with powers of co-ordination, enforcement, and national security. The clarity of our definitions is not just a drafting preference; it is a legal and operational necessity.
I do not want to be repetitive about the two amendments, but we say that Amendment 15 would provide a clear legal anchor for the term “illegal entry” by referencing existing law under Section 24 of the Immigration Act. It is a small change, but it would give certainty to the commander and to those the commander is expected to co-ordinate. Amendment 17 would perform a similar function. It sits at the very heart of the public and policy debate. It is about scope and enforceability: if we are to disrupt these crossings, we must be clear in law as to what constitutes one. Ambiguity here invites confusion, in our view. If Ministers are serious about making the command structure work, then we say that these amendments clarify and improve the Bill. I urge the Government to think again about this, but on the basis of what has been said so far, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“(c) state the number of people trafficking gangs that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action in the financial year.”
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower refer to the annual reports clause in the Bill. We are told time and time again that the Government’s priority is to “smash the gangs”. We hear at the Dispatch Box, both here and in the other place, that the immigration policies of the current Government are cracking down on the criminal networks who profit from vulnerable people. We are assured that progress is being made and that enforcement is working, but when it comes to the results, the actual measurable outcomes, we are met with a very different picture. I shall not restate the statistics that I have been over already this afternoon.
Our amendment to Clause 4 simply asks the Government to state in each annual report the number of people-trafficking gangs that that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action. That is it: it is not an unreasonable demand; it is not an operational risk; it is just seeking the facts, if the Government have them. If the Government really are dismantling these criminal gangs, they would have no reason to oppose this. If the policy is working, the data should be on hand and should strengthen the case that the Government are so eager to make. Transparency would serve to confirm what is claimed is already happening.
There has so far been a lack of openness around this supposedly central policy objective, and that raises questions about whether the crackdown is as effective as claimed, whether the strategy is working and whether the targets are being measured. If the Government cannot or will not report on how many trafficking gangs have been taken off the streets, how can the public be expected to trust that this is a meaningful priority? This amendment simply seeks transparency and facts, rather than slogans, and if the Government are serious about earning confidence, we gratefully suggest that they should adopt it. They should have nothing to hide and every reason to show us the results.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, and I certainly support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Cameron. The first of my amendments, Amendment 22, is very straightforward in saying that the commander should publish financial accounts. Clause 4 refers to the financial year but not the publication of financial accounts. It is very important that we have discipline around what the purpose of the organisation is and what will be the return on the investment the public are making in it. When the Minister comes to respond on this group, perhaps he will guide the Committee as to whether the £150 million that has been mentioned is, in effect, new money being put into this organisation or whether it represents a reallocation of existing budgets. Perhaps it is a blend of the two.
That brings me on to Amendment 24, which could almost be thought of as post-legislative scrutiny on an ongoing basis for the new structure that is envisaged. It is a new layer—I will not use the word bureaucracy, but it is a new agency essentially—designed to co-ordinate other agencies, rather than necessarily operationally deliver outcomes itself. There is, therefore, undoubtedly a danger, which I am sure the Government recognise, that having another cook in this kitchen could destroy value rather than add value. We need to be clear about what the real outcome is, over a period of years, of the initiatives that the Government have brought forward. We certainly give them credit for doing so for all the right reasons.
Perhaps my drafting was rather inelegant, but this is not about the performance of the individual commander; I am talking about the commander’s organisation—the BSC. It is about asking whether the partner agencies continue to believe that the new agency is adding value and doing things that could not otherwise be done. If it does not work as we all hope it will, there must be an argument that it should be stood down and the co-ordination function perhaps be taken up by another agency or indeed by the Home Office itself.
These are two very straightforward amendments. The first point is that the Government need to be accountable for the money spent, and the second is that the partner agencies that will be the beneficiaries—or otherwise—of this co-ordination should be able to express their views about the efficacy of the structure. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to attend Second Reading. I have put my name to a number of later amendments, but I wanted to say how much I support the spirit of this group. On the issue of boat crossings, there is a feeling in relation to smashing the gangs that there is a huge amount of smoke and mirrors and not enough transparency and understanding. I fear that there is a climate of public distrust in which politicians are just not believed.
These amendments would therefore be really helpful to the Government, because they give assurances that this will be fully accounted for and not just a slogan, as has been indicated. The area around these crossings is a territory for rumour and potential misinformation. All sorts of figures are bandied around and people, because they no longer believe in the official figures, are open to all sorts of untrue figures. These amendments would help pin down exactly what this Bill will have achieved, which is very important.
There was an interesting incident recently where journalists—Patrick Christys and a team from GB News—helped to smash the gangs themselves. They did this by going on Instagram and pretending to be trying to get a crossing; they organised one and had WhatsApp communications, voice messages and so on, partly as a sting operation to show how easy it is to infiltrate the gangs and get this information. They passed on the information to the appropriate authorities. They have chased it up, and nothing has happened. Even though they had the names and phone numbers—because they were WhatsApp messages—of two gang leaders, nothing has happened to those people. Those journalists understandably used this to say, “For all the rhetoric about the gangs and this new piece of legislation saying that it will smash them, will it really?”
The first two amendments in this group will tell the public what they want to know about this Bill—how many gang leaders have been arrested and what exactly has happened. I urge the Government to look at these amendments favourably, as helpful to their cause and to the general atmosphere, so that we do not have public cynicism about political rhetoric without action.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am intrigued by Amendment 20 requiring a statement of
“the number of … gangs that have ceased to operate as a result of enforcement action”.
As I understand it, that is very difficult to know. The characteristic of these gangs is that individual smugglers group and regroup. You have smaller fish who may be better known than the bigger ones. Obviously, the objective that is the subject of this amendment is exactly the right one, but I do not know that there could be any useful or meaningful reporting in quite the way that the amendment suggests. I am sorry not to be supporting it.
On Amendment 21, I note how important it is to have good data, whether or not the six headings here are precisely what the commander should be producing. The more general point—I will go on repeating it—is that the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State, not the commander. It is important to have full and accessible data much more frequently, and more up to date, than in an annual report published some time after the financial year to which the information relates.
I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that this is about accountability, but I do not agree—as he will have gathered rather tediously from me, and I am sorry about that—that the accountability is that of the director. It is that of the Secretary of State.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, we have had another useful discussion, and I hope that I can address some of the issues that have been put before the Committee today. The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, would create a requirement for the Border Security Commander to include within the annual report a range of statistics relating to the new offences created by the Bill, and wider relevant statistics in relation to irregular entrants who have arrived via a sea crossing and/or deportations.
The first of these seeks to include statistics on human trafficking in the annual report, while the second seeks to include further information on the number of people charged on a range of new offences included in the Bill. As currently envisaged, the annual report must state how the commander has carried out the functions of their office in the financial year and set out the commander’s views on the performance of the border security system, with particular reference to the strategic priorities that have been set. The Bill makes it clear that, under its structures, a report will be laid before Parliament and published, providing both public and parliamentary accountability for the work of the Border Security Commander across all threats. The strategic priorities may change over time, as the threats evolve, and the commander would need to report against them.
The question at the heart of the amendments is: should we provide further statistics? In line with the statement of compliance with the code of practice for statistics, and as part of the Government’s big commitment to transparency, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of data on immigration, including the themes within the amendment, in existing regular publications. We already have, over and above any amendment that might have been potentially accepted on this issue, quarterly statistics on people coming to the UK, extensions of stay, citizenship, asylum, detentions and returns. The quarterly immigration statistics release presents final and authoritative statistics on small boat arrivals. The appropriate place for that data is within established Home Office publications.
It is helpful information; the noble Lord should look at it, if he has the opportunity to do so. For example, it tells me that the number of small boat crossings rose from 300 people in 2018 to 36,000 in 2024—a 120-fold increase. I can get those figures from information that is in the public domain already, without it going into the Border Security Commander’s annual report. I can tell the noble Lord from quarterly statistics already produced that 29,867 people were returned between the general election on 5 July last year and 18 May 2025; the statistics tell me this is a 23% increase over the previous Government’s performance. If the noble Lord wants me to go on, I can say that there is a whole range of statistics saying, for example, that since 2018, 94% of the people arriving in the UK on small boats have claimed asylum. Around three-fifths of these have received a substantive decision, but it has taken a long time to get there. One of the reasons that we have cancelled the Rwanda scheme—which will come up later in the Bill—is so that we can put resources into speeding up asylum claims and improving on those statistics.
The noble Lord’s amendment asks us to put those in the Border Security Commander’s annual report. They are in place and are there for all to see. I cited a couple of them now. They are produced quarterly, so I can give him figures for the performance of this Government and the last Government. The two are, dare I say it, incomparable in most areas, because this problem arose and was driven under the previous Government. Those statistics are there and are done in a proper, official way, and the Border Security Commander’s annual report is to show how he performs on that matter.
Through Amendment 23, the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, intend to reinforce the definition of sea crossings and ensure it is included in the commander’s annual report. I tried to explain on the previous group of amendments that we want to maintain flexibility in the annual report with this chapter, so I do not believe that amendment is necessary. But I want to reassure the noble Lord, in the spirit of the co-operation we self-evidently have in this discussion, that in producing the annual report, the commander will of course consider a range of evidence and data and will comment on how the strategic plan has been implemented with that data.
The noble Viscount raised the financial aspect of the commander’s annual report. The report is meant to be about his performance on and against the targets he has set. There is a place for financial accounts, but it is not in that annual report, in the view of the Government. He looks quizzically at me.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
The Minister was doing so well until he decided it would be a great moment to start beating up the Opposition. I think we are all on the same side on this. We share common objectives here and it has been a great, positive debate, so that is really not necessary. In so many of the comments that I make, it does not matter that we are sitting on opposite sides of the Committee.
To say that we are going to just talk about the outcomes without talking about the inputs is crazy. I will definitely come back to press the Minister further if he does not wish to accept my amendment. The noble Lord has come forward with a package of measures. We need to know what the ongoing costing is, and we need to be able to extrapolate as far as we can between the input and the output and whether that money would be better spent, for example, by the agencies that are being co-ordinated.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In the spirit of co-operation and the hand of friendship that the noble Viscount has reached out, I say that it is a valid challenge. There is a place for accounts and there is a place for reports on performance, but it is a valid challenge to which we will return in due course. I will certainly reflect on the points he has mentioned, which is the purpose of our discussion today.
I just wished to put the statistics on record because I did not wish to let down the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, or for him to think I am never going to be a bruiser again on these issues. Therefore, it is important occasionally to put some facts on the record. Those are not my facts; they are government statistics that go to the heart of the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about whether we include them in the annual report or, as we do now, produce them on a quarterly basis on a range of those measures.
I do not wish to let the noble Viscount think I have missed the other point he raised, about the £150 million this year for the cost of the Border Security Commander. I am sure he will be pleased to know that this was new money. Effectively, in being new money, it was savings from the money that was allocated for the Rwanda scheme, which never actually materialised once the current Government came into place. We have reallocated Rwanda resources to the Border Force and the Border Security Command. We have also reallocated it elsewhere to help speed up asylum system claims by recruiting additional staff.
Jumping ahead slightly to future clauses in the Bill, that is essentially part of the recalibration that the current Government undertook on election just after this time last year to make some real changes and to try to improve longer-term performance on the issues on which we both agree: to reduce illegal migration and to respond positively to irregular migration in due course.
The noble Viscount’s second amendment mentions the partner authorities who attend the commander’s board, who would be able to collaborate on the development of the annual reports. The commander will not create this report in isolation; it will be a collaborative effort, but the commander’s job, self-evidently, is to pull together an annual report that shows how they have performed against the objectives that have been set in the strategic priorities. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, but we will reflect on those matters and we can return to them in due course.
I hope that I have answered those points, and I look forward to hearing the response from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her contribution. She said that she was not able to speak at Second Reading, but she made a very pertinent point about the climate of trust—I think that was the phrase she used—and that the Government are just not believed. Confidence and trust in the system are absolutely imperative, and that is the basis of these amendments.
We again heard the Government’s claim that tackling organised immigration crime is a top priority. All we seek is the most basic evidence of that success. It is not about operational compromise, or disclosing sensitive intelligence or tactical information; it is simply about reporting outcomes: how many gangs have been dismantled? How many prosecutions have taken place? How many individuals have been detained or removed?
The Minister read out the subsection in Clause 4 setting out what the annual report must do. It says that the annual report must
“state how the Commander has carried out the functions of the Commander”
and
“set out the Commander’s views on … performance”.
These are absolutely intrinsic issues. It is not unreasonable—it is the bare minimum—simply to ask that data on performance is put into the annual report. The Minister mentioned various items about data that can be accessed, but we seek certain information—for instance, about the number of persons charged or convicted with offences under this very Bill—that does not exist yet. It will exist in due course.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that we are very keen to put into the public domain in due course the performance data that he is looking for. The question is about whether we put this requirement into the Bill.
I apologise for not mentioning the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, by name in my earlier response. It was an oversight on my part, and I apologise for that. I was trying to address the issues that she and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had raised as a whole.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. I do not want to repeat myself, but if the Government are confident in this policy, and if they believe that their approach is producing results, what possible reason is there not to publish the data? The Minister mentioned many statistics that put the previous Government in what he described as a poor light. I could also cite statistics from the past year, but I will not do so; I have cited them before in this Chamber.
If the Government truly want to earn trust, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, they should adopt this amendment without hesitation. They should put their money where their mouth is and be honest with us about how well the policy is performing. That is simply what we seek to do. The time for slogans has passed; the time for evidence, scrutiny and measurable success is now. I urge the Committee and the Government to reflect on these points but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Baroness Hamwee to clause 13, makes the lack of a reasonable excuse a component part of the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime, thus placing the burden of proof upon the prosecution.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I appreciate that this group looks rather indigestible, so let me put it in a different way. I will give the amendment numbers so that they are there in the Official Report and it is understood that they have to be read as packages, each relating to a different clause but on the same point. To Clause 13, as well as Amendment 29, I have Amendments 34, 36 and 37. To Clause 14, I have Amendments 40, 43, 45 and 48, and to Clause 16, I have Amendments 52, 54, 58, and 61.
Chapter 2 of this part of the Bill creates various new offences, and these amendments are addressed to what is an offence and what is a defence, and in brief, who has to prove what. As the clauses are constructed, there is an offence if, to take Clause 13, P supplies a relevant article, and P will have a defence if he/she/they show that they had a reasonable excuse. The explanatory statement puts it more elegantly than I could—I credit the Public Bill Office with this; the drafting defeated me, and it was extremely helpful. That is not saying that I do not take responsibility—of course I do. As the explanatory statement says, the amendment
“makes the lack of a reasonable excuse a component part of the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime, thus placing the burden of proof upon the prosecution”,
which, of course, is normally the way we do things in this country. If the supply is without reasonable excuse—the prosecution has to show this—P would not be prosecuted if he has a reasonable excuse. One would not start on that journey.
I am very uneasy that the burden is on P. Innocent till proved guilty should be the position, not the equivalent of guilty until proved innocent. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to support this string of amendments, which has been introduced very digestibly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and deals with the reverse burden of proof and reasonable excuse.
Earlier in our proceedings, I referred to the publication of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights last Friday. It deals at some length with these issues that the noble Baroness has laid before your Lordships. These amendments seek to strengthen the safeguards in these new offences. Paragraphs 20 and 25 to 28 of our report—to which I particularly draw to the attention of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson—deal specifically with defences and the potentially reasonable excuses referred to in this group of amendments.
Clause 16 provides two defences, the first requiring the person to show that the
“action or possession was for the purposes of a journey to be made only by them”.
If it applies simply to the individual—and not, for instance, to couples travelling with children—it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us the estimates, and I accept that they can only be estimates, of how many channel crossings in small boats are made by one person travelling alone, how many by couples and how many by family groups. I understand that we might not be able to have that information in Committee, but if we could have it between now and Report, I would be very grateful.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on the detail that he has given, I rise to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee—in particular, Amendments 29, 34, 36 and 37 to Clause 13, although similar arguments apply to her other amendments to Clauses 14 and 16. I apologise for not being available to speak at Second Reading because of other commitments, but that is no excuse to deliver my Second Reading speech now; I will simply address the amendments. I declare my interest, if it is relevant, as a non-executive director of the Metropolitan Police Service.
Generally, in criminal law, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, people are considered to be innocent until they are found guilty in a criminal court. Until fairly recently, instances of reverse burden of proof have been exceptionally rare and, in most cases, the reasons have been self-evident. For example, if someone is in possession of an offensive weapon made or adapted to cause injury, such as a knuckle-duster—something with no other obvious use—the ball is clearly in the accused’s court in terms of their having to prove that they have a reasonable excuse for possession of such an article.
Here we are talking about items that could as easily have a lawful and legitimate use as they might have an unlawful use as the Bill suggests; that is, for use in immigration crime. I am thinking of things such as life jackets and inflatable boats. With the police power to arrest set at a very low standard of “reasonable cause to suspect that someone may be” about to commit a criminal offence, the prospect of innocent people being arrested under this provision is clear. Someone taking an inflatable boat down to the sea containing life jackets could reasonably be suspected to be committing an offence under this provision and therefore may be liable to arrest, even if they were a leisure user of such equipment. They could not argue that they had a reasonable excuse for possession of the boat and the life jackets, because that defence, according to the Bill, is not available to them until after they have been arrested, detained and charged and appeared in court.
That is clearly unreasonable. It should be open to anyone in such circumstances to be able to deploy the “reasonable excuse” explanation for their actions at the time of the incident, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s amendments suggest, and I therefore wholeheartedly support her amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has said, the safeguards are low, and the sentences—up to 14 years’ imprisonment—are high
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and, with the exception of the amendments in the name of my noble friends on the Front Bench, to oppose them. It is always a pleasure, of course, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who brings great expertise to our proceedings.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for whom I have great respect, but I have to say that I slightly disagree with him. I have read the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I feel that the committee’s report in respect of precursor offences is less than compelling, if I am quite honest. I know that the Government will be, to a certain extent, circumscribed because they are not required to respond to the report until August; I am sure we would have benefited in this debate had we had the Government’s response. Nevertheless, the Government have made their position clear—and I support them in this respect—that Clauses 13 to 16 will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to tackle the supply chains for the people-smuggling networks, which I think is what we are all interested in doing.
Although the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, come from the right place and are well-meaning, the real-world impact of them is that they weaken the ability of the Government and the appropriate authorities to tackle people smuggling, because they significantly change the burden of proof in respect of evidence for criminal liability and culpability. That de facto reversal of proof is not in the public interest. So in some respects the result of these amendments being agreed would be pernicious and not in the public interest, and would militate against the strategic priorities of the Government that we support: smashing the gangs and reducing illegal migration.
I do not want to detain the House at this hour with a long discussion on what mens rea means, but it does mean “guilty mind”. There are different aspects—
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
We will come to those arguments on mens rea. They are in later amendments. Perhaps the noble Lord would not want to jump ahead, because the groups of amendments dealing with that come in the next day in Committee on this Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Lord admonishes me for perhaps jumping slightly ahead, so I will revert to Clause 13 and put a question to the Minister. The honourable Member for the Weald of Kent in the other place, when considering the Bill in Committee, mentioned a potential loophole arising from the draft wording in Clause 13. I accept that, in terms of reasonable excuse, the Bill is caveated in that it is not a definitive position that you have no excuse whatever. It is right that, when you are dealing with individuals, even when they are involved in something as appalling as people trafficking and illegal migration, there should always be some discretion for the criminal justice system to exercise in adjudicating on their alleged offences.
However, there is a question to be asked about Clause 13(3) and the “reasonable excuse” caveat in terms of a loophole. Do the Government see that as problematic in terms of future litigation? I would not use the term “two-tier justice”, but certainly there is an element that speaks to the fact that, if you do not charge for services and you are seeking to rescue a person, that absolves you of criminal responsibility. There is an argument that that sends out a message.
My problem with this group of amendments is that they reduce the push factor and increase the pull factor. Those will be the real-world consequences of making it easier for people to argue that they have a reasonable excuse and did not possess an intent to commit these new offences. So, on this occasion, I will probably agree with the Minister that the House should resist the amendments.
I also pray in aid the example that the Immigration Minister, Angela Eagle, used in the other place. She prayed in aid the case in November 2024 of Amanj Hasan Zada, who organised cross-channel boat crossings from his home in Lancashire. He was jailed for 17 years after being found guilty on people-smuggling charges. It was very much the view of the National Crime Agency and others that, had the proposals contained in the Bill been in place, he would have been brought to justice much earlier, and that it was only because the authorities, particularly the NCA, did not have the ability to use the full force of law in respect of the legislation obtaining at the time that he was not stopped from his abhorrent activities at an earlier juncture.
I finish by saying that we all wish to see fair play and due process. We all want a legal system that does not discriminate on the basis of race, background, ethnicity, religion, and so on, but, equally, we have to be realistic, practical and pragmatic. In the real world, we need to reduce the pull factor and increase the push factor. I think these amendments would do exactly the opposite and, for those reasons, I hope the Committee is not minded to support them.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, he seemed to suggest that the amendments from my noble friend Lady Hamwee would somehow be unusual in criminal law. She is obviously saying that, rather than to require the person to prove a reasonable excuse as their defence, the prosecution would have to prove “without reasonable excuse” as a component part of the offence.
I was looking at driving offences. I admit that this appears to be an AI overview, subject to correction by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but, apparently, careless driving is
“driving without due care and attention”
or
“driving without reasonable consideration for other road users”.
Presumably the prosecution has to prove that you were driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users. It is not, at least in the first instance, for the driver to have to prove that they were taking due care and attention or that they were showing reasonable consideration for other road users. I forget any criminal law that I learned many moons ago, but I know that there are circumstances in which the burden can shift. But, overall, the prosecution has to prove the component parts of the offence.
What my noble friend is trying to achieve is the normal rule in criminal offences, where the burden lies principally on the prosecution. I query the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that my noble friend somehow wants to be out of line with the normality of the criminal law in what she suggests in her amendment. I think that it is the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who, not for the first time, wants to be out of line.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I take that in good heart, as the noble Baroness and I are members of a committee of the House in which we share rumbustious debate. I am sorry that noble Lords have stumbled into “immigration law for dummies”, because neither of us is an expert on it. However, I think she is comparing apples and pears, because the example that she uses of dangerous driving is actually a strict liability offence, where mens rea is not an issue; in other words, it is not presumed that you would wilfully desire to get into a car and drive drunk in committing the offence. It is not necessary to prove it.
I am not saying that the noble Baroness is doing or saying anything out of line; I am merely demonstrating that one has to address wider issues in this policy area. For those reasons, the amendment is unhelpful in meeting the Government’s strategic objective to reduce illegal immigration.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I have not heard too many debates in which your Lordships have moaned about the lack of lawyers participating, but we have listened to two people who claim not to be experts.
I will touch on Clause 13 in the context of Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This is really a question for the Minister: I do not understand Clause 13(3)(b), which is the “reasonable excuse” related to whether the individual concerned was
“acting on behalf of an organisation which … aims to assist asylum-seekers, and … does not charge for its services”.
That is an extraordinarily widely drawn and unqualified reasonable excuse ground.
It would certainly help me and may even be of assistance to the broader Committee if the Minister could give a couple of examples of the types of scenario envisaged and could provide some reassurance that this is not too broadly drawn as an area to provide a reasonable excuse. I genuinely do not know and do not have a particular view about that, but, on the face of it, without further qualification, it seems to be very broadly drawn. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the Opposition Front Bench’s view on this is that we side with my noble friend Lord Jackson on the group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. At their core, as others have said, the amendments would rewrite the structure of the offence in Clause 13 by placing the burden of proof for the test of reasonable excuse squarely on the prosecution. The implications of the change would be significant—I will come back to the law in a moment—as it would dilute the seriousness with which we treat those who are convicted of supplying articles for use in immigration crime.
Let us be absolutely clear about what Clause 13 addresses. It addresses the supply of forged documents, false identity papers and materials designed to facilitate illegal entry into the UK. Those are not minor infractions; they are serious crimes that underpin the business models of trafficking gangs, enable the circumvention of border controls and directly endanger lives. In such cases, it is entirely appropriate that, if an individual is found supplying such items, it should be for them to demonstrate that they had a legitimate reasonable excuse.
I would suggest—it has been some time since I practised criminal law—that that is not some obscure or novel principle. Of course, the usual legal position is that it is for the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime. But it is not unusual to reverse the burden of proof on to an accused in some circumstances. It reflects well-established frameworks in other serious areas of law, most notably in the Misuse of Drugs Act, in firearms legislation and in the Companies Act, where it is for an accused director to prove that all reasonable steps have been taken to avoid committing an offence.
In legislation on firearms and the misuse of drugs, the burden of establishing a lawful or innocent reason rests with the person accused of being in possession of or supplying the prohibited article. So, this is not an unusual path to take, and to shift the burden back to the prosecution, as these amendments would do, would make it harder to secure convictions, weaken the deterrent effect of the law and send precisely the wrong message at a time when we face record levels of illegal entry and organised criminal facilitation across our borders.
The public expect us to ensure that the law acts as a meaningful deterrent to those who seek to undermine it. This group of amendments would not do that. It would make it easier for those facilitating unlawful entry to escape liability and place an unnecessary an inappropriate burden on prosecutors, who are already contending with highly complex cases. Let us not forget that those convicted of supplying articles for use in immigration crime are not passive actors but deliberate enablers of lawbreaking. To demand that the prosecution proves not only the supply but the absence of any reasonable excuse would be to fundamentally misread the nature of the offence and the damage that it causes.
This goes to the heart of the problem that we have debated all afternoon: the people we are talking about are organised criminals who make money by endangering the lives of those they profess to help. It is not the time to rewrite what is, in my view, a long-standing legal norm in a way that would weaken enforcement. It is time to uphold the seriousness of the crime and ensure that our legal tools are effective in tackling it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, this has again been a useful discussion, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling the amendments to allow it. I confess I find myself in a strange position before the Committee where I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said and much of what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, said from the Front Bench. In fact, I wondered whether they had a secret leaked copy of some of my notes, because the points they made are extremely important and vital.
I shall start with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. He asked whether someone would be arrested on a beach in France because they rolled up with a dinghy. I assure him, and I hope he will know this from his police experience, that, in practice, these will be intelligence-led, targeted investigations by authorities as a whole of those suspected of being connected with organised crime networks involved in people smuggling and criminal activity. It is not the intention of this Bill that authorities would turn up on a beach in France, find someone paddling in the sea with a recreational leisure facility and arrest them. It would be a targeted approach, which backs up the points that the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Cameron, made. It is about tackling organised criminals.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
I did not understand the extraterritorial provisions in this Bill that would make this British law applicable in France.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are working in co-operation with the French authorities to look at a range of issues to do with that point. We are having further discussions with the French on the steps that they can take. This is about the supply and handling of articles used for criminal purposes and the collection of information on criminal activities. It will be undertaken in targeted operations. It will not, in the way in which he said, catch individuals who have innocent uses of material that is covered by the Bill.
The noble Lord will note that there is a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses in Clause 13 to ensure that those acting in good faith, such as those carrying out a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm, or those working with humanitarian organisations, are safeguarded. That goes to the very point that the noble Viscount mentioned; I will give him chapter and verse on those issues and some concrete examples after this debate, rather than make them up.
On Clause 13(3)(b)(i) and (ii), there is a clear intention to make sure that those from humanitarian organisations who are supporting people are safeguarded. Adding the further test would shift the burden of proof by requiring the prosecution to disprove any claimed reasonable excuse, which would make it harder to secure convictions against dangerous facilitators. If, as the noble Baroness has suggested, we were to add the “without reasonable excuse” qualification, we would risk weakening the core purpose of the Bill, which is to enable law enforcement officers to detect and disrupt serious offences. I cannot accept the points that she made. By preserving these provisions, we will provide judges and prosecutors with a solid starting point that is aligned with our international obligations. I realise this is difficult, but the existing text of Clauses 13 to 16 achieves the right balance, ensures that legitimate activity is protected, and maintains the strength and support of enforcement as a viable UK policy. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendments for the reasons that I have mentioned.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I had asked the Minister about compliance with Article 31.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord’s report has been very helpful. We need to look at that issue, and we will respond to his report in short order. I cannot give him those details today, but I will ensure that they are dealt with in due course.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it is a day or two since I did any criminal law, and it was one time, in a magistrate’s court—then I started writing recording contracts.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate—although, I have to say, not always directly on the point being made by these amendments, and anticipating quite a lot of what we will come to on the second day of Committee. I do not want to get into discussion about the merits of what I think we will come to. My amendments do not deal with reasonable excuse, other than shifting how it is dealt with. They do not deal with the content of what is reasonable excuse.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing in the JCHR report. I have not read as much of it yet as I should have done; I went straight to the recommended amendments and put a tick beside each of them. The noble Lord asked for a government response before Report. I know the Minister will not be able to give any commitment on that, but it really would be helpful. We have a bit more room and flexibility now, as I understand that days 4 to 6 of Committee are not going to happen until the September sittings of the House, so there is rather more time—not that I want anyone to interrupt their summer holidays to deal with this, but noble Lords will understand.
My noble friend—I am going to call him both noble and a friend—Lord Paddick and I have trod this ground together before, and I am grateful for his expert and informed explanation of the sequence of events when there is a prosecution. He referred to articles that have more than one purpose. If something is, as I understand him to say, very obviously aimed at illegality and cannot be used for anything else, that is not the same as an article that may have more than one purpose.
The first time that he and I were involved in a debate in this territory it related to acid. At that time—this is a good 10 years ago—there was a spate of acid attacks, with people on motorbikes driving past pedestrians and throwing acid in their face. The issues that we were discussing included a domestic product that might well, in the circumstance, be used to clear drains—what if someone had nipped out late to a supermarket and bought a domestic product of that sort? I am not suggesting that this is straightforward, but it is hugely important.
I would say—to use language used by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—that it is in the public interest. He said that the amendments were not in the public interest, but it is not pernicious to seek to amend the Bill in this way. On the contrary, it is seeking to apply and maintain the rule of law. Almost nothing could be more important for the public interest.
There were issues such as the pull factor, as the noble Lord sees it, a loophole, mens rea and other things. We should come to these fairly early on the next day in Committee. It may well have been that the first set of groupings put those issues into this group, but there was a change quite late yesterday.
It might be harder to get a conviction, but what are we looking for? Are we looking at doing the job properly? I do not mean just getting to an outcome but doing the job properly and acting properly. We should not, as the Minister suggested, be relying on common sense as to whether or not there is a prosecution. As I have said before, that is not the way our law should work, although I accept that the CPS will look at the public interest test and the likelihood of a conviction.
I come back to the rule of law. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is undertaking work on this at the moment. It sounds dry, but it is at the heart everything that we do right. This is not the time to take these amendments further, but clearly we will be thinking about them after this stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also include possession with intent to supply in the offence of supplying articles for use in immigration crime.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the two amendments in this group are to do with expanding two of the offences in the Bill as drafted. The Bill criminalises only the supply or offer to supply articles for use in immigration crime but fails to cover what is often a critical precursor to that act—the possession of such articles with intent to supply. My amendment seeks to address what we say is a clear loophole in the Bill.
If someone is found holding forged documents, counterfeit passports, boat parts or other materials commonly used to facilitate illegal entry with the clear intention of supplying them to others, that is not innocent behaviour; it is preparatory, deliberate and deeply harmful to the integrity of our immigration system. We do not accept this kind of gap in legislation dealing with drug offences or the possession of firearms. Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for example, criminalises possession with intent to supply controlled drugs. If we do not accept such gaps in other legislation, we should not accept them here.
The Government have talked up their expansion of border security powers, and the Prime Minister has spoken of providing counterterrorism-style powers. If so, all possible loopholes in these offences should be closed. If we are serious about disrupting organised networks and cracking down on those who profit from unlawful immigration, the law must allow us to intervene before the supply takes place, not simply after the fact. Amendment 30 would therefore simply bring the offence in Clause 13 into alignment with other similar offences. It aims to strengthen the clause and close the loophole.
The other amendment I propose to the offences regarding articles for use in immigration crime is Amendment 39. This amendment is intended to help the Government by strengthening the offence in this clause. It looks to close another loophole that could permit smuggling gangs to escape conviction. The effect of this amendment would be to expand the offence of handling articles for use in immigration crime to cover a crucial additional scenario—namely, where a person arranges for one person to receive a relevant article from a third party. That may seem like a small change, but it would address a significant gap.
The current law targets those who receive, arrange to receive, remove or dispose of such articles themselves, or who assist another person to remove or dispose of relevant articles. They are rightly included in the nature of the offence in the Bill. But, as it stands, were a person to arrange for two other people to exchange a relevant article, the person who organised such an exchange could escape liability. Therefore, they would not be liable for criminal penalty, despite clearly being a at the heart of the offence committed.
This is particularly important given that, in the world of organised immigration crime, individuals often seek to insulate themselves by arranging exchanges between others, keeping their own hands clean while remaining the central co-ordinator, and often beneficiary, of criminal activity. This amendment would simply ensure that those who orchestrate these exchanges are held to account just as much as those who carry them out.
If we are to deter and disrupt the criminal networks profiting from illegal migration, we must be prepared to legislate against the full chain of facilitation and not just the visible ends of it. I respectfully submit that the Minister should think carefully now about these kinds of loopholes that the Government risk creating in the legislation, which can be easily identified if a practical operational perspective is taken. I hope he accepts these amendments, and I beg to move.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking to the amendments tabled by him and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The purpose behind these two amendments is to ensure that those who possess an item believed or suspected to be used in immigration crime, and those who arrange or facilitate the supply of an article for immigration crime, fall into the scope of the offence.
On Amendment 30, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made some salient points about other offences currently on the statute book. In a spirit of openness and wanting to listen to noble Lords, the Home Office would be happy to take this issue up with operational partners to scope whether it would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill. We are certainly serious about using this legislation, as my noble friend the Minister said, to crack down on smuggling gangs. This could potentially be a helpful addition to the Bill, but for now I request that the amendment be withdrawn, and we will update the House further on the matter later in the Bill’s passage.
We are sympathetic to the motivation behind Amendment 39, but I can confirm that arranging the supply of an article relevant to the proposed offence would fall under the clause as drafted. It might be described as “brokering” or “offering to supply”. Either Clause 13(1)(a) or 14(1)(a) are considered wide enough to cover this activity since, for example, an offer to supply would have been made in the scenario that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, outlined, as the individual would be supplying or offering to supply an item that they knew or suspected was for use in immigration crime. I hope that is clear and, while thanking the noble Lord for tabling the amendments—and indeed agreeing with the sentiment and motivation behind them—I respectfully reject Amendment 39 as unnecessary and ask him to permit further time for Amendment 30 to be considered.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his speech. It has been a long afternoon and I feel that, at the very end of it, I have made a tiny step of progress. I think he agrees that the case is simple, because it is a strong case: we are not asking for anything radical, just for the law to keep pace with the realities of how organised immigration crime actually works. I will say no more about Amendment 30.
On Amendment 39, I just ask the noble Lord, as he has offered, to think about it carefully. It is critical, we say, to cover the organisers, the co-ordinators, those who sit above the exchange itself and arrange for others to carry it out. They often avoid direct handling precisely because they know that the law can be weak when it comes to intermediaries, and we cannot allow them to exploit that weakness. The amendment is grounded in the operational reality of how trafficking and smuggling networks function, but I am very grateful for the indications that he has given and, for those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.