Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Union connectivity review recognised the importance of the A75 and A77 roads for passengers and freight between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Government have therefore allocated up to £5 million to support a feasibility study into bypass options for the A75 and have also encouraged the Scottish Government to improve the A77.
John Cooper
There cannot be a person in Northern Ireland who has not either been along the A75 or the A77 or had something delivered to them that has been driven through the ferry port at Cairnryan. We in Dumfries and Galloway and people across Scotland know that these are the highways from hell. This morning, even as we speak, the A75 has been closed by another overturned lorry. We are crying out for improvements. Can I count on the support of the might of the Northern Ireland Office to get the Department for Transport here to engage, as well as the Scottish Government?
Hilary Benn
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s point, having driven along the road myself. My notes helpfully say that average speeds on the A75 and A77 are lower than on several other Scottish trunk roads—you can say that again. I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has written to him and offered a meeting to discuss the issue. We all want to see the road improved.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
To the A75 and the A77, add the A9, which is the link from the Highlands to Scotland. For 25 years we have been waiting for it to be dualled; the SNP has failed to do that. The Scottish Government cannot make the ferries work and they cannot make the road work. Can the Secretary of State push them into action?
Hilary Benn
I have many and varied responsibilities, but I was not aware that the A9 was one of them. I hope that the Scottish Government will have heard my hon. Friend’s strong plea.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government’s new strategic partnership with the EU will deliver a broad range of economic benefits for Northern Ireland. In particular, a new agreement on agrifood and plants will further smooth trade flows across the Irish sea, protect the UK’s internal market, reduce costs for businesses and improve consumer choice in Northern Ireland.
Joe Morris
I am pleased that the agreement secured with our largest trading partner, the European Union, will make it easier for food and drink to be imported and exported. Will the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that all future conversations with trading partners will continue to prioritise high welfare standards and food standards on both sides of the Irish sea?
Hilary Benn
I can happily give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will have noticed how in another context—the trade agreement reached with the United States of America—we said that we would uphold our food standards in that agreement, and that is exactly what we have done.
Julia Buckley
Which of the sanitary and phytosanitary and agrifood requirements does the Secretary of State expect to be removed on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as a result of the SPS agreement with the EU?
Hilary Benn
Once we have negotiated the legal text and put our rulebook in line with current European arrangements, there will be: no need for SPS paperwork; no mandatory identity checks or physical checks on goods moving; no need for Northern Ireland plant health labels; an end to the ban on chilled frozen meats moving; an end to the ban on movements of products of animal origin imported to GB and then moved to Northern Ireland; and no onward paperwork or checks on agrifood moved for onward processing. That is why the SPS agreement in outline has been so widely welcomed in Northern Ireland.
Becky Gittins
I am pleased to say that the proposed SPS agreement has been welcomed by the Welsh farming community, including those in my constituency of Clwyd East. That is alongside the Ulster Farmers Union, the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Horticultural Trades Association, supermarkets including Asda, M&S and Iceland, and many others. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and with them that an SPS agreement would bring huge benefits for Wales, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK?
Hilary Benn
It certainly would. It is a rare agreement that invites so much praise, certainly across the range of opinion in Northern Ireland. We all want to see it progress as quickly as possible, so we have got to turn it into a legal text and sort out our own legal rulebook. The benefits will then flow for businesses right across the United Kingdom.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Windsor framework is causing untold damage to businesses in Northern Ireland. It cost one of my local businesses £86 to bring a box of simple ties from GB to Northern Ireland because of the parcels border, and used farm machinery is now subject to EU import procedures, with some having been turned back from the ports to Scotland in recent days. The latest FSB report confirms that small businesses are being hardest hit with red tape costs and uncertainty. Will the Secretary of State accept that the reset is not helping the here and now? Will he commit to meeting these industries and helping to sort out practical solutions?
Hilary Benn
On the agricultural machinery point that the hon. Member raises, if the machinery is coming into and staying in Northern Ireland, it can be brought in, subject to cleaning, with a plant health label that is relatively straightforward. Only if it might move into Ireland would it need to go through the red lane. I will make this general point: in 2023 Northern Ireland purchases of goods from the rest of the United Kingdom rose by 16.2%, and Northern Ireland is the fastest growing region in the UK.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
With regards to agricultural machinery, I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of a Northern Ireland farmer who took agricultural machinery from Northern Ireland to participate in a Scottish agricultural show. On bringing it back, it was rejected in Northern Ireland and sent back to Scotland because there may have been soil on the underside of a piece of agricultural equipment. Does the Secretary of State really think that that makes common sense?
Hilary Benn
It is the requirement of the Windsor framework, which the last Government negotiated, to address the basic problem of having two different systems and an open border. Everybody knows that agricultural machinery needs to be properly cleaned. If that is the case and the appropriate label, which is straightforward, is applied, there is nothing to stop the machinery moving back to Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
If the reset deal is supposed to bring an end to the SPS checks, when will the customs posts, which are there for the purpose of carrying out those checks, be demolished? Instead, the Secretary of State willingly presides over the ever-tightening EU noose on our economy, with agricultural machinery being the latest that has to kowtow to EU diktats. Meanwhile, trade diversion is rampant and the Secretary of State looks the other way. When will he stop acting as the Secretary of State for the EU and start acting as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. At some point, he has to acknowledge that following our departure from the European Union—this was the issue that the previous Government had to address—the United Kingdom has one set of rules, the EU has another and there is an open border. How do we deal with that? I am afraid that on mutual enforcement, the only idea I have ever heard him put forward is not a practical proposition. He needs to take some responsibility for the consequence of his own arguments.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The EU-UK deal was warmly and broadly welcomed across Northern Ireland to begin to unpick and undo some of the damage and friction created by Brexit, which was championed by some of those on the Opposition Benches. However, an FSB report out this week highlighted continuing problems, particularly for small businesses. Will the Secretary of State reassure businesses that there will be co-design and full consultation as the text and the outworkings of that very positive deal are brought through?
Hilary Benn
We will continue to consult as widely as possible in taking forward the agreement that has been reached and outlined with the European Union. There is help available for small businesses. It is important that it is as effective and easy to understand for those who seek to trade. I will look carefully at the report that the FSB has produced.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Regarding the EU trade agreement, what barriers is the Secretary of State aware of that currently hinder free and unfettered trade from Northern Ireland within the UK? What is the timescale for their removal?
Hilary Benn
Goods flow freely from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. Further, one of the great advantages of the trade agreements that have been negotiated with India, the United States of America and the European Union is, in the case of India, a significant reduction of tariffs on whisky, which will benefit producers in Northern Ireland, and being able to sell lamb into India. The deal with the United States of America will allow Northern Ireland farmers to sell their beef.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Contrary to what the Secretary of State has just told the House, two weeks ago, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland published a report suggesting that a third of small businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased supplying customers or partners either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we are entitled to take unilateral action to safeguard our internal market. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he thinks that a third of small businesses ceasing trade in that way amounts to a diversion of trade? If not, perhaps he could tell us what would.
Hilary Benn
There are other small businesses that are able to trade perfectly—[Interruption.] The point that the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise is that if some small businesses manage to move their goods from GB to Northern Ireland, others can do so. In the end, it is a decision for an individual business where it chooses to sell its goods. It is the Windsor framework that applies now, not the Northern Ireland protocol, and I think he will accept that the Windsor framework represents a significant improvement on what was there before.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland continue to face disruption under the Windsor framework and, more importantly and sadly, that the Government have failed to effectively communicate the supposed benefits of dual market access so far. If dual market access is indeed a competitive advantage, as so many people across this House think it can and should be, can the Secretary of State specifically identify what concrete benefits it is providing to Northern Ireland businesses right now? How does he respond to the growing criticism from firms across the UK who are burdened with red tape and the fog of uncertainty?
Hilary Benn
I was interested by that observation in the FSB report because, as the House will testify, I spend a lot of my time extolling the virtues of the dual market access that Northern Ireland has as a result of the Windsor framework. I meet companies as I travel around Northern Ireland who tell me about the benefits of it that they are feeling. I think we all have a responsibility to extol the virtues of dual market access because, in my experience, if businesses can see an opportunity that allows them to sell more products, they will seize it with both hands.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
I take every opportunity to promote investment into Northern Ireland, and our tech companies in particular. I recently spoke at the Big Data conference in New York and at London Tech Week to highlight our cutting-edge companies in Northern Ireland. I held a roundtable with tech business leaders and visited Catagen in Belfast just last week to talk about the industrial strategy and the ways that we can boost investment and growth.
Steve Yemm
I wonder if the Minister might outline the many good reasons for technology companies to invest in Northern Ireland and tell us what she has done to promote that great opportunity?
Fleur Anderson
I welcome the opportunity to promote Northern Ireland’s tech companies here in the Chamber today. More than 1,500 international companies have set up operations in Northern Ireland. They tell me that this is due to the Government support, the strong working between the Government and the Executive, the dual market access, the unique concentration of tech companies, the academic support from Ulster University and Queen’s University and, above all, the people. Northern Ireland has a workforce with industry-ready skills and innovation in their DNA.
Emily Darlington
Does the Minister agree that the strength of Northern Ireland’s tech sector means that it can play a huge part in becoming an AI superpower, supported by this Government? However, as we have heard in the Northern Ireland Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), there is a huge link between online safety and the rates of domestic abuse that we are seeing in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister comment on how we can support and develop the sector while keeping women and girls safe?
Fleur Anderson
We know that violence against women and girls is an epidemic, and online safety is an important part of that. Coupled with Northern Ireland being an AI superpower, as my hon. Friend rightly says, there are opportunities for AI companies, many of which I have met, to work on the tech to ensure that perpetrators are caught, that justice is done and that we ensure that online safety is taken extremely seriously. The work that will be done in the industrial strategy to promote AI work—with the new AI growth zones, for example—can ensure that we lock that in.
Neil Coyle
Tech businesses are huge in my central London constituency, and I recognise that for the UK to do well, we need London to continue thriving and for Northern Ireland and the rest of the country to succeed, too. Can the Minister assure me that the full benefits of the new industrial strategy will support companies in Northern Ireland and that this Government are generating business opportunities in every corner of the United Kingdom?
Fleur Anderson
The industrial strategy is good news for Northern Ireland. It is a bold long-term plan to give businesses and investors the certainty they need to thrive. The eight sectors of the strategy map well with Northern Ireland’s world-class strengths, including advanced manufacturing, cyber, defence, the creative industries, life sciences and financial services. For each of those, there is increased UK-wide funding opportunities and, in Northern Ireland, specific funds on cyber-security, advanced manufacturing and the £30 million of that all-important R&D investment for innovation.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank the Minister for her responses so far. Northern Ireland is indeed open for business, and I am delighted that companies are investing in my hometown. Does she agree that the Dublin to Belfast economic corridor, which includes my constituency of Lagan Valley, will play a key part and that it is a huge opportunity for investment?
Fleur Anderson
Belfast is already at the heart of the UK’s industrial strategy on cyber and tech and is leading the world. The Government have a bold vision to be, by 2035, one of the top three places in the world to invest, create and scale up a tech business. Belfast and the growth and city deals, which are at the heart of that, is an important part. I have met businesses across Belfast and Northern Ireland that are leading on this, and it is exciting to see.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does the Minister accept, though, that poor road access from the north of the United Kingdom is one impediment to investment in Northern Ireland, and therefore another reason why we should see the A75 upgrading?
Fleur Anderson
The Secretary of State has already answered the question on the roads. It is important that we look at and address all parts of the infrastructure that are holding Northern Ireland back in any way.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Tech businesses in Northern Ireland could take advantage of a Heathrow logistics hub. Ballykelly in my constituency has a large available land base, a seaport close by, an airport next door to it, and a railway line that runs through it. Does the Minister think that is an excellent location for such a hub and tech business?
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Member is an excellent representative for his constituency and the opportunities there. I am sure his plea and bid has been heard.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
As Chair of the Select Committee and the ITV all-party parliamentary group, last night we hosted an event in Parliament with ITV and UTV there. What conversations is the Minister having with public sector broadcasters like ITV about future investment in Northern Ireland?
Fleur Anderson
Many different types of business—not only public sector broadcasters, but tech companies, fintech, cyber-security and advanced manufacturing, such as Catagen, which I met last week—are all part of the strong ecosystem in Northern Ireland. The fact that broadcasters can talk to advanced manufacturers which can talk to others makes Northern Ireland such a fantastic place to invest in, and I am glad that that is being highlighted in the House of Commons today.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Britain leads the world in the gene editing of crops. This technology enables our farmers to produce disease and drought-resistant crops, reduce costs and increase food production. The UK-EU trade agreement means Britain has to follow EU rules on sanitary and phytosanitary laws. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the agreement will not slow that technology in Britain?
Fleur Anderson
That is why the Secretary of State has been extolling and making clear how important the SPS agreement is. We are not taking our foot off the pedal in any way towards that. It is not only agri-science, but life sciences that are leading the way for Northern Ireland and the UK and across the world. We want to ensure that we continue to support them in every way we can.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I regularly meet the Northern Ireland Finance Minister to discuss funding. The Government will provide Northern Ireland with a record settlement of £19.3 billion per year on average—the largest in the history of devolution—and the Executive will also continue to receive over 24% more per person, in line with their independently assessed level of need.
Noah Law
Does the Secretary of State agree that record funding for Northern Ireland through the spending review reflects this Government’s broader commitment to fairer funding across the UK, including in areas like Cornwall, where rurality, seasonal pressures and historical underfunding are finally being recognised, and that many in Cornwall would welcome the opportunity to further shape our own future through a level of devolution closer to that enjoyed in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The spending review settlement does indeed reflect the Government’s commitment to providing resources right across the United Kingdom. A year ago, people were saying there was going to be a fiscal cliff edge, but the money being made available for Northern Ireland means that no one is saying that now.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is no need to run through the Chamber, Mr Morgan—that is in very bad taste.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
I apologise, Mr Speaker.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Local growth funding has provided vital investment for many communities across Northern Ireland in recent years. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new local growth fund will give sectors across Northern Ireland the long-awaited security they need?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend will have noticed the funding made available for local growth. As part of the spending review, discussions on the fiscal framework will be taken forward by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Department of Finance, to talk about things like the Holtham review and capital borrowing by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Gareth Snell
Whether it is Stoke-on-Trent in the west midlands or the proud communities in Northern Ireland, the spending review anticipates helping to create good jobs and industrial improvement. Will the Secretary of State set out how the spending review will help to improve the industrial base in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The spending review gives the Northern Ireland Executive more funds to disperse as they see fit. It comes alongside the publication of the industrial strategy, the funds that the Government are making available and the £30 million that will come to Northern Ireland through UK Research and Innovation. There is funding available and there is great wealth, talent and potential in Northern Ireland to make the best use of it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of Barnett funding on health in Northern Ireland, given that the Northern Ireland Department of Health’s financial bid falls below requested and required levels each year? It is important that we have funding for health, so will the Secretary of State outline what that will be?
Hilary Benn
The Government make funding available to the Northern Ireland Executive through the block grant. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide how they distribute the money between all the needs in Northern Ireland, including health, where of course there are significant pressures. The public services transformation funding that the last Government made available is now beginning to be used to reform some of the ways in which the health service works.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The spending review settlement for the Northern Ireland Office explicitly covers the Finucane inquiry, but so far the Government have refused to say how much money has been set aside for that inquiry. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House how much do the Government expect the inquiry to cost?
Hilary Benn
The Finucane inquiry is beginning its work. It will publish, as is normal, statements of the expenditure that it engages in. It depends how long the inquiry lasts and how much evidence is taken, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that he will receive an answer in due course, as that process unfolds.
Alex Burghart
The Government have just had a spending review, so they must know how much they intend to spend. There will be a line in the Treasury accounts set aside for the Finucane inquiry. I do not understand why the Secretary of State finds it so hard to tell the House how much we expect to spend.
Similarly, the Government must know how much compensation they expect to pay Gerry Adams, following their inexplicable decision to drop the appeal that we lodged in that case. We have repeatedly pressed the Government to legislate to prevent that compensation from being paid and the Government have dragged their heels. This morning, Policy Exchange has published an excellent new report, “Legislating about Gerry Adams and Carltona”, which sets out a clear legal solution. The Government have nowhere further to hide, so will they finally do the right thing?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman needs to keep up. I answered a parliamentary question yesterday in which I made it clear that we will deal with this issue, which arises because of the application of the Carltona principle in the Supreme Court judgment of 2020, which the last Government could not sort out in two and a half years. We will deal with it in our forthcoming legislation, and I will keep the House updated.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State for at least answering a question yesterday. Despite it being a day when the Labour Government were prepared to take money out of the pockets of the most vulnerable, they at least had the courage to stand forward and say that Gerry Adams would get none, so I thank the Secretary of State for that. I also advise him not to ignore the warnings of the Federation of Small Businesses, which in its report was explicit that the Windsor framework is fracturing the United Kingdom’s internal market. That is a cause for concern. When we were talking of the spending review two weeks ago, he was asked whether the financial transactions capital being made available to Casement Park was additional; he knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years, so what is the answer?
Hilary Benn
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is additional.
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years. Talking of economic growth, let me say he also knows that there is a commitment to an enhanced investment zone in Northern Ireland. When does he believe the businesses of Northern Ireland will benefit from that?
Hilary Benn
If the right hon. Gentleman just bears with us, I hope we can see progress on that in the not-too-distant future.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery His Excellency Ahmad Safadi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Jordan, and his delegation.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This Saturday—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There seems to be a bit of a challenge over who can cheer the most. I have never known one Prime Minister get as much cheering. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
I think they were cheering more, Mr Speaker, and quite right too! This Saturday marks the 77th birthday of our national health service, and I want to begin by thanking our dedicated NHS staff for their service. In that 77th year, I am proud that this Labour Government have delivered 4 million extra appointments, 1,700 more GPs and the lowest waiting lists for two years. The Labour party is proud to have been the party that created the NHS, and tomorrow we are announcing our 10-year health plan to build an NHS that is fit for the future, so that in many years and decades to come we can still proudly celebrate the anniversary of the NHS.
May I also wish England and Wales the best of luck in the women’s Euros and congratulate England’s under-21s on retaining the Euros?
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Paul Waugh
When this Labour Government extended free school meals to half a million more children last month, Laura—a working mum in Rochdale—told me it would save her £500 a year. She said:
“I am over the moon. Only Labour would have done this.”
Does the Prime Minister agree that people voted Labour a year ago for not just change, but hope, and that cutting child poverty is the moral mission of this Government in order to help every child in this country?
The Prime Minister
I am really proud that we extended free school meals for another half a million children, including Laura’s. It is people like Laura and giving children the best start in life that we have in our mind’s eye. I think the child poverty taskforce visited Rochdale recently and will continue to back parents like Laura. We have already started rolling out not just free school meals, but free breakfast clubs, and extending childcare. That is real change under this Labour Government.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
First of all, can I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) on being the toady of the week, helping the Prime Minister? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are a load of people wanting to catch my eye today. There are some free hits on the Government Benches—hon. Members should not waste their opportunity.
Mrs Badenoch
It has been a difficult week for the Prime Minister, so let us start with something simple. Can he tell the House how much his welfare Bill is going to save?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by saying that free school meals matter on this side of the House. In relation to welfare, what we delivered last night was a Bill that ends mandatory reassessment of those with severe disabilities. That is the right thing to do. It rebalances universal credit—that is long overdue—and it sets out a pathway to reform of the personal independence payment. It is consistent with the principles I set out throughout: if you can work, you should work; if you need help into work, the state should provide that help—the system that the Conservatives broke does not do so; and if you cannot work—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are one or two Members who I can spot immediately: the usual voices, the same names. Please—it is too early to leave the Chamber.
The Prime Minister
If you cannot work, you must be supported and protected. The reformed welfare system that we are putting in place will be better for individuals, better for the taxpayer and better for the economy.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not think the Prime Minister actually watched what happened in the House yesterday—his Bill was completely gutted. There was a U-turn in the middle of the debate, removing clause 5. Where on earth was he? He cannot answer the question because he knows his Bill does not save any money; it is going to cost millions. This is the first Prime Minister in history to propose a Bill to save money who ended up with a Bill that costs money. If the Bill does not cut welfare spending, can the Prime Minister tell the House how many people it will get into work?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has asked that, because it gives me the opportunity to say that we have already started changing the jobcentres and investing in support back into work. The Trailblazer scheme is doing exactly what she asked me: getting people back into work. Last night’s Bill will help people back into work, and of course the Timms review is ongoing, but I will tell the House what will not help people back into work and what will not help control the costs: voting to keep the broken system, and that is what the Conservatives did last night. Everybody in this House accepts that the current system is broken. It invites the question, “Who broke it?” The Conservatives broke it, and last night they voted for the status quo. The broken system is their policy. That will not help individuals, it will not help the taxpayer and it certainly will not help the economy.
Mrs Badenoch
I will tell the Prime Minister what we did on welfare. [Interruption.] Why are Labour Members laughing? They do not know. My party delivered the biggest reform of welfare in government. We got record numbers of people into work, including millions of disabled people, and we cut the deficit every year until covid. The fact is that we are not scared of doing difficult things. We got people back into work. What the Prime Minister forgets is that since the election—since he became Prime Minister—an additional 1,000 people a day are signing on to incapacity benefit. That is 50% more than under us.
Astonishingly, because of the mess that the Government made yesterday—because there are no more savings—sickness benefits alone are set to rise to £100 billion on the Prime Minister’s watch. He cannot reduce that now—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr McKee, I think we have had a run-in before. I certainly do not want any more. Seriously—you are obviously not getting your timing right, because I can hear your voice every time.
Mrs Badenoch
I will start again, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Yes, and louder for those at the back: sickness benefits are set to rise to £100 billion because of the Government’s mess. They cannot now reduce that, because after last night’s humiliating U-turn, we know that the Prime Minister cannot control his MPs. They are cheering now, but I can point out Labour Members who signed the amendment: you did, and you did. Over 100 people signed that reasoned amendment until the Bill was completely gutted. The Prime Minister said that he would take the difficult decisions, but is the reality not that he is too weak to get anything done?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the right hon. Lady what the Conservatives did to the welfare system—they broke it. It is the same with the NHS. What did they do? They broke it. It is the same with the economy. What did they do? They broke it. They broke everything that they touched. Now she describes the broken system that we are trying to fix. What did she do? She voted against fixing the system. I will spell it out: they voted last night for the system that is keeping 1 million young people not learning or earning. That is a disgrace. They voted for a system where we have 3 million people out of work on ill health. They voted for that system; we are fixing it. We are clearing up the mess that they left, just like we are clearing up the NHS and the economy.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister has got some brass neck. Has he read the papers this morning? That Bill will achieve nothing. It is a pointless waste of time, and it is absolute proof that he does not have a plan. Let me tell the House what is going to happen: in November, the Chancellor is going to put up our taxes to pay for the Prime Minister’s incompetence. We on the Opposition Benches know that you cannot tax your way to growth—[Interruption.] These are the same Members who cheered when they talked about the national insurance rise—the jobs tax; why are they complaining now? People out there are frightened. Can the Prime Minister reassure them by ruling out tax rises in the autumn Budget?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady knows that no Prime Minister or Chancellor ever stands at the Dispatch Box and writes future Budgets. That is not what the Conservatives did and it is not what we are doing, and she knows it. She talks about growth, but for 14 years we had stagnation, and that is what caused the problems. I am really pleased to show the progress that we are making, and I can update the House. Last week, Amazon put £40 billion of investment into this country—one of the biggest investments of its type. That brought inward investment to £120 billion in the first year of this Labour Government. I can also tell the House that business confidence is the highest for nine years. That is longer than the whole time that the Leader of the Opposition has been in Parliament. Figures this week have also demonstrated and shown that we had the fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year. What a difference from the mess the Conservatives made. That is the difference that a Labour Government make.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister talks about jobs. Unemployment has risen every month since Labour took office. Has he spoken to Nissan, by the way, and looked at what is happening there? This man has forgotten that his welfare Bill was there to plug a black hole created by the Chancellor. Instead, they are creating new ones. [Interruption.] The Chancellor is pointing at me, but she looks absolutely miserable. [Interruption.] They can point as much as they like, but the fact is that Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the Chancellor is toast. The reality is that she is a human shield for the Prime Minister’s incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?
The Prime Minister
Well, the right hon. Lady certainly won’t. I have to say that I am always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement, because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant the Conservatives are.
The right hon. Lady talks about the black hole, but they left a £22 billion black hole in our economy, and we are clearing it up. I am really proud that in the first year of a Labour Government, we have got free school meals, breakfast clubs, childcare, and £15 billion invested in transport in the north and the midlands. With planning regulation, planning and infrastructure is pounding forward. We are building 1.5 million homes and have the biggest investment in social and affordable housing. We also have the three trade deals—remember, those are the ones that the Conservatives could not get—including the US trade deal. On Monday, those tariffs came down. That secured the jobs at Jaguar Land Rover. That is who we care about on the Government Benches.
Mrs Badenoch
How awful for the Chancellor that the Prime Minister could not confirm that she would stay in place. He talks about his year in office. This week marks the first anniversary of Labour coming into office. [Interruption.] Yeah, yeah, let’s have it. The Whips cannot get their MPs in the Lobby, but they can get them to cheer at the right time.
The fact is that the Prime Minister’s own MPs are saying that this Government are “incoherent and shambolic”—it was the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) who said that. I could go on and on, but the fact is that it has been mistake after mistake after mistake. There is no plan to get people into work, there is no plan to cut the welfare budget, and there is no strategy; there is just a series of humiliating U-turns, as with winter fuel and as with grooming gangs.
What is really shocking is the fact that every other party in the House voted for even more welfare spending yesterday—yes, those MPs behind the Prime Minister, and the Liberal Democrats, and Reform. The Conservative party believes that this country needs to live within its means. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We know what we believe, but this is a Prime Minister who has U-turned on everything he has done in office, including his own speeches, because he does not know what he believes. With left-wing Labour MPs now running the Government, is it not working people who will now pay the price?
The Prime Minister
This is why the Leader of the Opposition always cheers me up. She talks about living within our means, having left a £22 billion black hole. She talks about our first year. I am really proud of our first year in government. We promised 2 million extra NHS appointments, and we delivered 4 million—a promise made and a promise delivered. We promised the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation within the first 100 days—a promise made and a promise delivered. We promised free breakfast clubs—a promise made and a promise delivered. On banning bonuses for water bosses who pollute our rivers, which is a mess the Conservatives left—a promise made and a promise delivered. Creating GB Energy—a promise made and a promise delivered. The largest increase in defence spending since the last Labour Government—a promise made and a promise delivered. Putting more money in the pockets of working people, particularly the 3 million who are the lowest paid, through the national minimum wage—a promise made and a promise delivered. We are only getting started. The Chancellor has led on all these issues, and we are grateful to her for it.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to speak of the importance of banning these despicable weapons. I know how much she cares about this issue. The ban on zombie knives and machetes came into effect last year, and the ban on ninja swords will come into effect this August. The Crime and Policing Bill will increase penalties for illegal sales and will give the police new powers to seize knives. What did the Conservatives do when we put that Bill before the House to take those measures? They voted against it. Knife crime soared on their watch, and they have clearly learnt absolutely nothing.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Yesterday, the Government were asking the House to vote for a law that would mean that someone with a condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis would qualify for a personal independence payment today, but someone diagnosed with the same condition, with the very same symptoms, in a few months’ time would not. We all know that the cost of welfare needs to come down, but that was not a fair way to do it. Until he lost control yesterday, the Prime Minister was arguing for that approach. Has he changed his mind on this, or not?
The Prime Minister
The Stephen Timms review—a very important review—will look into this issue, but what we did do last night was end mandatory reassessments for those with severe disabilities. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his party cared about things like that. It is the right thing to do, and they voted against it. We have rebalanced universal credit, which is long overdue. I think he believes that, but what did he do last night? He voted against it. We set out a pathway to reform personal independence payment, which is something he argues for every week, and what did he do when he had the chance? He voted against it.
Ed Davey
The House and Labour Back Benchers will note that the Prime Minister did not answer my question. Moreover, if he looked at our proposals for welfare reform to cut down the bill, he would not be in the mess that he is in.
Moving on, from Hillsborough to Grenfell, from Primodos to Horizon, and from the contaminated blood scandal to nuclear test veterans, the bereaved and survivors of some of our country’s most appalling scandals have come together to call for a legal duty of candour, and for the secondary duty needed to make it practical and effective for investigations and inquiries. They are now frightened that the Government are watering down these proposals to such an extent that they would be toothless. After months of delay, can the Prime Minister reassure campaigners that his Hillsborough law will include a real legal duty of candour, as he promised?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it will. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, I have known some of the Hillsborough families for many years—I met them over a decade ago—and know exactly what they have been through. Various other groups have suffered similar injustices with similar follow-up, which is an additional injustice on top of the original injustice. That is why we will bring forward a Hillsborough law—it is a commitment I have made. I have been talking to the families myself in recent weeks to make sure that we get this right. It is important that we get it right, but it will have a legal duty of candour.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this, and remember well the visit we had. This is a really serious issue, and it is important that we get it right. I am fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, including a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply. It is important that we get it right. I have been personally engaging with some of the families on this, because, as I say, I have seen at first hand what they have been through for over 10 years. I first met them when I was Director of Public Prosecutions and there was consideration of the order in which certain things would happen. That was actually about a different issue—it was about an issue of great concern to them—but my hon. Friend is right to raise this. We will bring this forward. I just want to take the time to get it right and then put it before the House.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In his victory speech last year, the Prime Minister promised to “end the chaos”. Does he think that the public still believe him?
The Prime Minister
We have delivered more in the first year of a Labour Government than the SNP has delivered in 20 years. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one example. We said that we would deliver 2 million extra appointments for the NHS in England, and we have delivered 4 million. What a contrast with the SNP Government. They have been in charge for about 20 years, and Scotland’s doctors have said in the past week that the Scottish NHS is
“dying before our very eyes”.
The SNP should be ashamed. Its own Public Health Minister admits that the SNP’s failure is “costing lives”. Scotland needs a new direction so that we can bring waiting lists down in Scotland, just as we have done in England.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Projects such as this are essential to building the 1.5 million homes we need, while at the same time creating vibrant and strong communities. In keeping with the Attlee legacy, we are supporting 47 locally-led garden communities to deliver tens of thousands more homes, and of course delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am very sorry to hear of the incident that the hon. Member cites. My sympathies are with the family, and I think I would send the best wishes of the whole House to the family and to that little girl. He speaks about the A259, and I do hear a lot about this road because it runs through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward). I know that it needs addressing, and I know how strongly they have both been in raising this and campaigning on it. A decision will be set our shortly. I think the hon. Member has met the Roads Minister, but I will make sure he is kept fully updated on developments.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic advocate for her constituents. She is right to highlight the important work by the defence sector in her constituency and, of course, right across the United Kingdom. We are investing £15 billion in our sovereign nuclear warhead programme. That will support nearly 10,000 jobs, including many in her constituency. That is the defence dividend in action—an historic boost to defence spending—represented and reflected in good, well-paid jobs across the United Kingdom.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Prime Minister
I do not want to be ungenerous, but I do not think I am going to be listening to the hon. Member or his party. They were the ones who put an £80 billion unfunded tax commitment before the electorate at the last election. They are the ones who talk about change and clean power, but every single time there is an infrastructure project or there is any change that is needed, they block it, including in their own constituencies.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I just start by congratulating Dawn Astle on her recent and richly deserved MBE for her work on behalf of former players? I do remember Michael Thomas very well—putting that goal in during injury time in 1989 to take the lead; it was a fantastic victory. I have had the pleasure of meeting him and discussing with him the very campaign that my hon. Friend raises, and I will certainly meet him again. Because athletes have brought us so much joy, they should have proper support from their sporting bodies on health and welfare, and we will ensure that they do.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. Decisions on services are matters for the integrated care board—that means they are taken locally, obviously—but I am glad he has raised it, because we agree that the sector needs reform. Unlike the Conservatives, we are investing in the sector, with £4 billion of additional funding alongside an independent commission into adult social care to improve the quality of care across the United Kingdom, including for his constituents.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Those are shocking statistics. Rail staff work incredibly hard to keep our country running and people safe. The abuse and assaults on staff are utterly unacceptable. We are taking measures to make sure they are safer. We want to encourage the use of body-worn cameras, which have been proven to reduce violence against staff by up to 47%. May I take this opportunity to thank our outstanding British Transport police for everything they do to support staff and passengers?
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Prime Minister
This time a year ago, the country was lining up to boot the Conservatives out of office, and long may they remain there. We put in place the most significant funding for farmers in the Budget, we have a road map for farmers that we are working on and, of course, where the Conservatives failed to spend the money, we are spending it with farmers.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a champion of nuclear and I know how important it is to thousands of her constituents. We are securing home-grown energy and driving bills down by unleashing a golden age of nuclear. That includes Sizewell C, which we announced just two or three weeks ago, and small modular reactors. That means jobs, investment and opportunities across the country, including in her constituency.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The Prime Minister
What would be better for building trust is an accurate description of what we are doing. It is important that the Stephens Timms review will look at this really important issue, but we have to get on with reform. We have a broken system that does not work for those who are using the system and does not work for the taxpayer or the economy. We have to get on and reform it, and we will do so in the way we set out yesterday.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The answer is yes, we will look at the content of the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. Across the House, we all have tragic experiences of suicide. Our thoughts are with Gabe’s family and friends. We will conduct a call for evidence on part K of the building regulations about minimum guarding heights so that the necessary protections are in place to prevent future tragedies, and we will also look at the contents of the Bill.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
People across the Staffordshire Moorlands are extremely concerned by the number of applications granted for solar farms and battery storage facilities. Will the Prime Minister give them some reassurance that he will change the law and that we will see good agricultural land saved for producing food, as it rightly should be?
The Prime Minister
It is right that we do both, and that we do support agriculture. The right hon. Lady says that people across the country are concerned about solar, but they are also concerned about their bills coming down, after they went up under the previous Government. The only way to get them down is on renewables, and that is what we are doing.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
This morning in Westminster Hall, Centenary Action presented sashes handmade by a team of wonderful women working out of ReMake Newport to every one of our 264 women MPs to mark today’s 97th anniversary of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this initiative, which celebrates the contribution women make in public life? Although we now have a record number of women MPs, does he agree that we must continue to break down barriers for women on our way to achieving the mission of a gender-equal Parliament?
The Prime Minister
I thank the women in my hon. Friend’s constituency, through her, for their hard work on this initiative. Having 264 women MPs is really significant progress in this House. I am incredibly proud that at the last election 100 new female Labour MPs were elected, meaning that the number of female MPs in the Labour party is now at a record high. On the 97th anniversary of the equal franchise Act, it should be a source of great pride to the House that we have a record number of female Members.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the ratification of the UK-Mauritius treaty on the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. On 22 May, the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of the signature, this treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, including the United States, and is essential to keeping the British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership.
The base enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia, helping combat some of the most challenging threats, including from terrorism and hostile states, and it has a unique strategic location. The treaty ensures that the UK retains complete operational control of Diego Garcia well into the next century. It has robust security measures that prevent threats from the outer islands of the archipelago, including: a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent; a rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military; and a binding obligation to ensure the base is never undermined. These robust provisions give the UK an effective veto over any activity that presents a clear and direct threat to the base on Diego Garcia, and they will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base.
The treaty sets out that it can be ratified once both parties have completed their relevant domestic processes, and for the UK this of course includes scrutiny of the treaty by Parliament and making the necessary changes to domestic law. The treaty was laid before the House on the day of signature for scrutiny under the usual process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We welcome the report into the treaty by the International Agreements Committee in the other place, which recognised the importance of ratifying the treaty to secure the base, and the debate on Monday in the other place in which peers rejected a cynical Conservative motion to block ratification.
Nevertheless, before the treaty is ratified, the Government will also bring forward primary legislation, as I have said on many occasions, which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way, and secondary legislation as necessary. Ahead of ratification, the Government will also make a ministerial statement in both Houses, providing a factual update on Chagossian eligibility for resettlement and on the modalities of the Chagossian trust fund. That will also enable further discussion in a proper manner. The treaty will then enter into force on the first day of the month following the date on which both parties have exchanged letters confirming these processes are complete.
This landmark agreement secures the future of our strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. It is, as I said, a crucial contribution to the defence and security partnerships that we hold. As the Defence Secretary told this House, there was no alternative but to act, and in so doing we have protected Britons at home and overseas. [Interruption.] If the Opposition do not recognise that fact, why did they start negotiating in the first place?
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. With the 21-day CRAG process about to conclude, it is a disgrace that Labour has breached the parliamentary conventions and denied the House a meaningful debate and vote on ratification. The Minister says that we will get a vote on the Bill, but having a vote on the Bill is not the same as voting on a treaty under CRAG.
Earlier this week, the House of Lords had a debate and vote, where the Lib Dems sided with Labour in backing this £30 billion surrender treaty, which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius. Why cannot we have a debate and vote in this House? What are Ministers afraid of? Are they afraid that their Back Benchers, now worried about benefit cuts and the impact of unpopular tax rises, will question why so much money is being handed over for a territory that we own and will force them into another embarrassing U-turn? Are they afraid that MPs across the House will do the maths even, and see that the actual amount of money going to Mauritius will be at least £30 billion and not the £3.4 billion accountancy valuation claim that Ministers talk about? Are they afraid that Labour’s barefaced hypocrisy and appalling treatment of the Chagossian community will be exposed?
The Minister once said:
“The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future” —[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.]
but this surrender treaty betrays them. He has betrayed them, leaving any decisions on resettlement and support through the trust fund in the hands of Mauritius.
With a legal case ongoing, will the Minister extend the CRAG process until all legal challenges have concluded? Will the Minister finally admit that Labour made October’s bad deal even weaker by giving up the unilateral right to extend the lease on the base and ditching the clause authorising the UK to exercise sovereign rights? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that it has done that, so will the Minister finally admit it? Will the Minister confirm that there are no guarantees that the current levels of marine protections will continue?
There is too much ambiguity; we have not had clarity. There are no guarantees on security or on safeguarding, unanswered questions about notification requirements around the base, and no guarantees that Mauritius will not pursue further lawfare to stop operations at the base if it thinks they contravene international law, including trying to block nuclear weapons, as the Pelindaba treaty now applies to the Chagos islands. The Minister should scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a proper debate, full scrutiny and finally a vote in this House.
Stephen Doughty
I genuinely have to say, as somebody who has respect for and likes the right hon. Lady, that I am disappointed by the tone of those remarks. I do not know who writes this stuff; I do not know whether it is just performative politics, or rhetoric—I don’t know what.
I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written parliamentary questions from the right hon. Lady. I have answered over 250 questions in total on the deal and the process. We have had no fewer than six urgent questions in this House. We have had two statements from the Government, from the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. I personally briefed the right hon. Lady and answered many of her questions in my office just a couple of weeks ago, in good faith and in detail. I have been subjected, quite rightly, to robust scrutiny on these issues not only by the Foreign Affairs Committee, but by the International Relations and Defence Committee and the International Agreements Committee in the other House, in great detail.
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady and her team are simply not reading the transcripts or the answers to the questions, but I have repeatedly answered them. She might not like the answers, Mr Speaker, but I have answered these questions. I have set out the position on costs. I have set out the position on the security arrangements. I have set out the position on the vetoes that we have. The fact is that this deal secures this base, and it secures our national security and that of our allies. It is absolutely right that it has had proper scrutiny, and there will be a vote, because there will be a vote on the legislation that we will put before the House in due course.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
On a recent visit to Washington with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was struck by the support expressed by the US Government for the deal to secure the long-term future of the military base on Diego Garcia. Alongside the US, our Five Eyes allies support the deal, NATO supports the deal, and India supports the deal. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition would do well to listen to our closest neighbours and allies instead of trying to play party politics with our national security?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. National security is the top priority of this Government, and working with our crucial allies, including the United States, is key to that. He is absolutely right to point out the support that was gained for this deal through a full and detailed inter-agency process in the United States, at the highest levels of the Administration, as well as the support from our Five Eyes partners and from India. The fact is that this deal secures the base and secures our capabilities, and it would not have been signed off if it did not do that.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The shambolic process of securing this deal has left many questions for the House, but the glaring omission at the heart of that negotiation has been the failure by successive Governments to properly consult the Chagossian people. For much of their history, Chagossians have been denied consultation on who governs them and their right to self-determination. We Liberal Democrats now fear that in handing over the sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius without properly reflecting the interests of Chagossians, the Government are only reinforcing that legacy.
The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) criticises the actions of Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, yet only the Liberal Democrats championed the rights of the Chagossian people and secured a commitment from the Government to make statements to both Houses on their approach before ratification. In the light of those shortcomings, it is wrong that the Government have not brought the treaty to this House for scrutiny. Will the Minister reverse that decision today and give parliamentarians the opportunity to assess and vote on the final deal?
Stephen Doughty
I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for the generally constructive way in which he and his colleagues have approached the process. He is absolutely right to speak about the Chagossians. Indeed, as I have pointed out many times, the Chagossians’ interest in this matter has been at the heart of our discussions. We have the trust fund; we have the agreement to start visits again. Of course, Mauritius will be able to restart a programme of resettlement. He has heard the remarks made by my noble Friends in the other place, in response to the questions that his honourable colleagues raised. We have been very clear about what we will do in that regard, and I hold to that here today.
I have to challenge the suggestion that the treaty has not received scrutiny. It is receiving scrutiny right now. It has been receiving scrutiny in the Foreign Affairs Committee, it has received scrutiny in the other place, and it has received scrutiny through parliamentary questions. It is receiving scrutiny and it is absolutely right that it does.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister has just set out the scrutiny that this matter has received in various places, but I was really taken by the number of questions that he said he had received from the shadow Foreign Secretary on this subject. Can he tell me how many questions he has received on other matters of global importance?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Since the treaty was laid, I have had 50 written questions from the right hon. Lady. In comparison, I have had four on Gibraltar, two on Ukraine, and one on Poland. He is right that this matter has received scrutiny.
Mr Speaker
I am not being funny, but it is amazing that the Minister had those figures to hand.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, keeps saying that the Government had no choice but to do this deal. I do not believe that to be true. My successor, Lord Cameron, did not believe that to be true either, which is why neither he nor I signed off an agreement. Will the Minister please explain to the House in detail why he believed that he had no choice, including what body, at what time, and with what jurisdiction?
Stephen Doughty
In the interests of time, I refer the right hon. Member to the detailed evidence that I gave in the House of Lords on this matter the other day, including on the legal circumstances. He knows the risk to the operation of the base in the medium and short term, and he recognises the risk of a binding legal judgment, which we believed to be inevitable. His Government knew that, which is why they started the process. He may not have been able to conclude the deal—I accept that, Mr. Speaker—but the previous Government went through 11 rounds of negotiations because they recognised the importance of doing this deal. They knew that securing the facility was crucial to our national security. We put our national security and securing this base first, and that has met with the approval of the United States and other Five Eyes allies.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I have to admit that I am rather confused, because I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary was in the Cabinet when the decision was made to start these negotiations. Too often, we focus on the military aspects of this deal, but can the Minister confirm that it will also end a dangerous, irregular migration route into the UK?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government took early action—even before the conclusion of the deal—to ensure that that route was closed down by the memorandum of understanding that we reached with St Helena, for which I again thank St Helena. Again, Mr. Speaker, I was rightly scrutinised by this House on that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point, and that is why we have done this deal.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can the Minister tell the House why he thinks China supports this deal?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear on this: the United States, our Five Eyes partners and India support this deal. Mauritius was one of the few countries not to join the belt and road initiative. It is very clear that the deal is in the interests of our security and that of our allies—otherwise, the United States would not have agreed to it in the first place.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Clearly, language such as “surrender” is inflammatory and inappropriate. Conservative Members of this House wax lyrical and make a song and dance about national security. Will my hon. Friend remind them that on their watch, our armed forces were hollowed out, with the Army reaching its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, and spending never once reached 2.5%? Is it not true that Labour is the party of strong defence and strong national security?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is right. Whether it is in the ambitious agenda for national security and defence set out in the strategic defence review, in the unity and leadership we showed at the NATO summit last week, or in securing our crucial national security bases, including Diego Garcia, this Government are leading from the front when it comes to national security. Quite frankly, the Conservative party is showing some brass neck after hollowing out our armed forces, leaving this deal undone and so many other things. I simply do not understand it, Mr. Speaker.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I simply ask the Minister the same question that I asked when he first came to the House on this matter. In relation to the cost consequences of this deal, he knows that the lion’s share of the interest lies with the military base on Diego Garcia. Therefore, what contribution is the United States making to the very significant costs of compensating the Mauritian people?
Stephen Doughty
The United States makes significant and crucial contributions to the operations from Diego Garcia. They are of a quantum much greater than the cost that we will pay in relation to the base under this deal. The benefit to the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies is priceless, and this Government will not scrimp on our national security.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The cost of this deal is equivalent to a quarter of 1% of our defence budget, and that is in the context of a Government who have made the highest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. When the Minister speaks to our international friends and allies, what is their message about the work that we are doing to restore confidence in national security and our reputation on the global stage? And what message should the Opposition take from those conversations?
Stephen Doughty
I repeatedly hear a strong vote of confidence in our investment in national security and defence, whether it is from our European partners or from the United States. One just has to look at our leadership at the NATO summit and our ongoing support for Ukraine, which we agree on across the House. My hon. Friend asks about the value and the costs. I have set out the costs on a number of occasions, but, as he says, it is just a fraction of 1% of our annual defence budget. It would pay to run the NHS for just five hours. It also compares favourably with other allies. For example, France pays approximately €85 million a year for its base in Djibouti. Diego Garcia is 15 times larger and the capabilities are priceless.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister rightly says that the base on Diego Garcia is vital for our national security, and we all agree on that. The key issue is what notification has to be given to the Mauritius Government for the base to be used for operational purposes.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has replied to multiple questions on this topic, as have I. Indeed, I answered these questions in the due scrutiny that I received the other day. We do not have to provide notification in advance. The treaty refers to “expeditiously” informing after the event, and that is absolutely the normal course of business. I am clear that the operations and the operational autonomy of this base are secure under this deal.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is amazing that we are to give up an important security base without it being necessary to do so, that we are to pay billions to a Government that will allow them to make tax cuts while we impose tax burdens on our own country, and that the Minister stands here today at the Dispatch Box and says that he does not have time to explain why it is necessary to do so. Surely the way to ensure that we have proper scrutiny of this deal is to have a proper debate, or is he afraid that his own Back Benchers, once they hear the real story, will find it as difficult to walk through the Lobby for it as they did for the welfare reform Bill yesterday?
Stephen Doughty
I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I totally reject his assertion. There is full support for this deal—and, indeed, full support for it from our allies in the United States and the Five Eyes partners. On the point about alleged tax cuts, at no point in his Budget speech did Prime Minister Ramgoolam say that he was planning to fund income tax reform with the money from this deal. That was very, very clear. Indeed, the rationale for this deal, which I have explained multiple times to the House, is that our national security was at risk and the operations of that base could not function as they once did. That is why the Opposition started the negotiations and why we have concluded them.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
After yesterday’s complete chaos, my constituents are bracing themselves for big tax increases in the autumn. How does the Minister think they feel when they see the Mauritian Government crowing about virtually abolishing income tax in Mauritius thanks to the largesse that he is about to pour on them?
Stephen Doughty
I am genuinely surprised by the comments of the right hon. Gentleman. As a former Defence Minister and someone who has served, he will know the importance of this base and the need to secure it, and he will know the risks to our operations that were inherent under the previous Government. That is why his Government started this process and why we have concluded it. It is also why our costs under the deal are broadly comparable with what France pays for its base in Djibouti, even though our base 15 times larger and has immeasurably more capability, as he well knows.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In the Minister’s response, he quoted the answer from the Defence Secretary to my question, saying that he had no choice. But the reason for doing this deal is the worry about being taken to court—so the Government do have a choice, and that is what my constituents and Opposition Members are so upset about. The Government could have a fight in the court and appeal the decision, yet they have chosen not to, and they will not explain why.
Will the Minister set out what the need was for immediacy and why he and his Government will not go to the court for the tribunal he is so worried about to have that fight? If the case were shut down, Opposition Members would understand, and if it was found that we had a legal responsibility to pay, we would do so, but we do not, and we have not had our day in court as a country. That is the travesty of the deal.
Stephen Doughty
I have to correct the hon. Member as we have had days in court on this issue. That is one of the reasons—[Interruption.] There was the non-binding judgment in the International Court of Justice. He also forgets to mention the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the votes in the United Nations and all the other legal processes. The fact is, it is our view—indeed, it was the view of the previous Government—that a legally binding judgment would inevitably follow. Leaving such a key national security asset in that way is not responsible; no, the responsible thing to do is to secure the base with our allies, and that is exactly what we have done.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
While China might support this terrible deal, let me tell the Minister that the British people do not support this appalling deal, giving away our strategic security asset and paying tens of billions of our taxpayers’ money in the process. Our taxpayers will be suffering tax rises for that in order that the Mauritians get tax cuts. Since the Government are in the mood for U-turns, why do they not take the hint and U-turn on this terrible Chagos deal?
Stephen Doughty
I will not take any lessons from a party that fawns over Vladimir Putin.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In the Defence Secretary’s statement on 22 May, he stated with regard to potential legal rulings against us that
“The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.]
The US, which operates the base, is not even a signatory to UNCLOS. How would ITLOS have ruled a binding legal judgment that we would have recognised? It is notable that ITLOS has not been mentioned since that statement?
Stephen Doughty
I am confused—I have mentioned ITLOS on a number of occasions, including just a moment ago. The long-standing view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation. Even if we chose to ignore binding judgments made against us—we would not do so—their legal effect on third countries and international organisations would give rise to real impacts to the operation of the base and the delivery of its national security functions.
International organisations have already adopted decisions based on Mauritian sovereignty, and others would follow suit following such litigation. That could affect the electromagnetic spectrum, access to the base by air and by sea, and the ability to patrol the maritime area around the base and to support the base’s critical national security functions. Further, the UK would likely face a provisional measures order in a matter of weeks. The position is clear, and we have explained it. The hon. Member’s previous Government knew exactly the same. [Interruption.] However much he shouts and however much he does not like the arguments, they are the facts.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Minister confirm that 40 years ago the most disgusting, cynical injustice was done against the Chagos islanders and that it was their resolute campaigning over decades—often alone, with little friendship or support—that eventually brought the whole case to international law and an opinion from the International Court of Justice, which has brought about the situation we are now in? Instead of obsessing with the twilight of empire, should Opposition parties not be thinking about the injustice done to the Chagos islanders?
Will the Minister confirm that in the arrangements now being made, the Chagos islanders, wherever they are resident, and whatever their opinions are, do have a right of return? Will he give us some idea of what the attitude will be about the right of visit, the right of residence and the right of return to Diego Garcia, where the majority of the Chagos islanders have come from? They are a people who have been badly treated by history and are now being used as pawns by people more interested in defending some strange notion of the twilight of empire than justice for the Chagos islanders.
Stephen Doughty
The primary purpose of the deal was of course to secure the base on Diego Garcia and the national security of the UK and our allies, but the right hon. Member is right to point out the historical situation regarding the Chagossians. We have expressed deep regret for how they were removed from the islands in the 1960s and ’70s; indeed, that is on the face of the treaty. We recognise the importance of the islands to the Chagossians as well as the different views in the community, which he is well acquainted with.
We will be restarting those visits, including to Diego Garcia. The programme of resettlement to islands outside Diego Garcia will be for Mauritius to determine, but we have committed to Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place that we will provide further statements on how that will work in due course. There is also the trust fund and the support we provide here in the UK. We are listening to the different Chagossian groups and trying to ensure that their interests are at the heart of the treaty deal as we move forward.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Minister will be aware of a pending judicial review challenge focused on the lack of consultation with the Chagossians. Why was there not full and adequate consultation with the Chagossian people?
Stephen Doughty
I will not comment on ongoing judicial matters, but as I have set out a number of times the negotiations were necessarily between the UK and Mauritius. However, we recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians, which is why the measures that I just set out have been put in place.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In answer to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the Minister seemed to imply—to Opposition Members’ ears anyway—that the United States would be paying, I think he said, a larger quantum of the funding for the deal. I think he was referring to the operational cost of the base. May I ask for confirmation that the United States is not contributing at all to the £30 billion lease under the settlement?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but if the Minister wishes to respond I will allow him to do so.
Stephen Doughty
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it was because of the noise and the shouting, but I was clear. The United States contributes to the operations on Diego Garcia, and rightly so. There is establishment of that in relation to the exchange of notes between the UK and the United States. It is not contributing towards the costs of the treaty deal.
Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the report from the National Energy System Operator following its review into the fire at the North Hyde substation on 20 March. NESO’s review was commissioned jointly by the Energy Secretary and Ofgem in the immediate aftermath of the fire, which disrupted power supply to over 70,000 customers, including, of course, Heathrow airport, which closed operations on 21 March. While power from the grid was restored quickly to customers, there were significant secondary impacts to the aviation sector due to the associated closure of Heathrow airport.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the House at the time, where she committed that the Government would update the House as soon as the relevant investigations had concluded. That is why I am making this statement before the House on the day that NESO’s report has been published.
Before I update the House on the key findings of the review, I reassure hon. Members that the Government are taking action in response to the report. We will urgently consider the findings of the review and have committed to publish a Government response that will set out a plan on how the issues identified will be addressed in order to improve our energy resilience.
Having reviewed the report, I am deeply concerned—I am sure hon. Members will agree—that known risks were not addressed by National Grid Electricity Transmission, a key operator of our electricity system. NGET’s own guidance is clear, and based on the elevated moisture samples that NGET took in 2018, the asset should have remained out of service until mitigating actions were put in place, or the asset should have been carefully monitored until it could be replaced. NGET failed to take action appropriate to the severity of the risk at North Hyde. That was most likely the cause of the catastrophic fire on 20 March.
I spoke to NGET this morning and made it clear that the findings are unacceptable and that action must be taken to ensure that maintenance work on critical assets is prioritised appropriately. Fire suppression systems must not be left inoperable.
I am pleased to see that the regulator is taking swift action in response to the findings, announcing today that it is opening an official enforcement investigation into NGET. Ofgem will consider any possible licence condition breaches relating to the development and maintenance of National Grid Electricity Transmission’s electricity system at North Hyde. I spoke with Ofgem yesterday to express my support for that investigation and the planned audit of National Grid’s critical substation assets. That will be essential to understanding any other potential risks on the network and ensuring that those are being mitigated appropriately.
The report also highlights that North Hyde substation, which was built in 1968, is subject to different design standards than newer sites that were built during the 1990s. There was not sufficient distance or a physical barrier between two transformers at North Hyde, which allowed the fire to spread. It is essential that we consider the potential risk created by differing design and standards across the electricity network, particularly as we move towards clean power 2030. That will be a key focus of the Government’s response.
My Department and Ofgem will hold NGET to account for its role in the incident at North Hyde, but the extent of the impact of the incident on Heathrow operations must also come into focus. Heathrow Airport Ltd commissioned its own independent review, the Kelly review, which was published on 28 May and investigated the circumstances that led to the airport ceasing operations for most of 21 March. The review highlighted several recommendations to further improve the resilience of the airport’s internal electricity network. Those align with NESO’s findings that there are options to improve Heathrow’s own power resilience, which is the responsibility of Heathrow and not National Grid, and reduce the risk of further disruption at this scale.
Heathrow benefits from three separate supply points to the electricity network. It is rare for any site to have such a resilient connection to the network. As no energy system can ever be free from disruption, this is an opportunity for Heathrow to consider investing in its internal electrical distribution network to take advantage of those multiple supply points. I welcome the continued effective collaboration between Heathrow and energy operators as part of the review. My Department and the Department for Transport will work to ensure that that collaboration continues across those critical sectors.
Although such incidents are rare and the UK has a robust and resilient system, there are always wider lessons to be learned. The majority of recommendations made by NESO in its report suggest potential improvements that could be considered by operators across the energy sector. In collaboration with NESO, Ofgem and other industry partners, my Department will ensure the delivery and implementation of those energy recommendations. However, the report findings are also applicable to wider Government policy on resilience, both in the energy sector and across other critical national infrastructure sectors.
Ensuring the protection and resilience of critical national infrastructure continues to be a key priority for Government, with action already being taken. The Government’s recently published 10-year infrastructure strategy committed to strengthening resilience standards across critical national infrastructure. Further, the Cabinet Office will imminently publish the UK Government resilience action plan, which will articulate Government’s new strategic approach to resilience and is the outcome of the resilience review announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in this place last year.
My Department is already taking steps to enhance our current approach to the designation of critical national infrastructure in the energy sector. We recently introduced specific licence conditions that give NESO responsibility for data gathering and technical analysis to independently inform the Government’s decisions on the designation of CNI, ensuring our most critical infrastructure in the energy sector is always as resilient as possible. We will work with the Cabinet Office and wider Government to develop a full response to the North Hyde report and set out how we will tackle some of the cross-sector resilience challenges highlighted, particularly given the importance of the energy sector for the continued operation of so much of our critical national infrastructure.
I want to restate that Great Britain continues to have a resilient energy network. Even though incidents such as this are rare, it is essential that we learn the lessons to maintain and, where possible, improve our resilience. The Government response will set out our plans for how we will continue to do so.
I thank NESO for carrying out such a comprehensive review over the past three months. The report shows the value of learning from past emergencies such as this. NESO’s newly established functions in energy resilience will enable Government, the energy industry and the regulator to truly understand whole energy system risks and mitigations, proactively ensuring that Great Britain continues to have a reliable energy supply, which is critical to the whole of society. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, may I take this opportunity to welcome her back to her place in the House?
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel older, wiser and significantly more sleep-deprived.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also thank NESO for its rapid work. The report is clear that there have been serious failings by National Grid to fix an issue that it knew about for seven years. The Minister is right; that is unacceptable. What is most important, though, is what happens now.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, who at National Grid made the decision to defer critical maintenance of the transformer in 2022? He said that he would hold them accountable, so how will he do that? He spoke about breaching licence conditions. What are the penalties for doing that and what accountability mechanisms will he use? Secondly, the report says that the North Hyde site did not meet modern standards on physical barriers between transformers. Can the Minister confirm he has asked National Grid to review substations with transformers built before the current standards were put in place? Thirdly, what steps will he take to look at the resilience of our energy system, particularly in the light of the heightened geopolitical risk that we all face?
The key message that we should take from the report on the Heathrow blackout is the importance of critical national infrastructure to our energy security and our national security. In that regard, it is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who is playing with fire. A week after the blackout hit Heathrow, Spain and Portugal gave us a stark warning of what happens when countries fail to protect their energy security: public transport down, payment systems down and millions of people unable to cook, travel or contact their families. Tragically, people lost their lives. In the case of North Hyde, the blackout affected schools, the London Underground, Hillingdon hospital and 70,000 customers, some of whom had to move out of their homes. That is the price we pay when we do not take energy security seriously. It is not a nice-to-have—energy is a basic need—and yet this Government are putting our energy at risk.
The national security strategy that the Government published just last week included 12 mentions of climate but not a single mention of the risk that China poses to our energy system. Last year, our intelligence services warned that Chinese state-sponsored hackers were working to disrupt and destroy critical infrastructure in the event of conflict, and yet the Secretary of State is rushing to make Britain dependent on Chinese solar panels, Chinese rare earths and Chinese batteries in just five years’ time. We have just seen China limit the export of critical minerals in its trade war with the US. We have seen kill switches found in Chinese inverters. The US intelligence services have warned us about the risk of surveillance devices in Chinese wind turbines.
I first wrote to the Secretary of State eight months ago, asking him to publish an assessment of what his targets mean for our reliance on Chinese imports. He has not even bothered to reply. If the Secretary of State wants to hand over the keys of our energy supply to the Chinese Communist party, he should come to this House and explain why.
We are lucky enough in this country to be surrounded by our own gas fields, but the Secretary of State does not care. This is a man who would rather import gas from Norway, from the very same fields in the North sea that he is banning Britain from using; who is pouring concrete down our gas wells; and who is blocking off any contingency plan that Britain might need in a crisis. I do not say this lightly, but this is a man who is putting our national security at risk. Today we are talking about the first transformer fire in a decade in this country and he did not even bother to turn up. That is the problem. The Secretary of State might prefer to be in Brazil, Baku, Beijing or wherever he is today, but he should be here to explain himself, because as the former head of MI6 said, he is pursuing an energy policy that is “completely crazy” when it comes to national security.
I want clean energy from nuclear, from small modular reactors and from the next generation of British innovation, but first and foremost I want energy that keeps the lights on and keeps bills down. This Government are going to leave us completely reliant on foreign imports: from China, from Norway, from Qatar—from anywhere as long as it is not Britain. NESO and Ofgem will do their work, but the Minister must do his work too. Alongside the work of the North Hyde report, can he confirm that he will come back and update the House on his plans to protect the energy resilience of this country?
Michael Shanks
I was going to start—and I will, regardless of the rest of that speech—by warmly welcoming the right hon. Lady back to her place as the shadow Secretary of State. I will miss sparring with my Scottish colleague, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), although I am sure we will still have opportunities to do so. The right hon. Lady might come to miss the lack of sleep at home compared with the noise in this place, but she is very welcome back. She has obviously taken the last few months to write a wrap-up speech on a whole range of issues, and I am glad to give her the opportunity to pontificate here on many of those things, but let me stick to the questions that related to the statement that I have delivered to the House today.
The right hon. Lady asked about the role that National Grid has played. Ofgem has opened an enforcement investigation into this incident to get to the bottom of exactly what National Grid has or has not done, and whether there are possible breaches of licence. That investigation should now take its course. There are clearly serious questions to answer, and that is exactly the point that I put to National Grid today. I have asked for an immediate response on what action it is taking and for assurances that there are no further maintenance backlogs that it has not acted on, and I expect that by the end of this week. Ofgem has also instructed a wider audit of maintenance work across the energy system, which will identify if there are any similar issues. On the point about being held accountable, clearly I am going to wait for the outcome of Ofgem’s investigation. It is the responsibility of Ofgem as the regulator to determine whether National Grid is in breach of any of its licence conditions and what the appropriate action should be if it is. I will wait for those findings to come through.
The right hon. Lady raised an important point about the physical barriers. Clearly there are differences because the time at which some of our infrastructure was built and the different standards that were in place at different times. We need to make a wider review to see what is actually possible with some of this infrastructure; it was not always possible to build to the standards we now expect, but everything that is being built now is being built to the highest standards. I want the same assurances that she has called for: to know that anything that was built previously is safe.
On the wider resilience questions, I am not going to get into a back-and-forward on the frankly quite ludicrous claims that the right hon. Lady made. I hope this is not an indication of the tone we can expect in the years ahead, because there are some difficult decisions for us all to wrestle with. There is the really important question about delivering our energy security in, as she says, an increasingly uncertain world. We are sprinting towards clean power to remove the volatility of fossil fuels from our system. She opposes all of that investment. There is also a critical role to play in upgrading the network infrastructure across the country, which her party also opposes.
There are some really searching questions for the Conservatives—who were, of course, in charge of this infrastructure for 14 years—about their role and what part they want to play. It is easy to shout from the sidelines with accusations. It is far more useful and important for a party that was in government for 14 years and is now the official Opposition to come up with some credible questions about how we deliver the energy system of the future. We are going to get on with delivering it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It beggars belief that no action was taken after the risks were identified in 2018 at the North Hyde substation. The NESO report highlights a lack of information-sharing internally at National Grid and externally between organisations. It draws attention to the energy companies not knowing that Heathrow had a 10 to 12-hour arrangement for switching supply, and that National Grid did not appear to know that Heathrow was a customer of the substation. It is a matter of immense luck that the explosion and fire took place at 11 o’clock at night and that no one was present; otherwise, this would have been a very different discussion, with people having died. The Minister highlighted the unacceptable lack of action by National Grid. Will he ensure proper oversight and information sharing internally at National Grid and externally between organisations, so that we have safety and resilience in our national energy system, where it applies to critical national infrastructure and beyond?
Michael Shanks
First, on the point about joining up, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The response that I have seen from National Grid identifies that as one of the points it will take away. It will look at information sharing and joining up the data in various systems, and at how to ensure that is followed through on. It is important to say that there is also learning, not just for National Grid but across the energy system, through looking at what other transmission owners do and at what the Government do around sharing information where we can. There is a lot of learning and a lot of recommendations will be taken forward.
On the question of Heathrow, much was identified in the Kelly review, which looked specifically at these operations. On the question of whether there was a single point of failure at Heathrow, the airport is one of the biggest consumers of electricity in the country and one of our most important pieces of critical national infrastructure. It is important that those at Heathrow reflect on this report and take some lessons from it.
The report has shown—this is a lesson for everyone—the importance of investing in electricity resilience and preparing for the worst, even if we think there is a low chance of the worst actually happening. I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s final point: it is in all our interests to spend time, effort and investment in making sure that our energy system continues to be as resilient as possible.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
This report is an utterly damning assessment of our national resilience, this time through decay but also through a lack of readiness as the climate crisis changes the dynamics, with old equipment operating at higher temperatures just as the loads for climate control and air conditioning are at their peak. The British people will rightly be alarmed that the problem that caused this substation failure was known as long ago as 2018, but there is a much wider point here. Beyond the technicalities of this failure, the resilience of critical national infrastructure has been neglected for far too long.
As an engineer, I came to this place for precisely this reason: we are too short-termist and too narrow in our vision. We cannot possibly expect to remain a world leader in infrastructure if we cannot future-proof and seriously invest in the resilience of our assets. Building and maintaining infrastructure might not get pulses racing. There is no ribbon to cut when something just continues to operate efficiently, but that long-termism is an ideology that we should all get behind if we are serious about Britain’s future. The report outlined the many missed opportunities to fix the issues at the substation, and we will all have to look seriously into Ofgem’s consequential investigation into National Grid once it is published.
This is not just about grid resilience, though. This time it was a fire caused by a fault, but next time it might be a deliberate cyber-attack or an act of terrorism, which could have a more disastrous impact. We must look beyond the short term, with a strategic and long-term plan to join up national infrastructure and make it safe and reliable for all. The Government must bring about a strategy and act quickly to review the resilience of all similar assets, including every UK airport—they are all critical to our national economy and our society.
With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether an assessment has been made of the likelihood of a repeat of this incident, at Heathrow and at all other pieces of critical national infrastructure? Also, are the Government taking this opportunity to finally pick up the National Infrastructure Commission reports from 2020 and 2023, which were ignored by the previous Government, and the report from 2024, which was not implemented quickly enough, and to implement standards and frameworks for resilience in key sectors such as aviation, telecoms, water and energy, which will future-proof our ageing infrastructure to make it reliable and safe?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to broaden this beyond the electricity system and North Hyde to take in wider questions around critical national infrastructure. He is also right about investing in the future. I always think that grids and networks set the heart racing a little faster, but that is just me. This is important, and this Government are investing in this infrastructure; just this week Ofgem announced record investment in it. I hope, given the importance of this statement, that Members on all sides of the House will recognise the importance of that investment.
On the points around wider resilience, the Cabinet Office is leading on trying to bring together what I think it is fair to say has been too fragmented a landscape in resilience across Government. My Department is responsible for a number of key risks in the national risk register. It is right that the lead Departments have expertise in certain areas, but if that information is not shared coherently across Government, we increase the chance of not getting the answers right. A lot of work is being done in that regard. We are also looking at how we share data across all sectors of critical national infrastructure within Government. We will say more about that in the resilience action plan, which the Cabinet Office is working on at the moment. Of course, the 10-year infrastructure strategy is also about how we will invest for the long term in the infrastructure that keeps our country running.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Speaking as a chartered electrical engineer and as the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I am absolutely amazed that such an important and large part of our critical national infrastructure in the National Grid was not properly maintained for seven years and that Heathrow—the busiest airport in the world—had a single point of failure. The Minister has outlined some of the processes and procedures that will follow, but will he say how he intends to improve the standards of engineering maintenance culture and excellence in our critical national infrastructure, which have clearly been allowed to fall significantly under successive Conservative Governments?
Michael Shanks
First, it is important to say that Heathrow had multiple routes into its electricity network—three in fact—which is unique. This report and the processes identified in the Kelly review will give Heathrow Airport Ltd pause for thought on what it needs to do on how its network is configured and how it can adapt in such situations. Of course, this is an incredibly rare circumstance, but the whole point of resilience planning is to plan for eventualities that we think are extremely unlikely to happen but that would have a significant impact if they did. Heathrow closing is clearly one such circumstance.
Secondly, my hon. Friend is right to highlight standards and systems. I want to be careful not to prejudge the review that Ofgem has announced, because there is something to be said about standards changing over time. Maintenance backlogs obviously then have to be met, and if the issue is that maintenance that should have been carried out has not been, that is clearly an issue we will take forward. But if it is just that pieces of infrastructure were subject to standards that have changed over time, we have a wider question of how we can adapt some of that infrastructure for future standards. We will look at all those points. I repeat to the House that our electricity system is incredibly robust in its resilience. We need to do everything possible to make it even more robust, so that such instances do not have quite so significant an impact as this one did.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I follow up on that and ask the Minister whether he will undertake to have a full, frank and open discussion with the relevant directorates within his Department about what it has learned from this disaster? In particular, what exercises, tabletop or virtual, must be undertaken to practise resilience in the event of future such failures? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) is right to warn about the increasing fragility of energy security in this country. There is plenty of informed opinion that supports that view.
Michael Shanks
I have spoken to colleagues across the Department on these questions. They are rightly constantly looking at how we review our processes. Importantly, they are also working outside of Government and trying to break down some of the silos, so we are co-ordinating with different parts of Government that have different responsibilities. But the right hon. Member is right, and we will constantly push to do more of that.
The question of exercises is important. We had a really significant exercise under the previous Government, which looked at the Government’s response to a significant power outage. We are putting in place many of the recommendations from that exercise, which are important to take forward, but more exercise is useful.
I would slightly separate the response from the infrastructure itself failing, which is what we need to investigate quickly. The Kelly review set out that Heathrow’s response to the incident was in line with its response plan. Although the outcome was clearly not what any of us would have wanted, it goes to a wider question about the infrastructure at Heathrow, not so much the actual plan put in place when the incident did occur. Those are two slightly different things, but they are both extremely important.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Minister for making this statement, and NESO for this damning report. Heathrow Airport Ltd’s power set-up internally virtually guarantees hours of disruption in a scenario like this. On 21 March, that meant over a quarter of a million passengers were affected; airlines lost significant revenue, for which they will not be compensated; and countless time-critical freight loads were also affected. Yet in Spain and Portugal, airports did not close when those countries had full power outages. By any definition, surely Heathrow airport counts as critical national infrastructure as it undeniably requires operational continuity. I note that the Minister confirmed the airport’s responsibility for its own power resilience, but does the Government have a role in ensuring that end-to-end power supply to critical national infrastructure is robust and that risks like power outages are managed adequately?
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for the question and for her thanks to NESO, which has done a comprehensive job on this report in a fairly short space of time. There are lessons to be learned for Heathrow, and it will be learning those lessons. I am in communication with the Transport Secretary, who of course has immediate responsibility for Heathrow as a piece of critical national transport infrastructure. It is worth saying that its back-up generators did operate in the way they were supposed to, but Heathrow is a huge piece of infrastructure, and it is not intended that those back-up processes would continue to run normal operations in a huge airport beyond the immediate situation of being able to land planes safely and ensuring other critical systems within the airport.
The question Heathrow has to answer is on having three points of electricity generation coming into the airport. It clearly needs to look at the way the network is configured and take forward the wider question of its resilience and ability to adapt to such situations. The Government have an incredibly important role, as my hon. Friend rightly says, and we will do all we can to ensure that National Grid is doing its bit, that the distribution operator is doing what it needs to do, and that Heathrow Airport Ltd is also meeting the expectations that we would expect from our most important piece of transport infrastructure.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The report by NESO has clearly uncovered serious structural failings at National Grid, but let us not forget that the Government’s response to the outage was severely wanting as well. On the Monday following the outage, the Transport Secretary confirmed that she was relying on the contents of a three-day-old conversation with Heathrow, with no assessment from the Government and no conversations with National Grid. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that sufficient lessons are being learned in Government to ensure that, when the power supply to critical national infrastructure is affected in the future, the Government are not left without answers again? Additionally, Members will understand the phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, meaning “Who guards the guards?” Why did it take such a serious outage for the National Grid to be audited like this? Surely better oversight may have identified the shockingly poor risk management.
Michael Shanks
Since I did not realise in my statement earlier this week that the hon. Gentleman is now the SNP’s energy spokesperson, I welcome him to his place—I hope he will bring the same customary sunshine that his predecessor in the role did to our deliberations in this place.
On the incident itself, clearly there are lessons to be learned from the way the energy infrastructure worked on 20 and 21 March, and for Heathrow on the configuration of its internal network and how that worked. The incident itself is clearly one we want to avoid at all costs, but actually the process was carried out safely, passengers were informed and the disruption was kept to an absolute minimum, but if an airport such as Heathrow closes, there will be disruption. I am not sure that I take the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the handling of the incident. He is right on the broader point about how we ensure we are regularly auditing the processes of maintenance work going forward. The three transmission owners in the UK have a responsibility for doing that, and that is regulated by Ofgem, which regularly checks on this. The second part of Ofgem’s review announced today will look specifically at whether those maintenance backlogs and any other long-standing issues have been resolved, and look at the lessons we can learn on ensuring that those processes actually happen and that we do not just have things sitting on a list but not actually delivered.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The substation is located in my constituency and I was there on the day the incident happened. It was a massive fire and 200 of my constituents were evacuated from their homes during the night, and there was smoke flowing down the street. It could have been a much bigger disaster had it not been for the courageous firefighters who went on to the site, the help they got from the council, the back-up services and the NHS. I place on record the House’s congratulations to them and our admiration for what they did.
My constituents want to be reassured, but the report demonstrates a catalogue of failure. The problem was identified in 2018—we are now seven years on. I welcome the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) back to her place, but sleep deprivation can affect the memory: her party was in Government for most of that period.
I am worried that sites like this could be easily targeted by terrorist activity, so we need a process of reassurance. The recommendations set out in the review, about what we do from here to ensure resilience, have to take into account that the Government have a role in driving through the programme. We have to recognise that we cannot rely on some of the other agencies without a real Government thrust of leadership, but also securing accountability, because I do not want other areas to experience what we experienced that night.
Michael Shanks
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the way he made them. He is absolutely right to recognise the heroic role that our emergency services played on the night—I am sorry that I did not say that at the start of my statement—as well as the engineers, who worked in incredibly hard in difficult circumstances in the hours that followed the fire to try to get services reconnected as quickly as possible. There are very serious questions to answer, and I hope that came through in my statement—it certainly came through in the conversation I had with National Grid earlier. We are seeking urgent assurances that the work that should have been done is being done, and that there are no other similar situations. Ofgem is taking the matter seriously, with two reviews, one into National Grid and the other into the wider energy system, to see if there are any further lessons to learn.
However, the right hon. Gentleman is right and I completely agree with his point that the Government need to be front-footed and take a leadership role in driving the work forward: we cannot leave it to individual companies to mark their own homework. We are doing that partly by bringing together our resilience work across Government, and I will soon be chairing a new group that brings together everyone who has responsibility for critical national infrastructure in our energy system, to ensure that energy security, cyber-security and other threats to our infrastructure are taken seriously, so that action is taken at the highest level of Government to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the incident in future.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The substation by Heathrow is probably one of the most important in the country, yet this damning report says that there was a “catastrophic failure” of maintenance. Given that National Grid also failed to recognise how close we came to a national blackout earlier this year, we have to ask: is National Grid grossly negligent and does the Minister still have full confidence in its management?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman may be confusing two things. The National Energy System Operator is no longer part of National Grid, as it was made into a publicly owned company by the previous Government, which was introduced by us when we came into Government. So the National Energy System Operator is responsible for managing the energy system and it is different from National Grid, which is a private company that operates the electricity network in England, so those two organisations are slightly different. Of course, he is right to highlight the scale of the failure. That is why I have given a statement today and why a number of serious actions are being taken, which will be followed up in a serious way.
We did not come close to a blackout earlier this year. It is important to repeat that, because there is a lot of misinformation about a particular set of statistics that were misunderstood by some people. We have never come close to that and we have never had a national power outage in our history. The aim of all the work that we do is to build as safe and resilient an electricity system as we can, so that when circumstances like this happen—because fires and accidents do happen—we will have done everything that we could have done to have mitigations in place. When such a fault is down to a failure of maintenance, we must ensure that is taken account of and never happens again.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Like any serious incident, this one had multiple causes, both operational and relating to design. I urge the Minister to ensure that the lessons learned are applied not only to electricity transmission and distribution sites, but to energy storage sites, for which we have an absence of standards. He rightly mentioned the need for redundancy and flexibility in our electricity systems, and the need to avoid having single points of failure. That applies well to large pieces of essential infrastructure, but is harder with our distributed critical infrastructure, for example around telecommunications, so we need diversity in our energy system as a whole. Does he agree that in our energy system, we need widespread availability from multiple parts of the energy sector, with electricity being backed up by, for example, hydrogen and ammonia?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend always reminds me how much he knows about many of these issues; it is hugely welcome. He is right: there are wider lessons to be learned across the system, and not just for large critical national infrastructure. As he says, we have a grid that has many more power stations, of different forms, than we have ever had in the past. There are also lessons to be learned for storage, which is rightly becoming increasingly important for our energy mix.
On his wider point about telecoms, in the wake of the storms earlier this year, we took a number of actions to make our electricity system more resilient. Our use of telecommunications equipment in this country is changing. Very few people now have access to traditional copper wire phones, so when telecoms equipment goes down, there is an immediate significant impact on people’s lives. I recently met the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to discuss this issue. We will work with Ofcom and the operators to ensure that the telecoms infrastructure is as resilient as it can be.
Points of Order
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd. Privy Counsellors can request and receive confidential briefings on urgent matters, and that makes it possible for them to come to a fully informed decision on matters of national security. That is particularly pertinent for today’s motion on the proscription of Palestine Action. Could you advise me on how I am to make an informed decision when my request for a Privy Council briefing on Palestine Action was refused this week?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. She will understand that this is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put an important concern on the record. I trust that Members on the Treasury Bench will have taken notice of it.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you consult the Speaker’s Office on whether, before the start of the debate on the statutory instrument on the prevention of terrorism, anything can be done to ensure that the three organisations listed can be voted on separately? That would be the proper way for Members of the House to express their views.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am afraid that his request is simply, in procedural terms, not possible. The Chair is not responsible for the forming of such motions. The motion will be put to the House as it is on the Order Paper.
Public Authority (Accountability)
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set a requirement on public institutions, public servants and officials and on those carrying out functions on their behalf to act in the public interest and with candour and frankness; to define the public law duty on them to assist courts, official inquiries and investigations; to enable victims to enforce such duties; to create offences for the breach of certain duties; to provide funding for victims and their relatives in certain proceedings before the courts and at official inquiries and investigations; and for connected purposes.
On 15 April 1989, I entered Hillsborough stadium, an innocent 16-year-old full of hope and excitement, to watch my beloved Liverpool football club in the FA cup semi-final. Little did I, or anybody else there that day, know that we were walking into a national disaster that would leave 97 men, women and children dead, hundreds more injured, and countless families devastated for generations.
What unfolded that day was not a tragic accident. It was a disaster caused by police failures and compounded by one of the most shameful state cover-ups this country has ever seen. Like so many others, I was just a working-class lad who happened to be there, but like so many others, I was dragged into a decades-long web of establishment denial, distortion and deceit. That day shaped me and the course of my life, and it is the reason I stand here today.
We have all witnessed the bravery, determination and anguish of the Hillsborough families and survivors, who are fighting tirelessly for truth and justice in the face of repeated state obstruction. We never sought revenge or asked for special treatment; we just wanted what anyone would want in our shoes—the truth about what happened to our loved ones and a fair chance at justice. Instead, we were met with walls of silence, decades of lies and a legal system stacked against us.
I am so honoured that some of those tireless campaigners and giants of justice are in the House today, watching as we fight once again to end the injustices they have endured for more than three decades. Police officers knew who was responsible and where accountability lay, yet lie after lie was told. At inquests and inquiries and in media briefings, supporters were blamed for the death of their fellow fans. Time and again, false narratives were repeated and legitimised by those in power, and we will never, ever forget or forgive the disgraceful headline in The Sun.
While the families and survivors scraped together funds for legal representation, those responsible were shielded by some of the finest legal minds in the country, insultingly paid for by the state. I remember vividly my dad, who was seriously injured that day, fundraising in the Breck, our local pub near Anfield, for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign. That grassroots organisation was powered by ordinary people, not the Treasury, and the contrast could not be starker. I am very proud that he is here today.
Grieving families fought for justice while the institutions responsible were protected at every turn by a system designed to shield itself. It was not a broken system; it was a system working exactly as it was designed to—a system in which the establishment protected its own, and in which ordinary people, like my dad and thousands of others, were treated as an inconvenience. Through “The Real Truth” legacy project, we teach schoolchildren about Hillsborough and other examples of state injustice, because this history must not be buried; it must be understood. Crucially, it must never be repeated. When I speak to students about the fight for truth, I compare it to somebody who is blindfolded, and who has their hands tied behind their back, having to go toe to toe with Tyson Fury. That is what those families faced, and still face to this day.
This is not just about Hillsborough, although the legislation bears its name. For decades, we have seen the same institutional playbook used time and again—the cover-ups, the smears, the hostile briefings, and the dragging out of justice until people simply give up or pass away. We have seen Grenfell, Manchester arena, the Post Office Horizon scandal, infected blood, the “Truth About Zane” campaign, covid-19, nuclear test veterans and so many more. Each time, we see the same weary expression on the faces of the devastated families, and the same exhaustion etched on to the faces of those battling a system designed to protect itself. Each time it happens, a little more faith in this country’s soul is lost.
Today we have the power to change that. As the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, I am proud to reintroduce this legislation, the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. I am proud but deeply disappointed, because this Bill should already be in law. In 2022, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) stood before the people of Liverpool at the Labour party conference and pledged that
“one of my first acts as Prime Minister will be to put the Hillsborough Law onto the statute book.”
He said the same again as Prime Minister in September 2024, and mentioned not a Hillsborough law, but the Hillsborough law. That pledge filled our hearts with hope, and promised an end to the culture of denial and delay, and the decades of deceit.
Make no mistake: this Bill is the Hillsborough law—the one drafted by Pete Weatherby KC and Elkan Abrahamson. It is the one originally introduced by Andy Burnham in 2017 and shaped by the families, for the families. It includes a statutory duty of candour on public authorities, enforceable with criminal sanctions. It levels the playing field so that families are no longer the underdog in the courtroom. It creates genuine accountability mechanisms, so that state cover-ups are much harder to conceal and the truth is much harder to bury. This Bill is for the 97, but also for the victims of every other state failure, and for every family who might in future face the nightmare of being left alone to fight for truth and justice.
Despite the promise in 2022, in March this year the Government brought forward a watered-down version—a replacement Bill, not the Hillsborough law that the Prime Minister promised. They presented it to the legal experts who wrote the original Bill, and those experts said unequivocally that it fell far short, because it had no legally binding duty of candour, no provision for equal legal funding during inquests and inquiries, and loopholes allowing public bodies to avoid disclosure.
Worse still, that draft followed a family listening day, organised by the brilliant organisation Inquest, at which Ministers heard directly from the families of the bereaved, including Hillsborough families. Those families made their views crystal clear, and their expectations were even clearer. The resulting report was not ambiguous—it was entitled “All or Nothing”—yet the Government returned with a hollow offering that delivered nothing of what was promised. Following widespread outrage from campaigners, that draft Bill was thankfully and rightly shelved, but we understand that a new replacement Bill, still without the key provisions of the Hillsborough law, could be imminent. This time, it will not be shared with the families or campaigners in advance. What does that say about the lessons learned?
The resistance to the Hillsborough law is rooted not in legal complexity, but self-preservation. It is being led by those with the most to lose: senior officials and institutions who fear scrutiny more than they value accountability. Let me be absolutely crystal clear: this law will not weaken public institutions, but strengthen them. It will protect the vast majority of decent, hard-working public servants who, if pressured to conceal the truth, will finally have the law on their side. It will deliver justice more swiftly and affordably, reducing the need for drawn-out and expensive inquiries and inquests that cost the public purse hundreds of millions of pounds.
This legislation is right here. It is written, ready and requires no redrafting and no more stalling. What it requires is political will. Just last week, 166 MPs and Lords from across these Houses signed a letter urging the Prime Minister to honour his pledge. The support spans parties, regions and generations, and that cross-party unity reflects the will of the public. They do not want another whitewash or betrayal; they want integrity and action.
Let me close with this. The law cannot bring back the 97, erase the decades of pain or undo the trauma inflicted by callous lies and institutional neglect, but it can stop this ever happening again. It can give truth, fight injustice and restore some of the faith lost not just in the system, but in the very idea of justice. I say loud and clear to the Prime Minister: do not let this moment slip away. Do not let your promise made in Liverpool be broken in Westminster. Let us honour the 97 and so many others with not just remembrance, but change. I call on the Government to back this Bill—the real Hillsborough law—and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ian Byrne, Kim Johnson, Paula Barker, Peter Dowd, Derek Twigg, Sorcha Eastwood, Siân Berry, Liz Saville Roberts, Jeremy Corbyn, Stephen Flynn, Tom Morrison and Richard Burgon present the Bill.
Ian Byrne accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 280).
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberArmed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 2 July 2025 - (2 Jul 2025)
14:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on Commons amendment 2A, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the Lords in Lords amendments 2B and 2C proposed in lieu of that amendment.
Before I start, I place on record my thanks to all those right hon. and hon. Members who supported Armed Forces Day events at the weekend across the length and breadth of our country. The Secretary of State had the privilege of attending the national event in Cleethorpes, and I spent time with our armed forces community on Plymouth Hoe to see the fantastic turnout not just of armed forces personnel but of their families, veterans, and the charities and organisations that support everyone who serves and has served. Meeting and hearing from service personnel and their families at this important moment of recognition of our armed forces is a great honour, and provides a moment of reflection for everyone in this House on the great service that those in the military provide to the nation.
I am disappointed that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to this House. The last time we were here, a full month ago, I explained that the Bill already delivers what the other House had inserted. I am therefore disappointed that the amendment in the name of Baroness Goldie seeks to replace the Government amendment with other amendments, which I am afraid are deeply flawed. I will explain why.
To be absolutely clear, we are all in agreement about the intention behind the Lords amendments. Defence personnel must feel empowered and protected in coming forward with their concerns, and I absolutely agree that we need to address and eliminate toxic behaviours and cultures in our armed forces. This Government are committed to doing exactly that, which is the whole reason we are shining a light on the welfare matters of our people and legislating for an independent champion in the form of the Armed Forces Commissioner.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward, and I understand the issue—I spoke to the Minister just beforehand. Lords amendment 2 deals with whistleblowers and protections for family members, which are necessary. I have a complaint ready to hand to the Minister that was facilitated by family members watching the effect on their loved one. Does the Minister agree that it is right and proper that loved ones have a mechanism for ensuring the right thing is done by those who are legitimately whistleblowing?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree with him. It is precisely for that reason that the Government are insisting on our amendment and not accepting the Opposition amendment made in the other place, because that amendment does not include family members. I agree that including loved ones—family members, for the purposes of the wording of the Bill—within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an important new step in providing not just members in uniform, but their immediate family members as defined in the secondary legislation that will accompany the Bill, with the opportunity to raise a general service welfare matter.
I agree that there is a lot more we can debate on these matters, and there will be an opportunity to do so during the passage of the next armed forces Bill. However, I say to all Members that I am concerned that going round again on this matter only holds up delivery of a key element that will be used to tackle the very issues this amendment seeks to address. Namely, it holds up the establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner, which was a key manifesto commitment for defence. The longer this Bill is prevented from becoming law, the greater the disservice we do to our armed forces and their families. I sincerely hope that today we can send a united message from this House that we do not wish to delay this vital legislation any further.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
Like everyone else in this House, I am incredibly proud of our armed forces, and particularly of our relationship with them in St Helens. Just yesterday, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment paraded through St Helens town centre after being awarded the freedom of the borough—we are so incredibly proud. Does the Minister agree that we just need to get on with this now, so that we can show a united front and speak with one voice in support of our armed forces, and give them the support they need?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for placing on the record the military events in his constituency. It is so important that we recognise the links and ties that so many of our military units have with the localities from which they recruit, where they are based and where they serve. I agree with his broader point; the time is right for us to pass this Bill, get it into law, and allow us to move to a situation in which we have an Armed Forces Commissioner able to deal with the issues raised by our people and their family members.
The Government took on board the important debates in both Houses and proposed amendment 2A, to which this House previously agreed. That amendment honoured the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments in the other place and actually went further than her proposals, delivering concrete legal protections that were not included in the amendments that are back before us today. We are seeking to reinsert that better amendment, which was made early in the process and in good faith, following discussions and co-operation with the Opposition in the other place. Given the strong cross-party support for the Bill and clear arguments in favour of the amendment in lieu, we had been hoping that that would enable us to conclude proceedings. The Government amendment will establish genuine protection for people wishing to raise a concern anonymously, and will build trust and confidence among our armed forces and their families in a way we cannot envisage will be achieved by the proposed amendments that are before us today.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I was very happy to serve on the Committee for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill while it was proceeding through this place. As the Minister knows, there was a large amount of consensus about the need for that process to conclude as quickly as possible, and I recently wrote an article with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the need to give our armed forces the reassurance that this Government are taking action to support them and their families. Does the Minister agree that it really is time to get on with this? We have a consensus in this House that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to begin work as quickly as possible.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for the work he has been undertaking with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). The Armed Forces Commissioner was a key manifesto promise made at the general election, and made with the deliberate intent of providing an independent voice—an independent champion for those people who serve. We know that for many of our people some of the service welfare matters are not good enough, including childcare and the poor state of military accommodation. The ability of the commissioner to raise those issues, investigate them and use the additional new powers not currently available to the Service Complaints Ombudsman is a substantial step forward for our people and a key plank of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. I agree with my hon. Friend that I would like to see that get into law.
Briefly, I will remind the House of the protections currently afforded to the armed forces; one thing I have been made aware of during these debates and discussions is that it is worth repeating some of those, so that there can be no doubt about them. All defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under existing defence policy, which enables individuals to raise and resolve issues in a way that is protected and secure and does not lead to wrongful disclosure of official information.
The armed forces operate within a different legal and constitutional construct to that of civilians, so they are not explicitly covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—PIDA. However, as a matter of policy under this Government and the previous Government, the Ministry of Defence already recognises and adheres to the criteria for protected disclosures, and it follows the prescribed procedures and protections for those making a qualifying disclosure. The MOD will not tolerate any form of victimisation of an individual for raising a genuine concern. The Government amendment is supported by further non-legislative commitments which, taken together, further bolster trust and confidence in the Armed Forces Commissioner in that respect. They include reviewing and updating the Ministry of Defence’s policies and protections relating to raising a concern, which would include whistleblowing in the sense we are discussing it today.
To be clear, the Government recognise the importance of due protection for whistleblowers. Indeed, just this week the Cabinet Office is hosting a whistleblowing conference, bringing together policy representatives from across Government to review the current whistleblowing framework and discuss forthcoming changes under the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill contains a new clause strengthening protections for people wishing to make a protected disclosure under PIDA, and explicitly recognises sexual harassment as grounds for a protected disclosure. The Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy will be reviewed and updated to reflect these changes, and we welcome the interest of Members from all parties in that process.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What proportion of the commissioner’s time, and that of his or her staff, does the Minister envisage being devoted to individual matters of casework, of the sort he has just described, and what proportion will be around thematic investigations, such as the state of service housing?
Luke Pollard
That is a genuinely fair question. The Bill is drafted in such a way that there is no obligation or requirement for any commissioner who is appointed to resource according to a Government position. It is for the Armed Forces Commissioner to decide the allocation of resources and energy. However, the German armed forces model, from which we have taken inspiration, undertakes two to three thematic investigations a year with dedicated teams, using feedback from people who have raised a concern officially and from those getting in touch to raise an issue but not necessarily expecting it to be dealt with as casework. The majority of the resource, due to the casework function, relates to correspondence, but it would be for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to make that determination. The Bill provides the powers to do that.
Let me come to the amendments from the other place, because the powers relating to whistleblowing are a key part of why we do not think the amendments are suitable. First, the use of “whistleblower” is inappropriate in this context, despite the value we place on the function. Although more recently the use of the term has been more relaxed, and raising a concern and whistleblowing are used interchangeably, engagement in 2019 under the previous Government with the whistleblowing charity Protect suggested that the term might be putting people off coming forward. Today, we are talking about law, rather than the policy that will be implemented. Although the term whistleblowing appears in a few limited circumstances in law, there is no single agreed definition of whistleblowing in UK legislation. Simply using the term in this Bill, as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2B and 2C, would therefore have no practical legal effect and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not already provided for in the Government’s amendment in lieu.
Terminology aside, I have several real concerns about the new amendments inserted in the other place. The whistleblower investigations proposed by these amendments have the same scope as the current investigations on general service welfare matters provided for by the Bill, but none of the associated powers of investigation, so the amendments do not allow the commissioner to access sites to assist their investigation. They do not allow the commissioner to access information or documents to assist their investigation. They do not require the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations, as is the current wording, and the amendments do not require reports to go to the Secretary of State or to be laid before Parliament. The scope of the amendments is therefore considerably narrower.
Issues raised under the proposed new clause can relate only to people subject to service law—namely the men and women of our armed forces and not family members, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and cannot be about terms of service. The commissioner would need to consult the individual before starting an investigation, constraining their independence and possibly leading to junior staff facing pressure from seniors to withhold consent. The anonymity protections would relate only to investigations under this proposed new clause, which is unlikely ever to be used, for the reasons that I have set out. It also removes the anonymity protections that the Government propose to include.
More importantly, however, the Bill is intended to provide a safe route for people to come forward with their concerns and know that they will be considered by a truly independent figure. We want people to feel secure and empowered to raise those concerns, and we want the commissioner to have the full range of powers as provided for in the Bill to deal with all matters raised with them. The amendments would restrict the powers available to the commissioner to deal with complaints raised through this process. I do not believe that is really what the House wants to see on whistleblowing.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister will remember a Westminster Hall debate—I think it was last week—in which I inaccurately and over-optimistically referred to this as the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, not realising it was still going back and forth between here and the other place. I was corrected by the shadow Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I assumed it was a friendly correction of my misunderstanding about process.
Have I correctly understood that what is going on is some kind of political difference over the use of the word “whistleblower”, which has led to a badly drafted amendment being inserted into the Bill? That amendment will weaken the Bill and reduce its ability to do what is intended. At the same time, it will delay things, when the Department is at the point of being able to advertise for and appoint an Armed Forces Commissioner—someone to be in that role, fighting for the welfare of our armed service personnel.
Luke Pollard
I hope that this is not a party political issue, because many of the Members raising concerns about whistleblowing in the other place are doing so because they recognise that cultural issues within our armed forces need to be addressed and to get clarity on what the Government seek to do. I hope that from the statements that my colleague Lord Coaker has made to the other place, and from the remarks I have made at this Dispatch Box, colleagues can feel reassured that we take issues of culture, harassment and abuse seriously, and we are clear that there is no place for them in our armed forces.
We are updating the policies and procedures on whistleblowing and raising a concern from the policy we inherited from the last Government, so as to improve it and take it further. We recognise that the Employment Rights Bill will further strengthen that. I realise that the Opposition do not support the Employment Rights Bill, but we do, and it will further enhance the protections for whistleblowers. By updating these policies and by including the cross-Government learning that our colleagues in the Cabinet Office are co-ordinating at the moment, we will have a stronger policy.
I hope that my placing that on the record here, as my noble Friend Lord Coaker will do in the other place when the Bill returns there, will be enough for those Members who are concerned to be satisfied that the Government have a genuine desire to address these issues and that the amendments, as drafted, create a narrower scope for the commissioner, and would prevent them from achieving their objectives, due to the wording. It is therefore time to let the amendments fall away so that the Bill can pass.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I assure him that he is not the only person who gets intervened on by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for clarification. We are always grateful for his knowledge when he does so.
We have deliberately drafted the Bill to be as broad, clear and inclusive as possible, and through our communications campaigns and guidance that we have already announced, we will make it clear to anyone who is subject to service law that they and their families can approach the commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter, however big or small, and whether it affects them directly or not. In that respect, it provides for the intended functions of the amendments.
I make it explicitly clear that the powers to initiate investigations based on information provided by the commissioner already exist in the Bill. In addition, there are existing policies and procedures in place for people in defence to raise concerns that fall outside the definition of a general service welfare matter, such as fraud or criminal activity. Recognised protections are already in place for those matters. All defence civil servants are covered by the protections provided by PIDA, and all military personnel are provided those same protections through existing defence policy.
Our commitment to review and update defence policy and processes, in conjunction with the protections that are already in place for both civilians and members of our armed forces, plus the deficiencies in the amendments inserted by the other place, mean that now is the time for both Houses to do the right thing and bring the Bill into law at the earliest opportunity. Lord Coaker and I will be writing to the Opposition spokespeople in the other place—I am grateful for the engagement that has already taken place, both between Baroness Goldie and Lord Coaker and between the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), Baroness Kramer and me—to address their concerns in detail, to provide written assurances about the changes we are making that confirm what I have said at the Dispatch Box today, and to invite their contributions as we seek to develop and renew the “raising a concern” policy.
I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to ensure that we can deliver this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families as soon as possible.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I rise to address the Lords amendments, following yet another Government defeat in the other place.
As I said last month when we last debated this important Bill, His Majesty’s official Opposition are driven by a commitment to ensure that our brave servicemen and women receive the robust, transparent and fair support they deserve. The Bill, which aims to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with Ofsted-like powers to gain access to military sites and information, holds the potential to improve the welfare and accountability framework for our armed forces. If implemented effectively, it could significantly enhance public confidence in the way in which the concerns of service personnel are addressed. I believe that this vision enjoys broad support across the House—although yet again I have to place on record that when we are discussing important legislation that affects the welfare and wellbeing of armed forces personnel and their families, no Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber of the House of Commons. They cannot spend the whole of their lives on TikTok, particularly as it is a Chinese system.
Our duty as His Majesty’s Opposition is to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promises without introducing unnecessary complexity. We must scrutinise the way in which the commissioner’s role integrates with the existing complaints systems, and what it means for those navigating them. Today we focus again on the key issue of whistleblowing, which was debated extensively in the other place and which now lies before this House yet again. Our amendments, championed by Baroness Goldie, sought to empower the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing concerns related to welfare and service issues, while guaranteeing anonymity for those who come forward, be they service personnel, their families or others. This is not a radical proposal but a reasonable compromise, incorporating the exact wording of the Government’s Commons amendment on anonymity in reports, alongside our whistleblowing duty.
The Government argue that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient, and that our amendment does not confer additional powers. That stance is, I am afraid, both inconsistent and unconvincing. The Minister’s own “Dear colleague” letter of 30 May generously acknowledged that Baroness Goldie’s amendments had sparked an important debate, yet the Government resist embedding a clear, statutorily protected whistleblowing function. Such a provision is essential to ensure that vulnerable service personnel can raise concerns without fear of reprisal.
Lord Coaker, speaking for the Government in the other place on 11 June, claimed that the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing” might deter individuals from coming forward, citing Cabinet Office guidance. That suggestion is plainly daft. If the term “whistleblowing” is truly a barrier, why does the national health service successfully operate its “Freedom to Speak Up” policy, which explicitly uses the term? Why does the Children’s Commissioner issue an annual whistleblowing report? Those examples demonstrate that the term is not a deterrent, but a recognised and effective framework for protecting those who expose wrongdoing. To argue otherwise undermines the very concept of whistleblowing regimes across multiple sectors and public services in the United Kingdom.
The Government further contend that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. That is simply untenable. Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is entitled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”, and section 29D of the Police Reform Act 2002 provides another clear statutory precedent. Those Acts show that including whistleblowing in legislation adds tangible value, ensuring protections for those who raise concerns. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and for the very Act that this Bill amends, how can the Government claim that it lacks clarity or value in this instance? That is totally inconsistent.
The Government’s position is riddled with contradictions. In Committee, our broader amendment to empower the commissioner was dismissed by the Ministry of Defence as being too wide-ranging. In a spirit of compromise, we narrowed it to focus on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that the revised amendment is too narrow and lacks sufficient powers. Lord Coaker argued that our amendment, if passed, would limit the commissioner’s investigations to the same scope as current powers, without enabling access to sites, information or documents, or requiring the Secretary of State to co-operate or report to Parliament. If the Government believe that our amendment does not go far enough, why do they not support it and propose their own broader amendment to enhance the commissioner’s powers, which would almost take us back to the status quo ante? This inconsistency suggests a reluctance to engage constructively, as if arguments were being plucked out of thin air to block progress.
Lord Coaker—with whom I dealt when he was in this place, and for whom, for the avoidance of doubt, I have immense respect—also claimed that our amendment excluded family members and terms of service issues, and would apply only to those subject to service law. That is incorrect. Our amendment defines a whistleblower as a person
“subject to service law or…a relevant family member.”
Thus a corporal’s sister, for example, could raise a whistleblowing concern if the corporal faced abuse or bullying by a military colleague. This provision ensures that family members have a voice, directly contradicting the Government’s assertion to the contrary.
Let me give a brief theoretical example. Let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner. That is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will know, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether all armed forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but I can say that as of today, more than 164,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward very much to a debate in Parliament on 14 July on exactly that matter, which I am sure will be followed closely by the veterans community and their families.
This is not an “angels on a pinhead” argument. It is actually quite important. The Government’s assurances about anonymity and communications campaigns to promote the commissioner’s role are welcome but insufficient. A campaign can be no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can trust—to be fair, I should add that when we debated the Bill before, the Minister talked about the issue of trust repeatedly. The other place recognised that, delivering another cross-party defeat to the Government in the last fortnight by amending the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Our amendment represents a reasonable compromise, aligning with the Government’s own wording on anonymity while embedding a vital whistleblowing duty. To block it would signal that the Government are not serious about working constructively with the Opposition to improve the welfare of our armed forces personnel, so I urge them to accept this compromise in the interests of all who serve.
I will listen closely to anything further that the Minister has to say, but if the Government persist in offering assurances without statutory weight, I will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. Our service personnel deserve a system that hears their voices and protects their concerns, and if we carry on playing ping-pong—well, that is a sport that I was once quite good at.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I welcome Lord amendments 2B and 2C, tabled by Baroness Goldie in response to the Government’s rejection of the original proposals.
These amendments are not about party politics. They were tabled by a Conservative peer and supported across the House of Lords by Liberal Democrats and others. They represent a thoughtful, pragmatic effort to address a real and persistent problem: the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner who is not just a complaints handler, but an independent figure capable of receiving and investigating whistleblowing disclosures about systemic welfare failures confidentially and without fear of reprisal.
I welcome that the Minister has engaged with Baroness Kramer and me. However, the Government’s insistence on removing the Lords amendments and replacing them with something far more limited is deeply disappointing. Their approach diminishes the ambition of the Bill and misses a critical opportunity to build genuine trust with service personnel and their families—something that the commissioner must get right from the start, or it will be near impossible to regain.
Let us be honest about what is at stake. Behind the language of “whistleblowing” are real people—soldiers, spouses and contractors—who have seen something go seriously wrong and want to make it right, not for themselves but for others. They are not filing a complaint; they are raising the alarm. Yet again and again, we have seen these people let down—unheard, unsupported or even punished for speaking out. From the appalling housing conditions endured by military families to serious allegations of abuse and misconduct, the public have grown increasingly aware that internal complaints mechanisms are not enough. That is why introducing whistleblowing matters, and why the Lords amendments are so vital.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) that we should arm the commissioner with the right tools on day one. That is precisely why I do not want to accept an amendment that would restrict those tools and provide weaker protections for people raising whistleblowing concerns via a proposed route, rather that the route that is already in the Bill. It is precisely because I want the Bill to work that I am not accepting weaker amendments.
I always find it useful to use the phrase “flip it to see it” to see whether something would work, and I want to try that here. Let us take the counterfactual: if the Government proposed an amendment that would restrict the commissioner’s access to sites in relation to a whistleblowing complaint compared to a normal complaint, or an amendment that would restrict access to information and documents assisting an investigation for a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal matter, and that would restrict the requirement for the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist or consider any findings or recommendations on a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal complaint, I think this House would rightly reject it. I am afraid that is what the Lords amendments would deliver: narrower scope, fewer powers and less ability for the commissioner to investigate.
I hope that the House can see from my remarks that we believe in providing a route for people to raise their concerns anonymously. We believe in the protections for it, and we are updating the “raising a concern” policy that we inherited from the last Government in order to deliver that work. The Bill should be passed and be made an Act of Parliament, so that we can implement its provisions as fast as we can.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) argues against the advice that his Government issued. He is well within his rights to do so, given his Government were defeated, but it is contrary to the position that existed until July. I do not support a poorer amendment. I have engaged constructively and will continue to do so, because it is right to do so. That is the spirit of this Government on this legislation, and it will continue to be the case.
The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of not being serious about working for our armed forces personnel, so let me very clear: I do not accept less for our armed forces personnel. I am not accepting the amendments from the other place, because they would provide fewer protections for people on the route that he suggests and fewer powers for the commissioner to undertake that work. I believe that if it were not for the necessity to play some ping-pong in this respect, he would be agreeing with me on this matter. Let us pass this Bill, put it in place, and give our armed force and their families the independent champion that they so richly deserve.
Mr Francois
I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. I think he used the phrase “flip it to see it”. I could offer him another one: jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Baroness Goldie has done a great job in the other place in bringing together people from across the political spectrum to concentrate on this very important matter. I recommend that the House votes against the Government today in order to send the Bill back to the other place, where there should be all-party negotiations, including with Government Ministers, to see if we can find a way through. As things sit here and now, I am afraid we must press this into the Division Lobbies.
Question put.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 outlawed foreign Government ownership of UK media organisations, setting a limit of 5% on that process. The Government have now moved that from 5% to 15%, which is considerably higher. However, there has been only a marginal debate in a Statutory Instrument Committee. My concern—it has only just been passed—is that that is a major change. It would have been fair if the Government had set about having a proper debate on it here in the Chamber of the House of Commons, because newspaper ownership is a very significant issue. The other place will potentially get a much larger debate, yet we are the elected House. I ask your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we may raise the issue again?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving me prior notice of this point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but his comments are now on the record.
Defence
(1 day, 14 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 the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
The draft order will address the constitutional requirement, under the Bill of Rights 1688, that a standing Army, and by extension the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, must receive the consent of Parliament. The draft order provides that consent by continuing into force for another year the Armed Forces Act 2006, the legislation that governs the armed forces. This debate usually takes place in a Delegated Legislation Committee, before returning to the Floor of the House for approval. Given the significance to the country of both the armed forces and the democratic oversight that Parliament provides, it is fitting that the debate is today being afforded time on the Floor of the House. That enables all Members who wish to contribute to do so, for as the strategic defence review has shown, we must put our people at the heart of defence—I know that on all sides of the House there is strong support for our people.
Parliament is required to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years through primary legislation—the next armed forces Bill is required to have obtained Royal Assent by December 2026—and in the intervening years it is to approve an annual Order in Council, such as the one before us today. The Act provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a service justice system. It provides for the service offences and for the investigation of alleged offences, the arrest, holding in custody and charging of armed forces personnel accused of committing an offence wherever in the world they are serving.
On that last point, I draw the House’s attention to the explanatory memorandum to the order, which states:
“The extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and the British overseas territories except Gibraltar.”
There is a distinct difference between the extent of UK legislation and how the jurisdiction of service law is applied. The extent of any legislation is a statement about in which separate legal jurisdictions the legislation forms part of the law. Not extending to Gibraltar simply means that the 2006 Act does not form part of Gibraltarian law. That is because Gibraltar has made an agreement with the United Kingdom that it will pass forward amendments to the Act in its own legislation. Conversely, service law applies to members of the armed forces wherever they are in the world, so effectively there is unlimited geographical jurisdiction with regard to our service personnel and, in some circumstances, civilians subject to service discipline, including those based in, or serving in, Gibraltar.
The 2006 Act provides the legal basis for offices such as the Judge Advocate General and the Director of Service Prosecutions, as well as the court martial, the summary appeal court and the service civilian court. It also sets out the processes for the accused to be dealt with by their commanding officer, or to be tried at court martial. Finally, the Act also contains provisions that cover non-service justice matters, such as service complaints and the armed forces covenant. As such, the next armed forces Bill will likely contain a mixture of both service justice measures and non-service justice measures. I look forward to working with Members across the House when it is introduced in due course.
In addition, we have committed to tackling the unacceptable behaviours that have plagued defence in the past, rooting out toxic behaviours that we see evidence of in our armed forces. There is no place for abuse in the UK armed forces.
Today’s debate comes against a backdrop of this Government delivering for defence, for our service personnel and for veterans, by putting people at the heart of our defence plans and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve, combined with a whole-of-society approach to our national resilience. That is why, last year, we delivered the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years. We followed that up with another above-inflation rise recently. That is why we have secured a major housing deal to buy back over 36,000 military homes, improving houses for armed forces families and saving taxpayers billions. We are investing £7 billion to improve military accommodation over the course of this Parliament.
That is why we have set new targets to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis we inherited from the previous Government, the results of which are clear already: inflow up 19%, outflow down 7%, and the Army experiencing a seven-year high in application volumes. We are delivering for defence. That is why we will be appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life, and are making it easier for veterans to access care and support for our £50 million VALOUR network.
After all, the Government recognise that the world has changed. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. The strategic defence review, published last month, will make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad, and sets a path for the next decade and beyond to transform defence and end the hollowing out of our armed forces that we have seen over the past 14 years. Decisive action has already been taken. We have: stepped up and speeded up support for Ukraine; signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany; started work at pace on a new defence industrial strategy, ensuring defence is an engine for growth; and implemented the deepest Ministry of Defence reform programme in decades. All of that has been underpinned by an increase in defence spending of nearly £5 billion this year, and a commitment to reach 2.5% in April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% in 2035—the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
One of the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, as the Minister is now broadening this out, is that we should be prepared to fight and defeat a peer enemy by 2035, which is 10 years from now. Why, after all the hullabaloo about the much-vaunted defence review, have this Government returned to what in the 1920s was known as the 10-year rule?
Luke Pollard
I would say to the right hon. Member that his Government left our forces hollowed out and underfunded, left our forces living in appalling accommodation, left a retention and recruitment crisis that meant that for every 100 people joining our forces, 130 were leaving, and left a situation where morale fell each and every year for the last decade in every one of our services.
We are fixing that. We are getting our defence back on track. That is why the defence review sets out the journey to transform our defence, why the Chancellor has provided additional financial resource this year, and why the Prime Minister supported the defence investment pledge at the recent NATO summit—something I hope the right hon. Gentleman’s party will, in due course, bring itself to do.
We need to be ready to deliver for our defence and to stand with our allies, and that is what we are doing today: we are ending the hollowing out and underfunding. As someone who values defence sometimes more than his party loyalty, as I saw in the previous Parliament, I hope the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. Indeed, I hope he has the opportunity to do so in a moment, when he stands up to speak.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am not sure there is much point in us just blaming each other on this matter. There are historical parallels. In 1935 we were spending only 2.5% of our national wealth on defence. There was massive rearmament following that and consensus on both sides of the House, and by 1945 we were spending the best part of 50% of national wealth on it. It would be much better if the two parties try to work together on this matter and realise that we are facing an existential crisis in the world, and that things are very different now from 2010 or 2015, or whenever, and that we should work together to massively increase defence spending.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point, and I agree with what he says. It is precisely the reason that when the Defence Secretary was the shadow Defence Secretary, and when I was the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, we had a position of cross-party support on defence matters. It is really important, I think, that we get back to that place. When our adversaries look at the United Kingdom, they should see strong cross-party support, as indeed I believe they do when we debate Ukraine. There is a strong set of plans in our strategic defence review, with increasing defence funding getting to 2.5%, a figure we have not matched in the past 14 years. There is a real opportunity to send a united message from this House to our adversaries and to our people who serve. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on the Front Bench were listening to his comments as closely as I was.
Members have the opportunity to approve this order today, knowing that the Government are delivering on our pledge.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a very serious note, the Opposition have been accused of being pro-Russia, pro-China and pro-Iran repeatedly by the Prime Minister, which the Minister has defended, because we dared to oppose the Chagos deal. If he wants unity, we need to see that on both sides of the House.
Luke Pollard
I think the unity we saw on the Chagos deal is that the Conservatives started a deal and we finished it; they agreed it was the right thing to start negotiations and held 11 rounds, and we agreed it was the right thing to complete that deal. We put our national security first in that respect, secured the future of the Diego Garcia base and won the support of our US friends, our NATO allies, our Five Eyes partners and India locally. It is up to the hon. Gentleman which side of the debate he wishes to be on—we choose the side of our national security.
Hon. Members can approve this order today, knowing that we are delivering on the pledge to rewrite the contract between the United Kingdom and those who serve in order to improve it. The Armed Forces Act—and, by extension, this order—underpins the very existence of His Majesty’s armed forces. It backs those who, like my old man—a Royal Navy submariner—and so many across this House, stepped forward to serve our country and protect our United Kingdom and our allies and partners in an era of global instability, to deploy globally in support of British objectives and to support our national security. With the consent of the House today, Parliament will acknowledge, pay tribute to and back their service.
Mr Francois
The purpose of this instrument is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire in mid-December 2025. In essence, the measure provides for the 2006 Act to continue in force for a further year, taking us up to a deadline of 14 December 2026.
For those with an historical interest—among whom I include myself—the principle of the legislation dates back to the Bill of Rights 1688, as the Minister intimated, which, given that it followed on from the civil war, declared the
“raising or keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom in time of peace, unless with the consent of Parliament, to be against the law.”
This provision has resulted in the requirement, since 1688, that all legislation on discipline in the armed forces be annually renewed, hence this order.
As the Minister stated, this instrument should have support across the House, and I am sure that it does. However, yet again, when we are debating defence—when we are debating an order that is fundamental to the discipline and integrity of our armed forces—there are no Reform MPs in the Chamber. Why? It is because Reform does not do defence. The Minister and I have seen that time and again over the past year—so there is a point of consensus, if he wants one.
While this order might appear to be a mere formality, albeit an important one, it gives me the opportunity to ask my opposite number, the Minister for the Armed Forces, four important questions, but before I do, I will just report to the Minister that the cadets, who are an important part of the armed forces family, are indeed well disciplined and in good heart. I attended an Armed Forces Day event in Basildon on Saturday, as I have done for years, and was honoured to be invited to inspect the Air Cadets on parade. When I asked one very smart cadet why he had decided to join the Air Cadets, he replied, “Because my mum made me, Sir, although three years in, I’m very grateful that she did.” I also managed to grab a quick drink with some veterans in a local hostelry. However, mysteriously, all four MPs in the Basildon borough—none of whom are Labour MPs—appear not to have been invited this year. I can only presume that our invitations were lost in the post. I say gently to the Minister, more in sorrow than in anger, that playing silly partisan games like this is demeaning for the Labour-led council.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Francois
No.
Armed Forces Day is too important for this sort of silly nonsense, which embarrasses Basildon council in the eyes of the public and, indeed, its local MPs. In all seriousness, perhaps the Minister could have a word with his colleagues on the council and make sure that this unfortunate oversight does not happen again.
Defence is traditionally a bipartisan issue. We all believe in the defence of the realm, and I have always believed that it is the first duty of Government. However, I say to the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand plead for unity between the Government and the Opposition and then, when it suits, imply that Opposition spokesmen are Russian, Chinese or Iranian fellow travellers just because they had the temerity not to agree with the Government on their bonkers Chagos deal. My honest advice to the Minister is to make up his mind and be consistent; he will then receive the respect that he asks for.
I turn to the order. Armed Forces Acts are normally subject to quinquennial review. We had Armed Forces Acts in 2011, 2016 and 2021, and we can expect a further Act before the instrument expires in December 2026. Given the vagaries of parliamentary life, few things are certain, but assuming for a moment that it will be the Armed Forces Minister and I who will take this legislation through on behalf of our respective parties, this seems a good opportunity to ask the Minister two questions. First, what are the latest timings for that legislation, and when can we expect to see a Bill? Secondly, could he give the House some idea of the likely key themes of that Bill, and the areas, if any, in which the legislation is likely to differ materially from the Armed Forces Act 2021? In fairness, he dropped a hint a few moments ago that there will be service justice provisions; perhaps he could expand on that slightly, if he has the opportunity. I ask because there will be a large number of interested parties, including the armed forces themselves, obviously, the armed forces families federations, military charities and others. From previous experience, I can say that they will take a close and important interest in the Bill. Giving them as good a heads-up as possible is clearly desirable. Perhaps the Minister could assist the House with that.
As the explanatory notes that the Minister referred to point out, were this order not to be passed,
“The key effect…would be to end the provisions which are necessary to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. Without the 2006 Act, those powers and procedures would no longer have effect; Commanding Officers and the Court Martial would have no powers of punishment in respect of a failure to obey a lawful command or any other form of disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to His Majesty, but the power of enforcement would be removed.”
Clearly, that would be very undesirable, and for the avoidance of doubt, we will most certainly not vote against this order in a few minutes’ time, but there is an important point here about members of the armed forces being required to obey lawful commands. That brings me on to my third question for the Minister.
As recently as Defence questions on Monday, we debated in the Chamber the fate of the 300,000 or so British Army veterans who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner. They were lawfully commanded to help uphold the rule of law in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to protect all people in Northern Ireland, of whatever tradition, from heinous acts of terrorism, whether by bomb or by bullet. As the Minister will be well aware, the Government have tabled a so-called remedial order that would cut out elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, thus potentially opening up some of those veterans to an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation. The order also makes it easier for the likes of Gerry Adams and his compadres to sue the British taxpayer for hundreds of millions of pounds.
According to a press report in The Daily Telegraph yesterday and an associated answer by the Northern Ireland Secretary to a parliamentary question, the Government have decided to drop the part of the remedial order that would assist Mr Adams and his associates in suing the British taxpayer. If that report is true, we Conservative Members would warmly welcome it. However, it does not solve the problem of our brave veterans who served in Northern Ireland often being persecuted at the behest of Sinn Féin.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Whenever my right hon. Friend and other members of the Conservative shadow defence team bring up the question of reopening this lawfare against our veterans, Government Ministers say, “We will be sure to give veterans maximum support.” To me, that implies not protecting them from the lawfare, but supporting them as they go through the process; but the process is the punishment. Everybody knows that people involved in fatal accidents would serve only a limited prison term if, heaven forbid, they were convicted, but the probability is that they will not be convicted; the punishment lies in what they have to go through before they are acquitted.
Mr Francois
My right hon. Friend chaired the Select Committee on which I served some years ago, when it produced a very good report on this issue, so he is an expert on this. All I will say is that when it comes to legacy issues, Labour often provides legal support, but not necessarily always to veterans.
If the Minister wishes to maintain morale in the armed forces past and present—this order is clearly necessary for doing that—perhaps he will take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do they still intend to table a remedial order, or to move straight to what the Labour manifesto describes as new legislation in the field of legacy matters? Which is it?
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I seek clarification and support from shadow Front Benchers on this. Do they recognise that there may be a bit of disagreement in the Government between Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and those in the Northern Ireland Office on how to proceed?
Mr Francois
I certainly hope there is. I very much hope that MOD Ministers are fighting tenaciously in private, even if they cannot say so in public, to have this mad order scrapped, and to defend the Northern Ireland veterans, just as the Northern Ireland veterans defended all of us. The Minister understands exactly what I mean by that, and I think that he and some of his ministerial colleagues may have been working on this. If they have, then we in good faith wish them Godspeed.
I have one more question on this matter, and then I will move on. If it is the Government’s intention to still go ahead with the remedial order—again, the House would really welcome clarity on this—despite the fact that it would have disastrous consequences for recruitment and retention, which the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, can he confirm exactly what the Government’s policy is? Is it to go down the remedial order route, or down the route of introducing new primary legislation, and if it is the latter, what are the timings for that new Bill?
Fourthly and finally, the Minister for the Armed Forces has signed a formal statement to the effect that, in his view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 are compatible with the European convention on human rights. However, there is a question: were British troops to be deployed to Ukraine as part of some coalition of the willing—perhaps following a ceasefire in Ukraine—what would happen to those British troops if they were to be involved in combat with Russian forces, or Russian acolytes? What guarantee could the Ministry give that if soldiers fired their weapons in anger, they would not subsequently be subject to lawfare under the Human Rights Act 1998, even decades after the event, as is the case in Northern Ireland? This is not an idle point. I understand that the issue of lawfare and its effect on recruitment and retention in the British Army has been raised at the most senior levels in the Army, including in recent meetings with the Chief of the General Staff. This is very much a live issue that deserves to be raised in Parliament, not least for the soldiers who might have to take these actions for real.
Given all this, would it not be helpful—as suggested a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary—for the Minister to issue a formal declaration that we would derogate from the European convention on human rights in relation to any British military operations related to Ukraine, so that soldiers who served in that conflict would be excluded from any lawfare prosecutions, even decades later? The Minister will know that the issue is materially affecting morale in the armed forces, and especially in the special forces community, so any reassurance he can give regarding a derogation would no doubt be gratefully received.
To summarise, we obviously support this order to continue the operation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until December 2026. It would be helpful to have some idea of timings, and even of the content of the prospective Armed Forces Act 2026, as it is likely to be, to allow interested parties to plan. To maintain morale and discipline in our armed forces, perhaps the Minister could also confirm whether the Government would countenance derogation from the ECHR during future military operations, potentially including those in defence of Ukraine. Moreover, perhaps he could update the House on where we are on the Government’s proposed new legislation on legacy matters, and on the fate of the proposed remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998. Are the Government contemplating removing clauses from that remedial order, or are they abandoning it altogether, and instead relying on new primary legislation to achieve their aim?
The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), gave us all very wise advice: we should increase defence spending. We certainly should, in this increasingly dangerous world; we can argue about by how much and how quickly. We Conservative Members want to work constructively with the Government and the Ministry of Defence, for the defence of the realm—but do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I can now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025, the Ayes were 338 and the Noes were 79, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, the Ayes were 333 and the Noes were 168, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I appreciate him bringing the debate to the Floor of the House. It shows the importance of the issue and the importance that the Government place on our armed forces and, in particular, our armed forces personnel. I welcome the pay rise that this Government are giving our service personnel and the commitment that the Minister has made personally to tackle recruitment and retention issues, as well as, of course, the £5 billion increase in spending.
As I was unable to intervene on the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), I must say that I am disappointed that this has turned into a party political debate, but I assure everyone in the House—after saying that—that I do not intend to say any more on that matter.
This order reflects a constitutional requirement, but it also gives us an annual opportunity to thank our brave servicemen and women. As I have mentioned previously in this House, I am the son and, like most people my age, the grandson of veterans, so I recognise the sacrifice that our armed forces families make for this country.
If the continuation order is not agreed, commanding officers and courts martial will no longer have the power to punish or discipline service people, so it is obviously really important that we pass it today. We should recognise that, for the vast majority of our servicemen and women, the part of the Act covered by the order is irrelevant. However, we must support our servicemen and women as they support us, which is why I welcome the work of Ministers and veterans on Op VALOUR.
As Lord Coaker said in the other place:
“we inhabit a world that is more dangerous than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2024; Vol. 840, c. GC84.]
That is something that everybody in this House can reflect on.
Like many Members from all parties, I attend the turning of the page ceremony organised by the Speaker’s Office and the Serjeant At Arms. Every week, I hear the names of Members of this House and children of Members of this House who lost their lives in the second world war, and I find it incredibly moving. This morning, it was particularly moving when one name was read out: it was the name of a son of a Member of the House who passed away at the age of eight.
Of course, our service personnel and our country cannot work in isolation, and it is incredibly important to recognise the work that our armed forces do in collaboration with our NATO allies.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. and gallant Members of this House—I know that one of them, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), is about to speak, and I am glad that he has returned to his place—for what they have done in their past careers to keep us all safe. I also pay tribute to the servicemen and women of my constituency of Harlow and the UK as a whole for their continuous service, keeping us and our families safe during these increasingly troubled times.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Today’s motion may appear procedural, but it sits at the heart of how we govern our armed forces and, by extension, how we uphold parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Under the Bill of Rights of 1688, a standing army in peacetime must be consented to annually by Parliament. That annual renewal is not just constitutional housekeeping. It is a clear democratic statement that power in this country derives from Parliament, and that our armed forces serve under the law, not above it.
I will, of course, support the continuation order. The Armed Forces Act 2006 provides a unified legal framework that enables our military to function. Without it, the service justice system would fall away. Discipline could not be enforced and commanding officers would be stripped of lawful authority, and there would be no means to uphold the standards of service that we rightly expect.
With that annual consent must come annual scrutiny. We owe it to those who serve under this Act to ensure that the political leadership they serve is worthy of their trust. The reality is that, over recent years, Conservative Governments have failed in their duty to our armed forces. While a brutal war raged in Europe, the previous Government were cutting 10,000 troops from our Army. Our armed forces are now smaller than they have been for generations, at a time when global threats are escalating. Equipment programmes are routinely over budget and behind schedule. The National Audit Office has repeatedly warned about capability gaps in areas such as battlefield communications, armoured vehicles and naval readiness, and our service personnel are too often asked to do more with less, and that includes living in unacceptable conditions with a housing system that does not meet their needs.
The effectiveness of our armed forces depends not just on kit, but on people. When these people are being let down—when we ask them to serve under a legal framework renewed by this House, but do not support them properly in practice—we are not keeping our side of the bargain.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for a different path. We demand the reversal of those short-sighted troop cuts and a long-term plan to increase regular troop numbers to over 100,000 once more. That begins with immediate action through a new joining and re-enlistment bonus scheme to help recruit and retain at least 3,000 personnel, stabilising the force while we plan for future growth. We are also calling for cross-party talks to agree a sustainable path to meet NATO’s new spending target of 5% of GDP, a goal that should be above party politics. The security of our country and our allies depends on serious, sustained commitment.
Beyond strategy and numbers, we want to deliver a fair deal for those who serve. That means proper pay and decent conditions. It means high-quality housing that meets the decent homes standard. As a minimum, it means giving real support for the transition to civilian life through access to mental health care, job opportunities and practical assistance for families who so often bear the strain behind the scenes.
We press the Government to deliver long overdue justice for LGBT veterans, many of whom are still awaiting compensation after years of discrimination and dismissal. That process must be fair, fast and comprehensive. We also demand full implementation of the Atherton report’s recommendations to tackle the entrenched issues of harassment and misogyny faced by too many women in uniform. Service should never come with conditions of fear or inequality.
Looking ahead, we understand the new armed forces Act is expected to be introduced in the next year. When the Bill is brought forward, I will hold the Government to a high standard. It must not be a copy-and-paste exercise. It must be an opportunity to improve the culture of our armed forces by ensuring that equality, accountability and modernisation are at its heart.
The continuation order maintains the legal foundation of our armed forces, but laws alone are not enough. We need leadership, we need commitments, and we need a Government who do not simply consent to the military’s existence once a year, but honour their service every single day with action, investment and respect.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I welcome the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 and place on record my wholehearted support for our armed forces and the role they play in providing national security and defence of this nation, both at home and deployed on operations across the globe.
As a new MP last year, the first Delegated Legislation Committee I sat on considered the previous continuation order. I was very proud to be able to do that. As a veteran and now the MP for a constituency in Huntingdon with British, US and wider NATO forces, I know first hand how vital political support for our military is today. Although we have moved past the period of kinetic operations that typified my generation of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, the world feels more dangerous today than it did at that time. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 precipitated a sea change in the nature of warfare. The manoeuvre warfare of old that we saw during the initial invasion, unchanged in a generation and familiar to those of my generation and several before that, has been replaced by cyber, drones, grey zones and subthreshold activity that feels like warfare but not so long ago would have been the preserve of science fiction or an episode of “Black Mirror”. That is the thread that must run through the strategic defence review and it is in such areas that we must ensure our armed forces are equipped to compete in across domains.
I do not doubt the Government’s sentiment in wishing to increase defence spending to ensure that we remain a credible and capable NATO ally, and that we continue to punch above our weight on the world stage. As an island nation in a notionally geographically safe part of the world, the legacy of our imperial past is one of world policing, post-colonial responsibility and expeditionary warfare. Our decentralised, persistent nuclear capability ensures that we are a nation that continues to be taken seriously, but my concern is that we are in danger of being benched, as those NATO allies closer to the fray, who feel the threat from Russia on the eastern flank and the High North most keenly, will, with their vastly increased defence budgets and whole-of-society approaches to defence, make us a second-tier nation.
The pledge to uplift defence spending to 5%, with the claim that we will achieve 4.1% by April 2027, is simply not credible. This smoke and mirrors approach reflects the fact that the sums do not add up. We saw only yesterday that the Government’s botched welfare reform has left a £4.5 billion gap in the spending plans, which is coupled with a further £1.25 billion from the winter fuel U-turn. Where will that money come from? Spending cuts or higher taxes are now inevitable, and growth projections look at best sluggish.
Meanwhile, the Government claim that they can reach 2.6% on defence plus security, but they refuse to break down the quantum of that spending. How much of that 2.6% is actually on hard defence, and how much is on the intelligence services? By our estimates, the number is somewhere in the region of 0.15%, which suggests that the real defence budget as a proportion of GDP is only 2.45%. If we bear in mind that a sizeable proportion of that figure is solely our continuous at-sea deterrent, the figure for our conventional forces drops to somewhere in the region of 1.7%—a long way from the numbers that the Government are putting forward.
The 4.1% figure that the Government are now puffing their chest out about includes 1.5% on national security and general resilience. This contains everything from UK arts spending to rural broadband. Under the chapter on pursuing asymmetric advantage, paragraph 25 details that the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough plays a part regarding understanding environmental changes in the Arctic ocean, which means that Boaty McBoatface is included in the Prime Minister’s defence spending figures. Do we honestly think that Russia and China will take that seriously?
The huge capability commitments that we see in the SDR and in the forthcoming equipment plan far outstrip our spending power. We are quite literally writing cheques that we may never be able to cash. Not only have we pledged to create an entirely new domain in cyber, but we are about to embark on an essential modernisation process which now simply does not look funded.
The global combat air programme—a project not due to be delivered until the back end of the next decade, but one that runs the risk of being outpaced by technological change—is exquisitely capable, but in 20 years’ time, will a sixth-generation fighter need to be crewed? It may be crewed in 2040, but GCAP’s out of service date is likely to be beyond 2070. Do we honestly believe that crewed aircraft will be relevant by then? Furthermore, how will we deliver the loyal wingmen in the system of systems that it forms part of?
Drones are clearly the future of warfare, and although we continue to use Ukraine as the proving grounds for a new capability against a near-peer adversary, the British Army should be on the front foot, rapidly equipping and training with drones, rather than using e-sports as the only drone warfare training of note. I see the Minister taking notes. While he is writing stuff down, let me suggest that a two-stage warhead a la Javelin on an FPV—first person view—drone is surely the next generation anti-armour capability that we need, thus consigning enfilade fire from a defilade position to a thing of the past, despite my own anti-tank roots.
Meanwhile, Project Grayburn means that we will replace 150,000 SA80A3 rifles by 2030—a significant logistical commitment, in terms not just of changing the weapon system, but of possibly changing the nature of the ammunition as well. Although that will increase stopping power, it will also remove the purpose of 5.56, which I am sure we do not need to go into in the Chamber today, and everything that goes with that, including rifle racks, ammunition pouches, magazines and mag chargers. This is the nitty-gritty of changing a weapons platform that really does take its toll on exactly how we would implement that. We also intend to replace nearly 6,000 Land Rovers by 2030, which is another significant logistical commitment in terms of training soldiers to drive them, putting those vehicles out, and making sure that we have the logistical trail in place to be able to service those vehicles. These smaller but still resource-intensive tasks place more and more strain on our personnel.
Only today, I understand that the Ministry of Defence police have cut 1,500 roles. With the Military Provost Guard Service under-resourced and unable to replace them, the burden has fallen on regular soldiers to augment their guarding tasks. Such additional tasks with weekend guards erodes goodwill and continues to contribute to retention problems.
Only a few weeks ago, I was in Poland visiting the RAF conducting the NATO air policing role, interdicting Russian penetration along NATO’s border. The personnel there were rightly extremely proud to serve, but at the same time the strain that the current operational tempo was placing on those in specialist roles was immense, requiring them repeatedly to spend long periods away from home. Incredibly, the additional penalty that they pay is a financial one, with all but those on the highest LSA bands finding that the pay they receive for being separated from their families is often, at best, negligible and, at worst, a financial hit. Second-order effects mean that an individual who may be being paid more to be on operations is not physically at home to help with the tasks there; that means having to pay for a babysitter rather than having their spouse look after the children. They have to pay for a dog walker rather than being able to leave the dog at home, for when the spouse returns. Those costs add up, and they simply are not factored into those extra payments that people receive for being on tour.
Meanwhile, we continue to see those who have already served their nation questioning whether they continue to enjoy the support of those they have risked their lives to serve. The concerns around the treatment of Northern Ireland veterans leave Operation Banner veterans rightly very concerned about their futures and about being held accountable for actions from over 50 years ago. Without clarity on whether protections will be guaranteed for those who serve their country, future recruitment could suffer hugely. People serving their country will lose confidence under this Government that they will not one day be treated as a criminal. It raises questions over my own service and that of my peers. The goalposts could one day move for us, and I know that that applies to former service people on both sides of the House. I see the Security Minister on the Front Bench who served so proudly in Afghanistan.
I welcome the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, and I was proud to play my small part in the history of one of our finest institutions. I recognise and acknowledge the sentiment and intent of Defence Ministers to deliver for our service personnel; I do not call that into question for one second. However, I wish to place on record my concerns that the limitations placed on them by Treasury accounting and the smoke and mirrors approach to hitting our NATO pledges will put the cross-party consensus on defence at risk, and the fiscal rules and botched legislation will reduce the Chancellor’s spending power in a dangerous new world. This Government must demonstrate their front-footed commitment with tangible results, not just pledges.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I want to contribute as the MP for Lagan Valley, which is the home of Army HQ in Northern Ireland. I, too, am proud of my family members who served in the Regular Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, I will depart from the view of some Members; I would say that they were professional in everything that they did, and they would agree with me—as would many across the House and indeed in Northern Ireland—that they served not above the law but within the law, as any professional soldier will do.
I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion’s Lisburn and Dromore branches—and in particular to Brian Sloan from Lisburn Royal British Legion—which have been incredible in supporting veterans not just throughout Lagan Valley but across Northern Ireland, making sure that they are at the fore of both civic and remembrance events. I echo the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on the Opposition Front Bench about the cadets, whom people often overlook. In Lagan Valley we are blessed to have sea, RAF and army cadets, and every time I look at those young people it makes my heart feel proud and a wee bit more confident for the future.
We are in a changed security situation, as I think everybody in the House knows, and one of the challenges that the Minister referred to in his opening remarks is that of recruitment and retention. We must change the dial whenever we discuss these things, because this should be an opportunity for our young people. I often hear young people maligned and marginalised, but sometimes those young people desperately want to find meaning in life, and want to find that through service. That is exactly what the cadets provide, and they will be our engineers and strategic ops planners of the future.
I put on record my thanks to those who are serving, to gallant Members throughout the House and to people who have served in Lagan Valley. I have their back in all of this completely and utterly. I am proud of them and of what they have done. Lastly, I have a word for their families too, because there is often a hidden shift that people do not see and a hidden threat that many will still be dealing with years from now. It is vital that we remember those people who have served.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I rise to raise an important point that has been reported in the media over the last 24 hours about the future of the Royal Marines. As a former Royal Marine and the Member of Parliament who represents the commando training centre in Lympstone, I think this is an issue that we need to discuss now. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers.
It has been reported that the Royal Marines are moving away from their conventional amphibious operations and that large-scale beach landings and traditional force protections from sea are being replaced with small, flexible teams designed to operate alongside special forces. Let me be clear: adaptability is vital, and I am sure that there are many merits in the direction of travel, but it is important that the Minister tells the House about this and gives us the opportunity to discuss it. I worry that abandoning hard-won capabilities without a clear and credible replacement is not adaptation; it is risk.
I would like to put some questions to the Minister. Are the Government removing the United Kingdom’s amphibious warfare capability? If so, what replaces it? What is the long-term plan to project force from sea to land if not through the Royal Marines in their traditional role?
We have no delivery dates for the multi-role strike ships that are meant to underpin the new commando force concept. There is also no detailed plan and no answer on whether they will provide genuine operational flexibility or simply be a scaled-back presence. Will the MRSS be able to deploy full commando units at scale in high-threat environments or are they designed purely for small team operations? If it is the latter, is that now the full extent of our national amphibious ambitions?
That brings us to special forces support, which I know is not an issue that we can discuss in the Chamber with the Security Minister, who served with the special forces support group, in great detail. However, it has been reported that 40 Commando has been tasked to operate alongside the Special Boat Service in sensitive national missions, including evacuations and hostage rescue. What does that mean for the Royal Marines’ contribution to the special forces support group? Is the SFSG being restructured or reassigned?
That speaks to a deeper point regarding our NATO allies. We talk in the strategic defence review about being “NATO first”. NATO has long counted on the UK’s high-end amphibious expertise. It matters to our national resilience in a world where rapid deployment from the sea is often the only option. Above all, it matters to the men and women who serve, and they deserve clarity about their future roles, mission and identity. I therefore urge the Minister to come forward with honest, detailed answers—not slogans or spin, but clarity on capability, posture and intent—because defence policy cannot be made in stealth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final contribution, I call Robin Swann.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this order. I have just a few questions for him in regard to contributions made by other hon. Members.
Many Members have talked about the value of our cadet services in promoting young people, the value that they provide and the additional skills training that is given. It was concerning when I met some cadets in Northern Ireland that their senior officers reported that there was a fall in the core financial support—the core grant—that they receive from the Ministry of Defence. May I have clarity from the Minister, under this order, that if that is true, he will take the opportunity to reverse it? It is not a large sum of money in relation to the Ministry of Defence’s overall spend or, indeed, in relation to the projections talked about today. The cadets provide a valuable service and the financial support that is given to them should recognise that.
On continued support, the Minister and I have had, and will continue to have, many exchanges on the investment not just in our service personnel, but in the facilities and the bases. I refer specifically to Northern Ireland. The Minister knows about Aldergrove and the facility that it can be for all our armed forces as a strategic location in our national defence. I would like to hear, even if it is under the SDR, that there is the possibility of further investment there.
I pay tribute and give thanks to all current and former service personnel. The shadow Minister made reference to the debate in this place on 14 July. I encourage all Members of the House to participate so that our veterans can see their support. Finally, I will turn to the local, as other Members have done. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Royal British Legion branches in Ballyclare and Randalstown? This year, they have celebrated the 100th anniversary of the support they provide to service personnel who have been through wars, and they continue to support service personnel today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.
Mr Francois
We have had a good debate—lively at times—about an important subject. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, we will loyally support the order, which I am sure the House will pass without the need for a Division.
We have had some very good speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). He recalled his time serving as an infantry platoon commander. I had that same honour, although in my case it was as a cold war reservist rather than as a regular, like him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) asked a number of questions about the future of the Royal Marines now that the Government have flogged off most of our amphibious shipping. He asked for confirmation about timings on the MRSS class and about what happens to the Royal Marines now in their amphibious role. Perhaps the Minister will provide the House with some reassurance. If it is true that the Royal Marines will lose their amphibious role, at least in the short term, will he say whether the Parachute Regiment was consulted on that decision? [Interruption.] I see that Hansard must record that the Security Minister is chuckling at this point.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I see the Security Minister chuckling away. I, too, would like confirmation that, as part of the big three, the RAF Regiment was also consulted on this decision.
Mr Francois
I think the RAF Regiment has had other things on its mind lately.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) on raising the important issue of Northern Ireland. That takes me to the point on which I would like to conclude. I hope that the Minister will answer some of my questions about what will happen to our Northern Ireland veterans. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I think I know where his heart lies on this. I cannot recall whether the Security Minister served in Northern Ireland—
Mr Francois
He is nodding—I know that he served with great distinction in Afghanistan, so he too will understand this. We on these Benches have to believe that in the privacy of discussions between Government Departments, they are doing the right thing. Perhaps the Minister can give some assurance to those of the 300,000 veterans who served in Op Banner who are still with us that the Government will remove the sword of Damocles that hangs over them, and allow those people who served our country so bravely and with such distinction in incredibly difficult circumstances to sleep safely in their beds, as they deserve.
Luke Pollard
I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. It was a good one, and I will refer briefly to a number of the issues that have been raised. First, I detect strong support for our armed forces on all sides of the House, which is good to see, so I hope there will not be a Division. This debate has shown the merit in holding the annual order on the Floor of the House, but I suspect I will need to have a word with the Leader of the House and the Whips before I commit to any future such debates, because that is definitely outside my swim lane.
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for talking about cadets. It is absolutely right that we invest more in cadets, and that is why the strategic defence review set out our ambition to increase the size of our cadet force by 30%. This is a strong investment in the future of our young people that provides opportunities to get lifelong skills and increased confidence, as well as a pathway for young people to serve in our armed forces in order to fully realise the benefits. Having seen the cadets on parade on Plymouth Hoe for Armed Forces Day at the weekend, I know that there is strong support for them in every part of the country. The hon. Lady talked about young people finding meaning through service, and I could not agree more. I am grateful to her for that contribution.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), asked me a number of questions. We have to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years, and it will be renewed in the proper way. We are looking at what is necessary to update that legislation, especially as it will come in after the publication of the strategic defence review. He will be familiar with the fact that the strategic defence review made the case for a defence readiness Bill, and we are looking at all those details. I can reassure him that it is part of the commitment we have made that, following the wide consultation we undertook for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we will continue that in that spirit for future legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but just before Prime Minister’s questions today we had Northern Ireland questions, and I believe the Northern Ireland Secretary replied to questions on a number of issues that he has asked me about. I refer him to those remarks because as he will know—if only because I say this every time he asks me a question on it—that these are matters for the Northern Ireland Office, although Defence clearly has strong equities and views on these matters as well.
Mr Francois
I was watching Northern Ireland questions and, from memory, the Northern Ireland Secretary said that the Government would address this through primary legislation, but he gave no indication of any kind as to what will happen to the outstanding remedial order. If Ministers cannot answer that today, perhaps the Minister or the Northern Ireland Office could write to us and tell us where we stand.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman will know, because I have had a similar conversation in a variety of different formats over recent weeks, that the policy intention of the Northern Ireland Office is to repeal and, importantly, replace the unlawful Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It has been found to be unlawful, it does not enjoy community support and it needs to be repealed and replaced. Any Government who were elected last July would have had to do that.
Sir Julian Lewis
On the point about not enjoying community support, when we were having these debates in great detail, the highly divided communities would always stand up and say how this was unacceptable and that was unacceptable, and then their representatives would quietly come up to us and say, “For goodness’ sake, go on doing what you are doing.” The Minister may have some legal problems to overcome, but let him not be fooled by what is said in public about what really needs to be done.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. Indeed, it is a matter that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office follow closely as that is the lead Department with responsibility for the repealing and replacing of the legacy Act. I am certain that he will continue making suggestions in that way. It is not for me to make announcements on the Northern Ireland Office’s behalf, but I am certain that it will have listened to what he had to say.
I am grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). I told him just before this that I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench in a shadow Defence role very soon. As he knows, I am a big fan of what he has to say, and I like the way he brings his military expertise and a certain defence nerdery, which, as a defence nerd on the Labour side, I very much appreciate.
I politely say to the hon. Member that my experience from engaging with our allies on NATO’s eastern flank—from Finland and the Baltic states all the way down, passing Belarus and others, is that the nations there value the relationship with the United Kingdom even more so over the past year. We have strong relations with the Joint Expeditionary Force nations of northern Europe, and we continue to deepen relations with our Baltic friends, including enhancing our forward land force in Estonia, and our co-operation and support for Latvia and Lithuania. I do not recognise that concern, but he is right to raise it, if only to allow me to put on the record that we have strong support from those nations and, indeed, we strongly support them in wanting to be sovereign and free, including from Russian aggression.
I also politely say to the hon. Member that RRS Sir David Attenborough provides an important presence in the Antarctic region. If he has not yet discovered polar region nerdery, can I recommend that to him? Not only do HMS Protector—our ice ship—and RRS Sir David Attenborough provide an important presence for our Arctic and Antarctic missions; they also help us honour our obligations under the Antarctic treaty, which is an important part of the rules-based framework for the protection of the Antarctic.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On the Arctic and HMS Protector, what plans do we have to procure an icebreaker to increase our footprint in that region?
Luke Pollard
I knew he was tempted to go into polar nerdery! I would be happy to speak to the hon. Member about some of those aspects. Clearly, when it comes to the provision of our ships and capabilities, it is not just an MOD matter; it is one that we share, in particular with our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues, but I am happy to pick up those points with him.
I am not certain that the hon. Member is right on everything he said on drones, but none the less, he is certainly right that drone warfare has fundamentally changed how warfare is conducted. I am proud that we have a plan to return to 2.5% spending on defence—a figure not met since 2010. We do need to spend more on defence because we live in more dangerous times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was right to speak about the sacrifices that armed forces families make—it is something that we should not forget. Indeed, that is the reason why in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we deliberately extend the powers of the commissioner to have a requirement to engage with the family members of our people who serve, which is important.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her contribution. We do indeed have a Government who honour the service of our armed forces every day, and I am proud to serve within it. She is also right to raise LGBT veterans. She will know that the prioritisation we have decided as Ministers is that the initial payments, as we stand up the system to make payments, should be directed at those who are over 80 or facing a terminal condition. We have completed that work. That was the right prioritisation in the first instance, so justice can be done for those folk who may not see many more days. We are now standing up that wider system so that we can process that wider set of payments that we have committed to do, and we will continue to do so.
Finally, in relation to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), the future commando force strategy published under the last Government moved away from full commando assault to small raiding parties. That was the extant policy of the last Government and, because of that, I would be happy to speak to him about it. We have a strong commitment to the amphibious role of the Royal Marines and to the multi-role strike ship, as set out in the strategic defence review, and I would be very happy to speak to him about that further. I have a Royal Marine base in my constituency, as he has in his—
Luke Pollard
I am afraid I have to conclude because of time, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this further. I can reassure him that the Royal Marines have a very bright and strong future in our armed forces.
David Reed
What the Minister says raises a more fundamental question. Just like the release of the strategic defence review to trade bodies and to the press before its publication, we are reading about issues in the press but do not have the opportunity to discuss them in Parliament. While I welcome the Minister’s offer to have a conversation with him, why can we not have that conversation in the Chamber now?
Luke Pollard
I refer the hon. Gentleman to all the debates that I called on the future of the Royal Marines under the last Government, when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches, to make the case that the Royal Marines have a bright future. We have a strong commitment to the future of the Royal Marines and to amphibiocity. He will know the changes that his Government introduced in the future commando force strategy. If we look at the lessons from Ukraine, the Royal Marines were well ahead of the learnings that we now see from there. I am happy to discuss that with him further and I am sure that he will want to table a Westminster Hall debate so that we can discuss this even more.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the future of the Royal Marines is safe and secure. We have strong commitment to amphibiocity. We need to ensure that all our fighting forces adapt to the changed environment in which they operate. As someone who represents Stonehouse Barracks, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines, I feel personally about that commitment and I do not recognise the concerns that he raised. However, I am glad that there is strong cross-party support for our armed forces and for this draft order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 385 / Noes: 26 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.
I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see three distinct groups proscribed: Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit of progress, which I do not think is unreasonable.
The proscription of those three organisations will reaffirm the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology.
It may be helpful to set out some background to the proscription power. To proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is concerned in terrorism. That means that the organisation commits or participates in terrorism, it prepares for terrorism, it promotes or encourages terrorism, or it is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Proscription is, rightly, ideologically neutral: it judges an organisation on its actions and the actions it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause. The UK’s definition of terrorism was established in law a quarter of a century ago, and it has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Dan Jarvis
I will make a little more progress before giving way.
The definition has three limbs. First, the use or threat of action must reach a certain level of seriousness, such as serious violence or serious damage to property. Secondly, the use or threat must be designed to influence a Government or intimidate the public or a section of the public. Thirdly, the use or threat must be made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Successive independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have upheld the UK’s terrorism definition as effective and fit for purpose, even as the threat from terrorism has evolved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dan Jarvis
I will give way in just a moment.
Proscription is one of the most powerful counter-terrorism tools available to Government. Any decision to proscribe is taken with great care and follows rigorous consideration, as noted by Jonathan Hall KC in his report on the operation of the terrorism Acts of 2022.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dan Jarvis
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Jeremy Corbyn
I am grateful to the Minister. The question that many of us want to put to him is this: why has he linked these three organisations together? He clearly has made a judgment on each of the three organisations independently of each other. I and many others outside, I am sure, think it would be fair if we took individual votes on the three. Many of us are very concerned about the issue facing Palestine Action, and that is the issue we wish to address in the debate.
Dan Jarvis
I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will move on to that and will explain with real clarity precisely why we have proceeded in the way that we have. I suspect that he has a long memory. I am sure that he will recall that he has voted against proscribing a number of organisations previously, including al-Qaeda in 2001, when the motion was bundled along with 20 other militant organisations, so there is clear precedent for doing this. The reason we seek to do it is to demonstrate that we do not attach any kind of ideological prism with which to seek to make a judgment. The Home Secretary will take a view based on a legal threshold, and that is the basis on which we have proceeded.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this motion. If it comes to a vote, as some have indicated they wish it to do, my party will support the Government. I come from Northern Ireland, and we understand what it means to have security. It is important to have Government, Ministers, the police, the Army, MI5 and MI6, and they all have a responsibility. In relation to the membership of those organisations, is there a list of those who may be members of Palestine Action, for instance? I do not know where they are—there might be some in this House; if there is, perhaps we would understand. Will they be subject to the ruling and proscription as well?
Dan Jarvis
I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on these matters, borne out of his extensive experience of dealing with these matters in Northern Ireland. If he is a little patient and if the House allows me to make a bit of progress, I will explain and respond to the point he has raised and the points that other hon. Members seek to raise.
If the House will allow, let me turn to the specific measures before us today, taking each of the proposed additions to the list of proscribed organisations in order. First, there is the Maniacs Murder Cult, also known as MMC, which is an insidious white-supremacist and neo-Nazi organisation operating online and across borders. It aims to encourage individuals to engage in acts of violence against people it perceives to be antisocial, including homeless people, drug addicts and migrants, all to further its own ideology and degrade human society through violence.
The Government assess that MMC commits, prepares for, promotes and encourages acts of terrorism. MMC members and leaders have claimed a number of violent attacks globally that were committed in pursuit of the group’s aims. MMC supplies instructional material that could increase the capability or motivation of an aspiring attacker, including a guide that provides information on how to fatally attack someone with a knife and use a vehicle as a weapon. MMC’s members and non-members share its material and other online content, including videos of violent attacks, to encourage further violence in support of its ideology.
On 22 May, a 21-year-old Georgian national known as Commander Butcher, considered to be one of MMC’s leaders, was extradited to the United States, and he is set to stand trial in New York for soliciting hate crimes and acts of mass violence. As set out in the indictment, he is alleged to have recruited individuals online to promote MMC’s ideologies by committing acts of murder, arson, bombing and mass poisoning in New York—acts targeted at members of ethnic minority groups, homeless people and Jewish schoolchildren. As this case illustrates, MMC has a truly transnational audience, which includes people in the UK. It does not matter where the leaders of this network are based if they are capable of inspiring acts of violence and terror in any country. Vulnerable individuals, such as minors, are particularly exposed to the horrific material MMC publishes and distributes online.
This Government will not stand by and allow the terrorist threat and wider societal harms caused by MMC to persist. Proscribing MMC is key to deterring and diverting individuals from engaging with its violent content, and it sends a clear signal to social media companies to remove MMC’s material from their platforms. The threat posed by MMC must be taken extremely seriously, whether it is inspiring acts of violence against our people or influencing young people to commit those acts. We will not hesitate to take action against such groups to keep our country safe.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I agree with the Minister that MMC clearly meets the threshold for proscription, but when did its actions first come to the attention of the Government? Why have they left it so long to bring forward this order? Why did they leave it until it was politically convenient?
Dan Jarvis
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to make that final point. There is no political convenience in what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to ensure the security of our country, and if he has a little patience, I will further make that case to him and to the House.
Let me turn to Palestine Action. The public attention it has garnered should not be confused with legitimacy, nor should a group formed five years ago be conflated with the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood, which has existed in our country and in this House for more than five decades. Let me be clear: the proscription of Palestine Action is not aimed at banning protest that supports Palestine. There are many ways in which people can continue to lawfully express their support for Palestine without being a member or supporter of Palestine Action.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
The Minister will be aware that the High Court has granted Palestine Action permission for a legal challenge. Rather than the Home Secretary, who is not here, rushing this order through Parliament, should it not be delayed until the judicial process has concluded?
Dan Jarvis
We are certainly not seeking to rush this through Parliament; these are matters that the Home Secretary and I have considered for some time. There is a clear route to legal challenge, and if an organisation is proscribed, it has the opportunity to pursue that route. That is entirely within the rights of any organisation that is proscribed, and is a matter for them.
Let me make the important point that freedom of expression and assembly are cornerstones of our democracy. They are fundamental rights, and this Government will always respect and protect them. We will always defend the right of the British people to engage in legitimate and peaceful protest, and to stand up for the causes in which they believe.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I often show visitors the statue of Viscount Falkland and its missing spur, removed when a suffragette chained herself to it. I was here when protesters superglued their buttocks to the glass panel above us, causing some scandal and damage. Will the Minister confirm that criminal damage, no matter how creatively or indeed scandalously undertaken, will always be dealt with under criminal law, and not as a terrorist act?
Dan Jarvis
I know that my hon. Friend has given this matter serious consideration, and she makes an interesting point. In my remarks, I will seek to evidence to her and others why we have chosen to take this course of action on this group. I hope that when I have made my speech, she will understand why we are proceeding in this way. I was just making a point about the importance of the right to protest. Essential as such rights are, they do not give this group carte blanche to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that many of us in this Chamber think that Palestine Action is in a different category from the other two organisations that he is seeking to proscribe. Is he aware that several UN special rapporteurs, including those protecting human rights, say that they have told the UK Government that
“acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Mother of the House, because she makes an important point. Before I respond to it, let me say politely and gently to her and others that my strong sense is that if the actions of the group that we are considering had been conducted by an organisation with different ideological motives, she and some of her colleagues would strongly recommend that the Government proscribed them. [Interruption.] That is, I am afraid, the conclusion I have arrived at.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the United Nations. The Government received a letter from the UN special procedures mandate holders at the end of 2024, and the UK Government provided a full response, which has been published. I gently say to her that national security and keeping the public safe are very much matters for this country, not other organisations.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
This heavy-handed approach threatens basic freedoms and sets a dangerous precedent for all political dissent in the UK. Does the Minister acknowledge that?
Dan Jarvis
I do not acknowledge that, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the decision we have taken. If he will listen to what I have to say, I hope he will understand why we are progressing in this way.
The attack at Brize Norton on 20 June has understandably provoked shock and anger in this House and across the country, but it was just the latest episode in Palestine Action’s long history of harmful activity. It has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the threshold between direct criminal action and terrorism. I hope that goes some way to responding to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) made. Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene of attacks. For their role in co-ordinated attacks, members of the organisation have been charged with serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and for some of the things that he has said. Everything he has spoken about could be dealt with under criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) mentioned the suffragettes. I think we need to give the context of a little bit of history. The suffragettes carried out a campaign of window-smashing, poster and paint defacement, cutting telegraph and railway lines and targeted bombing and arson, but specifically avoided harming people. There is a long history in this country of direct action that pushes the boundaries of our democracy. It is very difficult for all of us, but this is still direct action, not terrorist action.
Dan Jarvis
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point about history, and it is entirely reasonable context for him and others to raise, but ultimately this Government must respond to events taking place in the here and now. The Government have to make sometimes difficult decisions about what measures are required to keep the public safe. He is absolutely within his rights to make comparisons with other groups, but as I will explain, fundamentally the Home Secretary has to take a view on whether a legal threshold has been crossed, and if it has, she has to make a judgment on whether she wishes to proceed.
Dan Jarvis
I must make a bit of progress, because I still have some way to go.
Despite some of its rhetoric, the group’s own materials state that it is not non-violent, and that is echoed in the actions of its members, who have committed atrocious attacks. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has concluded that Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed. The House will understand that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence or to go into details about incidents that are sub judice. However, I can provide a summary of the group’s activities, and it is right that I make the position clear to the House.
Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated and enacted a campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies that support Ukraine, NATO, our Five Eyes allies and the UK defence industry. Over time, and most notably since the start of 2024, Palestine Action’s activity has increased in frequency and severity. Its targets have broadened to include financial firms, charities, universities and Government buildings. Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister has spoken about some of the history of this, but there is more recent history. The last Government introduced the Public Order Act 2023 to deal with Extinction Rebellion. The Home Secretary, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench, listed all the various crimes that could be dealt with. She said then:
“the Government are extending powers that we would normally make available just for serious violence and terrorism to peaceful protest. Police officers themselves have said that this is, ‘a severe restriction on a person’s rights to protest and in reality, is unworkable’.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 63.]
She was right then, and is wrong today, is she not?
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit of progress, because I hope to answer some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am about to explain to him that specific recent incidents have informed the decision. I understand why he may not want to listen to that, but I invite him to do so, because the context is very important.
Dan Jarvis
No, I will make some progress now.
Palestine Action’s own materials state
“we are not non-violent and we have specific targets”.
The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK, and has pledged to escalate its campaign. This disgraceful pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the Government assess that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism. In several attacks—
Dan Jarvis
I will not give way, because I need to get these important points on the record.
Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property, with the aim of progressing its political cause and intimidating and influencing the public and the Government. These include attacks against Thales in Glasgow in 2022 and against Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol last year. In such attacks, Palestine Action members have forced entry on to premises while armed with a variety of weapons, and damaged or demolished property, causing millions of pounds’ worth of criminal damage. As the House has heard, Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene.
During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over £1 million-worth of damage, including to parts that are essential for our submarines. Palestine Action caused panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown into the area to which they were evacuating. When passing custodial sentences for the perpetrators, the sheriff said:
“Throwing pyrotechnics at areas where people are being evacuated to cannot be described as non-violent.”
The Government also assess that Palestine Action prepares for terrorism. The organisation has provided practical advice to assist its members in carrying out significant levels of property damage at targets right across the UK. For example, Palestine Action has released an underground manual that encourages its members to create small groups or cells and provides guidance about how to conduct activity against private companies and Government buildings. It explains how to operate covertly to evade arrest and provides a link to a website, also created by Palestine Action, which contains a map of target locations across the UK.
The Government assess that Palestine Action promotes and encourages terrorism, including through the glorification on social media of its attacks involving property damage. Palestine Action’s attacks are not victimless crimes; employees have experienced physical violence, intimidation and harassment, and they have been prevented from entering their place of work. We would not tolerate this activity from organisations motivated by Islamist or extreme right-wing ideology, and we cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action.
By implementing this measure, we will remove Palestine Action’s veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support, and degrade its efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name. We must be under no illusion: Palestine Action is not a legitimate protest group. People engaged in lawful protest do not need weapons. People engaged in lawful protest do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics around innocent members of the public. And people engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds’ worth of damage to national security infrastructure, including submarines and defence equipment for NATO. Proscribing Palestine Action will not impinge the right to protest. People have always been able to protest lawfully or express support for Palestine, and they can continue to do so.
I am conscious of the time, so I will briefly turn to the Russian Imperial Movement. RIM is a white supremacist ethno-nationalist organisation that seeks to create a new Russian imperial state. The methods that RIM uses to try to achieve those aims threaten UK, Euro-Atlantic and wider international security and prosperity. RIM conducts combat activity via its paramilitary unit, the Russian Imperial Legion, and has actively fought alongside Russian forces and other pro-Russian right-wing extremist groups in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. In doing so, the Government assess that it has committed or participated in acts of terrorism.
RIM also prepares for terrorism. It manages a paramilitary training programme known as Partisan, which increases the capabilities of attendees to conduct terrorist attacks. By proscribing RIM, the UK will reinforce our steadfast support for Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression and our commitment to counter future threats from extreme right-wing terrorism in the UK and Europe.
Almost two years ago, it was my task on behalf of what was then His Majesty’s Opposition to strongly support the action taken to proscribe the Wagner Group, an organisation that rightly stood condemned for its acts of indiscriminate violence and terror in Ukraine and elsewhere. I hope the whole House will be as united today as it was on that occasion in endorsing the action taken against the Russian Imperial Movement.
To conclude, the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe. When our collective security and our values are threatened, we will not hesitate to act. Today’s proscriptions will send a clear and unambiguous message that this Parliament stands against terrorism however and wherever it manifests itself. Only in applying the UK’s counter-terrorism framework without bias can we maintain confidence in it. I therefore urge Members to support these proscriptions, and I commend the order to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Members will have noted from the Order Paper that this debate is only 90 minutes long—it has to conclude at 5.27 pm—which means Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit of four minutes to begin with and that only a few will get in before the debate has to conclude. I call the shadow Minister.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and for bringing this important and very necessary measure to the House. I also thank him for the briefing I was provided with earlier today.
Let us be clear what these measures are and are not about. Do we support free speech? Yes. Do we support the right to protest? Yes. Do we support freedom of expression? Yes. However, the very freedoms that make our democracy what it is are exactly the freedoms that the groups we are considering are putting at risk, which is why this order is needed. The groups we are discussing—Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—have nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate protest. They would not be facing proscription if they were demonstrating peacefully, respectfully or legally, as so many groups and organisations across the country do and must continue to be able to do freely. These groups have chosen a different path entirely, and for that reason this action is rightly being taken against them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the shadow Minister agree with me that, if the only acceptable form of protest is polite protest, that is not protest, but permission?
Harriet Cross
The right to protest is a hugely important part of our democracy. We support the right to protest and the right to free speech. We do not support a right to commit criminal damage or to intimidate or threaten the public, but that is exactly what these groups are doing and why they are quite rightly being proscribed.
We must be clear-eyed about the broader threat landscape we face. Terrorism remains one of the most serious threats to our national security. Whether it comes from international networks, those radicalised online or extremist groups operating on our soil, the threat is real and evolving and it must demand our constant vigilance. Our security services work tirelessly day and night to keep us safe. They have disrupted countless plots that the public will never know about, but we cannot be complacent. The nature of terrorism has changed—from sophisticated networks to lone actors, from physical attacks to attacks on cyber networks, and from foreign battlefields to our own communities—and our response must evolve accordingly.
We should reflect on what terrorism is. As defined by the Terrorism Act 2000, it occurs when an action’s
“use or threat is designed to influence the government…or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and…the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”
The full list of actions are detailed in the Act, but they include serious violence against a person, those that endanger life or health and safety, and those that seriously damage property.
Proscription is not a step taken lightly, but it is a strong and necessary tool that the previous as well as the current Government have used and should use to protect the public, and to ensure that our police and security services have fuller access to the resources they need to keep the public, our institutions and our way of life safe. No one could hear the Minister’s description of the actions of Palestine Action, MMR and RIM and consider them to be those of peaceful, legitimate protest groups.
Ayoub Khan
Does the shadow Minister accept that there is a distinction in intent between Palestine Action and the other two organisations? There is no intention with Palestine Action to cause injury to people, so matters can already be dealt with in the criminal courts.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Member for that, but if Palestine Action is using pyrotechnics against people who are escaping an attack by that organisation, that is intent. If it intends to damage Royal Air Force property and Ministry of Defence property by sabotaging RAF jets at Brize Norton, that is intent. It is showing intent as well as the other organisations.
These groups do not share our values. They do not respect our country. They do not care about our way of life and they show no regard for the safety of our citizens. On the Conservative Benches, we are proud of the actions taken by previous Conservative Governments to strengthen our counter-terrorism framework. We gave our police and security services the powers they needed to confront evolving threats, and we welcome and support the Home Secretary making use of the same powers today.
As the Minister said, proscription is a vital tool and a strong deterrent, but it is only a part—albeit a very important part—of what we need to do to keep our country safe. On its own, it is not enough. It must be followed by enforcement. We will, of course, be watching closely to ensure the police have the resources and the backing they need from the Labour Government to do just that.
As the Minister and I have said, the first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. We, as the official Opposition, will always support the Government in that aim. The activities of these organisations have clearly met the threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, and we on the Opposition Benches are very happy to support the Government in their aims today.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I want to speak specifically about Palestine Action. It is most regrettable that the Government have tabled one order banning three organisations, when it knows that there is political disagreement on Palestine Action. That is no way to bring terror legislation to the House. I want to be clear and to put on the record that I would be supporting the order today if it referred only to the organisations Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement.
Leading legal and human rights organisations Amnesty International and Liberty have condemned the proscription of Palestine Action. Liberty said:
“Targeting a protest group with terrorism powers is a shocking escalation of the Government’s crackdown on protest...This move would be a huge step change in how counter-terror laws are applied.”
Amnesty International UK said:
“We’re deeply concerned at the use of counter-terrorism powers to target protest groups...they certainly shouldn’t be used to ban them.”
They both urged the Home Secretary to rethink before bringing this to Parliament. Yesterday, several United Nations special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression, said they had contacted the UK Government to say that
“acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.
Likewise, Lord Charlie Falconer, the former Justice Minister, stated that the “sort of demonstration” seen at a military base by Palestine Action would not justify proscription as a terrorist organisation.
Today, we are not voting on whether people agree with Palestine Action’s tactics; we are not voting on whether people think its aim is right or wrong. We are voting on whether the actions it has taken against property, not against people, should lead to its being treated as a terrorist organisation, when what it has done can be prosecuted as criminal damage. There is a long history of protest activity including acts of trespass, criminal damage, sabotage and more. Indeed, the Home Secretary’s recent statement repeatedly refers to criminal damage and the live court cases, showing that there is already legal provision to deal with Palestine Action.
There are a variety of potential consequences if the proscription of Palestine Action is passed. Supporting or joining Palestine Action could carry up to 14 years in prison. That risks criminalising thousands of volunteers and supporters. Thousands have supported or volunteered with Palestine Action, including nurses, students, retirees and professionals. Many have never engaged in direct action, but risk being criminalised. Today, I met representatives of Amnesty International who offered a number of frightening examples of how our constituents could be placed at risk of prosecution under section 12 of the Terrorism Act and could face a maximum sentence of 14 years if Palestine Action are proscribed.
According to Amnesty International, a person who tweets, “I oppose the war crimes in Gaza and I think that Palestine Action has a point,” could easily fall foul of this provision, as could a person who says to another, “I do not support all the methods used by Palestine Action, but I think protest is important and I respect the personal sacrifices members of Palestine Action are willing to make, risking arrest to challenge war crimes,” or an individual with a placard that reads, “Palestine Action is peaceful—it should be de-proscribed.” This legislation could affect constituents who have never been a member of Palestine Action and who have never and would never commit direct action. Speeches or comments they make in community meetings could be trawled, and they could end up facing legal proceedings resulting in a prison sentence of up to 14 years. That concerns us all.
People out there view terrorism as meaning heinous acts such as shooting people, blowing people up, assassinating people and other acts of violence. I urge colleagues to consider the consequences for their constituents of proscribing Palestine Action alongside these other groups.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to discuss this issue with me.
As has been mentioned, there are three organisations listed today, and the order before us is unamendable. Taking each of the three organisations in turn, the Russian Imperial Movement is an ultranationalist and white supremacist militant organisation operating from inside Russia. The group has been proscribed by both the United States and Canada, and even the Russian Government have blacklisted many of the group’s publications and activities. The rationale and justification for proscription is clear, and we are content to support it.
The Maniacs Murder Cult is similarly destructive, driven by a belief that society must be violently destabilised so that a new neo-Nazi or white supremacist order can rise from its ashes. It promotes random acts of violence including murder, assaults and bombings as a deliberate tactic to instil fear and chaos. The rationale and justification for proscription is clear, and we are content to support it.
The questions for many Members today relate to Palestine Action. On 20 June, as has been widely reported in the press, two members of Palestine Action gained unauthorised access to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, the UK’s largest airbase, circumventing perimeter security under cover of darkness. Once inside, they targeted two aircraft. Incidents involving members of Palestine Action include attacks at sites operated by Elbit Systems in Bristol in 2024 and again this year, as well as at a Thales UK facility in Glasgow in 2022. I note the Minister’s comments about cases currently going through the courts.
No matter how strongly any of us feels about the appalling humanitarian crisis in Gaza—and many of us across this House and across the country feel very strongly indeed—that does not justify attacks on military bases in Britain. Those responsible must face the full force of the law; there is no doubt about that. However, those laws already exist, and that is not what is in front of MPs today. The question we face is not whether or not these people have committed crimes, but whether someone who merely expresses support for them should face up to 14 years in jail. The bar for which groups should be proscribed as terrorist organisations is rightly set very high. It is crucial that the reasons for these decisions are transparent to maintain the public’s trust in our counter-terrorism framework.
I have listened carefully both to experts who have raised concerns, including those from the UN who were mentioned by the Mother of the House, and to what the Minister has said. I have also seen the Home Secretary’s words about her reasons for making this decision based on damage to property, notwithstanding the Minister’s comments on the use of violence. Proscribing an organisation solely on the grounds of serious damage to property would, I believe, be unprecedented. To date—I would welcome the Minister correcting me if I have got this wrong—no organisation has been proscribed in the UK exclusively for property damage, as is the case here, according to the Home Secretary’s words on the Government website.
While there may be compelling legal arguments that the actions of Palestine Action have met the legal definition of terrorism in terms of serious criminal damage, the decision to proscribe is ultimately made at the Home Secretary’s discretion. There are still questions as to whether that discretion is proportionate in this case, given the level of threat posed to the general public. I would welcome more details from the Minister on why he believes this is a proportionate response, as I remain to be convinced.
Currently the maximum custodial term for certain offences relating to membership of, or expressing support for, a proscribed terrorist organisation is 14 years. Yet in instances such as this, where actions, though criminal and damaging, may not pose the same imminent threat to life, a blanket application of such severe penalties risks being disproportionate. The Home Secretary rightly has substantial powers to take action to keep our country safe, but it is also right and entirely proper that we scrutinise the use of these powers and press the Government to ensure that any use of them is wholly proportionate.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Twenty-one years ago, a human rights barrister stood in court and defended an activist who broke into RAF Fairford trying to disable a bomber to prevent war crimes in Iraq. That became a landmark case in lawful, non-violent direct action against an illegal war. That barrister is now our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer KC. He argued that it was not terrorism but conscience.
Fast-forward to 20 June 2025: two Palestine Action activists entered RAF Brize Norton and sprayed red paint—red paint, not fire—on aircraft linked to surveillance flights over Gaza. Instead of prosecuting them for criminal damage, which is what normally is done, the Home Secretary is using the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. This is an unprecedented and dangerous overreach of the state. Never before in Britain has it been a crime to simply support a group.
This order lumps a non-violent network of students, nurses, teachers, firefighters and peace campaigners—ordinary people, my constituents and yours—with neo-Nazi militias and mass-casualty cults. Palestine Action’s real crime is, we have to be clear, shutting down Elbit Systems sites that arm the Israeli military; its true offence is being audacious enough to expose the blood-soaked ties between this Government and the genocidal Israeli apartheid state and its war machine.
Let us be clear: to equate a spray can of paint with a suicide bomb is not just absurd; it is grotesque. It is a deliberate distortion of the law to chill dissent, criminalise solidarity and suppress the truth. Amnesty international, Liberty, over 266 senior lawyers and UN special rapporteurs have all opposed these draconian measures. Even at this late stage, the order should be withdrawn.
Under this order, anyone expressing moral support for a proscribed group could face 14 years in prison. That includes wearing a badge, wearing a T-shirt, sharing a post or calling for de-proscription. And journalists have no exemption either: there is no legal protection for reporting favourably, even factually, about Palestine Action. By this weekend, millions of people, including many of our constituents, could be placed under these sweeping restrictions.
Let us not forget what is happening in Gaza, where the real crimes are being ignored: hospitals bombed, children starved, and tens of thousands of people killed. Palestinian children now suffer more amputations per capita than children anywhere else on earth. Israel is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice and the Israeli Prime Minister faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, yet the Government’s response is to criminalise solidarity and to continue exporting lethal F-35 jets that are decimating Gaza.
We also have to understand the history of this country and what built our democracy: the tradition of civil disobedience that includes the suffragettes, without whom I would not have the vote, let alone the privilege of being here as an MP.
Even those who oppose Palestine Action’s tactics must recognise the vast gulf between criminal damage and terrorism. If this order passes, what and who is next—climate protesters, striking workers, feminists in the street? Already we have seen a wider crackdown on our civil liberties—musicians censored, journalists arrested, and demonstrators, including MPs sitting here, harassed—and now this Government want to use anti-terror laws to make peaceful protest itself a crime. If our democratic institutions functioned as they should, none of this would be necessary.
To conclude, if this proscription passes, as it will, we have to understand that no campaign will be safe tomorrow. We have to recognise that this will go down as a dark day in our country’s history and one that will be remembered: people will ask, “Which side were you on?” and I stand with the millions of people who oppose genocide, because I am one of them. I oppose the blood-soaked hands of this Government trying to silence us. So I say this loudly and proudly on Wednesday 2 July 2025: we are—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I do have concerns about the last of the three organisations covered by the order, in relation to the application of the criminal law. There might be another way of doing it, but I support the Government’s position.
However, this debate has cast into light the fact that we have taken no action to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Given all the elements that we are discussing today, this question sits like the elephant in the room: why are we not proscribing the IRGC? Why have we resisted doing that? That would have a huge impact on terrorism, or aspects of terrorism.
Let us look at it carefully. The IRGC deliberately exports the Islamic revolution. It uses proxies and has been sponsoring terrorism—as has been demonstrated without dispute all over the world. It supports Hamas and Hezbollah and has supplied them with huge amounts of weapons. On whichever side of the arguments one sits, the fact is that this terrible killing would not have happened had that not been the case. The IRGC was heavily involved in that. It is sanctioned but not proscribed. Sanctioning does not give us enough powers to deal with its proxies and those who work for it.
When in opposition, the Government campaigned to proscribe the IRGC. I remember quite happily working with various Members who were then on the Opposition Front Bench to do that. The Foreign Office endlessly says that we would lose all possibility of forming diplomatic relations or getting through to Iran, but how is that going? How has that gone over the past year? Not at all well. One cannot reason with these characters.
A huge number of global attacks are rooted in IRGC money and training. It has high levels of activity in the UK, such as propaganda to try to build arrangements here, sometimes in plain view—there are even links on Facebook. It could be trapped, but it does it openly because nothing can be done to it at all. Of course, the IRGC supports Hezbollah, which is also proscribed. If we keep following this chain around and around, we come back to the IRGC.
That should be the subject of the debate today. That should be the decision. That should be considered on the Floor of the House. The IRGC should be proscribed, because it is at the root of all terrorism that exists here and in the middle east. If we do not do that, it prompts the question of what we are doing here with these other three organisations.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Let me first associate myself with the very good comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart).
I agree with the proscription of the two far-right fascist organisations—I think they should be proscribed—but can we as a House accept that there are those of us present who have a different take on today’s proscription of Palestine Action? We do not have to agree with the behaviour or actions of Palestine Action to make the case today that this proscription is wrong. I ask hon. Members to acknowledge that the many of us here today who take a different view on this issue are as much a part of this democracy as those who agree with the proscription. It is just that our take on the delicacy of our democracy, on what this proscription does and on how it undermines our democracy happens to differ from that of other people.
There are Opposition Members who have repeatedly said that they understand and empathise with constituents who have smashed and vandalised ultra low emission zone cameras and low emission zone cameras. Direct action is not just of the left; everyone in our democracy can partake in it. This is a judgment call about how we best protect our democracy and an acknowledgment that not all threats are external or violent. Some threats are based on the decisions that we take in this place. Sometimes, we might take decisions that fundamentally undermine our own democracy.
I have no doubt that some of us will be called terrorist sympathisers by some who disagree with our position, but that would be wrong. Look around the world and watch as democracy and the rule of law are systematically smashed. Corporations and the wealthy have increasing power and wealth to influence our democracy. Look over the Atlantic at the United States. Our democracies are delicate; our democracies are precious. The decisions we take in this place determine whether those democracies will survive into the future.
I look around the world and around this country—I look at the authoritarian right party that is 10 points ahead in the polls—and I worry about the future of our democracy. This Government—our Government—have to make decisions that take account of the possibility that we might not be in government one day. It may be the authoritarian right who are in government, and they will take this further, faster and deeper than we ever have, so we should be putting in fireguards now, protecting our democracy, and this measure does not do that.
In conclusion, I understand what terrorism is. I was in London on 7 July 2005 and I watched my community—this city—attacked by real terrorists. At that point, rightly or wrongly, I decided that I was going to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists. I went because I love this country and I love our democracy and I want to see it protected. Today’s proscription order against Palestine Action undermines that, and I wish that my Government were not doing this.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
As we have heard, the issues around the proscription of Palestine Action has thrown up a number of legitimate concerns. There is no doubt that it will have an impact on our right to protest and on the civil liberties that we have enjoyed for decades. Although it is absolutely right to condemn and prosecute criminal activity, especially those that threaten our national security, surely this must be done within the framework of existing legislation, as it always has been.
This order looks nothing other than a direct response to Palestine Action being able to infiltrate an RAF base and cause damage to a defence aircraft. The decision to proscribe an organisation is ultimately a matter for the Government, and it is up to the Home Secretary to decide who goes on that list. It is based on intelligence that the Government hold. I do not think that the Minister has convinced many of us today that this has met the threshold for proscription, and we need to hear more about their concerns about this particular group.
Before reaching for that power, the Government must take into account whether it is proportionate, justified and in the national interest to proscribe such an organisation. Terrorism legislation, as we know, hands extremely broad powers to the state and, as such, it must always be treated with the highest degree of caution and restraint.
We live in a society where groups and organisations have the democratic right to campaign and express their views on particular issues in a democratic, respectful and lawful manner. It is important that the right to lawful protest is not affected by the Home Secretary’s decision today, and it is extremely concerning that this decision could lead to these powers being extended to other campaigning organisations.
Palestine Action has inexplicably been linked to groups such as the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—groups unknown to the House until this measure was on the Order Paper today, but they are groups that, from a cursory glance at their activities, should of course be proscribed.
For Palestine Action to be included alongside those groups is, at best, a cynical and calculated move by the Government to ensure that this order gets through today. People all over the UK, including many of my constituents, rightly feel very strongly about the appalling crimes that are being committed against innocent civilians in Gaza on a daily basis. Many of those people have been taking part in weekly protests to make their voices heard, and to show solidarity with the Palestinian people. These people are now concerned that they might be caught up in this proscription.
I am also concerned that many young people who are sharing social media posts from Palestine Action could now be considered to have glorified what will soon be a proscribed group. We need clarity on what actions would result in people being charged under this terrorism legislation. For example, could a person wearing a Palestine Action badge handed out at a demonstration or a rally be charged with terrorism? Organisations such as Amnesty International and even the United Nations have expressed their concern about the UK’s broad definition of terrorism in this regard.
This week, an Israeli strike on a Gaza seafront café killed at least 20 Palestinians. This is what we should be discussing today and every day until a permanent ceasefire is reached and all the hostages are released. The Government must act in the national interest and keep us safe from all the challenges presented to them, but we need clear reassurance about the wider impact of what is proposed.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s decisive action on Palestine Action, the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Twenty months on from the horrific terror attacks of 7 October, the suffering of innocent people in Gaza, in Israel and beyond has rightly been the subject of much international campaigning. Money has been raised to support charities getting aid into Gaza, the hostages and missing families forum has worked tirelessly to keep the plight of the 50 remaining hostages on the world’s agenda, and hundreds of thousands of people have contacted their MPs, signed petitions and made their voices heard. That is all genuine activism, which is, importantly, within the bounds of the law.
Palestine Action is different. Over five years, it has conducted a campaign of violence, intimidation and criminal damage. In one attack on a business in Bristol, two police officers were attacked with a sledgehammer. The officers found not only sledgehammers but whips, axes and other home-made weapons. Palestine Action has attacked a business in my constituency, intimidating the workers there.
Last month, at RAF Brize Norton, military planes were vandalised and £30 million of damage was done. Such attacks undermine our national security and our armed forces. They can never be justified. I applaud the Home Secretary for responding in the strongest possible terms.
Palestine Action also has a track record of attacks against the country’s Jewish community. In May, a building housing Jewish-owned businesses in north Manchester was vandalised with red paint and graffiti reading “Happy Nakba Day”. Later that month, a Jewish-owned business in Stamford Hill was attacked by the organisation, with windows broken, red paint graffiti, and damage done to the building’s mezuzah. In the latter case, Palestine Action’s claims that the business was linked to Israeli defence companies proved baseless. This campaign of antisemitic harassment reveals the logical conclusion of its extremism. The important difference between it and all the other groups mentioned in the House is that it targets a specific ethnic and religious minority in our country.
This extremism does not help a single Palestinian. Smashing windows will not free Palestine, but it undermines the hard work of so many people who support the Palestinian cause and are working towards a peaceful future, and it leads to an environment where British Jews feel unsafe and harassed. That should never be tolerated.
Legitimate protest is a fundamental democratic freedom, but Palestinian Action abandoned legitimate action a long time ago. I welcome the Government’s swift action in ensuring that that organisation can no longer pose a threat to our security, to our businesses and to the Jewish community.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
As the debate opened, I intervened on the Minister, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I just need an explanation—I hope that we will get one—as to why groups are always put together in these orders and not dealt with separately. There are clearly different orders of concern here. I want to speak solely about Palestine Action.
We live in a democratic society, and we have to understand where our rights have come from. The hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) represents the place where in 1932 the mass trespass took place, led by Benny Rothman—a Jewish activist in the Communist party at that time—who was demanding rights of access to the countryside. He was roundly condemned by all the mass media and the Government of the day, he was put on trial and he was put in prison. He was eventually released from prison after mass protests in his support. Without Benny Rothman and those others, that access to the countryside simply would not have happened at that time.
We can look at all the other people who over decades of our history have stood up for free speech and democracy. We can go back to the Chartists, to the suffragettes and to those who campaigned to end apartheid in South Africa. Interestingly, during all the apartheid years, while the British Government did condemn the African National Congress and did indeed believe for a while that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, they never banned the ANC in Britain, because they were advised that it was important that there should be a place where people could express that voice of hope for the end of apartheid.
The women who went to Greenham Common to protest about the deployment of nuclear weapons there were never labelled as terrorists either. Yes, they were charged with criminal trespass, as many others have been. Indeed, those who undertake direct action are well aware of the risks they take. However, it crosses an enormous threshold to suddenly make such an announcement about Palestine Action, which speaks out against the horrors of what is happening in Gaza, where hundreds are mown down every day by the Israel Defence Forces simply for queuing for food when they are desperately hungry and their children are starving. Surely we should be looking at the issue that Palestine Action is concerned about, as well as the supply of weapons from this country to Israel, which has made all that possible.
If the order goes through today, it will have a chilling effect on protest. I quote a letter sent to the Home Secretary on 28 June:
“Direct action is a longstanding and respected part of British political history. From the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, to striking miners, to anti-apartheid campaigners occupying institutions and disrupting trade, civil disobedience and direct action have always been necessary forces for progress and justice.”
Jeremy Corbyn
I will not.
That letter comes from Bibi Khan, the chair of North London Council of Mosques, and Muhammad Uddin from Newham Muslim Forum, on behalf of the London councils of mosques that are concerned about the chilling effect that this piece of legislation, if agreed today, will have on the rights to protest as a whole.
My last point—I hope the Minister can reply to this if he gets the chance—is that legal action is being taken. There will be a hearing in the High Court this Friday about judicial review of this case. Can it be made clear that the order will not be put into force until all legal avenues have been exhausted and that there will not be a temporary imposition, later to be withdrawn if there is successful legal action? We need to know that all democratic avenues have been fully explored in this process.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Today’s push to proscribe Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action group, as a terrorist organisation is a disastrous turning point of historic proportions. It risks undermining existing prosecution cases against activities by Palestine Action activists and is legally dubious. Human and civil rights organisations, lawyers and UN experts have all spoken out against the misuse of terrorism laws, calling the move unjustified and warning of a chilling effect on protest and advocacy generally, especially in relation to the defence of human rights and international law in Palestine.
We have already seen the chilling effect on protest. Palestine Solidarity Campaign has been prevented from protesting outside Parliament this evening, with police placing restrictions on the demo and pushing it further down Whitehall. For hundreds of years, protests outside Parliament have gone ahead. Limiting dissent in this way should concern us all, and we have seen that in the last couple of weeks in relation to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, abortion and the empty welfare cuts.
The question that Members of this House must ask ourselves today is whether non-violent political groups should ever be designated as a terror threat. If Palestine Action is proscribed this week—
Kim Johnson
No, I will not.
By the weekend, anyone with a branded t-shirt or bag could face a terrorism charge. Amnesty International has flagged that if Palestine Action is proscribed this week, even meeting their lawyers to discuss intervening in judicial review proceedings could see its members fall foul of counter-terror legislation. Those are all examples of potential grounds for prosecution under counter-terrorism laws if Palestine Action is proscribed, which could come to constituents who are not members of the organisation and have never engaged in direct action. The scope of what we are talking about is insanely broad. Will the Government really demand that we vote to criminalise our constituents in that way?
Proscribing Palestine Action today would set a dangerous precedent for future Government misuse of counter-terror laws. It would be the first group proscribed mainly for serious damage to property and the first proscribed direct action group. Proscription is neither necessary nor proportionate. We already have sufficient criminal legislation that has always dealt with this when necessary and the Home Secretary has provided no impact assessment as
“no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen.”
However, we have received no reassurances about how the proportionality test has been applied or whether unintended impacts on the wider pro-Palestine movement were considered by the Home Office and the proscription review group. Indeed, we have heard from civil rights groups that there have allegedly been meetings with representatives from the Israeli Government and arms companies such as Elbit, but none with human rights groups.
Whether or not Members of this House debating and voting on this statutory instrument today agree with the methods or aims of Palestine Action, we should all be able to agree that lumping Palestine Action together with the other two obscure groups to ensure that it is proscribed is a disgraceful manipulation of parliamentary procedure. Searching Hansard, I see that neither of the other two groups has been mentioned, as they are so obscure. This manoeuvre is transparent, and it shows that the Government know just how shaky this proscription is. Today they come for Palestine Action. If this measure is passed today, who and what will be next? I look forward to the Minister answering the concerns we have raised, particularly about the three organisations being grouped together.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Let me start by putting on record that I know at least two people who have participated in Palestine Action protests, but that is not why I am speaking today. This is about fundamental principles. This is a chilling moment for British democracy. Let us be clear about what is happening: a political protest group is being silenced. Is it not hugely ironic that this is being done today, given that this morning, hundreds of women MPs, including the Home Secretary, celebrated in Westminster Hall the 97th anniversary of equal votes for women—a victory won by the suffragettes, a direct action protest group?
I have three key points. First, it is a clear overreach to conflate direct action with terrorism. Secondly, this will have a chilling effect on the democratic rights to free speech and protest. Thirdly, it is utterly cynical of the Government to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with the proscription of two other clearly terrorist groups. The Terrorism Act 2000 makes it clear that strict proportionality and necessity tests must be met before any group is proscribed, but this decision on Palestine Action is not necessary or proportionate.
As Amnesty International and others have made clear, there is ample criminal law that can be used to respond to a direct action protest network such as Palestine Action. It may have engaged in criminal damage; its supporters may break into airbases; it may have been charged with offences such as violent disorder and aggravated burglary; and it may have carried out actions that I absolutely do not condone—indeed, I condemn the attacks on properties in Stamford Hill, which may understandably have stirred up genuine fear, and I find the words spoken by one of its co-founders at a rally in the aftermath of the 7 October Hamas attacks absolutely horrific—but that does not make Palestine Action terrorists. That bar is, and should be, extremely high. It is commonly understood internationally to involve the use or threat of violence against civilians to instil fear, whereas the stated aim of Palestine Action is to prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
It is not just the members and supporters of Palestine Action who are being silenced but, by association, millions of members of the public. This proscription represents a grave risk to the free speech and protest rights of those who are rightly concerned that a genocide is happening in Gaza on this Government’s watch. Millions of people in this country are active, whether online or in their communities, in campaigning to end the UK’s complicity in that genocide. There is a clear risk that proscribing Palestine Action will criminalise people who, for example, share a social media post, and there is potential for imprisonment for up to 14 years. This proscription interferes with the fundamental rights of members of the public to protest against the Government’s policies, and it is clearly disproportionate in the light of the actions of the group.
I am also deeply concerned by the Home Office’s utterly cynical decision to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with that of two other groups that undeniably meet the terrorism test. This has clearly been done to make it extremely difficult for MPs to vote against the motion. I want it on record that I and my Green party colleagues absolutely oppose the proscription of Palestine Action, and we will oppose any similar attacks on the civil disobedience that is such a proud part of UK history.
Let us compare the charges against Palestine Action with those against the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Running paramilitary training camps, producing guides on how to fatally attack somebody and white supremacist neo-Nazis organising in support of satanism are clearly terrorist acts, whereas proscribing Palestine Action appears to be a purely political move, unworthy of a democracy supposedly committed to human rights. No wonder there is significant opposition to this move across Parliament, including from the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Lord Falconer. It is a massive distraction from the continuing horrors in Gaza that Palestine Action wants to bring to an end, as do many in the Chamber—
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I want to make it clear to Members that the order we are voting on is not about whether we support Palestine Action’s political positions or protest methods. To vote against this motion, Members do not have to agree with the group at all; they can still support holding it criminally liable for its actions. The question is whether it should be proscribed as a terrorist group, placed alongside the likes of al-Qaeda, Islamic State and National Action.
It is fitting that this debate takes place on the 97th anniversary of women winning the vote on equal terms with men, thanks in no small part to the suffragettes. The suffragettes carried out direct action far more extreme than anything those in Palestine Action have done, but today their role in changing history for the better is commemorated. Whatever we think of its actions, Palestine Action is part of a similar tradition, with the target this time being to stop the genocide in Gaza. It is unprecedented for a Government to ban a civil disobedience protest group in the way that they are attempting to today, but what is not unprecedented is protesters breaking into military bases. That has never before resulted in proscription.
Proscribing Palestine Action would be a draconian overreach. It would threaten the fundamental right to peaceful protest. It would set a dangerous precedent that could be used in future to further silence dissent, while diminishing what the Terrorism Act is meant to prevent.
Mr Dillon
I am the MP for Newbury, where we have Greenham Common, which is now peaceful but had cruise missiles. Greenham Common peace women broke into the base and attacked jets with hammers, and they were prosecuted under criminal law. They were held to account. Does the hon. Member agree that under this Government, even Greenham peace women could have been considered a terrorist organisation?
Nadia Whittome
I agree entirely with the hon. Member.
UN experts urge us not to do this. They state that they are
“concerned at the unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as ‘terrorist’”.
Hundreds of lawyers have written to the Home Secretary, warning that proscribing Palestine Action would conflate protest and terrorism. Amnesty International and Liberty have both expressed deep concerns. A senior civil servant has briefed that there is disquiet among Home Office staff about the decision, and has called it “absurd”.
It is important to remember that this proscription would affect not just members of Palestine Action, but anyone who supports them. Donating to a fundraiser or posting positively about the group on social media would be committing a crime. We risk criminalising huge numbers of our constituents. I regret our being denied the opportunity to vote separately on the proscription of Palestine Action. The other two bodies are neo-Nazi organisations whose proscription I wholeheartedly support. This grouping together of organisations that so clearly do not belong in the same category demonstrates again why we cannot allow this proscription to go ahead. I have no choice but to vote against the order.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I must say that I never thought the day would arise when I as a non-lawyer would be advising a Government of lawyers that they need to be sure of the legal basis for what they are doing. As I said in an intervention on this subject on 23 June,
“it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is that this was a performative act that these people announced they had done.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 893.]
My question for the Government is this: will they at least adopt a belt-and-braces policy when it comes to the prosecution of the people who did that terribly irresponsible and wrong-headed act of sabotaging those planes? Will they also prosecute them on the basis that they have done criminal damage, and have attacked the forces of the Crown and thereby done something that borders on sedition? Otherwise, by using the wrong aspects of the law to pursue people who did some very bad things indeed, I fear the Government will end up scoring an own goal, and these people will walk free with a court triumph under their belt.
Although it is justified by the unacceptable behaviour of the perpetrators, I am not convinced that the policy that the Government have adopted will stand up in court, when there are plenty of other legal methods that could be used to deal with this form of extremism. It is extremism, but it does not, in my opinion, pass the threshold to be classified as terrorism, in the legal sense. If I had been able to accept the Minister’s offer to have a word with me on Privy Council terms before the debate—I thank him for that offer, and I am sorry that I was not able to take it up—he may have been able to tell me things about Palestine Action that would have convinced me that it crossed that threshold.
However, if the Minister is not able to say those things in public—there may be very good reasons why he is not—then I suspect he will not be able to tell them to the courts, either. Nobody can accuse me of being soft on anti-militarist extremist groups, but I say to the Government, with the best will in the world, that they must adopt a legal belt-and-braces policy when it comes to prosecuting this group, and not rely on this proscription alone, because I fear that I see trouble ahead from m’learned friends.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I place on record my full support for the proscription of Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. They are vile, murderous and fascist cults, and their place on the proscribed list is justified and necessary. However, it is precisely because we must take terrorism seriously that we must draw clear lines. To put Palestine Action, a direct action protest group, in the same category as those murderous, extremist organisations erodes the credibility of our legal framework and risks undermining civil rights.
Proscription must be used judiciously. Conflating protest with terror is a dangerous step that undermines the freedoms that our counter-terrorism laws are meant to protect. There is adequate provision in our criminal law to deal with any criminal activity, but we are being asked to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. To treat civil dissent, whether or not we agree with it, as extremism is a concerning shift, and we risk crossing a line. Hundreds of lawyers, including King’s counsel and human rights advocates, have warned that such a move is not a hallmark of democracy.
We heard earlier today that United Nations special rapporteurs have expressed serious concern about the measure, but we have not heard about the huge implications that the proscription will have for some of our communities, who risk being criminalised simply for showing support for Palestine. Under this proscription, people could face prosecution for something as simple as wearing a badge, sharing a post online or attending a peaceful protest.
The question for the House is: do we really want to become a society where non-violently expressing solidarity, or even speaking out, could be interpreted as terrorism? That will only further fuel fear and repression. Local anti-racist groups could suddenly find themselves under suspicion. Whole communities could be classed as suspects, not for what they do but what they stand for. There are numerous examples of that, which I do not have time to set out today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has already eloquently set out a number of examples that, frankly, should send shivers down the spine of all hon. Members. This is not the way forward. Non-violent protest, which our democracy is meant to protect, now risks being labelled as terror.
The legal basis for this proscription is unsound. The democratic consequences are severe, and the moral cost is frankly unacceptable. Let me be clear: it will disproportionately target campaigners and minority communities and set a precedent that reaches far beyond this one group. Today it is Palestine Action, and tomorrow it could be climate activists. We are standing on a slippery slope. Proscribing a protest group is not strength.
I urge this House to defend our hard-won rights and civil liberties. Conflating protest with terrorism is not democracy. I therefore put on record that I will not support any proscription of Palestine Action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I can squeeze in one more speaker if they are brief.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I came to this country as a child; it nurtured, educated and embraced me. I love this country for so many reasons, but for two reasons more than anything else, I suspect. The first is for its sense of fairness, and the second is for the freedom to express how we feel democratically. That is why I speak specifically about Palestine Action when I say that if we proscribe this organisation under the Terrorism Act, we will for the first time in this nation’s history outlaw a domestic protest group as a terrorist organisation.
Britain has a proud and often hard-fought tradition of civil resistance. We remember with reverence the suffragettes, who were branded as criminals for smashing windows but are now celebrated as heroes of justice. We remember the civil rights movement, in which protesters occupied streets and broke unjust laws to dismantle segregation. We remember the global campaign against apartheid—which included Ministers in this House—where people of conscience defied authorities, trespassed and disrupted in the name of ending a brutal system. The very freedoms we hold dear today—votes for women, racial equality and the end of apartheid—were born not from men and women in suits in this establishment, but from people out there. It is that tradition that we are about to disrupt today.
This decision, which has been rushed through Parliament in a matter of days and bundled with unrelated, foreign neo-Nazi groups and debated for mere minutes, is a reckless abuse of process. It denies Parliament the gravity of deliberation that this issue so badly demands. The proscription has already been condemned by a vast range of people, from Sally Rooney to Lord Falconer, and that will continue.
Even worse, this statutory instrument risks criminalising anyone who supports, sympathises with or even publicly praises the aims of Palestine Action. It opens the door to the prosecution of journalists, filmmakers, campaigners and politicians for doing nothing more than expressing solidarity. This is Orwellian dystopia on steroids. Let us ask ourselves honestly: if we set this precedent, who will be next? History will judge harshly those who choose silence in moments of moral testing.
I urge my colleagues not to allow this dangerous step to go unchallenged. Do not allow a Home Secretary, in a moment of political expediency, permanently to expand the reach of anti-terror laws into the heart of a domestic protest. Do not let this House be the one that shrank the boundaries of freedom of expression. We owe it to those who fought so hard for our freedoms, dared to dissent and refused to be silent—let us summon their courage now. I urge colleagues to vote against this proscription, and to protect our democratic tradition and our right to protest.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate. The proscription of these three organisations affirms the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism. To be clear, these proscriptions will not affect anyone’s legitimate and lawful right to protest, whether it is about Palestine, Gaza or anything else.
Dan Jarvis
The Government have to take action when Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I think it is clear that at this point the Minister does not wish to give way. He has until 5.27 pm, so let us see how this progresses.
Dan Jarvis
These attacks have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. Members have used violence against people responding at the scenes of attacks, and have been charged with a series of serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. This order would degrade their harmful activity. It will also reduce the threat—particularly to vulnerable individuals—from MMC’s violent content, and it will reinforce our support for Ukraine and our commitment to countering extreme right-wing terrorism in Europe.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr McDonnell—[Interruption.] I am on my feet. This is a very tight debate that has to conclude at 5.27 pm. The Minister has time; he may wish to take your intervention shortly. Is your point of order really relevant right now?
John McDonnell
It is, Madam Deputy Speaker—let me explain. I want to know whether, if this order goes through and I go out to the demonstration that is mobilising at the moment to say that I am opposed to this, I will be prosecuted.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That was not a point of order. The Minister may wish to respond—he has a few minutes in which to do so—but that was not a point of order.
Dan Jarvis
I am happy to respond directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The process of proscription requires this House to agree such action. Should the House do so later this evening, it would then go to the other place, and it would be for the other place to agree the action or not. It would then be for the Home Secretary or myself to sign an order, and that order would then become law at midnight on the night it had been signed.
John McDonnell
What if I oppose it tomorrow? What if I suggest it is wrong?
Dan Jarvis
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said—I just explained to him the process that is in place.
I am grateful to all of those who have considered this matter. This order is a necessary and proportionate step to protect the public and defend our values. That is, after all, the first duty of the state, and under this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend this order to the House.
Carla Denyer
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, every single person who just voted no on the statutory instrument wanted to vote yes on the proscription of the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement, but we were prevented from doing so by the cynical way in which the Government lumped together those two clearly terrorist organisations with Palestine Action, which we could not support. Can you please advise me and the other MPs who just voted no if there is any way that, in future, proscription orders for unrelated organisations could be voted on separately, so that each MP can apply their own critical assessment of whether each group has met the tests of proportionality and necessity that are required for a terrorism proscription?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair does not have the power to separate out decisions on the contents of a statutory instrument. In making her point of order, she has put her concerns on the record.
Zarah Sultana
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the proscription of Palestine Action, the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), whom I have notified of this point of order, spoke without declaring that he is chair of Labour Friends of Israel and has accepted hospitality and overseas trips funded by private Israel lobby organisations. The House was discussing a non-violent direct action group that directly challenges the Israeli state, which is on trial for genocide against the Palestinian people. Can you advise me on what mechanisms are available to make the British public truly aware of what interests are being represented on the Floor of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for having given advance notice of it. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and it is not a matter for the Chair.
Business without Debate
Corporate Businesses and Franchisees: Regulatory Environment
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Speaking long before I was born, G. K. Chesterton said that
“big business…is now organized like an army. It is, as some would say…militarism…without the military virtues.”
Heaven knows what he would say if he was alive now, as global corporations have such influence on all our lives.
Yet it is the small and medium-sized businesses in my Lincolnshire constituency and in constituencies across this country that are the backbone of our economy. They also provide the particularities—the colour and shape —of the places that each of us calls home. Those small and medium-sized businesses reinvest in the communities of which they are a part and provide opportunities for local people. We all know them from our daily experience as customers, but we also know them from the representations they make to us as Members of Parliament. Today, I speak in the interests of those small businesses, those entrepreneurs, those people who devote so much of their time, skill and energy for the common good—for the national interest and the common good drive all that I do in this place.
Small and medium-sized businesses employing up to 250 people make up about 99% of businesses, but just think of the influence and effect of the other 1%. When SMEs are accused of wrongdoing or even of breaking the law, they often have little in the way of resources to defend themselves, so they are at the mercy of powerful regulators and the caprice of giant competitors. In contrast, the big multinational companies, which have come to dominate too much of our economy, have armies of compliance officers, lawyers and spin doctors to bat away legitimate concerns.
The fear that many of us in this Chamber have about two-tier justice runs parallel to our certainty that there is a two-tier economy. Faceless, heartless multinational firms often have little in the way of roots here, and many tech firms use such rootlessness to justify decisions to pay little, if any, tax. Corporate behemoths have grown ever larger, ever more dominant in their sectors, ever more detached from their customers, and ever more determined to bend rules and evade justice. In recent years, we have seen profiteering by, for example, the major supermarkets, which very often give their suppliers—primary producers such as the farmers and growers in my constituency—a raw deal. We have seen them distort the food chain, yet take advantage of the disruption brought by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.
Indeed, the pandemic exacerbated the power of greedy globalists. Following research on 17,000 big firms, the trade union Unite has highlighted that average profit margins have soared by 30% compared with the pre-pandemic period. In 2022, the profits of the 350 largest companies in Britain increased by about 89% compared with pre-pandemic levels. Contrast that if you will, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the plight of smaller businesses, which face ever greater costs and ever more unfair competition from their giant competitors.
What of the claims of the enthusiastic globalists that the world would be a better place as a result of their activities? Do you remember the globalists—those people who were addicted to modernity and change? Who has really benefited? In an economy in which standards of living are falling, productivity has stalled and the state grows ever bigger in the face of rising worklessness, it seems to me that the only beneficiaries of globalisation are a few people at the top of those corporate businesses. We need not monopolies, but a multiplicity of businesses, such as start-up firms, local firms, and firms that innovate and engage in new activities in the economy, rather than cement existing practices. Let us give those businesses what they need, which is greater freedom, while the big corporate monoliths need to be regulated so that they do not exploit the marketplace they dominate.
Think for a moment of the banks. I have a vision of banking—I hope you might too, Madam Deputy Speaker—rooted in a sort of “Dad’s Army” approach: a Captain Mainwaring figure committed to his community, in close touch with his customers and caring about the businesses they run. That was not just a fiction in my younger years. I well remember going to a bank as a young man and asking if I could borrow £500 to buy an old car—I was a student at the time. The manager, a bit like Captain Mainwaring in character, invited me in, gave me a glass of sherry, interrogated me for half an hour and eventually said, “Yes, I think we can probably lend you the £500.” Imagine that scene now. At best, you would have an online connection with someone remotely situated—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
You wouldn’t get a car for 500 quid though, John!
Sir John Hayes
I think my right hon. Friend is referring to the £500 he still owes me from the days when I used to work for him.
The point is that nowadays the connection between customers and suppliers has become at best detached and at worst remote. As I say, now you would have a conversation with some remotely situated person who knows nothing about you or your circumstances, and probably cares less.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Yes—without interest. I agree with my right hon. Friend. I also agree about something else, which is that people do not realise that the really big global multinationals, for example Amazon, do not really make their profits on what they sell. They hold your data and that is what they really sell, subsequently. That is where they make their money and their profit. You derive no income from that data, but they make a lot of money off the back of it. To try to break that process down and make things more local, we have to start with what we have all been complicit in, which is the idea of getting something for nothing. It is not for nothing—there is a cost.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend, as ever, makes an apposite comment. The trading of data by big businesses has become a business in itself, in the way that he sets out. By contrast, we need firms to practise responsibility, not parrot slogans and virtue signal. They concentrate power and wealth with little regard to the community in which they sit, or even the country in which they are situated.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman. He is a friend to us all in this Chamber and we all love him because of the wisdom he brings to it. He is also a good friend to Northern Ireland. I say that because he will be very pleased when he hears about what we are doing in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland better regulation strategy requires Departments to undertake and publish a regulatory impact assessment when considering new policy proposals or amendments to existing policy that may impact on businesses and to carry out a microbusiness test to assess the impact on businesses of fewer than five employees. Does he not agree, understanding what we are doing in Northern Ireland, that with increased regulation must come increased co-operation to secure better business, which benefits us all—the very thing he is trying to achieve?
Sir John Hayes
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an apposite and worthy contribution to our considerations. I simply say this to the Minister. The Government have a lot of power in all kinds of ways. They certainly have the power to regulate the kinds of unfair practices I have begun to set out, but they also have power as a customer. Government procurement has never, under successive Governments, been used as well as it might be to support British businesses, and in particular British small businesses. My challenge to the Minister is to look at that again. Let us look at how the Government, as a huge customer of all kinds of businesses, can support small and medium-sized firms.
Decades of non-intervention, driven by the mistaken belief in the triumph of liberal economics, have resulted in extraordinary numbers of foreign takeovers of British firms. It is also a matter of who owns these corporate giants and overseas companies that own our critical national infrastructure. The Government recently approved the Vodafone-Three merger, and the latter company is owned by a Hong Kong-based conglomerate. I wonder how closely the Competition and Markets Authority looked into the owners and leadership of Three’s parent company, the CK group, and I wonder whether that group has ties with the Chinese state—perhaps the Minister can inform us tonight. This merger must not become yet another corporate bonanza for shareholders at the expense of our national interest and the common good.
I sought this debate in particular following a meeting with a constituent who was previously a Vodafone franchisee, along with others from across the country. I am mindful, Madam Deputy Speaker, of a legal case involving those Vodafone franchisees; I have taken advice from the Table Office and amended my speech heavily as a result. However, I do think it is important to set out some of the context, in the broad terms that I have described, which relates to the behaviour of large companies that adopt the franchise model.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my trade union membership. I wonder whether he shares my view that the merger between Vodafone and Three will have real consequences for both pricing for customers and job losses in Britain.
Sir John Hayes
That is certainly the risk. I think mergers more generally need to be looked at closely. It is why we have the Competition and Markets Authority, and why these things are indeed considered in the terms I have described.
More recently, of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will know—as a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I remain a member—the Government introduced other legislation in respect of security, large businesses, mergers and all kinds of similar and related matters. It is important to gauge the national interest in all kinds of ways when one considers business activity.
Sir John Hayes
However, I will say no more about that, as it would be digressing from my main theme, and I can see an eagerness to intervene—I give way to my neighbour.
Richard Tice
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He makes a powerful case about the differences between small businesses, entrepreneurs, franchisees and the big corporates. Does he share my concern that franchisees suffer the risk of what is essentially corporate bullying from the mega-companies—the likes, potentially, of Vodafone—and that they do not have any form of umbrella regulatory comfort? Entities such as the British Franchise Association may sound effective, but they are actually toothless in the face of such corporate bullying.
Sir John Hayes
I have worked closely with the hon. Gentleman—as ever, he and I are on the same page here. He is absolutely right that franchising can be used as a method to exaggerate the power of the business at the heart of the franchise and to weaken the position of franchisees. My assertion is that that is common and is particular in the case of Vodafone.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes
I will give way to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important Adjournment debate. Like him, I have met Vodafone franchisees in my constituency, particularly the Chester-Le-Street former franchise holder, whom I met again today. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting out the legal advice he has received on the ongoing case, and I will therefore be careful about what I say. I think there are major corporates that treat their franchisees very badly; they sign them up on one set of terms—one rate card—and then change the goalposts, and then, when people dissent and complain about that, they find their franchises withdrawn and lose their investment, after they have put a great deal into that corporate giant. I think this is a matter that will in the near future require ministerial attention. I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for bringing this to the House’s attention.
Sir John Hayes
I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I need not detain my right hon. Friend for long, but I very much supported the unions’ position on this, as I thought this was wrong at the time. Without straying into the issues of the bids, we should consider organisations such as CK from China. It now has links with and control over UK Power Networks, Northumbrian Water, Wales and West Utilities, and Eversholt Rail. The network it has now is intriguing, which is hugely around the power and communications networks. All of those are now falling into the hands of conglomerates that have nothing to do with the UK, but that are linked to Governments of a different country. This is the big problem we face: it is not that we do not like big businesses; it is just that so often now they operate from outside our legal empowerment.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in these matters, and that is precisely why I posed the earlier question to the Minister about how closely he and others had looked at that merger. I will say no more about it than that, but it does seem to me to be a legitimate question to ask: were those things considered in this particular case, and how are they generally considered? If my right hon. Friend is right that there are threats that result from this, under existing legislation and regulation it is perfectly possible for the Government to become involved in these kinds of commercial affairs.
Sir John Hayes
I will give way once more and then will make a little more progress.
Navendu Mishra
May I put on record that I did not use the term “right hon.” in my earlier intervention on the right hon. Gentleman and wish to correct that? Also, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a very important point about bigger businesses that operate outside the UK perhaps in some cases abusing their position. On a lighter note, may I encourage him to join a trade union? I would be happy to supply him with a membership form.
Sir John Hayes
I am again grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that there is a mood across the House tonight that more must be done. This Minister, as an experienced Member of the House, will have gathered that that mood could easily, from this small beginning, become a crescendo that might endanger the very safety of his office and the Government as a whole, so let us hope that this is the beginning of a journey, for both the Government and the Minister, towards a regime that counters the very things that have been described by Members across the House.
Sir John Hayes
Because I am a long-standing friend of the hon. Gentleman, I will certainly give way to him, but then I must make progress.
Matt Rodda
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who does the House a favour in his work tonight. I should first declare an interest, as I have a close relative who works for the Competition and Markets Authority. I do not wish to comment on competition and mergers, though I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to join me in supporting the Government’s work. I believe that Ministers are shortly to do some further work to offer greater support to small businesses in terms of opening up Government procurement and in other matters. Like the right hon. Gentleman, in my own constituency I am a keen supporter of small business, and my own small business competition has provided a great deal of recognition for businesses, whether local florists, those repairing small musical instruments, people providing other services, and indeed many other forms of small business. So I do want to commend the broad thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s work tonight, although I do not want to comment on the CMA.
Sir John Hayes
I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support.
During the pandemic, the UK Government introduced the business rates relief package, which allowed businesses with commercial leases to claim relief on their business rates. That was designed to help firms with physical stores compensate for lost footfall during the lockdowns, and it was an essential lifeline to those smaller businesses. This automatically applied to businesses through local councils. From 11 March 2020 to June 2021 the relief was 100% with no cash cap, and ratepayers with more than one property were entitled to relief for each eligible property.
Franchisees were eligible to receive this relief, and it would have been automatically applied to stores operated by companies such as Vodafone and not through the franchise programme. It is worth noting that some corporations that benefited from that scheme, such as Tesco—although I hold no candle for Tesco generally—have since returned the money to the Government. The question is how Vodafone used that money: did it achieve its original purpose—I would be interested to hear the Minister’s answer to that question—or was it redirected in some way that was out of tune with the Government’s intention and the proper purpose? It is worth noting that that was available not only to Vodafone, but to all those organisations that had franchises. I wonder how other organisations handled the matter and how that compares with the circumstances surrounding Vodafone.
The important thing to consider as we debate these matters is that the franchisees are small business owners with families—this was important to them. Business rates relief was of huge significance and made a meaningful difference to people, as intended by the Chancellor at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). The Government’s stated purpose for covid-19 business relief was to assist small businesses to carry on trading at a financially difficult time when profits in bricks and mortar shops were much reduced. The question is, was that the reality? The fact that the Government later introduced caps on the relief indicates that it was intended to help small businesses—those to whom £100,000 makes a great difference—not to subsidise large globalist corporations with hundreds of stores and access to other types of relief.
What is the Minister’s assessment of how that kind of funding was used during the covid pandemic? Too often, franchisees’ payments from those who franchise them are cut drastically and with little or no explanation. Contracts are often terminated with just a few days’ notice and stores repossessed with little notice, often without valid reasons for doing so, leaving debts and loans to be repaid with no income. Franchisees claim that they faced fines and clawbacks that were grossly disproportionate to the errors in question. In some cases, the errors that led to fines were the results of failures in major corporation systems, yet the financial burden was often unfairly placed on franchisees. Communications raising serious concerns, though made, were often unanswered and pressing issues were ignored for long periods of time, leaving franchisees without support or resolution to their problems.
Moreover, it has emerged that whistleblowers had warned a series of senior Vodafone executives that scores of its franchise store owners face financial ruin. What steps are the Government taking to regulate corporate businesses’ relationship with their franchisees? As I say, we are not speaking of powerful businesses with deep legal departments and balance sheets to absorb losses but ordinary people—mothers, fathers, sons and daughters—who saw an opportunity when they became a franchisee to build a meaningful business of their own under the banner of a global household name and to make a difference to their family, their community and the towns in which they are situated. People put their savings, their homes and their reputations on the line because they believe that a franchise agreement with a company such as Vodafone—there are others too—would be safe and secure.
Last month, the Competition and Markets Authority confirmed the merger of Vodafone and Three. Will the Minister confirm that the matter of the problems with franchisees were discussed ahead of that merger being approved? Indeed, more broadly, can such a merger really be said to benefit the British public, given that it is forecast to cost 1,600 UK jobs and that evidence from overseas shows that countries with fewer mobile phone operators tend to charge higher prices to consumers? Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to investigate allegations of inappropriate use of Government relief during the covid pandemic, specifically in relation to businesses with franchisees? Will the Minister confirm that all allegations of misappropriation of Government relief schemes intended for franchisees should be investigated as part of the inquiry into covid by the covid commissioner? Will the Minister urge banks to show leniency and support to those franchisees facing financial distress, and will he commit to looking afresh at the lack of enforceable regulations governing franchiser conduct?
A key lesson from the Post Office scandal is that we must not allow the sophisticated power of a corporate body, or the impression created by an impressive balance sheet, to persuade us to ignore the voices of less powerful individuals who speak out. Many franchisees have given up stable jobs. Some have taken out personal loans, and some have remortgaged their home. They train staff, open stores, serve customers, and are told by the big business that they are partners; but when the going gets rough, when the commission cuts come with little warning, when franchisees’ performance plummets due to decisions beyond their control, and when stores are repossessed with inadequate notice, they are left out on their own, high and dry. No lifeline, no dialogue—just silence from the corporations that they once trusted. I cannot believe that this Minister does not feel as I do about corporate malpractice—about greedy, soulless, heartless firms that act irresponsibly and hide behind the high wall of their substance.
Governments have a duty not only to promote entrepreneurship and business, but to protect entrepreneurs and ensure that businesses do not take unfair advantage of their staff. We must call time on the era of corporate giants using legal structures not as a framework for partnership, but as a shield for avoidance—for avoiding responsibility and decency.
Brands that trade on their reputation and public trust must be held accountable for the actions that they take that cause real harm. We must move away from a globalist, faceless corporate model that has enriched a few, and towards a different kind of economic order, in which we shorten supply lines, encourage small and medium-sized businesses, and understand that economics must serve a civil purpose. I call that fraternal economics —an economics in which community and economic activity are bound together in a common cause. We can build that kind of economic future, but it requires Government to know when to step forward to support business, and when to step back and not suffocate entrepreneurship. That future is within our grasp, but it will require this Government—perhaps any Government —to think afresh about the power balance between large, faceless businesses, and smaller entrepreneurs. They are ordinary people, like most of us, I guess, who simply want to get on and do the best for their family and their community. I know which side I am on. I am on the side of those people, because I know that they make so much difference in my constituency, and across the whole of our kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
In the usual way, I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate. Having crossed swords with him when our positions were reversed, I approached this debate with particular wariness, not least because he has assembled a very distinguished cross-party group of Members to participate in this debate.
We heard from not only the right hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). Each of them made important points. I very much agreed with the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about small and medium-sized businesses being the backbone of our communities. They are important; they are fundamental to the strength of each of our constituencies. The Government are determined to do much more to support our SMEs going forward. That is why, on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central, we will publish a strategy for supporting SMEs.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that we as a country should do more to celebrate our entrepreneurs and to champion their interests. They are brave; they are risk takers; they create wealth; and they make all our communities better and richer. We are determined to encourage more people to come forward as entrepreneurs, to take risks and succeed, and to grow businesses. We have already taken a number of measures to support SMEs. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade has already committed to establishing a business growth service inspired by the US Small Business Administration. That is why one of the outcomes of the spending review was a two-thirds increase in the capacity of the British Business Bank. The vast majority of that funding will go to help tackle the considerable challenges that SMEs face in accessing the right forms of financial support.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of access to public procurement for British SMEs. I am sympathetic about the need to open up public procurement to SMEs. Again, we will have more to say on that in the small business strategy, when it is published shortly. Cabinet Office colleagues are very much working in this space, too.
The right hon. Gentleman also rightly raised the matter of the difficulties that small and medium-sized businesses face when legal issues arise. Again, we will have more to say on that in the small business strategy shortly. Towards the end of his remarks, he made a powerful link to an appalling miscarriage of justice: the scandal of how the Post Office treated its sub-postmasters. There are many lessons to learn from that. I hope that he will take confidence from the Government’s determination to do that when he sees the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office, which we are seeking to bring forward. I am sure that the whole House appreciates the work that Sir Wyn Williams is doing to draw conclusions about what went wrong in the scandal, and about what more we need to do to learn the lessons and ensure that nothing like that ever happens again.
Sir John Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he is responding. There is a close parallel between the way the Post Office is constructed—its business arrangement, and the connection between independent post offices and the centre—and the matters that I described. Will he ensure that his small business strategy includes something on franchising? That is a really important part of getting right our approach to regulation on the relationship between smaller businesses and corporate giants.
Gareth Thomas
I have already given a flavour of what might be in the small business strategy. I will leave the right hon. Gentleman to wait a little longer, if I may—he will have to forgive me—before he sees the strategy in full.
Let me come to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. He rightly and understandably mentioned the experiences of a number of franchise operators who allege mistreatment and being badly let down by Vodafone during covid. No one in the Chamber will have failed to have been moved by those stories. I have read a number of them in correspondence from colleagues on both sides of the House.
There are, without question, serious allegations being levelled at Vodafone. As the right hon. Gentleman said, and as I am sure he will understand, I am unable to comment on ongoing legal disputes, but I will respond on behalf of the Government as best I can, given the ongoing nature of the case. Until now, there has not been sustained concern about the quality or effectiveness of the self-regulation of franchises in general. However, I recognise that this case has raised concerns across the House, and I will track very carefully what happens in this case, the final outcome, and the conclusion of any court case.
As hon. Members will no doubt be aware, franchising is growing in the UK, and it makes a big contribution to our economy, at just over £19 billion annually, according to the latest British Franchise Association survey. The franchising industry is covered by the same general protections in law as other businesses, and I will come on to some of those in a moment. In addition, the franchising industry also effectively self-regulates through the British Franchise Association, which has a code of ethics, and the Quality Franchise Association, which provides a code of conduct. On the whole, as the House will recognise, there are significant advantages to self-regulation: greater flexibility and responsiveness, and lower costs.
Luke Akehurst
Is the Minister aware—this is my understanding from the franchisees—that Vodafone left the BFA, and walked away from its self-regulatory framework and code of conduct?
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I will not comment on the particular circumstances of Vodafone and its relationship with franchisees in general, or those former franchisees who are bringing court action. However, I note his comment.
Navendu Mishra
I have worked with the Minister on a number of issues relating to his ministerial role, and he has always been helpful and proactive. As he is representing His Majesty’s Government, does he feel that there is a need to legislate on this issue, and that the code of conduct simply does not go far enough? Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) has just said, there might be cases of larger corporations opting in and out as and when it suits them.
Gareth Thomas
As I said, I recognise that this case has raised concerns across the House about the quality and effectiveness of the legislation that governs franchisees and, indeed, other businesses, and about the arrangements around franchisees, and their relationships. As I say, up to now, we have not had significant representations that the quality of regulation of franchises is not adequate. However, I recognise the concerns across the House that this case has brought up, and as a result, I will track very carefully how the court case unfolds.
I was noting the advantages that, on occasion, self-regulation brings. They include freedom when it comes to contracting. Individuals and businesses have the right to enter into agreements and set their own terms, free from unnecessary Government interference. That freedom allows franchise agreements to be tailored to individual needs. People can set up shop more easily on the high street or elsewhere with the power of a big brand behind them. On the whole, self-regulation also allows the franchise industry to set standards and guidelines based on deep, industry-specific expertise. It allows the industry to adapt more quickly to market changes, too.
It is my understanding that the franchise agreements are the main instruments governing the relationship between franchisors and franchisees. Those agreements normally cover key issues such as fees, territory rights, contract duration and dispute resolution mechanisms. The Government of course encourage anyone entering a business contract such as a franchise to seek independent legal advice before agreeing to the terms and conditions laid out in those agreements.
I have talked a little bit about self-regulation and its benefits, and I alluded earlier to the fact that there are existing protections in law that cover all businesses, including franchises. For example, under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, anyone who has entered into a contract as a result of misrepresentation may be able to rescind the contract and claim damages. Misrepresentation is a false statement by one party to another that induces that person to enter the contract. Ultimately, it would be for the courts to decide whether a misrepresentation had occurred and what the remedy would be. There are other forms of legislation, too, including the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which may apply to business-to-business contracts. That references the application of a reasonableness test, but that again is a matter for dedicated legal advice.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister is absolutely right, of course. Contract law is well established and business contracts are enforceable in the way that he sets out, but the problem with franchising is that it is a hierarchical relationship that creates a kind of dependency. The franchisee is dependent on the larger business, so there is an in-built advantage if that larger business is inclined to be permissive in the way that it applies the terms of the contract, or even varies its terms. The parallel I drew in my speech was with supermarkets and primary producers. The supermarkets have so much power that the primary producer is implicitly weakened in that commercial relationship.
Gareth Thomas
The right hon. Gentleman made a very interesting speech with a series of interesting analogies, and I have noted those and the points that he made. As I have said, I will track this particular court case and its conclusions. I always try to make myself available when hon. and right hon. Members want to discuss particular issues that are pertinent to my brief, and as things unfold, I make that offer to the right hon. Gentleman too.
I should stress again that only the courts can really decide on the application of contractual terms. It is absolutely right that affected businesses seek independent legal advice on the particular circumstances of their situation. As the right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware, legislation cannot prevent wrongdoing. It can deter and it can punish, but only after the event. It is important for companies, obviously, to conduct business fairly. We already have rules that encourage this, whether in relation to criminal offences of fraud, audit requirements or prompt payment reporting, which my Department has begun to strengthen and on which we will publish further proposals shortly.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that investors and the public expect and deserve access to truthful reporting from our most important businesses on their finances and related issues. This is critical for trust, and ultimately it is critical for economic growth. That is why, through the audit and corporate governance reform Bill, we are developing legislation to uphold standards and the independent scrutiny of companies’ accounts while ensuring real accountability for company directors.
Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 already requires company directors to frame regard in their decision making to a wide range of stakeholder interests. That includes the impact of the company’s operations on the wider community. It also requires directors to have regard to the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct. This requirement applies to a company’s business transactions, including the treatment of franchisees. Large companies must report annually on how their directors have complied with these requirements. Taken together, the section 172 duty helps to provide assurance that companies are run responsibly and that directors are mindful of the impact of their decision making beyond the company and its shareholders.
The right hon. Gentleman touched on the additional regulation of franchises and the wider franchise model. As he will know, this Government are dedicated to implementing an ambitious regulatory reform agenda. In March, we published our action plan for regulation, outlining changes to streamline rules and regulations to support growth. While that plan includes a clear commitment to cut regulatory administrative costs for business by 25%, it also includes a commitment to strengthening accountability for regulators. That includes simplifying their duties to ensure that the regulatory environment focuses on growth, investment and, crucially, transparency.
Our modern industrial strategy also includes an ambitious package of regulatory reforms that will support our growth-driving sectors and the wider economy, but as we stated at its launch, that is not the end of the journey; it is just the beginning. Where there are changes that we can make to increase the UK’s economic resilience and channel support to the most productive parts of our economy, we want to continue to work with Members across this House to implement them.
In conclusion, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have participated in the debate. Franchise regulation is a complex and difficult issue and, as I have said, this particular case has raised concerns across the House. As I promised, I will continue to look closely at how the case develops and ultimately what conclusions are reached. I am happy to continue conversations about this case and its implications outside the Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 338 / Noes: 79 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 168 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak about an issue of growing urgency: the need to ensure that those who profit from the sale of electrical products take financial responsibility for dealing with the waste that those products will eventually generate. Our planet is facing a mounting waste crisis, and electrical waste is no exception to that. It is the fastest-growing waste stream globally, and the UK is the second biggest generator of electrical waste in the world. We should just ask ourselves how many iPhones and BlackBerries we have hoarded in our drawers at home. Members are all nodding in silent agreement.
Many electricals, including those sold from the online retail and vaping industries, end up in our bins, landfilled, littering our streets and, too often, harming our natural environment. Vapes can also cause fires in our waste storage areas, which has huge costs for the recycling industry. This is simply not sustainable economically, environmentally or socially. For that reason, the Government are taking decisive action. We must not only curb the amount of waste ending up in landfill, but ensure that those who profit from the sale and supply of electricals are responsible for meeting their end-of-life costs.
The draft regulations address two key areas. I will start with vapes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and other similar products, which, for convenience, I will refer to simply as vapes. The Government have already banned the sale of single-use vapes, which was a vital first step in taking an environmentally harmful product off the market. They were banned from 1 June, so there should be no more Lost Marys littering the streets—it will just be me if I am ever invited to turn up and do a visit.
Our work does not end there. Rechargeable and refillable vapes will continue to be sold, and we need to ensure that their collection and treatment is properly and fairly funded. Producers of electricals, including vapes, are already required to finance the cost of their treatment when they become waste. However, today’s amazing fact is that vapes are currently classified as toys and leisure equipment, so, under the current regulations, producers of toys and other leisure goods could end up cross-subsidising the waste management cost of vapes. It is an amazing thought—because they were such a new invention, they were categorised as toys.
This simply cannot go on. The responsibility for dealing with vapes when they become waste must fall squarely on those who produce them. That is why I am so pleased to introduce the draft regulations, which will hold those producers directly accountable for the environmental impact of the vapes and similar products that they place on the UK market. When I visited Sweeep, a waste recycling processer in Kent, I saw for myself just how difficult, expensive and manually intensive it is to recycle these vapes. The costs must be shouldered by those who profit from their sale.
I will turn my attention to the second issue of the day: the sale of electricals via online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon from sellers based overseas. There is no doubt that we are now in an era of astonishing convenience. With just a few clicks on our phone, a product made on the other side of the world can be shipped to our doorstep the next day. That is the magic of online shopping. But most overseas sellers on these platforms are not meeting their financial obligations to fund the costs of dealing with their products when they become waste. That is wrong, not least because it is compliant, UK-based, often high street businesses that are picking up the costs for those overseas sellers who are freeloading under the existing regulations. That must stop.
These regs will require online marketplaces to cover the underlying costs associated with products sold by overseas sellers into the UK using their platforms. The time to act is now. Sales made through online marketplaces are skyrocketing, with electrical goods being no exception. An estimated half a million tonnes of electrical products are placed on the UK market via online marketplaces each year.
This instrument is about fairness for the UK high street. It is about supporting businesses doing the right thing, creating a regulatory level playing field, and ensuring that the right people pay their fair share of the waste management costs associated with their products. In doing so, we send a clear message: environmental responsibility is not optional; it is part of doing business in a modern circular economy.
Transitioning to a zero-waste economy is one of five priorities that my Department will deliver as part of a mission-led Government to rebuild Britain. Our circular economy strategy, coming later this year, will set out further plans to stem the rising tide of electronic waste. This Government are committed to putting the “polluter pays” principle into action; we are tackling the waste cowboys, and we are cleaning up Britain.
For those reasons, I commend the measure to the Committee.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee today. It is again encouraging to see that this Government have drawn upon our previous consultations to shape this statutory instrument; between December 2023 and March 2024, the previous Conservative Government held a consultation with the devolved nations on reforming the producer responsibility system for waste electricals.
I am pleased that the Minister talked about the disposable vapes ban as well, which was initiated by the previous Conservative Government. We very much welcome the fact that this Labour Government have taken that baton and taken it forward. The Minister mentioned the important environmental benefits of that legislation; there are also other significant benefits in terms of public health, specifically for our young people, who have really been targeted inappropriately around these disposable vapes. It will protect wildlife and domestic animals as well, as I have spoken about to the Minister and in the Chamber.
Turning back to the legislation we are talking about today, that previous consultation proposed creating a new category of electrical equipment for vapes, and 91% of respondents agreed with that policy change. I am pleased that these regulations will create that new category, and I hope that businesses producing electrical and electronic equipment in the toy and leisure sector—category 7 of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2013—will be happy to see that this will mean that they are no longer picking up the costs for those who produce e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products. Those products are considerably more costly to collect and recycle than toys and other leisure equipment, primarily due to the materials used in their construction and the need for specialised treatment to handle nicotine and other potentially toxic substances within the equipment. This statutory instrument will ensure that the financial obligation for those costs falls fairly on the producers of those devices.
The consultation also sought views on online marketplaces, and 87% of respondents agreed on that, highlighting that large volumes of electricals are being placed on the market via online marketplaces, which the Minister mentioned, and that there needs to be a level playing field between producers that sell electricals through different channels.
I am therefore pleased to say that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are very supportive of this instrument. It is not right that the entirety of the financial obligations falls upon producers who are properly registered under the 2013 regulations. It creates an unfair situation in which those who avoid the financial obligations are benefiting, and those who follow the rules are bearing the costs. This also has serious consequences for competition, and at a time when businesses are facing rising costs due to the Chancellor’s mismanagement of economy, it is another hammer blow to businesses. While we are offering no objections to the instrument, I hope the Minister can provide some assurances on how the relevant authorities, such as the Environment Agency in England, will ensure that online marketplaces are complying with their new obligations.
With regard to the new responsibilities on online marketplaces, the Government have confirmed that they expect there to be small contractual and familiarisation costs. Does the Minister have any concern that some online suppliers may withdraw their products from UK markets, reducing choice and availability for UK customers?
We will be supporting the regulations, and I am grateful that they were brought before the Committee.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations. The Liberal Democrats, too, think they are a good thing, and we will be supporting the instrument. It is nice to see the scourge of abandoning vapes—both disposable and non-disposable—in the community finally being tackled. Before I continue, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my continuing membership of Teignbridge district council.
I will ask a couple of questions. Although I would really like to see the extension of the extended producer responsibility, and the particularly important balancing of the online responsibility to bring online traders in line with high street shops, in the interests of fairness, can the Minister give me an assurance that money for the costs of the disposal of vapes will be passed on to those authorities that are doing it, such as district councils? Disposing of vapes in those areas has been of particular trouble for the local councils.
I was delighted to hear the Minister talk about environmental responsibility being a fundamental part of business. That is absolutely why I bring my private Member’s Bill forward on Friday, which looks to change the director’s duties to include balancing the interests of shareholders, employees and the environment. I would be delighted to discuss that with the Minister if it might help her in her mission. Without wishing to detain the Committee any further, the Liberal Democrats thoroughly approve of this instrument, and will be supporting it.
Mary Creagh
I will reply and set out next steps. After the regulations enter into force in 21 days—after I lay and sign them—online marketplaces not already registered with a producer compliance scheme must do so by 15 November 2025. All online marketplaces will be required to submit the methodology that they will use for determining the amount of electricals placed on the market via their platform by their overseas sellers, by 15 November—so this is with a producer compliance scheme. That is then reported up to the regulator, which is the Environment Agency.
That data submission is a new requirement, and will help us to better understand the volume of products sold into the UK by overseas sellers through online marketplaces. At the moment, it is a bit hard to say, and online marketplaces may be a little bit chary about sharing data in the interests of competition. So, I genuinely cannot say whether this is going to change behaviour. What I would say is that we are a large, vibrant market—and heavy users of online shopping—so I do not foresee an environment where this change means that overseas sellers withdraw from the market.
Online marketplaces will then be required to report this data on a quarterly basis, in line with the existing reporting obligations. That is of course subject to transitional provisions, which have been made, to reflect that the regulations enter into force partway through the year.
Online marketplaces will only be required to report this data for the period after the regulations enter into force through to December 2025, and they must do so by 31 January 2026. DEFRA will then set a national collection target for 2026 for each of the categories of electrical equipment. The regulators will then issue producer compliance schemes with a share of that target on a market share basis—we will know the exact quantum, the exact market share, and we will allocate the notes in that way. For online marketplaces, that will be based on the data they report from the date that the regulations enter into force until December 2025.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newton Abbot on the single-use vapes issue. They are pocket-money products at pocket-money prices, marketed in lipstick colours, with watermelon and strawberry flavours. These are not products aimed at people trying to give up smoking; we are very much aware of that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about local authorities, local authorities act as the regulator for the single-use vapes ban. They are responsible for enforcing those regulations, so if you see any on sale, Mr Stringer, in Manchester or anywhere else, you should report it to your local trading standards. We have given them £10 million of new burdens funding to recruit and train up an entire new generation of trading standards officers—a service that was hollowed out under the previous Government. That was very much welcomed by the national Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which I met last month. These are serious jobs—often, such vapes are sold under the counter, and there is other illicit activity happening that means that these officers often have to work with local police forces to do the job. I thank them for their enforcement role.
On the enforcement of the new regs, the WEEE regulations are enforced by the Environment Agency and its equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They will need to ensure that online marketplaces are registering with a producer compliance scheme in the UK, and that they are submitting data on the amount of electricals placed on the market via their platform by overseas sellers. Producers of vapes and other similar products will need to submit data on the amount of each product that they are placing on the market to the Environment Agency in the new category 7.1.
Finally, on the Friday Private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Newton Abbot, we do of course have the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, which I am sure he is aware of. Under the previous Government, that sort of incorporated the work of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures; but last week, at London Climate Action Week, we saw a recognition of UK leadership in this space in terms of bringing climate and nature on to the books of companies. The days of the old linear “make-take-use-destroy-restore”—regret it and restore it—are over. We have to get to a much more resilient circular economy where we make things that last and that we are proud to own, proud to keep and proud to pass on, and where we have resilient supply chains in an ever more turbulent world.
I hope that the draft regulations meet with the Committee’s approval.
Question put and agreed to.
Rare Cancers Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRare Cancers Bill 2024-26 View all Rare Cancers Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during Committee sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online as well as in the room. There will be a single debate on all the Bill’s clauses.
Clause 1
Review of law on marketing authorisations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I was happy with the unanimous cross-party support that the Bill received on Second Reading and look forward to examining it in detail today.
The term “rare cancer” might imply that this is a relatively niche issue that is unlikely to have an impact on many of us, but the reality is that 47% of cancers diagnosed in the UK fall within the “rare and less common” category, and they account for 55% of all cancer deaths. That second statistic is partly due to the survival rate—five out of six less survivable cancers are also rare cancers—but survivability is not just a function of the aggressiveness of the cancer. It also depends on the treatment options available, and for less survivable cancers the options are limited. They receive a mere fraction—roughly 16%—of the funding that more survivable cancers receive.
At this point, I should clarify that I have had some contact with a charity that represents younger people. It is the case that the Bill covers younger people and that all childhood cancers are rare.
The situation is unlikely to change without Government intervention. Markets encourage pharmaceutical companies to prioritise the highest return on investment. Inevitably, that favours the development of drugs with the largest potential patient pools. When a company does pursue taking a rare cancer drug to market, having to access a limited patient pool can make the creation of sufficiently robust studies and trials a struggle.
The Bill is an attempt to intervene on behalf of patients and their families, and to enable pharmaceutical companies and the Government to re-evaluate the strategies for funding, research and finding treatments. It has been drafted carefully in consultation with a wide range of cancer charities—I am pleased to see a few of them represented in the Public Gallery—and expert bodies. The Bill reflects the solutions that scientists, doctors and those with lived experience think are necessary.
In practical terms, by passing this legislation we can, first, remove the barriers to participation in potentially lifesaving clinical trials; secondly, drive investment in under-resourced yet vital drugs and treatments; and thirdly, enhance connectivity between various organisations and individuals working to find cures. That last one is an incredibly important point. I have attended many meetings of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden; we often we see that those connections are not being made, and we all lose as a result.
Clause 1 will enable regulations to be made that compel the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to conduct a review of the marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer, and to prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of that review. I have never been a great fan of the term orphan drugs, which refers to drugs for rare conditions. The clause provides that the review process will specifically consider the regulatory approaches adopted in other countries. That will help to avoid research and patients in this country losing out.
The clause sets a timeframe for the publication of the report, namely within three years of the Bill being passed. We consulted broadly on that three-year point. We obviously all want to see progress on this issue as quickly as possible, but we have to balance that against the need for the review to be authoritative and impactful. That is where the three-year duration comes from, but I recognise that some people want it to move faster. A review of best practice at international level should surface a variety of effective strategies that the Government could consider implementing to drive pharmaceutical industry investment into lifesaving research and treatments.
Clause 2 will enable regulations to be made that will encourage the Secretary of State to facilitate, or otherwise promote, research into rare cancers. The clause will specify that the Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements are in place that will, first, enable potential participants in clinical trials to be identified and contacted, and secondly, ensure that a person—to be known as the national speciality lead for rare cancers—is appointed to promote and facilitate research into rare cancers. That person will hold an advisory and facilitatory role, offering input on the design and planning of research, as well as building collaborative networks between key bodies and individuals. Appointing a specific individual to hold that role will provide a structure for greater accountability and a more strategic approach for the delivery of rare cancer research across different organisations.
Clause 3 will enable regulations to be made that will facilitate data sharing in the context of contacting and identifying potential participants in clinical trials that are focused on orphan medicinal products for the diagnosis, prevention and/or treatment of rare cancers. The clause does not authorise the processing of information that would contravene existing data protection legislation. The twin benefits to enhanced data sharing are a greater access to clinical trials for patients, which could be lifesaving, and more higher-quality trials taking place in the UK as a result of a larger potential participant population for researchers.
Clause 4 explains the territorial extent of the various clauses. Clauses 2 and 3 will extend to England and Wales only, while the remainder of the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Where the Bill does not extend to the entirety of the UK, we have been assured by the devolved Governments, which were consulted during the Bill’s formulation—I thank Department of Health and Social Care colleagues for that—that they will work alongside us to achieve the policy goals it outlines within the context of their unique legal landscapes. In that regard, I acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for South Antrim to ensure that Northern Ireland generally, and his constituents specifically, benefit from the Bill.
Clause 5 will provide for commencement, which will occur two months after the Bill is passed, and clause 6 provides the short title for the Bill.
I hope the Bill has real impact, because so many people in the charity sector and elsewhere are working so hard to raise often small amounts of money, which they hope will have a big impact. I hope the Bill amplifies their work and helps it to go further. I look forward to Committee members’ contributions to the discussion of this important Bill, and I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, which will have life-changing effects for many individuals across the entirety of the United Kingdom. I applaud him for it, because I know some of the driving reasons behind him doing that.
I have a couple of points to make about the Bill. I am fully supportive of it, but I note the geographical challenge it brings. The Northern Ireland Assembly passed a legislative consent motion for clause 1 on Monday, so we are already stepping into line for this legislation. Much of the relevant work was discussed in the Northern Ireland cancer strategy, which was published in 2022 when I was Minister of Health there. It looked at our specific challenges with regard to research and clinical trials. At that point, cancer charities highlighted that only 15% of cancer patients in Northern Ireland are offered the opportunity to take part in cancer trials, compared with 31% across the rest of the UK. I hope the Bill increases awareness among Northern Ireland patients and cancer sufferers, and their families, of what is out there and their ability to take part.
The other concern often raised by some of my Northern Ireland colleagues—you are aware of this, Mr Stuart—is the EU implications. I can state that novel treatments do not fall under the scope of the EU, so hopefully any medication, treatment or supply that comes forward will be equally accessible and applicable to the entirety of Northern Ireland. The only difficulty and challenge we have in progressing the Bill’s other provisions is the legislation that allows Northern Ireland to use secondary data for cancer registries. I am aware that the current Health Minister in Northern Ireland, who is my party colleague, has a one-clause Bill ready to move forward to rectify that.
I wanted to make that small contribution in support of the work done by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West in bringing forward the Bill. It has been a pleasure to serve on this Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West on bringing forward this very important piece of legislation. I declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after a number of children with rare conditions such as teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Wilms’ tumour and retinoblastoma, to name but a few.
One of the issues with rare cancers, which transposes to rare diseases in general, is that they are often diagnosed late, because people do not recognise that they have symptoms of a rare disease and their health professionals are not as familiar with them because they are rare. The presentation and diagnosis are then late and, as such, the treatment is more difficult. That is compounded further because there has been less research on those topics, so it is not clear what the best treatment for those conditions is. On top of that, the patient may have to travel very long distances to see a specialist who is familiar with the condition, adding both logistical difficulty and cost to that patient’s care.
Some steps are in place to try to improve the situation. The orphan drug regime gives market exclusivity for 10 years, and it provides for lower and refunded fees from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for the services it provides. Nevertheless, it can still be non-commercially advantageous to put money into developing a drug that is going to be used on no more than a handful of people, however beneficial it is for the individuals concerned.
I welcome the Bill, but wish to make a couple of points. First, in principle it is best that trials are first broached with the patient by a member of their healthcare team. Of course, a member of any given healthcare team—I speak as one myself—will never be aware of all the trials available to all patients at any one time. I welcome the Lord O’Shaughnessy review—commissioned by the last Government and accepted by the current one—which talks about getting a consensus on how best patients can be informed of trials. I wonder whether we should have a system in which patients opt out of not the trial itself but being asked about trials. At the outset, they could be asked, “Would you like to receive information on trials—yes or no?”, so that more people can be aware of how they can contribute. When people are diagnosed with something rare, they often want to contribute to helping others who will come after them.
Will the Minister tell us more about the national cancer plan, which was consulted on earlier this year? I welcome the fact that the children and young people cancer taskforce, which was paused, is being reinstituted. Also, how will the Bill apply to repurposed drugs? Sometimes new medicines are developed for a particular condition, but we often find that medicines can be reformulated and used in a different way to provide a different form of treatment to help individuals with a different condition. How will that apply in respect of both the measures in the Bill and the O’Shaughnessy review?
As a paediatrician, I am very pleased that the Bill applies to children. Overall, I think the Bill is great. It offers hope for many in the future. Will the Minister say something about other rare conditions? As well as rare cancers, people get other rare conditions, and they are affected by the same challenges with research and treatment, and by delays in diagnosis and travel.
Overall, doctors are able to save people’s lives, and improve people’s lives, one at a time, but Parliament and research offer the opportunity to do that on a much bigger scale. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West for what he is doing today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West on his Bill reaching Committee stage. That is a huge achievement for any colleague, but especially for one who has served in this place for almost exactly a year to the day. The Government welcome contributions from Back Benchers, we welcome effective scrutiny from Committees, and we value the vital role that Parliament plays in holding us to account.
In April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that clinical trials would be fast-tracked to accelerate the development of the medicines and therapies of the future. Through this new drive, patients will have improved access to new treatments and technologies. We see the Bill as contributing to that ambition. We want to go further for patients with rare cancers, and this legislation will act to incentivise recruitment, oversight and accessibility of rare cancer research, so that NHS patients are at the front of the queue for cutting-edge treatments.
Clause 1 will ensure our regulatory competitiveness. It places a duty on the Government to publish a review of the legislation around orphan drugs within three years of the Bill becoming an Act. The review will examine our legal framework and compare our approach to that of our international partners. We want the UK to lead the world in this space, as the prime destination for clinical research.
Clause 2 will raise the profile of research for rare cancers by placing a new duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to facilitate and otherwise promote research in this area. The Government want to give patients greater choice and control over their healthcare, and rare cancer patients should have access to research if they choose.
The clause also ensures that the Government will develop a bespoke registry service for rare cancers, to be delivered through the “Be Part of Research” programme—our groundbreaking research registry service provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research—and that we will appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers, which we will designate within the NIHR research delivery network, who will have oversight of the overall rare cancer studies portfolio in England.
The Government are committed to going further for rare cancer patients, and that means making clinical trials more accessible. Clause 3 will introduce an innovative solution to allow rare cancer patients to be contacted as quickly as possible about clinical research. The clause creates a new power to allow patient data to be shared from NHS England information systems.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that keeping a list of people with rare cancers is only any use as long as there are some drug trials? Last night we launched a first trial, in my sister’s memory, for glioblastoma, with every penny raised by people donating, holding bake sales and running marathons. Is that any way to tackle rare cancer?
Ashley Dalton
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the launch of the trial in her sister’s name. We do want to see more research and trials coming forward, particularly for rare cancers. She will be aware of the consortium that the Department has developed to work directly with the brain tumour community in particular, to improve the quality and number of research trials that come forward for funding.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Constituencies in Yorkshire, such as the one I represent, do particularly poorly with research funding—I think 5% of research funding for cancer trials goes to the area. With this Bill and a renewed focus on cancer, I hope we will look to expand the number of research-active hospitals to give people throughout the country a better chance.
Ashley Dalton
I should clarify that there is no regional specificity in the allocation of research funding. We welcome all funding bids for research on cancer and rare cancers from anywhere in the country, and I encourage them to come forward.
The new power in clause 3 to allow patient data from NHS England information systems to be shared will allow more patients to be contacted about existing trials. Practically, it will allow us to join up data from the national disease registration service with “Be Part of Research”. As I have said, we are encouraging people to bring forward more research proposals, all of which are considered.
For the first time, patients with a rare cancer could be automatically contacted about research opportunities that are relevant to them and offered innovative new treatments, which means rare cancer patients could have access to research at their fingertips. That is the kind of change that the Government support as part of the shift we are making from analogue to digital—one of the three shifts that will be covered in the 10-year plan that will be launched tomorrow, when more details will become clear.
Clause 4 covers the Bill’s territorial extent. Due to practical and legal differences between the nations, the devolved Governments did not wish to legislate in their individual countries. Our manifesto promised to reset our relationship with the devolved Governments, and we have developed the Bill with them. I am delighted that they expressed their support on Second Reading. Clauses 5 and 6 cover the Bill’s commencement and title. The Government are fully committed to supporting the Bill through the next stages so it can become the Rare Cancers Act 2025.
The shadow Minister talked about the national cancer plan, which I can confirm is being worked on. We have had over 11,000 representations on that plan, which will be published later this year, following the publication of the national 10-year plan for health tomorrow. The children and young people cancer taskforce was launched earlier this year and continues to meet, and has now ensured that young people and children’s voices are part of the taskforce.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
When the national cancer strategy is published, I hope that part of it will focus on boosting the survival rates for rare cancers. Will the Minister confirm that that will be an important part of the strategy?
Ashley Dalton
I can confirm that the overall objective of the whole cancer plan will be saving lives and reducing the number of lives lost to cancer, including rare cancers. The plan will be published later this year.
It is important to note that the Bill is specific to cancer; there will be opportunities to discuss other rare conditions in the future. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for presenting the Bill, and I pay tribute to the charities that are backing him, some of which I had the pleasure to meet recently to discuss further how the Government can better support people with rare cancers. Together, we will improve outcomes for people across our country, and I look forward to working with everybody to get that done.
Dr Arthur
I am grateful for all the contributions to debate. The charity partners carefully picked the Committee members, given their interest in this subject, and we can see the benefit of that.
I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim for his efforts to make sure that the legislation works in Northern Ireland. I am also grateful for the comments from the hon. Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, who both asked for more progress in this area generally.
Of course, I have to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden. I attended the reception yesterday evening and, first and foremost, it was a fantastic celebration of her sister’s fantastic life. We should be grateful for her. I wish Paul Mulholland and his team all the best with that trial. It really did fill me with hope to hear that update from him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned marathons, so at this point I have to mention my daughter, Ruth Arthur, who ran the marathon in Edinburgh for the Brain Tumour Charity and raised just over £3,000 in the memory of her grandfather. I am very proud of her.
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments and the insight and depth of thinking she brought to the debate. One of the best things about this journey has been working with the DHSC team who are working on the cancer strategy, and seeing how much they care about getting this right. We have often reflected on the point that the shadow Minister made about diagnosis. Too often when we go to events in this place hosted by charities that include somebody with life experience, late diagnosis is where their story starts. It is often avoidable. It is fantastic that the DHSC cancer team acknowledge that. Hopefully our GPs in particular will get more support to make sure that the early signs are not missed and the dots are joined together. It is good to see the Minister nodding vigorously as I say that. I thank her for her leadership right across this policy area and for her support for the Bill in particular.
I thank all Committee members for coming along today and contributing, and I thank the civil servants who helped to draft the Bill. If it passes—and I really hope it does—it will incentivise and create an environment in which more research into rare cancers is fostered, potentially helping us to save, in the longer term, perhaps thousands of lives. What an aspiration that is. I once again commend the Bill to the Committee.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesSecure 16 to 19 Academies Bill 2024-26 View all Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. If you wish to speak today, I encourage you to bob to catch my eye, like you would in the Chamber. My selection and groupings for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled. We will have a single debate on both clauses.
Clause 1
Secure 16 to 19 Academies (funding, impact and consultation)
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Secure schools are a new form of custody for children and young people. Secure 16 to 19 academies have already been established in legislation, with the first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, opening in Kent last year. The Bill will make further amendments to the Academies Act 2010 for the purpose of providing different requirements for securing 16 to 19 academies.
In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his review of the youth justice system. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit offences serious enough to warrant detaining them in custody. His proposal was to create a new type of custodial environment focused on the delivery of education and offering children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their eventual release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. The need to transform the environment in which we detain and provide care for those children is as necessary now as it was then.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16 to 19 academies under the Academies Act 2010, and secure children’s homes under the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. As work has continued, and the first secure school, Oasis Restore, is now open, the Bill is needed to make further amendments to the 2010 Act in relation to secure 16 to 19 academies. The proposed changes cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure school, should there be a need to end a funding agreement for a secure school into which they have entered. The Bill will also amend the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. The changes will provide far better and more integrated services. With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses.
Clause 1 contains three main measures. First, the Bill will amend section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 to reduce the minimum notice period of funding under a funding agreement from seven to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. A two-year termination period will enable Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility, should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Reducing it to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which Government would be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary, while ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment.
Secondly, the Bill will disapply section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies. That will remove the requirement that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area for secure 16 to 19 academies. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies, in order to ensure they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different, as secure schools do not compete with other schools. As such, we do not expect them to have an impact on the viability of other local mainstream schools. The Bill would therefore disapply that duty for this particular type of school, to help any future secure schools open with minimal delay.
Thirdly, the Bill will amend section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires that an academy provider consult appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. I recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. Clause 1 will amend section 10 to require that the provider consults appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners, such as elected representatives or health and education services.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Does my hon. Friend agree that this part of the Bill will help to ensure that these institutions are better integrated with local services? I am thinking particularly about my hon. Friend’s opening remarks about the importance of ensuring that the young people who go to these institutions are better integrated into the community once they leave.
Emma Foody
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that the success of these schools is absolutely dependent on them being properly integrated with local services, as he rightly says.
Clause 2 establishes that the Bill will extend to England and Wales, but it will apply only to England, given that the academy system has not been adopted in Wales. Clause 2 also establishes that the Bill’s provisions will come into force two months after the day on which it receives Royal Assent and is passed. Finally, clause 2 establishes that, once in force, the Bill may be referenced as the “Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2025”. I commend clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill, which replicates, in many ways, the provisions of a similar Bill that was introduced before the election and taken through the House of Commons stages by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson).
As the hon. Lady says, secure 16-to-19 academies are fundamentally different to other schools, so it is appropriate that different requirements apply to them. This is a sensible Bill that modifies part of the framework around academies and disapplies some requirements that are simply not relevant to secure 16-to-19 academies. Therefore, as the official Opposition, we are very happy to support the Bill and look forward to it progressing.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill.
By reducing the funding termination agreement period from seven years to two, the Bill aims to make secure 16-to-19 academies more cost effective and adaptable, giving the Government greater flexibility to close underperforming academies or repurpose them without being locked in for such a long period. These measures are welcome, not least because of the opportunity that they offer to reinvest into community-based youth services.
The Liberal Democrats believe that any freed-up funds should be directed towards making youth diversion a statutory duty, ensuring that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. We believe that that would deliver better outcomes for young people and reduce pressure on police and courts.
According to the evidence, high-quality youth work has consistently been shown to help vulnerable young people escape the grip of criminal gangs. However, as we all know, youth services have suffered repeated cuts over many years, robbing young people of that support and contributing to antisocial behaviour and rising violent crime. By reinvesting savings into early intervention and support, fewer young people will fall into offending cycles, meaning fewer arrests, fewer custodial sentences and, ultimately, less need for these academies. We believe that the real long-term savings lie in prevention, rather than detention.
That all being said, the Bill represents the opportunity to create a virtuous circle, a funding opportunity, and an opportunity to build safer communities, and the Liberal Democrats support it.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a please to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill. I have only one question for the Minister to answer in his summing up. On reducing the notice given to providers from seven to two years, I agree with the characterisation. In respect of the existing contract, however, has that had to be renegotiated— from the service provider’s point of view, obviously the Bill represents a significant change in the terms of the contract—and has that renegotiation cost the taxpayer any money?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
I thank the hon. Members who have contributed so far. On the issues just raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, they are for the Bill as it makes progress. Assuming that it does progress, however, I am happy to write to him with an answer to those points, as they are pertinent.
I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I add my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for promoting the Bill. I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrats spokesmen for the pertinent remarks that they have made, which are helpful.
A sad reality is that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty to protect the public. In line with our safer streets mission, the Government’s responsibility is to ensure that children who find themselves in the youth justice system receive the support that they need to turn their lives around.
Secure 16-to-19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are detained after having been sentenced or remanded to custody by the courts. Secure schools allow children to gain skills and qualifications that will help them to turn their backs on crime for good and, crucially, to protect the public from their reoffending in the future.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
We have had Borstals and approved schools, neither of which were particularly successful at reforming those who were in custody in them. Is the Minister confident that this new architecture, this new arrangement, will be more successful?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, and we are at the start of a new venture. The former chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor, was enthusiastic about this line of development. The previous Government, to their credit, over a period of time developed the first 16-to-19 academy, which is now established in legislation. The first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, opened in Kent last autumn. I was pleased to visit the secure school in September last year to see it for myself. The school is not yet where we or Oasis aspire for it to be, but I am encouraged by the commitment and passion of those involved. We need to ensure that it works as described in the appropriate challenge of hon. Members.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The provision of 16 to 19 secure schools to ensure that young people have an opportunity to develop skills to prevent reoffending is absolutely something I welcome. Given that, however, I should declare my interest: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth-form education. Given that 16 to 19 education now includes a lot of off-site learning for young people—such as through T-level placements or BTEC provision—can the Minister say how young people in a secure setting will be able to access the same educational opportunities as their equivalents in mainstream education?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that he chairs the APPG for sixth-form colleges, a group I previously chaired, relating back to my time leading a sixth-form college before I came to this place.
I had a roundtable with external providers on how to challenge our system in youth-offending institutions. The Oasis Restore school was represented, as was the Oakhill secure training centre. It is important that we ensure that the best practice available outside our youth custody estate is levered into what we do, so that we can get the very best for the young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is right to press me and the Government on that point.
The Bill is necessary to ensure that specific provisions in the Academies Act 2010 are tailored to reflect the unique nature and needs of secure schools. The Government support the Bill on the basis that those amendments will provide for better and more integrated services. The Bill will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and to have more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider.
We also have the opportunity to remove any unnecessary administrative burden and to help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. Engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection process for new custodial sites. The Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process on how the secure school should work with local partners.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to all those Members who have contributed to the debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for her promotion of this important Bill. I confirm the Government’s continued support.
Emma Foody
I thank the Minister for those remarks and for the support of the Government. Similarly, I thank Members from across the House for their constructive remarks and for their support of the Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank all the Clerks and officials who have helped in the preparation and progress of the Bill. I thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing this sitting.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCourts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2024-26 View all Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during Committee sittings except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. With the heat in this room, it would be in order if anyone wants to remove their jacket. The selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled, and we will have a single debate on both clauses.
Clause 1
Amendments to legislation about court hearings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I propose to deal with clauses 1 and 2 together, as you set out. This modest but important Bill amends current legislation to enable defendants and debtors in specific types of cases heard in the magistrates court or county or family courts to be able to appear before the court remotely via live audio or video link. The use of remote video and audio links is common and already used in civil, family and criminal jurisdictions, delivering significant benefits through swifter access to justice and by utilising the court estate efficiently, particularly at a time of backlogs.
As a result of the Bill, two categories of case will be able to be heard remotely. That means that those in breach of some injunctions and orders in the county and family courts, as well as persistent defaulters on orders to pay council tax, will now be able to appear remotely. That ability to appear remotely is especially important, because in many cases, defendants must be physically brought before the courts within 24 hours of their arrest for breach of these civil injunctions. Sometimes, that is not possible. Defendants may be arrested out of hours and court facilities may be some distance away, all while the clock, as set out in the current legislation, is running down. The Bill addresses those points. People who are arrested for those breaches will now be able to appear remotely, as will those who are defaulters of orders to pay their council tax.
But remote does not mean less access to justice. The courts recognise that a remote hearing is no less capable, in principle, of being fair than a hearing at which all parties are physically present. That has been affirmed by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s evaluation of remote hearings during the covid-19 pandemic.
Importantly, the Bill does not mandate remote hearings. It enables a defendant or debtor to attend a court in person or by live video or audio link at judicial discretion. Once a person is before the court, the ultimate determination of whether to have a remote hearing will be by the judge, who will make their own ruling, having heard from all the parties and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case.
With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses. Clause 1(1) sets out the required legislative changes for an amendment to section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996 in relation to arrest for breach of order. It inserts proposed new subsection (13), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(2) amends section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (7), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or live video link.
Clause 1(3) amends section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (8), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(4) amends paragraph 8(1A) of schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in relation to enforcement in England and Wales. It inserts new sub-paragraph (b), which provides that the debtor, subject to an application under paragraph 8(1A), may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link.
Clause 1 sets out the necessary changes to legislation so that a defendant or a debtor in certain circumstances can appear before a court via live link. These changes ensure that individuals who are arrested for breach of certain family or county court injunctions and orders, as well as persistent failures to pay council tax, can appear before the court in a timely and efficient manner using remote links.
At its core, the Bill enhances public safety, ensuring that dangerous individuals, in the case of breaches of injunctions, such as gang injunctions, are not released for want of finding a court or judiciary out of court hours. The use of remote links in court proceedings is relatively common and has delivered significant benefits already. This provision will provide greater flexibility, at judicial discretion, where it is appropriate. As I said, it does not mandate that remote links must be used. Access to justice is not curtailed by this Bill. The defendant or debtor will be able to make representations to the judge, and the existing safeguards of access to legal representatives remain.
Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 2 provide that the Bill extends to England and Wales; that it will come into force at the end of the period of two months following Royal Assent; and that it may be cited as the Courts (Remote Hearings) Act 2025 once in force. There is nothing controversial about these arrangements. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I will not detain the Committee long because it is stiflingly hot in here, but I want to add that I wholeheartedly support the hon. Member for Burnley in introducing this Bill.
The Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill extends the ability to be brought before the court remotely in two instances where individuals have been arrested and detained in police custody. The first is for defendants who are in breach of the terms of certain orders or injunctions of the court. The second is for failure to pay council tax. While those hearings could be conducted remotely from a custody suite at a police station on arrest, at present, the relevant legislation requires that they must be heard in person. Once a person is before the court, it will be at the judge’s discretion to decide whether to hold a remote hearing upon considering the representation of all the parties. To be clear, in-person hearings will still take place if that is necessary.
Hon. Members will be reassured that despite these new powers, the number of hearings in either type of case is not expected to rise. These changes will give magistrates and judges in county and family courts greater flexibility and efficiency. The changes will also mean that potentially violent individuals, such as those arrested for breaches of injunctions to protect victims of domestic abuse, can be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Current arrangements mean that those defendants must be produced physically in court within 24 hours of arrest. A lack of court premises or judicial capacity, for example, over the weekend, will result in their release back into the general population.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for bringing forward this important Bill and I confirm the Government’s continuing support for it. It is a modest but perhaps mighty Bill, and it provides for remote attendance before the court only when necessary. It adds to the flexibility of the ways that courts operate without compromising any of the safeguards of our justice system, and it has our wholehearted backing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
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
Spending Review 2025: Scotland
(1 day, 14 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
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the Spending Review 2025 on Scotland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. On behalf of the Scottish contingent, I would like to thank the weather for finally breaking slightly, so that we can enjoy these much more suitable conditions—something else delivered by a Labour Government.
It is a privilege to discuss today the implications of the recent UK Government spending review for Scotland—a review that marks a pivotal moment for our country, offering both opportunities and challenges that we must confront with clarity and resolve. Let me begin by acknowledging some of the significant investments that were announced in the spending review and associated announcements. The allocation of £25 million for the Forth green freeport, which includes Rosyth in my constituency, is a welcome development and an investment that has the potential to transform the local economy, create jobs and position Scotland at the forefront of green innovation. I commend the Government for recognising the strategic importance of that initiative. In addition, the provision of £234 million in local funds to bring investment to communities across Scotland is a vital step forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all he does in this place; he is making an excellent name for himself when it comes to working for his constituents. Although the new growth fund that will invest in deprived communities across the United Kingdom is welcome, the Scottish funding from it will be the same overall level in cash terms as under the UK shared prosperity fund for 2025-26. There are regions and locations in Scotland and Northern Ireland that have been historically underfunded, and therefore equality of spending will not bring about equality of outcome. Does he agree that the Minister, who is an honourable lady, must look at this and ensure that the Government’s goal is equality of outcome? It must be the same for everybody.
Graeme Downie
I think the Government are already moving towards a focus on outcomes for budgeting, and I would like to see more of that.
As my constituency contains a large number of former coalfields, I have been working closely with colleagues on the replacement of the shared prosperity fund and how we can ensure that it delivers skills and investment for young people and opportunities in all parts of the United Kingdom. I can assure the Minister that I will be working with local stakeholders in Dunfermline and Dollar to ensure that our area secures a fair share of the funding that has been allocated for the many great projects that stand to deliver real benefits to my constituents.
Over the next three years, this Labour Government will provide the Scottish Government with an additional £9.1 billion for Scottish public services. That is the largest settlement in real terms since devolution began, and a historic opportunity for the Scottish Government to invest in the NHS, police, housing and schools—services that are the bedrock of our society, yet are the root cause of much of the correspondence I receive from constituents who are being failed by the current Scottish Government in Holyrood.
One year on from a housing emergency being declared, house building is down in Scotland, and 10,000 children remain in temporary accommodation, with no home to call their own. Indeed, as a former Fife councillor, I know that Fife council is still in the unenviable position of knowing that it breaks the law every single day when it comes to housing, because of the salami-slicing of local government budgets by the Scottish Government. That the SNP Scottish Government knowingly preside over such a situation is unfathomable, having taken their eye off multiple balls during their disastrous time in power.
I must also express my concern that, no matter how much funding is made available, the Government in Holyrood continue to fall back on a familiar pattern of whingeing and wasting. We have seen this time and again, from the mismanagement of ferry contracts to the establishment of overseas embassies that serve little practical purpose beyond a vanity project and a residence for the Minister to have a very nice time on holidays funded by the public purse.
This morning I looked over the caseload in my office, and a third of cases received are from people with problems relating to devolved policy areas. So fed up are the people of Dunfermline and Dollar by the myriad failures of the SNP that they know the best place to come for help is Scottish Labour MPs and a UK Labour Government. This morning, we learned that more Scottish public money will be spent on defending the former chief executive of the SNP in a court case about a caravan found in my constituency.
In England, the UK Labour Government have recruited more than 1,500 GPs since 1 October thanks to Government action and the digitisation of the health service in England progressing more quickly. Meanwhile, in this place I have had to raise issues including access for little boys to timely medical help for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a lack of local dentists, and care and support for those with Parkinson’s. I am also aware of the case of Vicki Tocher, a constituent of mine who has been battling for almost a year to get her eight-year-old son, Issac, in front of doctors after he suffered a traumatic brain injury while at school.
In Scotland we see delays to national treatment centres. One in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list, there are 50,000 fewer operations than before the pandemic, and a record number have been forced to turn to private healthcare. In February, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine said that the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours in A&E in Scotland is 99 times higher than it was 14 years ago.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Scottish Conservatives have suggested that we should be prioritising Scottish-based students for medical places at university, because they are much more likely to stay in the UK and therefore contribute to our workforce. Would the hon. Gentleman support that to help the backlog and health services in Scotland?
Graeme Downie
We have actually seen announcements from the UK Health Secretary about prioritising UK students.
In my constituency, a new GP surgery in Kincardine has been promised for well over a decade, but is still awaiting Government funding. That village in the west of my constituency is growing, and its current GP surgery, which is little more than a cottage that used to be a police station, has been there for more than 120 years.
On digitisation, there has been better news in Scotland in the past couple of weeks. The NHS Scotland digital app will launch later this year; however, it will work only in dermatology and one NHS board. I am sure I could make jokes about rash decisions and the SNP getting under people’s skin, but these critical issues are having a real impact across the country. There is a real risk that as football clubs across Scotland begin pre-season training, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care might stop visiting hospitals and go back to last season’s failed tactics of being driven to the pub and between football grounds.
The spending review, driven by the UK Labour Government, rightly puts faith in our young people and the future. It includes investment in AI and the nuclear and defence sectors, alongside £1.2 billion for training and apprenticeships, designed to equip the next generation with skills and give them the opportunities they deserve. Yet in my constituency, Fife college has warned of cuts to courses and campus closures due to the mismanagement of the Scottish budget by the SNP. That is a betrayal of our young people’s potential, and takes money away from the working class kids of Fife to prop up its own failures in higher and further education elsewhere in the country.
While the UK Labour Government are investing in regional transport across England, in Scotland rail fares have increased three times since March 2024 and we have lost 1,400 bus routes since the SNP came to power—something my constituents feel strongly and keenly because of the rural nature of the constituency, including Dollar, Muckhart and the west Fife villages. That is not progress but regression, and is particularly challenging for the rural parts of my constituency.
Moreover, the ideological objection in Scotland to nuclear power and the refusal to embrace new small modular reactors will cost Scotland dearly. We are losing out on jobs, investment and the opportunity to secure our energy future. That is not just short-sighted but a dereliction of duty.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will tailor his critique of the SNP Government to the spending review. I appreciate the thrust of his remarks, but he will understand my advice.
Graeme Downie
Thank you, Sir John. I will of course take that on board. You will glad to hear what I am coming to next.
Economically, however, we have seen the SNP’s failure to take responsibility for the Scottish economy, as confirmed by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. That has cost the country about £1 billion and left it unable to keep pace with UK economic growth. Yet all we hear, after 19 years in power, is that it is someone else’s fault. We have also seen the proposed closure of Alexander Dennis in Larbert and Camelon, with the potential loss of 400 jobs. The chief executive stated:
“the Scottish Government has little regard for domestic bus manufacturing jobs in Scotland”.
I now turn to the actions that I believe the UK Government can take, following the spending review, to support economic growth and other aspects in Scotland. As an island nation, we depend on maritime and aviation infrastructure. There are promising opportunities in Fife for the development of sustainable aviation fuels and their maritime equivalent. Those sectors were a priority in the spending review, so money was set aside to support them, and legislation on this matter is currently passing through the House. I urge the Government to support investment in those key sectors.
The spending review also stated that aviation infrastructure must be improved. One practical step that we can take is to finalise a US visa pre-agreement clearance at Edinburgh airport, where I understand there have been negotiations between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the US State Department. Will the Minister prioritise that issue and do everything she can to make it a reality?
While on the subject of transport I must raise again the matter of a direct passenger ferry route between Rosyth and Dunkirk. Despite the genuine best efforts of my SNP predecessor, who worked incredibly hard on this issue, progress has been stymied by legal complications regarding border control posts. However, it is estimated that such a route could carry 79,000 passengers annually and bring an additional £11.5 million to the Scottish economy, and on the freight side remove 8.2 million km of freight traffic from UK roads, significantly reducing carbon emissions.
To meet the target of launching the service by spring 2026, we must resolve the legal issues swiftly. There are strong indications that the Scottish Government can act in the short term, but I think there is genuine legal confusion. I have written to the Secretary of State just this week to ask if he will work with Scottish Ministers on a legal assurance letter that would guarantee the issue will be investigated in time to solve the problem for 2026. Will the Minister pursue that with the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency?
Finally, I turn to defence. The spending review confirmed that defence spending will rise to 2.6% of GDP from 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament. We have seen announcements this week around the NATO summit that defence spending will rise even more, which I fully support. This aligns with the strategic defence review and underscores the Government’s commitment to national security.
Scotland viewed on a globe rather than a flat map is a frontline nation in defence of NATO’s northern flank. From the high north, Russian ships and submarines pose a threat to NATO merchant shipping and critical underwater cables in the Atlantic. Both the strategic defence review and the spending review rightly highlight the need to strengthen NATO’s deterrence in northern Europe and the high north. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has also emphasised the importance of an expanded role for NATO in that region.
It is a source of great pride for me that Scotland’s highly skilled defence workforce is at the forefront of meeting the UK’s defence needs, including building and launching new Type 31 frigates from Rosyth in my constituency. The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), has confirmed the importance of export orders for this ship. Can the Minister to assist me in any way possible to support the workforce and secure orders for both export and the Royal Navy of this versatile ship?
Thankfully, defence is mainly reserved to Westminster. However, the total failure of the Scottish Government on devolved matters such as skills and infrastructure has directly impacted the defence sector, our armed forces and the ability of the spending review to meet its goals, along with the strategic defence review. We have the farcical position that senior people in the SNP say that it is party policy that public money should not be spent on military equipment, denying young people the chance to become welders—a skill much sought after across a range of sectors. Even more ridiculously, the SNP has responded to a request for medical aid from Ukraine by dictating that aid could not be used on military casualties—a preposterous view that is utterly detached from reality. Millions of pounds are wasted on embassies, but the SNP cannot even handle a simple request from an ally.
The spending review has unlocked the start of long-term plans in other Departments, which can also support the wider defence industry in Scotland, securing jobs and investment. This week, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade spoke about the prospect of a defence growth fund in Scotland. What discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues about that fund? How is she ensuring that it will include a broad partnership in Scotland, including in areas such as skills, so that young people in my constituency can benefit from the necessary increase in defence spending?
The UK Government’s spending review offers Scotland a path forward—one of investment, opportunity and renewal. To realise this potential, we must first confront the failures of the SNP Government and demand better for our constituents. We must ensure that every pound allocated is spent wisely, that every opportunity is seized and that every Scot has the opportunity to thrive in future.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on a thorough and well thought-out speech.
Before I go any further, I should state my credentials as a devolutionist. My name is on the claim of right for Scotland, signed all those years ago in Edinburgh. I was a founding member of the Scottish Parliament and served on the Scottish Constitutional Convention before that. I believe in devolution and had the honour to serve as a Member of the Scottish Parliament for much of my present constituency for some 12 years. Looking back on those days—my goodness me—what would we have done with £9.1 billion? It would have been an absolute godsend.
What my constituents have great trouble understanding is how the money seems to go in one end of the pipe but not come out the other. I have probably bored this place endlessly about maternity services in the far north of Scotland but, for old times’ sake, I am going to do it again. We used to enjoy a consultant-led maternity service based in Wick, in Caithness, and mums could give birth locally. It was then proposed, during my time in the Scottish Parliament, that that would be taken away and done from Inverness. We saw that one off, however; the then Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive changed their mind and left the service local.
As everyone knows, because I have said it so many times, more recently that change has come to pass and we no longer have a maternity service based in Caithness, in the north of Scotland. Mothers have to take a more than 200-mile round trip to give birth, even in the middle of winter, when the A9 blocks at the Ord of Caithness. You have to be joking! In one harrowing case a mother bearing twins was on her way from Caithness to Inverness and gave birth to the first child in Golspie and the second in Inverness.
During my time in the Scottish Parliament, we made the argument to Ministers and there was a change of heart. No matter what I and the people of Caithness say now, we cannot get the Scottish Government to change their mind, yet we see all the money going in. As soon as I heard about the £9.1 billion, I said on the record that I sincerely hoped some of the money would go in the direction it ought to, to give mums and babies the same rights as in other parts of Scotland.
Another grouse is that Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the successor body to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which was set up by Harold Wilson’s Government in the 1960s, is financially a shadow of what it was. At the end of the day, that body, notwithstanding its change of name, is about securing investment and high-quality employment in some of the more remote parts of Scotland. In its day it was highly successful and helped not just halt but reverse depopulation—the new highland clearances—which has been the curse of the highlands for far too long. Again, we see the £9.1 billion coming in and ask where it is going.
I also want to make a wider point. I remind colleagues that I am a convinced devolutionist. However, I suggest that where there is a failure to understand where the money goes or a belief that it is not being delivered fairly, that is corrosive to that cherished notion of devolution. That is a dangerous path to tread.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The hon. Member, as usual, makes a powerful case for his constituency, but I am surprised that he is repeating the Labour figure of £9.1 billion, which has already been heavily criticised by the Fraser of Allander Institute. Did Labour get it wrong or did the Fraser of Allander Institute get it wrong? I just want clarification on that point of fact. I would hate for the hon. Member to be using dodgy Labour figures.
Jamie Stone
I would hate to mislead hon. Members, but nevertheless, the perception remains that lots of money is going in one end and not coming out the other in different parts of Scotland. That is a dangerous perception, to say the least.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is known to be fair-minded. I hope that he will take back to Holyrood what I think will be the nature of this debate and reflect it there in an honourable and fair way. These are genuine worries. I did not sign the claim of right for Scotland on a whim; I signed it because I believed it back then. I really do want to see the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government thrive, and I hope that in years to come we will see things being done rather differently.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this important debate and for his speech highlighting what a Labour Government in Westminster can mean for our constituents in Scotland.
The spending review delivers a major boost to Scotland. Over the next three years, the Scottish Government will receive £9.1 billion of funding. That marks the largest real-terms settlement since devolution began. Labour has ended austerity in Scotland. These are not just numbers; this funding is an opportunity for real change. It must be used to strengthen the services people rely on every day: our NHS, schools, police and housing. It is now down to the Scottish Government to deliver on those matters with this funding from the UK Labour Government.
I also welcome the spending review’s creation of and support for four investment zones and green freeports, in the north-east, in Inverness and Cromarty Firth, at Forth Green and, most importantly to me, in the Glasgow city region. That includes £160 million each over 10 years. The Glasgow investment zone will focus on advanced manufacturing, a future growth sector that the city is well placed to lead, with its world-class universities and a strong pool of talent in the region. The investment zone will be focused on sites in Renfrewshire, alongside existing innovation districts and underdeveloped sites near critical infrastructure around Glasgow airport. Local partners expect it to generate at least £1.7 billion of investment and up to 18,000 full-time equivalent jobs over 10 years, and boost the region’s research and innovation economy.
In recent years, we have seen the benefits of further devolving power and funding to city regions across the UK, with the ability at local level to create and tailor policies to better serve our communities. In Scotland, however, devolution appears to have stalled at Holyrood. There is little appetite to pass power and more funding to the Glasgow city region and other communities across Scotland. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the UK Government would support further devolution to the Glasgow city region, and I hope that the Scottish Government move quickly to achieve that.
The UK Labour Government have provided the Scottish Government with a huge and historic opportunity to make progress with the commitments in the spending review to empower our city regions with more powers and funding to better deliver for our communities. In 2026, Scotland will have the chance to choose a Government who not just talk but deliver: a Scottish Labour Government who turn record funding into real results for all of our communities.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be with you this morning, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing the debate and on making the points that he made.
The hon. Member, like other Labour Members, in particular, seems to like talking about the Scottish Government, who are not answerable to this place, rather than the UK Government, who are. To be fair, I am not surprised. We saw after last night’s debacle that they would rather talk about anything but the Labour Government, who have delivered very little over the past year apart from chaos and a continuation of failed Conservative policies—not much change there.
The fact is that this place still has a profound impact on the Scottish Parliament. It is where the majority of its budget comes from and it has a huge impact on the policies that can be pursued in the Scottish Parliament, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) will be well aware as a founding member of that institution, which he rightly highlighted. Scotland is still hampered by migration policies and the hostile environment, as we have witnessed recently at the University of Dundee, whose losses are overwhelmingly attributable to the drop in international students as a direct result of those policies.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Member so much for giving way so gladly. I have visited universities recently, too, and they also point to the real-terms cut in funding from the Scottish Government having a real impact on their budgets. In the interests of fairness, will he reflect on that too?
Stephen Gethins
I will gladly reflect on that, but I make the point to the hon. Lady—let us take universities as an example—that at the University of Dundee, the difference between Scottish and English fee income would not even have covered the national insurance increase, and that increase was further dwarfed by the reduction in international student income. Under the Conservative Government, universities had been encouraged to go out and recruit internationally, and they were joined in that venture by Ministers before the Conservatives changed their mind.
I am sure that we will all agree that the internationalisation of our universities has been a positive thing. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: it has been a privilege to work at the University of St Andrews, where internationalisation enhances both the learning process and the research, making us all better off in the process. However, the changes to migration policy had so great an impact—I am sure that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) will agree with me about this—that I asked the Home Secretary to come to Dundee and visit the institution, just to see and learn. She refused. Perhaps the Minister could encourage another Home Office Minister to visit.
I touched earlier on national insurance increases, which are hobbling businesses and therefore growth. Those have a particular impact on small businesses, which cannot expand or recruit. That has been raised not just by me and my SNP colleagues, but by other colleagues in the House. Even though Labour MPs want to do anything but talk about a Labour Government —that is quite telling in its own right—the increases have an impact, and the Labour Government deserve to be held to account.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I used to run a small business. Does the hon. Member acknowledge that interest rates and inflation also have a huge impact on small businesses?
Stephen Gethins
I absolutely acknowledge the impact that inflation and interest rates have had, and the Liz Truss Budget had a huge impact on small businesses as well as mortgage holders—again, a direct consequence of policies that were made here. I would have thought, and the hon. Lady would surely concede, that one would therefore abandon Conservative spending rules, but we have yet to see that.
Another huge consequence of Conservative rule that Labour has taken over, and that is having a huge impact on small businesses, is leaving the European Union. I want to tackle this head on. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar talk about foreign embassies, when he knows fine well that the Welsh, the Northern Irish and the Scots have overseas representative offices. I was astonished to hear him seek to embrace the insularity that I associate with the Conservative party and Reform. Scotland has one of the highest rates of foreign direct investment anywhere in the UK, and we can all encourage and be happy about that.
I agree with the hon. Member about ferry connections, and he was right to highlight the work done on that by his predecessor, Douglas Chapman. Surely, we should encourage connectivity with the rest of the European Union, but Labour continues to follow the Conservatives’ mantra of a hard Brexit.
Stephen Gethins
Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan says that Brexit is costing the Exchequer £40 billion, so before I bring the hon. Member in—I will do so, because he was very fair—I want to ask the Minister this: if it is costing the Exchequer £40 billion, what impact is it having on the devolution settlement?
Graeme Downie
Just to clarify, there was a ferry from Rosyth to Europe when the SNP was in power. The SNP failed to support it previously, and has taken no action to investigate the legal issues around border control, which are believed by many to be a problem that the Scottish Government could solve. Once again, they have been content to blame the UK Government, without even investigating the problem themselves, when in fact they could have worked constructively either with the previous Conservative Government or with this Government to overcome it.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member talks about border control. Obviously, I am not in the Scottish Government.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member is very kind in apparently conceding next year’s election already. I am quite surprised by that; he may have given up on it, but I think we should all be competing.
The hon. Member talks about the Scottish border. The border is obviously devolved to Westminster, so because we are holding Westminster to account, I ask the Minister to tackle the border issue as well. We are right to have greater connectivity and to be bringing down barriers with our European partners, so why on earth are we not going back into the single market and the customs union? After all, that was the compromise that Scottish Labour itself backed in the Scottish Parliament in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. What on earth has gone so right that Labour has abandoned that policy and embraced the Conservative policy? I would be astonished to find out, and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us. Some thought and analysis would be helpful.
The real-terms increase in the budget looks like 0.8%—lower than the UK departmental average of 1.5%. That does not sound like much but would mean £1.1 billion less to spend by 2028-29. As I have mentioned to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, the Fraser of Allendar Institute has called out Labour MPs’ claims as “neither transparent nor helpful”.
This place matters. As I said, we know that the Scottish Government have a national insurance shortfall as a consequence of the policies being brought in by Westminster, and we have not even got round to last night’s welfare changes, which left the Scottish Labour party high and dry. With the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), who, as I understand it, signed the original motion but did not follow through in the debate, Scottish Labour was marched up to the top of the hill by the Prime Minister to be left high and dry.
We were told that the welfare reforms proposed before all the changes yesterday would push 150,000 more people into poverty. A Labour Government pushing more people into poverty—astonishing. Although there have been changes, because of the profound impact on the job of the Scottish Government, whose Scottish child payment is helping to reduce poverty, they are still hampered by what goes on here. If the Minister prioritises nothing else that I have said, I ask her to prioritise this: where are we with the welfare changes and how many people does she now expect to be pushed into poverty?
Stephen Gethins
As I mentioned the hon. Member, it is only fair to give way.
Richard Baker
I might say that Labour Members have had rather more impact on Government policy than SNP Members. The hon. Gentleman makes important points about welfare and the importance of having the right system to get people back into work. Why, then, did his Government in Holyrood, of which he aspires to be a member, cut investment in employability funding?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. This debate is not really about welfare in Scotland; it is about the spending review. [Interruption.] I take the point, but I would like the remarks to be tailored to the subject at hand.
Stephen Gethins
You are quite right, Sir John. It surprises me that the Labour party does not want to talk about a Labour Government, but then the fact that they lost, or nearly lost, that kind of vote after less than a year gives us some idea of the impact of what has happened over the past year.
This is my appeal to the Labour party: why not do some of the things it actually believes in and try to bring about real change, be that on Brexit or the fiscal rules, rather than just being a continuation of the Conservative party? The Government cannot continue to ask the Scottish Government to offset the damage done by Westminster on Women Against State Pension Inequality, as was called for, winter fuel, the two-child cap, the bedroom tax and so on. The Scottish Labour leader said that he would not bring in any of last night’s welfare changes, once again expecting Scotland to offset the damage that has been done here.
Whether I like it or not, this place still matters to what goes on in Scotland. I ask the Minister to look at these areas. Can she give us answers on the Acorn project, which I will chuck in as well—we know how much money is going south of the border, so does she know how much will go north of the border, and in particular on the welfare changes, given the significant impact on the Scottish Government’s budget?
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to speak in today’s debate; I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing it. This spending review marks a turning point for Scotland. After years of stagnation under two failing Governments—the Tories in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood—this UK Labour Government are delivering the change that Scotland so desperately needs. This is the most generous funding settlement for Scotland in the history of devolution. Over the next three years, the Scottish Government will receive an extra £9.1 billion for public services in Scotland. That is not rhetoric—that is real investment. Labour is ending austerity and restoring fairness.
That record money is a powerful opportunity to rebuild Scotland’s NHS, our schools, our transport system and our housing stock. The problem is that we cannot trust the SNP Government to use that money wisely. For too long, Scotland has seen taxpayers’ money squandered by a Government with no strategy and no clue what they are doing. After almost two decades in power, the SNP have lost their way and have now failed to deliver on the basic promise of competent government. They declared a housing emergency then slashed the housing budget. They promised 130,000 green jobs by 2020 and delivered almost none. They pledged £80 million for the Acorn carbon capture and storage project in 2022, and that money remains unpaid. Locally, residents, the local NHS and clinicians have all said that the East Calder medical centre needs to be replaced. The SNP Government have given warm words to that community, but they have nowhere near delivered anything. They have the money now to deliver a new medical centre in East Calder. They should get on and do it.
Meanwhile, the UK Labour Government are investing in our clean energy future, with £2.3 billion for nuclear energy and SMRs, but the SNP’s ideological block to new nuclear power means Scotland is missing out on jobs and investment.
Harriet Cross
The hon. Gentleman talks about ideological blocks. The oil and gas sector, as he well knows, is crucial to Scotland, especially to the north-east of Scotland. Allowing it to flourish and to be supported into the future will have just as much of an economic benefit. Will he reflect on that and perhaps have a word with his Front Benchers, to try to persuade them that supporting the oil and gas sector has benefits for the whole of Scotland and the UK, particularly at the moment, when we are suffering so much with economic growth?
Gregor Poynton
I agree with the hon. Lady on that point; I think the oil and gas sector is vital. I am on the record saying that I support Rosebank and Jackdaw, and I think we should get on and do it. We need to invest in that sector, because ultimately, those are the people with the skills and supply chains that will allow us to transition to the green jobs of the future, at the same time as securing jobs now. I agree with much of what she said.
The SNP Government have presided over an NHS in crisis, with one in six Scots on a waiting list and a generation of young people growing up in temporary accommodation. They have no plan and no urgency, and we have seen absolutely no progress. That is why next year’s Scottish Parliament election is so important. If Scotland is to make the most of this historic Labour investment, we need a Scottish Government we can trust, and that means voting for change. It means voting for a Scottish Labour Government. When Labour governs, we do not just talk about fairness; we fund it and deliver it.
Let me turn to what the spending review means for my Livingston constituency. I am proud to represent a community with ambition and innovation at its core. Now, thanks to Labour’s investment, that potential has been matched by real support. The Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, with £100 million in joint funding for both the UK and Scottish Governments, is a huge vote of confidence in our region’s industrial future. Grangemouth, just down the road, is key to Scotland’s energy transition, and the Labour Government are stepping up where others have failed.
The spending review also confirms £750 million for a new national supercomputer in Edinburgh, which places Scotland at the forefront of high-performance computing. That is not abstract. It means new opportunities for medtech, life sciences and clean tech industries in my constituency. These are well-paid, high-skill, high-quality jobs for my constituents. Scotland is also now benefiting from £8.3 billion for Great British Energy, headquartered in Aberdeen, ensuring that we lead the world in clean, affordable and home-grown energy. For our communities, the spending review has delivered £234 million in new local investment funds, empowering towns and local councils to invest in what really matters to people: revitalising high streets, upgrading infrastructure and supporting jobs and investment.
Let us not forget our role in global trade, too. Thanks to the Government’s leadership, new trade deals are opening doors for iconic Scottish products. In India, Scotch whisky, our largest export, is getting a tariff cut, boosting a £180 million market. US steel tariffs have come down, helping manufacturing jobs across the UK, including in Scotland.
That is what serious government looks like: ambition backed by delivery, and investment guided by our values. The spending review represents a huge opportunity for Scotland, but only if we have a Government in Holyrood who can rise to the moment, and that means change. The SNP Government have had their chance, and after nearly two decades, frankly, if they were going to fix our NHS, deliver green jobs or improve education, they would have done it by now. They did not, they cannot and they will not. It is time for a Scottish Labour Government who will.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate. His constituents could not have a more doughty and effective champion in this place.
As a fellow Fife MP, I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend address how the people of the kingdom will reap the rewards of the Government’s investment in Scotland and in their potential. That is in sharp contrast to the litany of failures they have had to endure under the barely managed decline, for which the Scottish National party is culpable, in Holyrood. I will return to these points later, while maintaining a laser focus on the spending review. But being in good spirits and savouring the cooler weather, for which we Scots are rather better equipped, let me focus first on the sunny uplands of the spending review and its great potential for Scotland.
I know we will hear more from the Minister on its importance for our country and how it will support the excellent work that she is taking forward in Government for Scotland. She does this along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has shown what a brilliant champion he is for Scotland in Cabinet. I will focus on the opportunities the spending review creates in my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar outlined the scale of the overall investment that the Chancellor announced in the spending review for Scotland and how vital that is for public services and growing our economy across the country. Specific areas of investment are of particular importance for Glenrothes and Mid Fife. We have a thriving and growing renewables sector in the constituency, and the confirmation of the full £8.3 billion for GB Energy is great news for renewable energy businesses in our area and will create opportunities and employment.
At Earlseat wind farm, apprenticeships are being created in local renewables businesses through community benefit funding provided by its operator Renewable Energy Systems and a pioneering collaboration with Fife college. It was great to meet some of the apprentices at the wind farm, who will have great opportunities in the future as a result of that funding. Investing in renewables is also fantastic news for the Methil shipyard, which was saved by this Government. Its facilities and skilled workforce are ideally placed for contracts in renewables infrastructure and to deliver key programmes set out in the strategic defence review, which presents great opportunities for Scotland, as my hon. Friend said.
I am also particularly delighted that the Chancellor has confirmed development funding for the Acorn project. I agree with the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) that it is a very important scheme for Scotland, for which many of us across the Chamber campaigned. It will not only be vital for our renewables targets, but create and sustain thousands of jobs throughout Scotland. It is also a brilliant opportunity for two biomass plants in my constituency to maximise their contribution to carbon reduction in the future.
All that comes along with additional funding for investment zones and in our communities. With an extra £9.1 billion for public services in Scotland over the next three years, there can no longer be any excuses for SNP Ministers failing to deliver the public services our constituents need and deserve. Unfortunately, where we need to see delivery and improvements, all we seem to see are excuses. We have record funding for housing provided by this Government, but a housing emergency has been declared in Fife after funding cuts by the Scottish Government.
We have record funding provided for our NHS by this Government, and falling waiting lists in England for the first time in many years, but in Fife, my constituents face some of the longest waiting times for surgery anywhere in Scotland. In the NHS in England, we see investment in 700,000 additional urgent appointments for dental patients, but in Fife, we have a dental desert, where, too often, my constituents cannot find any dentist to register with, let alone an NHS one.
We have record spending set out in the spending review for NHS infrastructure, yet after more than a decade of broken promises to the people of Lochgelly by SNP Ministers, they still do not have the new health centre that their community desperately needs. No wonder so many people in Scotland want a change of direction in Holyrood. This is the prospectus that Anas Sarwar will set out in the Scottish elections next year, and why our country desperately needs his leadership as our next First Minister.
The spending review shows the ambition that Governments can and should have for Scotland. One of our Governments—this Government—is delivering for Scotland; it is time the other one stepped up to the plate and started delivering the effective leadership our country needs as well.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for bringing us such a worthwhile debate.
The spending review confirmed what we in Scottish Labour have known for a long time—the UK Government can be a positive force for good in Scotland. Soon after the general election, the Labour Government provided the largest real-terms block grant in the history of devolution to the Government in Scotland. The spring statement built on that by increasing direct funding to the Scottish Government and providing a substantial direct investment amounting to more than £9 billion extra for public services over the next three years. In my constituency, the Glasgow city region will see substantial investment in Renfrewshire, and in particular in the innovation district around Glasgow airport. I regularly meet innovative companies in my constituency, and they are ready to make use of that investment to create jobs and opportunities across the city region.
Hard on the heels of the spring statement came the publication of the Government’s industrial strategy, which identifies a key growth opportunity for UK aerospace in securing a British engine position on the next generation of single-aisle aircraft. The Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency is set to play an important role in manufacturing the components for the engines, and that will secure high-value skills and jobs. The spending review delivered on the Government’s commitment to economic growth by tackling the long-term effects of low pay and low growth that have stymied Scotland’s ambitions for far too long. Is it too much to hope that the national Government in Edinburgh will take the opportunity of their final year in power to wake up to the opportunity that lies ahead?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member mentioned low growth. We know that growth has been hampered by our being outside the single market and the customs union—that is not just my analysis but that of most economists—so can she tell me why Scottish Labour has abandoned the policy it adopted after the Brexit referendum of rejoining the single market and the customs union?
Alison Taylor
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In my view, low growth in Scotland has been related to the threat of a second independence referendum, and I would put the blame for the low growth firmly in the hon. Gentleman’s hands.
I sincerely hope that the Scottish National party will wake up to that opportunity in its last year in government, but the last 18 years have offered little evidence that it will. A former Member of this House and a former First Minister, the right hon. Alex Salmond, was very fond of repeating these lines of Burns, although Members will excuse me if I do not deliver them as well as he did:
“But facts are chiels that winna ding,
An’ downa be disputed”
These are the facts: 10,000 children live in temporary accommodation in Scotland; one in six Scots is on NHS waiting lists; Scottish GDP is trailing behind the rest of the UK by nearly £3,000 per person; and the SNP Scottish Government have overseen an unacceptable fall in educational attainment. In fact, their report card is a fail.
The spending review puts an end to the excuses. With my apologies to John F Kennedy, the nationalists need to stop asking, “What can my country do for me?” and start asking, “What can I do for my country?” They need to stop asking, “How can we blame someone else?” and start asking, “How can we build a better life for the people of Scotland?” They need to stop calculating what they think will be best for the cause of separation, and start calculating how to use the opportunity of the spending review to get people the jobs they need and the future they deserve.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I apologise to you, Sir John, because I appreciate that it is frustrating that every debate about Scotland, and about this or the previous Government’s spending in Scotland, comes back to the Scottish Government. The debate is rarely about the Scottish people—about my constituents in Edinburgh West, or our constituents across Scotland. It always comes back to the Scottish Government. That is not necessarily the fault of the Labour party, the Conservative party or the SNP, but it does not seem to matter how much money the UK Government invest in Scotland, what projects they undertake, what the spending review promises or how much money there is in Barnett consequentials—it gets squandered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, it never seems to reach the people of Scotland. It never seems to do anything about our crumbling NHS, our schools, which are in trouble, and the housing crisis that we face.
Although the specific subject under discussion is the spending review announced by the Labour Government, for us in Scotland the debate is about the frustration that we may not get the benefit that any UK Government intend for Scotland, with any policy, because it gets blocked in Holyrood. I hate to mention that again, but £9.1 billion, however one might contest it—it might not be quite £9.1 billion—is a lot of money for the SNP Government to squander, because squander it they will. We have only to look at the evidence of the infamous and now even later ferries, which seem to fail at every turn. The money wasted by the SNP on that fiasco could have paid for around 11,000 nurses or 3,000 GPs in our NHS. That is why we are so frustrated, and why we turn again and again to the Scottish Government, and their failure to use the resources given them by Westminster.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) says that this place continues to have a huge impact—so it should, but that impact is undermined at every turn by the Scottish Government.
Stephen Gethins
Given that we sit in the UK Parliament, does the hon. Member concede that the numbers she mentions are absolutely dwarfed by the billions on Brexit, the hundreds of millions on Rwanda, and the billions blown by the Truss Budget, all of which will have had a material impact on the amount of money that the UK Government have to give up to Scotland? Furthermore, does she agree that the Scottish Government offsetting welfare cuts, the bedroom tax, and child poverty, as they have done—and I believe the Liberal Democrats backed that—was a good use of money?
Christine Jardine
No, I do not, actually. I agree fundamentally that the UK Government, whether Conservative or Labour, have not got everything right. But the Scottish Government have done nothing to mitigate any of the, if you like, failings of Westminster. They have done nothing to mitigate them, and have exacerbated every problem in Scotland. There is not a single area of the Scottish economy, or of Scottish education, health, or public services that one can look at, over the past two decades, and say, “Wow, didn’t the Scottish Government make a good job of that? Didn’t they spend the money well?” Just ask the constituents who I spoke to on Sunday night in Edinburgh West, who told me that they are sick to the back teeth of the SNP wasting their money—two decades they have had of it.
Christine Jardine
No, sorry. I am running out of time.
It would be churlish of me not to recognise that there have been benefits from the spending review for my constituents. I welcome the £750 million investment in the exascale supercomputer, because a lot of my constituents work at the University of Edinburgh. The investment in defence spending will help my constituents who work in the defence industries in Edinburgh. I hope that the £9.1 billion—or however much—that will be invested in Scotland over the next few years helps by investing in the projects that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland have managed to get into the budget for the coming years. The investment in the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion in Edinburgh is one that is particularly close to my heart, because my constituents have suffered from the SNP’s lack of investment there.
In brief, we welcome a lot of the aspects of the spending review in Scotland. We welcome the extra funding, but we view with frustration and some trepidation how the Scottish Government might waste it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir John, and I thank you for your patience and indulgence in chairing this debate.
It is almost a through-the-looking-glass moment this morning, listening to the Labour party criticising the Scottish Government for their decisions and the Scottish National party representative, the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), criticising the Labour Government for the SNP’s decisions. For all of us, it has been an interesting morning after the night before.
Scotland is struggling with the consequences of the Labour Government’s economic incompetence: taxes for businesses up, growth down, unemployment up and business confidence down. Scottish Financial Enterprise has warned:
“The current inflationary pressures, coupled with stagnant productivity and increasing levels of tax, pose significant headwinds to business investment.”
And that was before the charade—the farcical scenes—that we saw yesterday, which will inevitably mean more tax rises coming down the tracks in the autumn.
Richard Baker
Is it not the reality that economic growth is increasing under this Labour Government, in rather sharp contrast to the experiences of hon. Members under Liz Truss, which I think were somewhat different for the whole country, including Scotland?
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Member will recall that when the Conservative Government left office in July 2024, we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. He will also surely acknowledge that as a direct result of decisions taken by his Chancellor and his Government, growth has halved since Labour got into power. That is not a record of which he should be proud. Labour is growing the economy by far less than we had expected to grow the economy by when we left office. Surely he can acknowledge, because his name was on an amendment yesterday, that some of the decisions taken by his Government have been to the detriment of this country and its economic growth.
Hon. Members should not take my word for it. Unite the Union has said that this Government have placed the oil and gas industry on a “cliff edge”. The Scotch Whisky Association said the increase in spirits duty was a “hammer blow”. The Scottish Hospitality Group called the Budget last year
“a blow to businesses across the country”.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland has made it clear that this Government’s decisions will cause “huge difficulties” to the agricultural sector in Scotland, because the family farms tax is devastating farms in Scotland. This is a Government who do not understand rural Scotland, and they clearly do not care to.
National insurance contributions are up, increasing costs to businesses across the country. In my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, the conversations that I have had since the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget last October have revolved around reducing headcount and reducing ambition for expansion, which I know is an experience shared by just about every Member of this Parliament. With the Government’s Employment Rights Bill coming down the tracks, we will see the burden on businesses increase still further and growth shrink.
Business confidence across the entire United Kingdom is falling dramatically, and that is especially the case in Scotland. This Labour Government do not understand business and they have decided not to prioritise growth or prosperity. The chief executive of Scottish Financial Enterprise was right to urge recognition that the UK Government cannot tax their way to economic growth and sustainable growth.
As for the Scottish Government, the SNP has presided over 17 years of mismanagement during its tenure. Economic growth in Scotland has been consistently lower than it has been south of the border. There is no excuse. Higher income tax rates are driving away talent, there is a failure to pass on the savings from business rates, and there have been madcap schemes that undermine the UK internal market, such as the ill-conceived deposit return scheme. At every turn, the Scottish Government seek to make business in Scotland less profitable, less productive and less competitive.
Now, on top of all that, we have to add the spending review from this UK Government, which, the Scottish Hospitality Group declared does “absolutely nothing” to support its sector. The Federation of Small Businesses said that the spending review
“was not the business-focused day”
that it had hoped for. Unite the Union said that the spending review
“lacks the vision to deliver the fundamental change needed for everyday people”
and that it was a
“missed opportunity to lay out the funding to tackle key issues, including the energy costs crippling British industry”.
It is clear that this Chancellor’s spending review does not deliver for Scots, Scotland or Scottish business.
Although we welcome the Government’s commitment to defence and spending on new nuclear, it is evident that rural Scotland—aspirational Scotland—is being ignored, overlooked and left behind by the socialist Government in London and wilfully driven into the ground by a nationalist Government in Edinburgh. The Fraser of Allander Institute has described the spending review as a “rollercoaster”, with short-term boosts followed by real-terms cuts in later years.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending. In a time of increasing uncertainty, it is essential that we have the domestic capacity, supply chain, resources and skilled personnel to defend this country. The continued investment in the Dreadnought-class submarines is essential, and I am incredibly proud that this fleet is hosted in Scotland, at HM Naval Base Clyde. Just last week I was in Rosyth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), to see the missile tubes for the Dreadnought-class submarines and the Columbia-class submarines for the United States being constructed by the incredibly skilled workforce at that Babcock yard. This programme is expected to support thousands of jobs in Scotland.
However, serious questions about defence spending remain unanswered. The Government have still not clarified whether the Chagos deal moneys will be classified as defence spending, and they have given no indication of how they will reach the 3% and now 5% commitment to defence spending overall. After yesterday’s farcical scenes, which failed to save the Government any money whatsoever, we have no idea how they will meet the commitments signed up to at NATO just last week.
The oil and gas industry, which is incredibly important to my part of the country, has been let down year after year by the Scottish nationalists, who had a policy of presumption against new oil and gas. If left to the SNP Government, they would have shut down the industry yesterday—and it looks like, with the Labour party in charge, they will get their way. By increasing the energy profits levy, removing investment allowances and abolishing new exploration licences, this Government have signalled that the North sea is uninvestable and the oil and gas industry in Scotland is closed for business.
This industry is vital to the economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom, with a supply chain spanning the entire country and with roots in every single constituency. But this Government’s total ignorance of the oil and gas industry and the north-east of Scotland, their incompetence on the economy and their disregard for the hundreds of thousands of workers in the North sea, as well as their dangerous ineptitude when it comes to our energy security, are deeply damaging.
I turn to the trumpeted invention of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Great British Energy. I find it difficult to muster any enthusiasm or optimism. With the ongoing ambiguity over the company’s purpose and scope, the Government still cannot answer the basic question of what on earth this organisation is going to achieve, how many people it will employ and what it will do in the long run. While we welcome the announcement of an award to Rolls-Royce for the delivery of small modular reactors following the down-selection process that I proudly launched when in government, we regret deeply that the Scottish nationalists’ luddite opposition to new nuclear—to clean power and to opportunity for Scotland—means that those benefits will not be seen north of the border.
There are some positive notes. Confirmation that Edinburgh University will host the UK’s most powerful supercomputer, paving the way for leadership in artificial intelligence and computing, is welcome, but this followed a delay of almost a year, after the Labour Government announced the cancellation of the project, which was unveiled by the Conservative Government just last year.
Thank you, Sir John, for your patience and indulgence this morning. I, along with many Scots, am bitterly disappointed. Scotland has been let down for 17 years by a failing nationalist Government in Edinburgh, and now it is being severely let down by a Labour Government here in London as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate on the impact of the spending review on Scotland, on all his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and on gifting us his deep experience, expertise and commitment to defence and national security.
This was, indeed, a historic spending review for Scotland. The UK has faced a decade and a half of poor productivity, weak economic growth and deteriorating outcomes in public services. The first job of this Government was to stabilise the British economy and clear up the public finances. The decisions this Government have taken since taking office have been tough but have been proven to be the right ones. Now that the economy is on a more stable footing, the task of the Government is to ensure that the British economy delivers for working people once again, and the spending review continues this renewal.
The Chancellor has unleashed a new era of growth for Scotland. Our economy is integral to unlocking growth across the whole UK, with Scotland’s economy already worth £204 billion per year. The spending review announced targeted investment in Scotland’s most promising sectors to grow the economy and put more money in working people’s pockets.
In the first instance, I will focus on the areas that Members have asked direct questions about today. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) asked whether we can bring a Home Office Minister to Scotland to hear directly from higher education. Newsflash: we already have. The immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), came earlier this year at my invitation and met Universities Scotland and representatives of our farming communities, which led very quickly to changes in the seasonal agricultural workers visa. That is what happens when Scottish Labour MPs are at the beating heart of Government and are able to issue invitations to a Government who are entirely committed to delivering for Scotland.
Stephen Gethins
I know the Minister was asked a lot of questions, and I thank her for that answer, but what I asked was whether she would come to the University of Dundee to see for herself the profound impact of these policies. There has been a good Scottish bail-out from the Scottish Government, which is welcome, but will a Home Office Minister come to Dundee?
Kirsty McNeill
I would be delighted to come to Dundee and hear from people directly, but I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that problems at the University of Dundee are a function of the decision making of a number of people, not least the university itself and the Scottish Government. I would of course be delighted to be in ongoing dialogue with it.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) is a welcome new convert to the trade union cause. I would be delighted to pass on his best wishes to Sharon Graham and my fellow members of Unite, and I look forward to his backing for the new deal for working people. As he knows, the job of trade unionists and all those who are pro-trade union in the Government is to make sure the economy delivers for working people. That is exactly what we intend to do.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that we live in challenging times. The Prime Minister has said that we will up our game on defence, and the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP by April 2027. We are backing our armed forces, creating British jobs in British industries and prioritising the security of Britain when it is most needed.
Scotland is playing a leading role at the beating heart of the UK defence policy. The long-term future of the Clyde has been secured through an initial £250 million investment over three years, which will begin a multi-decade, multi-billion-pound redevelopment of HM Naval Base Clyde through the Clyde 2070 programme. HM Naval Base Clyde will play a crucial role for decades to come as we restore Britain’s readiness, deter our adversaries and help drive economic growth across the UK, including in Scotland, as part of our plan for change. As Members know, Scotland is already a centre of excellence for shipbuilding. The increased defence spending will see investment in UK sovereign capability, including in shipbuilding and naval technology. Further details will be set out in the defence investment plan later in the year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar made an important point about a defence growth deal. The forthcoming defence sector plan will outline how we will reform, grow and innovate to build our defence industrial base, scale small and medium-sized companies and create industrial leaders. The Secretary of State and I are of course working closely with colleagues across Government and in the Cabinet to maximise the benefits for Scotland.
I received a number of questions and representations about local growth. I assure hon. Members that the UK Government intend to ensure that every single part of Scotland benefits from the spending review. We are investing £1.7 billion in local communities over 10 years. The Government are investing £160 million over 10 years in investment zones in the north-east of Scotland and the Glasgow city region. At the spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £452 million over four years for city region and growth deals across Scotland, including a £100 million joint investment for the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal with the Scottish Government —£50 million from the UK Government and £50 million from the Scottish Government. That demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to the Grangemouth industrial area.
The growth deal for Argyll and Bute was signed on 10 March, which means that every part of Scotland is now benefiting from our city, region and growth deal programme. A new local growth fund and investments in up to 350 deprived communities across the UK will maintain the same cash levels as in 2025-26, under the shared prosperity fund.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Scotland Office will work with local partners and the Scottish Government to ensure that money goes to projects that matter to local people. That investment will help drive growth and improve communities across Scotland. I am delighted that the spending review also confirmed in-flight commitments, including for Drumchapel town centre regeneration, and as well as funding for the Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes in 2027, when the Grand Départ will take place in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked whether we will ensure that areas that have been historically underinvested in will get their fair share. I assure him that we are looking at both need and potential in allocations. I also repeat an undertaking that I gave on the Floor of the House: we are looking at increasing trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I am delighted to be looking at that in the coming weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) asked what is to be done about devolution not to Scotland, but inside Scotland. I say to him that devolution is a habit of mind—one that the Scottish Government never acquired. They have been a hugely centralising Government, to the detriment of the Scottish people. I am delighted to reconfirm Scottish Labour’s commitment to further devolution inside Scotland today.
This spending review delivers support for Scottish businesses. The National Wealth Fund is trialling a strategic partnership with Glasgow city region, providing enhanced, hands-on support to help it develop and finance long-term investment opportunities. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) about how people are taking advantage of that in her constituency.
The settlement for investment in the spending review allocated £750,000 each year to champion Brand Scotland trade missions to make sure that we are getting inward investment and exporting. Last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland made successful trips to Norway and south-east Asia; in April, he travelled to Washington DC and New York. In the United States, he met with business leaders and investors, promoted our world-class culture and took part in Tartan Week with members of the Scottish diaspora. In May, the Secretary of State launched the Brand Scotland fund, offering the UK’s international network grants of up to £20,000 for innovative and creative activities to market Scotland overseas.
It was my privilege to be in Spain at the start of June with 16 Scottish female entrepreneurs to maximise the benefits of the recent UK-EU deal, tackle the Scottish gender export gap, promote Brand Scotland’s iconic goods and services, and encourage Spanish investment into Scotland. The Scotland Office director also recently supported a Glasgow chamber of commerce trade mission to Shanghai and over the next financial year will deliver a number of overseas trade missions and collaborations with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and other key industry stakeholders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked about US immigration pre-clearance at Edinburgh airport. The Scotland Office is aware of that issue and has supported Edinburgh airport in discussions with the Home Office, Department for Business and Trade and US authorities. We have also engaged directly with the US Government officials on this issue. Although I agree it would be a welcome development for Edinburgh airport, it is not currently US policy to extend pre-clearance arrangements in this way—but we will continue to engage with them going forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar also raised Rosyth and Dunkirk shipping routes. My officials are in touch with the company behind the new proposed route and relevant Scottish Government and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials. They are looking to arrange a meeting as early as next week to look at possible solutions that would allow the project to go ahead. Scotland is playing a key role as part of our industrial strategy. We have demonstrable strength in eight of the key sectors. The accompanying industrial strategy sector plans will promote Scotland’s wide-ranging strength to investors.
I turn to energy. Working people from across Scotland will benefit from significant investments in clean energy and innovation, creating thousands of highly skilled jobs and strengthening Scotland’s position as the home of the United Kingdom’s clean energy revolution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) pointed out, the UK Government have confirmed £8.3 billion in funding for GB Energy in Aberdeen. That is alongside an increased commitment to the Acorn carbon capture usage and storage project, which—I am pleased to confirm for the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry—will receive £200 million in development funding, and the wider funding will be announced in due course. We believe that carbon capture and storage is critical for the UK’s future energy security and industrial ambitions, and recognise the importance of the role that it can play in securing growth and our clean power future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked about the future of oil and gas. This Government have been clear that that will be part of the mix for decades to come, but that we have to invest in the transition so that people can get renewable jobs of the future. That is why I was pleased earlier this year to launch the energy skills passport when I was in Aberdeen.
The spending review also allocated significant investment in Scotland’s trailblazing innovation, research and development sectors, including—say it with me— £750 million for the supercomputing facility at Edinburgh University. To clear up any confusion for the record, what happened last year was not that this UK Labour Government cancelled the project; they put it on pause, because the previous Conservative Government had announced the project and not allocated a single penny to its realisation. Taking the responsible course, we took a year to make sure that it could be funded in full, and I believe Edinburgh University is delighted that we have now secured that funding.
Like the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I am a committed devolutionist, and I share their despair that the Scottish Government are absolutely addicted to wasting money. That notwithstanding, this Government are responsibly committed to resetting the relationship, so that we can make representations to ensure the best results for the people of Scotland.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time. She talks about resetting the relationship, but I have one thing in particular to ask. I am sure that she and her colleagues think that last night was a triumph with the welfare reforms, but they will have a direct impact on the Scottish Government by pushing people into poverty. What assessment has the Minister made of last night’s vote and its impact on the devolution settlement?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in ongoing conversation with the Scottish Government on all manner of policies where there is an interplay between reserved and devolved matters. The Scottish Government have been offered all manner of briefings, including—I repeat my disappointment about this—a briefing for the First Minister on the strategic defence review, which he refused because he wanted to go campaigning in Hamilton—and a fat lot of good that did him.
The UK Government’s plan for change has delivered a record settlement for the Scottish Government. There is more money than ever before for them to invest in Scottish public services such as our NHS, police, housing and schools. The Scottish Government will continue to get more than 20% more funding per head than the equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry cited a phrase from the Fraser of Allander Institute, but I note that he did not cite it saying that “you’d be hard pressed” to say that Scotland has been short-changed compared with
“UK Government departments with comparable responsibilities”.
The Fraser of Allander Institute recognises a record settlement when it sees one.
While I am responding to the hon. Member, I almost felt that there was a dare when he said that we do not want to talk about Labour’s record. I would be delighted to do that. As we approach the first anniversary of this Labour Government, I am proud of the new deal for working people, GB Energy, three trade deals, four interest rate cuts, record investment in Scotland’s devolution era into the Scottish Government and the protection of jobs for which this Government have been responsible, including at the behest of our colleagues in Arnish and Methil. I am proud that this is a Government with Scotland at its beating heart.
In conclusion, the UK Government are delivering for people and communities in Scotland. This is a truly historic spending review for Scotland, choosing investment over decline and delivering on the promise that there would be no return to austerity with Labour. It puts Scotland at the heart of our growth missions, creates huge opportunities for us in the industries of the future and helps us to rebuild Britain. It invests in Britain’s renewal and prioritises the UK’s security, health and economic growth. This spending review delivered investment in Scotland’s communities and industries that the Conservatives never would, and the SNP never could.
Graeme Downie
As others have said, Sir John, I thank you very much for your patience this morning. After a previous, similar Westminster Hall debate a number of months ago, a colleague said that chairing it was like being a stranger walking in and trying to moderate a fight at a Scottish wedding. I suspect that is how someone sitting in that Chair feels when these debates happen. I thank everyone for their participation this morning; it has been quite an encouraging debate, and there were even, occasionally, moments of agreement—something that in my experience rarely happens at a Scottish wedding. Occasionally, they agree on “I do”, and not very much more.
I will respond briefly to some of the contributions that were made. I have heard the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) describe the maternity services in his constituency a number of times, and I hope he continues to do so until we finally see a solution there. It is utterly unacceptable that women find themselves in that very dangerous position, and I hope that there is good feeling and good will from the Scottish Government to solve those real problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) discussed Glasgow’s potential. As someone who was born in Edinburgh and now lives in Fife, I have to say that the east coast obviously has much greater potential, but I am happy for Glasgow to come a close second.
As ever, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), whom I have known for a number of years. It is always interesting to listen to him, and it was good to hear the latest stump speech for his campaign in Dundee next year.
My hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) highlighted problems around GP surgeries—again, a failure of the SNP. As I mentioned in my speech, we have seen the same in Kincardine in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) shared an interest in the potential of aviation to create economic growth.
I was delighted to hear from the Minister that more will be done on the defence growth deal. I ask her in particular to consider the potential of Fife in those discussions, so that we are providing opportunities for young people around skills, which Fife can provide in defence and related sectors, such as renewable energy and other technical skills. Again, the Scottish Government have not really established their credentials on providing the right technical skills, which people in many of our communities want in order to fulfil their potential.
Finally, I was particularly pleased to hear about the meeting that could take place as soon as next week about the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry. I genuinely believe that there is good will to find a solution. It is frustrating that it has taken so long and that previous Governments were unable to get together; that harks back to the need to reset the relationship. We can build solutions, and there should not be barriers.
I thank everyone for participating, and thank you again, Sir John.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the Spending Review 2025 on Scotland.
ECO4 Scheme Redress
(1 day, 14 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
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of redress under the ECO 4 scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir John. This debate is about a lot of things. It is about the need to retrofit UK homes to improve their fuel efficiency, training the future workforce and the consumer protection landscape, but it is also about the Government taking responsibility for policy failures. Most importantly, it is about people. Therefore, before I cover the issues with the ECO4—energy company obligation 4—scheme and the wider consumer protection landscape, I want to set out the experience of my constituent, Jackie.
Jackie and her husband live in a gable end cottage. They have worked hard and done well, and are meant to be enjoying their retirement, but they are not. It all started to go wrong just more than a year ago, when, out of curiosity, they filled in a small quiz about rural homeowners without central heating on the Energy Advice Helpline website. They were contacted by a representative by phone and email very quickly, and found themselves put into a pipeline for works to be carried out. They described that period to my team as dizzying and said that they felt under pressure.
Jackie and her husband had checked that the Energy Advice Helpline seemed to be a genuine not-for-profit advice service, but they had not been advised that the project had been given to a company called Central Eco Solutions. Now, some 12 months later, we have just found out that there was a further middle company—a surveyor based in Leeds, who my constituents had never spoken to until yesterday. The workflow that he described was that the Energy Advice Helpline adviser supplied work to him, and then he supplied work to installers.
The work was carried out hurriedly in three weeks at the end of July and start of August last year. Alarmed at the poor quality of work being done in their property, Jackie and her husband started questioning the contractors about who was employing them and what instructions they had been given. It was only at that stage that they found out that Central Eco Solutions was involved. There was no project management, contract or design proposals, and when they asked for technical surveys, they were carried out by someone who was not a surveyor.
Problems became obvious with the works immediately. No care was taken with the preparation. Floors were taken up and cupboards removed without notice. They described a small bookcase being ripped out with a crowbar, and the promises of it being replaced transpired to be completely false. The insulation and plastering had to be redone three times. The team attempted to insulate around a radiator, until they were stopped, but they did manage to insulate over a double socket, making it unusable. One insulation wall was put in at a very non-vertical angle. A joiner was sent to repair the woodwork, but he was instructed only to use MDF in place of pre-existing solid wood, and clearly, did not have the skillset to do the job in hand.
Those are just the snags. The air source heat pump was originally installed on the outside of the gable wall, causing such bad noise and vibration in two bedrooms that they became unusable. Jackie investigated and found it had been bolted directly to the wall, whereas others she had seen were bedded on insulation. When she suggested that as a remedy, the heat pump was removed and placed apart from the building, but pipework was left running at waist height over the pathway to the garden. Most of the snags have still not been resolved. There are uncovered pipes, ruined woodwork, excess pipes creating energy waste, and a slanting kitchen wall.
My constituents have had a terrible year dealing with these issues: chasing Central Eco Solutions for the work to be finished properly, trying to find some sort of guarantee scheme, making complaints, and escalating those complaints with no clear route for doing so. They are not alone. I am telling Jackie’s story, but there are many others in North East Fife and around the country. It is not a problem with just one installation company, because I have heard cases with others; I have been contacted by people all around Great Britain since my debate went on to the Order Paper, who have named different companies that have ruined their homes and left.
This is a Government problem that must be solved. I have questioned the Minister in the House about it previously, and I think she knows that it is a Government problem because she announced in January that she would review the consumer protection landscape, particularly in relation to solid wall insulations under ECO4. However, I have had sight of a letter sent by her team in response to a complaint by a company outwith North East Fife. I was disappointed that the letter makes it clear that, as the Government do not directly fund ECO4, they do not get involved in private and contractual decisions between the parties involved.
That somewhat misses the point. ECO4 may not be taxpayer funded, but it is a Government-backed scheme. For consumers that is the same thing, because that gives the scheme a stamp of Government approval. The Government surely would not, and should not, be backing something that allows traders to carry out unreliable and unsuitable work on somebody’s property. The Government would not be backing something unless they were really sure of what it was—right? In any case, ECO4 is taxpayer funded in some ways, because it is funded by a Government-backed levy on energy customers’ bills. Just because those public funds do not go through the Treasury’s coffers does not mean that there is not a public interest in getting their use right.
I am happy to put on the record that I support ECO schemes: it is incredibly important to upgrade properties so that they are energy efficient. Our constituents need to do that to save money on their bills, and energy efficiency is a must-have in the face of a climate crisis.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. One in six properties in Cumbria is more than 100 years old. Almost all of them will be single-walled properties, which are incredibly hard to insulate. Yet the award of grants through ECO4 always tends to favour large companies, not the smaller businesses that are better able to retrofit heritage buildings. Should the Government change that so that my constituents can have warmer homes that are also cheaper to heat?
Wendy Chamberlain
I will go on to mention the particular challenge with older properties, but my hon. Friend’s example illustrates exactly what the issue is. This scheme is under the auspices of Ofgem and is funded through the Government levy on energy bills, but does not have any real oversight, so consumers end up being let down.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She always brings applicable issues to Westminster Hall, and today is as an example of that, with the horrific example of the almost inconceivable standard of work done to her constituent’s house.
The ECO4 scheme does not apply in Northern Ireland, where we have a fuel assistance scheme. Eligibility can be very tight and residents with more than a certain amount in their savings accounts find that they may not qualify. Does the hon. Lady agree that more could be done to loosen the rules for our elderly generation, particularly in boiler replacement or energy schemes?
Wendy Chamberlain
It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without an intervention from the hon. Member. He illustrates that, although this is a GB scheme and not applicable in Northern Ireland, consumers and more vulnerable residents in Northern Ireland face the same challenges regarding energy efficiency. The Government have a responsibility, working with the Northern Ireland Assembly, to improve the situation there.
We need to get this right, not just so there is faith in the schemes—although that is vital—but so works under them do not end up costing people even more in lost energy costs. It is clear that some things are going badly wrong under the ECO schemes as they stand. The Government need to address them for the remainder of properties that might do upgrades under ECO4 and for future iterations of the scheme.
First, there is a complete lack of transparency in how households are driven to the scheme and, as far as I can tell, there is no regulation either. I have talked about how Jackie and her husband felt railroaded from wondering if they would be entitled to anything for upgrades, to their home being pulled apart. She is not a vulnerable person, but she thinks that the company she dealt with was totally unprepared for being challenged over what was happening. Another constituent who had a terrible outcome under the scheme has described themselves as vulnerable and feels that the system was set up to target people like them.
As my team and I have gone further into such cases, I was surprised that more MPs are not shouting about this issue. Clearly, it is not limited just to one company or to North East Fife. When I spoke to Fuel Poverty Action this week, it told me that it is seeing only the most determined victims complaining—the rest are highly vulnerable people. From what I have seen, if companies offer to pay any compensation at all after months of fighting—even if it will not cover the cost of the remedial works—it is on the condition that all complaints be withdrawn. I therefore cannot help but wonder how many people have felt that they had to accept, and now are not in a position to tell us about their experiences.
Secondly, the funding model for ECO4 places incentives on companies to upgrade rural homes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I understand the logic of that, but rural homes, as he said, tend to be a lot older and less uniform than urban ones, so we would ideally want a proper survey to be not only done, but carried out by a specialist retrofit co-ordinator. The fact is, however, is that we do not have anywhere near enough of them.
TrustMark data indicates that although more than 2,000 individuals have completed the retrofit co-ordinator qualification, just 612 are registered with the quality mark and only 230 are actively lodging work in the data warehouse. Of the 230 active co-ordinators, around 30% are lodging the majority of those projects. That means around 66 specialists are overseeing the vast majority of retrofit works. We clearly need more, and the Government need to worry about that skills shortage.
According to Ashden, the UK will need up to 50,000 retrofit co-ordinators in coming years if we are going to reach our goals for making homes energy efficient. In the meantime, what requirements are there for works to be properly overseen by a specialist? Do contractors have to employ one and risk cutting into their margins? Are there requirements for co-ordinators to actually visit a property, provide plans, speak with the owners and review works as they go? I wonder if the mysterious middle man I mentioned earlier was a retrofit co-ordinator—it is just not clear. What is clear is that none of these steps took place in that case.
Similarly, the short-term nature of the scheme means that we are not skilling up the workforce—the plasterers, electricians and plumbers—that we need to do these works. ECO4 is the longest iteration of the schemes and has been running for almost four years, but it is due to close next spring, and we still do not know what will replace it. Short schemes with short-notice changes do not allow businesses to invest in training or properly plan for the future. Even for the best-intentioned companies and tradespeople, that is not commercially viable. That was all underlined by evidence from across the sector in the recent Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report. The industry needs a 10-year plan so that it can invest in upskilling, take on apprenticeships knowing there will be work for them after their training, and be prepared to take on the challenge of making our homes future-proof.
Finally on ECO4, there desperately needs to be some clarity over how works are certified and payments are made. These are not just individual contractual disputes; the fact that Ofgem is administering the scheme tells a very different story. As I understand it, to get paid, an installer needs to register the works with TrustMark, providing photos, energy performance certificate ratings and so on. That is then validated before Ofgem releases the funds.
Considering the hundreds, if not thousands, of homes being damaged around the country, what precise validation is happening? Is money being released for those ruined homes? What requirements are there on traders not just to say, “Sure, we installed a heat pump,” but to actually prove they have put a home back to the way it was? Where else is the money going in the supply line of referrals that I talked about earlier? Who is getting paid, by whom and for what?
I have talked a lot about ECO4, but I want to touch briefly on the wider consumer protection landscape because, now that things have gone wrong, that is where my constituents and many others are battling. I do not think it is controversial to say that it is a bit of a mess. The Competition and Markets Authority confirmed that in its 2023 report on consumer protection in green heating and insulation sector. It was reiterated by Citizens Advice in its “Hitting a Wall” report last year, and again by the ESNZ Committee in its “Retrofitting homes for net zero” report in spring.
I am aware—as I am sure the Minister will reference—that the Government are currently considering responses to a consultation on requiring the microgeneration certification scheme to be the sole certification scheme for clean heat installations. Having seen constituents, and my caseworkers on their behalf, battle through a maze of different accreditation and oversight bodies to try to find someone to take responsibility for this work, a single body seems incredibly sensible, but I still have some questions.
How would that one body sit alongside TrustMark and Ofgem? Would it replace TrustMark and, if so, how would it be better equipped to accredit and oversee retrofit contractors? Would it solve the problem of traders being able to say they are accredited, and showing that they are accredited, when complaints have already started coming in? At the moment, it is far too easy for them to chop and change logos, or to continue to display a logo that they should not be able to. How do we make that new, single body sufficiently powerful and reactive so that it can be trusted by consumers?
Policy specialists recently suggested to me that local authorities could be trusted to keep a list of accredited local traders. I had to tell them that some already do. Indeed, in North East Fife, a contractor just told constituents that they were not displayed yet due to a delay in the application process. That is very believable, given how stretched local government is.
What happens to consumers when their homes are left ruined, with works poorly carried out, and the companies have lied about being certified or have now dissolved and vanished? What will happen to people stuck in the original system, whose works were carried out under the current failing scheme, who are being pushed from pillar to post with no end point in sight? Those are the experiences of my constituents and many others. To keep fighting for someone to be on their side is breaking them. Where is their solution?
Failures in consumer protection clearly go beyond the ECO4 scheme, but there are particular problems for consumers funded via ECO4. So many people, often vulnerable, are pushed into having work done, and the nature of the schemes increases the chances of being allocated an unskilled or rogue trader. Some of the people I have spoken to in the run-up to today have said that this is a scandal that no one takes responsibility for, and they are very concerned about speaking out about it. I hope that the Minister will address my concerns this morning.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that the Member in charge does not have the opportunity to wind up the debate. I call the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this important debate and shining a light on the problem, which I agree is systemic, and also for sharing the case of her constituent, Jackie, which is both worrying and heartbreaking. I want to reaffirm the Government’s unwavering commitment to driving up standards—we know we must do this—and to strengthening consumer protection and rebuilding public trust in home upgrades.
On 23 January I informed the House of the discovery of widespread non-compliance in the insulation of solid wall insulation under the ECO4 and Great British insulation scheme. I am clear that blameless families have fallen victim to work that is not up to standard and which, if untreated, could lead to chronic issues of damp and mould spoiling their homes. This, for me, was a wake-up call and clearly shows that the system needs reform. Since then, we have taken clear and co-ordinated action to address the issues and protect affected households. I will set out the steps we have taken.
As I set out in my statement to the House in January, as soon as my Department was made aware of the issues we worked at pace to establish an expanded programme of checks, which we have asked Ofgem to oversee. I am pleased to report that those checks have progressed quickly; where issues have been identified they are already being resolved. I encourage all households who are contacted to have an audit on their property to take up those checks, even if they do not think there is a problem. We are building up a comprehensive picture of the scale and size of the problem and I will update the House in due course.
Our immediate priority was to protect consumers. Alongside the ongoing checks, we are implementing a comprehensive plan to remedy poor quality installations in accordance with the required standards. Where substandard work is identified, we have been clear that it is the installer’s responsibility to put it right at no cost to the household. Some 90% of the installations identified as not being up to standard have already been remediated, I am glad to say. We will continue to apply pressure on installers to take responsibility to fix the issues and not put the burden on individual consumers. If Jackie is struggling to get the system to respond in the way that it should, I will be happy for her to meet me and for us to take up that specific case.
Beyond energy efficiency measures, we are also verifying the quality of installations of two microgeneration technologies—heat pumps and solar panels—that were installed under ECO4. Installers use the publicly available specification standard for energy efficiency, and a standard set by the microgeneration certification scheme for heat pumps and solar. The MCS has been carrying out additional site audits of the microgeneration installations. So far, we have not seen concerning evidence of consumer detriment, but we are completing further checks before we can be assured that there are no systemic problems in the installation of microgeneration technologies. If substandard work is found, the MCS makes installers put it right. It is very important that the people who get this wrong are not allowed to walk away. They must be the ones to remediate the problems.
We were clear that we need further oversight of the system while we bring in bigger reforms, which I will come on to. The National Audit Office is undertaking an investigation into the issues with ECO4 scheme. We welcome that investigation and the insights it will bring. We have also taken steps to strengthen oversight of the wider consumer protection system, so that in the short term, while we bring in wider reforms, we stop problems happening. That includes the UK Accreditation Service increasing rates of inspection of certification bodies, and agreement with TrustMark that a senior Department for Energy Security and Net Zero official will attend its board in an advisory capacity, so that we keep a firm grip on issues as they arise.
Certification bodies have agreed that installers will only be PAS 2030 certified for each measure by one certification body. The latest iteration of PAS 2035/2030 standards, which came into force on 30 March, introduced strengthened requirements to ensure high-quality installations. Energy suppliers have also strengthened their oversight of solid-wall insulation measures, so that there are additional audits and oversight of any measures brought forward.
Those are all important, necessary short-term steps, but it is clear to me that there is a systemic problem. We recognise that and are very clear that we need to put it right. We inherited a situation of many organisations with different roles and responsibilities involved in ensuring the quality of retrofit activity, resulting in a fragmented and confusing system of consumer protections. To address that and to create a clear, more comprehensive set of standards for consumers, we are moving forward with reforms, which we will announce in our warm homes plan to be published in October.
That plan will look at the entire of spectrum, including the training and the capacity building of installers, who are key. It will look at how installers who work in people’s homes are certified and monitored, and the quality assurance regime that we put in place. One insight we found was that capital schemes that tend to be overseen by local authorities and devolved Administrations have far fewer issues because of the level of quality assurance.
The plan will also inform people where to turn for redress when things go wrong, making that as simple as possible. The situation where consumers have to jump through multiple hoops just to get things sorted cannot be allowed to continue. Guarantees must be in place to ensure that, when things do go wrong, consumers do not foot the bill, and work is remediated by the system.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. It appears the Government do recognise the scale of the problem. Does she have anything to say about the worrying reports I received when preparing for this debate of people being forced to withdraw complaints before remedial work is carried out by companies? Is there anything we can do there?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. We will take that away because that is unacceptable. We have been in regular touch with every part of the system since this issue came to light. We are talking to installers, certification bodies, TrustMark, the MCS and Ofgem. I will take that issue away and write to her.
My final point on the reform agenda is that we clearly need a guiding mind overseeing the system. One reason we are in this bind is because we do not have that guiding mind. Let me reassure the hon. Member, who has spoken eloquently, passionately and with great insight about this issue time and again. the Government will take the decisive action that is necessary to protect the interests of consumers. It is essential to restore consumer trust, because we must take people on this journey of upgrading their homes, not just for our clean power mission but because that is the route to drive down bills and tackle the cost of living crisis.
If people do not trust the system, do not trust that upgrades will be of the utmost standards and that, if things go wrong, they will be fixed, they will not come with us on that journey. I am clear that we take these issues seriously. We inherited them but they are ours to fix. We will put in place a reform agenda and, critically, for people who have been affected by ECO4, we are working hard to ensure that the system does what it needs to do—that is, when issues are identified, installers go in and certification bodies TrustMark and MCS do their job to ensure that it is remediated at no cost. In the short term, we are trying to fix the problem we inherited. Then we will draw a line and put in place a system that is fit for purpose so that we can build consumer trust.
Question put and agreed to.
Whistleblowers
(1 day, 14 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
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of whistleblowers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Last week we marked World Whistleblower Day, so it is only right that we come together in this place to recognise the contribution that whistleblowers make to our society. Time and again, whistleblowers bravely expose wrongdoing, often at great personal and professional risk. Whistleblowers are key to alerting law enforcement agencies about criminal activity, and they play a crucial role in delivering successful prosecutions.
We all know that whistleblowers on the inside are often the most valuable sources of information, notably when it concerns illicit financial activities. Indeed, 43% of fraud was detected by tip-offs last year. The Serious Fraud Office frequently cites whistleblowers as a vital source of information for its investigations, and over half of whistleblowing reports received by the Financial Conduct Authority led to regulatory action by the watchdog last year.
With all that in mind, to open the debate, I would like to focus on one particular whistleblower: Raphaël Halet. That case shows the real impact that whistleblowers can have, bringing about positive change in society by shining a spotlight on issues of public concern—in this instance, aggressive tax avoidance. Ten years ago, Mr Halet, then a PricewaterhouseCoopers employee, revealed documents to the press that exposed a major global network of tax avoidance schemes based out of the tax haven of Luxembourg. These shocking revelations captured headlines around the world and quickly grew into a bigger scandal known as the LuxLeaks.
The documents that Mr Halet leaked exposed the secret deals used by hundreds of the world’s largest companies—firms like Pepsi, IKEA, Amazon and Disney—to reduce their tax bills to next to nothing. These leaks helped to set the stage for ongoing efforts to impose a minimum global tax on corporations and, eventually, for a ruling last year by the European Court of Justice, which ordered the corporate giant Apple to return about $14 billion of unpaid taxes in Ireland.
However, those documents became the subject of criminal charges in Luxembourg against Mr Halet. Thankfully, 10 years later, he was exonerated, alongside the other two LuxLeaks whistleblowers. I firmly believe that those leaks have helped the European Union to improve whistleblower protections and ensure that future whistleblowers do not unjustly face criminal charges.
Here in the UK, despite the important contribution of whistleblowers, individuals often lose their job when they come forward, simply because the existing legal framework lacks sufficient protections. As it stands, just 4% of whistleblowers in the UK win their cases if they are unfairly dismissed by their employer. I am quite sure that this deters any would-be whistleblower from ever speaking up and speaking truth to power. Our current framework also fails to adequately respond to whistleblowing. Employers are not duty-bound to have whistleblowing arrangements or to investigate when a whistleblower reports. Over 40% of the whistleblowers that Protect, which is the UK’s leading whistleblowing charity, spoke to in 2024 reported that they had been ignored.
To ensure that whistleblowers are better listened to, the Government should consider introducing a legal duty for companies to hold investigations into legitimate whistleblower concerns. This proposal has strong cross-party support, including from Sir Robert Buckland, the former Conservative Justice Secretary; Baroness Hodge of Barking, a former Labour Minister; and a former Liberal Democrat Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who joins us today. I expect there will also be support from Members who speak later in the debate.
Ignoring or failing to protect whistleblowers carries not just a human cost but a financial one. The Protect charity found that ignoring whistleblowers in just three scandals—the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Countess of Chester scandal and the Carillion scandal—cost the taxpayer a combined £423 million in the long run, which is a staggering figure. That could have funded the construction of 14 new schools, or even run a prison for some 20 years.
As I have said, speaking up can have career-ending and life-altering consequences. Whistleblowers often suffer immense professional, personal and psychological harm. The contribution of whistleblowers is huge, so we should offer fairness in return. That is why I support creating a whistleblower award initiative, as part of a comprehensive set of reforms to better protect and listen to whistleblowers.
The Royal United Services Institute has found that the United States and Canadian whistleblower award programmes, accompanied by safeguards and protections, as well as well-resourced regulators, have successfully increased the number of whistleblowers coming forward, enhanced law enforcement outcomes and improved the rates of financial recovery. This Government have already indicated that they recognise the potential benefits of introducing such rewards here in the UK. Just over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Foreign Secretary at the time, said that he would launch a new whistleblower award scheme to incentivise and encourage sources to step forward.
That is a commitment that we all want to see, and it is exactly where we should open today’s debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on current thinking on whistleblower awards nearly one year into government. It is clear from all the evidence—I expect that we will hear much more today—that we need to do far more to collectively support, protect, reward and, most importantly, listen to whistleblowers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that if they wish to catch my eye to speak in the debate, they must bob. That would help me enormously. I call Mr Jim Shannon. [Interruption.]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for setting the scene so well, as he often does on these issues. I have spoken in previous debates on this topic, and it is an important issue for me.
The Minister and I were talking as we walked up to vote, and he reminded me of the story I am going to tell—a true story of a friend who was a whistleblower, and the effect it had on him personally, physically, emotionally and financially. Ultimately, it affected all his family. I will tell the story without mentioning his last name, but I will use his first name for the purposes of the debate.
Whistleblowing is a risk internally in any organisation in the public, private or voluntary sectors—it can affect us all. We probably all have many examples to give, and that is the point. The idea is to expose problems that may arise, such as fraud, violations, discrimination or downright corruption. There are provisions in place, and I believe in the protection of whistleblowers, so I very much look forward to discussing this issue. We just left the Chamber to vote on Lords amendments—a different focus in respect of a different Bill, obviously, but whistleblowing was the central theme of the discussions.
In a previous debate on this matter, I went into detail about a close friend of mine. His name was Brian, and that is all I will say, other than that we were friends from childhood the whole way through. He is sadly no longer with us. To give a brief reminder, Brian was a childhood friend who had suffered greatly due to his experience as a whistleblower. I fought a whole campaign for him, right through to meeting the companies that were involved. I knew the stress that Brian had. I also knew the physical impact it had on him.
Brian was a wonderful person. I use his story as an example of how people can be penalised for doing the right thing. I know the Minister knows the story well and that he will respond, as he always does, with help and compassion on the issues that we try to expound in Westminster Hall and in the Chamber. The right thing may not always be a natural choice for some, but for Brian it was never in dispute. He was committed to doing the right thing when he became aware of what was happening at that time.
I stand proud of Brian for the sacrifice he made in doing things properly and by the book, and for sticking rigidly to opposing what he knew was wrong the whole way through the system. Brian was a strapping big guy— six foot, and a rugby player at school, he was physically strong—and I would have thought he was mentally strong too. Unfortunately, the whistleblowing weakened him not only physically but emotionally.
I stand here as a supporter of protection for those who, like Brian, dare to speak truth to higher authority and take it the whole way through the system. When something is wrong, they have the guts, the courage and the commitment to do what is right, even when adversity stares them in the eye. Trust is earned, but protection is an entitlement for those who raise issues that could be of detriment to the greater good.
It is also a reality that many feel they cannot bring to superiors the issues of concern they wish to bring, in order to use the process as it is laid out. That is where the legislation must be strengthened, which is why I welcome what the Government are doing to ensure that protections are in place and that people do not feel intimidated or frightened to speak the truth. That should never happen in this world. We should protect people in every way from what can overtake them, as it did in Brian’s case. He got justice in the end, but it took its toll.
For Northern Ireland specifically, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is the primary legislation used for protecting whistleblowers. It makes it unlawful for employers to dismiss workers or subject them to detriment because they have made a protected disclosure. A protected disclosure should be exactly what it says: there should be no feedback and no comeback, and they should be able to do something that, legally, they are able to do under the law, to highlight something that is wrong in a company. That legislation applies to both the private and public sector.
A UK legal study found that 73% of whistleblowers reported feeling victimised or, indeed, felt forced to resign, with many suffering significant anxiety and depression. That is what happened to Brian. Furthermore, there is no doubt about the mental toll that whistleblowing can take in terms of post-traumatic stress disorder and trauma. Nobody should have to feel that way about raising concerns that they feel need to be looked at or addressed.
I think of the experiences that my friend went through—the health issues he experienced and the downward trend in health. He was under emotional pressure and the anxiety levels were incredibly high. He also suffered financially. He was a high-flyer in a well-known company. His earnings back in the ’80s were at a level that I could only have dreamed about at that age. He suffered financially and his farm suffered financially, and the outcome was a smaller house. He was a family man, and his family were growing up at the time.
I think of the exceptional financial and physical problems that he suffered because he took an exceptional stand. Nobody should have to face losing everything for doing what they believe is right. I see it as a brave thing to question potential wrongdoing, and I know the Minister does as well. We need more protections in place. I look to the Minister, as I always do, for his commitment, which I know is forthcoming.
As always, I also ask whether the Minister has had the opportunity to speak to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations, to ensure that the commitment of Ministers here will be the same as the ones made in Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as in Scotland and Wales. Will the Minister engage with the devolved institutions to ensure that we have strong legislation surrounding this issue across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That is the reason why I am here—I am here because of Brian.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate. As is well known, I worked as a solicitor prior to coming to this place, and I advised a significant number of clients on whistleblowing matters. Based on that experience, I think my hon. Friend is quite right that whistleblowers make an immense contribution to society and that their protection is extremely important.
I will take this opportunity to highlight two gaps in the law as I saw them in practice. The first relates to who is covered by the existing law. The EU whistleblowing directive would have introduced in this country coverage for self-employed people under the purview of the whistleblowing Act, but of course we have left the EU, so I assume we will not be implementing it. That is a terrible shame, because self-employed people are really important in this picture.
I have some casework relevant to this matter that I cannot refer to because it is going through tribunal, but in 2022 Inside Housing magazine found that, post Grenfell, fire risk assessors were coming under pressure from their employers or, if they were self-employed, their commissioners to downgrade their assessment of fire risk in social housing, because it is so expensive to remediate. In other words, fire risk assessors were whistleblowing that they were concerned that, when they had to make a professional judgment about danger, they were being put under pressure to assess things as being less dangerous than they actually were.
A lot of fire risk assessors are self-employed and are incredibly vulnerable, particularly if they have a major social housing client, as many do. They have all the vulnerability of being a whistleblower but none of the protection of employment legislation. They also work for other people, so they are not an employee and may not meet the definition of worker, so they are currently completely excluded. Protect has been campaigning for us to introduce protection into the law, and the EU has recognised that we need protection in law for self-employed people who whistleblow. I would very much like to see the law changed. It would be in the best interests of the whole country and everybody’s safety if we did so.
The second problem with whistleblowing law is that it is hard to advise a client that it is worth their taking the risk to bring a case because it is very difficult to prove reliably that what caused the breakdown of the relationship with their employer is the fact that they whistleblew. Employers understandably do not want to admit that their employee was mistreated because they whistleblew, to the extent that they systematically delude themselves about why that person was excluded and subsequently dismissed.
There are two ways in which that happens. In a financial services context, I have seen a person’s performance being heavily criticised as “non-commercial”. What that actually means is that the person is not giving the advice that people want to hear, which is quite different from not being commercial; it means that the person actually has regard for the law, and that is unpopular. We have seen examples of that. It is well known that the in-house counsel for the Post Office stopped being invited to meetings because she was not providing the advice on the law that people wanted to hear, so the board and the chief exec just started shutting her out.
It definitely happens in legal contexts and financial services contexts. People’s performance starts to be criticised very heavily, but to the person advising them there will be a systematic set of evidence that shows that they were being performance managed. The person advising the client has to tell them, “This is high risk. Your employer is going to say that you were underperforming. I am going to say, on your behalf, that you were being penalised for whistleblowing, but some of this will depend on what the tribunal finds on the day.” That is quite a difficult environment in which to advise people to continue to whistleblow.
The second line of case law that is really problematic in a whistleblowing context is about the irreconcilable breakdown of relationships. There is a whole line of case law about how badly people fall out with their colleagues when they start whistleblowing. I have seen that in an NHS context—in fact, the line of case law comes from an NHS context. The employer says, “Oh, no—you haven’t been penalised for whistleblowing. You’re an impossible human being. You are impossible to work with. You have fallen out with all your colleagues and you have been dismissed completely legitimately for another substantial reason: you cannot work with anyone, and that is compromising patient safety.”
I have watched an NHS trust systematically trying to line up a member of staff—it is clear from reading the papers—to say that they absolutely cannot get on with their colleagues any more. It carried out independent investigations to find that the person cannot get on with their colleagues. The reason why the person cannot get on with their colleagues is that they are repeatedly raising concerns about their clinical practice, which those people do not want to hear, so they all round on the whistleblower. The case law on the irreconcilable breakdown of relationships is hugely problematic for whistleblowers, and we need clarity in the law such that employers cannot hide behind—or frankly, construct—an irreconcilable breakdown of the relationship to hide, and make potentially lawful, a dismissal that in any other circumstance would clearly be a whistleblowing dismissal.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. There is a significant need for legal change in this area.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate, during which I wish to talk about the contribution of whistleblowers through the specific lens of tackling economic crime—an endeavour to which I dedicated almost 15 years of my life.
Economic crime costs this country an eye-watering £350 billion a year. That is the equivalent of 15% of our GDP, siphoned away by fraudsters, the corrupt, bribe takers, and the organised crime gangs that thrive off illicit finance, and yet the UK allocates a meagre 0.05% of its GDP to law enforcement agencies that are tasked with combating this national threat. Our public finances are in a very challenging position, so we need to give those agencies cost-effective tools to catch the criminals, recover stolen assets and hold corporations to account. That is why we must empower one of our most powerful underutilised resources: whistleblowers.
Whistleblowers are the eyes and ears inside organisations where economic crime is committed. They are our frontline allies. Often, they are the only ones who can see fraud taking place or corruption being buried, and yet all too often they are ignored, unsupported or, regrettably, even punished for speaking out. Let me be clear: if we are serious about tackling economic crime, we must also be serious about supporting whistleblowers.
The evidence is compelling. Research by the campaign group Spotlight on Corruption found that in the United States from 1986 to 2022, whistleblowers were responsible for 69% of all the proceeds that the Department of Justice recovered through civil fraud cases involving Government funds. That it not a trickle; it amounts to an incredible $50.4 billion out of the $72.6 billion recovered by the US DOJ in that period. That is a flood of stolen public money returned to taxpayers because someone had the courage to speak up. The UK should learn from that example.
Our system does not work as well as it could for whistleblowers. Speaking up about wrongdoing can lead to the end of someone’s career, and it can mean personal, psychological and financial ruin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) admirably spoke about. As researchers at the Centre for Finance and Security at RUSI have made clear, moral motivation alone is not enough to sustain a whistleblowing culture. We need a systemic shift and a new approach that recognises whistleblowers as vital sources of intelligence, not just idealists acting out of principle.
The Post Office Horizon scandal came to light not because of Government oversight, but because brave individuals took it upon themselves to blow the whistle. The Danske Bank money laundering affair, which involved €200 billion in illicit funds flowing through Estonia, unravelled thanks to an insider who refused to look away. Those are not isolated examples; they are warnings of what happens when systems fail and people are silenced. We must do better.
What can be done? The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, of which I am a member, has put forward two measures in its economic crime manifesto that could make the UK a leader, not a laggard, when it comes to whistleblower protection and impact.
First, the manifesto proposes that companies must be required to investigate whistleblower concerns relating to economic crime, with independent oversight of those investigations. Too many companies currently treat whistleblowing as a reputational threat to manage, not a red flag to act on. I know that myself having spent more than a decade tackling economic crime and bribery in the financial services sector. Employees raise concerns, but they can be swiftly buried or dismissed, and there is no statutory duty to take the disclosures seriously and no independent body to check whether an investigation was conducted fairly, or even at all. That must change. We should compel companies to treat whistleblowing disclosures with the seriousness they deserve and ensure oversight to prevent cover-ups; otherwise, the very people who know what is happening are driven into silence or despair.
Secondly, the Government should look at the merits of establishing a central, easily accessible, secure and responsive whistleblowing body that can offer advice, support and a safe route to report wrongdoing. Currently, potential whistleblowers are left navigating a bureaucratic maze. They often do not know who to turn to and, when they do, they might be met with silence, confusion or—worse—retaliation. We must take this out of the shadows. A central body would not only simplify the process for blowing the whistle, but build trust, ensure consistency and act as a much-needed conduit between whistleblowers and law enforcement.
I welcome the leadership shown by the Serious Fraud Office under its director Nick Ephgrave. The SFO has rightly identified whistleblower incentivisation reform as a key strategic priority for 2025-26. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset mentioned, it is vital that we have a framework for rewarding and supporting those who blow the whistle. I accept that that marks a critical shift in thinking, from viewing whistleblowers as risks to seeing them as assets. Strengthening our whistleblowing framework would help law enforcement gather evidence earlier, reduce investigative delays and save public funds.
With the withdrawal of US leadership on this front internationally, has the Minister considered that strengthening our own whistleblowing framework and incentivisation schemes could prompt more whistleblowers from other jurisdictions to view the UK as a jurisdiction of choice in which to blow the whistle? That could have economic benefits for our agencies and the Exchequer.
Ultimately, we need to engender a cultural shift—one that reframes whistleblowing not as betrayal, but as public service, and says to financial professionals, civil servants and corporate employees alike, “If you see wrongdoing, we’ve got your back.” That is why I pay tribute to the whistleblowing charity Protect, which for decades has supported individuals who took the hardest step of all: to tell the truth in the face of adversity. Its work is so important, because economic crime is not victimless. It robs pensioners, rips off taxpayers and funds everything from kleptocracy abroad to serious organised criminals peddling drugs or firearms at home.
Whistleblowers help us see the unseen, name the unnamed and hold the untouchable to account. I call on the Minister to look at giving whistleblowers the legal backing and institutional support they deserve; learn from the United States, where whistleblowing incentives drive billions in recoveries; and, above all, let us create a system that protects those who protect the public interest.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on obtaining this extremely important debate. We have heard quality information from colleagues around the Chamber on how this matter needs to be tackled for the common good of the United Kingdom. Clearly, the law is not strong enough on whistleblowing. People leave themselves open to harm if they do the right thing. As colleagues have said, the Government should have their backs, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Colleagues have highlighted that there needs to be a change of culture. Some parts of the aviation industry are very good on their culture: among air traffic controllers, there is openness and transparency. Things are shared not just when there are crashes, but when near misses happen and lessons can be learned. We need exactly that openness and transparency in industry and in society more generally. Whistleblowers cast a light into dark corners.
I want to reflect on the occasions during my time as a servant of Torbay that I have come across whistleblowers who have had a positive impact. I sat on a tribunal in respect of a social worker; whistleblowers had played a significant role in the local authority’s parting ways with him, and he was struck off because of the issues that whistleblowers raised. Waste management in Torbay is another area where a whistleblower stepped out from among his colleagues and shared some challenges. That was some years ago, and matters were taken in hand and positive changes made.
On the international scene, one has only to look at Boeing and a gentleman called John Barnett, who had worked for the company for more than 30 years as a quality control manager. He blew the whistle about serious concerns, yet sadly he was not protected and he ended up committing suicide a little over a year ago. Those are some of the real challenges that we see, both close to home for me in Torbay and internationally, and examples of how whistleblowers act in the best interests of our communities.
Non-disclosure arrangements often play a part in this world. They are meant to be purely about intellectual property rights, but they are often used to silence people. I experienced a situation a few years ago in which, due to my disability, there was wrongdoing that could have been taken to the law. Compensation was paid, which I passed on to charities of my choice, but I still had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, even though the company in question had picked up better ways and should have been sharing that.
Liberal Democrats want an office of the whistleblower to be created, and we want laws on whistleblowing to be strengthened so that people are protected, but most of all we need a culture change, with a culture of belief and support for whistleblowers. As colleagues have said throughout the debate, they do so much good for our society as a whole.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate. We have had a short but good debate with well-informed contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members. I am pleased to speak about the contribution of whistleblowers —the men and women who often, at great personal cost, speak truth to power and expose wrongdoing that threatens the public interest.
Whistleblowers are a vital component of any transparent and accountable society. From exposing financial misconduct in public contracts to raising the alarm about unsafe practices in hospitals, schools and the criminal justice system, they are often the first line of defence against systemic failure. They help protect taxpayer money, uphold ethical standards and, in some cases, save lives. Under the previous Conservative Government, we took their contribution seriously. We recognised that whistleblowers must be supported, not silenced. That is why we commissioned a comprehensive review of the UK’s whistleblowing framework. That review, launched in 2023, aimed to modernise the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, reflecting the changing nature of workplaces, technology and organisational cultures.
We took concrete steps. The last Government expanded the list of prescribed persons—independent bodies to whom whistleblowers can safely report wrongdoing. We introduced new protections for whistleblowers in health and social care, ensuring that staff who spoke up about abuse or unsafe conditions could not be victimised or dismissed. We supported the establishment of confidential reporting channels across Government Departments, particularly in defence procurement and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, where vast sums of public money are at stake.
We also supported the Office of the Whistleblower Bill, championed in the other place by Baroness Kramer and others—a cross-party effort that recognised that current enforcement is fragmented and that an independent body with real teeth is essential if we are to protect whistleblowers and punish retaliation effectively. I regret to say that the current Government are undoing much of that progress.
Sarah Russell
My recollection of the development of the law during that time is that the cap on unfair dismissal awards applied to whistleblowing, which made it much more difficult for me to get adequate compensation for my clients, particularly if they were high earners in the financial services sector.
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady clearly has a great deal of experience as a solicitor before her election to this place. I am not trying to make the case that everything is as it should be—in fact, I just said that the system clearly needs reform—but I think the last Conservative Government should be proud of concrete steps they took, which I hope will be built on by the new Government, but at the moment, the evidence is pointing the other way.
Despite warm words about transparency and ethics in public life, Labour has shown a concerning reluctance to strengthen whistleblower protections. The much anticipated response to the 2023 review has been repeatedly delayed. In the meantime, those brave enough to speak up remain exposed to career-ending retaliation, blacklisting or legal threats.
Worse still, Labour has quietly watered down safeguards in some of the very sectors where whistleblowers are most needed. I point, for example, to the recent decision to roll back reforms on anonymous reporting in the national health service. In the name of organisational cohesion, Labour is silencing dissent and discouraging staff from flagging issues that could directly impact patient safety.
Sarah Russell
I need to apologise to the shadow Minister—I was inaccurate on that last point, so I just want to correct the record.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s correction. This House would be a far better place if everyone corrected their errors in a much timelier manner. We all make mistakes, and it is good when we stand up and admit to them.
This same attitude is evident in the Government’s approach to transparency in the armed forces. Those on the Conservative Front Bench in the other place have been pressing the Government to include a whistleblowing function in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. The noble Baroness Goldie’s amendments would give armed forces personnel the ability to raise a whistleblowing complaint to the commissioner, with the commissioner required to investigate and ensure complete anonymity. The Government have repeatedly opposed adding a whistleblowing function to that Bill. Labour peers and MPs have voted against the noble Baroness Goldie’s amendments three times to date, arguing that they are unnecessary.
The Government have claimed these amendments could make it less likely for someone to come forward purely by including the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing”, yet that language is already widely used in such schemes. The NHS has a whistleblowing scheme known as the freedom to speak up policy, which directly uses the term “whistleblowing”. The Children’s Commissioner issues an annual whistleblowing report. To say that those terms would discourage people from raising issues is a fallacy and is not consistent with Government policy. If Labour was serious about this, it would have backed our amendment that would allow whistleblowers to come forward to the commissioner.
We have also seen worrying reports that Labour’s planned overhaul of procurement oversight may remove mandatory reporting requirements that flag up the fraud or conflicts of interest that are often brought to light by whistleblowers working inside those systems. That is not the direction we should be travelling in. A Government who are truly confident in their integrity should not fear whistleblowers; they should welcome them. They are not saboteurs, and they are not disloyal—they are patriots who put principle before personal gain, and they deserve better.
The Opposition remain committed to championing whistleblower protections. We believe in robust and enforceable safeguards. We believe in the need for an independent body to investigate whistleblower complaints and to protect those who speak up, and we will continue to hold the Government to account for any failure to protect those who protect the public interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate on the contribution of whistleblowers. I thank all the Members who have contributed to it. I join my hon. Friend’s tribute to those who blow the whistle, and I acknowledge the comments from various Members that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. I welcome the many views expressed on potential reforms.
Whistleblowers play a valuable role in shining a light on wrongdoing. Workers who blow the whistle deserve to be taken seriously and not treated poorly by their employers for doing the right thing. The Public Interest Disclosure Act was considered world leading in 1998, when it amended the Employment Rights Act 1996 to introduce protections for whistleblowers. Those protections ensure that workers who blow the whistle on certain types of wrongdoing are protected from dismissal or detriment if certain conditions are met. That is known as a protected disclosure.
For a worker to receive protection, they must reasonably believe that a disclosure is in the public interest; the disclosure must concern one or more of the types of wrongdoing listed in the Act, such as a criminal offence or a danger to health and safety, and the worker must make the disclosure to their employer, another responsible person or one of the organisations prescribed in legislation. There are more than 90 prescribed persons that a worker may make a protective disclosure to, including many regulators that we are familiar with, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. The list of prescribed persons is regularly updated and has been updated in the past 12 months. I hope that allays the concern of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who said that we are rolling back on these issues.
Our protections are strong, but it is fair to say that, after a quarter of a century, there is work to be done to modernise the framework. A whole range of issues have been raised about how we may improve things. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset asked whether there should be a duty on employers to investigate when a disclosure is made. Currently, there is no legal requirement for employers to investigate protected disclosures, which sadly enables some employers to ignore a disclosure or to fail to take the necessary corrective actions to address whistleblowing reports, although, as I have mentioned, there are a great number of external bodies that whistleblowers can report matters to, should their employer not take action.
We should acknowledge that many employers have policies and procedures in place that they follow in good faith to ensure that action is taken. That is particularly the case in some of the sectors that are heavily regulated. A general duty to investigate does raise questions about what that would actually entail: what would a good duty look like? Disclosures can be made on a wide range of issues, so we need to think carefully about how such a duty would work in practice. One of the structural issues with the legislation is that a disclosure can be made and investigated, but that does not prevent detrimental treatment or dismissal for the individual. The protections are effectively retrospective in their application, but that is an important point that we will consider further.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset proposed adopting the US model of financial incentives, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) raised a similar issue. We will certainly consider those matters. Hon. Members may be aware from the autumn Budget, as reaffirmed at the spring statement by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), that the Government will strengthen HMRC’s scheme for rewarding informants to encourage reporting of high-value tax fraud and tax avoidance. A new scheme will launch later this year, which will look to target serious non-compliance by large companies, wealthy individuals, and offshore avoidance schemes. It will take some inspiration from successful US and Canadian models, which were referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West. He mentioned that $50.4 billion had been recovered thanks to whistleblowers in the US. I am sure that the Chancellor would be very receptive to that kind of figure finding its way into her coffers.
I will look at the recommendations made by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West mentioned. Importantly, he pointed out that companies facing a disclosure often look at it as a reputational threat rather than a wrong to be corrected. That is a very wise observation about the current deficiencies in the scheme. Actually, that issue is often about the culture in organisations rather than the legal framework. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) referred to the profound and effective cultural shift in the airline safety sector, which has helped people to feel empowered to speak up.
As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a strong contribution. He mentioned his friend Brian, as he has done previously. He said that for Brian, doing the right thing was the natural thing to do, but that does not mean it was any less courageous. I pay tribute to Brian and the hon. Member for Strangford for raising his issues. He astutely observed that the clue is in the name—these are protected disclosures, and at the moment, protection does not always follow disclosure.
The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), as we would expect, drew heavily on her legal experience, for which I am always grateful. She mentioned a recent EU directive about expanding the definition of those covered by whistleblowing. A number of arguments are being put forward to expand the current legal definition beyond workers, including calls to include the self-employed—as we know, there are a whole range of employment protections for which the self-employed do not have parity with workers or directly employed individuals—but also non-executive directors and charity trustees. I recognise that Protect has been working and campaigning on this issue for a good period of time. I met representatives of Protect earlier this year, and my officials will continue to engage with them on these important issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton also mentioned the question of legal tests. There is awareness in government that employers sometimes rely on reasons that are not, on the face of it, directly related to protected disclosure but are, as my hon. Friend articulately set out, very much related to that when we get underneath into the detail. That particularly relates to the idea that providing unwelcome advice is being classed as a performance issue. I recognise the characterisation of irretrievable breakdowns in the workplace, which can happen for a number of reasons, including when a whistleblower does not feel that their voice is being heard. I recognise those concerns.
Another point we need to reflect on is that there is not enough public awareness and knowledge of how whistleblowing legislation works. Many workers are unsure of their rights or how to make disclosures within the current framework. Indeed, when I was in practice, I recall telling individuals who had talked to me about their situation at work that they had probably made a protected disclosure. They had never thought about what they did in those terms, but the law was there to protect them.
The framework entitles people to bring employment tribunal cases to seek a remedy following dismissal or detrimental treatment, but that is often a slow, costly and complex method of redress. I was concerned to hear the statistics my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset gave about the success rates for those claims. If an individual is in an employment tribunal having made a protected disclosure, it is almost certain that that employment relationship has come to an end anyway. I also recognise that the framework does not actually require confidentiality or anonymity for whistleblowers, which can sometimes deter people for fear of retribution.
A number of Members asked whether we should have an office of the whistleblower. As the shadow Minister says, proposals have been made in the other place. My understanding is that such an office would not only protect whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes and enforce compliance and reporting standards, but establish new criminal sanctions for non-compliance. It would be a significant change to the existing framework. There are a number of different suggestions about how it would operate in practice, but it is something we are taking an interest in.
The shadow Minister asked about the Grant Thornton review, which began under the Conservative Government. I can commit to that report being realised very shortly. It does not make recommendations for reform, but it provides some observations and insights into how the current framework operates. As one would expect, it has obtained stakeholder feedback and there has been a literature review. We will be able to build on it moving forward.
The shadow Minister also characterised—I think unfairly—our approach as regressive. He will know that the Employment Rights Bill includes additional protections for whistleblowers and those who speak up about sexual harassment. I do not expect he will support the Bill, even though it includes those measures. He mentioned the changes in the NHS framework. The freedom to speak up process still applies in the NHS. On the armed forces suggestions, the whole purpose of the Bill is to give a framework for people to be able to speak up about their treatment, including families of those in the armed forces.
The protections in the Bill, which is now in the other place, will signal to employers that workers who make protected disclosures about sexual harassment in particular must be treated fairly. Workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment for speaking up about sexual harassment. We have also committed to implementing professional standards for NHS managers to hold them accountable for silencing whistleblowers or endangering patients through misconduct. As we heard from the Prime Minister earlier today, we remain fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and sanctions for those who refuse to comply.
The recent Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) (Amendment) Order 2025 allows workers to make protected disclosures to relevant Government Departments or on suspected breaches of sanctions. These changes will help workers to qualify for employment protections when disclosing to Government information relating to financial, transport and certain trade sanctions, and seek redress should they suffer detriment or dismissal at work due to making a protected disclosure.
I appreciate that we need to consider many issues. A range of ideas has been put forward, and it is important that we take the opportunity to explore them further, so that we find the right solutions that work for everyone in the economy, and give whistleblowers the protection that everyone agrees they need.
Lloyd Hatton
I would like to conclude today’s debate by summarising some of the helpful and constructive contributions of hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for outlining the bravery of his constituent Brian. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) for describing the high-risk culture around whistleblowers and the fear that it creates for many.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who has been a tireless champion on this issue, for highlighting, first, the scale of the economic crime epidemic that we face in the UK, and secondly, the critical role of whistleblowers in tackling the problem head on. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for making it clear that we are a stronger society because of whistleblowers, and that when they come forward in the public interest, we all benefit.
Finally, I thank the Minister for his remarks. He was right to outline that the current framework is in need of modernisation and does not deal with the challenges that we face. I look forward to further action from the Government. I also welcome his looking at the US model and seeing how it works to adequately reward and protect whistleblowers. I hope that we can learn from that example. I welcome what he said about HMRC, and urge him and the whole Government to be bold in properly empowering and equipping HMRC to work more effectively with whistleblowers and to tackle the scandal of aggressive tax avoidance and evasion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of whistleblowers.
Space Weather
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of space weather on the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. There are debates in this House that deal with the visible challenges of our time, such as conflict, inflation and public services, and then every so often, there are those that deal with the dangers not yet on our doorstep, but hurtling towards us all the same. This is such a debate. The threat that I raise today does not wear a uniform, cross borders or sail across oceans. It travels from the heart of our solar system, faster than sound, silent and invisible. It is called space weather, and it poses one of the gravest risks to our modern way of life.
I will start with a simple truth: the sun, for all its warmth and majesty, can also be a menace. It gives us energy, light and life, but without warning it can unleash waves of electromagnetic fury so powerful and indiscriminate that they can bring nations to a standstill in a matter of minutes. This is not speculation or science fiction; it is based on history and science, and it is an urgent question of national resilience.
In 1859, a solar storm known as the Carrington event ignited telegraph wires, shocked operators and lit up the skies from Canada to the Caribbean. In the 21st century, such a storm would do more than send sparks down copper wires. It would knock out GPS, disable satellites, crash the grid, blind radar systems and paralyse entire regions. In 1989, Quebec’s power grid collapsed in under two minutes; schools shut, hospitals faltered and 6 million people were left in the dark. In 2012, a storm of Carrington magnitude missed Earth by just a matter of days. After that, NASA estimated that the global cost would have exceeded $2.6 trillion.
In short, we are not speculating about what might happen; we are merely observing what has already happened, just not to us—or at least not yet. In effect, we are living between bullets: one already fired, another having just missed, and a third, we must assume, now chambered.
We live in a nation defined by connection. Our power grid, transport system, banks, hospitals and military platforms are all linked, all digital and all dependent on space-borne technology. It is one of the great marvels of modern Britain. But it is also, if we are frank, one of our greatest vulnerabilities. A severe solar storm would not simply inconvenience us; it would disrupt the essential machinery of civilised life. High-frequency radios used by pilots and the armed forces fail. Satellites are disabled. Navigation systems go dark. Power lines are overloaded by geomagnetic surges, and cascading failures begin.
The Met Office, supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering, has warned that a major event could leave parts of the UK without electricity for days or even weeks. When the power goes, everything else follows: the supermarket tills, the mobile networks, the ventilators and the pumps that keep our water flowing. The digital backbone of our modern state is silenced. It is not just a problem for astronomers or scientists in their white coats, but a matter of national security, public health, financial stability and strategic foresight.
The United Kingdom does not enter this debate empty-handed. In 2021, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy produced the severe space weather preparedness strategy, which was a forward-looking and well-considered document. It identified three pillars: first, assessment to improve forecasting and monitoring; secondly, preparation to support resilience planning in key sectors; and thirdly, response and recovery to co-ordinate emergency action across Government, industry and services. Those are the right foundations, but as we all know, strategies do not defend countries; implementation does, and in that sense we are not yet where we need to be.
Let me identify four urgent areas for action. First, preparedness must become mandatory, not voluntary. We rightly legislate to ensure that our infrastructure can cope with floods, so why not do the same for solar storms? We have the regulators—Ofcom, Ofgem and the Civil Aviation Authority—and we need them to require, not merely recommend, that resilience plans are in place. When the warning comes, it will not arrive with some sort of grace period.
Secondly, we must harden our defence capability. Our armed forces are increasingly reliant on satellite-enabled systems, whether that is for communication, targeting or navigation. Every major platform, from Type 26 frigates to F-35 jets, integrates space-dependent systems. We must invest in hardened equipment and train to operate in degraded space conditions. We must fund research into back-up navigation systems and sovereign capabilities. The reality is that our adversaries are already preparing for such an environment and we must not be found lagging behind.
Thirdly, we must strengthen civil contingency planning. Local resilience forums are charged with keeping our communities safe. They plan for floods, pandemics and cyber-attacks, but in many areas, they do not yet plan for solar storms. They must be given the data, the scenarios and the authority to act.
Fourthly, we must lead international co-ordination. This threat does not respect borders; the response must be global. The United Kingdom should press for a framework through NATO, the G7, the UN or the European Space Agency to share data, align early-warning systems and co-ordinate national preparedness. We have led the world in tackling threats before. Let us now do the same in the case of space weather. This is not a matter of national pride; it is a matter of global necessity.
Let me bring the reality home to this House. Imagine that it is mid-January. The temperatures are freezing and the skies are dark. The sun erupts and a geomagnetic storm is en route. Local hospitals are now running on back-up power, ambulances are offline, phones are down and the grid is being rationed. Supermarkets are unable to take card payments, petrol pumps do not work, water pressure drops and air traffic is grounded. Our farmers cannot access the satellite data they need, small businesses grind to a halt, trains are suspended and mobile coverage is patchy or lost. The elderly, who are already vulnerable, are now cut off, isolated and invariably frightened. That is not fiction or dramatic exaggeration; it is foreseeable and preventable. All of that happens not because we lack the knowledge, but because we failed to act on it.
Governments are judged not only on whether they see crises coming, but on how they respond to them. There are threats we cannot foresee, but there are others, like this one, where the science is established, the risk is understood and the warning is clear. This is precisely the kind of threat that distinguishes those Governments that react from those that prepare. The storm may come next year or not for a generation but, when it does, it will be too late to start preparing then. This is not the moment for drift or delay; it is the moment for decisive leadership.
With that in mind, I ask the Minister to address six critical questions; they are not intended to catch anyone out but to encourage action. First, will the Government publish a delivery plan with clear targets and funding to give force to the 2021 strategy? Secondly, will Ministers bring forward statutory requirements for critical infrastructure operators to mitigate this risk? Thirdly, are the Government satisfied that our armed forces are equipped and trained to operate in the event of a space weather blackout?
Fourthly, what investment is being made in forecasting capabilities, including support of the ESA Vigil mission and co-ordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and others? Fifthly, will the Cabinet Office require local resilience forums to prepare for this threat, as they do for other category 1 emergencies? Finally, will Britain now lead efforts to build an international framework for preparedness, starting with NATO or the G7?
The case is clear, the risk is real and the time to act is now. Let us not be the generation that read the reports, saw the warnings, nodded thoughtfully and then did nothing. Let us instead be the generation that looked beyond the horizon, recognised the scale of the threat and acted with the seriousness it demands. The sun may well be 93 million miles away, but its reach is far closer than we think. When the next storm comes, let it not find us asleep at the wheel. Let it find us ready and prepared. Let it find a country that saw the storm and stood firm in the face of it.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner, and I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for securing this important debate. Space weather has profound effects on our planet, particularly now that we rely so heavily on technology that can be affected by radiation or changes to the magnetosphere. What is space weather? Basically, it is the sun chucking out gas and particles into space. It varies over time, and has peaks and troughs. We are currently just past the highest peak, but we are still in a very active period.
Three main types of solar weather events affect us on Earth: solar flares, solar energetic particles and coronal mass ejections. Those travel at different speeds, have different make-ups and have different impacts. Essentially, they all sneak past our normal protections—the magnetosphere and our atmosphere—and cause problems for us on Earth. The extra radiation and geomagnetic storms from the events can cause high-frequency radio blackouts and affect all sorts of electronic systems, both in space and on the ground. I also wanted to discuss the Carrington event in 1859, but time is short, so those watching at home will have to google it.
What can we do about the risks of space weather? First, I support the calls of the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. I asked my friend, astrophysicist Dr Alfredo Carpineti—I always keep a tame astrophysicist on hand—what he thought Parliament needed to know about space weather. He agreed with me that we must continue to invest in the Met Office space weather operations centre, which monitors and forecasts space weather, and promote its work. It has done a great job in reaching the public with its aurora forecasts, and I would love people to know more about the rest of its work.
I have very much enjoyed educating my colleagues about space weather this week. Dr Carpineti told me that we need more research on how the UK would cope with a Carrington-level event and work out how to mitigate the potential impact. Another key research topic is around the degradation of technologies from the continuous stream of particles from space. I am told that that is particularly relevant for British territories and facilities at higher latitudes.
I am very pleased that this debate is taking place, and pleased that I could contribute.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
It is a delight to see you in your place, Mr Turner, and to take part in this debate.
Given the weather we have been having, it is somewhat ironic that we are worrying about space weather. People sometimes think the sun is a wonderful thing and a delight when it comes out in the UK. It also helps ice cream sales, with the best ice cream in Britain coming from Subzero, made in the Rhondda—I note no contest on that. But having suffered from stage 4 melanoma, I am also conscious that the sun can cause enormous damage through normal exposure. One of the fastest growing forms of cancer in the UK is skin cancer, as a direct result of people being over-exposed to the sun. My advice is that people should avoid the sun between 10 o’clock and 3 o’clock and, if they are out in the sun, that they should cover up or use high-quality sunscreen.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for securing the debate, which relates to an important part of the resilience we need in this country. Of course, it is something we need to do not on our own but with our allies. As he said, we are intimately involved with the European Space Agency, and we will address some of these issues with allies in other countries.
The hon. Member is right to highlight the importance of space weather. He referred to the 1989 Quebec incident, and there are many others, although some have not been quite as severe. He did not mention what happened in May 2024 when, to the great delight of many people, the aurora borealis was visible all the way down to Kent, which antagonised my husband, who has on many occasions gone to Norway, Iceland and all sorts of other places, where he has sat in car parks to try to watch it without ever seeing it. At the same time, 5,000 Starlink satellites had to perform autocorrection manoeuvres to make sure they were safe. The system survived, but it shows that severe space weather can have a profound effect on our satellites.
The Royal Academy of Engineering has reported on some of the potential impacts if we were to have a repeat of the Carrington event. We might be talking about the grid carrying 13 times its normal voltage, which would damage transformers. Two coastal nodes could experience disconnection. Blackouts of a few hours could occur in major urban areas across the United Kingdom. As for our satellites, 10% of the operational fleet could experience temporary outages lasting hours to days, and all satellites would experience rapid ageing due to damage to their solar arrays. There would be an effect on space-based PNT—positioning, navigation and timing—and a loss of lower-frequency Satcom and HF radio communications for between one and three days.
People often think that space does not really matter to how we live our lives, but I would defy anybody in this country to live a whole day without engaging with something that is affected by satellites or by space, whether it is going shopping, navigating by car or on foot—exiting a tube station and knowing whether to go left or right—using the internet or knowing that the supermarket is ordering the right things. So many aspects of our lives are determined by such things, including forecasting the weather so we know whether to take an umbrella to Wimbledon. All those things are affected by space, which is why it is all the more important that we take it extremely seriously.
The UK is a world leader in forecasting space weather. The Met Office space weather operations centre in Exeter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) mentioned, makes a high-quality contribution not just to our own country but to other countries across the world. The Met Office is currently evaluating a five-year £20 million research programme sponsored by UK Research and Innovation.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley was right to mention monitoring and observation of the sun, which is essential to understanding and predicting space weather. That is why we are the leading funder of the European Space Agency’s Vigil mission, which he referred to. This will be Europe’s first dedicated space weather mission, it will provide data and imagery 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and it is expected to launch in 2031. Vigil will work in tandem with United States spacecraft to improve the provision of solar observations. These will provide critical data, enabling forecasters to predict when solar eruptions will impact the Earth. The mission demonstrates that the UK and Europe are committed to space weather monitoring, and it holds equal importance for the US, the UK and European partners. That combination is important for all of us.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley was also right to mention the issues that apply to the Ministry of Defence, as this is not just about space weather; it is about potential damage to satellite constellations. It is a simple fact that if we wanted to dominate a terrain or a domain on the Earth in a conflict situation, we would want to dominate the satellites in space as well. That is why, if there were to be any kind of major conflict, it would almost certainly start in space before it started on Earth. That is why it is so important that the UK has a joint operation between the civil side, through the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the military side, through the Ministry of Defence, to track everything that is happening in the several layers of space so that we know the potential dangers.
Some of those dangers might be a result of space weather, but they might also be a result of the amount of debris up there. I am glad to say that the UK has some of the leading companies in developing space debris removal to make space sustainable. A chunk of a satellite inadvertently crashing into another is problematic, and a hostile state actor taking out UK satellites, or satellites on which we rely, would be equally significant. That is why I am proud that, for the last year, we have had a joint team working in High Wycombe—which I visited a couple of weeks ago with the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle)—to make sure that everything in space on which we rely here on Earth is secure.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is right that we must not lag behind, but I would argue that we are ahead. We know there are potential hostile actors. The obvious two that have been mentioned in previous public debates are Russia and China. He is absolutely right, so we need to make sure we are at the forefront of securing our defence operations.
The previous Government published the UK’s first severe space weather preparedness strategy in 2015. The current strategy was published in 2021 and supports the aims of the national space strategy. It ensures that severe space weather is appropriately managed, enabling the UK to pursue its wider ambitions in space, and sets out a five-year road map to improve the UK’s preparedness for a severe space weather event. Anybody who can add up will have noticed that five years after 2021 is 2026. I am confident that, now DSIT and the MOD have their spending review settlements, we will publish a full space strategy and lay it before the House. Part of that will undoubtedly respond to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley today.
The hon. Gentleman asked me six questions, but he asked them so quickly that the first point in my notes is just “a plan”—I was not writing fast enough. I am absolutely certain that we will produce a plan, because we will produce a plan for the whole sector, and this issue will undoubtedly be part of it. Secondly, he asked whether we will introduce statutory requirements. We will obviously have to keep that under review to see whether it is necessary, and it is part of what we would include in a plan. If we were to do that, we would have to consult, which takes time.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about armed forces preparedness, which I assure him we take very seriously. One of our recent innovations is to gather all the Ministers with responsibility for space-related issues in different Departments—the MOD, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport, the Foreign Office, other parts of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—because we need to make sure that we act as a whole Government in this area. The next meeting is next Monday. I am very hopeful that we can spot areas where we can secure efficiencies because we are working as a whole Government. We can also make sure that none of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised are forgotten.
I think the hon. Gentleman’s fourth question was about broadcasting. In my mind, we have Mr Schafernaker giving us a televised weekly update on space weather. My message to the broadcasters is that it would be good if they gave people in the UK a better understanding of the significance of space and the space sector—not just that it is an industrial powerhouse, which we are good at, but of our engagement and involvement in space and how important it is to us. We also need more people in the UK to think of it as a potential career, so perhaps Mr Schafernaker should produce a regular space weather broadcast. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member asked five or six questions, but I wrote down five, the fifth of which concerned whether the Cabinet Office should require local authorities and others to have measures in place to deal with potential space weather threats.
Some of these issues are for DESNZ. We must ensure the security and resilience of our energy and telecoms, as without a functioning power grid, mobile and other telecoms operations are unlikely to function, and they are absolutely essential to public services, particularly the emergency services. We must weave all of that into our resilience measures, which is why this issue has been on the national risk register since 2012.
If I have got any of the hon. Gentleman’s questions wrong, I am happy to write to him. I thank him for the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale on having a tame astrophysicist. I am not sure whether we have any in the Department, but I am sure we can have access to her tame astrophysicist when necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
West Bank: Forced Displacement
(1 day, 14 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
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the forced displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. The Palestinian people face intolerable hardship, suffering and misery. In Gaza, the world witnesses the killing of civilians, the blocking of aid, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, attacks on aid workers and forced displacement. Israel, like any sovereign state, has the right to defend itself and seek the return of its hostages, and Hamas should be held accountable for the attacks on 7 October, but that is not a justification for what is happening now to the Palestinian people.
While international attention remains fixed on Gaza and the recent escalation of tension between Israel and Iran, we must not ignore the deepening injustice in the west bank. According to Amnesty International, Israel’s military operations in the occupied west bank over the past four months have led to the largest displacement of Palestinians since the 1967 war. Furthermore, Save the Children reports that almost half of all Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces or settlers in the occupied west bank since records began were killed in the past two years.
We need to uphold international law and promote a just peace. This debate provides a small opportunity to highlight the injustice facing Palestinians in the west bank today. There is so much that could be said to fully represent the difficulties that face the lives of Palestinians in the west bank every day in everything from accessing healthcare to having a peaceful existence without harassment or degrading treatment. That is one reason I believe the UK should formally recognise the state of Palestine as soon as possible. I hope the Minister in his response can agree that recognition is not only a matter of justice, but a necessary step to help rebalance negotiations and support the long-term viability of a two-state solution.
The situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. The recent increase in the forced displacement of Palestinians in the west bank seems to reflect a growing sense of impunity for increased settlement activities.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I completely agree that what we are seeing on the ground in the west bank and in Gaza is horrendous. Does my hon. Friend agree that with the ultimate goal in mind of a lasting peace via a two-state solution, it is crucial that Palestinians are able to return to and rebuild their homes and lives? Does he also agree that to secure that future, there must not be any attempt to annex land in Gaza?
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. Can I just say that interventions are supposed to be short?
Martin Rhodes
I agree. We need to make sure that there is a Palestine to first be recognised and then be part of that two-state solution.
In May 2025, Israeli Ministers approved 22 new illegal settlements in the west bank—the biggest expansion in decades. Defence Minister Israel Katz, as reported by the BBC, said the move
“prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel”.
I hope the Minister can address that issue in his remarks. How can we hope for a negotiated two-state solution when the very existence of a Palestinian state is framed as a danger by Israeli Ministers?
Since the ’67 war, Israel has occupied the west bank and East Jerusalem, which has led to 160 settlements housing 700,000 Israelis. Those settlements exist alongside an estimated 3.3 million Palestinians under occupation and are widely seen as illegal under international law. Last year, the UN International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s continued presence in Palestinian territory was unlawful. Furthermore, the court said that all settlements should be evacuated due to their establishment and maintenance being in violation of international law.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
On my hon. Friend’s point, what is happening in the west bank has legally been defined as a war crime by the International Criminal Court. As a supporter of the rule of law, should the UK not therefore condemn these actions as horrific war crimes committed by the Israeli Government, and encourage the wider international community to do the same?
Martin Rhodes
It is important to note that the International Court of Justice has indeed given the advisory opinion that Israel’s continued presence in Palestinian territory is unlawful. I hope the Minister will refer to that in his remarks.
There have long been concerns that the illegal settler movement has aligned with Israeli state policy goals that could not be openly pursued due to international scrutiny. Under the current Israeli Government, the open support for and increase in state-sanctioned illegal settlements give the perception of a political strategy that undermines a two-state solution and risks de facto annexation of the west bank.
This debate is not only about illegal settlements, however; it is also about the human cost of the forced displacement of Palestinians. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, 905 people, including 181 children, have been killed in the west bank, and a further 7,370 people have been injured. The UN Human Rights Office has reported rising settler violence, forced displacements and arbitrary detention against Palestinians. Over the last couple of years, 6,400 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced following the demolition of their homes, and a further 2,200 have been uprooted because of settler violence and access limitations. That does not include the approximately 40,000 Palestinians displaced from three refugee camps in the northern west bank because of increased Israeli militarised operations there since January.
That is deeply troubling. Those are not just numbers, but daily lived injustices that undermine the prospects for peace and must be addressed with the seriousness they deserve. I continue to believe that the UK should use its voice on the international stage to call for accountability and the protection of civilians in all parts of the occupied territories. I hope the Minister can address that today.
Forced displacement in the west bank not just strips Palestinians of their homes, but involves the destruction of vital public services. A recent report from a coalition including UNICEF and Save the Children found that 84 schools across the west bank, including East Jerusalem, are currently subject to pending demolition orders issued by the Israeli authorities. That puts the right to education at risk for some 12,655 students, of whom more than half are girls. In parallel, the World Health Organisation reported more than 500 attacks on healthcare facilities, leading to numerous deaths and injuries, in just under a year after the 7 October 2023 attacks.
All children have the right to safely access education and all people have the right to access medical care as enshrined in international and humanitarian law. The attacks on or destruction of those services sends a message that neither health nor the prospects of opportunity are safe under occupation. That is best encapsulated by a quote shared with me by Save the Children. Marah, an eight-year-old girl who lives in the Jenin refugee camp in the west bank, says:
“We are scared…There’s a lot of mud, bullets, and they shoot tear gas. Our school isn’t safe. It’s close to the army…I was sitting here, this window shook, and the glass fell. Every day, there is the sound of drones. We’ve kind of gotten used to it a little.”
What can be done? In recent months, the UK Government have taken action. I welcome the recent sanctions on individual outposts, settlements and now two far-right Israeli Ministers in an effort by the UK Government to help to secure the west bank for Palestinians and not illegal settlements, but those settlements are now state sanctioned, state funded and state protected. We must go further. There must be a ban on the import of goods to the UK from illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Those settlements remain a significant obstacle to peace—one that the UK must not be responsible for supporting.
Ultimately, we need to see the withdrawal of Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the final negotiation towards the recognition of a democratic Palestinian state, including a rebuilt Gaza, in peaceful co-existence with a democratic Israel. I ask the Minister what more the UK Government can do to prevent the west bank from becoming like Gaza, given the escalating violence, increased military operations and forced displacement of Palestinians there in recent months.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I want to add to the hon. Gentleman’s list something that the Government could do. In the main Chamber we are busy proscribing two Russian supremacist organisations. Does he think it would be appropriate for the Government to proscribe settler organisations who, as President Biden said, are perpetrating terrorism upon a defenceless Palestinian people?
Martin Rhodes
I certainly think that the Government should look at that. There is obviously a process to go through in terms of proscribing, but it is something that should be looked at.
With regard to the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza, the UK Government must redouble their efforts to pressure Israel to reopen crossings and lift restrictions on movement and fuel. The UN co-ordination of humanitarian aid must be restored and a permanent ceasefire agreed. That will once again allow professional and experienced humanitarian aid agencies to reach people in need at scale, with meaningful assistance.
Finally, for there to be a peaceful two-state solution between a safe and democratic Israel and a safe, democratic and viable Palestinian state, there must be a people and a land called Palestine left to recognise. As the UK, let us work to ensure that.
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
There are a couple of housekeeping matters that I need to mention. The debate can go on until 5.44 pm because of injury time in previous debates, so I want the wind-up speeches to begin at 5:20 pm. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye to speak in the debate. There will be a three-minute time limit on speeches.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for outlining the key issues of the situation in the west bank. While the genocide continues in Gaza, the west bank is in an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing. In the last 18 months, at least 1,000 Palestinians in the west bank have been murdered or killed by Israeli forces or illegal settlers. In Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarm refugee camps, 40,000 residents have been displaced due to Israeli military actions. Nearly 6,500 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced following the demolition of their homes, and 2,200 have been forced from their homes due to settler violence.
Let us make no mistake: that is all with the direct involvement, assistance and encouragement of the Israeli Government. The Israeli military has taken part in those attacks, protecting illegal settlers and not protecting Palestinians. In recent months, the Israeli Government, as we heard, have announced the approval of 22 new illegal settlements—the biggest expansion in decades—and provided illegal settlers with weapons. Illegal settlers have in turn sent leaflets and threats on social media to Palestinians in the west bank with warnings to flee to Jordan or be “exterminated”. If the UK Government are in any doubt, Defence Minister Israel Katz stated that settlement expansion was a
“strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state”.
In short, Israel is systematically dominating and oppressing Palestinians and undermining the territorial integrity of Palestine. It is, therefore, preventing a viable Palestinian state and a two-state solution to the conflict. That is at odds with the UK’s international responsibilities and its belief in a two-state solution. Although successive Ministers have spoken disapprovingly in debates such as this about Israel’s behaviour, they have failed to take serious action. They have failed to recognise Palestine as a state and that is why Israel continues to act with impunity.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion declared that Israel’s occupation is unlawful and made clear demands of third states, so I have some questions for the Minister. When will the UK follow the directions of that competent court? When will the UK respond and set out how it will fully comply? Will the UK stop all trade with illegal settlements to ensure that it is not facilitating an illegal occupation? For example, if the UK Government can ban the import of goods from illegally occupied Crimea, why not settlements in illegally occupied Palestinian territory?
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is actually worse than just importing goods from the settlements. We are receiving tariffs from their import, so the British Government are making money from that import of goods. Would the Minister speak to that in his closing remarks?
Chris Law
I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point about tariffs. I was going to come on to that, but thankfully it has now been covered, which I appreciate.
The bottom line is that, surely the rights and lives of Palestinians—as I have just stated—are of equal value to those of Ukrainians. The Minister has recognised that what the Israeli Government are doing is
“a deliberate obstacle to Palestinian statehood.”
I agree, yet the UK Government continue to refuse to recognise a Palestinian state while Israel continues to breach international law.
Talk is cheap; it is deeds that matter. Human rights and the application of international law are equal—they are not transactional. They cannot be bargained with or traded away. The UK’s policy of condemnation has completely failed, so it must now act. Failure to do so is complicity and cowardice.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will try to be as brief as I can in making some points that are not new, but perhaps bear repetition.
The west bank is occupied territory, something that puts it in a different class from many overseas disputes on which the Government have to take a view. That it is occupied is contrary to international law, and the UK is clear in recognising that it is occupied territory. Yet we have heard about the double standards: for instance, our outright—and rightful—condemnation of what is happening in Crimea and the sanctions action taken as a consequence, but just warm words in relation to Palestine.
Gaza has undoubtedly given cover, in a brutal way, to the atrocities happening in the west bank. Tens of thousands of people have been killed, and are currently being killed, in the most obscene way: by being lured to food stations and then executed by snipers or heavy arms fire. Of course, the focus is on Gaza, but thousands of people—Palestinian civilians, including children—have been killed or injured in the west bank over the same period.
That requires a separate response, because what makes the west bank different from Gaza is not only—if one includes East Jerusalem—the 700,000 illegal settlers there, but the biggest settlement expansion programme in many years. We see the increasingly violent actions of heavily armed—by the Israeli state—settlers, who now seem at every opportunity to be creating pogroms in Palestinian villages, killing people and burning their homes. If that does not provoke the British Government to act, I am not sure what will.
As is reflected in the ICJ advisory opinion, we should obviously have active steps now taken to try to control what is happening in the west bank. It is now a year since the opinion was delivered, and I can no longer accept that the Government are still looking at it. The only reason for not publishing a response is that doing so would require not just the stating of a policy or the condemnation of what is happening, but action. That action should obviously include banning trade in settlement goods, looking at our trading relationship with Israel and much more widespread sanctions.
The ICJ opinion also found that the crime of apartheid is being committed in the west bank. I have been to the west bank on a number of occasions. I defy anybody to visit and not see that apartheid is the daily effect on the ground.
We are watching, in real time, the destruction of a country—a country that we do not even have the decency to recognise as such, despite the UK’s long history of fomenting problems in the middle east, from Balfour through to the mandate. I ask the Minister: can we have a positive response?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing the debate.
I am immensely grateful for the opportunity to speak about the struggles faced by many, and the responsibility, which we all share, to respond with courage and care. I will not judge anybody else or predict what they will say, but I am going to speak about the displacement of Christians in the west bank. They are little talked about, but I have met the bishop from the west bank on a couple of occasions in this House, and he told me and others what is happening. The ongoing displacement of Christians in the west bank, and particularly the impact on Christian bishops and their congregations, who have long been custodians of faith and heritage in the region, is deeply troubling.
The United Kingdom has a long-lasting interest in the middle east, rooted not just in diplomatic relations, but in a commitment to peace, justice and the protection of vulnerable populations. Recent debates in this House have rightly highlighted the complex challenges in Israel and Gaza. War is hard, and it is right that we never lose sight of the human cost, especially when the most vulnerable of all are the children. I often think of the children and disabled, who are facing a life that I would not want for my grandchildren—one without a hope or a future. That is why it is important that we strive for an end, for lasting peace and for a brighter hope for the future.
I have met the Christian bishops on a couple of occasions. Christian bishops in the west bank have been displaced from their historical seats, forced to leave behind not only their physical buildings, but their spiritual leadership that nourishes the faithful. That loss is a matter not only of property, but of heritage and religious freedom. The right to worship and live in peace is fundamental, enshrined in international law and moral principle alike.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I believe it is our duty to raise these issues with compassion and clarity. We must urge all parties to respect the rights of all communities, Muslim, Christian and Jewish alike, and to work towards peace—a peace that lasts.
I am reminded of a scripture text that I will share, as I often do. Isaiah 1:17 says:
“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”
This verse calls on us all to stand up for all the vulnerable and displaced, to seek justice and to protect those who have no voice. The United Kingdom has a unique role on the international stage to advocate for peace and religious freedom. We must continue to support efforts that promote dialogue, protect minority communities and uphold the rights of all people in that troubled area.
Let us stand firm in our commitment to justice and mercy, working together across parties to ensure that the plight of those displaced, including Christian bishops and their communities, is not forgotten, but is addressed with the urgency and care it deserves in today’s debate.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this debate on an issue that we simply cannot ignore or put in the “too difficult” pile.
This is a tragedy on so many levels—morally, politically, strategically, but above all personally for the people of the west bank. I went to the west bank with Caabu and Medical Aid for Palestinians in February 2023. Unlike some colleagues, I did not have a background in the middle east, but I promised my constituents that I would visit the region, as I knew the plight of the Palestinian people was an issue of huge significance to many in my Batley and Spen constituency, as it was then. The trip had a deep and profound impact on me. I saw and heard things I will never forget.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we hear a lot of facts and figures about what happens in the west bank and Gaza, but what really matters is the human stories, which bring it right home to us?
Kim Leadbeater
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and will tell some of those stories now.
I spent time with some of the kindest, most resilient people I have met. Even back then it was deemed too dangerous for us to go to Gaza, but in the west bank we spent time with many amazing people under the most difficult of circumstances. If things were bad then, and if the prospect of the desperately needed two-state solution seemed then like a distant hope, now—following the unforgivable, murderous attack by Hamas on 7 October and the ensuing catastrophic level of death and destruction that has rained down on Gaza—it feels further away than ever.
While much of the media coverage and conversation has rightly focused on the tens of thousands of people who have been killed and injured, along with the desperate need to see the release of all remaining hostages to give those heartbroken families some sort of closure, we cannot and must not ignore the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians in the west bank and the increase in settler violence.
I saw that for myself. The villagers I met in the hills surrounding Nablus told me they lived in constant fear because of the ever-present risk of violence from settlers, who appeared to act with impunity. On the outskirts of one hamlet, a 27-year-old father of three young children had been shot dead just a few days earlier, after a group of settlers had descended on the area. We stood on the exact spot where he was killed and heard that, while the police had attended the incident, there had been no attempt to identify or track down the killer. The devastated family took us into their home and gave us tea, desperate for the world to hear their story amid their shock and grief.
I visited Masafer Yatta, which the Israeli Government is determined to clear to make way for a military zone, and met families living in constant fear that their homes will be subject to the demolition orders that can be imposed on any structure. We saw abandoned homes with smashed windows where families had fled in desperation to escape settler violence.
I also saw hope for the future, however fragile. At the Shuafat refugee camp I met brilliant young schoolchildren who told me of their ambitions to be engineers, lawyers and teachers—even poets and boxing champions. One girl told me, “We want to live like other children all over the world. We fight the occupation by studying.” Those children were living in overcrowded conditions, with unreliable access to basic essentials such as electricity and clean water, but they still had dreams of better days to come. It seemed to me then that the situation could not get any worse. How wrong I was.
Many of those I spoke with accused the Israeli Government of complicity in the violence perpetrated by settlers. They denied it—but three years later, the mask has not just slipped; it has been ripped off, and forced displacement of Palestinians is Government policy, with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich calling for Palestinian towns to be wiped off the map. It was for comments such as those that the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway quite rightly imposed sanctions on Smotrich and his fellow Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir last month.
I hope those young children still have hope in their hearts. There are times when we may feel that there is nothing we can do to restrain the Israeli Government’s expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes with it; but if we can keep a flicker of that hope alive, that is not nothing, and by reasserting our commitment to a viable Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel, we can do that.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for organising this important debate.
The catastrophic situation in Gaza has meant that much of the media’s attention has been on the death and destruction there, but the situation in the west bank continues to deteriorate. I was there with the Foreign Affairs Committee a couple of months ago, and we visited Bedouin communities and families in the Jordan valley, not far away from the Dead sea. The situation was dire. We saw with our own eyes a mosque that had recently been burned and videos of their schools being attacked by extremist Israeli settlers, and we heard stories of their livestock being stolen and taken away by people from settler outposts. It was a deliberate attempt to intimidate and force people from their land.
Shortly before we arrived, we heard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North mentioned, about the situation in Jenin, where Israeli used tanks for the first time in the west bank to forcibly displace the population there. Thousands are still yet to return to their homes. I heard stories of a two-year-old girl and a 73-year-old man who were killed by the Israel Defence Forces in Jenin; just as in Gaza, the most vulnerable are the victims of these attempts.
Other hon. Members have mentioned Defence Minister Israel Katz’s statement that the legalisation of settlements is a deliberate policy to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. One of the 22 settlements that was legalised only a couple of months ago was the illegal outpost that we saw overlooking the village that we visited. The one settler based there was the man who had been stealing livestock from villages. His clearly illegal actions incurred no consequences from the Israeli security forces; indeed, they have now been rewarded by Israel through the legalisation of that settlement.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Alongside the UK condemning these actions, does the hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate for practical measures, such as banning trade in settlement goods, to be introduced?
Alex Ballinger
Yes—there are a number of things we should be doing. Others have spoken about the issues I meant to cover, so I will come straight to the point: I think is appropriate to have a response from the Government to the ICJ ruling. We have been waiting more than a year for that. It would be great to hear from the Minister when that will be coming. We should absolutely ban trade with the settlements. It is great that we have marking and labelling of goods, but it does not go far enough. We have heard directly from the Israeli Government that the settlements are being used as a tool to ensure that there is no Palestinian state in the future. A two-state solution is the UK Government’s goal, so we need to respond to that.
Finally, President Macron will visit the UK next week on a state visit. That is an excellent opportunity for our two countries to get together. I know the King has been to Bethlehem, and he has spoken about his sympathy for the Palestinian people. Maybe that visit is an opportunity, given Macron’s aspirations, to discuss the issue and see how we can work together to ensure a two-state solution.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this important debate.
The international community has been failing Palestinians for many months. That has been demonstrated during the last 21 months, and it has been heart-wrenching. At least 62,000 Palestinians are now dead. Malnutrition has reached alarming levels, as civilians are constantly deprived of food, water and humanitarian aid because of the Israeli blockade. The Israeli authorities have now ramped up home demolitions in the west bank and built more illegal settlements, displacing more and more Palestinians.
The surge in settler violence by Israeli authorities has left civilians in the west bank subject to daily attacks and harassment, and unable to access the services they desperately need to survive. The Palestinians who have lived in these areas have lived there for decades. It is their home. Communities are being uprooted, families are being stripped of their homes and lives are being shattered as we speak.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not good enough that children are growing up without the basics that they should expect? They are no longer able to access education, many have lost their lives, access to water is being restricted and there is absolute devastation. We must stand up against that and do all we can to support the Palestinian people.
Tahir Ali
I could not agree more.
The actions of Israel’s forces constitute forcible transfer, which is a violation of yet another international law by Israel. What more does Israel need to do before the United Kingdom decides to step up and take real action? That question is being asked not only in this House but throughout the country. Statements and warnings are no longer good enough. A joint statement with France and Canada on 19 May said that “concrete actions” will be taken if Israel does not back off, but we are yet to see what those concrete actions are. Homes have been demolished, hospitals have been destroyed, schools have been obliterated and Israel has forcibly displaced more than 6,000 Palestinians between October 2023 and May 2025. The Government must take all possible action to stop the constant and ongoing suffering.
Today, the violence is even worse than before, and tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated over the past couple of weeks, putting the region on the brink of a bloody war. A weakened Iran is desperate and dangerous, and an emboldened Netanyahu is also desperate and dangerous. Fighting fire with fire will be disastrous for the Palestinians and will put the whole region at risk of further harm.
The ceasefire was ineffective and sanctions have proved to be less than threatening. Now more than ever, it is time that the Government realised that the only way towards true and lasting peace is to end any complicity, to work towards a long-lasting two-state solution and to recognise the sovereign state of Palestine.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this timely debate.
We must be crystal clear about what is going on in the west bank. The forcible displacement of Palestinians there is an act of grave immorality and a breach of international law. Bodies such as the UN, Amnesty International and Oxfam are clear about what is going on. The UN has confirmed that since 7 October 2023, more than 6,463 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, following the demolition of their homes. That figure does not include around 40,000 Palestinians who were displaced from three refugee camps in Jenin and Tulkarem.
Oxfam is clear that we are witnessing the
“largest forced displacement in West Bank since…1967”.
About 8,000 Israeli military checkpoints, barriers and gates have been constructed, causing unprecedented movement restrictions. Aid deliveries to the west bank face impenetrable obstacles. The Israeli military are conducting an unrelenting campaign in the west bank. They have deployed tanks, carried out air strikes and destroyed buildings and other civilian infrastructure. We have heard eyewitness testimony to that effect from Members present. On 21 May, a diplomatic delegation of representatives from over 20 countries, including the United Kingdom, came under fire from Israeli soldiers while visiting Jenin refugee camp.
Mr Turner, 5 June is an important day for Palestinians: Naksa Day, when they remember the forced displacement of approximately 300,000 Palestinians during the war of 1967, when Israel occupied the west bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. We must learn the lessons from history and not repeat tragic mistakes.
This Government’s approach is markedly different from what has come before. They were right to sanction the two Israeli Government Ministers, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who have championed illegal settlements; right to support the independence of our international courts; and right to take an internationalist, multilateral approach, collaborating closely with our allies France, Germany and Canada to call out the Netanyahu Government.
We must have as strict a sanctions regime as possible against the illegal settler outposts and organisations in the west bank. We must sanction any Israeli politician or organisation that incites violence in the occupied west bank, as we already have. We must stop trade with the settlements. All that is required because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, we are under positive legal obligations to take steps to prevent violations of international law, as the ICJ advisory opinion made clear in July 2024.
We must recognise the state of Palestine, along with the 147 other UN member states that already do. Doing this is about our country acting with moral authority and showing the moral leadership that we ought to show.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing this important debate.
For decades, Palestinians living in the west bank have faced increasing pressure from settlement expansion, home demolitions and military restrictions. Entire communities, such as those in Masafer Yatta and the Jordan valley, are being pushed off their ancestral lands under the pretext of those places being military zones or sites of illegal construction. Yet many of these people have lived there for generations.
Recent weeks have seen intensified actions in Masafer Yatta and Silwan. On 18 June, the Israeli Civil Administration barred all Palestinian building permits in Masafer Yatta, prompting fears of enforced evacuation for roughly 1,200 people—a move that UN experts have called tantamount to forcible transfer, which often violates international law, particularly the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits the forced transfer of protected populations under occupation.
Beyond the military campaigns, area C in the west bank has seen a notable rise in home demolitions. Between January and April 2025, Israeli authorities razed over 450 structures, displacing at least 445 people, including 112 children. That is a fivefold increase compared with the previous year.
This is not just a political issue: it is a human one. Families are losing their homes, access to water, farmland, education and healthcare, and children are growing up amid trauma and instability. Every demolished home is not just bricks and mortar; it is a life uprooted—a future disrupted. If we are to stand for justice and human dignity, we cannot ignore this reality. The international community must uphold human rights for all, without exception, and demand accountability where those rights are denied.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this gravely urgent and important debate.
Last month, we welcomed the Government sanctions on Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. These two men, at the heart of the Israeli Government, have celebrated violence, ethnic cleansing and the forced displacement of Palestinians who have already lost so much; of Palestinians who have seen their family and friends murdered; of Palestinians who have seen their homes destroyed; of Palestinians who have seen the lives they once knew and loved turned into rubble. These vile men have not just celebrated such violations of international law: they are part of the Israeli authorities orchestrating the bombing, the killing and the destruction.
Some 40,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced from the three refugee camps in Jenin and Tulkarem. These refugee camps are not homes, but a last resort, yet Palestinians have faced violence and brutality in them, too. The scale of suffering is unimaginable—40,000 Palestinians. Israeli authorities have been not just targeting refugee camps but demolishing homes. In the last two years, over 6,000 Palestinians have had to flee their homes as they were demolished, with the memories, the comforts and the safety of their homes cruelly turned to rubble.
Palestinians are being killed, starved into submission and stripped of every basic human necessity—left without even a sip of water or a scrap of bread to survive. Yet there is more rubble, more land grabs and more forced displacement, all celebrated by politicians in the Israeli Government. The Israeli Government’s end goal is, it would seem, to exterminate Gazans, destroy their land and wipe out any trace of Palestinian people’s existence.
When does this end? How does it end? I strongly urge the Government to go further and faster in pushing the pressure on Israel. I urge them to consider further sanctions on Israel, pressure Israel to end its denial of aid and recognise the state of Palestine immediately. We must keep the pressure on for an immediate and lasting ceasefire. This is how we start to end the brutality, how we give some respite and hope to the Palestinians who are still alive, and how we stand up for those who have nothing left.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this vital debate.
Sixty-one years ago, Tony Benn wrote:
“Of all the weaknesses that beset those in authority, blindness to reality is always the most crippling and usually the most inexcusable.”
In that article, Mr Benn was calling for international sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. The weakness he wrote of back then is applicable to those in authority in the UK today, because words of condemnation have not stopped the displacement, segregation and apartheid being suffered by Palestinians.
Mr Turner, imagine soldiers, tanks and bulldozers rolling into your constituency, destroying buildings, essential infrastructure, schools and medical facilities. Imagine being forced out of the house you call home and fences going up around what was your community. For Palestinians in the west bank, who live under occupation and are seeing their community seized by state-backed Israeli settlers, that is their reality.
Since 7 October 2023, the west bank has experienced an average of four documented incidents of settler violence per day. Settler expansion and violence is, I repeat, a state-backed initiative, the goal of which is the erasure of Palestinian land from the map. It is total absorption—does the Minister not see that as being Netanyahu’s ultimate aim and driving force? I hope the Minister answers that question, because all the evidence points to it being the systematic removal of Palestinians from their land. It is not just hamlets, villages and towns that have been destroyed; even the refugee camps at Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarem have been attacked, as mentioned by other hon. Members.
I say to the Minister and other Members: when it comes to displacement, death and the building of 22 new illegal settlements in the west bank, do not be blind to reality, as Tony Benn said. Netanyahu and his murderous regime are not stopping. They will not stop—not when the international community are allowing war crimes to happen.
Will the Government agree to an independent public inquiry, as per the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), which will come back to the House on Friday and has widespread political and public support? The British public, Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza, and the wider Palestinian diaspora all deserve answers.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing time for Members to consider this important matter.
Before coming to this place, I was an engineer and senior lecturer at Anniesland College in Glasgow. While there, I had the privilege of undertaking British Council work in Hebron, Nablus and Ramallah, and I have seen at first hand the challenges facing the Palestinian people. I have always supported the right of Israel to exist as a democratic, free and peaceful state. However, illegal settlement in the west bank and the associated forced displacement of Palestinians. The rights of Palestinian people to live and travel freely and not have their land occupied by often violent settlers must be central to any long-lasting route towards peace.
I commend the UK Government for sanctioning Israeli Ministers who have repeatedly incited violence against Palestinians. The Foreign Secretary was absolutely correct to say that severe acts of violence by extremist Israeli settlers threaten a future Palestinian state. We must redouble our efforts to highlight a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live peacefully side by side.
More widely, while focus has turned recently to the conflict between Israel and Iran, it must not be forgotten that Palestinians are being bombed in Gaza. They are dying in pain. They are being starved—thousands have lost their lives as a result of malnourishment. The treatment of the Palestinian people has rightly been called out by the UK Labour Government and we remain fully supportive of a two-state solution where Palestinians and Israelis can live freely and peacefully. I believe that recognition of Palestinian statehood is critical to achieving that.
Illegal settlement in the west bank has been a serious issue for a long time. According to UN figures, the issue is as challenging now as it ever has been. Tens of thousands have been displaced from refugee camps as a result of intense Israeli operations and thousands more Palestinians have been displaced in recent months and years as a consequence of settler violence and demolition of housing. Ignorance will never be an acceptable response. Having been in the region and met Palestinian men and women who live with a genuine fear of settler violence, I will always be of the view that we must be unequivocal in our support for a free and secure Palestinian state.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North for securing this debate and look forward to the Minister’s update on the Government’s work to end illegal and violent settlement in the west bank.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing the debate. It is entirely unacceptable that in the west bank—territory long recognised as occupied under international law—Palestinian families continue to be forcibly displaced from their land, homes and schools, ripped from their livelihoods, and everything else.
The roots of the crisis stretch back to 1948, when an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes. During the six-day war, close to 325,000 Palestinians were displaced from the west bank and Gaza. Today’s displacement is part of a continuing cycle of land seizure, settlement expansion and state-backed dispossession that United Nations and Oxfam reports describe as the largest forced displacement in the west bank since 1967. UN figures show that since late 2024 over 40,000 Palestinians have been uprooted, particularly in Jenin and Tulkarm, due to IDF raids and the bulldozing of homes. In 2023 alone, more than 4,000 Palestinians were displaced, with settler violence and access restrictions being the principal causes.
Alarmingly, settler-instigated violence is intensifying. In June, 100 armed settlers attacked Kafr Malik, throwing petrol bombs and setting homes ablaze. Three Palestinians were killed and several others were injured, not only at the hands of settlers, but in confrontations involving the IDF. Of course, that has been encouraged by some within the Israeli Government hierarchy. These actions have long been condemned by the United Nations, critical charities and other organisations, including Amnesty International.
As parliamentarians, we must fight to uphold international law. Forced displacement and its consequences are not just a violation, but a crime against humanity. We must fully condemn the forced displacement of Palestinians, advocate for the enforcement of ICJ rulings and UN resolutions, support humanitarian access in affected areas, press for the immediate cessation of settler violence and forcible evictions, and ultimately bring an end to these illegal settlements.
Displacing Palestinians from their land is not collateral damage; it is a deliberate policy. From 1948 to today, these forced removals continue, sanctioned by settlement expansion and protectionism. There will be no peace in the region until the Palestinian people are protected under international law.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this important debate.
For the almost six decades that the west bank has been occupied by Israel, the UN Security Council has been calling for Israel to withdraw, but instead it has expanded, with now more than 500,000 settlers living in the west bank and a further 200,000 in East Jerusalem—a physical barrier obstructing the realisation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.
Palestinians are often required to seek permits to travel through the west bank; they are subjected to a combination of bureaucratic and physical barriers that consume their time and attack their dignity. Indeed, those movement restrictions constitute just one element of a patchwork of policies and laws that, taken together, have been described by the ICJ as “systemic discrimination” against Palestinians.
Liberal Democrats are profoundly concerned that the deteriorating situation in the west bank, in particular during the last two years, poses a fundamental threat to a two-state solution that could finally deliver the dignity and security that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve. The UK must recognise a Palestinian state now—immediately. Will the Minister update the House on UK plans to recognise Palestine? What discussions are taking place with Canadian and French leaders regarding a possible joint recognition?
There is an urgency here: from the beginning of 2024 to April 2025, more than 41,000 Palestinians were displaced in the west bank and 616 were killed. On almost 2,000 separate occasions, attacks by violent Israeli settlers resulted in Palestinian casualties or property damage. There has long been a culture of impunity around settler violence; few crimes result in indictments, and fewer still in convictions.
The most recent activity has been fuelled by the far-right extremists in Netanyahu’s Cabinet, who have emboldened the most brutal settlers. It is right that two such inciters, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, have been sanctioned, but, frankly, that took far too long. The Government have not moved quickly or strongly enough to disrupt settler violence in the west bank, so will they now clamp down on settler violence and will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrat calls for an import ban on goods from illegal settlements?
The Israeli Government have also mounted a systematic campaign against the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the west bank. Since its banning, UNRWA has been unable to co-ordinate aid deliveries, and its delivery of health and education has been disrupted. Palestinian education has come under attack.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
My hon. Friend will remember that on our trip to the west bank late last year, some of us witnessed a girls’ school that had been tear-gassed just the day before; in fact, it still had smouldering shells in the roof. Does she agree that UNRWA schools and their children must be protected?
Monica Harding
Palestinian children have a right to education and to the chance of a decent future, as all children do. A total of 84 west bank schools are under threat from pending demolition orders. Will the Minister update us on steps being taken to support UNRWA and ensure education provision in the west bank?
Israel’s actions in the west bank are illegal under international law. That was made clear in the ICJ’s advisory opinion published last July. The Court held that Israel is in breach of its obligations under international law with respect to failing to prevent or punish settler violence against Palestinians, confiscating or requisitioning areas of land for settlement expansion, and the forcible displacement of the Palestinian people and the transfer and maintenance of Israeli settlers, both of which violate the fourth Geneva convention.
Almost one year after that 2024 ICJ ruling was issued, the Government still have not provided a formal response. Can the Minister tell us when, finally, we can expect it? In the interim, what steps have the Government taken to meet their obligations to support Palestinian self-determination as outlined in the ICJ advisory ruling? The Liberal Democrats’ position is iron-clad: we want the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state and a halt to the settlement activity in the west bank. The Government must affirm their commitment to that path.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing the debate.
The Conservatives are clear in our support for a two-state solution delivered in the right way at the right time. The only way forward is a solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. We must give the people of the west bank and Gaza the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future.
There are several factors making progress towards a two-state solution more difficult. First, on Israeli settlements in the west bank, our position is as it was in government and is well understood: settlements are not helpful for achieving long-term peace. We urge Israel not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence.
In February last year, we took action in government by sanctioning extremist Israeli settlers who violently attacked Palestinians in the occupied west bank. We raised the matter of settlements with Prime Minister Netanyahu on a number of occasions, and in December 2023 the UK and 13 partners released a statement calling on Israel
“to take immediate and concrete steps to tackle…settler violence in the occupied West Bank.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest conversations he has had with his Israeli counterparts and other partners.
I turn to the Palestinian Authority, where reform and credible governance are essential requirements for peace. The Palestinian Authority must prove that they are capable of governing. That should start with key reforms, including on elections, education and ensuring broader freedoms. In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding—[Interruption.]
Wendy Morton
In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority, but we were left with more questions than answers. On elections, can the Minister confirm the “shortest feasible timeframe” referenced in the MOU for the Palestinian Authority to hold presidential and parliamentary elections? Does he believe that they are currently capable of holding free and fair elections? If not, what steps is he taking with allies to build that capacity?
Andy Slaughter
What is the practicality of holding elections when the Israelis will not recognise the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem as being able to vote? Given the situation in the west bank, let alone that in Gaza, how are they supposed to organise elections? Is that not just utopian?
Wendy Morton
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am making reference to the points in the MOU.
I turn to other elements of the MOU. On education, we need to see the plans for educating a new generation of Palestinians in a way that nurtures peaceful co-existence with their Israeli neighbours. Will the Minister commit to laying out in greater detail his Government’s expectations on education reforms from the Palestinian Authority?
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s 2002 “Human Rights and Democracy” report cited human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority, and in February, Reporters Without Borders raised press freedom violations in the west bank. The MOU committed to advancing freedom of expression, media freedom and civil liberties. Can the Minister outline what specific steps are being taken on those issues? Progress by the Palestinian Authority on a reform agenda is vital for peace, and the Government must do all they can do support that.
Iran has been committed to the destruction of Israel for decades, and behaves in a way that damages any prospect of peace in the region. Last month’s International Atomic Energy Agency report showed that Iran was in breach of its obligations with respect to its nuclear programme. It is an authoritarian regime that represses and tortures its own people and sows instability and suffering through its sponsorship of terrorist proxies. For that reason and others, Iran must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and we stand with our allies who are working to stop it. We all want to see peace and stability in the region.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate. We must see the return of the remaining hostages from Hamas captivity. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on his efforts to get new aid routes opened, and more aid getting in and going to where it is needed. I would also be grateful for confirmation of the bilateral humanitarian aid spend that will be provided this financial year, following the spending review.
Finally, I want to touch on the FCDO’s assistance to British nationals in the region, which has been raised in the House. I acknowledge the recent loosening of FCDO travel advice. It is my understanding that the sixth and final evacuation flight left Tel Aviv on Sunday 29 June, but it would be helpful if the Minister could provide an update and reassure us that all the British nationals who requested evacuation have been helped.
We all want to build a better future for the people of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That must be centred on a credible two-state solution, and we want our Government to do all they can to proactively pursue that goal and deal with the challenges impeding progress.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing the debate, particularly as it provides an opportunity to give a slightly more detailed commentary on the circumstances in the west bank. I recognise the many contributions from hon. Members. I hope that they will forgive me if I start and make some progress on the west bank specifically. I am then happy to come back to some broader points.
In that spirit, I will answer the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), on consular assistance before making further headway. The flight from Israel on Sunday is expected to be our last. It was not full. We believe that we have assisted all those seeking our help in Israel. There are obviously different circumstances in Iran, where there are British nationals also affected by developments in the region. We hope to see airspace open up in Iran, but for reasons that all hon. Members would appreciate, the extent of consular assistance available there is quite different from that in Israel. However, those in either Iran or Israel should not hesitate to continue to be in touch with the Foreign Office if further things are required.
I am happy to provide some commentary on Gaza and East Jerusalem as I go, but I really want to talk about the west bank. Alongside Gaza and East Jerusalem, it is a core component of any future Palestinian state. It is a key component of any two-state solution, and it is in the light of that that we should consider developments, some of which have been referenced by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North referenced the 22 further planned settlements that the Israeli Government have announced. It is worth dwelling briefly on the extent of expansion of settler outposts. Between 1996 and 2023, an average of seven new outposts were established in any given year. In 2024, that went up to 59. There is a step change in the degree of settlement, as has been described by many. There are plans for over 19,000 more housing units and counting. That is an all-time record in 2025.
That is territory that must form the heart of a sovereign, viable and free Palestine. Violence in those territories is rife. We welcomed that Prime Minister Netanyahu condemned settler attacks on Friday. Those were settler attacks conducted against the IDF. The Israeli Government need to do much more to clamp down on violence and hold perpetrators to account; not only when IDF soldiers are attacked, but when Palestinians are.
Many of my hon. Friends and colleagues have described the difficulty of bringing to life the horror of what is happening to many in the west bank. I have received reports recently of one child shot by Israeli security forces 11 times. What need could there be for one bullet, let alone 11, to stop a child from throwing stones? It is a monstrously disproportionate use of force, and one that I know the whole House will join me in condemning in the strongest possible terms. Given those developments, I remain seriously concerned by Israel’s Operation Iron Wall, which has targeted Palestinian militants in the west bank and has been running for over 150 days. Any operations must be proportionate to the threat posed. The House will understand my hesitation on those points, given the story that I have just relayed.
Palestinians must be allowed home. Civilians must be protected and the destruction of civilian infrastructure must be minimised. Our position remains consistent: I have condemned it, the Foreign Secretary has condemned it, and the Prime Minister has condemned it. Israeli settlements are not just unhelpful; they are illegal under international law and harm prospects for a two-state solution. In all our engagements with Israeli Ministers we continue to call for a halt to expansion. We have taken action to hold violence to account, including three rounds of sanctions. They are sanctions against individuals, outposts and organisations that have supported and incited devastating and deadly violence, including through extremist rhetoric. On 10 June I announced measures against extremist Israeli Government Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in their personal capacity for those very reasons.
Warinder Juss
Does the Minister agree that the UK Government recognising a sovereign state of Palestine now would add more weight to the pressure we are trying to exert on Israel?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks an important question, which has been discussed much in the House. The questions of recognition are vexed. We want to do it; we want to make a contribution to improving the lives of the Palestinian people. In the short period I have been Minister, circumstances in the west bank have been particularly susceptible to decisions by the Israeli Government. I will come on to those shortly. It is those consequences that we must weigh in the timing and the manner of our decision making.
As the situation in the west bank continues to deteriorate, we remain alive to the dreadful impact on Palestinians being forced to flee their homes. Many colleagues have spoken of some of the residential areas. In Jenin, Tulkarm and other northern towns, 40,000 people have been displaced by Israeli military operations. In East Jerusalem and area C, 800 structures have been demolished, displacing 960 Palestinians. Entire neighbourhoods have been reshaped, with the destruction of people’s homes, for which there can be no justification. The Israeli Government have said that the demolitions were because residents did not have building permits. Permits are near impossible for Palestinians to obtain.
As we speak, thousands more Palestinians and their communities face the prospect of demolitions and evictions. That includes more than 1,000 people in Masafer Yatta alone, which many hon. Members have referred to, hundreds in East Jerusalem, and 84 schools in the west bank, including East Jerusalem. That threatens the education of thousands of children determined to keep learning in spite of facing unfathomable trauma. Even schools funded by the UK have been demolished. That may be under the mistaken assumption that that sort of intimidation will do anything other than strengthen our resolve to help those who bear the brunt of it on a daily basis.
My officials in Jerusalem will continue to meet communities at risk of demolition and displacement, including communities of Masafer Yatta. We will continue to provide practical support to Palestinians and Bedouin communities facing demolitions and evictions to increase residents’ resilience and access to legal aid programmes, so that residents can stay on their land. In all but the most exceptional cases, it is clear that demolitions by an occupying power are contrary to international law. We are urging the Israeli Government to halt demolitions and evictions of Palestinian communities as a priority.
There are, sadly, many other factors undermining security in the west bank. Not least of those is the ongoing damage to the Palestinian economy. The economy of the west bank contracted by 21.7% last year, while that of Gaza contracted by 79.7%. All the while, closures across the west bank have prevented the free movement of Palestinian people and goods. Restrictions on access to Israel have left hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of work. As of the end of 2024, unemployment reached 29% in the west bank.
Israel has not transferred Palestinian tax clearance revenues to the Palestinian Authority since May. Officials and security forces have been paid only a fraction of their salaries. Taken together, those pressures threaten the viability of the Palestinian Authority, and risk overall collapse of the Palestinian economy, as well as the stability of the west bank. We are calling now on Israel to release clearance revenues to the Palestinian Authority immediately.
We value deeply our continued friendship with the Palestinian Authority. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referenced the landmark memorandum of understanding that the Foreign Secretary signed with Prime Minister Mustafa, when our Prime Minister welcomed him to the UK earlier this year. An effective Palestinian Authority has a vital role to play in achieving a lasting peace and progress towards a two-state solution. That is why we will continue to work with them on their vital reform agenda. Many hon. Members set out some of the challenges facing the Palestinian Authority. We will continue, through the work of the special envoy for Palestinian Authority governance, Sir Michael Barber, to support them in their vital efforts.
This year, we have pledged £101 million of additional support to the Palestinian people. That is both for humanitarian aid and for support with economic development. We will continue to work to strengthen and reform the Palestinian Authority; they are the vital alternative to Hamas, who must have no role in Palestinian governance.
We remain committed to supporting the Palestinian people. The situation we face is not only an affront to the rights of Palestinians but runs counter to Israel’s long-term security and democracy, as many colleagues have pointed out this afternoon. It is an assault on the fundamentals of a two-state solution. That is the only viable framework available for a just and lasting peace. It is supported on every side of this House.
Chris Law
I appreciate—as I am sure everybody in this room does—the update the Minister is giving. I asked a very specific question, and I think it would be helpful to get an answer to it. Goods from illegal settlements regularly flow into this country. The UK Government previously banned goods coming from another illegally occupied area—Crimea in Ukraine. Is there any impediment to the UK Government doing the same and banning goods that come from illegal settlements in the west bank entering the UK, and to start to put some serious action beyond the words the Minister has just said?
Mr Falconer
The UK does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel, so no goods should be sold in the UK as though they were Israeli or under Israeli privileges if they emanate from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I know the hon. Gentleman pays close attention to these issues. There are complexities in trying to ensure that goods from the Occupied Palestinian Territories are fully illegal—not least because, where they are produced by Palestinians, we would want to continue to enable their sale.
Those complexities are one reason why there is no European nation that has taken that step, but it is something we keep under close review. We encourage British businesses directly to take careful note of the difference between green line Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the labelling of their goods.
I know that a two-state solution is supported right across this House. We all want to see Israelis safe within their borders, living alongside their neighbours in peace, with Palestinians enjoying the dignity, stability and security of their own sovereign state. That is an enduring vision for a better future, and one that the UK will continue to pursue alongside our friends and partners in the weeks and months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the forced displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank.
Prime Minister
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool
It is National Diabetes Week, and as someone living with type 1, as we both are, Mr Speaker, I am more than aware of the serious complications of diabetic ketoacidosis—DKA—which can prove fatal if not caught early enough. A quarter of children are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when in DKA, and that could be avoided with early diagnosis. Will the Prime Minister commit to rolling out a national universal screening programme, as seen in Italy, for type 1?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for championing this really important issue. My late mother had diabetes, so I know at first hand just what a struggle it can be and how important this is. Type 1 diabetes is not preventable, as she knows, but the sooner we can reach people, the sooner we can care for them. We have a screening programme in the UK available to families across the country, and over 20,000 children have already taken part. It is really important that we continue to deliver that, but I thank her for continuing to champion this and to raise her voice on this very important issue.
[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 974.]
Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer):
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for championing this really important issue. My late mother had diabetes, so I know at first hand just what a struggle it can be and how important this is. Type 1 diabetes is not preventable, as she knows, but the sooner we can reach people, the sooner we can care for them. We have a screening programme study in the UK, and 20,000 children will be recruited to take part. It is really important that we continue to deliver that, but I thank her for continuing to champion this and to raise her voice on this very important issue.
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shaun Davies
Away from the knockabout of Westminster politics, I and people in Telford welcome this change. The principle of means-testing was right, but the level was too low. Does my hon. Friend agree that millionaires, MPs who happen to be of pensionable age and those who are living abroad should not receive this payment?
Torsten Bell
I almost always agree with my hon. Friend, so the answer is yes. He also provides me with an opportunity to clarify a point that has not been covered in the last hour or so: the payment will continue not to be exportable for those not resident in the UK.
[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 636.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):
Torsten Bell
I almost always agree with my hon. Friend, so the answer is yes. He also provides me with an opportunity to clarify a point that has not been covered in the last hour or so: the payment will not be exportable for those not resident in the UK.
Contingent Liability Notification
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I wish to make Members aware of the details of a contingent liability guarantee, which will be entered into in favour of npower in accordance with and pursuant to the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to support British Steel Ltd and for the purpose of securing the continued and safe use of blast furnace operation in Scunthorpe.
The guarantee will replace the existing substantially similar credit support that is required by the terms of the underlying supply agreement, and would be in respect of British Steel Ltd’s payment obligations to npower. Without such guarantee, British Steel Ltd would otherwise be unable to access the bespoke rates they need or would only be able to do so on materially worse terms.
The terms of the guarantee ensure that the impact to the public purse is reduced. The guarantee will terminate immediately where the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act ceases to be in force in relation to British Steel Ltd and/or where the directions issued under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act in relation to British Steel Ltd are revoked—i.e. when British Steel Ltd is no longer operating under His Majesty’s Government’s direction.
Authority for any expenditure required under this liability will be sought through the normal procedure. I will be laying a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.
If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS768]
North Hyde Substation Outage Review: NESO Final Report
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
In March 2025, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero commissioned the North Hyde substation review, an independent report delivered by the National Energy System Operator. The report was commissioned following a large fire breaking out at the substation, disrupting power supply to over 70,000 customers including Heathrow airport. While power was restored quickly, there were significant secondary impacts to the aviation sector due to the associated closure of Heathrow airport. NESO’s interim report was published in May 2025, and the final report has now been completed and published on NESO’s website.
The review aimed to identify lessons to be learned and actions to take forward for the prevention and management of future power disruption events, and lessons for Great Britain’s energy resilience more broadly. The actions recommended by this review address concerns under the three pillars: resilience of energy infrastructure, response and restoration of energy infrastructure and enhancing the resilience of critical infrastructure to energy disruption, as set out in the terms of reference published on gov.uk.
The report has highlighted key areas for substantial improvement across energy infrastructure management and maintenance approaches, and across the sharing of information and understanding between energy network operators and connected commercial customers. It also has options for improving the power resilience of other critical sectors. These actions will drive improvements to Great Britain’s energy resilience.
The majority of recommendations address improvements to be made across all parts of the energy sector, regardless of their involvement in the incident at North Hyde. In collaboration with NESO, Ofgem and other partners, my Department will ensure the delivery and implementation of these energy sector recommendations. The report findings are also applicable to wider Government policy on energy resilience—both in the energy sector and more widely. My Department, working across Government, will urgently consider the findings and recommendations set out by NESO and publish a response to the report in due course.
[HCWS770]
Social and Affordable Housing Renewal
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
At the spending review, on 11 June 2025, we set out the main elements of our social and affordable housing investment strategy in this Parliament. Today, I am providing further detail in relation to a number of the announcements made, as well as providing clarity about future regulation on quality and safety and the right to buy.
Taken together, the grant funding support and regulatory certainty and stability that this Government are providing will enable registered providers to quickly ramp up investment in existing and new stock, and to kick-start a decade of social and affordable housing renewal.
The biggest boost to grant funding in a generation
At the spending review, we announced £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme over 10 years, from 2026-27 to 2035-36. Our new social and affordable homes programme will give registered providers a decade of certainty over the capital funding they will have available to build new, more ambitious housing development projects. It is integral to delivering the Government’s commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.
I am today confirming the following details about the new social and affordable homes programme:
Given the priority that this Government accord to social rented housing, at least 60% of homes delivered through the programme will be for social rent. The remainder will be available for other tenures, including shared ownership, affordable rent and intermediate rent.
Up to 30% of the funding over the programme will be delivered by the Greater London Authority in London, with at least 70% available for the rest of England via Homes England, depending on the level of future bids.
The programme will not have numerical targets or ringfenced budgets for particular regions or types of home beyond the GLA’s portion, but we will ensure that established mayoral strategic authorities can set strategic direction for the programme in their area, and to support planning, we will set out up-front indicative spend per EMSA, subject to suitable projects.
The programme will not set numerical targets for particular types of homes, other than social rent, but will be designed with the flexibility necessary to support a greater diversity of social and affordable supply including council, supported, community-led and rural housing.
The new programme will continue to support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in homes on a site and will allow a limited number of acquisitions.
The programme will allow bids for individual projects on an ongoing basis, and for strategic partnerships over the life of the programme, including bids for funds over the entire 10 years of starts, with homes completing after 2036 also eligible. A competitive bidding round for strategic partnerships will launch this winter, followed by later opportunities to bid.
Accurately forecasting long-term delivery is inherently challenging, but we believe that the social and affordable homes programme could deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over its lifetime, with around 180,000 for social rent.
We will set initial targets for Homes England and the GLA after receiving bids from registered providers, and will review these targets across the lifetime of the programme to maximise delivery. It is our intention to publish a full prospectus for the new social and affordable homes programme in autumn 2025 and open it for bids in the winter.
Rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest in new and existing homes
To give registered providers, lenders and investors greater long-term certainty, we confirmed at the spending review that we will permit social housing rents to increase by the consumer prices index plus 1% each year from April 2026, and we doubled the length of the settlement from five to 10 years.
We also made it clear that we would give social landlords equal access to Government remediation funding schemes, providing over £1 billion of new investment between 2026-27 and 2029-30, and make available to them £2.5 billion in low-interest loans to support new development—alongside commercial lending.
To unlock the level of investment in new and existing social and affordable housing necessary to deliver on the Government’s ambitions, we committed to implement a convergence mechanism as part of the new rent settlement. The details of precisely how, and at what level, this mechanism will be implemented will be confirmed at the autumn Budget later this year, taking account of the benefits to the supply and quality of social and affordable housing, the impact on rent payers and the impact on the Government’s fiscal rules.
To inform policy development in this area, we will today publish a focused technical consultation on how convergence should be implemented, with options for this being capped at £1 or £2 per week. In combination, we expect these measures to significantly improve the capacity of registered providers, enabling them to borrow and invest in new and existing homes. We also expect that improved financial capacity will see registered providers reassess their position in respect of uncontracted and unsold section 106 units across the country. We encourage those house builders and registered providers that have not yet engaged with the Homes England section 106 affordable housing clearing service to do so.
Establishing an effective and stable regulatory regime
Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing.
Registered providers are already investing billions into repairs, maintenance and improvements. To help them plan effectively for the future, we want to provide clarity as to the updated, modern standards needed to ensure that rented homes are safe, decent and energy-efficient.
We are therefore today launching consultations on a reformed decent homes standard (DHS) for the social and private rented sectors and on a new minimum energy efficiency standard (MEES) for social and affordable housing.
To support stakeholders in responding to the DHS consultation, I am publishing an interim impact assessment and the Government response to the consultation undertaken by the previous Government on extending a standard to the private rented sector.
In addition to consultations on a reformed DHS and new MEES, I am also confirming today that we will direct the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) this autumn to set new standards for the competence and conduct of staff who work in social housing. The new requirements will improve professionalism within the sector, ensuring that tenants receive a good service and are always listened to and treated with respect and dignity.
The new competence and conduct standard will come into force in October 2026. There will be a transition period after this date, giving providers additional time to comply with qualification requirements for senior housing managers and executives. Larger registered providers that own 1,000 or more units of social housing will have three years, and smaller providers that own less than 1,000 units will have four years.
We also intend to direct the RSH to introduce new social tenant access to information requirements for registered providers of social housing, including housing associations, to enable residents to request information about their housing management. From October 2026, providers will be required to proactively publish information about the management of their homes. From April 2027, they will be expected to provide tenants with access to information on request.
Finally, I am today announcing that we will be launching a £1 million resident experience innovation fund to support social landlords, tenants and other relevant organisations to work together to test and scale up innovative projects that aim to deliver better outcomes for social tenants.
Reinvigorating council house building
In order to better protect much-needed social housing stock, boost councils’ capacity and enable them to once again build social homes at scale, we need to further reform the right to buy. Following the reduction in maximum right to buy cash discounts announced at the autumn Budget 2024 and our decision to allow councils to keep 100% of right to buy receipts, we consulted late last year on reforms to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme.
Having analysed feedback to that consultation over recent months, I am today announcing further reforms to the right to buy. These include:
increasing the length of time someone needs to have been a public sector tenant to qualify for the right to buy, from three to 10 years;
reforming discounts so that they start at 5% of the property value, rising by 1% for every extra year an individual is a secure tenant up to the maximum of 15% of the property value or the cash discount cap, whichever is lower; and
exempting newly built social homes from the right to buy for 35 years, ensuring that councils are not losing homes before they have recovered the costs of building them.
We will legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to bring these reforms into force. More immediately, we will reform the receipts regime and extend existing flexibilities on spending right to buy receipts indefinitely. Councils will also continue to be able to retain the share of the receipts that was previously returned to HM Treasury. In addition, from 2026-27 we will permit councils to combine receipts with grant funding for affordable housing to accelerate council delivery of new homes.
We are also acting to restore the capacity of council workforces to deliver. Working with the Local Government Association, the Government have already established a new Association of Directors of Housing to help councils collaborate and share best practice. Today, I can confirm that we are launching the council house building skills and capacity programme, backed by £12 million of funding in 2025-26.
The programme will enable the Local Government Association to provide centralised training and guidance to councils to upskill their existing workforces and to expand its successful pathways to planning programme to help recruit graduates ready to undertake training to become qualified surveyors and project managers. The Department will also work with Homes England to support councils to boost their engagement with the new social and affordable homes programme.
A renewed partnership with the sector
Ending England’s acute and entrenched housing crisis will be a painstaking and laborious effort, requiring focus, energy and determination over many years. We know that it cannot be accomplished by central Government alone, which is why this Government have prioritised working in close partnership with the sector.
The measures announced over recent weeks demonstrate the Government’s commitment to providing registered providers with the grant funding support and regulatory stability they need to deliver. We now expect them to step up and do just that, so that together we kick-start a decade of social and affordable housing renewal.
[HCWS771]
Civil Legal Aid Consultation: Government Response
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
Today I am laying before Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation “Civil Legal Aid: Towards A Sustainable Future”.
Civil legal aid providers face serious challenges around staff retention, profitability, and sustainability, meaning that support can be hard to access for many of those who need it most. This is particularly acute in housing and immigration.
The consultation paper was published on 24 January 2025. It invited responses on proposals to increase civil legal aid fees for housing and debt (hereafter, “housing”) work, and immigration and asylum (hereafter, “immigration”) work. It also sought evidence on potential changes to contractual requirements.
After considering the responses, we have decided to uplift the rates paid for all housing and immigration legal aid work. Overall spending in these categories will increase by 24% and 30% respectively. This represents a significant investment—the first since 1996—an increase of £20 million a year once fully implemented.
Alongside this, we are taking steps to simplify and harmonise certain fees. This will reduce administrative burdens for providers, simplify billing, and allow them to spend more time helping their clients.
This investment will help to ensure effective access to justice for some of the most vulnerable in our society, supporting a more stable and sustainable legal aid sector—one that is fit for the future and attracts and retains the brightest and the best practitioners.
It will also help us deliver our wider Government ambitions, with investment in immigration legal aid vital to supporting this Government’s ambition to end hotel use and increase returns. The investment in housing legal aid will help ensure a sustainable sector as we expand housing rights in the Renters’ Rights Bill.
The uplifts will be implemented as soon as operationally possible, at which point we intend to bring forward a statutory instrument to amend the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 to reflect the fee changes.
Through the consultation, we have also gathered further important evidence to progress our thinking on potential changes to the current office and remote advice requirements set out in the standard civil contract. Using this evidence, we will continue to review the standard civil contract in these areas and consider next steps to ensure that we are supporting clients and providers as effectively as possible in the civil legal aid system.
I will place copies of the consultation response in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS767]
Online Safety: Strategic Priorities
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I have today designated the Government’s statement of strategic priorities for online safety for the purposes of section 172 of the Online Safety Act 2023.
This statement sets out the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes across a number of online safety areas comprising safety by design, transparency and accountability, agile regulation, inclusivity and resilience, and technology and innovation.
These strategic priorities have been designed to support the ambitious implementation and delivery of the Act to ensure its protections are implemented as effectively as possible, delivering the best safety outcomes for all users.
The draft statement was laid before Parliament on 8 May 2025 and the statutory period required under section 173 of the Act has now ended.
As the online safety regulator, Ofcom must now have regard to the priorities set out within the statement when exercising its online safety functions. Within 40 days of the designation of the statement, Ofcom must publish a statement setting out what it proposes to do in consequence of the statement. Ofcom must then publish subsequent annual reviews of what action it has taken as a consequence of the statement.
We are committed to working with Ofcom to implement the Act. However, the Government are also clear that nothing is off the table when it comes to keeping children and the public safe. We are already building on the Act and will continue to identify areas to do so. Together, working with partners across civil society and industry, we will drive forward progress in pursuit of these priorities to build a better online world for all.
[HCWS769]
Death of a Member: Lord Lipsey
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, yesterday, 1 July. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Police: Facial Recognition Technology
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to regulate the procurement and use of facial recognition technology by the police.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, facial recognition is a valuable tool that helps the police identify offenders and protect the public. While its use is governed by existing laws, the Government are considering whether further legal clarity is needed in order to maintain public trust and confidence.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend. Since the groundbreaking Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in which noble Lords opposite may take some pride, it has been decided that in this country police power is principally a matter for Parliament and statute, not for incremental development by the courts and common law. Can it therefore be right that successive Governments have allowed the procurement of this most intrusive technology from any company or Government in the world, and its deployment to be a matter of discretion for the 43 police forces in England and Wales?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is a range of legislation that provides protections for the public at large, including data protection legislation and equality and human rights law, along with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice Live Facial Recognition, the Information Commissioner, the Equality and Human Rights Commissioner, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. If that is not enough for my noble friend, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently said that she wants to see a clear legal framework in place for facial recognition. We aim to set out plans very shortly, but it is an important tool and it does help identify perpetrators of crime.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, this is an important tool, but the reality is that recently, there have been reports in the press about two women who were stopped by the police for shoplifting, through the use of facial recognition technology. There is an issue here about the algorithms used in facial recognition technology, and inequality and accessibility, particularly in relation to black and ethnic minority people, who are more likely to be misjudged as a result of this technology.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There has been some discussion of the algorithms and their use. There were discussions with South Wales Police in particular, who were dealing with that issue. Those discussions resulted in the National Physical Laboratory testing the algorithm used by South Wales Police, and it found no statistically significant difference in performance on either gender or race. However, it is for those very reasons that the Home Secretary wants to examine the legal framework and, for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned, to make sure that there is clarity and oversight, and that the plethora of organisations I mentioned at the start of this Question examine this in a way that makes for effective oversight and clarity for police forces.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, our concerns should extend beyond just facial recognition technology to the wide range of technologies coming down the track, some of which are very intrusive. Many are already being used by police forces in other countries. Will the Government consider appointing an independent regulator to establish clear guardrails around this new technology, so that any of the AI technology that the police want to use will be proportionate and necessary?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I understand that people want to ensure that there is a legal framework for interpreting not just facial recognition but other such things. As I have mentioned, a plethora of organisations are looking at different aspects of regulation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is trying to look at that and to give clearer guidance on the use of what I still maintain is an effective tool. If this helps stop crime and identifies potential individuals through intelligence-led policing, then it is a good thing.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but he did not actually answer the part about procurement of facial recognition technology and so on. For the most part, the many accountability organisations that he listed do not actually examine procurement, and if they do it is only in the context of compliance with procurement requirements and not necessarily with, for example, considerations of national security.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I tried to answer my noble friend’s initial Question as best as I could. Procurement is another issue we are looking at. In the Government’s forward look to policing, we are considering what areas of work we can bring in centrally in terms of the guidance and support for the 43 police forces currently operating. Again, without pre-empting my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s review, one possibility is giving greater guidance on procurement and issues such as facial recognition technology and other forms of preventive activity by police forces.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, a US Government study suggests that facial recognition algorithms are far less accurate in identifying African-American and Asian faces than Caucasian faces, and that African and Asian women are 10 to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than Caucasian ones. The study identified 99 developers, including Intel, Microsoft, Toshiba and the Chinese firms Tencent and DiDi Chuxing, as potential problems in this area of procurement. What research are the UK Government going to commission on this, and how are these firms to be treated for the purposes of procurement by police forces in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend touches on important issues and again, I refer to the point I made earlier to the noble Baroness. A survey of the existing use of facial recognition technology estimated that there was no discrepancy between gender and race. My noble friend shows slight dissatisfaction with that potential outcome, and I say to him that those are the very factors we want to look at in the guidance my right honourable friend is considering bringing forward. Self-evidently, if we are going to use facial recognition technology, it needs to be accurate, regulated, proportionate, intelligence-led and organised in a way that does not discriminate against sex, race or any other characteristic.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, noble Lords have had the opportunity twice in the last month to be briefed by the Met Police on facial recognition. On both occasions, including when Minister Johnson from the other end was present, it was clear, as the Met admitted, that it does not have clear oversight, which the Minister also admitted in an earlier answer. When are the Government going to provide some clear regulations? In what other area of public-facing policing do the police make up their own rules?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is interesting that the noble Baroness mentions that she has been to a meeting with Minister Johnson and the Metropolitan Police. That is part of a regular series of stakeholder engagement meetings being undertaken by the Policing Minister with the police, current regulators, civil society groups and others. The purpose of those discussions is to gauge the sort of opinion that the noble Baroness has brought forward now, so that we can, as I have said, look at the police using facial recognition technology in a framework set by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The noble Baroness may be impatient, but the issue has been identified by the Home Office and actioned by the Home Secretary, and we will bring forward proposals in due course to try to resolve the various tensions put to me in the Chamber this afternoon.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, next to North Korea, the UK rates as one of the countries with the greatest surveillance presence—which, I might add, is no bad thing in my book. We heard from the Government that they are exploring whether legislation on facial recognition technology is necessary. What steps are they taking to address the great deal of public concern that clearly exists about this issue? How might this tie in with the Government’s position on ID cards?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for a range of surveillance methods. CCTV, for example, is one of the greatest crime prevention tools brought in in the last 30 years. It shows what happened at an event, not what might have been perceived to have happened, so it is very valuable. With DNA, CCTV and, potentially, facial recognition technology, progress is made through public confidence; and the Peelian principle of the police having the trust of the community is paramount. Going back to question of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that is why we have consulted to get a range of views on this issue before potentially bringing forward better regulation to meet the very issue my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has raised.
As to ID cards, when I was last a Home Office Minister, in 2009-10, we had ID cards; in fact, I had ID card number 3, I think. It proved to be useless because the Government he supported abolished ID cards in around 2011. If he wishes to bring them back, that is a debate we can have, and I look forward to engaging with him on it in due course. But it was not me who abolished them.
Peers’ Entrance Security Door
Lord Robathan
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what assessment he has made of the costs of the recent works on the security door to Peers’ Entrance.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, it is unacceptable that the Peers’ Entrance does not operate as it should. The commission has directed urgent work to resolve this. The commission agreed an exception to release the costs of the work at Peers’ Entrance, particularly as much of the cost relates to building and infrastructure works. The total cost has been £9.6 million. The cost to remedy defects will not be borne by the House and will be met by Parliament’s contractors.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I do not hold the Senior Deputy Speaker responsible for this scandal, but it is a scandalous waste of public money. Who gave the security advice on the useless door and the ridiculous and ineffective fence? I was on the Joint Committee on security for some five years. We never discussed that at all. Who was responsible and who is accountable, by name, for the huge increase of nearly 50% in spending on the door? It is now nearly £10 million for a door that does not work. Somebody accountable should be identified and should perhaps resign for this terrible waste of public money.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, this is a very serious matter. As I have said before, the backdrop to this is that the Murphy review, as validated by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, found that the West Front and this part of the Palace had considerable vulnerabilities. The director of security and the director of strategic estates, who were responsible for the programme with two outside contractors, report to the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House, who are the accounting officers.
The Lord Speaker has written to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, to request that he, given his experience of 10 years as Comptroller and Auditor-General of the National Audit Office, looks into the Peers’ Entrance works to examine the programme specifications and the cost. I will place a copy of the Lord Speaker’s letter in the Library so that noble Lords can have a look.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Is the Senior Deputy Speaker able to tell the House how much the estimate was for the development in the first place? He has told us how much it finally cost, but can he tell us how much the estimate was originally?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, again I have to preface this with what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said. I am not directly responsible for all this. My understanding is that the cost originally was £6.1 million. There were changes because of planned patterns of work and technical issues. One of the particular problems was that gas mains below ground, which originally passed through the entrance structure, had to be diverted. There were some other security capabilities and the cost of significant structural and ground works. There were additional costs, but my understanding is that the first sum was £6.1 million.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the Senior Deputy Speaker has identified the total cost in relation to the Peers’ Entrance. I would like to identify that both Houses are currently recruiting a new chief commercial officer, which will cost £1 million in this Parliament. Under current circumstances, that is utterly unacceptable. Returning to the question of the Peers’ Entrance, the Senior Deputy Speaker told us the total cost, but the staff manning that door, calculated on the Written Answer he provided to me, are costing £2,500 per week. That cost has to be borne by someone. Can he identify by whom and when?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I will need to take some of that away so that I get the precise answer. To deal with the noble Lord’s first question, one of the areas I think we have not been good at—by we, I mean the administration, candidly—is project delivery capability. One of the reasons it was decided that the commercial directorate is now a joint department, as the Leader of the House sought the House’s agreement on, is that we must improve project delivery capability. That is what we are looking at with the appointment of the commercial director. They are large sums of money but, in the end, this is what the commercial rates are. I am afraid I am still of the generation that thinks £100 is a lot of money, but that is the situation.
On the issue of the number of people involved in the manual use of the door while it is being repaired and made usable, I am assured that they are within the existing complement of members of staff. I am mindful that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has asked me those questions. I will return to him with answers and put a copy in the Library so that there is transparency.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, we have spent a lot of money on the entrance and another lot of money on the fencing, but we still have the bag searches being done inside that secure area, in a centre where a lot of people gather. When is somebody going to address the security problem of the bag searches in our midst?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, that is part of the future programme. I am afraid that, as we have seen with the door and the fence, proposals are coming for more security operations in this part of the Palace, and one of the areas that is going to be addressed is the point that the noble Lord raised.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Senior Deputy Speaker has faced several questions on this, but quite a number of them come back to the question of who makes decisions in this place. What are the lines of accountability? Is there a line of accountability through the Clerk of the Parliaments and, in this case, the clerk of the other place, as accounting officers, or is it through Members? Would it be possible for him to succinctly explain how this works and how decisions are made, and who therefore checks on these matters? There is a real danger that things will fall between matters for the administration and matters for Members—who is saying that Members want this?—and all those things.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
The noble Lord makes a very valid point; this is something that has troubled me for some time. On the particular matter of the Peers’ Entrance, the project business case has undergone a process of standard professional scrutiny. The clerks of both Houses ultimately scrutinised and approved those costs following advice from the investment committee, which is chaired by the two finance directors of both Houses. As a result of what has happened, going forwards the Finance Committee in this House, which has received up-to-date reports on major programmes, will be asked to supplement its work with enhanced scrutiny of both costs and performance on a quarterly basis. I would say, however, as I am very close to my colleague, that the Clerk of the Parliaments is the accounting officer and legal officer, and in the end the responsibility is directly in his hands.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, last week when we were discussing this issue I made a silly mistake. I suggested that the wretched front entrance had cost as much as Grenfell Tower. I am sorry; I completely misread the briefing that I was given. I do not feel comfortable leaving such a silly comparison like that uncorrected on the record, so I hope that the Senior Deputy Speaker and the whole House will accept my apology for such a silly error on such a serious issue.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I think the House takes that in the spirit and the manner in which the noble Lord made those remarks. Both, in their way, are serious. Obviously, the tragedy of what happened in Grenfell Tower remains with us always, but clearly the security imperative of protecting everyone in this Palace is also paramount. We need to ensure that it is value for money and that the wretched thing then works.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, previously I said, slightly tongue in cheek, that going for the best is often a problem in terms of protection. There is a real risk of going for more and more to protect us, but in the final analysis we cannot totally protect everyone. We talk about looking at where goods will be held, but that is going to cost another £10 million to £15 million. We have to be really careful; do we really need these things? I am afraid there is an element of risk that we all have to take, and that is part of life.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
The noble Lord makes a powerful point. Clearly, there is always an important balance between access and security; they are key considerations as we as parliamentarians, and others who work here, need to do our work. We need to reflect on this area, and, particularly regarding the Peers’ Entrance, on the balance between security, access and users who seek to use the entrance.
India: Minorities
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the government of India about the position of minorities in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, India is a multifaith, multi-ethnic and multilingual democracy, and it remains among the most diverse societies in the world. It is home to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and several other religions. India should be proud of this diversity. The UK maintains a broad, deep and respectful partnership with India, which includes dialogue on human rights and minority issues. The British high commission in New Delhi, along with our wider network across India, monitors the human rights situation and engages with government and civil society stakeholders. Where concerns arise, we raise them directly with Indian counterparts.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. As she said, India is one of the great democracies of the world, and it is even more sad that the present Government are so repressive of a range of minorities, so that even academics, if they speak up against the Government, find themselves oppressed. I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the adivasi community, whose traditional tribal lands are now heavily militarised. For example, in the Bastar region of the state of Chhattisgarh, there are armed encampments all along the main roads and, for every nine civilians, there is one armed guard, leading inevitably to human rights abuses and the imprisonment of innocent protesters. What steps are the Government taking to make representations to the Indian Government about the adivasi community in particular?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for bringing our attention to this. It is an important issue and he is right to raise it. We have our network across India and will raise issues such as those that he mentions. We keep a close eye on human rights in India. Human rights are of course universal and, whatever the nature of our relationship with any Government, we are not afraid to raise issues as and when we need to.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to urge the Government of India to ratify key international human rights treaties and withdraw reservations that dilute existing commitments to align their domestic laws with international norms, particularly on caste-based and religious discrimination?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We raise these issues with the Indian Government, as my noble friend would expect us to. Clearly, it is for India to make its own choices, and it has been many decades, thankfully, since we were in a position to do otherwise, but we continue to have the appropriate conversations that she would wish us to have because, as I said in my earlier answer, some things, such as human rights, are universal, and that is how this Government approach these issues.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, were assurances on freedom of religion or belief sought from the Government of India ahead of the recently agreed trade deal? The UK’s independent Trade and Agriculture Commission will scrutinise the free trade agreement and report on whether the measures within it are consistent with UK protections for animals, plant life and life, animal welfare, and the environment, but what, if any, scrutiny is carried out on the welfare of Christians and other persecuted minorities?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I said, we raise the issues that the noble Lord is concerned about directly with the Government of India. Animal welfare, plants and phytosanitary issues all relate to trade, our ability to trade fairly and being fair to our producers here in the UK. They are part of a trade negotiation that is in many ways quite separate to the conversations that we would have anyway, regardless of where we stand in our relationship when it comes to trade.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this should not be separate, because the noble Baroness, while in opposition, was in the same Division Lobby as me on a Labour Motion that said that every trade agreement going forward should have human rights chapters as part of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, said at the Dispatch Box that the India agreement will not have human rights chapters. If we are to have discussions with our Indian friends about human rights, labour laws and the standards of supply chains, where will we see human rights reflected in our trading arrangements if not in a free trade agreement?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think that—how shall I put this?—the nature of our relationship with the Government of India changes in accordance with the nature of our position in relation to these conversations. It is a judgment: are these things best progressed in the way that we would all like if we take a hard line as part of a trade agreement, or are they best progressed in other ways? It is all about getting the right outcome for our relationship and for human rights. It is a constant judgment. At the moment, we are dealing with the trade negotiation in a separate track to our conversations about human rights. It is slightly different when it comes to labour rights and the treatment of workers and other such issues. However, it is fair for the noble Lord to raise this, and it was fair for us to use, when in opposition, methods to raise our concerns that we may not feel we want to use in government.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said in her earlier answers, it is vital that His Majesty’s Government leverage their influence to try to ease tensions arising between communities. However, the Government have a more fundamental duty to make sure that those tensions are not imported into the United Kingdom. A Home Office report, commissioned by the Home Secretary, pointed out that Hindu nationalism was one of the most serious threats to domestic security. What is the Minister doing to prevent foreign nationalism becoming an internal threat?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This is a matter of great concern and the Government are, as the noble Earl said, looking at this incredibly carefully, not just in relation to Hindu nationalism but other forms as well. We are concerned about this; we talk to colleagues in the Home Office, my noble friend the Faith Minister and other colleagues in the local government department as well. This is not something that we wish to see enacted on our streets, or indeed on social media, in the UK. We are vigilant and we will take steps as and when we need to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of Indian laws on freedom of religion or belief, and how to engage with the Indian Government on the misuse of those laws to target religious minorities, especially Christians and Muslims?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would also add the Dalit community to that list. This is obviously a concern. There is no room for conversion laws—that is not something that we want to see, and it is a concern in terms of human rights. As I have said when other issues of concern have been raised, we will continue to raise these as appropriate, usually in private with the Government of India.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lord, it is right that we criticise the treatment of minorities in India, where a historic mosque was demolished to build a Hindu temple, where the Home Minister describes Muslims as “termites” and where a young British Sikh has been detained and tortured for years. But does the Minister agree that our condemnation would carry far more weight if we were seen to treat non-Abrahamic communities fairly in this country? The Casey report of 2016 gave numerous examples of hate crime against Christians, Jews and Muslims, but no mention of non- Abrahamic faiths. We now talk of additional protection and funding against antisemitism and Islamophobia, again ignoring the suffering of non-Abrahamic faiths. I must declare an interest: I speak as a Sikh, believing in the equal treatment of people of all faiths and beliefs.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think that there is anybody in this House who would not agree that we should—and do—believe in the equal treatment of all people of all faiths and beliefs. This is fundamental to who we are. We have laws that support this, and the vast majority of people in this country support that too. Where we fall short or where there are problems in our communities or at high-profile events, there are steps that could and should be taken, and this Government support that.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I too want to express disappointment, as did my noble friend Lord Purvis, at the lack of human rights chapters in the trade agreement with India. If we look at the Amnesty International report from 2024, we see that huge concerns were expressed about the detention of journalists, about the bulldozer justice that is meted out to minority faiths and about issues in the Punjab and Kashmir. If we cannot challenge the Indian Government but are just going to raise issues with them, what are we going to get back from them, other than just having words with them? Have the Government dropped the ball with this trade agreement, in which they should have included human rights chapters?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear the challenge, and it is a judgment, is it not? You are trying to get a trade agreement with the Government of India. Is that best served by including measures on human rights? Would that jeopardise your trade agreement? Should that then happen? Or will you see the reaction that you would like in terms of human rights by standing firm? I just do not know which would be the right way to go, but at the moment we are dealing with a trade agreement and we are also having conversations about human rights. I think that, from where we are at the moment, that is the right thing to do. It is treating the Government of India with respect and allowing us to have those conversations, which I would say are often more fruitfully had in private than in other ways that we could go about this.
NHS, Armed Forces and Civil Service Staff: Public Meetings
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Butler of Brockwell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what instructions they have given to the staff of the National Health Service, the Armed Forces and the Civil Service about speaking at public meetings of their professions.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, a core principle of government in this country is that Ministers are ultimately accountable for decision-making. Therefore, it is right that we are the principal representatives of the Government in the public sphere. As the Civil Service management code, released in 2016, makes clear, civil servants must clear in advance material for publication, broadcast or other public discussion which draws on official information or experience. As they have done for several years, the Government continue to approve public activity by civil servants on a case-by-case basis, and civil servants, such as Permanent Secretaries, continue to be accountable to parliamentary Select Committees in the usual way.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, if senior public servants cannot address their staff or answer their questions without first having cleared with Ministers everything they are going to say, they risk losing their public personal authority and becoming not leaders but puppets.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think I need to reassure your Lordships’ House, but especially the noble Lord, that there is no guidance that would prohibit leaders within the Civil Service engaging with or talking to their staff in any fora. The only guidance that exists about what would need to be gridded at No. 10—the noble Lord will be very aware of the gridding process, given that he introduced it while he was Cabinet Secretary—covers anything that pertains to the media, nothing that pertains to engaging with your staff.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
Does the Minister agree that, while senior military officers, for example, are Crown servants, and it is not appropriate for them to dissent from or challenge government policy in public, nevertheless, if they are constrained to being little more than oral press releases, they will lose all credibility? Surely, it is in any Government’s interest that they be allowed to address publicly the professional challenges they face in an honest and open manner.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
At that point, I should declare my status as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, before I get myself in trouble. Obviously, I would always want to hear from the senior service and the First Sea Lord. I think it is really clear that there is no such restriction. This is about how we do the gridding process. As the noble and gallant Lord will be aware, the Chief of the General Staff made an on-the-record speech to the RUSI conference, which was broadcast live by Sky on 17 June, with an open Q&A. This is about making sure that there is a clear process for government communications, as opposed to restricting government speech.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very important not to believe everything we read in the newspapers, particularly at the moment? Will she confirm that what the Government are doing is giving guidance to members of the Armed Forces, the Civil Service and the NHS about when and how they can speak in public and make clear on whose behalf they are speaking? Is that not sensible?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. We are living in an age of disinformation and there is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that there are clear communication channels, especially when we talk about issues pertaining to policy that has been made by politicians. I also think it is incredibly important when we are trying to return to a politics of service and re-establish the use of the Nolan principles, which is why they have been added to the Ministerial Code, that it is politicians who are held accountable for policy decisions and challenged by the media.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I was present at the recent conference to which the Minister refers. The Chief of the General Staff did indeed give a welcome and full address and took questions, but another representative of the MoD made it explicitly clear that he was unable to speak publicly and we were all asked to honour that undertaking and not repeat his remarks publicly. Going back to the Minister’s observation about the need for a grid, there is a marked difference between a grid and censorship. There is a concern that the Government are slightly straying over the line and, frankly, treating some of our senior public officials like Pavlov’s poodles.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, before I joined your Lordships’ House, I ran an organisation called Index on Censorship. We should be very careful about the use of that word and how it applies here, versus the political dissidents I used to represent. The noble Baroness talks about something that everybody in this Chamber has participated in—a Chatham House rules discussion. On the point she raised about the RUSI Land Warfare Conference, it was completely appropriate that the head of the British Army led the discussion. She will also be aware that this is a cyclical news story that appears regularly. After all, in 2020 the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was accused of gagging his head of the Navy.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, politics and government are necessarily an informed dialogue between Ministers and civil servants and between senior civil servants and outside experts. We need to maintain the ability of expert policymakers to have that dialogue. If it is felt that senior civil servants cannot honestly discuss with outsiders—I declare an interest as someone who used to work at Chatham House and do such things—decent policy-making will deteriorate. Can the Government make it absolutely clear that senior civil servants have to engage with outside professions with which their policy-making responsibilities interact?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, ongoing engagement with stakeholders, whoever they may be, is key. Noble Lords will be aware that one of my responsibilities in your Lordships’ House is to discuss the Infected Blood Inquiry. There is a responsibility on our civil servants to engage every day both with those in the infected community and with the charities that represent them. That is true of every part of government business and it is vital that civil servants are available to do so, which is why this Government have not changed any such policy.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, under changes to the Civil Service Code brought in when the late Lord Heywood of Whitehall was head of the Civil Service, officials are forbidden to speak with journalists without the express agreement of Ministers. It is also the case, quite rightly, that policy officials should speak in public only with the express agreement of Ministers. However, does the Minister agree that, for officials with implementation functions, such as project management and digital procurement, the gagging order is unnecessary? They are already wrongly seen as second-class citizens in the Whitehall pecking order: blue collar compared with white-collar policy officials. Their work has little or no political content and we will not recruit the best if we infantilise them.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, there is no such gagging order. This is about the grid system and making sure that, if someone wishes to participate in an event where media will be present, a request goes through the head of comms in that government department. That is available to all officials, regardless of their status. This is about making sure that we have a clear communications channel, which every Government since 1997 have used in the operation of No. 10.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, I was the general secretary of the Civil Service trade union, which was affiliated to the TUC, at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was head of the Civil Service. In my experience, there are times when it is difficult to speak about what is going on among civil servants, but the great thing at the time was to have a dialogue going on with the noble Lord about how these issues could be addressed publicly and within the trade union. It is a question of common sense, dialogue and knowing where the red lines are. I believe that is still the case.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
There is very little I can add to my noble friend, except to say that I believe her statement is absolutely true about where we currently stand.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I had a long and much reshuffled career in a variety of Governments, going right back to the early 1970s. In my last post, under the Cameron Government, I was introduced to the Grid, which had been developed in the 21st century. I found it utterly ridiculous and quite inimical to the proper governing of the country. Nowadays, there is an army of young men and women in No.10 who are led to believe that they have complete control over Ministers and civil servants as they endeavour, in their various ways, to defend their policies and explain to the general public what they are about. At the moment, the staff count at No.10 has reached about 300, of whom quite a number believe themselves to be experts in PR, although, as we have seen at the moment, they are doing a fairly dreadful job. Are the Government prepared to re-examine this way of doing things in a modern democracy and contemplate going back to more genuine Cabinet government, with more responsibility for Ministers and senior civil servants in how they explain the Government’s actions to the wider world?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I start by wishing the noble Lord a happy birthday. Also, I cannot believe that any civil servant or special adviser would ever have any success in controlling the noble Lord. There is nothing unusual about efforts to make sure that government communications have a clear line. Noble Lords will remember Joe Haines and Bernard Ingham; we have always made efforts to have clear communications and we have always had PR professionals. The Grid has been around for a long time; it was introduced before I even got the vote.
Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 2 April and 15 May be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 May be approved.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 June be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 23, Schedule 3, Clauses 24 to 35, Schedule 4, Clauses 36 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 57, Schedule 6, Clauses 58 to 87, Schedule 7, Clauses 88 to 128, Schedule 8, Clauses 129 to 132, Schedule 9, Clauses 133 to 146, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 147 to 149, Schedule 12, Clauses 150 to 157, Title.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have another busy day ahead of us, with several Divisions planned. We have also seen increased moving around the Chamber when Divisions are called, with Members jumping up straightaway. I remind colleagues that once the question has been put, the voting system needs to be activated before the vote can take place. So would noble Lords please wait until they have been advised by the noble Lord on the Woolsack that voting is open, and he or she has sat down, before proceeding to the Lobbies?
After three minutes, the question will be put. Both sides need to say loudly, “Content” or “Not-Content” for the vote to continue. I ask noble Lords to remember that the microphones are on during Divisions—they pick up noble Lords’ conversations.
When noble Lords arrive in the voting Lobby, they should please place their pass firmly on the card reader and make sure that their vote is recorded. There is a “ping” and a visual confirmation on the screen that they have voted. The act of just walking through the Lobby is no longer casting a vote—it must be recorded by the reader. Votes can be close, so they should try not to be the noble Lord who lost the vote for their side because although they walked through the Lobby, they never actually voted.
Noble Lords should please leave the Lobbies quickly after voting and not stand behind Tellers, talking and making it hard for other noble Lords to walk through the Lobbies. We preserve these simple courtesies and procedures to improve the House for everyone—Members, clerks, doorkeepers and other staff alike—and to look better for the public who watch our proceedings.
Finally, if noble Lords have any concerns about their pass not having been activated or if it has recently been renewed, please call in to the Table Office before voting starts and the clerks present will ensure that their pass is working properly. Whatever noble Lords do, they should please not approach the Clerk at the Table during the Division, as they have an important job to do in ensuring that the Division takes place properly.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (30 Jun 2025)
18:12 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 243 - Amendment 2 agreed.
19:26 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 84 / Noes: 263 - Amendment 4 disagreed.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia
“(A1) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “, except for the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to retain the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain as members of the House of Lords with the right to sit and vote.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, the adjective “historic” is bandied about far too often in politics, covering all sorts of things that are unlikely to detain historians of the future. Football matches, TV shows and any number of announcements in the other place are routinely described as historic when they simply are not. The other day I saw a hamburger described as historic.
Today, however, our debate about the abolition of the hereditary element of our House after its 800 years of service is indeed historic and will be studied by historians in years to come. We should so conduct ourselves, therefore, that, as Andrew Marvell wrote of Charles I at his execution, future historians will say that we
“nothing common did or mean
Upon that memorable scene”.
Yet it strikes me that His Majesty’s Government are indeed about to do something very mean-spirited in including the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain in this legislation, because these two noble Lords undertake totally different roles on behalf of the Crown and state from any other of the hereditary Peers, roles that greatly benefit from their being Members of this House. Excising these two hereditary Peers from the Bill would be an easy and costless way both to show gratitude to them for their hard work in unpaid roles—the quintessence of noblesse oblige—but also, crucially, to allow them to stay in close touch with the Members of your Lordships’ House whom they serve so efficiently.
We all know the history. The office of Lord Great Chamberlain dates back to the Norman Conquest, when William the Conqueror appointed Robert Malet to superintend the improvements of Westminster Palace. He did it on time and under budget, as I am sure will also be the case in the restoration and renewal project. The office was made hereditary by Henry I in 1133, which is more than three-quarters of a century before the barons—statues of whom we see above us here—forced King John to sign Magna Carta.
For some reason, Lords Great Chamberlain had the right in law to demand the clothes worn by the monarch at his or her Coronation. However, James I had just arrived from chilly Edinburgh and did not want to part with them, so he paid £200 in lieu. Similarly, Queen Anne paid £300 to keep her “bottom drawer intact”.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I have very much enjoyed the last contribution. I am sure we all did. We are all encouraged to declare if we are hereditary Peers, so I do so. The irrelevance of this was brought home to me at breakfast today, when one of my life Peer colleagues said to me that they did not even realise I was a hereditary after all these years.
As the House has heard from me at each stage of the Bill, I am hesitant to speak again. Members will be comforted to know that I am not here next week, so this will be my last opportunity to contribute, assuming we pass the Bill this week.
I have great respect for and friendship with my Cross-Bench colleague the Lord Great Chamberlain, and have told him in advance what I propose to say: I am not clear why ceremonial duties should come with the ex officio right to legislate by sitting and voting in the House of Lords. Rather, I would point to his string of contributions and successful vote last evening as a better measure of his commitment and worth to the House. That is the same metric I would apply to any of our so-called hereditaries, regardless of their availability to perform royal or ceremonial duties. I only wish we were applying that metric to the life Peers.
To save time later, I add that I have the same, albeit milder, view of special pleading for other automatic ex officio appointments, such as the Lord Chancellor, as set out in Amendment 10 in group 9. They should be selected rather than have just the legal right to expect that they will come here.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, what an honour to follow on from my noble friend Lord Roberts, to whose amendment I have added my name. There is little I could possibly add to the noble Lord’s excellent remarks, so I will not waste your Lordships’ time in repeating the same arguments in a rather less erudite fashion. However, I emphasise that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are two essential components of the framework within which this country is governed. It will be a bad day for our Government if the holders of these offices are no longer able to carry out their duties freely and without impediment.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly address Amendment 1 and will ask a couple of specific questions related to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.
First, in closing, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House please confirm what discussions she might have had to confirm that their ceremonial roles will remain wholly unchanged following the passage of the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, stated, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their remarkable service during the recent succession of King Charles III.
Secondly, has anyone either proposing or opposing this amendment actually consulted with the present holders of these two high offices of state? I spoke this morning with the Earl Marshal; he was happy for me to confirm to the House that he insists upon his continued service in the role of Earl Marshal but does not think that a seat in this House should be reserved for his hereditary self. Perhaps it could be made available to someone of a more diverse background, he suggested. For hereditaries, our time, unfortunately, is up. We should perhaps accept that and go gracefully, albeit a bit reluctantly.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and I did so because although it seems like a small point, it is part of a bigger point.
I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is mistaken in thinking that the Lord Great Chamberlain is here because of his ceremonial duties; it is quite the other way around. The ceremonial duties have emerged over time from the fundamental duties of the Lord Great Chamberlain, who—this is a very practical point about this amendment—has a great many practical duties.
Those duties include: the organisation of great occasions within Westminster Hall; joint responsibility for the control of Westminster Hall and the crypt chapel; the organisation when important Heads of State visit, such as President Macron next week; the sole responsibility for the monarch’s Robing Room, staircase, anteroom and the Royal Gallery; the ballot for the State Opening, which requires a certain amount of tact in its management; and correspondence with individuals and organisations relating to the Palace of Westminster. Those are all practical things. We need to ask ourselves whether, if the Lord Great Chamberlain were to be removed from this place, they would be so well accomplished. If they would not be so well accomplished, what other possible advantage could there be in removing them?
It is true that the Earl Marshal’s role is much more purely ceremonial; I will come back to that in a moment.
It should be obvious that the performance of these tasks is best fulfilled by a full Member of your Lordships’ House. The Lord Great Chamberlain needs to know the people here: our hopes and fears, our conventions, rules and traditions, and, of course, our quirks. It is very nice and encouraging that the present Lord Great Chamberlain is often visible in this Chamber, observing the habits of the tribe of which he is a member. I do not see how it could be done better any other way. If he cannot sit here, it is inevitable that his personal knowledge of the place will decline and, of course, his successor will have no such personal knowledge.
I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about the restoration and renewal project. It is a very complicated project, and it is important that the Lord Great Chamberlain is able to do his job in representing the interests of the monarch on these matters. In doing so, he needs to understand what we all think, so that he can say something which reflects reality. His fundamental role is to maintain the crucial and historic link between the monarchy and Parliament. I think we can trust him when he represents the monarch’s interests here, because he is one of us; we can feel, if you like, that we have a friend at court. So what good comes of fraying that link?
On the role of the Earl Marshal, most of the points made about our connection with the monarchy apply to him as well. But I just want to mention something else, because this is not the first time that the Earls Marshal has been removed from this House, and it is quite interesting what actually happened—it tells us something. As is well known, the Dukes of Norfolk are hereditarily almost always Roman Catholics, and as such, they continued to hold their place under tolerant monarchs in the past. But Parliament was not so tolerant, and from 1672 until 1824, the Dukes of Norfolk were excluded from this House but continued to be Earls Marshal. This created considerable inconvenience in which they had to create deputy Earls Marshal to do the necessary work here, and they got around it in the rather traditional way of the aristocracy, particularly in those days, by appointing their Protestant cousins to the post.
In 1824, a Bill was brought in to change that and allow the Catholic Norfolks to come back into this House. It was a rather important Bill in the history of this country, because it was the forerunner of the Catholic emancipation Act, which, thanks to the ancestor of the noble Duke who is sitting beside me—who rather surprisingly took a very modernising view and said he would resign if it did not get through—Catholic emancipation came in, and so did a whole series of emancipations in the 19th century, which changed the franchise, the qualifications for university and for all sorts of public roles, and so on. So it is rather important.
I was slightly sorry to hear the noble Earl, Lord Devon, quoting the current Earl Marshal saying that more diversity should be encouraged, because, actually, the Norfolks brought great diversity in the 19th century. They were the Catholic voice in this House at a time when it was virtually not allowed. Is it not rather strange that, in this 21st century, when we talk about the importance of diversity and inclusion, we are now trying to kick out the Roman Catholic Norfolks from this Parliament and narrow in some sense the work that we are doing?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, are we going to hear all day the cry of “Front Bench”? In this House, the tradition is that those on the Back Benches are permitted, as fellow Peers, to contribute to our debates. Also, if I may say so, I have never heard the proposition that someone who is a hereditary Peer should have to declare that. I very much hope, if that is the principle that is being pushed, that when we come to debate the principle of a democratic House, those who are life Peers will declare their interest—responding to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This is not a profitable way to go. As was said by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms very wisely earlier, we should conduct our debates with amity, respect for each other and a degree of tolerance.
History matters; it matters greatly. It was no accident that, in 1999, the then Labour Government decided, outside the discussions that we were having about the elected Peers, to leave an ex officio place for these two great and ancient hereditary offices in our Chamber. It was a wise decision then, and I think it would have been wise to replicate it now. We have heard the long history of these great offices and, more importantly, their current relevance, set out ably by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia and underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. I agree with my noble friend that we diminish the ceremonial part of our state at great peril to ourselves and to who we are as a people. As was said by my noble friend, it is one of the things that we do amazingly well, which attracts huge income from tourism and, far more deeply, deep respect and interest in our country.
This Parliament is a Parliament of three parts: the Commons, the Lords and the Crown. The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain are visible embodiments of that. They are a part of our parliamentary constitution that can be traced back to early medieval times. They are every bit as important today, and they must be able to fulfil their duties at State Openings of Parliament and all the other events and places where they serve us, our House and our country.
When I look back on the great and moving events that took place in our recent memory after the demise of the late Queen and the accession and Coronation of His Majesty King Charles, I well remember, as we all do, the active, practical and dedicated part that the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain took in making those events possible and so memorable. I record my personal thanks as then Leader of the House to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his predecessor, the Marquess of Cholmondeley. They are also ex officio here by a separate provision of the 1999 Act; they are Members of the House. They have often, over the years, brought great insight here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. When I went home late last night, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was in his place, having made a full, practical and helpful contribution to the House.
Those of a longer memory will well recall the 17th Duke of Norfolk, referred to by my noble friend, who won the Military Cross under fire in 1944. As a career major general and director of service intelligence, he brought immense wisdom to our discussions of military affairs. With an Earl Marshal responsible for our State Openings of Parliament and a Lord Great Chamberlain in control of much of our estate—the Robing Room, the Royal Gallery, the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft—and their relevance to restoration projects, these officers of state will need unfettered access to the Chamber and the resource and office space needed to fulfil their roles on our behalf. I agree that they should never have to queue for access or beg for a pass.
As others have argued, given that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain have such an intrinsic role in our House and its ceremony, much the best way forward would have been to allow them to remain as full Members of our House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, that their ability to serve us can only be strengthened by knowing and sharing the experience of our Members and staff. It worked for many hundreds of years and it seems a shame to change it now.
The unnecessary removal of these ex officio Members, separate from the 90 elected Peers, is to be regretted. However, I know that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has been talking to colleagues about this, and about the best and properly dignified way of enabling them to go about their important services to the Crown and to this House in an unfettered and unimpeded way in the future. We should all be open to hearing what she has to say.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for an erudite and entertaining speech. His amendment is similar to one that was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee. I think the cries of “Front Bench”, which we do not hear too often, were made in eagerness to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord True. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. He came to see me about this matter, and I am grateful for that discussion, which was very helpful. Looking at the comments that have been made, I can satisfy noble Lords on some points, but there is one particular point on which I cannot, which I will come to.
This is something that has arisen many times during the passage of this Bill. I completely recognise the important roles played by noble Lords in those offices and the historic link between the monarch and the second Chamber. However, the point remains that in order to fulfil their functions and responsibilities they do not need to speak in the Chamber or to vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right that it would be appalling to suggest that they would have to queue up at the Pass Office or seek permission every time they come in. I can give him the categorical assurance that that will not happen, now or in the future. The commission has agreed that both office holders have access rights on the Parliamentary Estate. They will be able to perform their duties as they do now and engage with Members as they do now. That includes the ability to sit on the steps of the Throne, to listen to debates, to access catering and to access the Library. That level of access will ensure that they can engage with Members. In no way should their responsibilities or their abilities to do that be fettered in any way. I can discuss with the House authorities the possibility of office space—there is no office space at the moment—in the House, if required.
I know that some noble Lords have voiced doubts and questioned whether both postholders, now or in the future, would have to come back to the commission each and every time. I reassure the House that that will not be the case. The commission has confirmed the position for current and future postholders, so they would not have to come back. There should not be any impediment to their fulfilling their responsibilities. I assured the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that I would make that commitment from the Dispatch Box and, as he requested, I am happy to do that.
To correct something that was said, the postholders will not be excluded from the House. They will be excluded from participating in the proceedings of the House but they will not be excluded from coming into the House, so I do not think that this amendment is necessary. There is certainly no criticism of the roles they play.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised three points. I can satisfy him on two of them, but on one, I cannot. He asked what discussions have taken place. I have had at least one discussion with both postholders and probably more than that. He asked whether they have been consulted. Yes, they have, and there has been wider consultation. The point I cannot satisfy him on is the one raised by the Earl Marshal about more diversity. These are both hereditary roles, and they will continue to be hereditary roles. The position of Lord Great Chamberlain rotates through three hereditary positions so, in terms of diversity and inclusion, they will always have to be men at the moment. I know the noble Earl has particular interests and perhaps one day we can make some progress on that, but at present I cannot satisfy him on the diversity role because, as hereditary Peers, they will always be male.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
The point that I think the Earl Marshal was making was that the seat in the House that he might occupy would perhaps be open to more diverse occupants, not his role as Earl Marshal.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is a valid point. The Earl Marshal has been very clear that he is perfectly content with this.
I do not think this amendment is necessary. I assure the House that those postholders are essential. We will not in any way hamper or impede their ability to carry out their functions or their roles. The noble Lord, Lord True, made the point that we are grateful to them for doing that. They engage with Members of the House as well. I hope that, having heard the explanation and the assurances that I have been able to give, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
I want to add a more general point about issues that will come up in later debates. It is not entirely relevant to this amendment but, because so many of these issues are interconnected, I think it will be helpful to set the context to assist the House. Noble Lords are aware that, prior to the commencement of the Bill and throughout its passage, I have had more than 50 meetings, some as one-to-ones, others with much larger groups. I listened very carefully in those engagements and throughout Committee. Much of our discussions and debates have been on issues, such as this one, that were in the manifesto but are not in the Bill. I think the House is seeking reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder and that the Government are serious about their intention for further reforms.
I have been greatly encouraged by support for two specific issues that have been mentioned many times and on which we have amendments later: retirement and participation. It has been 25 years since the first stage of this reform, and I think the House would be somewhat intolerant if we took another 25 years to bring anything further forward. We all value that this House is self-governing and I am keen that we take some ownership as a House in moving forward on other issues. I am sure we will discuss this issue further on other amendments.
I feel, having reflected on discussions and advice, that we need a formal, recognised process that is supported by the House. I have considered the mechanisms that we could use, and I have concluded that the best way forward would be to establish a dedicated Select Committee to look at those specific matters on which noble Lords have indicated that they are keen to make progress. I am open to discussing other mechanisms, but that is the way forward that I think may work the best.
Obviously, I will discuss this further with the usual channels before putting any such proposal to the House, but I hope that the House could set up such a committee within three months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent, and by this time next year it would be able to consider the committee’s findings. I am keen to see how quickly we can move on other issues as well without legislation, or prior to legislation, with a committee that could make those recommendations to the House. I say that at this stage to be of assistance to the House so that, when we get to those issues, the House has had time to consider them. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lord—not least for raising Andrew Marvell, perhaps one of my favourite poets—and ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, the proposal is to set up a Select Committee to consider the issues that have been discussed with her. Those issues include offering life peerages to hereditary Peers. Is that something that the Select Committee would consider?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not imagine that that would be discussed by this Select Committee, which will look at the two specific issues that have been raised. We will debate the matter that the noble Lord refers to later on the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, what authority will this committee have? Would it be regarded by the Government as having authority? In other words, would its conclusions, if passed by the House, be carried on by the Government, or would it be what I rather suspect it will be: a very good and highly-qualified talking shop that will not, in the end, lead to anything because the Government will easily be able to ignore it completely?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I really hope that would not be the case. One of the reasons why I said we wanted to see what could be done more quickly is that some things may be able to be done by the House itself. If the House comes to a conclusion on matters that need legislation then it is easier to put through legislation if the House has taken a view. So I am keen to have the House express a view—which noble Lords have asked for many times—and the Government will listen, but there may well be things that we can do without legislation. If that is the case, we can proceed. Where legislation is required, I will take that advice from the committee because we have a manifesto commitment for legislation, and we are determined to press ahead on these two issues.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. It is a great step forward. As the noble Baroness knows, I have been particularly concerned about the question of retirement age. I must declare an interest, by the way.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
No, I used to be director of Age Concern Scotland, so I have a particular interest in this. Could my noble friend confirm that this Select Committee would be able to consider all aspects of a retirement age—for example, whether it should be different for current Members and new Members, and whether it should be on the edge of a particular birthday or at the end of the Parliament in which the birthday takes place? All these issues can be considered and recommendations made to this House, and the decision could be made by this House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would say to my noble friend that we all have an interest in the retirement age because we all hope to approach one at some point in our lives. He is right. I am not going to set any preconditions on that. The manifesto at the last election said that someone would retire at the end of the Parliament after their 80th birthday. I have said repeatedly that I think a cut-off would create problems for the House when lots of Members reach that age at the same time and retire. If there are better suggestions, I would be happy to consider them. I am not going to put any parameters on what can be discussed within those two areas. I wanted to give the House the opportunity, when we come to discuss these issues, to consider what I have said and see whether noble Lords think it is helpful when we get to those amendments.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, will the new committee consider the whole question of the relative powers of both Houses? There is no point in talking about changing the membership unless you decide what they are going to do.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
No, my Lords, that would not be in the remit. It would be purely on the issues of participation and retirement age.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sorry to intervene further but there are a number of other issues in the various amendments that we are going to consider. Would it not be logical for the Select Committee to think about those issues as well, in particular some of the things that were referred to in the Labour manifesto at the last election?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am keen to make progress on these issues in what I call bite-sized chunks. I have always referred to these two issues as being stage 2. They are the two issues that have been raised most often in Committee and again now on Report. There seems to be a consensus around the House that they are specific issues that the House wants to deal with. I have chosen them because they have been mentioned so often by noble Lords.
Lord Swire (Con)
If the noble Baroness is trying to present the Select Committee as being in part an answer to some of the long-term questions about the future of this House, would she be open to considering outsiders joining it who may have an interest in the future of our bicameral legislature? I point out that, according to current polling, the Reform Party is likely to get 271 seats at the next election, against Labour’s 178. Should parties like that not be included in looking at the long-term future governance of this country?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord did not mention the number of seats his own party is projected to get, but I think it is a little irrelevant. Members of this House are best placed to understand its requirements. One thing that has emerged from the debate many times during the passage of the Bill is that Members would like greater input on this. I am not proposing to provide answers; I am asking questions of the committee. How does a committee of Members of this House, who know the day-to-day running of this House, think these things could best be achieved?
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was very specific about the issues she wants the Select Committee to focus on, but, as she knows, one of the major issues that has been discussed for decades in this House is the size of the House. It was mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto, and we have seen very clearly the ratchet effect that changes of government can have on the size of the House. If it is not to be considered in the Select Committee, how are we going to make progress on that?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a question of stages, and these are certainly issues we should make progress on. The more issues we discuss, the less likely we are to move forwards, as we have found so many times before. I am proposing a Select Committee on these two issues, but that will not stop us having further committees or looking more at such issues. I take great interest in the size of the House, and we need to address it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, is it not really a matter for the Select Committee to determine what issues it wants to consider?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would say no, because the danger is that the issues get wider and wider, and no decision is taken. Looking at these things in bite-size chunks in order to reach a conclusion and make recommendations is helpful to the House. I am not opposed to looking at other issues as well, but if this committee focuses on two specific issues, we can, I hope, make progress. I hope we can make progress quite quickly, too, because I think that is what the House is really looking for.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
I welcome the assurances given by the Minister and will not seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers(1) Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exception from section 1) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) No more than 87 people at any one time shall be excepted from section 1.” (3) For subsection (4) substitute—“(4) Any vacancy resulting from the death, retirement, resignation or expulsion of an excepted person under subsection (2) after the day on which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 comes into force is not to be filled by further exception.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would amend the House of Lords Act 1999 to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers. This would prevent any new hereditary peers from joining the House, while allowing those who are presently serving in the House to remain. It follows the proposals of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, many sensible ways of improving this Bill were discussed in Committee, but perhaps the most sensible was one which has been discussed many times before. Amendment 2, which I am delighted to say is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie, among many others, seeks to abolish the by-elections through which hereditary Peers may join your Lordships’ House, while allowing those who have come here by that route or who still sit here through the ballot which followed the House of Lords Act 1999 to continue to do so until, like the rest of us, they choose to retire or leave by some other means. The amendment would ensure that, although we all come here by varied routes and for different reasons, we are all treated equally in our moment of departure.
This amendment was debated rather late in the evening in Committee and given slightly short shrift. I can quite understand the frustration of many, particularly on the Benches opposite, who have spent far longer than I have debating this matter, but I felt it was important to bring back on Report, not least because so many of us have not had that opportunity. It also seemed to me that the sudden opposition to it by those who have previously supported this solution was based on a few false assumptions.
The first assumption or claim is that these by-elections were never intended to be around for so long. In a sense, that is correct, but only because they were intended to ensure that further reform of your Lordships’ House would follow. The preservation of a small number of hereditary Peers, maintained through by-elections, came about as a result of a compromise agreed before Second Reading of what is now the House of Lords Act 1999. Then, as now, a Labour Government had been elected with a large majority in another place on a manifesto proposing reform of your Lordships’ House. Then, as now, there was some scepticism about whether they intended to carry out both stages of that reform with equal alacrity, or whether they sought simply to remove a large number of parliamentarians from Benches other than their own.
The Lord Chancellor at the time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that he was not offended by such scepticism. That is why he accepted the comprise proposed by the Convener of the Cross Benches, Lord Weatherill, to keep a small number of hereditary Peers here by way of surety. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, explained at Second Reading,
“a compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place, because the Government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 per cent. of the hereditary peerage remaining for long. But the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
The noble and learned Lord gave that guarantee from that Dispatch Box.
Noble Lords will note that stage two did not take place. The Labour Government carried on in power for more than a decade, but the only further reform they enacted was the removal of the Lord Chancellor from the Woolsack and the abolition of the Law Lords. In doing so, incidentally, they allowed those judges who had come here under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to continue to do so for as long as they wished. That is why we in your Lordships’ House still benefit from the wisdom and experience of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond.
Towards the end of his time in office, Gordon Brown proposed in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act to end the by-elections. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, predicted, Mr Brown could not tolerate 10% of the hereditary peerage remaining for so long. But the Bill did not contain measures for stage two reforms, so Parliament rejected that part of it shortly before Dissolution in 2010. What we have before us today is a proposal not only to abolish the by-elections, but to remove the remaining hereditary Peers from this House at the end of the current Session, without fulfilling the guarantee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, gave. The noble and learned Lord told your Lordships, when he gave it in 1999, that it
“reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
Whatever else we may think of the Bill before us, we have the opportunity to defend that honour today.
The second claim or assumption is that the by-elections are somehow eccentric, alien or embarrassing to your Lordships’ House. In fact, they are not an unusual feature. Following the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801, elections were held among Scottish and then Irish Peers to elect representatives of their number to sit in Parliament. When the Irish Free State was established in 1922, the Irish elections were discontinued but those who were already in the House were allowed to stay and continue their work. The Scottish elections continued until 1963, when the Peerage Act permitted all Scottish Peers, male and female, to take their place among the Barons. So apart from a 36-year gap between 1963 and 1999, there have been elected Members of your Lordships’ House for the last 318 years.
Like many other elements of our organic constitution, the by-elections of recent years have been easy to pillory, but so too are by-elections to other legislative chambers. Noble Lords may recall the Haltemprice and Howden by-election of 2008, which attracted 26 candidates, none of them from Labour or the Liberal Democrat parties; or the contest in Fermanagh and South Tyrone in 1981, which attracted just two, the winner being a convicted criminal on hunger strike who died 26 days after his election, provoking a change in the law.
The present leader of the House of Commons was first elected in a by-election with a turnout of 18.2%. The present Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Europe were elected at by-elections on a 25% turnout. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, came to Parliament in a by-election where just 19.9% of the electorate turned out to vote. I am not sure that stands in such stark contrast to the by-election which brought his brother to the Labour Benches of your Lordships’ House.
It is easy to pillory by-elections, but we should not denigrate those who win them under the rules we have collectively devised. Just as no one would question the legitimacy of those members of the Cabinet who came to Parliament in those lacklustre contests, nor does it follow that seeking to end the by-elections to your Lordships’ House should be accompanied by the expulsion of those who have won them.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Is my noble friend in a position to give an assurance to your Lordships’ House that, if this amendment were to carry, it would be part of a wider package of reform, some of which is indicated in the amendments and has been touched on by the noble Baroness? Those of us who have doubts about this amendment would be much happier about supporting it if we thought that it was part of a wider package to which the Tory Front Bench is party.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I think my noble friend’s question is directed more to the Government, who have the opportunity to say what they will do on stage 2 reforms. But I will come to my noble friend’s question in a moment, because it is important. In fact, it reflects a conversation that I had with a wise colleague from the Cross Benches who, when I told him I was intending to move this amendment, said, “I hope we will see some humility from those who have previously resisted it”. I hope the fact that I stand here at the opposition Dispatch Box to move this amendment is an expression of that humility.
I remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord True, along with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, as soon as the Government were elected, that the by-elections be discontinued in recognition of the Government’s manifesto commitment and in anticipation of the debates on this Bill. But I can be humbler yet. I say to the Government and to noble Lords in every corner of the House: on this, we give in. We will not hold the present Government to the guarantee, binding in honour, made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. We yield to the mandate that they won at the ballot box and will take them at their word that further reform will follow. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said about the establishment of a Select Committee to look into some—not all—of the rest of the Government’s manifesto. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is in his place. Ohers will remember the royal commission—rather weightier than a Select Committee—that was set up by a previous Labour Government to seek a way forward on stage 2 reforms then. I wish the Select Committee far greater success on this occasion. We will reserve our scepticism and hope to be proved wrong.
But, in return, we urge your Lordships to show the same clemency and generosity afforded to the Law Lords and the Irish representative Peers in days past to our friends and colleagues who sit here by accident of birth and who work just as hard as the rest of us in the service of the country that they love. I beg to move.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I added my name in support of this amendment, which has been so admirably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I agree that the opportunity to adopt this solution should have been seized earlier. Those who tried but failed are right to be frustrated, and the Conservatives deserve the criticism they are getting. But these are not good enough reasons for us to fail to seize this opportunity now.
To begin with, a large number of us never had the chance to vote, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said. As for those who did, it is true that some of them are supporting today what they opposed a few years ago. It is also true that others are opposing today what they supported only a few years ago. Consistency does not serve many well. Everyone is better served by returning to first principles and judging this issue on its merits. This amendment was a good idea when the Bill on which it is modelled was last given a Second Reading in December 2021, and it remains a good idea today.
To put things in some numerical perspective, since December 2021, 13 new hereditary Peers have come to this House through the route of Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999. If the proponents of those proposals in 2021 had had their way then, as I wish they had—I was not here—we would have 74 former hereditaries today, instead of 87. The difference is just 13.
It is certainly the case that the party that gained the most from the excepted hereditary route to this House was the Conservative Party, and there is no doubt that the biggest loser was the Labour Party. This is not fair because it has resulted in a political imbalance in favour of the Conservatives. However, as the numbers that I have just mentioned show, this is an imbalance that can be corrected. Indeed, this correction is already under way: 49 new Labour Peers were created since January 2024, with 45 since the election. Importantly, this political imbalance did not become a constitutional imbalance. In spite of the number of Conservative Peers, the House remained very effective at scrutinising legislation and holding the previous Conservative Governments to account.
Since 1911, significant changes to the make-up of this House, and to its legislative conventions defining our role relative to the other place, have generally travelled with the chief Opposition on board. We break this habit at our peril. We have often considered the hypothetical scenario of a Prime Minister coming in and appointing large numbers of new Peers to control this House—Lloyd George was not the only one to be so tempted. What stands between us and this scenario is the fact that we are not an elective dictatorship. We are a representative democracy with a complex system of checks and balances that has made it very difficult for a Prime Minister, even with a large majority in the other place, to effect a power grab. Each of the three main political parties with experience of government has historically acted as a check and balance. No party leader has ever achieved full control of his or her party. Indeed, a few of them were humiliated by their party—ask Jeremy Corbyn or Liz Truss.
But what if the next Prime Minister is not the leader of one of these political parties with experience of government? What if he is the leader of a movement that he set up and controls? That the scenario that has to be in our minds for the next election. Reform’s manifesto in 2024 said:
“Replace the crony-filled House of Lords with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber. Structure to be debated”.
I doubt that elections will be his priority. He will want an upper House that he controls in the way that he controls his party. He will seek to achieve this objective through a mixture of removals, appointments and, perhaps, some elections. If this scenario came to pass, we would have to accept the principle that the party that won the election needs a sufficient number of Peers to govern. But we would also be perfectly entitled—indeed, constitutionally mandated—to insist that there should not be removal of Peers en masse unless there is agreement with the main Opposition on the basis of a clear, fair, principled and transparent approach.
On a different note, one hereditary Peer told me that he was not going to vote because he did not think it right for him to do so. I respectfully urge him and anyone in a similar position to reconsider. The idea that we should not vote on constitutional rules affecting the composition of the House because we belong to the affected category of Peers is wrong and would create a bad precedent. Should Peers over 80 abstain on amendments seeking to impose an age limit of 80? Should Peers who might be excluded by a participation threshold abstain on those amendments? Of course not. In all these situations, Peers should vote on the basis of principle rather than personal interest. If our conscience tells us that our personal interest prevents us from fairly assessing the principle, then we should abstain, but if we are genuinely convinced that the principle is right, it is our duty to vote in a way that upholds that principle.
I went back to the Second Reading speeches. It is clear that many of your Lordships expected that, by now, there would be some compromise on the question of the transitional arrangements for the 87 hereditary Peers. Those who expressed such an expectation included many who were fully supportive of the Bill and deeply critical of the attitude of the main Opposition. The key principle is that the resolution of this issue must be clear, fair and transparent. To say, “Vote for this now and we will see later” is none of those things. We are already being asked to pass the Bill and leave for later fundamental questions about the reform of the House foreshadowed in the Labour manifesto, although I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House earlier.
We cannot be asked to pass this legislation while remaining blind to the transitional arrangements for the 87 Peers. It would not be a good outcome for this House and its credibility if some of the 87 reappeared on a basis that is neither clear nor transparent and does not reflect any prior consensus. The question of what happens to them must be resolved in this House and before this House. This could have been achieved with a firm assurance on the basis of cross-party agreement. We have received no such assurance. It is now our duty to fix this problem by voting for this amendment.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. Like him, I have added my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, set out very clearly, and with his customary brilliant oratory, the arguments for the amendment and I will not take up the time of the House by repeating them. As he explained, your Lordships often refer to the issue we are discussing in this amendment by the shorthand of “the Grocott Bill”. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, persevered with his Bill for many years. I have to tell your Lordships that I go back even further than the first Grocott Bill.
In 2010, Lord Steel of Aikwood, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned, introduced a similar Bill. It passed its stages in your Lordships’ House and when it came to the House of Commons, I, as a little junior Back-Bencher, adopted it as a Private Member’s Bill. I tried to introduce it there, but as is so often the way with these matters, it did not proceed. Your Lordships might recall that at that time, the measures in the Bill were not Conservative Party policy and might wonder what a loyal Conservative such as me was doing supporting the Steel Bill.
I have always been loyal to my party, but I was vehemently opposed to the Liberal Democrat constitutional reforms adopted by the coalition Government. On those matters, I was a rebel, and it is just as well that those of us who were rebels at that time succeeded; otherwise, your Lordships’ House would probably not exist at all, or it would be a faint shadow of what it is today and a mere mirror image of the House of Commons. So I was glad to be a rebel. I tried to make progress with what was then called the Steel Bill and was referred to as the principle of “withering on the vine”. I always thought that that was a rather sad way to speak about the demise of the hereditary peerage, but it is not quite as sad as that which we are facing today.
We can all understand why noble Lords on the Government Benches wish to stand by the principle in their election manifesto. They are right to do so: the principle that there should be no more hereditary Peers created is a good principle and nobody is disagreeing with it. But this amendment is not about principle; it is about practicality. We are all here—except the hereditary Peers, of course—because somebody in a position of authority made a subjective judgment that our past experience and our future potential made each of us a suitable person to become a Member of your Lordships’ House. When I glance at the Bishops’ Benches, I wonder whether my theory on that is correct, and then I think to myself, yes, it is—even more so; it is just that the subjective judgment in their case was perhaps made by a higher authority than was the case for the rest of us.
We were all invited to become life Peers because, as I said, our past experience and future potential made each of us appear to someone making a subjective judgment to be a suitable person to become a Member of your Lordships’ House and to contribute in some way to the government of our nations. Every one of your Lordships is here by virtue of a subjective judgment.
I am asking your Lordships to make a subjective judgment today. Those among us who were first admitted to your Lordships’ House by virtue of the achievements of their fathers and grandfathers have, over the years—for some, over the decades—by virtue of the contributions they have made to the government of our country and the work of this noble House, earned their places here. They might have come here in the first instance because of the achievements of their fathers and grandfathers but, now, look around and your Lordships will know that they deserve their places because of their own achievements. They have served this House, various Governments and Oppositions and the Cross Benches in roles in which they have worked hard and achieved much.
My argument in favour of this amendment is that, as individuals, they have earned their places here just as noble Lords who are life Peers have earned theirs. Consider for a moment what each of your Lordships individually has done in the past to merit your position as a Peer, then consider our colleagues who face expulsion and ask yourselves, “Is he really less worthy than I am?”. I ask noble Lords to examine their consciences and to consider this as a matter not of principle but of practicality. We have in our midst some excellent parliamentarians. It would diminish your Lordships’ House to lose them. It would be sad to see their experience, dedication and talents lost—not gradually, as they leave the House one by one, but in one fell swoop, diminishing this House immediately and irretrievably.
I implore your Lordships to make a subjective judgment, just as a subjective judgment was made about each of you, and support this amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to express some concerns about this amendment. Despite the eloquence of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who in the end have advanced a very good argument, the concerns are threefold.
First, if we accepted this amendment, we would entrench numbers. If we want to get this House down to around 600, entrenching the numbers at around 830 would make the task more difficult. Secondly and differently, we have to ask what the perception of the public will be; they will say that this is a self-serving amendment, in that we are looking after our friends, and that in the absence of any other measures we are not serious about proper reform. That takes me to my final point. I will support this amendment, but on the basis that my party is committed to serious, robust reform and will play a full part in any negotiations that take place so that we have a properly reformed House with participation requirements, a fit and proper test, an enhanced HOLAC, maybe term peerages and a retirement age. I want to see a fundamentally reformed House and will support this amendment on the basis that there will be substantial support from my Benches for that.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the issue before the House is not the merits of the hereditary Peers or the contribution they make, about which there can be no doubt. The issue is very simple: is it really acceptable in 2025 that, for decades to come, a House of the legislature should continue to consist of a large number of people who are here purely because of who their ancestors were? For me, that is unacceptable.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Parkinson. “Peer” comes from the Latin word par, which means “equal”, and in this House, wherever we sit, we are all equal. We have a shared experience; we are here with a common purpose to scrutinise legislation and serve our country. There may be Peers with whom we disagree or Peers whom we admire, but in the brief time that I have been in this House, I have understood one thing: we are all in this together. Both hereditary and lifetime appointments form a constituent part of the legislative process within the framework of the constitution of the United Kingdom. To abolish the hereditary element is an attack on our constitution, but this has already happened, so I accept reluctantly that there should be no further elections for hereditary Peers.
What I find hard to accept is the spiteful ejection of the existing hard-working hereditary Peers, who across this House bring so much energy and expertise. The unique composition of the House of Lords does not seem rational, but it really works, as Ian Dunt wrote in his book How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t. He is a man of the left, and this was not what he thought he would discover when he began working on this book. But that was his conclusion: this is the one element in our system that works.
The hereditary colleagues in the last Parliament had overall a better attendance record than life Peers, and over half of them serve as members of Select Committees. I declare an interest as my father was a hereditary who was booted out in 1999. He was a retired general who brought all his military experience to the Defence Committee. One of the things I have noticed is that our hereditary colleagues have a greater humility—and perhaps, if I may put it this way, noblesse oblige—than those of us who think we have been placed here because of our wonderful achievements. I really believe that the removal of our colleagues will leave our House worse off, rather than better, and surely the principle of any reform should be improvement, not diminishment.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will not be surprised that I do not agree with this amendment, for the reasons so pithily put by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. There are a number of points with which I could take issue, but I will pick up a couple from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. He implied that those of us who supported the “Grocott Bills”, in their various guises, were almost being hypocritical by not voting for this today. The truth was—with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—that the Grocott Bills were second best. They were the best that was on offer, and we saw them as a way of making some progress while believing that what is in this Bill was preferable.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
How can the noble Lord possibly argue that it was second best when the Leader of the House has told us that, had we accepted Grocott in the last Parliament, this would not have been necessary?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am explaining to the House what I thought at the time, not what anybody else might think.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that the system of by-elections should not be thought to have been eccentric. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was very eloquent in pointing out just how eccentric they were, particularly in respect of by-elections for the Liberal Democrats. On one notable occasion, there were seven candidates and three electors, and nobody in the Liberal Democrats knew who half the candidates were. They were truly eccentric. They brought the House into disrepute, certainly in respect of those by-elections, and they were simply not sustainable in any way.
I strongly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in pointing out that one consequence of this amendment would be to maintain over a considerable number of years—unless there was a great increase in the size of the House—a significant Conservative plurality over the Labour Benches. That seems me to be a bad thing, because the inevitable consequence would be that the Government would increase their numbers, and we would have a bloated House. Apparently, everybody agrees that the House is too big, yet this amendment, if agreed, would have that consequence for decades to come.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will make two very short points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows the respect in which I hold him, but it is a subtle piece of advocacy to say that the hereditaries sit here purely because of the family they were born into, to use the noble Lord’s phrase. Since 2005, that has not been the case; it is the family plus an election. Indeed, some of them sit here on a firmer basis than many other Members of your Lordships’ House.
Secondly, on the “too late” argument, which seems to be the primary point put by the Government Front Bench, I have never quite understood why opposing a Private Member’s Bill, with all the legislative hurdles and difficulties that such Bills have, precludes you from later supporting an amendment to a government Bill which is bound to become law.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I am finding it difficult to compute exactly what is going on today, because Friday after Friday, Bill after Bill, to a three-quarters empty House, which is characteristic on a Friday, I have been faced with substantial opposition, not just from individual Members—not exclusively from the Tory party but overwhelmingly—but from the Government. The Bills got no further.
Here we are now, with a pretty full House, all agreed that these by-elections are farcical. The amendment gets rid of them; the Bill before the House—which I strongly support—gets rid of them. That was my motive for bringing the whole process in to begin with. Believe it or not, the primary motive was to stop this absurdity which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, described as the most offensive of the lot.
I did not think it would be a problem. I have been around quite a long time, but I thought, “Surely, there is no one in this House who thinks that a by-election to get into this House should be exclusively for men, both the electorate and the candidates, and it is feasible to have an electorate of three when you’ve got seven candidates”. By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, did not mention the last line of that, which is that all three votes went to one of the seven candidates—so there was 100% turnout, with 100% of the vote going to the winning candidate. I mean, North Korea would not dare to do that.
I am flattered, I suppose, to find that everyone suddenly seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought it in first in 2016—since when, 27 new hereditaries have come here. To those who say that we might as well do it now, I say a whole new generation has been elected since I first introduced the Bill. But I must be immodest about this—
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Will the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, tell us who elected him to come to this House?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
As far as I know, although I do not know the intricacies of the mechanism that brought me here, there were probably more than three people who thought that it was okay.
I would be dishonest to the House if I did not admit to being flattered that it seems to be universally described as the “Grocott Bill”. It is lovely to have a Bill named after you, even if it was rejected time after time. It is no longer the “Grocott Bill”. I liked the ring of that, but I very much like the ring of the new, improved Bill before the House today, so I think we ought to call the original one the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 1) Bill” and the one before the House now the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”. Why do I support the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”? It is because it is better, it does the job more effectively and it means that we can move on from this endless debate to discuss other aspects of reform.
However, I really despair at times about the inability of this House to deal with such a simple proposition: a two-clause Bill. It would have cost nothing—it might have saved money—and upset no one, but time and time again it was rejected. It was filibustered—I will not mention all the Peers who opposed it. In anticipation of this debate, I checked who had spoken against it at Second Reading on its various outings. There were two culprits—I will not embarrass them now—who were worse than any others and who persistently put down 60 or 70 amendments the day before Committee. We are powerless in this place if there are people determined to wreck a Bill in that way. Perhaps they can reflect, in the quietness of their own souls, on what might have been if they had not done that, because I believe that if a Bill like this had been passed —if not mine, then certainly Lord Steel’s Bill—most of the hereditaries now would have peacefully moved on, by whatever mechanism, from membership of this House.
It has been a bit of fun, this somersaulting by sundry Members opposite, but thank heaven that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It is long, long, long overdue. It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let us not cry over spilt milk; let us just get on with this and quickly.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord said that we are now removing the hereditary principle. It is accepted, on this side, that we are removing the hereditary principle. His speeches are very entertaining, mocking the system that was brought in by his own party in government.
My difficulty is that the Leader of the House has repeatedly told us, both publicly and privately, that, had we not opposed what is called the “Grocott Bill”, this would not be necessary. I therefore have to ask: what is the principle that we are discussing? It appears to be that the hereditary principle should be got rid of—that has been accepted. However, I am concerned by the idea that we should pluck out of this House hard-working Members, who are mainly Conservatives. We heard from the Liberal Benches that they are worried about numbers. On my count, 45 new Labour Peers have been appointed since the general election. That does not strike me as being the activities of a party that is concerned about the size of the House; it strikes me as being a party that is concerned about the number of people who will go through the Lobbies in support of it. Therefore, one is left with a terrible suspicion that what is going on here is taking a group of people out of this House, who happen to have come into it as hereditaries, for party-political reasons. That is a very dangerous—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I will give way in a second.
That is a very dangerous precedent to accept. How soon will it be before people arguing for this precedent argue that other groups of people can be taken out, because they are not convenient?
I am trying not to be too partisan today, so I will appeal to the Government. To put it gently, the Government are in a certain amount of difficulty on a number of issues. The one thing I learned when I was in Government was that having a good and effective Opposition is a really good thing for a Government, because it makes you avoid making the kind of mistakes that Governments make. Therefore, it is very important—especially in this House, where we simply ask the Government to think again and we have no ability to force them to do otherwise by force of argument—to have an effective Opposition.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I will give way to the noble Lord when I have finished my point.
One-third of the Opposition Front Bench are hereditaries. They are people of enormous experience and dedication. By not accepting this amendment, the Government are damaging not only the House by creating a terrible precedent but the Opposition, as well as the number of Tory Peers that there are. That is a disgraceful thing to do.
What is the argument? I know that people on the Benches opposite have sought to argue, “Can’t you get other people to sit on your Front Bench?” I say to the Leader of the House: she should try using that argument. It is very hard, especially if they are not paid—I will come to that later—to ask people to give up the time and for them to have the expertise. You can bring in new people, but it takes a very long time to get used to the way this place operates—it has taken me a very long time.
If we do not accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we are talking about disabling the Opposition and gerrymandering the composition of the House. That is a disgraceful thing to do.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for finally giving way. He talks about the disabling of the Opposition. Would he like to explain to the House what his party did in Government from 2010 to last year in terms of the numbers they appointed? I excuse the noble Baroness, Lady May, because she took the issue of the size of this House very seriously but, alas, her predecessors and those who succeeded her did not. As a party, we have put new Members of the House in since the election to try to get ourselves a reasonable balance after the disgraceful approach of so many Conservative Prime Ministers over those years.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
There are a lot of things that we did in Government that I would not like to defend. I do not disagree with the noble Lord. I understand why a number of very good and excellent appointments have been made to the Benches opposite. I understand the reason why they wish to make up the numbers. All I am saying is that to argue that the Government are not going to accept the amendment from my noble friend because they are worried about the size of the House is ridiculous when, at the same time, they are increasing the size of the House. Have a care here for the importance of Parliament, of effective opposition and of not disabling the ability of this House to carry out its constitutional duties. In the end, it will be to the disadvantage of the Government and the House.
I support my noble friend’s amendment. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hailsham is going to vote for it, but I do not see any conditionality about it. I am going to support it because it is in the interests of our country, democracy and this splendid institution—the House of Lords—which all of us should hold in the highest regard.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The thing I find odd about the argument just advanced, and, indeed, about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the way in which he introduced it—splendid though it was—is the implicit assumption that if his amendment were to pass here, the other place would say, “Goodness, that’s a good idea”, and accept it. Does he really think that would happen? If so, I have a Westminster Bridge to sell to him. If he does not, does he think that the process of ping-pong will be good for the image of this House?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, this is not about ping-pong but about reform, and for reform to be legitimate, it must be principled, proportionate, fair and respectful.
The hereditary Peers currently serving this House entered under a binding cross-party agreement in 1999. They did so in good faith, committing to public service, many without expectation of office or reward. Some are relatively young and gave up successful careers to serve here. To subject them now to mass eviction is not just poor constitutional practice but an act of bad faith. They are not ceremonial relics but active and dedicated parliamentarians, as many have noted. The question is not about reform and whether it should happen—we all agree on that—but about how reform should be done. Can we do it with fairness and decency, or will we allow it to proceed with injustice and haste?
This amendment would not preserve the hereditary principle, but it would allow those already here to remain until they retire. This is reform done properly and fairly. The Minister will argue that the Bill fulfils a manifesto pledge, but the pledge said nothing about mass eviction. Delivering on a pledge does not justify injustice, particularly when it breaks a binding agreement and when just 34% of the electorate voted for it.
Without this amendment, the Bill amounts to constitutional vandalism. The Bill removes a long-serving group with an age-old sense of duty and responsibility, not for what they perform but for how they arrived. This is why it feels vindictive. It also sets a dangerous precedent, as my noble friend mentioned. Today it is the hereditary Peers; tomorrow it could be the Cross-Benchers or anyone who dares to dissent. This House draws its strengths from its independence and diversity of thought. Let us not mistake destruction for progress. Let us pursue reform the British way: incrementally, inclusively and fairly.
This amendment would allow reform without injustice. It honours service, and it gives the Government the chance to act with principle, not vindictiveness. I urge all noble Lords who value fairness and decency to support this amendment. This is a U-turn worth doing.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I shall make a very brief comment on the points of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, about the image of the House.
We know and accept that hereditary Peers are anomalous, but what about most of the rest of us? Let us be clear about this: we are here—the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I—because we crawled so far up the affections of a Prime Minister that we got parking rights. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
As for the idea that this is going to cause a great change in the reputation of this House, I wish that were the case. Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit at University College London has just published a new set of findings, having done some opinion polling on this very point. One point was that you could either limit the number of prime ministerial appointments to this House or get rid of the hereditaries. She said that limiting the number of prime ministerial appointments had by far the highest support among the public. Just 3% of voters chose removing the hereditary Peers without also limiting the number of prime ministerial appointments. We are not in such a bad way as is sometimes suggested.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Does the noble Lord not think it possible to do both—to limit the number of appointees through the prime ministerial structure and to reduce the size of the House in the way that is suggested in this Bill?
Lord Dobbs
I had finished my remarks but will respond to say that I would love that to be the case.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I have been waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to contribute to this debate. He has not done so, so perhaps I might, as a member of the Burns committee, set up by the former Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.
We brought before this House a report from the Burns committee with a suggestion of how we could limit the numbers and deal with retirements, but it was based purely on Prime Ministers of the day—and there have been quite a few of them since our report was debated by this House—making sure that they played their part in not sending so many people to the Chamber. As we know, it is only my noble friend Lady May who has kept that bargain and understood why that was important for it to work. Indeed, in subsequent Burns reports that have been available to the House, it was clear that the agreement on retirement was working. We had it within our grasp some years ago, agreed by this House that that was how we would proceed. Had we stuck to that—in particular, had former Prime Ministers stuck to their side of the bargain —I do not think we would be in this position today.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, noble Lords will remember that I intervened in a debate when we had been going on for hours and went on to actually address the issue in this small Bill. It is not a big Bill and its aims are very clear, but I think we lost the opportunity of concentrating on what the Bill is about. If noble Lords remember, there were many speeches about reforming and about age, and they went on and on. I remember intervening to say that those propositions would go nowhere, because the purpose of the Bill is well defined.
It was with deep regret that I sat in your Lordships’ House and listened to so many speeches, with a lot of hereditaries sitting around, addressing the future as if they were not present. That was the sort of experience I used to have in this country when we were talking about black people. I would be in a meeting where they were talking about black people, and suggesting what would be good for them, but the black people were not being asked what they thought was good for them.
We have got be clear on what the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about. First, it seeks to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary Peers. Secondly, it seeks to prevent hereditary Peers joining the House. Thirdly, it would allow
“those who are presently serving in the House to remain”,
but no new hereditary Peers would be made. The problem with this amendment is what the Government would do. They have already tabled a Bill, which we have discussed, and we know where it is going.
In the Select Committee that the Leader of the House intends to set up, will thought be given to what might be done with those of our number who go out under this Bill who wish, if the opportunity is granted, to continue to serve, no longer as hereditaries but as life Peers? Would that question be worth taking up? If it is taken up then the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has raised an issue which should have been raised, again and again, in those long debates.
Finally, on the question of memory and where we are going, the problem is that any society, church, community, organisation or Parliament that forgets its memory becomes senile. We know where we are going with this Bill but, to prevent senility, it would be quite good to know from the Leader of the House—who told us that she would set up a Select Committee—whether there will be a mechanism to allow those who wish to continue to serve in this place to do so, rather than this Bill being the end of their time here.
We can all change titles. I came into this House in 2005 as a right reverend Primate. That caused me some trouble: why was I a “primate”—I thought primates were certain animals? I came here as a primate, and maybe a vicious one, and when I retired I became a Cross-Bencher. We can all change in ways that do not disrupt the reality of the House.
I have had a fantastic time here. I love everybody here who has given us their wonderful words and thoughts. It will be a very sad day when I look around and see that those who feel that this is still a place where they can do their public service—not everybody will feel that way—cannot be changed from hereditary to life Peers. If it is to happen, there must be a way in which we say that, yes, this Bill triggered a change, and then those speeches which were made about change can be revisited in the future. We need to reflect. I hope that we will not have more and more debates, but will finish this tiny Bill very quickly.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to still the debate, but perhaps I might, as the noble Baroness did on a wider point in the first group, intervene briefly. As a previous Leader of your Lordships’ House and now as Leader of the Opposition in this House, the remarks I am going to make, I make as Leader of the Conservative Party here and with the full assent of my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition nationally.
I say, by the way, to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that this House should never be cowed from proposing a thought to the other place. Indeed, one of the arguable contentions that we have had on this Bill is that it must have no amendments. I am sure there have been occasions, but it is unusual in our parliamentary proceedings that the expectation should be that a Bill, and certainly one of this constitutional significance, be unamended. Would the proposition that one cannot have a conversation with the House of Commons on this matter apply to a future Bill to remove people over 80, as promised in the Labour manifesto? I hope not. I hope this House would vigorously raise questions on that.
I have been listening carefully to the debate that was initiated very ably by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, brilliantly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Laing. They put a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, acknowledged he owns and loves, but he is going to vote against it today. It is a proposition that I think many of us know in our heart is the right and balanced way forward. I think many of us know in our heart that if there were not a party whip applying, there would be a majority in this place to reach a balanced solution. That balanced solution gives the party opposite and the Liberal Democrats what they have legitimately wanted for a long period, which is the end of the hereditary principle as a route of entry into this House, but which does not hurt existing Members or impede the workings of this House in the way my noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested.
In case there is any doubt, I put on record beyond any doubt what those who have been following the debates on the Bill from the outset will already know, which is that my party has no plan, intention or device to block the Bill indefinitely or to delay its passage by the kind of constant ping-pong that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to. From the very outset, within days of the last general election, on my initiative and that of the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, we recognised, regret it or not, the Labour Party’s mandate to end the entry of Peers to this place by any preferment of heredity. The convenor and I proposed—and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House graciously accepted and helped to develop—that proposal, that by-elections for hereditary Peers should be suspended. That has been accomplished, and it remains so. It is done. It is not an issue in this debate, even though the word by-elections has featured a great deal. No person has entered this place by reason of election under the 1999 Act since Labour’s victory in the last general election, nor shall one ever do so again.
That is a mighty thing under the eyes of 800 years of service here by hereditary Peers. By the end of this month, a Bill will pass which will permanently end entry here on the grounds of heredity, and if the Government should choose to send it for Royal Assent, it could be law by dawn on the first day of August. That is the position. Whatever may be implied or said to the contrary, we on this side are not arguing for the continuation of the hereditary principle as a route of entry here.
My noble friend’s amendment would not alter, detract from or frustrate that in any way; in fact, it would enable it. The sole issue before your Lordships in this debate, as my noble friend Lady Laing argued so passionately, is not who comes here in future but who goes now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said—I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, slightly missed this point—if the Bill successfully affirms that any Government may expel summarily a group of existing Members of our legislature who for whatever reason they do not like, then any future Executive, using what will be the awesome power—unique, actually, in the world—of a Prime Minister to choose who comes here, and now, on this example, who goes, any future Government, of whatever colour, and heaven forfend it should be the example put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, could use the same arguments—
Lord True (Con)
I will complete my remarks and then I will give way. They could use the same arguments to expel any other group now among us in the future.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, this is such an absurd, fanciful and imaginative suggestion. By way of evidence, can the noble Lord explain to us how 667 hereditaries being removed overnight in 1999 raised the spectre that he is trying to put before us—that it enabled subsequent Governments to act in the completely arbitrary and brutal way that he has described? It is pure fantasy.
Lord True (Con)
Well, it certainly encouraged the Labour Party, which removed the Law Lords—although allowing those who were here to stay—and are now removing the rest of our hereditary colleagues.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I did not follow the noble Lord’s argument that the ability to change the composition of the House of Lords by legislation, which has been brought forward after a manifesto was provided to the electorate, is the same as the ability of a Prime Minister at the moment to nominate and bring into the House as life Peers any number of people. The arbitrariness comes from the prerogative in terms of how people come in, but we are talking now about the composition of the House and changing it by legislation, and those two are not comparable.
Lord True (Con)
The Prime Minister has no power to exclude. Prime Ministers have the power, by royal prerogative, to recommend appointments to the monarch, but no Prime Minister in the world has the power to exclude. The only other House of Parliament in any way similar to ours is the Senate of Canada, and there is no power for the Prime Minister to exclude a Member or group of Members.
The debate ranged widely, but the decisions that we always make as people who make law must be on the face of the paper before us, the proposed Act of Parliament, and it is the Bill before us that the noble and right reverend Lord raised. In a few minutes, what each of us privately has to decide is not whether entry by heredity is over—it is—but whether we assent to the expulsion of over 80 of our comrades on all Benches. These are people we know and whose worth we know, as no one outside this House knows them. They are people we respect, as no one outside this House respects them, as we have seen them sitting on the Woolsack, on our committees and on the Front Benches, as my noble friend said, in service as Ministers over the decades. They are people we like, although that is a small thing in relation to their service and the holes that their departure will leave in our ranks.
When the Bell goes shortly, we will all rise from our place and we will go this way or that. We can go and say, “Out with you all”—that is what the Bill says—“and you must go for one wrong about which you could do nothing: by whom you happen to have been conceived”. Or else we may, by quiet assent or our active move into the other Lobby, say, “Yes, we agree that we will have no more new hereditary Peers but we do not wish to hurt those who serve now or to hurt our House. We value who you are and what you have done and may yet do for this House, and we should like you to stay, sit with us and serve as our Peers”. That is the choice we will make in a few minutes.
It is not about who comes here. That is settled; it is history. No other hereditary Peer will ever take the oath at this Dispatch Box. The decision we make is about who goes. It is simple and binary, and it is a decision that each of us in this great House of Lords—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said, has the right to make this decision about its composition and its future, and to suggest a way forward to the other place —must now make, with our unique sense of this House that we love and the good that the people we are discussing do for it. We must make a decision about those people we know who have been, often for decades, are and, I submit, should continue to be our fellow Peers.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a bit of a rehash of a debate that we had previously in Committee on a similar amendment. Amendment 2 today is almost identical to the previous amendment, seeking to amend Clause 2 and return to what is commonly known as the Grocott Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, possibly alone in the House, has the benefit of consistency on this issue, in that, as I recall, he consistently supported the Grocott Bill as a way forward.
I think I understand the emotion displayed by the noble Lord, Lord True, on this issue, but he will now probably regret not taking up my offer to ensure that the Grocott Bill could have passed all its stages and got through the House as a Private Member’s Bill. I gave him my party’s guarantee that we would do that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, frowns at me, but I gave the guarantee of my party that we would support that Bill and do our best to get it through the House. So we could have done that, but the opportunity was lost, and that is a shame, but that is where we are now. We are now debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Baroness said that I frowned. The reason I frowned is that I do not really understand the argument that says, “You should have taken my offer but you didn’t, so we’re going to throw all these people out of the House of Lords”. If you thought it was okay for Parliament to continue, having got rid of the hereditary principle, why is it any different now?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there was an opportunity for this House. Had we not had the by-elections since 1999, there would have been far fewer hereditary Peers in this House then. Since my noble friend Lord Grocott introduced his Bill, there have been a number of by-elections and there are now 28 hereditary Peers who are here through those by-elections. I think the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred in his comments to them being here by an accident of birth.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Does the noble Baroness also recognise that there are 257 of us who have also arrived here since the last time there was a vote on this and who would really like the opportunity to take the offer that was not given to us?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord has tabled an amendment and is offering it at this point now, although, had he been in the House when this was debated, I doubt he would have voted differently at the time from the leader of his party, who was very much against it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will take one more intervention. I have listened with great care to noble Lords and have not intervened on anybody, and I want to respond to those who have spoken. I will take the intervention from the noble Lord because he used to be quite nice to me, but that will be the last intervention that I take. I think it is in the interests of the House for me to wind up the debate.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I hope I will continue to be nice to her. I just wanted to make the point that, although the opportunity may have been available to the House of Lords to pass the Grocott Bill in the previous Parliament, it would not have gone through because it could not possibly have got through the House of Commons.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Members of my party would have supported that Bill in the House of Commons. The noble Lord has little faith in the House of Commons, but I take his point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point in a previous debate —I know the noble Lord has been here for a number of debates on this issue—that when we send amendments to the House of Commons, how it responds to them is a matter for the House of Commons.
I was actually paying the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, a compliment, praising him for his consistency—he should take them while he can.
I want to move on to a number of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, tried to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, of an accident of birth being the route by which hereditary Peers have moved here. He said it was accident of birth and a by-election. Even taking the amendment from his Front Bench today, I think those elections have been discredited.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, looked at by-elections in the House of Commons, but I would probably liken the by-elections to this House to those from Dunny-on-the-Wold in “Blackadder”. They brought discredit to the House and Members were embarrassed by them.
The noble Lord, Lord True, said that he and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, came to me with the proposal to end the by-elections. They did but that was after the manifesto was published and after the King’s Speech. I was grateful to them; I think it was the sensible thing for the House to do, but the by-elections are just suspended, not ended. If the Bill does not become law, we would return to having the by-elections and the House would have to take a separate decision to stop them. They were just suspended—I think the noble Lord was quite keen that they should be suspended—because we do not really have the power in current legislation to end them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the point that we should not be seen to be looking after our friends. There are many hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House whom I regard as friends; they might not regard me in the same way at the moment, but I have regarded them as friends for a long time. That is not the issue here; it is a matter of principle, which the Labour Party set out clearly before the election. It is not a criticism of any noble Lord in your Lordships’ House. It is a criticism of the system that has been allowed to continue for so long.
I often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but I shall take issue with him on a number of things. He said that Labour has brought in 45 new Peers since the general election; his party have had 21 new Peers since the election. Another statistic that I think is helpful to your Lordships’ House concerns the appointments. Like others, I exclude the noble Baroness, Lady May, from this. When we left office as the previous Labour Government in 2010, the difference between the party of government, as we had been, and the Official Opposition, which then became the Government—the Conservative Party—was fewer than 30 Members. When we came into government in 2024, the difference between the two political parties was over 100.
It is a point made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. This is not just about exits; all leaders should exercise restraint. I am on record as saying— I stand by it—that this House works at its best when the main government party and the main opposition party have roughly equal numbers and we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when this House does its best work.
The Opposition have 286 Peers but the noble Lord thinks that when the hereditaries leave this House—and, contrary to what a noble Baroness said, they will not be expelled immediately but at the end of this Session of Parliament—his party will not be able to field a Front Bench from the remaining Members. My party had to field an Opposition with far fewer than that—probably about 100 fewer—and I think we were a pretty effective Opposition. It is not always about numbers.
This argument that if the hereditaries leave we will then come for other groups of people is utterly ridiculous. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made that point. We are talking about legislation that was in the manifesto and trailed by the manifesto. Which other groups are we talking about: everybody with red hair or those who wear the wrong-coloured jacket? It is a nonsense. This was clearly defined. The noble Lord is chuntering at me from a sedentary position. He had a long time to speak but he wants to jump up again.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is only because the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she would take no further interventions. The current government manifesto commits to excluding the over-80s at some point, so we know that this Government intend to remove further Members from your Lordships’ House. The examples given in the debate were about future Governments, of neither of our parties, who might come for more of us for other reasons.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, that is always in the hands of the electorate when they have the manifesto published before them. But again, on the retirement age, we have set that out as a clearly stated manifesto commitment. I have said, and have been clear, that the House should come to a decision on that as a House. We ought to be taking far more responsibility for, and ownership of, matters that affect the House. We tried to do that under the Grocott Bill but, for various reasons, the party opposite would not support it and we did not get that far.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, raised the issue of Members not speaking on different issues. I have to say to him that all Members of the House, when they are here as Members, are equal and can speak or vote on issues as they wish, and should do so within the Code of Conduct. When Members declare an interest or their interests preclude their participating, that is in the Code of Conduct; otherwise, we are in the same place.
There is a real issue here. We are talking about the principle, established 25 years ago, that the hereditary principle would not be a route into your Lordships’ House. That does not decry any individual Member who has arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who I cannot see in his place at the moment, said in an earlier debate that he was surprised it had lasted so long. It was trailed in our manifesto. I said from the Dispatch Box many times, as Leader of the Opposition on the other side, that if the House failed to pass the Bill that my noble friend Lord Grocott was suggesting to end the by-elections, the consequence would be a Bill of this kind.
This is where we are now. It is a chance—the noble Lord, Lord True, is absolutely right. Members of your Lordships’ House have an opportunity today to make a decision. Do they accept the words of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about an accident of birth followed by a by-election, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, says, or do they think that now this has to end? We are not criticising any individual Member—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Those are exactly the words I wrote; we can check Hansard later. The noble Lord’s amendment is a way to slow down the process so that all those Members remain here. I speak to my party’s manifesto commitment, which was made quite clear before the election, and urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and all who have spoken in this debate. I will not detain the House much longer; we have debated this for many years. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the interventions she has taken.
Frustratingly, however, today’s debate has rather missed the point. My Amendment 2, like the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is titled
“Abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers”.
If we pass this amendment, those by-elections will be permanently abolished. We have already discontinued them. There will be no new people coming to your Lordships’ House because they have inherited their title and won a hereditary Peers by-election. The noble Baroness takes exception to the phrase “accident of birth”; others have used other phrases. The principle is that, if we pass this amendment, the Government’s manifesto pledge to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords can be fulfilled, but it can be fulfilled in a way that is kinder.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I took interventions, so the noble Lord can accept one and be helpful. He is wrong in his premise. Hereditary Peers would remain as hereditary Peers because all that happens in his amendment is that the by-elections will end permanently.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
But we will have ended their right to sit and vote in the Lords and they will leave in the same way as the rest of us, including the over 80s, who at some point, following the recommendations of a Select Committee, may leave your Lordships’ House as well. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Law Lords continue to sit here until they choose to retire or leave through another means. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Irish representative Peers left, after rendering great service to this country. This will be the first time that a category of Peer has been removed with no exceptions and no way back. The proposal is to do it at the end of this Session.
I am happy to continue to call this the Grocott No. 2 Bill, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke. We saved a space in the list of supporters in case he could be tempted to add his name. I understand why, after many years of campaigning, he is frustrated and has chosen not to. He said that he prefers the No. 2 Bill because it does the job more effectively. The question is: what is that job?
If the job is to expel the remaining hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House as quickly as possible and to move on from the guarantee given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in 1999 without any further reminder of it—we heard not a mention of it from the Leader of the House in her winding speech —then the No. 2 Bill does that job better. However, if the job is to improve the standing and function of your Lordships’ House, and to keep some of the expertise—not just on the Opposition Front Bench but those who serve as Chairmen of Committees and Deputy Speakers on the Woolsack; those who are the custodians of the conventions and kindnesses of this House—then the proposition put forward for many years by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and many other noble Lords from all corners of the House, is a better way of doing it.
I was raised to believe that it is never too late to do the right thing. If you are someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is exasperated that we have taken so long, or someone who has previously opposed it and rues that and repents now at leisure or if, like me, you are one of those 257 noble Lords who have never had the opportunity to vote for this kind of modest change that would allow us to say farewell to our colleagues in a more organic way, then I hope you will join me in the Division Lobby and support this amendment. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter; it has been too long since we last had that chance.
Lord Newby
“Duty to take forward proposals for democratic mandate for House of Lords(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.(2) In pursuance of the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out the steps set out in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords.(4) After laying the consultation paper under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must seek the views on the matters covered by that paper of—(a) each party and group in the House of Lords,(b) each political party represented in the House of Commons,(c) the Scottish Government,(d) the Welsh Government,(e) the Northern Ireland Executive,(f) local authorities in the United Kingdom,(g) representative organisations for local authorities in the United Kingdom,(h) the general public, which may include citizens’ assemblies, and(j) such other persons and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Within 16 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on responses to the consultation.(6) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals on the matter mentioned in subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause imposes a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected members.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, excuse me while I find my notes; I am not used to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, being so reticent. Before I begin, following the injunction of the noble Lord, Lord True, I feel I must declare the interest that I am a life Peer.
I rise to move Amendment 4 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The question of whether to elect the second Chamber is one of the longest-standing unresolved issues in British politics. Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, helpfully reminds us of the wording of the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911, which says that the Lords should be elected but at a more convenient time than the present. For 124 years, no convenient time has presented itself, and we on these Benches think that at long last we should put that right.
Our amendment sets out a timetable for doing so. It would require the Government, within a year of the passage of the Bill, to publish a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected Members to the House of Lords. This would contain a number of options and could, for example, include the option of retaining an element of non-party Members of your Lordships’ House.
Having produced this paper, the Government should then have an intensive period of consultation involving the groups set out in proposed new subsection (4). Importantly, and having taken account of comments made in Committee, the consultees would include members of the general public, possibly involving citizens’ assemblies. I strongly favour the use of the citizen assembly mechanism on an issue such as this; ordinary citizens should have a direct say on how they are governed, and the citizens’ assembly route has proved itself very effective in a number of countries for deliberating on contentious public policy issues. At the conclusion of the consultation period, the Government would then be required in short order to produce a report on the conclusions of the consultation and to come forward with a Bill for introducing direct representation into your Lordships’ House.
This issue was debated at great length in Committee. As the arguments have not changed since then—indeed, some of them have not changed for over a century— I will not belabour them all. In short, we believe that the Lords should be elected on the basis that, in a democracy, laws should be passed by people chosen by the people to act on their behalf. It should be elected because the unelected House has a strong geographical imbalance in which London and the south-east are greatly overrepresented and the north, Scotland and Wales are underrepresented, and because it would almost certainly be more representative of the ethnic and party-political diversity of the country.
I will not elaborate on all these arguments, but I would like to say something about geographic representation. It is unfortunate that we do not even know the geographic breakdown of the complete membership of your Lordships’ House, but on partial evidence collected by the Library we find that, between them, London and the south-east provide 45% of our membership, compared with 32% of the population. By contrast, the north-west, with 13% of the population of the UK, provides only 4% of Peers. All other northern regions, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales lag behind. This severe imbalance is reflected in our debates. At a time when the cohesion of the country is under threat, this is clearly unsatisfactory.
In Committee, noble Lords across the House argued that the Prime Minister had too much power over appointments, and I strongly agree. I think that if people realised quite how much power the Prime Minister already has, they would be appalled. The Prime Minister decides not only how many of his own party should be in the Lords but its balance. There are no rules. Opposition parties have to play the role of Oliver, pleading with the Prime Minister for more. Sometimes they get it; more often, they do not. Either way, this sort of horse-trading over the composition of your Lordships’ House is demeaning to our democracy and should be brought to an end.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I note what the noble Lord says about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the risk of first past the post in two Chambers. Although I agree with the principle of what he is arguing, why does his amendment say nothing about how the powers of the two Houses are to be resolved in the event of both being elected? Does he accept that one of the great failures of the Clegg Bill was the fact that Mr Clegg refused to have any debate at all about what the respective powers should be?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this is the main argument that has been used consistently by people who do not want this place elected. It is based on a false premise, which is that, if both Houses are completely or largely elected, it will lead to persistent and irresolvable conflict. If the noble Lord looks at the work that the convener has instituted, which compares second chambers around the world, he will find that there are many that are wholly or partially elected, in countries that have mature democracies, in which there is not persistent stasis because they cannot agree. There may be arguments about the relative powers of the House, but I simply do not believe that having the sorts of elections that I am talking about will lead to the complexities that many noble Lords raised and that, in many cases, are raised as a basis for opposing a principle to which they object.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that most of those countries, which I have looked at as well, have a written constitution? We do not. That is the thing that would make it incredibly difficult to resolve disputes between the two Houses. There has to be another formula for that.
Lord Newby (LD)
I am not sure the noble Lord is right about that. We do not have a written constitution now, but we have conventions that enable us to deal with difference—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is a really important point. We have conventions. We voluntarily decide not to exercise all the powers that are given to us. Why on earth would an elected second Chamber keep to those conventions?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches have argued consistently for a written constitution, which has been opposed by the rest of the political establishment. We would definitely support a written constitution, but, in the absence of a written constitution, Parliament operates in a manner based on conventions. If the rest of Parliament—the other parties—will not have a written constitution, there is no reason why a new basis of election here should lead to the tearing up of all the conventions.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The noble Lord would surely agree that, if we were going to have an elected second Chamber, which I strongly support, it would require legislation. In the course of the debate regarding that legislation, we would have to put in anti-deadlock procedures.
Lord Newby (LD)
Of course, that would be debated as part of that process; I accept that.
If I could proceed, I was saying that I believe that, under our proposals, people should be elected on a regional basis, so that they could look to the common interests of a wider area than a single constituency. They should be elected by proportional representation, so that we can avoid the dramatic swings in membership that we have seen in the Commons.
After the 2015 general election, I was mocked—very effectively, if I may say so—by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because we did very badly in that election yet retained significant numbers here. After the last election, the Tory party finds itself in the position we found ourselves in. If we had the system that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, is proposing, a future Conservative Party in the House of Lords could be decimated in the way it has been in the Commons. What I am proposing here is a more balanced system that means that these wild swings, which you see through first past the post, do not persist. That would bring an element of stability to Parliament that would be extremely sensible.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I wonder whether the noble Lord would stand for election under this system. I am thinking about how it would operate: I knock on someone’s door and they say, “I’m worried about the health service”, “I’m worried about housing”, or whatever, and I say, “Actually, that’s for the House of Commons, but I’m very good at revising legislation”. There might be a reaction on the doorstep that is even more hostile than we are used to—certainly those of us who were in the House of Commons. How does the noble Lord expect the voters to take us seriously if we are not able to say that we will absolutely fight for whatever it is? This division of powers will mean that we are second-order operators. I suspect that the noble Lord’s answer is that he would not stand for election, and that is probably true of most of the Members of this House. So what we will get is a whole load of party-list B-team people.
Lord Newby (LD)
If we had succeeded with the Clegg Bill and I had been summarily evicted from your Lordships’ House, nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to knock on doors across Europe—
Lord Newby (LD)
Doors across Yorkshire—and Europe; I am quite ambitious, really. Nothing would have given me more pleasure than to knock on doors across Europe—
Lord Newby (LD)
Across Yorkshire, and to say to people, “I am standing for election here to fight for the things that I believe in on the economy, the health service and so on; and I am doing so because I think there should be a group of people who represent the whole of my region, not just a small proportion of it”. I believe—indeed, I know—that there is a raft of issues being dealt with at the moment at a regional rather than constituency level, for which there is no accountability. I would have been extremely confident in standing and making that argument anywhere in Yorkshire. I am only sorry that the delay in getting a democratic basis for the House of Lords means that I will be far too old to exercise that opportunity if and when it comes.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brady, that I have not been able to do it in a coherent manner because of the interruptions, but I was attempting to say that his suggestion of holding elections metronomically, two years after the Commons, would not work. We could have in future, as we have seen in the past decade, periods of instability or situations such as we found ourselves in in 1964 and 1974 when the Government had a slim majority and called a second election soon after the first. In these circumstances, having a second Chamber that is elected independently from events in the Commons would give a degree of stability, rather than adding to the level of instability. The noble Lord, Lord Brady, is right to want this Chamber to be elected but wrong in his recipe for how to do it. Our amendment sets out a clear process to consult and then decide upon a method of electing the House of Lords, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to want to see an elected upper House but completely wrong in the way that he wants to see it enacted. However, the reason I want to speak briefly to my Amendment 22 and, I think, also to support his Amendment 4 is that the principle is correct that we should have an elected House. The kind of process that he suggests in Amendment 4 would be valuable and important, but it is also important to make it clear that there is a very wide divergence of views, both about the appropriate powers of the two Houses and indeed the way in which they should be elected and put together. I favour geographical constituencies—not as big as the whole of Europe, which he appeared to want to represent—but that is obviously very different from party list systems and the PR system of election that the Liberal Democrats want to see.
I am delighted to speak here with my noble friend Lord Hailsham sitting in front of me because one of the great authorities on this issue who is always cited is of course his ancestor—his father—who famously talked about an “elective dictatorship”. My concern, having spent 27 years as a Member of the House of Commons, is precisely grounded in that worry that a Government with a significant majority in the House of Commons—unless it has completely lost control—can get its legislation through with almost no impediment. It is also free to ignore amendments sent from this House, precisely because we do not have the legitimacy that an elected House would have.
I discussed this a little while ago with the great constitutionalist, Professor Sir Vernon Bogdanor. He said to me, “I completely disagree with you. It would be quite wrong to have an elected upper House”. But his next comment made, for me, the argument as eloquently as anybody could for an elected upper House. He said, “I’ve written many times that what we have achieved in Britain is the perfect unicameral Parliament, just with two Chambers”. I am afraid that, all too often, that is how our Parliament operates. For this House to have effect, we depend entirely on a Government with a large majority in the House of Commons deciding whether they will accept or take an interest in amendments and improvements that come from the often excellent revising work done by the House of Lords.
I do not want to detain the House for long, but I do think that, in principle, it is right to move to an elected House. I completely disagree with the prescription from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for how to go about it—and I am greatly reassured to find that he disagrees so profoundly with me. This is a debate that has been going on for over a century, as he said. It will continue, but it is important that we engage with it in the spirit of accepting that it is not a given that the House of Commons operates so well as a democratic assembly that it automatically deserves unquestioned precedence. My time in the House of Commons tells me that it works very poorly in most ways. Its principal function is to select a Government and, most of the time, it then then lets the Government get on with pretty much what they want to do. More challenge in our Parliament, which comes with democracy, is the way forward.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support, with one qualification, the observations of my noble friend Lord Brady. I have always been a strong supporter of the concept of an elected second Chamber. My real reason is that I want to see a second Chamber being more than a revising Chamber; I want to see it as a determinative Chamber with powers commensurate with the House of Commons. I accept, however, that in the modern world it has to be legitimate, and the only legitimacy that this country—indeed the world—recognises is an election. Therefore, having settled on the view that I think the second Chamber should be a determinative Chamber with substantial powers, I favour an elected Chamber.
I accept that there are problems about deadlock and this and that, but I do not think that they are insuperable. They are in fact addressed in many other jurisdictions in other parts of the world. I think that we would need staggered elections and that—here I disagree with my noble friend—the method of election should be some form of proportional representation. I am very much against party lists. I think too that there should be constituencies, probably similar to the European constituencies that existed in 1979—very large county-based constituencies. The fundamental justification is that we would be able to face down the “elective dictatorship” to which my noble friend referred.
I agree that, after the chaos of yesterday in the House of Commons, one wonders whether we have an over-mighty Government, but we can have such Governments. My experience is very similar to my noble friend’s experience in the House of Commons, where I was for 30 years. I find the power of the House of Commons, when it controls its Back-Benchers, a deeply worrying fact. That is why I want to see an elected second Chamber.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend said that he was concerned about gridlock. What would he do about it?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
We need to have anti-deadlock mechanisms. That is perfectly right. I think that you could have qualified voting, but there are a variety of measures that you could put in place. My noble friend is right to say that there are problems and that they would have to be addressed, but they are not insuperable and they would be addressed in the context of any debate on the legislation setting up an elected second Chamber.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, before I begin my remarks in support of Amendment 4, I will comment on the announcement by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House earlier. I welcome the establishment of a Select Committee to look into retirement age and participation. Although, obviously, I would like to see it go much farther, it is a good first step: I accept that even small changes are progress, so I look forward to that Select Committee being formed.
I turn to Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to which I have added my name. In Committee, I tabled my own amendments on an elected House, but I am pleased that, since then, successful cross-party work has led to a single, unified amendment on an elected House being presented to the House today. I will not repeat remarks I made at Second Reading and in Committee, but I will speak to a new aspect of this amendment, in order to be helpful to the House. The new addition is the inclusion of citizens’ assemblies as a mechanism for deciding the second Chamber’s form and composition. We are at a dire time in our politics, when trust is at an all-time low. This is largely due to ordinary people not feeling that they have a voice that is listened to by decision-makers. Can we blame them? We can and must do so much better.
The British Social Attitudes survey, published by the National Centre for Social Research last month, found that 79% of those surveyed believe that the present system of governing Britain could be improved “quite a lot” or “a great deal”. I am not saying that there are not good things about this place; there are. There are many individuals here who bring expertise in their field, and that is invaluable. Our conduct through cross-party work could perhaps be learned by the other place and other Parliaments. However, its form, composition and procedures are not fit for the 21st century. It is clear that this Chamber needs reform. I believe that this work can begin only once we establish that those of us who scrutinise and draft new laws must be accountable to the people who live under those laws.
So what is a citizens’ assembly? It is a group of typically 50 to 150 randomly selected citizens, broadly representative of the population. Members are selected by a civic lottery and brought together to learn, deliberate and make recommendations on a specific policy issue. Governments around the world have used them to engage citizens in decisions on complex issues, such as constitutional reform, climate change, social care and electoral reform. I support using citizens’ assemblies as a mechanism for shaping a new elected House for two main reasons. First, trust in Parliament is at an all-time low. Secondly, I trust ordinary people to know what is best for them.
Citizens’ assemblies and similar deliberative forums are well established and used all around the world as a way of delivering informed and trusted decisions on complex issues. In Ireland, citizens’ assemblies were utilised in 2016 and 2018. The Irish Citizens’ Assembly involved 100 randomly selected citizen members who considered five important legal and policy issues. In France, the Citizens’ Convention on Climate took place in 2019-20. It was formed following the yellow vest protests and resulted in 149 policy recommendations, many of which were incorporated into national legislation. In Canada, the British Columbia citizens’ assembly took place in 2004 on electoral reform.
Here in the UK, citizens’ assemblies have been used across our nations and regions, covering a range of topics from climate change to constitutional reform. For example, in 2020, six House of Commons Select Committees commissioned Climate Assembly UK to examine how the UK should reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. It was the first UK-wide citizens’ assembly on climate change and published its final report in September 2020. The process was well run, highly engaging and produced a highly impressive report that shows how seriously the participants took their responsibilities. Between October 2019 and December 2020, the Scottish Government commissioned the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland, which met regularly to deliberate on issues and challenges facing the people of Scotland. Closer to home—for me—in 2019, the National Assembly for Wales commissioned a national citizens’ assembly to examine how people in Wales can shape their future through the work of the National Assembly for Wales.
I turn back to the amendment at hand. It is not off-brand for the Labour Party to support this amendment as drafted. In fact, we have heard from senior members of the Labour Party who are supportive of citizen juries. The recent biography of the Prime Minister stated that Labour wanted to take a new approach to government by directly consulting voters on some of the most vexed questions on Britain’s future. It was suggested that citizens’ assemblies could be used to come up with positions on devolution, assisted dying and House of Lords reform, while recognising that Whitehall will not like this as it will not have control. Of course, we can pursue this option only with the political will of this Government. However, on something that they have history in supporting, why the delay? I ask them to join as supporters of this amendment and let us crack on with getting this done.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I shall say just a few words about Amendment 4, which I support wholeheartedly. It is a move in the right direction. The problem is that if this House does not have some democratic authority, it will lose the powers that it has left. In this modern day and age, we must have some democratic legitimacy, as has often been referred to, in particular on the previous amendments. To survive, we must have a democratic element. I am not here to talk about exactly what that should be. The whole point about this amendment is that it does not specify what it should look like, despite some comments from across the House that seem to presuppose what the outcome of this consultation would be. If moving in the right direction is starting to implement the promise given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, all those years ago then we might be moving in the right direction, but we have to get some democracy into this Chamber or it will not survive into the future.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend on the Front Bench and I very much echo the noble Earl’s thoughts. I have spent 30-something years, between this House’s first incarnation, the other place and this House’s second incarnation, arguing for a democratically elected upper Chamber. I do so because I believe wholeheartedly that we need and deserve a strong Parliament, which requires two Houses, both of which can exercise complementary authority to give parliamentary activities what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, described as legitimacy. This House as it is currently composed, even after we hereditaries have all gone, still lacks the legitimacy necessary for a strong Parliament.
My support for my noble friend is because this amendment offers a route map to getting consultation without prescribing the exact manner of how that democratic legitimacy can be achieved. I am not going to be tempted into a long speech on what I think: if anybody is remotely interested, they can find it in Hansard. What I will say is that the principle of a democratically elected second Chamber is essential for a legitimate Parliament. As I think I said at Second Reading, I am a parliamentarian first and foremost. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will seek the opinion of the House, and I will certainly support him.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, my support for this amendment is largely symbolic, but at least it is consistent with things that I have said and stood for in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about my Amendment 32, which we will come to late next week. Its purpose is to provide an echo of the Parliament Act 1911, that there is still a requirement for a democratic element to House of Lords reform, and to remind not just the House but the people of this country that democratic reform was a worthwhile stage 2 objective, which has been sadly missed by this Government in this Parliament, and that is the greatest missed opportunity of this entire Bill.
Of course, a wholly appointed House in itself has no democratic legitimacy, or very little. The argument I favoured and supported in 2012 under the Cameron-Clegg Bill of that year was precisely to provide the case for an elected House which included an unelected element—the great Cross Benches—which provided a good, tempering role on the whole of the House of Lords. At present, the House of Lords does an excellent job. It revises and scrutinises legislation, and it debates the great issues of the day. It does not overdo the power that it has. The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, are entirely correct in saying that we are governed by conventions. The fear some of us have had, if we change the composition of the House of Lords, is: would those conventions exist and continue to provide that slight softening of the attitude of your Lordships’ House?
Of course constituencies are important, and I join my noble friend Lord Hailsham in saying that the only way of doing it—here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby—is to have constituencies, perhaps based loosely on the old 80 or so European constituencies in the country, with voting in perhaps a third of them every five years to get the kind of difference that this House needs.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, when I am at a college in the Midlands this Friday morning with the Learn with the Lords programme, the first thing I will say is that the House of Lords is nothing more than a large sub-committee of the House of Commons with the power to ask it to think again. That being so, it does not matter how its composition is arrived at.
The legislation that would be required by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, must by definition reduce the powers of this House. It would have to remove the right to chuck out a Bill. We have the right but do not use it, for self-evident reasons, but what is to stop a troublesome elected second Chamber throwing out a Bill before it even revises it? That would be chaos. That would have to be put in the legislation before the new Chamber arrives. Would the Prime Minister down the other end appoint the leader of this new Chamber? Of course not. Self-evidently, that could not happen. So would there be Ministers in the second Chamber? There do not have to be; Ministers can be summoned by this Chamber from the other place to Select Committees and to explain Bills.
There are a few issues to be raised here that are not being talked about, which is why this idea is a bit more complicated than people think. I fully accept that the Chamber should be half the size of the Commons and should not have any Ministers. I have formed that view since I first came here. Noble Lords talk about the House of Commons as it is now, but I can tell them that between 1974 and 1979 we Back-Benchers had a lot more power, because the Government did not have it. The Lib-Lab pact was there. We have the problem of the current situation; we should not form ourselves on the basis that it will always be the same. There are a few more questions to be asked of the noble Lord, Lord Newby—which I do not expect him to answer—than have been asked so far today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is nothing if not consistent on this issue. We voted together on the seven options that your Lordships’ House was presented with in February 2003 following the royal commission. The noble Lord will recall that, in the Commons, none of the options got a majority and the whole thing failed.
If I am to be critical of what happened with the original proposals put forward by the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, the royal commission and the various proposals put forward since, including Mr Clegg’s Bill, the proponents of an elected House—of which I am one—need to do the work on the powers and relationship. You cannot get away with simply saying, “We should have an elected House”. I absolutely agree with this, but my noble friend is right that, to make it work, you would have to constrain the current powers of the Lords to make the relationship work effectively.
You would also have to tackle secondary legislation. You could not leave an elected second Chamber with a veto power—which we have used six or seven times in our whole history—particularly if it was elected under proportional representation. Clearly, a second Chamber elected under proportional representation is bound to claim greater legitimacy in the end than the Commons; the claim would always be that we represent the voters much more accurately than a first past the post system.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, may not realise this, but I am very sympathetic to what he seeks to do. But, for goodness’ sake, let us do the work on what the relationship between two elected Houses should be.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Does the noble Lord agree that this House prides itself on being a Chamber that gives excellent views and expertise? In general, people of expertise tend not to stand for election. They tend to be chosen, for whatever reason. Is that not rather relevant to how this Chamber is supposed to work? Maybe we ought to have more experts in the House of Lords and fewer politicians.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend, whom I respect greatly and have worked with over many years, underestimates the calibre of many Members of Parliament. I take his point that many of the people who come forward in relation to an appointed House might not put their names forward for an elected second Chamber. But at the end of the day, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, it is very hard to justify a second Chamber of Parliament that does not have electoral legitimacy. My plea is that we make sure that that legitimacy is produced in a way that does not bring us to conflict.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very torn on this. I favour a unicameral approach and a lot of the arguments against the elected second Chamber have been made very well, even though I want a more democratic way of making decisions.
There is a crisis of democracy at present that expands far beyond this debate. What really struck me in the debate on assisted dying in the other place was the number of times that MPs effectively said, “Let’s leave it up to the House of Lords to sort out”. That is a disaster, because it is anti-democratic. It worries me, as we increasingly watch a certain implosion happening at the other end, that the House of Lords is given far too much credit for being able to sort that out. The unelected House being the ones who are trusted is the profound crisis of democratic accountability in this country. That is what we should be debating. I feel very self-conscious about being in an unelected House of Lords debating the survival of an unelected House of Lords—which people stay and which people go. It is so self-regarding.
As for the notion of a House full of experts—philosopher kings and all that—I cannot imagine anything more off-putting to the British public than us patting ourselves on the back and saying that we know more than anyone else. I appreciate that is fashionable, but it should not be something we embrace. That is not to undermine the expertise that is here, but please do not try to make it a virtue in terms of democratic decision-making.
However, to go back to the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, one problem with the discussion on hereditary Peers is that it is too limited. It suggests that it is revolutionary and reforming; in fact, it is just going for low-hanging fruit when we should be having a proper discussion about a democratic shake-up at both ends of this Westminster Palace. I feel that we are wasting an awful lot of time while Rome burns.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate, even if it started slightly predictably. If an all-appointed House is eventually created by this Bill, many—whatever some of us think—will contemplate the logical next step in reforming the House of Lords, which is to consider a democratic mandate. We must not get away from that. I heard talk earlier of “bringing the House into disrepute” by our debating the issues we were, but I am not sure that it helps to be seen laughing at the idea of election, which we did earlier, although it might have been that we were laughing at the Liberal Democrat obsession with proportional representation—one never knows.
As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, explained, it has been a long-held aspiration of the Liberal Democrats and, before them, the good old Liberal Party, which really was liberal, to replace your Lordships’ House with an elected Chamber. It is there in the preamble to the 1911 Act, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde always reminds us. There have been various attempts, often supported in this Chamber, to achieve a democratic second Chamber: in the 1960s, in the 1970s and most recently by the coalition in 2011. My colleagues are not unhappy with me at the moment, but I will upset them by saying that it was a proposal which I and many others in this House assented to. As we know, it could not be prosecuted because it was frustrated procedurally in the other place by a number of Conservative MPs and the Labour Party.
There is logic and consistency in the noble Lord’s position. I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Winston; he really is an expert, whatever others say. However, speaking humbly as someone who has fought seven elections in my ward and won them all, and twice fought elections to be leader of my council and won both—sorry—I hope your Lordships do not consider me to be a complete nincompoop. I do not claim to be an expert, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that some people who are elected can be good.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have spent a whole life in the Conservative and Unionist Party, and I dare say people in the Labour Party could probably say the same thing.
The desire for election therefore is not just in the Liberal Democrat party. There are people on our Benches who have spoken on it; we heard from my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. The reality is that this Bill, as presented, creates something unique in the world, outside Canada, which is an all-appointed House, stocked by the Prime Minister, now with the aspiration to be able to remove people. No other democratic nation allows the Prime Minister of the day to decide who his opponents in Parliament will be, and how many, or to stock the Chamber. We will stand alone in the world. They used to say that this House was the only house outside Lesotho which had a hereditary element coming into it. If this legislation goes through, we will not find many models without the kind of additional elements that my noble friend Lord Hailsham talked about earlier. We have to look at the shape of the House being created as the result of this Bill as presented. I welcomed what the noble Baroness the Leader of House said earlier about an opportunity; we have not discussed the shape of it in the usual channels, but we obviously will, and I welcome that. The only thing that she did not say was anything about a Bill, although we have a later debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Duke. When he moves his amendment, I would like to hear a little bit more about whether there will be a Bill—the first I heard of it was at the Dispatch Box. The Minister told me she has been having consultations, and she has come to House and said that, but we still do not know the full shape of what is proposed. What she said earlier seemed quite narrowly confined to the issues of age and participation. The challenge by my noble friend Viscount Hailsham that we will need to look a bit more at the full nature of reform is important.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a genuinely interesting debate, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Brady, for tabling their amendments. First, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I am one of the minority: a West Midlands-based Peer.
My noble friend Lord Winston as always makes a pertinent and interesting point with regard to experts. He is someone I regularly reference when I talk about our House of experts. I usually say that I doubt he, like many of us, would ever have put his name forward for an election—but we are lucky to have him.
Amendments 4 and 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, are similar to his Amendments 11 and 115 in Committee. They seek to place a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to introduce a democratically elected element to the House of Lords. In bringing forward proposals, the Government would be required to consult with a number of groups—I am glad the noble Lord remembered to add the public to his list this time around.
Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, is similar to his Amendment 90D in Committee. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the Government to produce a Bill which makes provisions to limit the size of the House and provide that all its Members be elected.
We had a spirited debate on similar amendments on the second day in Committee, when your Lordships made a number of insightful and intriguing points about the fundamental nature of this House and its place in our constitution. That debate and this one underscored the importance of considering the potential benefits of reform, alongside the implications for the balance of power within Parliament. Like then, I note that the debate today has demonstrated that the House has yet to settle on a particular side of this issue. This remains a fundamental issue with all the amendments.
Put simply, amendments of this kind are not for this focused Bill. This legislation is the first step in reforming the House. As stated at the beginning of Report, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the Leader of the House will set out in more detail how we plan to approach the next stage of our reforms.
The longer-term aim is that the Government will consult on proposals for more fundamental reform through the establishment of an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. There will be an opportunity for the public to provide their views on how to ensure that this alternative Chamber best serves them. Amendment 22 in particular cuts across this aspect of the Government’s manifesto commitment as it does not make any provision for consultation with the public.
It is clear that there is an appetite for reform and that there are ongoing conversations that we will need to have, but it is also clear that we are not yet ready to have a settled position within your Lordships’ House. With that in mind, I respectfully ask that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, withdraws his amendment.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is normally the case that at this point, one says that it has been an extremely interesting debate. Despite us having debated this many times, it has been a very interesting debate because it has illuminated the central issue that a democratically elected Lords would raise. Are we to be a mere adjunct of the Commons—and, at the end of the day, a totally powerless one—or not, and are we to be part of a more effective parliamentary system in which the Government are challenged effectively?
The truth is that under the current system, the Government are challenged effectively in the Commons only when they have a rebellion in their own ranks. The Opposition cannot challenge them because, at the end of the day, they always win. We cannot challenge them, because at the end of all the ping-pong, we have no legitimacy to stand firm. I do not think anybody who has followed recent decades of British parliamentary activity would claim that the Government have been challenged effectively and that nonsenses have been called out effectively by Parliament, so I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Thurso, for making that point.
Obviously, as noble Lords have pointed out, there will be tensions between two elected Houses, but I believe that—as in many other countries which have this—it is possible to resolve them. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said he opposed having the House of Lords elected under PR because it would give us more legitimacy in some senses than the Commons elected under first past the post. Of course, there is a very easy answer to that, which is to elect the House of Commons by PR as well. That would clearly be a great advantage.
The Government’s approach is an Augustinian one of “We want to reform, but not yet”. We ought to be putting a bit of pressure on them, nudging them towards the goal which they claim to espouse. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Welfare Reform
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the repetition, but for 32 years I dedicated my working life to helping people into work, not just by finding them jobs but by opening their eyes to the opportunity, purpose and dignity that meaningful employment brings. I do not rise today to lecture the Minister on the challenges that her department faces, nor do I believe that it serves this House to relay political refrains about the past 14 years, which do little to address the pressing realities we face.
We all recognise the scale of the task ahead, which is why yesterday’s events were so concerning. In response to widespread unease across Parliament, key elements of the Bill were withdrawn. The result is a significantly weakened piece of legislation that now faces serious questions about its purpose, scope and impact. Even with those changes, more than 40 Labour MPs felt compelled to vote against it. That should give us all cause for concern and cause to pause. It reflects not just concern with the process but discomfort with the overall direction.
I genuinely do not envy the Minister. Ministers were asked to defend proposals that have since been fundamentally altered. In the process, the Government have not only damaged their credibility but opened a £4.5 billion hole in their fiscal plans.
These Benches are clear: urgent welfare reform is necessary, but it must be long-term, evidence-led and considered. Reforming PIP or any other benefit should never be reduced to short-term savings driven by arbitrary fiscal targets. We were told that the Bill would reform personal independence payments, but this approach to welfare has been crude and alarmingly hasty. Both the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation confirm that the revised proposals will deliver no net savings this decade. This is not just a missed opportunity but a collapse of any clear policy.
Welfare is a vital lifeline for people facing illness, disability or disadvantage. Reform must focus on strengthening this support, securing long-term financial sustainability and maintaining public confidence. This starts with asking the right questions. Is the current system sustainable? No. Are eligibility criteria fair and effective? No. Why are 3,000 people entering incapacity-related benefits each day? How do our costs compare internationally and are those differences justified? How do we strike the right balance between compassion and cost? These are not questions for headlines or quick fixes; they are serious questions about complex and long-term governance, requiring thoughtful cross-party collaboration.
This also highlights the limits of top-down approaches. Tackling entrenched unemployment, or an ever-increasing PIP bill, requires more than a new set of policies; it requires moral leadership, cultural awareness and deep community engagement. If we are to tackle the welfare challenge, policy must be person-centred, culturally intelligent and grounded in the lived experience of the communities it seeks to serve. Real fiscal gains come from reform: a smarter, outcome-focused approach that helps people to move into work. That is how we reduce the welfare bill: not by crudely cutting support but by reducing the need for it, while protecting those with serious health conditions.
I urge Ministers to take stock. Do not confuse speed with strategy. Do not mistake cuts—much needed as they are—for reform. Go back, reflect, consult widely and return to Parliament with a plan that meets the scale of the challenge, with the care and responsibility it demands.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for introducing questions on the Statement. She quite rightly talks about missed opportunities of not only the current Government but the previous Government.
Welfare provision is a broken system. We should not proceed until we hear from the Timms review. I hope the Minister will comment on that. There is no doubt that we are abandoning valuable members of our society. People within the leadership of the Labour Party who described PIP as “pocket money” should know better. We are enshrining in law that we have a system that all disabled people are equal, but some are more equal than others—this is an early proclamation by the pigs who control government in Animal Farm; the phrase is a comment on the hypocrisy of Governments.
Let us be clear: the proposals are a leap in the dark and not even the Ministers know where they are going to land. The proposals are ill thought-out, rushed and continually amended. As days, weeks and months pass, we will see the unedifying and unintended consequences.
The access to work scheme for those with a disability needs to be urgently fixed. Could the Minister tell the House what consultations have been made with carers about this legislation?
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill sends a message to disabled children that those who have gone down the path of their disability degenerating to the extent that they can claim PIP will be over the line, but those youngsters who know they have a degenerative condition can look forward to no PIP under the Bill.
PIP is a passport to other levels of support, such as blue badges or railcards, which give people the opportunity of getting out and living their best lives. Perhaps the most passported benefit from PIP is the carer’s allowance. On these Benches, we have grave concerns about the Bill’s impact on those families who will no longer benefit from carer’s allowances. They will be robbed of up to £12,000 a year.
We recognise the benefit system is broken and needs resolving, but it needs to be co-designed with disabled groups and carers groups to make sure that we get it right for our people.
The root of the problem, sadly, is the NHS, which is where a lot of these problems start. We really need to sort out the National Health Service and social care. They are part of the problem and the solution. This so-called reform sticks a piece of sticking plaster over it, pats it on the head and says, “Now leave it to Auntie”. Sadly, Auntie has not a clue.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for the tone of her contribution. She and I may sometimes disagree on analysis and solutions, but we both recognise the system is flawed and want to find ways of making it better, and I am grateful to her for that.
Before I turn to the specifics that were raised, it is worth reiterating the principles behind our reform, because that is what the noble Baroness challenged me to do—to have a principles or evidence-based approach to reform. Our principles are quite simple: those who can work should work; if you need help into work, the Government should support you; if you cannot work, you should be supported to live with dignity.
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill sets out to do two things: to reform PIP and to reform universal credit. As was announced yesterday, and I suspect most noble Lords will know by now, we will now be looking at PIP in the round, in the context of the review being led by my right honourable friend Stephen Timms. I will return to that and the question from the noble Lord in a moment.
The rest of the Bill makes crucial changes to universal credit, so our social security system can offer the right incentives and support to sick and disabled people. It introduces the first-ever sustained, above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance. According to the IFS, that is the largest permanent, real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefit in decades. It ensures that those with severe, life-long health conditions, who we do not ever expect to work, will never be reassessed.
The changes in the Bill are part of a wider package of reforms, including our right to try guarantee, scrapping the work capability assessment and our massive investment in employment support for sick and disabled people.
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that this cannot be done top-down. We are working with councils, regional authorities and mayors to try and build these from the bottom up by getting local “Get Britain working” plans and devolving support working in partnership. What helps you to get to work in Liverpool is not the same as in Lincoln or in parts of Cornwall. We are doing that and making sure that it works.
However, this is going to be a record amount of money: across this Parliament, a total of £3.8 billion of health and disability support. This remains an important piece of legislation, and we all seem to agree that the current system is clearly in need of reform. But the truth is that welfare reform is never easy. If I ever thought it was, I now know that it definitely never is. It is perhaps particularly hard for Labour, because a lot of my colleagues care passionately about this and it really matters. I know other colleagues do as well.
We always said that we would listen: to disabled people and their organisations, and to MPs, and no one can say we have not been listening. We have definitely listened. Having listened carefully, we have tabled amendments in the other place to remove Clause 5 from the Bill, and the corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. That means that we will move straight to the wider PIP review, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and will let that conclude before we make changes to PIP.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, mentioned how we got here. The reality is that we are doing the difficult work required to fix a fundamentally broken system. I know she knows how hard this is. She is right—we do not want to throw bottles at each other—but her Government invented PIP to try to solve the problems with DLA, and now PIP has the problems that we see here. Having inherited a system that is not working, we have to try to find a way to make it work properly.
We also have to do something about proper employment support. One of the many things the last Labour Government did, through measures such as the New Deal for Disabled People, was narrow the disability gap. I am sorry to say that when the coalition came in and scrapped it, the gap began to widen and has never really shifted since. We have to give good, proper investment in employment support of the kind that I know the noble Baroness has experience of.
I think one speaker asked about the fiscal consequences. Obviously, we are well aware that these changes will have a cost, but the cost will be certified by the OBR in the usual way. However, the real prize here is long-term reform. It is long-term reform that will start to shift the dial on the way we approach social security.
To answer the questions about the Timms review, it will be led by my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, and it will be co-produced with disabled people, disability charities, other experts and parliamentarians. We have already published the terms of reference. The work begins now and I hope that reassures the noble Lord about the work that it will be doing. Our aim is to get a new assessment that commands the widest support possible so that we can ensure that PIP is fit for the future in a changing world.
While the work begins on the Timms review, the Bill presses ahead with important reforms to universal credit. Crucially, it addresses the disincentives to work that have been allowed to build up. Because the previous Government froze the standard allowance repeatedly, we ended up in a situation where someone who gets the health top-up in universal credit gets more than double what a single person just getting the standard allowance gets. That traps some people in the system entirely unnecessarily by incentivising people to define themselves as incapable of work. Our permanent real-terms increase to the standard allowance will mean nearly 4 million households getting an income boost worth around £725 a year by 2029-30 for someone aged 25 or over. That is balanced by a reduction in the health top-up for new health claims from next April.
I also listen because some people expressed concerns about our original proposal of a freeze to the health top-up for existing claimants. We are committed now, in another change, to ensure that the combined value of the standard allowance and the health top-up rises at least in line with inflation for existing claimants. That will protect their income and these benefits in real terms every year for the rest of this Parliament—that is, for existing claimants. That will also apply to those who have severe lifelong conditions who we do not expect ever to be able to work, and those near the end of life. We think that strikes the right and fair balance.
I have probably answered most of the questions. To make a general point, however, we have just closed a consultation on a Green Paper. There is a lot of reform going on. We have this Bill, with all the universal credit measures still here, but with the Timms review looking at PIP, which will be engaging and co-producing it with disability organisations and other experts. There is also a big consultation out on major changes in this space. But for all of us, the country needs us to get this right. We know we need to get it right. I am one of those people in politics who thinks listening is a good thing. If you listen and you want to change your mind, you change what you are going to do. That is what we have done. I think we are doing a better job and I commend this Statement to the House.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I have power of attorney for two adults, close relatives, who are in receipt of PIP. As a carer and a mother, I have had to deal with the DWP for most of my life and most of theirs.
I just say to the noble Baroness that I was as critical of the Conservative Government’s methodology in reforming disability benefits as I am of this Government’s. If I ask her just one thing in this short period, it is this. When my noble friend opened on behalf of the Conservatives on this Statement, her experience shone through. There are ways of helping people who have lifelong disabilities to get into work, even people who have been out of work or never been in work. I have raised many of these issues with the noble Baroness; she knows my criticisms. Please, train the people in Jobcentre Plus. Use the examples that charities use—for example, to get autistic people into work—because they know how to do it. Please do it. The money will seem far less over time once those methodologies have been changed.
As a carer, I am exhausted. I am exhausted by having to try to explain to people who are really anxious about their financial futures, “Don’t worry about it, it’s all going to be sorted out—it’ll be all right”. In fact, I am genuinely worried. I am 80 next year and, like many elderly carers, I do not want to leave my relatives for whom I have responsibility with this sort of mess.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. The House has benefited, as have I personally, many times, from her expertise and the care with which she expresses what she does. I commend her on what she has done personally and express my regret that the pressure on her and so many other carers is as great as it is. She stands as a shining example. The points she makes are really important; I will pick up a couple of them.
First, I should have said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and to reassure anyone listening, that we are not making any changes to PIP until we have had the results of the Timms review. Nothing in the Bill when it comes to this House will affect people’s entitlement to PIP. I think we made that very clear yesterday. To be clear, we have tabled amendments in the Commons to remove Clause 5, which said you needed a minimum of four points. That will not happen, so I hope that will give some assurance to people.
I hope that the noble Baroness will see, as we begin to unfold our reforms to jobcentres, that we are going with the grain of exactly what she says. One of our concerns is that the system in jobcentres has become too box-ticking. We really need to release our work coaches to spend less time checking everybody in and more time focusing on the person in front of them and figuring out what they can get. What do they need? What help can they get? How do we support them? For some people, that is getting into a job, for others, it is moving closer to the labour market, and for some it is leaving the house. Our job is to support our work coaches. We are doing some incredibly interesting work with piloting and evaluation, trying different ways of supporting people and trying to go with what works— I am sorry: I am taking too long. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and we will absolutely take on her points.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I would like my noble friend to expand on why it is so important that we tackle the issue of ill and disabled people being disproportionately out of work, looking not only at universal credit and the broken system of access to work but at ingrained prejudice and broken mental health services, particularly for young people. I welcome the Statement from my noble friend.
I just want to make a comment about PIP. I have a very close relative who has been working with one of our disability charities for the whole of her working life. She says that she is very irritated—this is not about the Government—by the misunderstanding that PIP is something that prevents people returning to work. It is clear that it is a non-means-tested benefit. Disabled or ill people who work do not lose their PIP, and people who work can claim it to help them with additional costs. The narrative that PIP is keeping people out of work is one that she and her organisation profoundly disagree with.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, and I am really grateful to her for clarifying that. Those of us who spend a lot of time in the weeds of social security policy have to remember to be clear what we are talking about at different times. To be absolutely clear—I know that Members of this House will know—PIP is a non-means-tested, non-taxable benefit and will stay so, and it is claimable in and out of work. Roughly 17% of people who get it are in work, and we hope that more will do so in future.
My noble friend’s broader point is extremely important. To tackle the disability employment gap, we need to do a number of different things. One is to tackle the underlying conditions. For example, she mentioned mental health. We have seen growing challenges in mental health in this country, but the Government have invested very heavily—for example, with young people, in specialist mental health professionals in every school. Our youth guarantee for young people will improve access to mental health services. We are also investing heavily in the NHS to try to get waiting lists down and to support people into mental health services.
We also have to make sure that employers are able to do their bit. I am really excited and looking forward to the report that we will get soon from the former chair of John Lewis, which will look at how we can support employers, what more employers can do and what barriers there are to employers taking on sick and disabled people. We are going to tackle it on all fronts, but I am grateful to her for raising that.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a current non-executive director of NHS England. Will the Minister explain whether it the Government intend to return to face-to-face PIP claims, including a biannual review for the majority of claimants? If not, what are the reasons behind that? The Timms review continues, and none of us wants people who are genuinely disabled to lose out, but we also know that the online system has resulted in a lot of inappropriate claimants who have been successful. We need to deal with that, rather than wait for the outcome of the Timms review. In addition, will the Government review the Motability scheme, which the majority of taxpayers, particularly the lower paid, consider unnecessarily expensive, as new vehicles are normally provided every three years?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very important point about face-to-face assessments. There used to be face-to-face assessments; they were stopped during Covid and restarted only slowly and at quite a low level. We have said publicly that we want to ramp those back up again, so she raises an important point. On the Motability scheme, just for clarity, nothing in the proposals in the Bill now or in earlier incarnations affects the mobility element of PIP, only the daily living allowance, but I take her broader point and I will be happy to have a look at that.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will ask the Minister a very specific question about young people. The Statement says that almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training—they are NEETs. It then says that that is one in eight of all young people. That figure is true if you count 16 to 24 year-olds, but if you take 18 to 24 year-olds, it is 14.8%, which amounts to one in seven of our young people. Indeed, over the past five years, as the Minister probably knows, the number has been rising. One of the big problems is that 29% of 16 to 24 year-olds with a disability are NEET, but only 9% of that age range without a disability are NEET. What are the Government planning to do to help young people, far too many of whom are not in education, employment or training?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, because that is a really important point. We should all be worried about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. What chance do you have in your adult life if you do not get anything at the start? He also raised an important point about why. The truth is that the evidence takes you so far.
We are bringing in a youth guarantee for all 18 to 21 year-olds to ensure that they can easily access quality training, an apprenticeship or help to find work. We will also shortly be running trailblazers around the country for 12 months and we will use them to inform the design. They will try different things, because we want to try to find out what works for different kinds of young people. We talk about young people as though they are all the same, and of course they clearly are not. Some young people who are severely disabled will never work and we will need to give them appropriate support. There may be others who are having, for example, mental or some physical health challenges and, with the appropriate support, health support, encouragement and other forms of local support, they could begin to move back towards the workplace. I am really looking forward, as the pilots start to be evaluated, to finding evidence about what works, taking that out and changing things.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we have 10 minutes left. We have plenty of time to get everybody in if we are orderly about it. Let us hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
Thank you very much. I declare my interest as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. I want to continue in the tone of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and support the Minister on the importance of supporting people to work. She will know, because she confirmed in a Written Question to me in April, that the average waiting time for applicants on Access to Work to receive a decision is 84.6 days, and 62,000 people are waiting for their applications to be processed. I will read the Minister an email I got from an adult with cerebral palsy this week, who said:
“The government has … cut Access to Work support … without any warning. All of a sudden they don’t fund things that they did until recently. So people are losing their jobs, purpose and ultimately their sanity. They will end up back on the benefits that are being cut”.
What is the Minister doing about Access to Work now, rather than waiting for all the various reviews?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Baroness knows, given her connection to the sector, that we specifically consulted on the future of Access to Work in the Green Paper. We are now working our way through the responses, and will make decisions on that basis. The demand for Access to Work has been growing at a very high rate—the previous Government will have been aware of this. It is very challenging. We want to consult on it and then look at how we can reform the system to make sure it helps as many people as possible.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that common sense finally prevailed, so that the review of PIP will be undertaken before any decisions about eligibility. I hope that that will help to allay the anxieties expressed so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and that we have all received in our inboxes. It is also welcome that the review will be co-produced with disabled people and organisations that represent them—something that was not done under Conservative Governments. Although, as the Secretary of State said, the precise methods of co-production will need to be worked out with disabled people and other stakeholders, can my noble friend assure us that co-production will mean that they have a full and genuine say throughout the policy process? Will the DWP consider extending the same approach to its ongoing review of universal credit?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for appreciating the decisions that we have taken. In terms of co-production, the Secretary of State and my colleague, the Minister for Social Security and Disability, have been very clear that this review will be led by Minister Timms and co-produced with disabled people, their representative organisations and other experts. Work has already begun on scoping. We have published the terms of reference. We are already beginning to engage and we will make sure that that is a genuine process.
We understand, if we are to have this level of reform, that we need to try to build a consensus around what a good PIP assessment process will look like. We also need to try to have popular public confidence in the system. If we are to sustain the level of investment that we have in our social security system, we need to make sure that people feel that it is being done well, appropriately and given to the right people.
On the universal credit review, which is looking at the way that universal credit operates, I can reassure my noble friend that we are doing focus groups with Changing Realities to look at specific aspects of the way the system works at the moment. I hope that that will reassure her.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am very conscious, having run the DWP for three weeks—three years, rather; in some ways, it did go by in a flash—during Covid, of how challenging this was for the Government. The principles that the Minister set out are exactly the same ones that were there when the Conservative Government were in office.
I am trying to find one of the things that came through in the press release and the Written Statement; I cannot find the regulations for the right to work, because that is building on reforms that we introduced, or were starting to introduce, and some other matters. The key issue is about the increase in mental anxiety, depression and similar. I know that the IPS has been expanded, but I would be very grateful to know what the Minister is doing with Ministers in the Health Department to focus on mental health treatment in order to help people who really would be better off in work but need that extra support to get them there.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and obviously respect her experience. I can assure her that the last week has felt like a year, so I can understand her confusion. She raises two very important points. First, the regulations will be published. We are absolutely committed to regulations guaranteeing that trying a job will never in and of itself be a reason for being reassessed for a benefit. That feels important, because we must do everything possible to help people. People must not be in a position where they get twice as much money for not being able to work and then are afraid of trying out a job because of what would happen if does not work out. She has hit on an important thing. I hope that she will be assured when she sees the regulations that they are doing what she wants.
On the question of mental health support, we are working very closely with Health Ministers. This week, we are launching our 10-year health plan, which sets out very ambitious plans. Patients will get better access to support, including, for example, self-referral for talking therapies without needing a GP appointment. There will be 85 new dedicated mental health emergency departments and, as I mentioned earlier, significant extra support in schools—our youth guarantee of helping young people to get access to mental health support. We must find ways of supporting people. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made the point that, whatever their barrier is, we must help them overcome it. We cannot just tell them to go and work. That simply will not work. So I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising two important points.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the concessions from the Government on welfare reform. Having been a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive with responsibility for welfare reform and disability benefits, I know that this is a difficult issue.
These concessions will cause a funding gap for the Treasury. Can the Minister say that these concessions regarding welfare reform will not be filled by below-inflation increases to social security benefits, in particular universal credit?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. Any official decisions will be made in the Budget in the usual way. They are matters for the Treasury. To reassure her on the specific point, the Bill says that we are guaranteeing an above-inflation increase to the UC standard allowance in each of the next four years. That means that, if you are a single person aged 25 or over, the allowance will increase to £106 a week by 2029-30. That is unheard of. As the IFS has said, it is the first time in decades that we have increased beyond inflation the rate of universal credit. So I hope she is not only reassured but delighted.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, the work capability assessment was introduced by the last Labour Government. Back in 2010, when I was Employment Minister, I and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott worked hard to improve it. I believe very strongly, having sat through many assessments, that some kind of challenge is needed in the system to make sure that those who have the potential to work are given the right incentives and push to do so. The abandonment of the work capability assessment leaves a vacuum in the system. How will the Government fill it?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I probably have not explained this as well as I could have—I apologise to the noble Lord. We absolutely regard as the single biggest challenge the fact that the incentives are in the wrong place when it comes to universal credit. So we are doing two different things. First, we are separating support from your capability to work, abolishing the work capability assessment and looking at how a single assessment can be used to make the appropriate judgments, giving support on the basis of need.
Secondly, we are making absolutely sure that we do not put you in the position of there being perverse incentives, so you end up making decisions that would not be good for you in the long run. There are 200,000 disabled people who reckon that they could work now with the right support and would like to. We should start by giving the right support to those who want to work but simply are not able to. The noble Lord is right that we should be challenging everybody, making sure that they are making the right choices and supporting them, but the first thing to do is to get the incentives in the right place, or it will never work.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in continuing the cuts to the health element of universal credit and denying it entirely to people under the age of 22, the Government are offering in recompense the fast-track £1 billion support plan to get people back into work. Yet in a BBC report on 27 June, a senior DWP official was quoted as saying that the Government did not have
“a properly considered or deliverable programme”.
Another DWP official was quoted as saying that not much has been done since this plan was announced in March. How many officials are working on that plan and how far has it progressed?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the department is absolutely focused on this. There is not one single aspect of these changes. We are trying to turn around the entire department, from one that had a very heavy focus, understandably, on processing benefits, to one that is focusing on supporting people into work. The crucial bit, as I mentioned earlier, is helping every individual work coach to focus on how we get somebody into work and support them appropriately. To correct one thing that the noble Baroness said, she mentioned access to PIP for young people. We consulted on that—
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I apologise. We consulted on support for young people in the Green Paper and will look carefully at the results.
This Government are committed to making the lives of sick and disabled people better. If people have severe conditions and are never going to be able to work, they deserve to live in dignity and we will support them. However, if they could get a job and improve their own lives and those of their families, we will support them in that too. I hope that the whole House will want to support me in doing that.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (30 Jun 2025)
21:56 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 55 / Noes: 234 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Life peerages not to be conferred against recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (power to confer life peerages), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has written to the Prime Minister to recommend that a peerage should not be conferred on that person.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has recommended against the appointment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 5 is in the names of my noble friend Lord Newby, me and others. In preparing for this, I was also looking at preparation for Friday’s debate on a report from our Select Committee on the Constitution, Executive Oversight and Responsibility for the UK Constitution. That report in effect says that the chief responsibility for maintaining constitutional behaviour in Britain rests with the Prime Minister. That is to say the Prime Minister, who is the all-powerful Executive, is also responsible for making sure that the Executive behave themselves. That, of course, is one of the underlying problems with our unwritten constitution: it relies on our Head of Government being a “good chap”, or a “good chapess” in the case of Liz Truss. The responsibility, authority and power to appoint Members of the second Chamber also lie with the guardian of the constitution and Prime Minister, more or less unchecked.
The Written Statement we had the other week—quietly put out on the Government’s behalf—suggests that future party appointments to this House should require the party nominating them to provide a short note on the qualifications for the—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but, just as a matter of accuracy, I think he is talking about the citations that are already in place and were used in the last list to come forward.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My apologies. The Prime Minister in future would have to justify overriding the House of Lords Appointments Commission. This perhaps is some control mechanism on the Prime Minister’s power of appointment, but we have lived through a difficult period in which we have had Prime Ministers who did not particularly pay attention to constitutional conventions and did override the advice on the integrity and suitability of nominations presented by the Prime Minister.
I think the long-term answer to this is clear: we change the way in which this House is constituted. The Bill we presented when we were in the coalition in 2011 and 2012 suggested that we would do much better to have a second Chamber elected in thirds for 15-year terms. That would resolve a lot of these problems, but in the meantime, with the very slow pace of partial reform that we have on these occasions, we need a number of interim measures to limit the Prime Minister’s prerogative and to guard against the real risk that we might again have a Prime Minister who is not a good chap or chapess.
Over the last 30 or 40 years the British have constructed a number of what are called constitutional guard-rails to limit the Prime Minister’s untrammelled prerogative power. We have the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests and the House of Lords Appointments Commission itself. The Labour Party’s manifesto committed to construct a new ethics and integrity commission that will also be a means, yet undefined by the Government, of checking the Prime Minister’s untrammelled authority and holding the Prime Minister to account.
We are all painfully conscious that not all Prime Ministers or presidents respect constitutional or ethical constraints. We have experience in this country, the United States has an extremely painful experience at the moment, and we might again have the experience after the next election, so this interim measure seems to many of us necessary and highly desirable. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 5 and 6. I very much support enhancing the powers of HOLAC, largely for the reasons explained by the noble Lord. Too many appointments made by previous Prime Ministers have been of people who I rather doubt were in any sense appropriate. That, I am afraid, has happened on too many occasions.
In Committee I tabled an amendment which did not find favour with my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne. It would have required HOLAC to state its reasons for not approving an individual and allowed that individual the opportunity to make representations. I did that because I was very conscious that injustices can happen, and I think natural justice requires some form of remedy. My noble friend argued very persuasively, as he always does, that this would open up the prospect of judicial review. I am bound to say that I think he was unduly pessimistic; I do not agree with him. But I took the sense of the House, and I have not repeated that part of my amendment.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
Is my noble friend not aware—I speak as a former member of HOLAC—that it does indeed subject any applicant for membership of your Lordships’ House to quite stringent questioning on the extent of the commitment they are likely to make to the House and the attendance they are likely to give to the considerations which take place within the House, and that that represents one of the key factors in HOLAC’s decision-making process?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I think we are in agreement. What I am in favour of is putting this in a statutory frame. I do not doubt that it is done in a discretionary manner, but I would like it to be statutory. I think it is a very slight difference between us, and I hope we will not fall out on the matter.
My second point—I feel sure that I will not have the agreement of the Front Bench here—I make as a permanent, paid-up member of the awkward squad, and it relates to the oath. It has been a long time since I took the oath of a privy counsellor. I did not take away a copy and I am not quite sure what it said. But I have been on the internet to have a careful look. What it actually says is that, when members of the Privy Council have a clear and informed view, they should vote and speak accordingly. I actually believe that is the duty of your Lordships—all of us. It certainly seems to be the duty of members of the Privy Council.
There are many matters—I now speak personally—on which I do not have a formed or an informed opinion. I like to think that they are the same. In respect of those matters, I am quite happy to take the guidance of the Front Bench. But then I ask myself: what is one’s duty when one has a formed and informed view? I think it is quite plain; it is to vote in accordance with one’s conscience and opinion. We are not echo chambers. This is not an echo chamber. We are not part of a chorus line; we are here to express an unfettered view in accordance with our settled opinion. I would like Members of the House to take an oath to that effect before they sit in this place. So when a member of the Whips’ Office comes along and says, “We want you to vote”, you would simply say, “My dear, I simply don’t agree with you and, what is more, I have sworn an oath that I will speak in accordance with my conscience”. That would be conclusive of the matter.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 19, in my sole name, which proposes the replenishment of the Cross Benches following the departure of the hereditary Peers with 20 appointments over five years via HOLAC, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is chaired so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
Currently, there are 32 hereditary Peers sitting on the Cross Benches of your Lordships’ House—an increase in the years since I joined, when I believe there were 28 hereditary Cross-Benchers. No group will be greater impacted by the impending removal of the hereditary presence. Unlike other groupings within the House, the Cross Benches do not speak with a single voice, despite being so ably convened by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his illustrious predecessors, nor do we have any political or parliamentary machinery with which to lobby for replacements to ensure the relative proportion of the Cross Benches remains consistent after the passage of the Bill.
Contemporary political scientists and commentators —and, after this afternoon’s debate, I think the majority of your Lordships—consider that the expert, independent and ameliorating presence of the Cross Benches in this House is an essential element of its good legislative function. The Cross Benches provide considerable subject matter expertise not found on the more political Benches and tend to carry an apolitical casting vote that acts as a dampener to the political noise that emanates from the other place and is echoed here through the party-political Benches. We mess with that tempering role at our peril. I would ask the Minister to explain clearly in her closing speech how the Government propose to ensure that the Cross Benches of your Lordships’ House will not be diminished as a result of this legislation.
Your Lordships may recall that we debated this in Committee with Amendment 51, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, added their names. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, apologises that he cannot be here today, but he reiterated his support when we spoke this morning. He previously noted the importance of HOLAC and the people’s Peers process as a means of admitting distinguished and apolitical expertise to your Lordships’ House. The angels of HOLAC would not gain access by any other means. Think of the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Lane- Fox, Lady Bull, Lady Watkins and the indefatigable Lady Kidron—the champion of our creative industries. Think of the tireless work of many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Pannick, Lord Patel, Lord Currie and Lord Adebowale. None would have been here but for HOLAC.
Amendment 19 would ensure that your Lordships’ House continues to benefit from this HOLAC appointments process, which is particularly important given the dramatic decrease in the number of HOLAC appointments in recent years. To reiterate the numbers referenced in Committee, there were 57 appointments during HOLAC’s first 10 years between 2000 and 2010. Since then, there have been only a further 19 appointments, with six since 2018.
Baroness Browning (Con)
As a former member of HOLAC, I wonder if I might intervene briefly. In the term in which I served on HOLAC, we would have liked to have introduced two or three Cross-Bench Peers a year, which had normally been the case. I am afraid that we were prevented from doing so by the Prime Minister of the day.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
That is very helpful, because I was going to propose a possible number. As I was saying: in other words, from initially making nearly six HOLAC appointments a year, we now have only one such appointment annually.
Despite having a non-partisan, highly qualified appointments commission, we are simply not making use of it. Given that this Government are determined to honour the constitutional commitments of the Blair years with the Bill’s passage and the final abolition of the hereditary peerage, should they not also honour the Blair Government’s connected commitment to HOLAC and permit the replenishment of the Cross Benches in the way proposed by Amendment 19, which would ensure a modest appointment rate of perhaps four people’s Peers per annum?
As I have previously noted, I do not think that hereditary Peers should be converted into life Peers in any significant number. Amendment 9 should not pass. This is because our particular demographic will remain well overrepresented among the remaining Members of your Lordships’ House. I do not therefore see Amendment 19 as a route for abolished hereditaries to return to these seats, albeit that they would be welcome to apply with anybody else as common citizens. Rather, we should take advantage of the removal of the hereditary presence to increase the diversity of our membership and bring a broader array of expertise and opinion to bear upon your Lordships’ legislative efforts.
As I understood it—and as mentioned earlier—one of the main reasons for retaining a rump of hereditaries back in 1999 was that it would encourage the further reform of this House, leaving it better, not worse, as a legislative body. I am concerned that the Bill, as currently drafted, removes a group of largely independent-minded Members and increases the proportion of Members that are politically motivated. Amendment 19 would reverse that and replenish the House with a group of non-partisan and technically expert Members. It also has the benefit of diluting, if only a little, the relative increase in prime ministerial patronage that will result from the loss of hereditary Peers, which must surely be a good thing.
On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and look forward to hearing from the Minister why it cannot be adopted to support the continued and essential vibrancy of our Cross Benches.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, in this grouping I support Amendment 6, proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham.
Your Lordships will agree that the membership composition of a reformed House must sustain and continue the high legislative scrutiny standard of the present House—and thus, conversely, that future membership composition should be designed to serve this priority aim.
If, within the temporal membership of a reformed House of 600, the political numbers were to be 450, the non-political representation appointed by HOLAC would then be 150 Cross-Bench Peers.
As a result, within that total of 600, respective proportions could then become: the government and opposition parties at 175 political Members each; next, the independent non-political Cross-Benchers at 150; and, next, all other political parties at 100.
These respective proportions would then provide a good balance for sustaining and continuing our present high standard of legislative scrutiny.
However, regarding life peerages conferred on independent non-political Cross-Bench life Peers within a reformed House—and as my noble friend Lord Hailsham emphasises—in the first place it must be HOLAC and not the Prime Minister of the day who recommends these appointments to the King.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I intervened in Committee to explain why I could not support Amendments 5 and 6. I will repeat my argument briefly now. These two amendments would put the committee, HOLAC, into a position where it overruled the Prime Minister. In one case, the Prime Minister could make appointments to the House of Lords only on the advice of HOLAC:
“No recommendation may be made to His Majesty to confer a life peerage except by the House of Lords Appointments Commission”.
So HOLAC would make the recommendation. In the other case, the Prime Minister could be prevented from conferring a peerage on the recommendation of the appointments commission. Both these cases would mean that the Prime Minister was entirely constrained by this advisory committee.
My argument is that the Prime Minister’s powers should not be constrained by a non-elected committee of people, however distinguished. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to other committees that constrain the power of the Prime Minister, but they are crucially different because they are simply advisory. In this case, what is being proposed is committees that would enforce their decision on the Prime Minister. In the case of non-elected people, that is wrong. If Parliament were constraining the power of the Prime Minister, either to appoint or not to appoint, that would be acceptable. It is not acceptable that a non-elected committee, however distinguished, should do so.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Like him, I have a similar view that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should not be able to constrain the powers of the Prime Minister. Our system of appointment may not be perfect, but it does at least have some semblance of accountability, in that the person who is responsible ultimately is directly elected.
However, although I would therefore not support any amendment that gave greater powers to HOLAC, that does not mean that we should pay no attention to what a Prime Minister does, or that we should not seek clarification about what he intends. So I was intrigued by the Prime Minister’s Written Ministerial Statement of only last month—19 June—setting out the roles and responsibilities of all parties in making nominations to this House, and especially by what he had to say about his and HOLAC’s roles in relation to the Cross Benches.
In his Statement, the Prime Minister reminds us that HOLAC determines the suitability as well as the propriety of any Cross-Bench Peer it nominates to him for recommendation to the King. As I think other noble Lords have said, but I will add for clarification, I personally would not want HOLAC to have a role in considering the suitability of nominations from any political leader to the political ranks. The Prime Minister also says in his Statement:
“I will continue to recommend directly for appointment a limited number of candidates to sit as Crossbench peers … These nominations will … be vetted for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/25; cols. 26-27WS.]
The Prime Minister is making it clear that, for any peerage that he nominates straight to the Cross Benches, HOLAC’s role is only to look at the propriety of such nominations, which I think is quite interesting.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who has asked some pertinent questions about a topic that also caught my eye. Since this Bill was in Committee, there have been two significant developments in terms of the Cross Benches. As my noble friend has just alluded to, there was, on 17 June, a list of four nominations to the Cross Benches. They are four very eminent people: Sir Tim Barrow, Dr Simon Case, Dame Katherine Grainger and Dame Sharon White; we look forward to welcoming them all to the House and the work that they will do. The announcement of their peerages was accompanied by short citations; I have previously paid tribute to the Government for introducing those citations, as they are very helpful. They set out the great distinctions that people have had in their careers and the expertise they will bring to your Lordships’ House. It was not made clear, however, whether these four worthy people were nominated by the House of Lords Appointments Commission or directly by the Prime Minister.
There was a doctrine in the 1990s, under Sir Tony Blair—he wrote a Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament outlining it—that he would nominate a small number of distinguished people who, for reasons of their former career, were understandably not suitable to be partisan Peers, directly to the Cross Benches. At the time he set that out, he said it would be around 10 people per Parliament: they were known in Whitehall as the “Cross-Bench exemptions”. Are the four people nominated on 17 June Cross-Bench exemptions nominated by the Prime Minister, or were some of them nominated by the House of Lords Appointments Commission? Was my noble friend Lady Stowell correct just now that the House of Lords Appointments Commission has yet to make recommendations for the Cross-Bench Peers that it suggests, quite separately from the Prime Minister of the day?
Like my noble friend Lady Stowell, I was interested in the Written Ministerial Statement that the Prime Minister made to Parliament on 19 June, as well as in the questions that she asked about HOLAC’s role in assessing suitability. The Prime Minister said in that Statement of 19 June:
“The Commission can decline to support a nomination on propriety grounds and will inform the relevant political party if this is the case. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether to recommend an individual to the Sovereign”—
echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. He went on:
“In the unlikely event I, as Prime Minister, were to proceed with a nomination against HOLAC’s advice on propriety I would write to the Commission and this letter would be published on gov.uk”.
That happened under previous Prime Ministers. The current Prime Minister, the noble Baroness and others were extremely critical of that. Is it the case, as the Prime Minister has said to Parliament, unlikely though he says it will be, that he now agrees he may need to exercise that judgment, to disagree with HOLAC and to appoint people to your Lordships’ House against its recommendations on propriety? I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify that.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, again I feel that I am slightly swimming against the tide in opposing this amendment, which seems to me rooted in the outlook that I think of as “good chappery”— I am borrowing the nomenclature of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in introducing it. It is the idea that when you are appointed to a public body, in some presumably painful operation, your opinion glands are cauterised and you suddenly become a wise, disinterested, neutral person who is uniquely capable of raising your eyes above the partisan scrum and descrying the true national interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked, “What if the Prime Minister isn’t a good chap or a good chapess?”, the implication being that, if you are appointed to HOLAC, you must by definition have these virtues. But who appoints you to HOLAC? How is it that you suddenly, by virtue of getting there, drop all your assumptions and prejudices and become this kind of idealised platonic guardian? I have to say that it is a doctrine that has debilitated and delegitimised successive Governments, because it has widened the gap between government and governed.
I called it “good chappery”, but actually a more accurate word would be oligarchy: it is a way of taking a group of people and putting them in a privileged position. It is an oligarchy based now not on birth so much as on outlook. How many HOLAC nominees, for example, would have voted with the majority in the 2016 referendum, just to take the one thing where we actually have an exact measure of how the country at large felt about one specific issue?
The idea that we can, in making these changes to the composition of this House, in effect narrow the way of coming here, put in another filter, strain the nomination through some sort of handkerchief of good chappery, strikes me as utterly inconsistent with the times and almost certainly unacceptable to public opinion. It is also, by the way, very much at odds with the previous amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I was one of the small number who supported it. It is one of those funny things where everyone spoke in favour of it and then everyone voted against it. It was rather like the Holocaust education centre thing: all the speeches were one way; all the votes were the other way.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Not all the speeches, no: my noble friend Lord Howard was indeed one who spoke in favour of the education centre.
It seems to me that, once we start making these changes, the pressure is going to be for widening rather than narrowing the route by which people come here. In other words, there will be more pressure for some kind of direct representation, some democratic element.
I put it to those noble Lords—I suspect the majority on both Benches—who do not want a democratic Chamber that their best tactic was just to lie low and do absolutely nothing and allow this House, in the words of the Gilbert and Sullivan song, to do nothing in particular and do it very well. Once you open the issue of the composition and function of this Chamber, you invite the public into a conversation which I can guarantee will not end with a consensus around putting more power in the hands of some appointed committee rather than an elected Government.
To go back to something that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in a previous group, there is a very strong case—now that we have decided to open the issue and change our composition by removing our remaining hereditary colleagues, in my view mistakenly—for having a royal commission and looking in a measured and judicious way at how this Chamber can be made more democratically accountable. If we do not do so in a timely and temperate spirit, it is very likely that a future Government will make changes that the majority of noble Lords gathered here would not like and they would do so in a spirit of frustration, having been defeated on some measure. They would lash out in anger and legislate in haste.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friends on the Front Bench in Amendment 5, to which I have added my name. I say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that the theory of good chaps in government was a wonderful theory of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, whom we do not see now as much as we used to, which depends on the fact that we all actually like to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as I think he said, we have discovered that we do not always do the right thing.
I support my noble friend on the Front Bench exactly because some check and balance on probity is required. The desire for probity in public life has been there as long as people have been in public life, but the desire to codify it began with the cash for questions scandal. It has grown over the years and today we have the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Seven Principles of Public Life. If you stand for and are appointed to a public body, as I was in Scotland, you are required to indicate that you know what these are and agree to uphold them.
My noble friend’s amendment simply ensures that, where HOLAC has made a recommendation to the Prime Minister by informing him that it does not think someone has that required probity, the Prime Minister should not make the appointment. In this I rather disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, although I have the greatest respect for him. Under his argument, if a Prime Minister decides that the ultimate rogue on the planet should get a life peerage, he should get it. I disagree fundamentally with that. There should be a check and balance.
I regard this amendment as a negative rather than an affirmative instrument. The other amendments are more affirmative instruments, which I disagree with. Under this amendment, the Prime Minister puts forward a name and HOLAC looks at it—I think, generally, we can accept that they are people of good will, as good as we get in terms of neutrality in this House—says whether there is a fairly major problem and advises the Prime Minister of it. The idea that HOLAC is overridden on the person it has considered—Lord knows what they might have done; they could have fiddled their taxes or done all sorts of things—and the Prime Minister goes ahead is wrong.
This happens already. The Honours Committee receives nominations and goes through the probity. If the person it looks at is not thought, for whatever reason, to be fit, the recommendation does not go forward. This is very much in that vein. I will happily support my noble friend in his amendment because it is a simple, small buttress for probity in public life.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 5, 6 and 31. Noble Lords will probably realise that we are reprising the very excellent debate we had on 14 March about my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth’s Private Member’s Bill, which essentially sought to put HOLAC on a statutory footing.
This debate prompts us to address Tony Benn’s five questions about power, because this debate is about power and putting Members into the upper House of the UK legislature, and it is a very important issue. His five questions are: what power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interest do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How can we get rid of you? In some respects, these questions are unanswerable, because the effect of the amendments is to put HOLAC on a statutory footing. I believe that would embed semi-permanently an already closed and opaque system of appointment.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, it may be worth thinking about where this power for the Prime Minister to appoint Lords came from—I am thinking of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. It derives from the fact that King John had his power to raise taxes taken away from him by the Magna Carta. He was left with the right to appoint Peers—to create Lords—to wage war and to write and sign treaties. Since then, the waging war and treaties have recently come under greater scrutiny. There are problems with that, and Parliament is certainly facing them at the moment in the treaties being written.
The one thing that no one seems to be questioning is that the Prime Minister has the right to advise the King, and constitutionally the King does not refuse the Prime Minister—because that is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Prime Minister has the ancient monarchical power to create Peers. If we think that this power is still right 800 or so years later, that is fine, but we should maybe be thinking, as our predecessors did all those centuries ago, about circumscribing this right and having more control over the unfettered power of the Prime Minister, who is also the head of the Civil Service—and the judiciary, which is now a Civil Service department, the Ministry of Justice—and the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. I do not really like him having control over everything.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have long thought that the problem with the Bill is that we all become rather high-handed in talking about the hereditary Peers, as though they are the epitome of anti-democracy in this House. To be honest, we have all been appointed; none of us was elected. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a way of feeling good about ourselves by looking down on the hereditaries, when in fact none of us has a legitimate right to be here.
That to one side, I had a lot of regard for the spirit of the previous amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, looking for a democratic way of electing a second Chamber. The spirit of that, at least, was that the demos—the people—should decide, and I regarded that well. Yet the lead amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, seems to epitomise the opposite of that last amendment, because it is all about anti-democracy. It would give the ultimate power to an unelected committee answerable to no one. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, explained that very well, and there have been follow-on speeches expanding on it.
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked us to imagine that the Prime Minister—or indeed president, as he said—may not be a good chap or chapess. I wondered who would decide who and what is good. Would it be HOLAC, or the noble Lord, Lord Wallace? It is possible that he and I would not agree. The whole tone was that constitutional guard-rails would be set up by those who know better, who are more ethical or more virtuous, just in case the voters voted in the wrong way and voted in a wrong ’un. We all know that this is a nod to having a go at the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and that it is about President Trump, not President Biden. It has a partisan feel to it.
When it comes to legislation, I am very worried about how many Henry VIII powers are being used at present and about the number of statutory instruments contained in Bills. I argued that when they were put forward by the Conservative Government and agreed with many people in the Labour Party in opposition about that anti-democratic trend. I am sad to see that with Labour in government, there are even more Henry VIII powers and statutory instruments. In other words, we should be worried by an anti-democratic trend that we are witnessing. If we have to have a second Chamber, the Lords, and if we are going to appoint people, at least let us retain the notion that the Prime Minister—who has a democratic mandate—should be the person who decides, rather than an unelected committee.
As a note on the virtues of unelected expert committees, I am absolutely fine with them being advisory but not in charge. This morning, in relation to a discussion on the infamous door that has cost a fortune and does not work, and on that ugly fence that is an anti-social insult and looks like a barrier between this House and the public, we heard that it was all agreed by a very worthy committee. None of us even knew it was happening, because it was unanswerable. At the end of that discussion, I still could not work out who had made the decision. It was even more opaque than a Prime Minister deciding on who gets in this House. In other words, having a committee does not make it okay.
Finally, I will speak in favour of being partisan and taking sides. I am all for the virtues of the Cross Benches, but something seems to be wrong about the notion that the Cross Benches are full of the great and the good, who are experts, and that somehow they are superior to anyone who has an opinion, a passion or a principle, because they know more than the rest of us. I appreciate that I never joined the Cross Benches—somehow I did not get invited.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am just pointing it out.
They are apparently independent, but not that independent. There is a group of us who are sort of maverick; we are called non-affiliated—God knows what it means. It is very important that we defend the right to be political, to be partisan and to say, “I’m not an expert, but I absolutely believe in this”. If we are to exist in here at all, can we at least have some purpose beyond saying how many PhDs we have or how many charities we run?
The great and the good are great and good, but the writing of laws in this country—being legislators and being political—is not just about that. I am as frustrated as anyone about the way that party politics—the whipping process and so on—can damage political independence and courage on all sides of this House. We have witnessed it tonight and we have witnessed it in the other place over the last few days. That annoys me, because I want people to believe in something. On the other hand, the danger of saying that we are a House of experts, and that we will now have an expert HOLAC group that will decide on how many more experts it will bring in, is that we are kicking politics out of what should be an absolutely political place.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will not delay the House long. Many years ago, under a Conservative Government, I advocated that Nigel Farage should become a Member of your Lordships’ House. If we had recognised the role that he played in taking Britain out of the EU, people would have said that he does represent the majority in this country.
At the time, he was polling quite significantly—which is more than one could say for most Cross-Benchers in this House—and he was a very significant political player, whether you agreed with him or not. Neither of the political parties was going to nominate him, so it would have taken the Cross-Benchers to make him an offer to join them. At that time he might well have done so, because he thought he had finished his political career by taking us out of the EU, and he would have had a very valuable role to play in your Lordships’ House.
Think how different things would be today. It does not follow that he could not have led Reform from your Lordships’ House, but I suspect that it would have been rather more difficult. We would have been in a very different position today if he were a Member of your Lordships’ House. When we think about how representative our House is of British public opinion, we have to bear in mind that there are serious players out there who are not represented here, and I believe that they should be.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, while we are all pondering what might have been, I will just say that I agree, to an extent, with the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Hannan. Something that worries me about HOLAC, or any kind of body like it, is that the establishment appoints itself, which risks losing diversity.
On the other hand, I think we are trying to let perfect be the enemy of good. Surely we need a body to look at the propriety of the people proposed to this Chamber. The one point that I think is essential—and on which I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler—is that HOLAC should not have a veto on what the Prime Minister can do. We have to accept that we are dealing with human beings, and sometimes we may have a Prime Minister who makes erratic choices. The key thing is that they have to justify those choices, not that they are prevented from making them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, described pretty much what is like to be a Cross-Bencher: without having to take an additional oath, you just speak your mind and vote with your conscience. I will let him ponder that one.
Finally, I am not quite sure how any of this relates to the Bill, but perhaps I am being too narrow in my thinking.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly and with some trepidation as somebody who came through the HOLAC process. Although I might have become part of the establishment, I did not start as that. I definitely came from a working-class family and I definitely came from the Midlands.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and others about the importance of increasing the diversity of the House because of the importance of having diverse views within the House. I worry that the combined effect of our procedures and allowances system will always mean that it is very difficult to have people who have not become a little bit like us.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I spoke extensively about HOLAC in Committee, and noble Lords will probably all be grateful that I do not intend to repeat all I said.
I know that there are many different views across this House on HOLAC, but I think we can all agree that we want a House that serves with integrity and commands public trust. HOLAC provides a non-statutory safeguard within the process for appointments to your Lordships’ House, and its recommendations are currently advisory and do not bind a Prime Minister.
Amendments 5 and 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, seek to prevent life peerages being conferred when HOLAC recommends against their appointment. Amendment 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham proposes that HOLAC, in place of the Prime Minister, should propose peerages and any recipient should be fit and proper as well as committed to participating in your Lordships’ House. The effect of these amendments would place the power of nomination to this unelected Chamber in the hands of HOLAC—an unelected quango.
As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, reminded the House, and this was reinforced by many of my noble friends this evening, HOLAC was created as an advisory committee; it was created to advise, not to dictate. To make its recommendations binding would fundamentally change its remit and transform it from being a source of counsel to being a gatekeeper for your Lordships’ House. That would be a profound constitutional shift.
The power to recommend appointments to His Majesty should rest where it does now: with the democratically elected Prime Minister, who is accountable to the people. I am glad that the present Prime Minister, who was very critical of former Prime Ministers who ignored the views of HOLAC, has now said that he might, now that he is in power, do the same. My noble friend Lord Parkinson has already quoted from the Written Ministerial Statement, but it is worth saying again:
“In the unlikely event I, as Prime Minister, were to proceed with a nomination against HOLAC’s advice on propriety I would write to the Commission and this letter would be published on gov.uk”.
As a slight digression, I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Stowell and Lord Parkinson for bringing the attention of the House to the Prime Minister’s words on the directly appointed Cross-Bench peerages that were referred to in the same Written Ministerial Statement. My noble friend Lord Parkinson reinforced the concerns and referred to the Statement from the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I remember this Statement because I had to dig it up when we were trying to work out how the Prime Minister made Cross-Bench peerages. At the time, these Cross-Bench peerages were limited to 10 per parliamentary Session or per parliamentary term.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank your Lordships. So there were to be only 10 of them per Parliament, and they were meant to be for public service; I think they were meant to allow Cabinet Secretaries to be appointed here—which is marvellous, of course—and various others. But there has been a slight change in approach, and I would be very interested in the Minister’s views, following the comments of my noble friend Lady Stowell, on this idea that there might be a two-tier Cross-Bench peerage process: those that HOLAC judges suitable versus those that the PM judges suitable. It is interesting, because this raises a new question of what the criteria for suitability are, if these appointments are supposed to be non-partisan. The more Peers the Prime Minister appoints to the Cross Bench, the more he risks potentially undermining the status of that section of the House. I think that is worth bringing to the attention of the House. As I say, I would be interested in the Minister’s views. That was a small digression, I suppose.
To refer to the amendments in the group, although I have sympathy with the two conditions proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, particularly the latter, in light of the Bill’s move to expel some of the most active participants of our House, I point out that the current system balances expert scrutiny with democratic accountability. HOLAC exists to advise, and the Prime Minister decides. I am sure that the Prime Minister, like his predecessors, will continue to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice, but HOLAC must remain an advisory committee, and its remit should not take the place of a Prime Minister.
Finally, Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, like his amendment in Committee, seeks to encourage HOLAC to recommend 20 new life peerages for the Cross Benches. I appreciate the sentiment of this amendment. Your Lordships’ House is set to lose a considerable amount of experience and expertise from the noble Earl’s Benches—not least his hugely respected convenor, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—if the Bill passes unamended. Other amendments are still to come from various noble friends, and they seek to resolve this problem in a similar way but for the whole House. I hope that colleagues on the Cross Benches will consider lending their support to these amendments.
In conclusion, I appreciate the strength of feeling across the House on HOLAC and appointments to your Lordships’ House but, as I said in Committee, the balance we have preserves scrutiny and responsibility, and we must be wary of trading one form of discretion for another, particularly when it moves away from democratic oversight.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and to those who tabled amendments. We have had a very thoughtful and helpful discussion.
I will pick up on a couple of points, because a range of views has been expressed this evening and questions asked. The point about what is your Lordships’ role in this House has come out quite clearly. There are those who said we are a House of experts, while the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was quite clear in asking what is wrong with politics and political parties, even though she does not represent a political party. It just strikes me that, yes, we have a number of experts in your Lordships’ House and we value their expertise, but we are not all experts. The reason we have a number of experts is that we listen to their advice and the information they give, but we are all here to exercise our judgment. That judgment is what we should all bring, and that is the seriousness with which we take our role.
I have considerable sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I think we are trying to get to roughly the same place, to ensure that those who are appointed to your Lordships’ House will have the confidence of this House and the public that they are here to do a role and exercise their judgment in the right way. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, goes further than that, because he is seeking to completely remove the Prime Minister or any democratic accountability from the process of giving the sovereign advice on appointments, instead giving it to a commission that has no accountability—he is nodding; that is the correct interpretation. I think that I and a number of other Members struggle with the idea that that is appropriate. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, is looking to give the commission a new power to advise the sovereign on 20 new non-party-political appointments over the next five years.
Let me address some of those points. The Statement that the Prime Minister issued really clarified the role. This comes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. There is no change in the arrangements for HOLAC for appointments to the Cross Benches. For those appointments that come through the Prime Minister, whether to the Cross Benches or from the political parties, but go through the Prime Minister, HOLAC is asked to assess for propriety.
It would be totally wrong for any Prime Minister to use that route to make party-political appointments, and I have spoken to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about this, giving an absolute assurance this Prime Minister would never do that. It would be completely inappropriate. There is no change: it is exactly as it always has been. The rules are those that other Prime Ministers should have followed—and have in most cases, I am sure—for that route through to the Cross Benches via the Prime Minister. There has been a slight change. I think that originally it was for public servants, but both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the current Prime Minister said that it was for people who have a track record of proven public service. Our recent appointments show dedicated public service. Four excellent appointments have been made to the Cross Benches. They are not necessarily public servants, but public service is important. That was a wise move by the now noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and by the Prime Minister to reconfirm his interpretation of that. HOLAC has a role on suitability in the appointments made by HOLAC to the Cross Benches.
Those are the appointments where HOLAC will also look at suitability, as well as propriety. The Prime Minister also mentioned in his Statement a pretty unlikely event which reminds us of the prime ministerial prerogative on this issue, something I think some noble Lords are seeking to remove. It would be a very serious and almost completely unprecedented step, but there has been one occasion when a Prime Minister has gone against HOLAC on propriety. We have set out the process that the Prime Minister should follow and been transparent about that. I think it is quite a serious step to take.
If the Prime Minister were to make an appointment against HOLAC’s advice on propriety, he would be completely transparent on the reasons why, and he would be held to account for that decision. He would be held accountable—that accountability is the issue that has been raised. He would write to the commission to explain the decision and HOLAC would write to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee to notify Parliament that that advice had not been followed. The key there is accountability, as set out in the ministerial Statement.
Lord True (Con)
May I ask the Minister a clarifying question? I think this is important, irrespective of which party is in office. I think she has described the situation very fairly and clearly. Obviously, this prime ministerial power, which is not new, of direct appointment to the Cross Benches, raises the question of how those are assessed. I do not quite understand the internal procedures of the Cross Benches, but I know of people who sit on the non-affiliate Benches who have been put through some kind of process. The Cross-Benchers may think that they are a bit too close to one party or another. If the Prime Minister—I am not saying necessarily a Labour Prime Minister or a Conservative Prime Minister—used this procedure, would the Cross Benches be able to say, “We think that this woman or this man is too close to the Conservatives” or “too close to the Labour Party”? How would that operate? Do the Cross-Benchers have a say in who is appointed to the Cross Benches in terms of their background?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is probably more of a question for the Cross-Benchers than me, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is ready to leap to his feet.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness very much. This is obviously an issue that has arisen and has been the source of considerable correspondence, which predates me—Lord Judge began it. It would obviously not be proper for the Cross Benches to be part of some approval process, but we have been able to lay out sufficient rail track so that, certainly for my part, I feel very comfortable that the Prime Minister is going to appoint only people suitable for the Cross Benches and have no recent record of involvement in party processes.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Earl will know more about the history of non-aligned appointments. I do not think we have appointed anybody who is not aligned at all.
Interesting points have been made about accountability and suitability. Political parties must be responsible for the suitability of those whom they put forward, just as HOLAC is responsible for the suitability of its appointments. Partly because they are largely my idea, I think citations are a good thing because there is more information in the public domain about why somebody has been appointed. However, it would be a regrettable situation if a political party was then to say, “Oh, we don’t test suitability. That’s a matter for HOLAC; we don’t take responsibility for our appointments”. All political parties should take that responsibility rather than pass it on to HOLAC.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Is the Leader of the House comfortable with the fact that Reform commands 36% of popular support in the polls and has no representation whatever in this House?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is a whole issue around this because the SNP has no representation in your Lordships’ House either. The noble Lord has spoken about Nigel Farage being offered a role. Given that Mr Farage’s policy is now to abolish the House of Lords, he may not have been willing to accept that role. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point well. There should be a diversity of opinion. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made the same point. There are a range of diversity issues that we should look at, including diversity of opinion. We make better decisions because of that. However, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said earlier—I have used this line, having heard him use it in debates here—in many ways we are a sub-committee of the House of Commons. We can only recommend suggestions and changes to the House of Commons. We bring our judgment to those decisions.
To finish the point that I was making beforehand, we do not believe that the amendment for 20 new life Peers is necessary. The number of nominations is a matter for the Prime Minister, but he will take into account the political balance of the House when making those decisions. It is essential for the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was a little cross with the Cross-Benchers, perhaps because they have not invited her to join, although they may reconsider that now. A Private Member’s Bill tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, proposed the Cross Benches being roughly 20% of the House. That is a fair figure for the House. The noble Lord has heard me say time and again that the House works best with those kinds of figures, with roughly equal numbers of both political parties of government and when we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when we do our best work.
In some ways, I appreciated the honesty of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in his amendment about removing the Prime Minister from the process and having HOLAC deal with this, but he also spoke about participation and the role that we expect Members to play. He is absolutely right that we should expect all Peers to participate in support of the core functions of this House. That means not just turning up to vote occasionally but taking the role as a Member of your Lordships’ House seriously. That is one of the qualities mentioned in the Prime Minister’s Statement—willingness to contribute and play an active role in the House. It matters how Peers get here, but it matters more what Peers do when they are here and how seriously they take that role. Although participation is not a matter for this Bill, I have set out—we will discuss this later—a proposal that may allow us to take that forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about the independence of the Cross-Benchers. I think there is a role both for independents and for party politics in your Lordships’ House. I do not think any of us would say that we slavishly follow our party. I think sometimes we wish more did, and I am sure the Opposition Front Bench may say the same, but we do bring judgment. I just keep coming back to that point. Our judgment and integrity are important on these issues.
My final point is on the suggestion from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, of a new oath for all appointments. I think I understand why he has raised that, and it is a thoughtful approach, but we do not consider it necessary. When a Peer takes the oath in this House and they sign as a Member of this House, that includes a commitment to uphold the Nolan principles of public life so, in a sense, that oath is already there. The Nolan principles are important, and I trust noble Lords to take that commitment to the Nolan principles as seriously as they would take any extra oath, so I do not think it is necessary.
I understand why the proposals have been put forward. The noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace, have been sincere in this, but I wonder whether it is a stretch too far. There has been only one case where a Prime Minister has overridden the propriety advice of HOLAC. I think it is wrong to do that. It is hard to envisage circumstances where it would be appropriate, but I think that ensuring absolute transparency, if it were to happen, is the appropriate way forward. I see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about to leap to his feet, so I will give way before he asks.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Before the Minister sits down—literally in this rare instance—I am grateful to her for the comments she made about the Prime Minister’s Statement and the clarification she gave. She alluded to it, but, just for clarity, is she saying that our four new Cross-Bench colleagues are Cross-Bench Peers selected by the Prime Minister rather than Cross-Bench Peers recommended by HOLAC? I think that is what she was alluding to, but it would be good to have that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Those four Cross-Benchers have come through the route of public service, and there is still obviously the expectation that HOLAC would have its appointments done separately. I think that was quite clear in the Statement. I am sorry that that was not clear to the noble Lord before.
Having answered questions again, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this debate has gone a good deal wider than our modest amendment. Perhaps we will come back to oaths, and the question of the balance in appointments of Cross-Benchers, between the great and the good and people’s Peers, is another thing that we should clearly come back to.
I was very struck at various points in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, particularly when he was discussing the difference between liberal democracy and popular democracy. Liberal democracy is where those who govern do so with a degree of checks and balances to make sure that decisions are taken with due consideration and that policy does not swing with popular opinion too rapidly from one to another.
When the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says that we should not have unelected judges holding Governments to account, he is actually saying that the rule of law should not be a check on the tribune of the people, whoever the President or Prime Minister may be. In this amendment, we are talking about a check. We are not saying that HOLAC should make all the nominations. We are saying that, when the Prime Minister makes nominations, HOLAC should advise and the Prime Minister should accept that advice.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord says this is not about all nominations but just those from the Prime Minister. However, the only other nominations other than the HOLAC-appointed ones come through the Prime Minister from the political parties, so which nominations is the noble Lord referring to?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
In that case, I must have misspoken and I apologise. The Prime Minister makes the nominations and HOLAC considers them. That seems to us to be a valuable part of the checks and balances of a liberal democracy.
This is not a new problem. Boris Johnson is not the only person who has abused the system. If one is looking for villains of the past, my party provides by far the greatest in David Lloyd George, who sold peerages. Thankfully, we have moved away from that. I wish to press this to a vote, so I ask if I may test the opinion of the House.
Viscount Hailsham
“Term limits and retirement age(1) A member of the House of Lords who has sat in the House by virtue of a life peerage for 15 years or more ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session of Parliament.(2) A member of the House of Lords who reaches the age of 85 during a Session of Parliament ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session.”
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I will be very brief. I will say out of an abundance of caution that I will not test the opinion of the House. However, I think there is a very strong case for introducing peerages for a limited period and a retirement period. There are two reasons for that.
First, membership of this House needs to be refreshed, otherwise you get inflationary numbers of an intolerable degree. My two proposals, of a retirement age and limited peerage duration, address that. If one is honest about this, one’s experience decays over a period of time. When I first came into the House, I knew rather a lot about criminal law. That was about 15 years ago, and I knew a great deal more when I went into the House of Commons in 1979. But one’s knowledge changes and, while I have an understanding of the general principles of criminal law, I do not pretend I have the expertise I previously did. So my first point is that one’s expertise declines.
Secondly, many of the issues one is wholly conversant with have changed. When I first came into Parliament, we knew nothing about transgender, artificial intelligence was wholly unknown and we did not have to worry about the internet. But now we have to regulate and debate the application of these matters to try to regulate AI, social media and debate transgender in a sensible way. It is much easier for those who are more conversant with these issues than my generation are to address them. That requires, in part, a refreshing of the membership of this House. For those reasons, I see merit in a retirement age and limiting the period for which peerages are created. So I beg to move but, as I said, I will not be testing the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I too see the benefits of a retirement age and therefore will speak briefly to Amendment 20 in my name, which is a variation on that theme. Whereas the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, proposes a retirement age of 85 in Amendment 7, my Amendment 20 is somewhat simpler. It proposes the introduction, only for newly appointed life Peers, of a retirement age of 80 or of a date 10 years after the Member’s introduction to the House, whichever is later.
Amendment 20 would thereby give effect to the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80. However, it would also introduce an important allowance for those who join your Lordships’ House after the age of 70. This is an important distinction, as it would do away with an arbitrary 80 year-old age limit and ensure that those such as serving Supreme Court justices, whose period of public service has a retirement age of 75, will be able to enjoy at least a full decade of service in your Lordships’ House, irrespective of the age at which they are appointed.
Noble Lords may recall the probing amendments in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his excellent speeches introducing them, along with the famous Blencathra Excel spreadsheets calculating the impacts of various retirement ages. He noted that a retirement age of 80, if implemented immediately, would have a draconian effect on numbers in your Lordships’ House, removing up to some 327 Members. My Amendment 20 avoids that guillotine, as well as the organisational shock that would result therefrom, by imposing the age limit only on the newly appointed life Peers appointed under the Life Peerages Act 1958.
This would ensure that we do not instantly lose the valuable institutional wisdom among our more experienced Members, and it would not impact any current life Peers. Amendment 20 would thus fulfil Labour’s manifesto while tempering the age-based guillotine—at least for our existing Members—and gently introducing a retirement age that certainly seemed to find favour with the majority of those present in Committee who expressed an opinion. On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and look forward to the response from the Leader of the House, particularly in light of the indication she gave earlier that there may be a Select Committee convened to consider just this topic.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 20, which was ably proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Let me remind the House again of the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto:
“Labour will … introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House”.
The next sentence says that Labour
“will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.
As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, so kindly pointed out, in Committee I attempted to help the Government by putting down a number of amendments on retirement ages, giving the House three options of retiring Peers at the age of 80, 85 or 90. A retirement age of 80 would have removed 327 Peers, which was far too draconian. I think that is why the Labour Party suddenly dropped the proposed retirement age of 80—it realised it would lose 95 of its own number. A retirement age of 90 would remove just 16 Peers and would not be worth it. A retirement age of 85 would remove about 185 Peers, and I think there was quite a bit of consensus in the House that that figure was about right. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, then made this refinement, which makes a lot of sense and is a vast improvement on my suggestions. I think he also had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Burns, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—I hope I am not doing them a disservice by misquoting them.
I have not tried the patience of the House by tabling those amendments again tonight, but I suggest that the solution to the objections we will hear from the Government at the end of this debate explaining why we cannot do this lies in my Amendment 14 in the next group, which I will elaborate on then. The Government will reject these amendments—and next week will probably reject Amendment 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on non-attendance—on the grounds that they are too complicated for primary legislation, that there are a lot of loose ends still to be tied up, that there are unforeseen consequences, that we must consult goodness knows how many people and organisations before we legislate and, of course, that there must never be any amendments to this sacred Bill, no matter how meritorious.
Apart from the last two bogus points, there is merit in the Government’s arguments. We do not have the minutiae of how a retirement scheme at about 80, with amendments and tweaks, would work. Would it be on a Peer’s birthday or at the end of the Session or the Parliament? As for consultation, I submit that there is not any single person or organisation who knows the slightest thing about the retirement of Peers compared with all the current Peers in this House. We are the people to be consulted. I accept that we do not have the minutiae of retirement provisions ready to put in the Bill or any primary legislation.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I observed in Committee that everything in life tends to have a retirement age, so I feel that it is vital to bring in Amendment 20, or something like it, as part of the modernisation of the House.
I will make only two points. The first is in respect of the cliff edge. In organisations that I have worked in, we have often done mergers and acquisitions and had cliff-edge problems with people. It is generally the case that an organisation that expels the seasoned and the good—expelling the human capital that it has bought—without replacements right away, is an organisation that weakens itself. In our House we have people aged beyond 80 —we now know that there is a large number, thanks to the spreadsheets of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—and, were we to show them the door, that would be very weakening.
This has an elegance in it, because it does not expel anybody but sets down the premise for the future. It is the route that is peculiarly British, in that it was chosen, as we have heard, by the senior judiciary when they did the same thing many years ago, and indeed by the bishops when they brought in a retirement age. In both of those circumstances—I have spoken to people who were around at the time—the people, in any event, chose an earlier retirement age. So we would smooth out the great problem of the cliff edge.
My second and final point is about the wrinkle that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has cleverly introduced about the 10-year minimum alternative. From the Cross-Bench perspective—and indeed, through us, from the House’s perspective—this is a very good wrinkle. The Cross Bench has to provide quite a lot of judges. We need to provide judges for Special Public Bill Committees, the Ecclesiastical Committee and other purposes, for which we are lucky to have members of the senior judiciary on the Cross Benches—I am looking at at least one here—who are very valuable to the House. The trouble is that the Supreme Court has a retirement age of 75 so, if they can get trained up only by the time they are 77, say, we will have them for a very short period of time. So it is extremely helpful for us if the senior judiciary gets at least 10 years at bat. That is helpful for the Cross Benches and the House.
When I was at the Bar school, I was told that the judge only ever hears the point the third time you make it. I have now made this point four times. The Leader was pointing out that we are all judges and that we are here for judgment. I hope that noble Lords will ponder, for the fourth time, that this might be a good point.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that this country rather likes retirement ages, but I am afraid I do not share that view. I think of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who recently retired when he was, I think, 93—someone says he was 97; even better. He was absolutely as sharp as a tack until the time that he stood down. His contributions to this House were memorable. He was a very serious man in every way and people listened to him in this House. To think that we would put in place a system that would have got rid of Lord Mackay fills me with absolute horror.
If we want to reduce the numbers, I have never understood why a committee of this House turned down the idea of internal elections. We all know who are the people in our parties who do not come, who do not contribute and who play very little role in this House. Why not allow us to elect them out and reduce numbers that way? Then we would not have this arbitrary business of saying that, because someone has reached a retirement age of X, that is the reason why they should go.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had summed up the situation at the end of Committee very well when he said that there was a broad agreement across the House that we needed to act on attendance, participation and retirement. I reckoned without the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but, having sat through those earlier debates, I suspect that he is in a relatively small minority in your Lordships’ House. If we think that we need to move on those issues, the key question is how we can do it expeditiously and with the best likelihood of getting an outcome that your Lordships’ House wishes to see. In my view, one way that will not achieve that is to expect to do it all via primary legislation, for two reasons.
First, no Government will want to put before your Lordships’ House a Bill with a raft of provisions for further relatively minor changes, because they have seen what has happened this time. I would not fancy being the Leader of the House who went to the Cabinet committee to explain why another Bill dealing with all these things was a priority for the Government. The other argument, which I have made on a number of occasions, and for which I apologise to noble Lords, is that I do not want the House of Commons deciding what constitutes proper attendance and participation by Members of your Lordships’ House.
To take up some of the proposals that we have just heard, if you were to say to MPs that 85 was to be the par for retirement, you would be more likely to get them to pass something saying that it should be 70, because 85 is so far beyond any retirement age for anything of which I am aware that it appears almost ridiculous to people outside your Lordships’ House. This is not to say that we do not have, and have not had, many Members over the age of 85 who have been extremely impressive well beyond that age, but there are reasons for a retirement age that go way beyond competence. Retirement ages are very often introduced in order to see a throughput of people, get new experience in and prevent an organisation living off its past. That is why retirement ages are very often introduced, and is one reason why we need a retirement age here.
If I am right in thinking that we should not be looking to the Government to produce a Bill covering all these things, how else do we do it? My view is that we can do quite a lot of it via our own Standing Orders. The way to get to the point where we can change the Standing Orders is, in my view, the one that the Leader of the House has proposed.
If we have a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House with strict terms of reference and strict timetables, and which produces proposals, we can implement them very quickly on our own. We should decide what we consider a proper level of participation and what, in our view, constitutes an adequate level of attendance, and we should decide and recommend what we think is a sensible retirement age.
I understand why noble Lords are rather cynical about any proposal by any Government to set up a committee to do something that has no statutory powers to implement its recommendations, but there is such a swell of opinion on this issue about the need for change and a willingness on the part of the Government to accommodate it that I believe we should grasp that proposal. We should put forward good people from our groups to serve on it and task them with coming forward with agreed proposals in the quickest possible time. That is the way we should deal with all these issues. Therefore, I believe that we should not be looking to put amendments in this Bill that deal with one or all of them.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said almost everything I was about to say in the next group, but it is no less welcome for that. I just want to pick up the point about us all voting for each other. I was here in 1999, and it was a very unpleasant experience to have people constantly sidling up to you, who had never spoken to you before, and urging you to vote for them because they were such a good chap, to use a phrase. I really hope that we do not go back to that, but let us get on to the next group and we will talk more.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I must declare a conflict of interest in this respect, because I am not quite certain—I have rather forgotten—but I think my 85th birthday is next weekend. I have to say that I am still employed; I am still producing experimental work, which is being published; I am still teaching; I am still training post-doctoral students and younger students; and I am still talking to children’s schools. The fact is that we are discussing a biological problem, which your Lordships seem to have neglected. If we had a rule that we only had people of a certain height in this Chamber and that, let us say, less than 5 foot 10 would not be acceptable, we would actually forget the Gaussian curve of normality and the statistics.
The fact of the matter is that, if we look historically, in the last 20 or 30 years of this House of Lords there were many people in this Chamber who were actually demented in their 60s, and far more in their 70s and 80s who were actually clearly not suitable mentally to be taking judgment on legal issues and issues of social care. The fact of the matter remains that medicine is changing, and there is no doubt, if we actually get successful medicines in future, as we in the Labour Party hope—we will have to see about that, of course—that we will see ages increase and people being mentally competent for longer. I suggest that an arbitrary rule at any age is probably inappropriate biologically, and we should find a more sensible way of considering how we might encourage people to retire when they are no longer competent to be Members of this House.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I cannot resist responding to that, because I agree with it. One of the problems we have is that the Whips do not have sufficient power to tap people on the shoulder and tell them it is really time, whatever age they are, if they are infirm. From that point of view, I agree: it is a matter not of age but of capability, and I think participation is the way to go to address that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, those final comments compel me to draw your Lordships’ attention to the amendment coming up later on power of attorney, which tries to look at the problem that we have all seen of some colleagues whose mental faculties, sadly, decline at earlier ages and who need to be encouraged to retire from your Lordships’ House.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for their Amendments 7 and 20, which refer to other commitments in the Labour manifesto that are not in this Bill. We were told that they are not in this Bill because of a piece of punctuation in the manifesto—a full stop, which got a lot of attention in Committee and on which I shall not dwell tonight. This touches on the anxiety of many noble Lords to understand what stage 2 might look like and when it might come, and to ensure that, if we are to remove some of our colleagues from your Lordships’ House, the House they leave behind will be improved in lots of other ways, as we have discussed repeatedly.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
I should note that the term limit I propose is only for those who join the House after the age of 70.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for the clarification. On the difference in ages, neither outlined why they had selected the ages that they chose, but I note that the noble Earl remains, until August, a member of the under-50s club in your Lordships’ House and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hailsham on his 80th birthday this February.
These are matters that the House or the Select Committee will have to consider carefully in the light of the very wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We are an ageing society and hope that we will all live many years longer and be able to contribute to civic life, family life and many other things in different ways. It is inherently arbitrary. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was mentioned and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is a great example of somebody in his mid-80s still playing a very active part in your Lordships’ House. I responded to the debate on VE Day, when we were all moved to have among us the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is very active in your Lordships’ House in his 90s and a living reminder of some of the things this country and others have been through. It is very valuable to have people of all ages in your Lordships’ House.
The other significant difference between the two amendments is that the noble Earl’s would apply only to new entrants to your Lordships’ House. Following on from debates that we have had, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say something about her attitude to participation thresholds and retirement ages? Does she envisage those applying to current Members of the House or to new entrants? She was opposed to grandfather rights for people who are here as hereditary Peers, but would she afford grandfather rights to those here over the age of 80 presently who came to your Lordships’ House with a certain understanding and who have arranged their lives, houses and so forth on the expectation that they would play a full part until they choose to retire? If the hereditary Peers are to find their basis here changed at the end of the Session, should the same apply on the basis of age?
I note what the noble Baroness said in an earlier group about the Select Committee and we are grateful for that information. She said that she would discuss it in the usual channels and I appreciate that there are details to be ironed out, but can she say a bit more about her thinking on its composition? What would the party breakdown be? How many Cross-Benchers might there be? Would there be a mixture of hereditary and life colleagues? Obviously there would be no hereditaries if it is set up after Royal Assent, but might former hereditary Members be able to play a role in its work? Who should chair it? From which party or none would they come? Would Bishops sit on it?
The noble Baroness said a little about timeframes and hoped that the Select Committee could be set up within three months of this Bill achieving Royal Assent, although she was a little less ambitious on the conclusion of its work. She said:
“It has been 25 years since the first stage of this reform, and I think the House would be somewhat intolerant if we took another 25 years to bring anything further forward”.
I know that that is a figure of speech, but would the Select Committee report in this Session? If the work was not completed in this Parliament, could the Select Committee be carried over into future Parliaments?
I appreciate that this is flurry of questions, even by my standards. However, what the noble Baroness said earlier begs a number of questions about how this Select Committee is going to be constituted, how it will work, and how it can really deliver on the points that my noble friend Lord Hailsham, the noble Earl and others have touched on in this group. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is a sense of déjà vu all over again when we discuss these issues, as we have done a number of times. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has the distinction of proposing the only amendment I have ever seen that was longer than the Bill itself, when he looked at the options. We are grateful for his contribution this time and for the spreadsheets he produced before.
I was slightly puzzled by a number of the points the noble Lord made, including that we had dropped things, the issue of retirement, and why we are going to consult so many people when this House knows best. I am not sure he was here when I spoke earlier but I hope my comments will reassure him. He also mentioned a number of phrases that he said I had said, but I never said them. I will check in Hansard; he may be mistaking me for somebody else.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made a couple of really important points. He and I have spoken about judges and he knows I am aware of that issue. He also spoke about the issue of a cliff edge. This is partly the reason, as I have said many times before in your Lordships’ House, that we have a manifesto commitment that is very clear: those who turned 80 would retire at the end of the Parliament in which they did so. As others have pointed out in my discussions with them, one of the issues is that it is quite a significant cliff edge for the House if Members leave at the same time. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised that issue—sorry, there is a wasp that keeps flying at me.
In my discussions and consultations in your Lordships’ House, it has been very clear—notwithstanding some very good points made by those who are not supportive of a retirement age—that there is a general consensus around the House that a retirement age is a good thing, but it was a matter of two Peers and three opinions of how that could be implemented. Tonight’s debate has raised this issue and the noble Earl himself said it should be only for new Members rather than existing Members, and if you come in at a certain age you could stay longer. These are all variations on a theme. What is the best way of reaching a decision when you have variations? I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on bringing forward legislation that said, “These are the various options. Discuss them and come up with something”. I went through the pretty unedifying experience of House of Lords reform in the House of Commons; MPs trooped through the Lobbies again and again, rejected practically everything and accepted nothing—we got nowhere very fast.
The noble Lord and I discussed what the mechanism could be. I have been discussing this with other noble Lords and developing how the House could take a bit more ownership of the issues and decide what could be a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said the best people to look at this are Members of your Lordships’ House, who understand how the House works.
I am prepared to accept variations of an implemented manifesto commitment. I do not know how we implement a participation requirement. I have very strong views on how it might be done; I might not be right. Other noble Lords have made suggestions around attendance and participation. I think the noble Lord missed this point in my comments. When I mentioned a timetable for a Select Committee, I referred to moving at pace. It seems to me there is no reason why it could not be set up within three months of Royal Assent.
I said that I hoped that this time next year, the House could discuss any proposals coming forward from that committee. It may be sooner, it may be later, but I do not want to curtail any committee because it is for it to say, “This is what you’ve set us to do, these are the terms of reference you’ve given us, how long will it take us to do that?” So that is a discussion for the usual channels. It should be set up in the same way as any other committee of the House.
The noble Lord asked about hereditary Peers; he seemed to think they were leaving on Royal Assent. If he reads the Bill, he will find it is not on Royal Assent but at the end of the Session. That would be for the parties that nominate to make a decision on who they want on that committee. Noble Lords have said they are interested in this issue, but if they are genuinely serious about making progress on it, I would be very interested to hear what they say.
The noble Lord says that a lot can be done by Standing Orders. Maybe some things can, but it may be that other things need legislation. This could be one of the remits of the committee. If it needs legislation, then what better way to get legislation through your Lordships’ House than if we have a settled view on what the outcome should be?
I have discussed with noble Lords across the House whether there is a way that this House can come to a view on a way forward that we are broadly agreed on, that we can implement more quickly where we are able, and where we are not, that we have the fallback of legislation where there is agreement around the House. Sometimes the House says that we have to have legislation to do this—but if there are things we can do more quickly and more expeditiously, and the House agrees with that, why not do it? That is the purpose of setting this out, and I hope that answers the questions from noble Lords.
I know there are some noble Lords who think that if you come in at a certain age, it should be later, but the committee can look at those kinds of issues and would have the usual representation. It is important that we do not let these issues just drop away and that we do not just say that there are lots of options. Let the House reach a decision on this and do something about it.
I hope that assurance answers the noble Lord’s questions. I am sure that as time goes on, he will have many more—but those are the sorts of things we will come to as we try to set it up. If he has a better idea than a Select Committee to do it, I am open to suggestions, but I want Members of this House to take ownership of decisions that affect this House.
I am also mindful of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—previously and this time—that if we send legislation to the other place with an age, it may have a different view. This is something that we can do more quickly, but if we have a settled view, I am sure the House of Commons would respect that as well.
I hope that, having heard that, the noble Viscount is willing to withdraw his amendment, and we can continue to look at this issue as we move forward.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the suggestion that there should be a Select Committee addressing some of the issues covered by Amendment 7. With your Lordships’ consent, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of Wellington
“Further reform of the composition of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for further reform of the composition of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a further bill to reform the House of Lords after the removal of hereditary peers.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Altmann, for signing the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would have done so if she had been in time.
I have stated in previous debates that although I will be immeasurably sad to leave, I do not feel able to oppose the Bill. I have always recognised that the matter was in the Labour manifesto and the King’s Speech, and was passed by the House of Commons unamended. But before I and others leave, I want to try to persuade His Majesty’s Ministers to go a little bit further than the Leader has already indicated.
I suspect that some of the reforms—for which there is probably quite wide support in this House—will require legislation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is being a bit pessimistic about the risk of legislation coming from this House to the House of Commons on reforming some of its aspects. If it comes having reached a consensus in this House, I think it very likely that the Leader would be able to persuade her ministerial colleagues that the Government should back it in the House of Commons.
The Leader announced earlier in the debate that she was proposing to recommend that the House sets up a Select Committee, but she initially referred only to it considering retirement and participation. I suggest that there are other matters in the manifesto, and indeed other matters still, that ought to be considered by the Select Committee, such as the removal of disgraced Members, an improvement in the regional balance—a very good point—and of course the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on the size of the House. I believe that there is considerable support across the House for a number of those reforms.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to my Amendment 29, which would link the exclusion of hereditary Peers to a stage-two proposal. In Amendment 29, I have set out what ought to be included in a Bill. There is merit in saying to the Government that the hereditary Peers should not be excluded from this House unless and until the Government have brought forward stage-two proposals—that is the simple purpose of my amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in theory, my Amendment 14 ought not to be in this group because it would do something quite different. I did not ask for it to be degrouped because I did not want these Benches to be accused of trying to have separate groups of amendments to pad it out.
I say to the Leader that I listened carefully—on the monitor because I could not get in here—to what she said in her opening speech. She did not mention consultation, but in Committee numerous Ministers on that Front Bench told us that retirements and attendance could not be addressed in the Bill because they needed to consult on it, they needed to get more expert advice and there were lots of loose ends to be tied up. The noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, did most of that. That is a separate matter that I just wanted to put on the record.
Those of us who were here for the whole of Committee stage knew there was widespread support for a retirement age of around 85 and some tweaks, as we have heard. There was widespread support for removing the minority of Peers who never turn up or turn up so infrequently that their contribution to the House is not essential. A couple of speeches per annum from a grandee who never serves on a committee nor does any of the other heavy lifting in this House does not, in my opinion, justify attendance. That is why I support Amendment 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, which we will deal with next week.
There is also limited support for a participation requirement, but that is much more difficult and technical and would require a lot of Peers to give thoughtful consideration as to how it would work.
I say to my noble friend Lord Hamilton that I, too, do not like our retirement age, but the Government have said that one of the justifications for the Bill is that there are too many Peers and they have got to reduce the size of the Lords. Therefore, a sensible retirement age is a far more moral and legitimate way to do it than evicting hard-working hereditaries.
On the first two points, on retirements and attendance, I believe there is a majority view in the House that we should do something about it. I believe that view is just as strong on the Labour side. I think Labour Peers want to act on it, but they accept the government line that there cannot be any amendments on this issue since that would open up the Bill to all other amendments. In Committee, the Government said they needed to consult on it, but now they have suggested that a Select Committee do that consultation and all the heavy work and then they will bring forward a new Bill in due course to implement those requirements on minimum attendance, participation requirements and possibly even tightening up the removal of disgraced Members. Today, we have seen a masterful stroke from the Leader in her opening remarks, offering this special Select Committee to look at these matters.
But, if this House and a Select Committee come up with solutions, does anyone seriously think the Government will implement them? I will give way to any noble Lord or Lady who will say that they are absolutely confident that this Government or any Government in the future will bring forward new primary legislation on changes to the composition of this House. I do not think it will ever happen. Any new primary Bill will be subject to getting all the amendments which have been tabled for this Bill. I suspect the Public Bill Office would even accept amendments—because they are quite wide-ranging—on the reintroduction of hereditary Peers, which we would debate for days on end. It is far too dangerous for any Government. With the pressure on the Government over the next few years with all the legislation proposed, I do not see it happening.
My amendment says that we need to build in a mechanism to introduce any changes this House wants to make in a tightly constrained statutory instrument. That is the guts of my Amendment 14. I say to government Peers in particular that there is nothing in my amendment which sabotages the thrust of the Bill to get rid of hereditaries, utterly wrong though I think that is. My amendment would not open up the Bill to a myriad of other amendments. It simply says that, if a resolution of this House establishes or changes the age at which Peers must retire or imposes a minimum attendance level or a participation requirement, then the Government must, within 12 months, implement that resolution by laying a draft SI first.
I envisage it working as follows. On retirement, for example, this House would set up a special committee of the great and the good and try to thrash out a retirement regime. It may take us 12 months, two years or we might never agree on it. If we came up with something, it would come before this House as a resolution. If we approved it, the Government would have to implement it within 12 months in an SI. I trust the Government not to change it.
If, hypothetically, we set a retirement age of 85 with various tweaks, no Government will change that to 80 or 90. If they do, we will simply vote it down and be right to do so. I suggest that the same procedure would apply to the other things of participation or attendance. There would be no obligation on this House to create these regimes and resolutions. We may decide, for whatever reasons, not to do some of them because it is too difficult.
I conclude by stating that the majority mood in this House is that we want to make some changes, especially on retirements and attendance. We cannot do it in this Bill for the reasons I set out, and I strongly believe that we will not get another bit of primary legislation to do it either.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that we can do it through orders. But my amendment says that we may need to amend the following Acts of Parliament: this Bill itself when it is passed, the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That is not my whim; it was the advice of the Public Bill Office. It may or may not be right, but I do not think that in Standing Orders we can amend an Act of Parliament; therefore, we need an SI to be able to do it.
I am old and ugly enough to be cynical about what the Government suggest here. Lords Select Committees are brilliant because they are excellent and come up with brilliant solutions. But let us be clear that there may be a danger that the report is so long, and may cover other things, that the Government will decide that they need to consult on it further or not implement it immediately. Let me take the Leader at her word; she is a thoroughly honourable and noble lady.
If the Select Committee is to be the way forward, at Third Reading I will put down a revised version of this amendment, so that when the Lords special Select Committee reports and makes recommendations on retirement, attendance or participation, the Government must introduce an SI implementing them. Nothing else—keep it that simple. If the Lords Select Committee is the answer, an SI implementing its conclusions is the solution. What could be wrong with that? That is the only way to get the reform we want through in an expeditious time.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded your Lordships’ House about the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the legislation that removed the majority of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. He gave an assurance from that Dispatch Box that the remaining hereditaries would not be removed until stage 2 of reform of your Lordships’ House was in place. He was asked what weight could be given to that assurance—what credence could be placed on it—and he told your Lordships’ House that it was a “matter of honour”. He could have said that the assurance would last only for 25 years, but he did not. He could have said that it would last only until a Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to remove the remaining hereditaries from your Lordships’ House, but he did not. He said neither of those things. He said it was a matter of honour.
Earlier today, in our very first debate, the Leader, for whom I have a great deal of respect, gave your Lordships assurances about the future from that same Dispatch Box. I have no doubt that she gave your Lordships those assurances in good faith. But if any noble Lords were just a tiny bit sceptical about the durability of those assurances, they might perhaps be forgiven in the light of what happened to the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If it helps the noble Lord, I think he is talking about some 25 years ago. I am talking about a rather shorter period of time —a matter of months—to set up a Select Committee. He might be reassured by that, because I am not likely to forget that in a matter of three months.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I was not talking about those assurances; I was talking about the assurances the noble Baroness gave in our first debate about the durability of the status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is not my assurance; it is the assurance from the House of Lords Commission, from Members of all parties across the House.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I dare say, but the noble Baroness repeated those assurances from the Government, from that Dispatch Box, and that carries as much or as little weight as the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the original legislation.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, much of the debate on the Bill has focused on what should be in it, rather than what is in it. Amendments 8, 14 and 29 seek to bind the Government into a timed programme of further reform after this Bill has passed.
In Committee I tabled an amendment to the effect that shortly after the Bill is passed, a time-limited group within the House be formed to hammer out not just the definition but the real application in practice of a participation requirement, and my amendment received wide support across the House. I have not brought it back today because, on reflection, it is a matter that might be best addressed internally in this self-regulating House, rather than included in this Bill and sent to the Commons to alter, block or tamper with it—much as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was saying during debate on the last group, as indeed echoed by the Minister. That is why I no longer support amendments that seek to bind the Government to producing legislation about further reform, and I am encouraged by the idea of a Select Committee, which has become such a wide topic of discussion today.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I too support the idea of a Select Committee that has been proposed by the Leader of the House: I think this is a very good way forward. I therefore very much support my noble friend Lord Blencathra because, as he says, we need a way to implement the recommendations of that committee. All my experience in this House, and doubtless that of many other people too, is that the other place is extremely reluctant to embark on legislation regarding this House. I would not expect us to get the offer of another Bill for a decade or two. To give ourselves in this Bill the power to move forward seems basically sensible. If we are to have a committee, let us make it a potent committee, not an impotent one.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that we can do that of our own volition. Given the difficulties that we had in having to go to primary legislation to give ourselves the right to have basic disciplinary procedures in this House, I am not aware of any evidence that we actually have the power of our own volition to change the sort of things being considered for the Select Committee. I would be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Newby, could outline what he thinks our powers are and on what he bases that understanding, because if indeed we have them, that would be an encouraging and simplifying approach. Depending on what the Minister says, I very much hope that my noble friend, when we come to it next week, will press his amendment to a vote.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Lucas has just said. I support in principle Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, but I think he is rather timid. If he believes in substantive reform of your Lordships’ House, he should table an amendment to achieve that now. Surely he knows that, as my noble friend Lord Lucas has just suggested, there is no real chance of further reform of your Lordships’ House being seriously proposed during the current Parliament.
I do not want to irritate the Minister but, however many times I read the Labour Party manifesto, I do not believe that it suggests there will be three stages of Lords reform—as the noble Baroness has argued on several occasions. I am afraid that I do not agree that it was quite clear in the manifesto that there would be three stages. Any rational person reading the Labour Party manifesto would understand that it proposes two stages. This Bill seeks to achieve only one of six measures which the manifesto proposed as part of a single “action to modernise” your Lordships’ House. Those words I repeat from the manifesto.
If the Labour Party had clearly stated in its manifesto that there would be three stages of reform, of which the first would be the removal of all those who entered the House as hereditary Peers, and nothing else, it would have been strongly criticised across the media. It would have been seen as discriminatory to treat some members of a body of people doing the same job with the same rights in a different manner from others.
I am most surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for whom I have always had the highest regard, believes that the amendment to which she has added her name would lead to further substantive reform. If she really believes in a more democratic House, which has been the firm policy of her party for decades, her best chance of achieving it would be to work together with others to amend the Bill. I had hoped that the noble Baroness might see the value in tabling an amendment similar to Amendment 6, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas in Committee, and Amendment 8, which I tabled, to retain 90 Peers who are elected in some sense but to “de-hereditise” them. We could thereby avoid moving to an all-appointed House. We could retain the sand in the shoe, but on a more open and democratic basis. I would suggest 20 for the Cross Benches and 70 for the principal party blocs, to be allocated based on the average number of votes cast in the last three general elections.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm which amendment in this group he is addressing?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
I am addressing Amendment 8 and addressing the general debate on the group. I am about to conclude my remarks, if the noble Baroness will allow me.
It would have been a nod to PR and, in terms of numbers, it would benefit the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, but it would be less devastating to these Benches than the effects of the Bill as it stands at present. Leaving aside the complications that are presented by the national parties of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—which can of course be solved—the “three elections’ average votes” formula would produce 29 Conservatives, 27 Labour, eight Liberal Democrats and three each for Reform and the Greens.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my name to Amendment 8, so ably moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who has contributed so much to the work of this House, as have so many other noble Lords who happen to be hereditary Peers and whose tremendous and dedicated contributions to this House will be removed by this Bill. This amendment is deliberately not prescriptive, but seeks to ensure that this Bill will not simply represent “job done” in terms of House of Lords reform. This Bill will not improve the effectiveness and value added of this House. It will leave a net loss.
I think we all agree that we need to reduce the numbers in this House and that we would like to modernise it and improve its effectiveness and efficiency, but if this is all we do, it will not leave our House in a better place—and there is further reform. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, expelling the seasoned and the good, rather than those who do not turn up or the underperformers, will not add value. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, talked about participation being particularly important. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to reassure us that this will not be the end of the matter and that there will be further reform to improve on a net-net basis the composition and effectiveness of this House.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion. In some ways it ran over from the previous group, I rather thought. There were some very important points raised and I do not think the House in any way—I will come back to it—should underestimate the challenge, which is in no way a challenge to any individual. It is a challenge to the realities of power and the exigencies and priorities of government that was put out by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, which are also intrinsic to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Duke.
I said earlier today that I feel that we on this side have been very emollient in this long process and that we have made many efforts to reach accord and not to obstruct this legislation. So far, there has been little in return. Continuing on that track, I have to say, in the light of what I said earlier, which I meant, speaking with the authority of the Leader, as Leader, that I cannot support, much as I understand his motives, the amendment from my noble friend Lord Hailsham that would effectively seek to delay the implementation of this legislation, which I think is better now, as it was amended by the House earlier. It is defective in the sense that it is not a full reform, but I think that the amendment proposed by my noble friend would, because of all the conditionalities in it, potentially lead to a very lengthy delay in the implementation of the legislation, and I think that may lead us into paths of conflict that might not necessarily lead to the most fruitful outcome. But I do understand exactly the point that he is making and that others have made.
As far as the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blencathra is concerned, I think the House was not only entertained but hugely illuminated by the many amendments that my noble friend brought forward in Committee. He raised an enormous number of points of thought. He has not brought back many on Report, but I think he is in a sense offering us a bridge to make some of those things possible. Again, I understand where he is coming from. It is not really for me, but for others in this House, but I doubt his aspiration that he could bring forward an amendment at Third Reading in the manner that he hinted at, because the normal expectation of the House is that that happens when the Minister says that they are prepared to have a discussion on the thing.
The methodology that my noble friend has proposed is ingenious, and the Leader of the House, who is emollient and inclusive, may well say that she is prepared to discuss this mechanism with him. If so, he could do that, but if not, my noble friend, between now and when we reach his amendment, which I think will be on the second day, may have to reflect on the way forward.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, once again, we have had a wide-ranging and very helpful debate. I can think of no other legislation before this House or the other place where there is more interest in what the next piece of legislation will be than there is in the current piece of legislation. Nevertheless, I will do my best to help noble Lords.
First, I am grateful to the noble Duke, because he has had discussions with me on a number of occasions, and I know his commitment to reform. I will come to his amendment as well. Where I would depart from him is that he wants something brought forward within the next two years; I would like to move more quickly. His amendment does not specify any detail of what should be in the reform, as he said. It compels the Government to lay before Parliament further legislation within two years of a Bill receiving Royal Assent. I know he is seeking to provide latitude in his amendment and trying to be helpful. I do not think the amendment necessarily does what he intends it to do, because it depends on the length of the Parliament and when the next King’s Speech will be. He will also know that no Minister will ever commit to, or hint at, what will be in the next King’s Speech or the one after that. The assurance I can give him, as I have said, is an absolute determination to deal with these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seemed very welcoming of a Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord True, seems more sceptical. I do not know what the Select Committee will say. I have heard noble Lords say, “It’ll make so much fuss out of this”, and, “It’ll take so long that you will never get another Bill to reform the House of Lords”. That is an irresponsible attitude to take. I want to see further reform. I am determined that we make progress on these issues. The reason why I have proposed a Select Committee—it is up to the House if it wishes to take advantage of it—is so that there is an opportunity for the House to come to a decision on the particular issues.
I look at these things in bite-sized chunks, because I think that is how we best make progress. Those two issues are stage 2, which I think is quite clear in the manifesto, but perhaps those of us who helped draft it were not as clear as we thought we were. I think it is quite clear. There has also been increased consensus around this House during the debate that Members want action on participation, attendance and retirement. If the House is serious about wanting that and can come to a conclusion on it then that will certainly make it much easier to take legislation forward, because we will have an agreed view.
The noble Lord is right; I would have those discussions with my colleagues. I would expect the House of Commons to listen carefully to what this House has to say to any reasonable proposals within the bounds of our manifesto. I would also ask the Select Committee to look at what is possible, and if it is possible—it may not be; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right that, until a committee has legal advice, it cannot be absolutely certain—to take action more quickly without legislation or prior to legislation. I think that would apply in particular to the issue of participation. I think that would be welcomed.
That does not rule out the opportunity of legislation. However, the best way to get legislation through is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested, through very long amendments, and lots of different suggestions and options. If we have a clear view, then that will give us a really good opportunity to get some legislation through on a focused Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I was not suggesting a long-winded series of amendments. I merely suggested a short SI to implement whatever the Lords recommend. If a Select Committee is going to recommend things around retirement and participation, can she not just use an SI to implement it rather than new legislation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s impatience; I was going to come to that point, so bear with me. Part of my problem with his amendment—I have not quite finished dealing with the noble Duke’s amendment—although I fully agree with his direction of travel and intention, is that I am not too comfortable with removing the role of this House. I think there is real benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said earlier, in that the best people to do some of this work are Members of this House—obviously taking advice as any committee sees fit. I am keen that we should do that.
If that does not work, then there is still legislation. We still have the option and the manifesto commitment, but I think it is easier and quicker to get something through if we have a settled view from this House. If we can do things without legislation or prior to legislation then we should do so to move quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is nothing if not inventive. I have always admired his ingenuity, but he will know as a former Deputy Chief Whip in the other place—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I apologise; I was demoting him. He was a Chief Whip, so he should know even better that a Third Reading amendment is brought back only if the Minister offers to keep something open at Third Reading. I will tell noble Lords why I cannot do that on his amendment. I will be very clear about this. We had a discussion earlier and spoke about the problems of legislation by SI and Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord proposes, within his way of working, that we should take decisions on quite serious and important issues by SI. It is inventive and it is a way he would want to do it, but I do not think a simple resolution such as that is the appropriate way forward. It would also give the other place the opportunity to reject it as well; I do not think that is appropriate. The existing mechanisms or primary legislation would be a better way forward.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has been very thoughtful throughout this debate. His amendment stipulates that the next stage of reform requires, among other things, changing the appointments process to limit the discretion of the Prime Minister and party leaders. We have already discussed that, and I think the House made its view clear on the previous vote, so I do not want to repeat the same arguments. As I have said before, we are committed to strengthening and clarifying the roles and responsibilities in the appointments process, which we discussed earlier.
The noble Viscount also talked about term limits and a size cap on the House. As I have said before, the Government’s preference is for a retirement age. That is something, along with participation, that a committee of this House could look at. His amendment does, in effect, deal with the size of the House, which is a very important issue. I am afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, went way beyond some of the issues we are discussing here, but I noted the comments that he made.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Does the caveat that she has just entered about future Parliaments apply to the assurances she gave on behalf of the Government from that Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon on the future status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It does not, because that is not the legislation we are talking about. That is a decision of this House, and I find it very difficult to understand why anybody would want to change that position in this House. I have faith in your Lordships’ House, so it does not apply, and I think the commission has said that in relation to those officeholders and future officeholders as well. If, at some point in the future, this House took a different decision, I would oppose it very strongly—I think it would be totally the wrong decision, and I find it impossible to consider that it would happen. But when it comes to legislation, it is the case that one Parliament does not bind another. Indeed, I think his party has changed its mind on the Grocott Bill from the last Parliament to this one, so we do see changes as we move forward.
My impression is that, as the noble Duke has said, the House wants to make progress as a matter of urgency. None of us knows our longevity in any position or any place, but we are talking about a very short space of time. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised this issue with me. I would have thought that a Select Committee could be up and running very soon after Royal Assent. The normal Select Committee rules would apply. I think the terms of reference are quite clear: there are two specific issues. I understand what other Members have said about the need to broaden this out, but the danger there is that we do not get anywhere —which has happened time and again. The House has to make a decision: does it wish to make further progress or not? I think and hope it does. I want to, and I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have contributed comments on my Amendment 8. I must admit that I have not quite persuaded the Leader to go as far as I had hoped she might, but I have to accept—and I know that she spoke in total good faith—that it is her intention that we should carry out further reforms. She believes the best way to do it is through a Select Committee, which, as she just said, could be prior or leading to legislation, and I must take her words as she just stated them. I hope that all her government colleagues sitting next to her on the Bench have heard what she said—including, if I am not mistaken, the Attorney-General, which is very good.
So I thank the Leader again for her efforts to move to where I hoped she would be, with a categorical assurance that there would be a second Bill. She certainly tried and, in that spirit, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“Lord ChancellorIn the case of any person who holds the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain who is not currently a member of the House of Lords, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the person be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Lord Chancellor is a member of the House of Lords, as was the case for over two centuries leading up to the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that so many of your Lordships have remained in the Chamber for this particular amendment. I rise to move this amendment with due deference to successive Lord Chancellors, albeit I take no position as to their past suitability. This may appear to be a slight amendment, but it serves a serious purpose. There was a time when Lord Chancellors provided an authoritative senior legally qualified voice in Cabinet, as well as undertaking duties in your Lordships’ House. Today the post has been changed significantly, and of course we have had a number of Lords Chancellor who have not been lawyers.
I tabled this amendment to explore further the possible benefits of returning to the position where the Lord Chancellor sat in your Lordships’ House. My amendment is not, as I say, seeking to look backward. We of course should look forward to the contributions that future Lord Chancellors could make, not only in Cabinet but to your Lordships’ House.
Although we may not be able to return to the position before the role of Lord Chancellor was changed under the last Labour Government, we can place the role of Lord Chancellor on the same level of status as it previously held. If, as was discussed in Committee, the office of Lord Chancellor was to be seen once again as what might be termed a “destination” appointment, rather than one held by a politician on their progress through the Cabinet, we might gain a great deal.
I suggested in Committee that the Lord Chancellor, newly restored to your Lordships’ House, could also serve as a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and thus as a guardian of our constitution. We lack that guardianship today, with responsibility for the constitution being divided between various government departments, without any clear insight as to who is responsible finally for important constitutional decisions.
The Bill is liable to set a dangerous constitutional precedent, and I wonder whether a distinguished Lord Chancellor in your Lordships’ House who was entrusted with the guardianship of our constitution and was sitting at the Cabinet table, might have offered a sage warning to the Government about the potential challenge that Bills such as this can present to our constitutional order. It is in these circumstances that I beg to move.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief, because this is the fifth time I have spoken on this topic. The first time I spoke, when I advanced the proposition that the Lord Chancellor should come back to this House, Lord Judge—whom I think we all miss very much—inquired in that very gentle way of his whether I was making a job application on the Floor of the House of Lords. I confirmed that I was not and I declare the same non-interest in this speech today.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie has made clear, the position of Lord Chancellor occupies a distinct role in our constitution. The Lord Chancellor is still the only Cabinet Minister who takes a distinct oath to uphold the rule of law, and while the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and I have had some interesting debates about what is and what is not constituted within the term “the rule of law”, it is an important—indeed, a fundamental—part of our constitution, and I think it is undeniable that in moving the Lord Chancellor away from this House and allowing the position of Lord Chancellor to be held by a Member of the House of Commons, for whom, as my noble and learned friend indicated, it might be an intermediate station stop on a ministerial career, rather than a grand terminus, I think we have lost something.
We have also changed the position of Lord Chief Justice, because while formerly the Lord Chancellor was the person who would speak up for judges, that role now falls to the Lord—or now the Lady—Chief Justice. While there have been some excellent holders of that post—the current holder is particularly excellent —it is unfortunate that we have, in part, turned that post into something of a shop steward for the judges, whereas in the past they had a member of the Cabinet around the Cabinet table, speaking up for judges, for justice and for the rule of law.
I also think, finally, that there is considerable merit in what my noble and learned friend said about the Lord Chancellor heading a small but focused department. One could even call it the Department for Constitutional Affairs: I seem to remember that name being used in the past. That department could have responsibility for the rule of law, for devolution, for civil liberties, for treaties and for human rights—the very things that keep our society the sort of society that we want it to be. These things should not change; they should not come and go with Governments. Frankly, under the last Government as well, we had too many Secretaries of State for Justice, because it was treated as a Cabinet position like any other, but the reason it is treated as a Cabinet position like any other is because that is essentially what the 2005 Act did.
I do not want to go back. We cannot go back to the status quo ante, or to a situation where the Lord Chancellor was a Cabinet Minister and a judge and occupied the Woolsack here; but we can identify that there is something about the role of the Lord Chancellor that is different from all other Cabinet Ministers. For those reasons, I have put my name to this amendment, and I support it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it may be helpful if I inform your Lordships’ House that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General also took an oath to uphold the rule of law when he took office.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The point I was trying to make is that I think—the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General may correct me—that he took an oath because he wanted to. I think the only one that is based in statute is the Lord Chancellor’s. That is the point I was making.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
That is correct, but I think it is important to note that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General chose to because he views that as part of his role.
Amendment 10, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, seeks to ensure that the Lord Chancellor is always a Member of the House of Lords rather than of the other place. It is the same amendment tabled previously by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who, as ever, made an effective and articulate argument for the change, but, with the greatest respect, as my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said in the previous debate on this matter, the amendment is more focused on unpicking the constitutional settlement agreed in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and recasting the role of Lord Chancellor as it currently stands than it is on the principle of the Bill before us. The noble and learned Lord made his case with his customary eloquence, but the Government are not persuaded of the constitutional or policy rationale for a return to the 2005 decision.
The 2005 Act rightly ended the mixing of the Executive and the judiciary, and this is not something that this Government wish to reverse. The amendment would, in effect, bind the hands of the Prime Minister over whom he can appoint to be Lord Chancellor, excluding Members of the other place from holding this role. This is unnecessarily restrictive. It would also have the practical effect of forcing the Prime Minister to appoint a new Lord Chancellor, either by appointing a new Peer to this place, choosing an existing Peer or triggering a by-election so as to appoint the present Lord Chancellor to your Lordships’ House.
As my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said in Committee, the Constitution Committee noted that
“character, intellect and a commitment to the rule of law”
are the most important qualities of a Lord Chancellor. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor demonstrates these qualities in abundance, and the House she sits in does not hinder her from discharging her duties as Lord Chancellor. This amendment does nothing to safeguard such qualities in the role of the Lord Chancellor.
I am surprised that the Official Opposition have raised the creation of a department for constitutional affairs; they had 14 years in which to create such a department if they had chosen to do so, yet they did not. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said that the Lord Chancellor should be in charge of a department for constitutional affairs. Such machinery of government changes are of course a matter for the Prime Minister, not for this Bill. Since the creation of the Ministry of Justice in 2007, different Government departments have seen value in a single officeholder having a more holistic oversight of the justice system, by virtue of their responsibility for prisons and probation, as well as for courts and tribunals.
I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I am most obliged for the Minister’s contribution. The amendment proposed is of course within the scope of the Bill. The concept of the Lord Chancellor being a Member of this House did seem to work for rather more than 200 years without any real difficulty. Indeed, the difficulties that we have faced around constitutional affairs have emerged since 2005, and as a consequence of those changes.
Nevertheless, having regard to the hour, I will not seek to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“No majority for one party in the House of LordsAfter section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958, insert—“1A No majority for one party in the House of Lords(1) An appointment may not be made to the House of Lords if it would have the effect of taking the total number of peers from parties forming part of the Government to more than 40% of the total members of that House. (2) If at any time the number of peers from parties forming part of the Government exceeds 40% of the total members of the House of Lords, no appointments to the parties forming part of the Government may be made until that number is reduced below 40% either by resignation, new appointments or leave of absence.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the unfettered power of Prime Ministers to make appointments to the House of Lords.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, when considering the future of this House, one of the most important parts is what the relative proportions of the parties should be. The Government, when in opposition, quite rightly complained about our habit of adding Conservative Peers well beyond the point that would ordinarily have been considered acceptable.
If this House is to have a long-term future, we must get away from the idea that the Prime Minister can tip us over any day he wants just by appointing a lot of new Peers. We must have a degree of solidity in our independence. During all my time here, there has been a recognition that we should have a rough balance between the Government and the Opposition, with the Cross Benches holding the balance. As a concept, that has worked well, although it has been very hard to hold to it, given the actual appointments of Peers. I very much hope that this will be an area that the noble Baroness’s committee will cover. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I appreciate that, at this late hour, there will be a keenness for everyone to go, but I want to remind the House of its history in opposing amendments such as that proposed by the noble Lord.
One has to remember that, without the right of the Prime Minister exercising the royal prerogative, we would not have had the Parliament Acts and, perhaps more importantly, we would not have had the Great Reform Act 1832. It was because of the royal prerogative and the ability of the Prime Minister to appoint Peers that we were able to move forward to our current democratic state.
I will quote from the debates that took place in this House—but of course not in this Chamber. Speaking from the Opposition Benches, the Earl of Winchilsea
“said, he suffered a pain of mind greater than he could express in thinking that he had lived to that hour to witness the downfall of his country. That night would close the first act of the fatal and bloody tragedy. It would close the existence of that House”—
the House of Lords—
“as one branch of the Legislature, for its independence, which was its brightest ornament, had fallen, and without that independence it might be considered as having ceased to exist”.—[Official Report, 4/6/1832; col. 349.]
Well, we still have the Earls of Winchilsea on the Opposition Benches forecasting total catastrophe from this move towards a more democratic House. Earl Grey, the Prime Minister—at a time when the Prime Minister was in this House—said in response that
“if the House of Commons should, after their Lordships rejecting, for a second time, a Bill sent up from that House, persist in asserting the opinion expressed by it with reference to that Bill, and that it should appear that in the event of an appeal to the country, it was not probable that another House of Commons would be chosen less zealous for Reform, then, in his mind, the emergency had arrived which would justify that exercise of the prerogative by which only a serious collision between the two Houses could be prevented”.—[Official Report, 4/6/1832; col. 362.]
I think the point persists almost 200 years later that the right of the Prime Minister to subject this House to the appointment of Peers is part of the process by which we achieve our present democratic freedoms, which I think would be a great loss to the country as a whole.
My promise, when I was appointed to this House by the leader of the Labour Party, was to vote for the abolition of this House, and I am still of that opinion—the sooner the better. Unfortunately, in making the promise I was not told exactly what should replace the House, but I am in favour of abolition and I think the power of the Prime Minister and the royal prerogative are important and certainly should not be lost, because we would end up with either a fully democratic House—which I oppose, because of its effect on the Commons—or this House, which is subject to democratic control through the Prime Minister.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but important debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing the House’s attention once again to an unavoidable consequence of this legislation. We are heading towards a fully appointed House, with all the appointments made by the Prime Minister. I appreciate that political parties nominate, but the ability to decide the number and timing of appointments rests solely with the Prime Minister. It is therefore of some concern that the Prime Minister, with such powers of patronage, is attempting to remove more than 80 parliamentarian opponents through the Bill.
We will have a debate—another one—on the size of the House next week, so I will not comment specifically on numbers at this point. However, when the Lord Privy Seal spoke on this amendment in Committee, she was critical of the “We have the numbers and can get this through” approach that she felt previous Governments had taken, and encouraged the House of Lords to adopt a more deliberative approach. That is exactly the approach that we are seeking to take with this Bill and others, and we should not be criticised for doing so.
Having heard me speak in the HOLAC debate, noble Lords will be aware of my views on retaining the discretion that Prime Ministers have to appoint the Peers they wish to appoint. But my noble friend Lord Lucas is right to bring back this important issue of the balance between the parties and to seek further assurances about the responsibility of the Prime Minister to behave reasonably.
I am sure that the current Prime Minister will continue to do so, and I hope that this amendment will never be necessary, but legislation should seek to look to the future and anticipate that future Prime Ministers might not behave in such an appropriate way in terms of appointments. It is a shame that we find ourselves in this position, but I look forward to hearing the Leader’s response.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I listened to the noble Baroness with increasing incredulity. Even she had a smile on her face as she came up with some of that. I thank my noble friend for his points. In terms of history, he did not go back nearly as far as many other Members of the House have this evening, but it is always worth looking back at the Great Reform Act 1832 and what was achieved for this country by that legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I are very much of the same mind on this one, but I do not agree with his mechanism for getting there. He talked earlier about the relative proportions of the House. He is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about the Cross Benches. This is probably about right. But to put into legislation a proportion for just one group of the whole House is not necessarily talking about relative proportions. I know that he understands that. I stand by previous comments that I have made. This House works at its best when both parties have roughly equal numbers. This depends very much on the normal conventions applying and the way the House operates, but that is when the House does its best work.
The noble Baroness talked about “holding the noble Baroness to that kind of view”. I remind her of the last Government’s actions on this. Even with this Bill, the Government will comprise only 28% of your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason for that is that when we left office in 2010, we had 25 more Members of the House than the Conservative Party; I used these figures earlier in the debate. At the end of the parliamentary Session before the election, before we came into office, there were over 100 more Members of the Conservative Government than of my party. That does not serve this House well.
The noble Baroness is right that I said that the House should be more deliberative. That is when the House does its best work. A couple of weeks after I became Leader of the Opposition, about 10 years ago, I was in Victoria Street having a pizza when I got word that Jacob Rees-Mogg, as Leader of the House of Commons, had issued a statement that he intended to appoint 100 Members to this House to force the Brexit legislation through. That is not in the best interests of this House. He did not do it in the end.
I stand by the House being more deliberative in its approach. Members should be more active, participate properly and not just turn up to vote when they have not been around and participating in the work of the House. There is a better way forward on this. Even if the party opposite has come to this lately, I genuinely welcome that conversion. We should operate in a more collaborative way. I agree about the relative proportions, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, but I ask him respectfully to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Does the Leader intend this to be a subject for her Select Committee?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not think so, not directly. However, if the committee is looking at retirement and participation, we would want to ensure that, post any decisions that it takes and actions that this House might take on legislation, we maintain a balance around the House. It would be completely inappropriate to say, “This group is losing more than that group”, and for any party to use that as a way to gain a political advantage. Maintaining the proportions must always be in the minds of the Government and the Opposition, and I would ensure that.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“Removal of peers with a criminal convictionAny peer convicted of a criminal offence on indictment ceases to be a member of the House of Lords within seven days of the conviction, or the loss of appeal if the peer appeals the conviction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to ensure that peers who have committed a serious offence are removed from the House, using an indictable offence to provide a clear threshold.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I have shortened my remarks, hoping that we could crack this by midnight, but it may be five past midnight before we finish. My Amendment 12 states simply:
“Any peer convicted of a criminal offence on indictment ceases to be a member of the House of Lords within seven days of the conviction, or the loss of appeal if the peer appeals the conviction”.
Noble Lords will say, “So what? We already have in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 a power to remove Peers if convicted of a serious offence”. However, that kicks only in if the Peer has been sentenced to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or sentenced to more than one year in prison; nor does it apply if that sentence is suspended.
However, the Labour manifesto did say that Labour would strengthen
“the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.
I am looking forward to hearing exactly what that means. Surely it is talking about Peers who have committed a criminal offence, or is it suggesting that we will permanently remove Peers who have had to apologise for inappropriate or “un-woke” comments—which might also be considered disgraceful?
Where my amendment, to use the Government’s own words, strengthens
“the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”
is that it would remove all Peers who are convicted of an indictable offence—which are, of course, the most serious ones—irrespective of the length of prison sentence they get. Nor would I permit Peers to stay just because the sentence is suspended. In my opinion, if a Peer is found guilty of an indictable offence, he is guilty and should be removed irrespective of whether the sentence has been suspended. I beg to move.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, this is a short but focused amendment, which rightly addresses the issue of standards and trust in our House. Ultimately, this House rests on its integrity and reputation.
As my noble friend mentioned, the Labour Party’s manifesto committed to
“ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them”,
and went on to say that they would do that by,
“strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed”.
During the debate we had on 12 November last year, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie asked the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal why the Government were delaying their manifesto commitment to strengthen the circumstances in which disgraced Members could be removed. I have to say that a good reason was not provided. The only reason provided was the oft-repeated statement that the only way reform will be achieved is to do it in pieces. Obviously, we have heard that a number of times.
Although I accept that the precise way this House works is not the common currency in the Dog and Duck, and that people do not talk about it around the country, I suspect that the one thing people everywhere around the country would expect is that lawbreakers should not be lawmakers, and that if you break the law and you are convicted, you should not continue to sit in Parliament. That is the short point at the heart of this amendment. It is already the case, of course, that if you are convicted and you have your liberty taken away from you then you lose your right to be here. To that extent, this amendment is only therefore an extension of that principle.
I accept that there were discussions across the Dispatch Box and there was a general understanding that some complexities were involved; the noble Baroness also told us that there would be “further dialogue”. As it is now just after midnight and we come to the end of the first day on Report, can the Lord Privy Seal update us on the extent of that further dialogue and what the Government’s plans are in this regard? If the Government do not have anything really focused in this area, having thought about it, it might well be that my noble friend’s amendment is the way to go.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
To reassure noble Lords, the Government remain committed to strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed. Our position on this amendment has not changed, not least given that it is not a matter for the Bill.
It may be helpful to the House if I briefly set out the current arrangements regarding expulsion. There are two routes of suspension. At the moment, under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, a Member of the House ceases to be a Member if the Lord Speaker certifies that they are convicted of a serious offence—that is, they are convicted of a criminal offence and given a non-suspended prison sentence of more than a year.
Where a Member receives a prison sentence but not one long enough to engage the 2014 Act, the provisions of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 and Standing Orders will be engaged. Under these, a Member who has received a prison sentence of any length is deemed to have breached the Code of Conduct and may be referred to the Conduct Committee, which in turn may recommend a sanction up to and including expulsion from the House. The current statutory framework is a tightly bound one, where only Peers who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment can be subject to the sanction of suspension, either on an automatic basis or by engaging the 2015 Act and the provisions in Standing Orders.
The noble Lord’s amendment, in setting the threshold at indictment, would have the effect of bringing into scope a much wider array of offences with significantly varying degrees of seriousness and sentencing. I would question whether that is necessarily the appropriate threshold for expulsion and whether this sanction should not be reserved for the most serious of offences.
The Government are committed to ensuring that those who work in public life maintain high standards of ethics and propriety, not just in this House, but across all public servants and officeholders.
As the House will be aware, the Conduct Committee has only recently concluded its review of the Code of Conduct, which made several recommendations relating to the process following a Peer being convicted of a criminal offence. Therefore, it would be right for the House to allow these changes to bed in before considering what further changes may be needed. But we are open to the idea of pursuing this further in the Conduct Committee.
Given that the hour is late, I plan on finishing my comments there, but I am happy to continue discussions outside your Lordships’ House on this area. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I do not think the Minister answered the question of my noble friend. What do the Government have in mind when they talk about strengthening the ways of getting rid of disgraced Members? What sort of offences would those be?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am ever so sorry: I thought I had answered the question. We are working with the Conduct Committee to bed in what has just been changed and to see if further change is required after we have seen whether the most recent changes have worked.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. In view of what she has said, let us hope that the changes that the Conduct Committee has proposed are effective. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.