Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the main business, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our thanks and best wishes to Colin Lee, who retires today as Clerk of Legislation after 37 years’ service to the House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Colin has combined his formidable procedural brain with a modernising flair, such as the work he oversaw in the Select Committee Team to ensure that all colleagues are treated with respect and have access to fruitful career paths. He is a highly valued colleague, and I am very grateful to him for the sage advice he has given to me personally over the years. On behalf of the House, I would like to thank Colin for his long and distinguished service, and wish Colin and Brenda all the best for a long and happy retirement.
I would just share with the House that Colin’s favourite biscuits are Penguins, but he could never get the jokes right.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Mr Speaker, it is nice to be back on my old beat.
This Government inherited a record courts backlog. We have taken immediate action by funding a record high allocation of 110,000 Crown court sitting days this year. Fundamental reform is of course necessary, which is why the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold reforms, which we are now considering.
Josh Newbury
I recently had the chance to visit my local magistrates court in Cannock, and I was told that a major barrier to ramping up the number of sitting days in both magistrates and Crown courts is the lack of legal advisers. I am told that many are leaving the Crown Prosecution Service because the pay is often better elsewhere, but that means having to cut back on sitting times. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Ministry is taking to increase the number of legal advisers in our courts?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will be pleased that we are recruiting more legal advisers and we are increasing capacity in the system. He is right that magistrates courts particularly are the bedrock of the system, which is why I was so appalled that the previous Government cut back our magistrates courts so extensively. It is important that we support our magistrates to do their very important work.
Dr Savage
Crown courtrooms are sitting empty for up to 75% of the time. Judges used to be booking in trials three to six months into the future, but now they are booking well into 2027 or even into 2028, which is to save the cost of bringing in a recorder at £830 a day. However, these cases still need to be tried at some point, so that is not actually saving costs, just deferring them. In the meantime, there is a terrible impact on complainants, and in fact on justice itself. What will the Secretary of State do to clear this backlog and ensure that cases come to trial?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady is completely right. Victims must see justice being done in real time. That is why we asked Brian Leveson to do the second part of his review, on efficiencies, which goes to the heart of her question.
Liz Twist
Some cases are now being listed for 2029, which is completely unacceptable. How is the Secretary of State undoing the harm inflicted by the Conservative party not only on the justice system but to trust that justice will be found?
Mr Lammy
The inheritance from the previous Government was shocking, and at the heart of it were victims suffering. What we are doing is increasing the number of sitting days, which is hugely important, and I was very pleased to meet the Lady Chief Justice last week to discuss what more we can do. To ensure that we deal with that terrible inheritance, we will of course get on and implement the Leveson review.
John Glen
I wish the right hon. Gentleman the very best in his new appointment, but he is presiding over a complicated system, in which, today, 74 out of 516 Crown courtrooms are empty. Will he comment on that, and on when the second part of the Leveson report will come into effect so that we know when action will be taken on the greater complexity that is yet to be evaluated?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have to build the system’s capacity to use courtrooms better. I can tell him that Sir Brian Leveson—I was very grateful to Sir Brian for coming to see me, as Foreign Secretary, while he was completing his review because of my experience in the criminal justice system—is completing his review by the end of the year.
Douglas McAllister
One of the most effective steps taken by this Government to help reduce the Crown court backlog is the record increases to criminal legal aid. Fewer criminal barristers and solicitors will not help to tackle case waiting times. Scotland is experiencing unacceptable delays in solemn cases coming to trial, made worse by the inadequate funding of Scottish legal aid by the Scottish Government. Does the Justice Secretary agree that unless we significantly increase legal aid fees across the UK, the current criminal defence model is unsustainable and we risk the collapse of our court system?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend highlights almost two decades of the SNP running Scotland into the ground. Here, we have had a record increase of £92 million. On the day we introduce the Hillsborough law, it is hugely important to record that that is the biggest extension of legal aid for people who have suffered at the hands of the state in over a decade.
Freddie van Mierlo
Rape is a heinous and despicable crime, with lifelong consequences for victims. Some do not survive. According to the House of Commons Library, the average number of days from charge to case completion is 363 days. What time do the Government think is acceptable for delivering justice for rape victims? Do they have a target? What is it and what steps are they taking to reach it?
Mr Lammy
We must have swifter justice for victims of rape. When I was shadow Justice Secretary, I was appalled that under the previous Government we got to a position where we had almost decriminalised the situation because there were so few prosecutions. There must be justice, and that means swifter justice.
Tristan Osborne
In west Kent, an initiative to share the resource of Maidstone Crown court with Woolwich Crown court is spreading cases into areas where there is not such a backlog. Can the Government indicate whether that is being openly considered in other parts of the country so that we can spread the backlog across different areas?
Mr Lammy
It is absolutely the case that where courts are coming together and being proactive, we are seeing progress. I look forward to looking more closely at the example of Maidstone and Woolwich. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is the way forward.
Richard Foord
Of 221 people arrested for supporting Palestine Action, 162 were arrested under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This prohibits people from carrying articles in public which
“arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”
Even the protesters who displayed those sickening pictures of Hamas paragliders in the week after 7 October were each given a conditional discharge. Will the Government please look again at the Terrorism Act to avoid clogging up the criminal justice system with people whose real motive is to support action on Palestine?
Mr Lammy
I am always happy to do anything—I did it in my last role and I will do it in this role—to ensure that anyone terrorising is convicted. That is quite properly a matter for law enforcement and prosecutors, but I will examine the detail of what the hon. Gentleman says.
Peter Lamb
I have met constituents who have been victims of some of the most serious offences and were waiting for years before the general election to have access to justice. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how I can ensure that my constituents have timely access to justice?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. We have to ensure that the system works for victims. Under the previous Government, half of all magistrates courts closed, and in December 2023, the Crown court backlog had increased by 77%. We are dealing with that—we have to do so as swiftly as possible. I will of course ensure that he meets with the appropriate Minister.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is mentioned on the face of the Order Paper, who was killed in 1940.
The Justice Secretary keeps referring to the previous Government, and I sort of get that, but I remind him that the new Government have been in post for some 14 or 15 months—over a year—and at some point, that particular argument is going to wear very thin. Is he aware of the extraordinary length of time that victims of serious sexual assault and crimes must wait in the Shropshire courts, particularly Shrewsbury Crown court? It is double the 363 days that we have just heard from the Lib Dem Benches. What will the Justice Secretary do to help those victims, as well as the defendants who may, on occasion, be innocent?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman and I are friends across this House. However, I have to say to him—and he should say this to his constituents—that under the previous Government, we saw devastating cuts to the police, with a reduction of 20,000 officers; we saw no building of prisons at all, effectively—only 500 places; we saw the decimation of the Probation Service, which we are rebuilding; and we saw a reduction in sitting days. We have had to get on with all that. Yes, we have made some strides in 14 months, but the devastation was big, and it will take a bit longer.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
We are determined to back our hard-working probation staff by investing up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review, and an initial £8 million in technology to reduce administrative burdens. We will also recruit 1,300 trainee probation officers in the next year.
Ms Billington
The probation officers I have spoken to are supportive of the early release scheme inasmuch as it was necessary to deal with the chronic overcrowding in our prisons—a legacy of the previous Government’s dereliction of duty. Many offenders on the fixed recall scheme with a determinate sentence, however, are not being risk-assessed before rerelease, which concerns probation officers. In that context, can the Secretary of State indicate what measures he is putting in place to ensure that probation officers are able to do their job with offenders being released early?
Mr Lammy
I was with probation officers last week, in my first visit as Secretary of State—it was important that probation was the first place I went to because the work and dedication of those officers and the staff is immense. We are working with the Home Office to ensure that those risk assessments are done.
Marie Goldman
My constituency of Chelmsford is an important hub for the justice system in Essex; it is home to several courts, including a Crown court. The independent sentencing review led by David Gauke found that the reoffending rate for those who were homeless or rough sleeping was double that of those who had accommodation to go to upon release. Indeed, I have heard examples from charities of those on probation being recalled to prison simply because they have no fixed address. At a time when prison places are so limited, what steps is the Justice Secretary taking to ensure that such frustrating examples of recall stop, and how does he intend to work with the inter-ministerial group for homelessness and rough sleeping to ensure that the Probation Service’s work is not undermined by a lack of accommodation upon release from prison?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question—no doubt she will be contributing to the debate a little later on our Sentencing Bill. That issue was raised with me by probation workers last week. It remains a big issue in our system, made worse by the previous Government. I commit to working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that that housing is available.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his rightful place. I remember being a junior shadow Minister under him—I will try to be less deferential in my current role.
My right hon. Friend rightly says that the Government are recruiting new probation officers to fulfil the new responsibilities under the Sentencing Bill and to deal with early release. The BBC recently reported, however, a shortage of 10,000 probation officers. How are we going to fill that gap? The Probation Service is absolutely essential to the strategy that he is rightly following now.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend and I did a lot of work together while the Probation Service was decimated by a badly botched privatisation that ruined such an incredible service. He is right that we will need to recruit more officers. The £700 million that we found is essential, and I will be looking closely at the allocations over the coming months.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to pay tribute to the probation officers in Northern Ireland, who do an excellent job. I have met them many times, and they are magnificent. On many occasions they have to deal with young people who, due to peer pressure, find themselves influenced to do things that they normally would not do. Restorative justice is one way to try to make things better. Is there a direct strategy within Government to ensure that restorative justice is used to rehabilitate young people and give them the chance of a better life?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman brings a lot of experience to these issues. What he reflects on is an issue faced in constituencies like mine. I hope he will contribute to the debate on the Sentencing Bill later today.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I welcome the new Justice Secretary and the Minister responsible for sentencing to their places. The Probation Service relies on an effective tagging system in order to keep our communities safe, but the £300 million contract that the last Government awarded to Serco has resulted in lots of failures. I saw some of them close up when I shadowed Serco over the summer, including, for example, wrong addresses being provided, which means multiple failed visits and a failure to tag the offenders who need to be tagged. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much Serco has been fined in its contract, and will he commit to strengthening penalties so that we ensure that private contractors are not rewarded for failure?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right that Serco’s record was poor and unacceptable. We stepped in, and have fined it. I cannot say by how much, because it is commercially sensitive, but I can tell him that I intend to hold Serco to account. The job that it does is immensely important for public confidence.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
For years, our court buildings under the last Government were left to crumble and decay. This Government have boosted capital funding from £120 million last year to over £148 million for this year. From Reading to Blackpool, we are building new courts and restoring old ones.
Becky Gittins
Prestatyn justice centre and its hard-working staff provide a vital service to my constituents, but on a recent visit it was clear that the building needs investment. Can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to repair and modernise our court estate, and will she look at what can be done to support our facility in Prestatyn?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right that the Prestatyn justice centre is a valuable facility for her community. We have a number of projects in the pipeline for Wales. Obviously we must prioritise those court buildings that are most in need and where there is most disrepair so that we can bring them back into use, but I am happy for her to write to me about that particular case.
Cat Smith
Since 2019 my constituents in Lancaster have had to look at a ring of steel fencing around the Lancaster courthouse in our city centre as it awaits maintenance work to make it more sightly. The fencing has been there since 2019, so how much longer will my constituents have to wait for this maintenance work?
Sarah Sackman
I understand that people in Lancaster have been using the Crown court in nearby Preston, which is a more modern and accessible facility. We are undertaking a consultation about the future of Lancaster Crown court, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend in more detail about the timeline.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that access to justice is very important, particularly in rural areas, where sometimes witnesses or those offering family support have to travel to court appearances? Is it not vital to maximise accessibility for such people?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is absolutely right. When we talk about access to justice, that must mean access to justice in every single respect, and there is no more obvious demonstration of that than accessibility to the door of the court. That is why we undertake continuous review of our court estate to ensure that it is physically accessible to all users.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The safety of our prison staff is a No. 1 priority for me. That is why we are investing £40 million to stop the contraband that puts our hard-working staff particularly at risk. We are also rolling out protective body armour for use in the highest security units and trialling the use of Tasers for specialised staff.
Jack Rankin
Thousands of drones are being used to smuggle contraband such as weapons and drugs into prisons. Locally, I have met leading security company Preventive Concepts Security. The shadow Lord Chancellor was good enough to visit it in France to see its technology in action, detecting and disabling drones. What specific steps is the Department taking to roll out drone detection capabilities across the prison estate? Is it currently engaging directly with private stakeholders such as Preventive Concepts Security?
Mr Lammy
I did see that the shadow Lord Chancellor had visited France. I looked seriously and closely at what he was proposing, and I propose to make some announcements in that area over the coming weeks.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Last week in Brighton, the TUC unanimously backed the “Safe Inside” campaign promoted by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance calling for urgent action against record-high levels of prison violence and second-hand exposure to psychoactive substances. Does the Secretary of State agree that current conditions are quite intolerable for prison staff and that the Prison Service needs to be held directly accountable for the health and safety of everyone who works in prisons, all of whom deserve to be safe inside?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We are talking to the unions. I hope that the £40 million we have put in will be able to alleviate some of the problems, but he is right that the assaults on our staff are entirely unacceptable. That is why I am committing from the Dispatch Box to making further announcements in the coming days.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the murdered prison officer Lenny Scott, whose killer was found guilty and sentenced over the recess. It is hard to overstate the seriousness of the case: this was a prison officer murdered simply for doing his job. Like police officers, we ask prison officers every day to stand up to some of the most violent people in our society. Does the new Lord Chancellor agree that prison officers deserve the same legal protections as police officers?
Mr Lammy
The work that our prison officers do is incredible. The work that our prison governors do is incredible. Over the course of both my career in law and my career in the House, I have visited very many prisons, and I pay tribute to their work. I will certainly be looking closely at this issue. I hope to come forward with more announcements in the coming days.
Dr Mullan
I am sure that prison officers will welcome any future announcements that the Lord Chancellor makes. We have talked this morning about preventive measures we can take to ensure prison officer safety, but police officers benefit from legal protections in terms of the consequences for murdering them, with mandatory whole-life orders imposed on people who do that. The Opposition will table an amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would give the same protection to prison officers. I think they deserve it, and I would welcome his support for that measure.
Mr Lammy
It is a serious issue and I will certainly consider it. I know that the Law Commission is looking at similar provisions.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This Government are committed to tackling the root causes of reoffending. That means investing in services that turn offenders away from a life of crime and instead back on the straight and narrow. That includes services in employment, accommodation and substance misuse treatment.
Steff Aquarone
I thank the Minister for his response and welcome him to his place. We have a prison population crisis, but rather than building or releasing our way out of it, we have to reduce reoffending. I recently visited HMP Bure in my constituency and saw the excellent work it has been doing internally to support prisoners in learning new skills and equipping them for life after release. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will support and provide funding for such programmes? Will he meet me to hear more about the fantastic work of the staff at HMP Bure?
Jake Richards
The Government are committed to tackling reoffending, and that includes investment in services exactly like those that the hon. Member visited. We are building more prison places, because we need to. In 14 years the Conservatives added just 500 additional prison places, and in 14 months we have added 2,500. Alongside that, we have to tackle reoffending, and I hope the hon. Member will support the Sentencing Bill later this afternoon, which will do that.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Rehabilitation is a vital part of prison health programmes, but when prisoners develop infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, they can be isolated from organised programmes such as rehab. Given the risk that interrupted TB treatment can fuel antimicrobial resistance, what steps is the Department taking to ensure that prisoners receive both uninterrupted medical care and continued access to rehabilitation?
Jake Richards
I will be talking with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care on exactly that issue and on tackling reoffending, making sure that there is treatment in prisons so that prisoners are rehabilitated. The sole focus of this Government is on stopping reoffending and cutting crime, and that means working with prisoners. There is also the Sentencing Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to the debate on that today.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is vital that victims feel supported at court. The Ministry of Justice funds the national witness service, which provides support on the day of trial, and independent sexual violence advocates can accompany victims while they are in the courtroom. Pre-trial, victims can receive support from victim liaison officers or from the MOJ-funded victim support services, and that is available throughout their criminal justice journey.
Kirith Entwistle
May I welcome our new Minister and Justice Secretary to their places? I have heard far too many stories from constituents who have endured sexual violence and rape. They tell me how isolating and intimidating the court system can feel and how difficult it can be to get the support they need. Will the Minister reassure me and those constituents that this Government are doing everything they can to ensure that victims and survivors of rape and sexual violence are supported in a timely manner?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. She is a tireless advocate for all victims of violence against women and girls. She will know that this Government are committed to supporting those victims in court through measures such as section 28, the witness service and our victim liaison officers. To further support victims, the Ministry of Justice also funds support services such as independent sexual violence advocates and independent domestic violence advocates. We are also committed to introducing free, independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape across England and Wales, and I hope to announce more on that measure soon.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent Louise reported her sexual assault to the police back in 2021. She has had court dates pushed back twice and the trial is now expected in December 2026, nearly six years after reporting it to the police. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of such delays on victim-survivors, who are also witnesses, and of the impact on the quality of the eventual court case?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for that really important question. All my thoughts are with Louise and, sadly, so many like her who are waiting for justice. We know that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct the once-in-a-generation reform of our criminal courts system: to ensure that we have a criminal justice system fit for the future, which breaks down the backlog on our court cases so that victims such as Louise are no longer waiting for justice.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Last week the Justice Committee heard evidence about the use of special measures to support vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to give their best evidence. That is obviously so important in rape and sexual assault cases. Will the Minister reaffirm her support for the continuing use of those measures, despite some debate about the evidence of their effectiveness?
Alex Davies-Jones
I was pleased to attend the Justice Committee to discuss how important section 28 is to vulnerable witnesses and victims, and the difference that it makes by allowing victims of rape and sexual offence crimes specifically to be maintained within the justice system, allowing them to give their evidence in a safe manner that is more accessible to them. In a justice system where currently 60% of rape victims are withdrawing from the process because of the backlog, the waits and how traumatic it is, anything that helps them to be maintained in the criminal justice system is worth championing.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
My constituent waited 18 months to face her abuser in court, only to be told the day before the trial was supposed to begin that it had been postponed until May 2026. How are victims of domestic abuse supposed to get redress and closure when they face such intolerable delays?
Alex Davies-Jones
It is unacceptable that this is being allowed to carry on in our courts, which is why we are taking that fundamental reform, because without victims we would not have a criminal justice system and it is important that we put them at the heart of this. We are funding independent domestic abuse advocates to support victims, to get them through the system quicker. We are also committed to rolling out more specialist domestic abuse courts. That was one of the clear recommendations of the Leveson review, and it is something that the Courts Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), and I are working closely on to support victims, but I will happily discuss this further with the hon. Member to ensure that we get this right for victims of domestic abuse.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Child sex offenders destroy the lives of their victims, so why did the Justice Secretary, as Foreign Secretary, appoint the “best pal” and known business partner of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles as our ambassador to Washington? What message does the Minister think this sends to the victims of rape and child sex abuse here in the UK?
Alex Davies-Jones
Child sexual abuse is one of the most abhorrent crimes in our society. That is why it is this Government who are enacting the recommendations of the grooming gangs inquiry. That is why we have kicked off the review into ensuring that victims get the justice they so deserve. It is why we are today introducing a Hillsborough law—a groundbreaking law to ensure that victims and survivors never again have to wait decades for truth and justice.
Robert Jenrick
The Minister could not answer, because it is simply indefensible and she knows it. Everyone in this House knows it. Everyone knows it. On Sunday, the family of one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, said that Mandelson should never have been appointed. I agree; almost every person in this country agrees. Did the Justice Secretary not read the papers that detailed Mandelson’s extensive connections to Epstein after he had been convicted? Or did he read them and flippantly disregard the crimes and pain he caused so many? Will the Minister take this opportunity, in her role, to apologise on behalf of the Justice Secretary to Epstein’s victims?
Mr Speaker
I understand the point being raised, and it is a very important one, but we are a long distance from the original question—
Mr Speaker
I am well aware of that and certainly do not need to be told. We have a three-hour debate coming up on that subject, so hopefully the Minister can respond.
Alex Davies-Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The shadow Justice Secretary says from a seated position that this is about justice for victims. If this was really about justice for victims, in the 14 years of his Government he would have carried out reforms to ensure that victims got swift justice. Instead, he presided over a criminal justice system that is at breaking point, where victims are waiting years for their day in court, and where prisons are overflowing and we are unable to ensure that there is always a space available. It is this Government that are ensuring there will always be a prison place available. It is this Government that are getting on with carrying out the recommendations of the national grooming inquiry. It is this Government that take victims and justice seriously.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
On 15 July, the Fuller inquiry recommended introducing statutory regulation for funeral directors. The Government recognise the urgency of the concerns raised and we are carefully considering all the recommendations. The Government have committed to responding to the inquiry with an interim update on progress this year, and a final response will be given by summer 2026.
Mark Sewards
The Minister will be aware of the plight of Zoe Ward and Cody Townend, two mums from Leeds who tragically lost babies in different circumstances but who both went to the same funeral director, who did not treat their babies’ bodies with the dignity, care or respect that they deserved. Despite the shocking details of these cases, the police found nothing actionable because the funeral sector is not regulated in any way. Will the Minister commit to meeting Zoe, Cody and me to discuss these horrific cases, but also to talk about how quickly we can regulate the law in this area to ensure that what happened to them never happens to anyone ever again?
Alex Davies-Jones
The whole House will be utterly horrified at the cases of Zoe and Cody and what they have had to go through. Dignity for our deceased should be upheld by all as something of fundamental importance. My colleagues and I are committed to ensuring that we get funeral regulation right, and I am working on that with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Department for Business and Trade. I would be honoured to meet my hon. Friend, Zoe and Cody to discuss this further.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Supporting victims and witnesses is key to ensuring that offenders are brought to justice. Measures are in place to support victims. We have already discussed those measures, such as section 28 and the Ministry of Justice-funded victim and witness services. The witness service provides emotional and practical on-the-day support to help prosecution and defence witnesses in criminal courts across England and Wales, because we need them to be able to give the best evidence possible.
Caroline Voaden
I recently met a constituent who had served as a juror in a very distressing child sexual abuse case. She highlighted the profound impact that such trials can have not just on the witnesses themselves, but on the jurors, who may experience trauma and even post-traumatic stress disorder. Although the appointment of the new Victims’ Commissioner is welcome, could the Minister outline what support is available for jurors who have to cope with the impact of the evidence they see and hear in such distressing cases?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member makes an important point. I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to everyone who does their civic duty by taking part in jury service. Juries are a cornerstone of our justice system and carry out an important function. There is support available for jurors, and I am so sorry to hear of her constituent’s situation. If the hon. Member wants to write to me, I will happily look into this more and work with her on what more we can do to support jurors, who do such a brilliant job.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
My constituent Billy Boyack saw his wife Angela and son Stephen killed in a head-on collision. The driver responsible initially showed no remorse and was already banned from the area under bail conditions. He received only a 13-year sentence. How does the Minister intend to redress the unfairness in our sentencing laws, with victims like Billy suffering such injustice?
Alex Davies-Jones
All my thoughts are with Billy and the family for the horrific tragedy they have suffered. My hon. Friend will know that we are debating the Sentencing Bill later today, looking at how we redress the balance here. The Law Commission is also doing a special piece of work looking at homicide law, and I would happily discuss that with her and Billy and discuss how best we can support them.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Although there is a long-term downward trend in the rate of proven reoffending, this country remains an outlier in that regard. That is why the Government are taking action to reduce reoffending, especially among prolific offenders. That includes measures in the Sentencing Bill on short-term sentencing, community punishment, investment in regional employment councils to bring local partners together to help offenders into work, and the rolling out of intensive supervision courts, which have had incredibly encouraging results so far.
Marsha De Cordova
I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and his new ministerial team to their roles. The Clink Charity has delivered life-changing rehabilitation at HMP Brixton for over a decade, significantly reducing reoffending rates. Indeed, its graduates are 64% less likely to reoffend. However, the charity has recently been told that it must compete in a commercial procurement process alongside large corporations to continue operating at Brixton. That risks disadvantaging an award-winning charity with a proven track record that is having a positive impact. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair, and can he reassure me that he will review the situation to ensure that procurement processes consider the excellent work already being achieved by organisations such as the Clink?
Jake Richards
Yes, I am aware of the great work that the Clink does, as are the Justice Secretary and the Prisons Minister in the other place. We will be reviewing what has happened and is happening there in due course.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the keys ways to reduce reoffending is to ensure that ex-offenders leaving prison have secure places to live and are not tempted to go back to a life of crime. However, it can be a consequence of early release that that is not prepared in advance. What action will the Minister take so that prison governors and those involved in the prison service ensure that ex-offenders go into secure accommodation once they leave prison?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member raises an important point and challenge for the Probation Service as the Sentencing Bill comes to fruition. I was with the Justice Secretary just last week meeting probation staff. Housing is a big challenge. I will work with colleagues from across Government to ensure that we are up to that challenge. The hon. Member makes a good point, and I will update the House in due course.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
It is my honour to take my first oral questions as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary.
Today, the Government will introduce the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law. It will create a new professional and legal duty of candour, placing public servants under a duty to act with honesty and integrity at all times. It will be backed by a new offence for misleading the public, and two new offences for misconduct in public office.
This is an historic moment, but the credit belongs not to the Government but to the families of the 97, whose courage never faltered, and to all who fought for justice after Grenfell, after Windrush, after the infected blood and Horizon scandals. This law will be their legacy. We cannot rewrite history, but with the Hillsborough law, we can ensure that it never repeats itself again.
Becky Gittins
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s passionate remarks. Some 71% of people in the youth justice system have a speech and language need that may impact on their ability to access justice, but only a tiny fraction of those young people have received any speech and language support. How is he working across Government—particularly with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education—to prevent those vulnerable young people from being disproportionately drawn into the youth justice system?
Mr Lammy
I remain very concerned, particularly about neurodiversity in young people and how they fare in the criminal justice system. I will look closely at the youth justice system, working closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and of course the Department for Education.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. The only one in, one out deal that is working in the Government is the one for Deputy Prime Ministers.
Just last month, the country was crying out that the Justice Secretary must face justice after his scandalous failure to register a licence for fish. Well, he thought he was off the hook, but finally it is justice for Lammy. I know that he has a previous and rather traumatic experience with one John Humphrys on “Mastermind”, so I hope that he is sitting comfortably. How many foreign nationals are clogging up our prisons, and does he stand by the letter he signed that opposed the removal of 50 foreign criminals, one of whom went on to murder?
Mr Lammy
I will look forward to this. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is so good that my predecessor was promoted, and that he is auditioning for another job. Let me be clear: returns under this Government have gone up 14%. I took a keen interest as Foreign Secretary. They will be going up further.
Robert Jenrick
I will give it to the Justice Secretary; that was a better reply than the one he gave when he was asked which monarch succeeded Henry VIII and he said Henry VII, but it was not the answer that I was asking for. In fact, there are 10,772 foreign nationals in our prisons, and that figure has gone up under Labour. The obstacle to so many of their removals is the European convention on human rights, which has morphed into a charter for criminals. The previous Justice Secretary pretended that we could reform the ECHR, but the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, has stated that that position is a “political trick”. Is it a trick that this Justice Secretary intends to play on the British public?
Mr Lammy
I know the right hon. Gentleman was a corporate lawyer, but he really needs to get into the detail. We are reforming through the Sentencing Bill so that we can get people out of the country by deporting them on sentencing. He needs to get into the weeds and look at the Bill—he can do better.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I am deeply troubled by this case, and of course, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. It is hard to think of a more graphic illustration of what we mean when we say that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is exactly why this Government are gripping the backlog in our courts, with record sitting days, increased sentencing powers for magistrates and by proposing once-in-a-generation, bold reform of our criminal courts.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I would like to associate myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on the bravery of the Hillsborough families and pay tribute to them for the success that has been landed today.
Many of us across the House are deeply concerned that domestic abusers are weaponising the family court to perpetrate their abuse. Efforts to reform it have not yet been forthcoming from this Government, and we need change. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to legislating in the next King’s Speech for reform of the family court, so that it supports survivors and does not sabotage them any longer?
Mr Lammy
We are determined to look at this lacuna for victims of domestic violence, and if necessary, we will come forward with further amendments or, indeed, legislation.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her really important question. I worked with the amazing charity Children Heard and Seen prior to getting this role. I am determined to ensure that we do more to protect the children of prisoners. The Prisons Minister in the other place is already working with the Women’s Justice Board to look at better ways we can treat women prisoners to ensure that they are rehabilitated.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member raises a very important point. We know that the success rate of appeals is high and the delays are severe in the SEND tribunal, which has a huge impact on children and families. We are close to the maximum number of sitting days across all our jurisdictions, to bear down on those delays, but I will certainly take his point on board as we look to reform the SEND system.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The Sentencing Bill, which we will debate later today, has really important measures that will protect victims of domestic abuse and ensure that victims are at the heart of our criminal justice policy, as well as probation services.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
The sorts of delays that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is experiencing are unacceptable. The consensus is that the delays are unacceptable and that we have to do something big and bold about them. This is a complex system, which is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson, with his expertise, to tell us how best we go about that, but we will have to get behind once-in-a-generation reform. We are gripping the issue now—we are making record investment in criminal legal aid and sitting days—but we will need reform as well.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his announcement on the Hillsborough law. For decades, the families have carried the weight of injustice, and Governments have failed to act. Today, the Hillsborough law will be laid before this House, but it must not be another false start. Will the Deputy Prime Minister promise me that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law, and that it will emerge stronger and not weaker from Parliament and, finally, deliver justice for the 97?
Mr Lammy
I was pleased to sign the 2017 Bill and to put my name, along with that of the Prime Minister, to the 2019 amendment. I pay tribute to the families. I made a pledge to them yesterday: we will see no watering down of the Bill. I call to mind Khadija Saye, who died in Grenfell Tower, and that is why it is such a privilege to steer through the House this important law on behalf of not only the 97, but many, many others.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I was pleased to meet Andrew Turner and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on this important issue. We have to get the balance right between protecting vulnerable adults from financial abuse while at the same time ensuring that they can access assets that are theirs. It is complicated and requires cross-Government work, but I assure the hon. Lady that the impetus is there.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Further to Ministers’ earlier answers about waiting lists in Crown and magistrates courts, coroners courts also have a large backlog. I have a constituent who has been waiting nearly three years for an inquest to be completed. What can be done to relieve the pressure on grieving families who have been bereaved and to speed up the process?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I have had several productive conversations with the chief coroner, looking at how we can make the inquest process as quick as possible to ensure that the bereaved are supported and not left traumatised waiting for their inquest. The Bill we are laying before Parliament today, the Hillsborough law, has many parts looking at how to improve the inquest process and it gives more powers to coroners. We are looking at what more we can do on the reform of inquests. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others on how to improve the coronial process.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Mr Lammy
I know the hon. Lady’s constituency well, so I will take a close look at the issue.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Victims of sexual crimes are understandably often traumatised. What steps are the Government taking to ensure the long-term sustainability of specialist support for those victims—such as the Calderdale WomenCentre, which provides supports for victims in Calder Valley—in particular given the long waits for justice and the high demand for trauma-informed support?
Alex Davies-Jones
May I put on the record my sincere gratitude to the WomenCentre for doing all it can to support the victims of these crimes? Support services are a vital element of ensuring that victims and witnesses engage with the criminal justice system, and are kept informed about the uptake of their trial. We have ringfenced funding to protect these special support services. We are currently going through the allocations process to ensure that we have support services at the front of our minds, and I will be happy to keep my hon. Friend updated as that comes forward.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
In July this year, alongside a cross-party group of parliamentarians and others, I wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking a meeting regarding improving gatekeeping and alternative dispute resolution in family court matters. I have not received a response. Can the Lord Chancellor give me the reassurance that such a meeting will take place?
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Barlinnie prison is operating at 30% above capacity, and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons is strongly urging Scottish Government action before the £1 billion replacement is finally built in 2028. What steps are Ministers taking to avoid the costly mistakes of the SNP Scottish Government in tackling the prison capacity crisis?
Mr Lammy
The SNP is running down Scotland and wasting taxpayers’ money on the new Barlinnie prison—more than double the original estimated cost. We are doing much better on this side of the border, and we are working with colleagues to see what we can do about that situation.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the new Secretary of State for Justice recognise sharia law and sharia courts in the United Kingdom—yes or no?
Sarah Sackman
Sharia law forms no part of the law of England and Wales, but where people choose to put themselves before those councils—in common with Christian, Jewish and other courts of faith—that is part of religious tolerance which is an important British value.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to officers at Harlow police station? During recess, I went on a ride-along and saw their professionalism and dedication at first hand.
Mr Lammy
I agree with my hon. Friend 100%—and not just because a lot of those officers are Spurs supporters.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Prison officers at Whitemoor prison in my constituency have raised concerns that the recruitment process for staff is not working effectively and is unduly bureaucratic. Will the Secretary of State write to me with his assessment and look at what changes could be made?
Mr Lammy
Yes, of course, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I am sure the Lord Chancellor has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar and on the bench, which was published last week. Its troubling findings are primarily for the Bar itself and for the judiciary to address, but do the Government support the report’s recommendations and what can they do to ensure that they are implemented?
Sarah Sackman
In typical fashion, Baroness Harman has conducted a thorough review into our professions and the judiciary. The judiciary and the Bar are one of the prides of this country, but where there are unacceptable practices and behaviours, it is right that we shine a light on them and demand that we do much better.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As Ministers will know, some rogue builders take thousands of pounds from people, wreck their homes and leave them while they go on to do the same to other victims, yet victims are told that no crime has been committed. Will the ministerial team look at the notion of fraud when a pattern of such behaviour can be evidenced?
Alex Davies-Jones
We will be consulting on a new victims code in due course to make sure that all these crimes are captured, so that we can support all victims. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with the right hon. Gentleman.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
For six years, Lancaster courthouse has been surrounded by temporary fencing as it awaits maintenance. How much longer will my constituents have to wait?
Sarah Sackman
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to address her point and to give her the details that she requires.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The new Minister stated earlier that the Government have created 2,405 new prison places, but 1,468 of those are at HMP Millsike, which is part of the new prisons programme that was announced by the previous Conservative Government. The 10,000 additional prison places estate expansion programme—including the houseblocks and refurbishments programme, and the category D programme—has been downgraded from amber to red in the delivery confidence assessment, due to the programme’s key supplier entering administration. What steps is the Justice Secretary taking to put prison construction back on track?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member seems to be the last person defending the last Conservative Government on prisons and law and order. The truth is that over 14 years, they built 500 prison places; in 14 months, this Labour Government have built 2,500 places. We are fixing the mess that they left behind.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Voices—a domestic abuse charity in Bath—has created a guide to family court proceedings to support survivors to navigate the family courts without legal representation. The pilot was rolled out in the south-west and in Yorkshire. Will the Government work with Voices to roll it out nationally?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to meet Voices to discuss that guidance. We have been working with organisations like the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and CAFCASS Cymru to ensure that victims and survivors have the best support available when they are navigating the family court process.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Under current law, most instances of the sexual abuse of animals are not offences. Not only are those acts despicable in themselves, but given the proven link between animal abuse and child abuse, does the Minister agree that this dangerous gap is a missed opportunity to identify abusers before they go on to harm children?
Points of Order
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 16 June, I asked a written question to the Department of Health and Social Care, seeking an update on plans for a new dental school at the University of East Anglia. This is a hugely important issue for people in Norfolk and has been raised by MPs across the House. I have been left with a holding answer by the Department for three months, with no updates in sight, and today we break for another month of recess. This is not an acceptable way for the Government to handle scrutiny. I seek your guidance on what avenues are available to me to secure answers from the Government on this issue of deep concern to my constituents.
Mr Speaker
It is totally unacceptable to treat any Member of any party in this House that way. To be left with a holding answer for three months is not acceptable. I am sure those on the Treasury Bench are now busily answering that question; if not, please let me know, and I am sure we can do something more about it.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the House debated the incursion into Polish airspace by Russian drones, and there was clear cross-party unity on the need for the UK robustly to support our NATO allies. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Secretary of State for Defence chose to announce the deployment of Typhoons to Poland outside this House. There is nothing more important than the defence of the realm, and the decision to deploy service personnel is of the highest significance. Ministers have offered a written statement today, but this action after the fact does not live up to the severity and importance of the decision that the Government have made to deploy our planes and personnel. Can you advise on how we can ensure that future statements of this magnitude are brought properly before this House?
Mr Speaker
I will be quite honest: this House should be treated with respect. The fact is that I am not quite sure whether the Secretary of State could have come to the House before the Typhoons were needed—and I never want to put the House in that position. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have had no indication that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement on this matter. Quite rightly, he has put his point on the record. I take defence matters seriously, and I am sure that he will have been heard.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to raise a point of order, of which I have sent given you notice. Have you had an indication from the Foreign Secretary that the Government will either come to this House today, or that they will make a statement concerning the UN independent international commission of inquiry report on the Occupied Palestinian Territories? That report has confirmed in horrifying detail the acts of genocide now being committed by Israeli forces against the Palestinian people—against children: destroying hospitals, destroying schools and destroying life itself. This is a serious matter. If we are to continue normal relations with Israel, I think the Foreign Office needs to explain why we are having those relations with a country that is committing acts of genocide against the Palestinian people.
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have had no indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement on this matter, but he has certainly put the point on the record. I know that many other Members are concerned. I will look to the Government to bring forward a statement on our immediate return to the House. If not, I am quite sure that others will, on our return, look to place before me a request for an urgent question.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The UN independent international commission of inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories has concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Despite welcoming the Israeli President last week, the Government have failed to make a statement, as we have heard. As the House is about to go into recess, can you advise me and the House how we are to seek accountability on this important matter?
Mr Speaker
I cannot add any more to what I have already said. Once again, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have listened to the right hon. Member. I know that we have three hours for the next debate, but, quite rightly, this message has gone across. I could not be clearer: I expect the Government to come forward with a statement. If not, I am sure I can work with Members who may wish to place an urgent question before the House.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 1 September, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), now Minister of State in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, issued a written statement on the contingent liabilities from the funded decommissioning programme and Government support package for Sizewell C, which is due to be undertaken on 1 October. It is a liability to Government and taxpayers that could reach up to the tune of £12 billion. That is a significant contingent liability for the public purse, and due parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. Although the Minister stated reasons for not providing the required 14 days for scrutiny and withholding of approval, which is normally required for any contingent liability above £300,000, surely Parliament should have been presented with the results of the ongoing review of the liabilities during whatever time was available, and parliamentary time should have been scheduled to allow parliamentarians to scrutinise—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think I got the message in the first five minutes.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. As she says, a contingent liability of this size would normally involve the laying of a memorandum for a period of 14 sitting days before the guarantee is approved. The written statement made by the Minister for Energy on 1 September, when the House returned from the summer recess, sets out the reasons why the usual process could not be followed in this case. I suggest that the hon. Member might want to raise this matter privately with the Public Accounts Committee and the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. I know that she is a doughty Member who will ensure that those concerns are raised in many other areas.
Bill Presented
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary David Lammy, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Pat McFadden, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Lisa Nandy, James Murray, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Alex Davies-Jones, Josh Simons, Anna Turley and Chris Ward, presented a Bill to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness; to make provision for the enforcement of that duty in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; to require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority; to create an offence in relation to public authorities and public officials who mislead the public; to create further offences in relation to the misconduct of persons who hold public office and to abolish the common law offence of misconduct in public office; to make provision enabling persons to participate at inquiries and investigations where the conduct of public authorities may be in issue; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 13 October, and to be printed (Bill 306) with explanatory notes (Bill 306-EN).
Ambassador to the United States
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the appointment process and the circumstances leading to the dismissal of the former United Kingdom Ambassador to the United States, Lord Mandelson.
Sometimes exquisite coincidences happen in this place. We have just seen a Bill presented on the topic of public office accountability by the immediate past Foreign Secretary, the now Justice Secretary. I will just read to the House the first line of its description:
“a Bill to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness”.
I think I might return to those issues in the course of what I have to say.
As I have said, this is a matter of utmost concern across the House. It is an issue that does not just concern the Conservative party, the Scottish National party or the DUP; Members from all parts of the House are worried about it, as we have seen in the newspapers. The Government have key questions to answer, and as I said yesterday, the central question is: who knew what, and when? Let us be clear, though. There are many questions on many levels in this matter, and the Government must answer them all; so far, they have singularly failed to do so.
The questions fall naturally into four categories. First, was Peter Mandelson ever an appropriate character to appoint as our ambassador? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Well, we will get to that later. Secondly, what was the procedure for vetting, was it properly followed, and why has it gone so horribly wrong? Thirdly, what has happened in the last couple of weeks to lead to the demise of the former ambassador—who made the critical decisions and why? Fourthly, what do we do now? How do we make this Government tell the House and the nation the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—which in itself would be a novelty for Lord Mandelson?
Let us begin with whether Lord Mandelson was ever an appropriate selection. As I said yesterday, our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of our most important bilateral relationship. For those who have not served in government, it is the one bilateral relationship run by No. 10, not the Foreign Office. That is because it is so important, and it is a role of exceptional sensitivity. More classified information crosses the ambassador’s desk than gets to most Cabinet Ministers. Indeed, in British embassies, the agencies report to the ambassador. It is not the same in American embassies, where the CIA does what it wants. Our agencies report to the ambassador, so it is a sensitive post.
Today, Peter Kyle—I have forgotten his new post—said that global circumstances dictate that the position of this particular ambassador is more important than it has ever been, and it could easily go terribly wrong. The failure to appoint the right person has already had a serious and deleterious impact on the national interest.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister staked his special relationship with the US President on the diplomatic skills of an ambassador who had a special relationship with the world’s most notorious child sex offender. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Prime Minister’s judgment and the UK’s presence on the world stage have been diminished by this affair.
David Davis
There is no doubt that the right hon. Lady is correct. Frankly, I am going to try not to make this ad hominem about the Ministers who made decisions; we need to make that decision later, as it were. She is right that it has diminished the standing of our Prime Minister, and I regret that. Although we are the Opposition, I want this Government to succeed in the national interest, and this is doing the opposite of that. The ambassador’s conduct, both prior to appointment and during, must reflect the highest standards of integrity—that is fundamental, and it is true for any ambassador.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It unites the House with its purpose. It is clear within the rules that MPs are accountable for their staff and their conduct and that there will be repercussions. Does he agree that the Prime Minister is accountable for his appointment of the UK ambassador to the United States of America, and the same rules should apply?
David Davis
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When we look at the mechanisms engaged, as I hope we will in the course of this debate, we will see why the Prime Minister made the wrong decision. There is no doubt in my mind that he did.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about decisions by the Prime Minister. He talks about the duty on Members of this place and of the other place to conduct themselves appropriately. Does it surprise him, as it surprises me, that we have a situation where my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has been unfairly suspended from the Labour Whip, along with others, for opposing disability benefit cuts and the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), remains suspended from the Labour party, yet Lord Mandelson retains the Labour Whip in the House of Lords? Are all of those things not decisions by the Prime Minister? People outside here, including Labour members, think it is completely unfair.
David Davis
I understand all too well the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Many have made it in the newspapers, although generally anonymously. A double standard applies to the top of the Labour party—Labour royalty, if you like—as opposed to other people who have been punished for doing their job, representing their people and so on. He has got a point.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it slightly odd that sufficient due diligence was not done prior to the appointment of Lord Mandelson? On the day before Lord Mandelson was dismissed, apparently there were a lot of emails available to the Prime Minister that he either was not given or did not read. We find ourselves in this odd situation where the British ambassador to the USA has to be dismissed in the full glare of international publicity because of his past behaviour, which was apparently well known to a very large number of people who should not have supported his appointment in the first place.
David Davis
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. We will come to a number of circumstances in which information was available and should have been, but was not, acted upon. This was not as hard as some may try to portray it as being: after all, the appointment did not come as a surprise. Lord Mandelson himself was clearly campaigning to become the ambassador after failing to win the chancellorship of Oxford University. Indeed, someone told me that he was actually campaigning for the ambassadorship while also campaigning for the chancellorship, so he was after two jobs, not one. It was clear at an early stage that he was going to attempt to do this, and there was widespread discussion at the time about his suitability for the role, so there was plenty of time for a preliminary investigative or vetting process. There was, and is, a vast amount of data in the public domain. Most of what I will speak of today is public domain material—I will explain when it is not.
What would those conducting that vetting process be looking for? A number of us on these Benches and, I would imagine, on most Benches have been through such processes ourselves. Traditionally they would review the history and personality of the candidate, assessing risks, such as the risk of the candidate being susceptible to undue influence, or, in extreme examples, blackmail—the Russians and the Chinese collect kompromat all the time; the risk of the candidate abusing or misusing the role; the risk of the candidate doing something that would cause reputational damage; or the risk, with which some on the Labour Front Bench may have difficulties and which they may find rather old-fashioned, that the candidate is too morally flawed to be given a major role in any case and fails a simple ethical test, which is where we may arrive in a moment. I am afraid that I am old-fashioned. I view ethical tests as an absolute, which cannot be traded off against some benefit or other.
In the history that I am about to detail, we see a Peter Mandelson who is easily dazzled by wealth and glamour and is willing to use his public position to pursue those things for himself. This was visible very early in his career, even to his friends. In 1998, he was sacked as Trade and Industry Secretary for failing to declare a pretty enormous interest-free loan that he had received from Geoffrey Robinson. At that time Mr Robinson’s businesses were being investigated by Mandelson’s Department, so there was a clear clash of interests, and Mandelson did not even declare the loan. That was the first occasion on which we saw so publicly the abiding flaws in his character, which would generally disqualify any normal person for a job as important as this. Even his friends saw that. One of his flaws was described plainly by one of his friends back then, who said:
“Peter was living beyond his means, pretending to be something he’s not, and therefore he was beholden to people.”
The important bit is that last phrase: he was beholden to people. It was a characteristic that was displayed time and again as he sought to use his position to curry favour with very wealthy and very powerful people who were either current or future benefactors.
This was repeated in 2001, when Lord Mandelson was again sacked after attempting to broker a British passport for Mr Hinduja, a wealthy donor to the Millennium Dome project, with which he was involved. Mandelson attempted to influence the Home Office to give Mr Hinduja a passport when Mr Hinduja and his brother were under investigation in the Bofors weapons contract scandal—again, a dubious reason. Incidentally, it was at about that time that his association with Epstein started, and the infamous birthday book entries date from then.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about the possibility that the Prime Minister will discuss this issue with President Trump later in the week? The Prime Minister has to have influence over President Trump for very good reasons, but if the issue of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein comes up—we understand that President Trump also contributed to that birthday book, with an infamous poem—what is the Prime Minister going to say?
David Davis
I am very glad to say that I am not the Prime Minister’s speechwriter, but all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I hope the issue does not come up, because it would undoubtedly be embarrassing and diplomatically problematic for the Prime Minister.
Astonishingly, after being sacked twice for misdemeanours, in 2004 Lord Mandelson was appointed by Tony Blair to be the European trade commissioner. He was, as it were, given a third chance. As the trade commissioner, he was criticised on numerous occasions for accepting lavish hospitality from companies on whose commercial interests he was in the process of ruling—whether the company concerned was Microsoft, an Italian shoe producer or whatever—which, for some reason, often involved free luxury cruises. He saw nothing wrong with such apparently compromising behaviour, and in that category, indeed rather at the top of it, was his association with the Russian oligarch and gangster capitalist Oleg Deripaska.
Let us be clear who we are talking about here, because most Members probably do not know much about him. Mr Deripaska was the winner of the battle for control of the Russian aluminium industry, a battle in which roughly 100 people were murdered. In court reports, Interpol documents and American Government publications, Deripaska has faced serious allegations of murder, bribery, extortion, and involvement in organised crime. This is a truly bad man.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for the case that he is making. I wonder whether, while he is dealing with the influence of Russian oligarchs in British politics, he will opine on the suitability of British political parties accepting donations from Russians, and the impact that that might have on their policies and their positions.
David Davis
Had the hon. Gentleman been here before the last election, he would have sat in this Chamber, I hope, and heard me opine on all those subjects and raise prospective laws to deal with those oligarchs, laws that, sadly, this Government have failed to carry through.
That, then, is the backdrop. Mr Deripaska’s visa was revoked by the Americans in 2006, so Mandelson had no excuse for not knowing about his activities, yet as European trade commissioner he saw fit to accept hospitality from Deripaska on multiple occasions over several years, which included visiting him in Moscow and being flown by his private jet to stay at his dacha in Siberia and on his private yacht in the Mediterranean—all while considering whether to give Russian aluminium access to the European market. Deripaska’s activities were known to the British security services, and briefings were available to Mandelson, so, again, there is no excuse. He did this in the full knowledge of who he was dealing with. It was in this position that Mandelson promoted and signed off concessions to Russian aluminium companies, which ultimately benefited Mr Deripaska, or his companies, to the tune of $200 million a year. Although it did not actually happen, one company was due to be the subject of an initial public offering—due to be floated—shortly thereafter. A $200 million change in profits tends to mean a multibillion-dollar change in value, and that will have gone into the pocket of Mr Deripaska. As we all know, Deripaska is a nominee of Putin, so we can assume that a large chunk of it went to Putin as well.
In 2008 Mandelson was, very controversially, raised to the peerage by Gordon Brown and appointed Business Secretary. His contact with Epstein did not end. As Epstein was pleading guilty to child sex offences, Mandelson emailed him:
“I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened... Your friends stay with you and love you.”
Little remorse there, shall we say, and little pity for the victims.
After Lord Mandelson left office when Labour lost the election in 2010, he founded a lobbying firm, Global Counsel. Controversially, he did not name his clients. The House of Lords has rather slack rules about this, so somebody can create a company and just declare that they get however much money from the company, but they do not declare who the customers really are. I do not have documentary records on this, so I am not going to name the companies I am talking about, but there are Russian companies—extremely dubious Russian companies—and Chinese companies. I am looking at my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who would recognise a number of the Chinese companies because he has campaigned about them, but I will leave it there.
In the context of Lord Mandelson’s appointment to Washington—and bear in mind that this is all to do with a judgment made about his being the ambassador in Washington—it is his close association with the organs of the Chinese state that should have raised most red flags, if the House will forgive the pun. The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China presented a dossier to US Senators, which provoked enough concern that they passed it to the FBI. This may have been a reason—and here I am surmising—for the purported concerns about whether the Trump Administration would allow Mandelson’s accreditation back in January.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I appreciate some of the points the right hon. Member is making, but I would just note that one of the Conservative candidates running in a Milton Keynes constituency at the last general election worked for Global Counsel. It is interesting that the Conservatives have such complaints about this organisation when they were willing to support a candidate who worked for it.
David Davis
I am going to be very gentle. Let me just say that we are talking about a very serious issue, in which the national interest is engaged, and about somebody who in my view has used his public position to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of the state. That is not true of some candidate working in a junior role for the company, but it is true of the man who created that company and used it to promote his own interests.
To come back to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, from my point of view—and this is personal rather than political—even more worrying were the attitudes struck by Mandelson in February 2021 when, during a lobbying meeting on behalf of his rich clients, he told Chinese Premier Li Keqiang that the critics of Beijing’s human rights record would be “proved wrong”. That astonishing statement was followed later in 2021 by Mandelson being the only Labour peer to vote—against a three-line Whip—against a genocide amendment that would have meant this country had to reconsider any trade deal with a country found by the High Court to be committing genocide, and most specifically China was in the crosshairs. Frankly, it would appear that Lord Mandelson has subcontracted his conscience for money.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has mentioned the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. In case the House thinks it is a Conservative organisation, can I explain that it has Members of Parliament from all parties in this House, that 53 countries are involved and that it has co-chairs from both the left and the right? It is wholly above party politics, but is all about the threat from China.
David Davis
My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and the Senators to whom these documents were sent are very responsible ones. They would not frivolously pass on such documents to the FBI, and the FBI would not frivolously accept them and investigate.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 21 November last, the Prime Minister was challenged to rule out appointing Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States on the grounds that he had said Ukraine would have to give up all the land Russia had occupied and that it must give up any hope of ever joining NATO in return for some unspecified security guarantees? The Prime Minister said he would not be tempted to comment on the possibility of his being appointed ambassador, and as he said it he had a very noticeable little smirk on his face. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister is not smirking about this matter any more?
David Davis
I say to my right hon. Friend that the Prime Minister gave what was clearly—what can I say?—a lawyer’s answer to that question, which as we all know is not a proper answer at all.
No. 10 was well aware that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after he was convicted as a paedophile. How the Prime Minister could possibly have thought it was wise to appoint a man who was on record consorting with alleged murderers and convicted paedophiles to a position of privilege and power is, to me, utterly unfathomable.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The right hon. Member has rightly pointed out Lord Mandelson’s murky attitude towards money, but does this not also shine a terrible light on his attitude towards women, which, by contrast, does not look good for the Government?
David Davis
I agree—the hon. Member is right. Lord Mandelson’s continued support of Epstein shows an attitude that I find completely reprehensible in exactly that respect, because Epstein’s victims were women—young women, girls, children. So, yes, I do agree.
It has long been clear that Mandelson was not suitable to be our ambassador, so the question is: what changed last week? The Bloomberg emails revealing further details of Epstein’s relationship with him and the birthday book in which he referred to Epstein as his “best pal” were with Mandelson by Monday evening and with the Foreign Office overnight or by Tuesday morning at the latest. The Prime Minister is said to have known of the investigation by Tuesday afternoon, but not of the content of the emails. Why, when our most important diplomat in our most important international relationship is under question or under investigation, would the Prime Minister not want to know the details of the investigation immediately?
We understand that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, was talking to Mandelson all day on Tuesday, so what was Mandelson saying to McSweeney and was this passed to the Prime Minister? One of the things I would ask the Minister is if, later on, he can give the House an undertaking that we can have a record of that conversation, because we need to know. Mandelson gave an immediate interview on Wednesday morning—hours before Prime Minister’s questions—admitting that more embarrassing revelations would come out. Mandelson’s past scandals and his links to Epstein were crystal clear by the time the Prime Minister rose to speak in PMQs last Wednesday.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that James Matthews, the Sky News reporter, cornered Lord Mandelson on 27 May to ask him specifically about staying in Epstein’s flat? Mandelson did not deny it, but simply said that he regretted having any connection with him. These are the kinds of questions that should have been asked, and were being asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and many other Members back in May, about the suitability of the ambassador. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister should have looked into this further at that point?
David Davis
Exactly, and in fact earlier than that point. I will come back to that when I talk briefly about the vetting process.
What precisely did the Prime Minister learn from reading the Bloomberg emails that was not already known about Lord Mandelson from public information and vetting done before the appointment? Each day that goes by, we see more shocking revelations not only about his misconduct and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, but about the failures of both the vetting process and the political judgment of those at the top of Government. I say to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) that that relates not just to their political judgment, but to their moral standards and the equity in how they apply those moral standards across the board.
That brings us to the question: what happened to the vetting process? Most of what I have described was in the public domain. It does not take James Bond; Google could do this. What was not in the public domain was in the official records, or known to the intelligence agencies—in other words, it was all available to the Government. We know there was a two-page propriety and ethics briefing, which should have flagged concerns, but it merely triggered an unpenetrating email inquiry. That goes straight to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), which is: where were the questions? Someone does not just send a three-line email and forget about it; they pursue the questions and cross-question the person under suspicion.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament are subject to extremely deep vetting. There is also a double check, which is that Parliament has to give its agreement to the appointments to the Committee, once nominated by the Prime Minister. Does the Mandelson case not strengthen the argument for pre-confirmation hearings by the relevant parliamentary Committees of this House in order that candidates can be cross-questioned? At the moment, the Cabinet Office advises on only about 1,000 regulated public appointments for this House, ahead of appointment. None of them is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office appointment. Is it not now time to make that change, whether they are political appointments or senior civil servants?
David Davis
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I certainly think that that would be the right way to go for political appointments. It would probably be the right way to go for the top dozen embassies. I would not worry about all of them, without being rude to—well, I won’t pick a country. That would just be meaningless, but the top dozen are well worth doing.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team produced a report that was presumably handed to the Prime Minister, and that was certainly done prior to the announcement. Does he agree that the Minister must tell us whether the Prime Minister read that report, and whether it contained anything that Parliament should have been aware of before he made the appointment?
David Davis
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is right and I will reiterate the point. In addition to what my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, there should have been a fully developed vetting process and that appears not to have happened. There is a vetting unit in the Foreign Office and a vetting unit in the Cabinet Office, and normally one of them would have been engaged on this. There have been claims that developed vetting happens after an appointment. No, it does not. For existing ambassadors who are on a five-year vetting cycle, sure. For ambassadors or officers who are being read into a new class of material, sure. But for this—an outsider coming into the most sensitive job in Government—certainly not.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
David Davis
I am being frowned at by Mr Speaker for taking so much time. I will give way for the last time.
Joe Robertson
My right hon. Friend is being very generous. At the weekend, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade appeared to say that the Government believed it was “worth the risk” of appointing Lord Mandelson from the outset. As I heard it, what the Business Secretary was saying was that for the positive qualities Lord Mandelson had—as they saw it—it was worth the risk that he might be more involved with a convicted paedophile than they thought from the outset. If that is the risk the Government were judging him by, is that not shameful?
David Davis
I have already said that my view is that ethical standards are absolute, so there should not be a trade-off.
Let us take this, for a second, as a practical decision and take Mandelson at his own measure. He loves being called the dark lord and all the rest of it. He preens himself on being a master of the dark arts: spin, message management, political tactics and manipulation of the truth—a repertoire of things that most people would not be proud of. If the Government think that those skills actually make up for his sins, well no. First, he is not as good as he is cracked up to be, frankly. He is being measured—remember this—against Karen Pierce, the officer in place who was probably the best ambassador in Washington and certainly the most revered, and, after her, Tim Barrow, who was our ambassador to the European Union during Brexit and the National Security Adviser. He knows all these things to the tips of fingers. Was Lord Mandelson better than them? Pull the other one.
I am coming to the end, Mr Speaker, before you frown any more. No. 10 claims that Mandelson was economical with the truth. Mandelson claims he told the whole truth. Both statements cannot be true. The questions I pose to the Minister are these. Will the Government rule out Mandelson being brought back into Government? No. 10 refused to rule out giving him another job last week. If Mandelson withheld information during the vetting process, will he lose the Labour Whip? I am looking at Mr Burgon when I say that. Is he going to have to resign from the House of Lords? Will Lord Mandelson be receiving compensation? Some reports in the media suggest we will pay £100,000 of taxpayers’ money. Will the Prime Minister, his chief of staff, his Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary to the FCDO appear before the Select Committees of the House to give evidence? Will the Minister provide the House with the documents—the propriety and ethics team report and the developed vetting report, if it exists—required to answer our questions as to who knew what and when? There are many quotes in the newspapers from those in the Minister’s own party about their horror regarding the Prime Minister’s decisions and processes.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
David Davis
No, I really am coming to an end.
I will quote just one of them. This is a long-standing senior Labour Member:
“I care that this culture of turning a blind eye to horrendous behaviour is endemic at the top of society”.
I agree with him. When individuals with such associations are ushered back into the heart of Government, are we not right to ask what standards now govern appointments to public life? Impunity is not a right. Impropriety is not a technicality. And survivors of crime should not have to do the heavy lifting of holding the powerful to account.
I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that a Bill has today been presented to the House imposing a duty of candour on public authorities and public officials. My last and single question to the Minister is this: will his Government now live up to the words in that Bill?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman, as he is a senior Member, that though he has taken the time he felt was required, it has been longer than 15 minutes.
May I just say that when we refer to other Members, it should be by constituency, not by name. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
My Committee first asked for the opportunity to question Lord Mandelson at the end of last year, when rumours first surfaced about his appointment as ambassador to the United States. We continued to ask after his appointment was confirmed. Indeed, the Minister may remember our exchange, on 14 January in this Chamber, when I asked him to
“allow Lord Mandelson the time to come before my Committee before he leaves for the United States”
to
“allow my colleagues to hear directly why the Prime Minister has appointed him”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.]
Requests were made more often, and privately, after that, and in the eight months since. They have been turned down. I understand that there have been some Chinese whispers going on. It has been claimed that the FCDO has been telling journalists that the Committee had the opportunity to meet and question Lord Mandelson when we were in Washington. Obviously, there has been a break in the chain, because the reality is that we had a 15-minute interaction over breakfast while receiving a formal briefing from diplomatic staff about other meetings that day, which is quite materially different from the type of formal evidence session required to conduct meaningful scrutiny.
I want to make it clear that we have not sought to question Lord Mandelson out of a desire to frustrate the Government or their diplomatic agenda. In fact, quite the opposite. It is our responsibility to scrutinise the FCDO to prevent exactly this sort of mistake from damaging Britain’s reputation on the international stage. We want to make the Foreign Office the best it can be and in so many ways it is doing an absolutely excellent job. It is fantastic to see the way in which Britain’s reputation has been so enhanced. However, mistakes can be, and obviously have been, made.
The shocking revelations of the last week were not in the public domain in December, but Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was very widely known. Had my Committee had the opportunity to question Lord Mandelson, I am confident that our members would have raised a range of questions, along with these ones, as journalists, particularly those at the Financial Times, have tried to do. It is quite possible that those questions may have provoked evasive answers, possibly not true answers, or even the same sort of response met by journalists, particularly those from the Financial Times, but that would all have been in the public sphere. It would have been on the record, and Lord Mandelson would have had the opportunity to tell the truth before the House.
Having failed to convince the Government to permit my Committee to question Lord Mandelson, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on Friday, posing a number of questions about the apparent failures in the due diligence and vetting processes conducted before and after the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment. Those questions included whether there were any concerns raised by agencies undertaking security clearance ahead of Lord Mandelson’s appointment and whether a decision was taken to dismiss any such security concerns, and, if so, whether such a decision was taken by the FCDO or by No. 10. I also asked whether any decision was taken to suspend or alter the usual vetting requirements or the usual timeframe for vetting procedures.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her prompt response to that letter, which I received this morning. In her reply, she informs me that the initial due diligence process had been carried out by the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team before the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment, as has been widely reported. She assures me that the Foreign Office did not contribute to that process, and that no issues were raised by the FCDO as a result.
Emily Thornberry
I think this is quite important, and I would like to have the opportunity to inform the House with clarity so that we all know where we stand. I believe that this contribution to the debate is an important one. It is not a party political point; it is just trying to ensure that we learn from what we have heard.
The Foreign Secretary assures me that the Foreign Office did not contribute to that Cabinet Office process, and that no issues were raised by the FCDO as a result. The question is this: did the Cabinet Office miss the glaring red flag of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, or did it fail to pass those concerns on? If so, why?
Several hon. Members rose—
Emily Thornberry
Genuinely guys, just give me a chance to put this before you. The Foreign Secretary’s letter states that—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) will give me an opportunity to put this before the House. I apologise for calling hon. Members “guys”.
The Foreign Secretary’s letter states that the Cabinet Office due diligence process was followed by the usual developed vetting process, or DV, which was carried out by national security vetting on behalf of the FCDO, after the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment. According to the Foreign Secretary, this was conducted to the
“usual standard set for Developed Vetting.”
Career civil servants are regularly subjected to such tests, and many have stories of their appointments being delayed or even prohibited because they have studied abroad, married an Iranian, or simply because they were born in Belfast. The question is this: does having significant information in the public domain about a relationship with an internationally prolific child sex offender not raise more red flags than simply being born in Belfast? Is a civil servant a greater risk to this country because they are married to somebody who was born in the middle east or because they were close friends with Jeffrey Epstein? Did the Foreign Office vetting process miss a glaring national security and reputational risk, or was it told to overlook it?
My Committee’s duty is to scrutinise the Foreign Office to make it the best that it can be, and neither the Foreign Office nor the Cabinet Office has shown itself to be the best it can be in the process surrounding this appointment.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Emily Thornberry
I will get to the end of this paragraph, and then I will give way.
That is why yesterday my Committee asked the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary and the Cabinet Office head of propriety and ethics to appear before us and explain what went wrong. We have been told that no one is available before the recess, but we will continue to push for prompt and public answers.
Richard Tice
The right hon. Lady is speaking powerfully. Does she think that if her Committee had been allowed to interview Lord Mandelson, it would have come up with a recommendation not to approve his appointment, and, in such a situation, does she think that her recommendation would have been listened to?
Emily Thornberry
I think it is slightly more subtle than that. The point is that if Lord Mandelson had appeared before the Committee, he would have faced a range of questions that would have highlighted issues that needed to be considered properly and that could not, in the rush to appoint him, be overlooked in the way they seem to have been. It is about putting a brake on it. We would not, as a Committee, have the power to say that the Government cannot appoint someone, but we would shed light on the nature of the appointment and, through our questions, be able to examine whether or not it was the wisest thing to do.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that if we are to salvage anything positive from this whole sorry episode, it must be that in the future, Parliament, through the Select Committees, has a role in this process? Does not her experience illustrate that the question of who is in charge of that must remain with the Select Committee and not with the Executive?
Emily Thornberry
I would not quite put it like that; I think that the Executive do, in the end, make the decision—they are the Executive. However, I think that we should, as a Select Committee, have a role in this process, particularly when it comes to political appointments. It has happened before, as the right hon. Gentleman may remember, when there were political appointments to the ambassador to South Africa and to Paris—it has happened in the past. I do think, particularly when there are political appointments, that the Select Committee should have a role in that process, and we can make better decisions as a result.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Speaker. Our Committee has a proposal that we should have a greater role in scrutinising the appointment of the US ambassador, given that they are one of the highest ranking members of the diplomatic service, and to help the Government to avoid this situation in the future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider our proposal seriously?
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend may be surprised to hear that I agree with her completely. I think that would be very wise.
Mark Pritchard
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way. I made my own comments earlier about pre-confirmation hearings. Adding on to that, does the right hon. Lady agree that when senior civil servants—whether from the Foreign Office or elsewhere—are asked to come to Select Committees on important matters and they find some excuse not to attend, the Select Committee should at least have the power of summons in order that somebody gives an account? In addition to that, if security or classification is used either truthfully or—shall we say—exaggeratingly as an excuse not to give evidence to a Committee, does the right hon. Lady agree that when Select Committees have Privy Counsellors, as in her case, a briefing could at least be heard on Privy Council terms?
Emily Thornberry
The right hon. Gentleman raises some important points. The power of Select Committees to summon witnesses has been an ongoing debate, and I suspect we have not resolved it yet. He also raises the matter of Privy Counsellors; our Committee has myself and another Privy Council member. The difficulty is that if we were offered Privy Council briefings, as we are sometimes, it is quite difficult, because we want to be able to do those things in public and inform the public of the work of the Foreign Office to ensure that when difficult decisions are being made, they understand why those decisions are being made, with all the factors involved in that. That is fine; I think we need to trust the public more than we sometimes do. We certainly need to trust Back Benchers more than we sometimes do.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Chairman of the Select Committee is being very generous. She is elegantly describing due process and is implying—at least I think she is—that due process may have been set aside for other purposes in this case. However, we know that due process was done because the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box last Wednesday and said that it had been done—unless he is using the Bill Clinton defence, and it turns out that due process was done, but set aside. Where does that leave the Prime Minister?
Emily Thornberry
I think it is difficult to have answers to all the right hon. Gentleman’s questions at the moment. I think the most important thing is that lessons are learned, and even if all due process was followed and the inquiries were proceeded with to the letter, they clearly are not good enough and we need to change them. Either due process was not followed or it was and we need to change it. Either way, we need to work together to ensure that this never happens again, because something went very wrong.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Dr Spencer
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is very generous. As MPs, we put the interests of the country above all else. What does she make of the decision to appoint an individual to represent our country in difficult negotiations in the knowledge that the other country had compromising information on the individual?
Emily Thornberry
Clearly, we all think that it was a mistake. The question is how the mistake occurred and how we can ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again, because something went very wrong. When Lord Mandelson was appointed, red flags were obviously missed or ignored. On the day that the American President lands in Britain for a state visit, the Government are materially worse off because we do not have an ambassador to the United States.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emily Thornberry
I really am finishing. If we do not have the opportunity to scrutinise this failure, how can we ensure that we stop it from happening again? We need to improve our scrutiny and our decision making.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important emergency debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing it.
My right hon. Friend made a series of excellent points, as did the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I agree with all those points. It is extraordinary that, on the eve of the President’s state visit, we are talking about the US ambassador who has been sacked in scandal.
There are many unanswered questions, and I will be asking many of them, but today the Prime Minister needs to do three things. The Prime Minister needs to come clean about what he knew and when he knew it—not send his junior Ministers to cover for him. The Prime Minister needs to publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. But the Prime Minister is not here, because he is hiding from Parliament and hiding from questions. I know that he is a busy man, but confidence in him and in his Government rests on him being able to account for what happened, and so far no one is taking any responsibility.
We have had our ambassador in the US sacked over his relationship with a man convicted of child sex offences. What is more—this tells us everything we need to know—this was an appointment apparently forced through by the Prime Minister and/or his chief of staff. We have seen a political ally pushed ahead of qualified candidates because the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney admired his talent for mixing with the rich and powerful, despite his known links to a man who was publicly known as a convicted paedophile and a convicted sex trafficker.
Given the speeches we have heard and everything that is in the public domain, it is now very clear that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. It is now also clear that the Prime Minister knew that there were major concerns when he came to this House just last Wednesday. Instead of taking action, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in him. Why on earth did he do so? Was he poorly advised, or was it just his own poor judgment?
In every single one of his Government’s scandals to date, far from being the decisive man of conscience he promised to be, the Prime Minister has shrivelled from leadership, he has dodged responsibility, and he has hidden behind others, just as he is doing today, and he has come to this House and hidden behind process and lawyerly phrases. The Prime Minister has shown no courage, no judgment, no backbone. If he cannot see it and Government Members cannot see it, I can assure them that the British public can. The Prime Minister has turned out to be everything he claimed to abhor. This is a Government of sleaze and scandal, and Labour MPs know it. I will be interested to see how many of them stand up to defend their Government.
The British public and, especially, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve the Prime Minister, for once, to be straight and honest with us. He must immediately do three things. First, he must apologise to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for ever having appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador. How is it that this has still not happened? There has been no apology. Secondly, as I said, he must publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full—all the information he had at his disposal, both when he made the appointment and when he came to the House last week to express full confidence in Mandelson. Thirdly, he must make sure that someone takes responsibility.
Everyone now agrees that Peter Mandelson should not have been appointed. We have heard so much from my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington about endless scandal and conflicts of interest with China and Russia, so why was he appointed? Was it a failure of vetting? Was it that advisers hid information from the Prime Minister? Or was it that the Prime Minister knew and made the decision anyway? Someone needs to take responsibility.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have seen a rapid transformation from the Prince of Darkness into a grovelling Lord Yum Yum? One has to ask, why was the British Prime Minister surprised? Had he never heard the tale of the turtle and the scorpion that meet at the side of the river? Should the Prime Minister not have realised that the poor old scorpion simply cannot help what is in its nature?
Mrs Badenoch
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The story is that of the frog and the scorpion, and it is one of my favourite childhood stories. Everyone knew what Lord Mandelson had been up to. It is simply not tenable for any Member on the Government Benches to hold the line on this one, burying their heads in the sand and hoping that it goes away, least of all the Prime Minister.
We now know that the Prime Minister was aware of the compromising emails last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, yet he came to the House and said that he had confidence in his ambassador. Many on the Labour Benches cheered, but now they are all looking at their phones, and most of them do not have the courage to look me in the eye. They were cheering last week, and now they are full of shame. [Interruption.] Sorry, are they proud? No, they are not. I will continue.
Why on earth did the Prime Minister do that? At any point did he ask his staff what more information might surface? That morning Lord Mandelson was saying that more information would surface. Did the Prime Minister receive a briefing about that ahead of Prime Minister’s questions? It is inconceivable that he did not. Ministers are now claiming that new information subsequently came to light—new information that they did not have. The story is all mixed and messed up, and they know it. What information appeared that was not in the original vetting? We would like to hear that when the Minister responds.
There are still more questions to answer. When did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff speak with Peter Mandelson last week, and what did they discuss? Do the Government have the courage to tell us that? We are told that Morgan McSweeney spent hours on the phone to the ambassador at the same time that Lord Mandelson was dodging calls from the Foreign Office. What were they talking about?
Those are questions about what happened just last week, but how did all this come to happen last year? The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has asked some excellent questions. But I ask the Minister this: what led to Lord Mandelson’s appointment in the first place? How was it that a man with known links to a child sex offender came to be appointed?
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
An additional question is whether there was any external influence. Did Tony Blair or any of Mandelson’s friends have anything to do with the appointment?
Mrs Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question, and I hope the Minister can provide an answer, because all of us across the House want to know.
We want to know how Lord Mandelson’s appointment happened in the first place. As I see it, there are only three possibilities. The first is that it was a failure of vetting, but are we really supposed to believe that this is the fault of the security services? I do not think so. Did they not drag up the intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was discussed last week? The second possibility—a bit more likely—is that the Prime Minister’s advisers kept information from him. If that happened, it would be incredibly serious.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter what happened or did not happen, a Prime Minister—a leader—has to shoulder the responsibility? It is absolutely appalling that they would then blame the staff around them. It is their responsibility, and they answer to the House—no excuse.
Mrs Badenoch
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is a Prime Minister who hides behind everybody else; whether his advisers, his junior Ministers or his Back Benchers, that is what he does. If he wants to blame advisers, which one was it? Who kept it from him? Why have they not apologised and resigned? No one is taking responsibility.
Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington alluded to, the most likely but most worrying reason of all is that the Prime Minister had plenty of information to suggest that Lord Mandelson should not be appointed but chose to appoint him anyway. Even at the time, eyebrows were raised about this appointment and there were many critics; I remember it from the time. Now we read in the papers that the Prime Minister overruled security advice not to appoint Lord Mandelson. Is that true? The Minister should tell us.
It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean. He needs to come out of hiding. This issue will not go away. The Government cannot play for time as we will be back here again and again until all these documents are published. We will be back until someone takes responsibility.
This is a political crisis on top of an economic crisis all of the Government’s own making. They are distracted now, but they came into office with no plan for the country, no idea what they stood for and no vision for what they wanted to achieve. Because of that, they have been lurching from disaster to disaster, with winter fuel, tax rises, welfare chaos, scandal, and the Prime Minister’s failing leadership rebooted after just one year. The only plan they came into office with was a promise they made again and again to the British public: that they would restore honesty and integrity to Government. That was their defining mission, that was their grand plan, and it is in tatters.
So far, in one year, we have had an anti-corruption Minister sacked for corruption, a homelessness Minister sacked for evicting tenants, a Housing Secretary sacked for dodging housing tax, a Transport Secretary sacked for fraud and a director of strategy—apparently the speechwriter—lost only yesterday in scandal.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
indicated dissent.
Mrs Badenoch
The Minister shakes his head—he should be shaking it in shame. I have not said anything that is not true.
Now, finally, we have a US ambassador sacked for his links with a known child sex offender. The Government claim to care about violence against women and girls, until they actually have to do something about it. Where is the apology to those victims?
I know the Prime Minister does not like difficult questions, but it is his judgment that is being called into question. He owes it to the country to come clean.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
First and foremost, I want to acknowledge the many victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s appalling abuse. For many of them, this story is not a political one; it is a personal one. No one could fail to be moved by listening to the brother and sister on the news this Sunday in their first interview in the UK, with the void that family will now feel from their loss. Let us not detract from them and probably the many more victims who still have not come forward but are caught up in this scandalous and horrific abuse.
I will keep my remarks short. I have recently returned from a trade envoy visit to Nigeria. What struck me on that visit was the hard work and dedication of our civil servants. I met the British deputy high commissioner. All our diplomats working across many missions in many countries do not make the headlines, but they are representing the UK with distinction week in, week out. I know that is replicated across many countries, including the deputy ambassador in Washington, who has taken over from Lord Mandelson. He has been described as a “highly regarded diplomat”, so we wish him well in his temporary role.
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), rightly highlighted a number of important questions. I hope that the Government will be listening.
Apsana Begum
My hon. Friend will be aware that I am listed in the House as an independent, not for matters relating to conduct or duty of candour, but for voting with my conscience to scrap the two-child limit—a policy also supported by the former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Children’s Commissioner. My suspension from the Labour Whip was applied over a year ago, within minutes of my vote. Does she agree that while I and other Members, including the Mother of the House, appear to be held to one standard, Lord Mandelson appears to be held to another?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making her point. I think about the amount of abuse that many parliamentarians in this Chamber sadly face—particularly black and minority ethnic Members—just for their mere existence. I know about the horrific domestic abuse that my hon. Friend has faced, and I hope that, with time, the Labour leadership will look at some of the issues around suspension. She will know that I am not privy to that, but I know that many of us continue to raise these issues with the leadership.
I will finish by highlighting some of the many questions that I hope the Minister will respond to. The key question that many people are asking, including many of my constituents, is about the recruitment process going forward. Will the Minister—the Foreign Secretary is not here—assure the House that the recruitment process will be strengthened so that in future our ambassadors will bolster the standing of our civil servants on the global stage?
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
This debate finds the House at its best, holding the Government and the Prime Minister properly to account. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we may be rising for the recess, but this issue will not go away. I pay tribute to the right hon. and gallant Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for securing the debate and for laying out the series of questions that needs to be answered so that we can properly hold the Government to account. I will not repeat all his many questions. He made a long speech, which we will no doubt be rereading over the next few weeks.
I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). Her speech, in which she said that her Committee had tried to bring Lord Mandelson before the Committee to be scrutinised but were prevented from doing so, raised some serious questions about how Select Committees are being ignored by the Government.
We need to get serious about confirmatory hearings. The House and the public need to know what a Select Committee that specialises in a subject thinks about such an important public appointment before that appointment is confirmed. I hope that we will reform the processes of the House to build on what the right hon. Lady rightly said.
The Leader of the Opposition made some important points about the need for disclosure from the Government. We need those documents to be published if we are to have a transparent process where we can properly hold the Government to account. If they have answers, let us hear them, and then we can do that analysis.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Much has been said about the process, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was clearly never worth the risk to appoint Peter Mandelson? Will he go further than that on the professionalism of the role? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about the reputation of our ambassadorial officials across the world. Would we be better served if in the future we looked to professionals to fill those roles rather than politicians?
Ed Davey
The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. The previous ambassador to the United States was held in high regard, and many people think she should be appointed to the vacancy.
I want to mention what was said by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). Yes, we have all these questions to be answered, and there are disclosures to be made, but we must remember the victims in all this. I want to focus on the victims, because they deserve answers.
When we read those sickening messages, we think of Epstein’s victims and their families—girls as young as 14 groomed by Epstein, sexually abused by him, trafficked by him and sexually abused by other powerful men. I have been thinking about the trauma not only that they went through then, but have been through since, as they saw the man responsible for such horrific crimes escape justice for so long. They saw him convicted in 2008, but spend just 13 months in jail thanks to his powerful connections.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
We know that the trauma of sexual violence and sexual abuse can last a lifetime and, for many people, it can be too much to bear, as we have seen with Virginia Giuffre. Victims of sexual violence are often silenced, often ignored and always let down by a system that sometimes—often—sees powerful men protecting each other to diminish the crimes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister should never have appointed somebody who had known links with a convicted paedophile?
Ed Davey
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her for the work she has done to protect vulnerable women during her career. We salute her for that work.
As we remember the victims, how must it have felt for them to see Donald Trump, one of Epstein’s closest friends and a man found liable for sexual abuse himself, become President of the United States? How must it have felt for the victims to see another of Epstein’s closest friends made British ambassador to the United States? How must it have felt for the victims to hear the Prime Minister defend Lord Mandelson last week, even after he had seen those appalling messages? How must it have felt for them to hear Ministers say, even after Mandelson was sacked, that his appointment was a risk worth taking? I think that is quite shocking.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
My right hon. Friend has turned down the opportunity to dine with Donald Trump in the next couple of days, and he has been roundly criticised for that by some people who may well still attend. Does he agree that it is an ample opportunity for those people to ask President Trump about his entry in that horrific book of birthday wishes for Mr Epstein? Will my right hon. Friend ask them to report back to us about what President Trump said?
Ed Davey
The truth is that at such state banquets very few people get to speak to the visiting Head of State. However, the Prime Minister does, so I wonder if he will ask the President about his friendship with Epstein. I think he should and I think this House thinks he should.
For decades, the victims and their families have seen powerful men escape responsibility for what they did and what they knew. It should be a source of deep shame to Ministers that the British Government are now part of that story.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons that Epstein escaped justice for so long was that he was protected by other powerful men, and that if we are truly to protect young people from predators, we need to ensure that the protectors of paedophiles have absolutely no place in public life?
Ed Davey
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I know that she has worked for victims of domestic violence and abuse as well. I can do no better than quote the words of Sky Roberts, the brother of Virginia Giuffre. He said about Lord Mandelson:
“He should not have been given the position in the first place. It speaks to how deep the corruption is in our systems.”
Not only must we hold the Government to account for this, but we need to fix our systems, whether through Select Committee hearings or by holding the powerful to account. Our constituents lose trust in our institutions when they fail to hold people to account. I am proud that my party, and I am sure others in this House, wish to see those reforms. Not least for the survivors, for the victims and for their families, we must hold the powerful to account.
In that regard, will the Minister, when he gets to his feet, apologise to all of Epstein’s victims and their families? We need an apology from the Minister today. Beyond that, will he say whether he agrees that the Prime Minister himself owes them a personal apology too?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have a substantial speaking list and this debate is time-limited to three hours, so Back Benchers are on a six-minute speaking limit. I call John Slinger.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I wish to express my sympathy with all the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and put on record my respect for the family of Virginia Giuffre who spoke so movingly about her on the BBC at the weekend.
In listening to the debate here and in the media over recent days, I am struck by the similarities with the one that took place over many years concerning the appointment of Mr Andy Coulson as the director of communications in Downing Street, from the point of his resignation in 2011 to his conviction for phone hacking in 2014. It was an appointment that David Cameron consistently said he would not have made if he had known at the time the information that subsequently came to light. For that reason, the question was constantly asked in this House and beyond: why did the security processes Mr Coulson went through prior to his appointment not uncover his past involvement in phone hacking?
Some people pointed to the fact that, unlike previous occupants of his role, Mr Coulson had not gone through developed vetting until long after his appointment and, indeed, had to resign before completing that process. Yet when the issue was directly discussed at the Leveson inquiry, this was the exchange between Lord Justice Leveson and the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell, which is important to recall. Lord O’Donnell said of developed vetting:
“I think some people have different understandings of what DV’ing would reveal. It wouldn’t have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example.”
Lord Justice Leveson replied:
“No. It’s concerned with whether you’re likely to be a risk.”
Lord O’Donnell then said:
“Whether you’re blackmailable, basically, yes”.
David Cameron relied on that exchange in this House after Andy Coulson’s conviction on 25 June 2014, when he said, first—and I think, correctly—that Coulson’s security clearance was a matter for the civil service and not for the Prime Minister, and secondly, that even if Coulson had been fully DV-ed, it would not have uncovered evidence of his involvement in phone hacking.
I mention this now not to reopen the issue over Andy Coulson’s security clearance, or that of Dominic Cummings for that matter, but simply to remind Opposition Members that it is not new to have these kind of questions raised around the vetting of senior appointees. It is certainly not an issue that is specific to this Government or the particular appointment of Lord Mandelson. They would do well to remember that before they get too high on their horse in today’s debate.
Monica Harding
This really is not hard. Is it not enough to know that Lord Mandelson enjoyed the patronage of a convicted child sex offender by staying in his houses? Was that not enough to prevent his appointment as our most senior ambassador?
John Slinger
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am setting out for the House very useful context within which this debate—[Interruption.] It is useful. Hon. Members can chunter from a sedentary position, but it is useful context.
Several hon. Members rose—
John Slinger
I will not give way. I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks.
The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) spoke somewhat mockingly of the strange coincidences of politics, given the presentation of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He has shown that he believes in accountability and he acts on it. The Leader of the Opposition can reel off a list of Ministers who have been sacked, but that rather proves my point. Frankly, this is a welcome change and no matter how uncomfortable recent events have been, we are seeing, under this Prime Minister, that public officials, Ministers and yes, ambassadors are being held to higher standards than previously, and I welcome that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The speech that we have just heard was absolutely risible, frankly. I will just give the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) some advice: do not do the Whips Office’s dirty work for them—
John Slinger
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I would like to give him some advice: please do not patronise me.
Sir Edward Leigh
I was just trying to give the hon. Gentleman some helpful advice, but there we are.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I have some advice for the hon. Member for Rugby: those that lick the feet of the unworthy gain for themselves nothing but a dirty tongue. [Laughter.]
Sir Edward Leigh
Joking apart, this is a very serious moment for our country and for Parliament. Whether you like him or not, President Trump is of incredible importance to our country. He is just about to arrive here and he must think that we in this country are complete plonkers, frankly, for the way that we have handled all this. First of all, he had a very good relationship with the previous ambassador, but she was just swept aside. Then a man was appointed who had traduced him in the past. All right, that man is a skilled operator and has built up a relationship. President Trump himself is probably rather embarrassed about his relationship with Epstein, and then he finds this being dragged up all over the media a day before one of his most important visits, which is of great importance to his country and to ours. He knows that there are going to be difficult questions at the press conference. The President of the United States must be absolutely furious about what is going on, so this is a very serious moment for us and we have to take it extremely seriously. I hope—I am sure—that the Government do so.
I will repeat what I said in the urgent question on Thursday. I have seen so many of these scandals, and it is usually not the original scandal or alleged scandal that is the problem; it is the cover up. I shall try to be helpful to the Government. We have already heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and it is an absurd part of our processes that if there is a monumental scandal, we have a public inquiry—where officials, Ministers, everybody must be dragged in and every document produced—but Governments can just brush aside a Select Committee. I am genuinely trying to be helpful now. Obviously a bad mistake was made, but an even worse mistake is being made if the Government are not honest with Parliament and they do not release every single document.
There are so many questions that need to be asked and that could be answered if the Government—the Foreign Office—were honest in response. Why was Mandelson chosen, given his known past associations with Epstein and his previous sackings? Were the risks merely misjudged, or did the existing vetting process fail to assess them properly? The Prime Minister claimed he did not know the full extent of the emails. We have no reason not to take him at his word. Obviously he tells the truth, but this raises serious questions about what assurances or information he received, from whom, and whether that constituted adequate due diligence. What exact checks were carried out at the appointment stage?
What was known by whom and when? If some of the unsavoury aspects of the former ambassador’s friendship with Mr Epstein were known but deemed “worth the risk”, what criteria were used to make that decision? Was the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team sufficiently rigorous? Was any personal, institutional or political bias exhibited in how risks were weighed?
The Government have stated commitments on transparency, integrity and protecting the victims of abuse or sexual violence. Having a senior representative such as an ambassador whose past communications appear to mitigate, defend or minimise a convicted child sex offender must run counter to those values. Was that considered at that stage of the vetting process? How do the Government reconcile this incident with their stated positions? Why was the appointment made knowing that there were links, but without understanding their full extent? Why was the Prime Minister publicly defending Lord Mandelson up until the revelations emerged, only to sack him in less than a day when the media pressure rose? Was he sacked for the content of what was revealed, or merely because the situation became embarrassing?
Lord Mandelson was appointed to arguably the most important diplomatic role in His Majesty’s diplomatic service. This is a time of intense international pressure, and President Trump is operating the levers of power in a way that we have rarely seen in the post-war world. What assessment have the Government made of the damage done to Britain’s diplomatic standing by having such an important ambassador removed abruptly under scandal? Light is the best disinfectant, and the public—and this House, through the Select Committee—have a right to be informed. Ministers must assure us that the full record of Lord Mandelson’s communications with Epstein will be disclosed, and soon.
We must also be told whether any of the information the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or any other Minister provided to the public has turned out to be inaccurate, whether intentionally or in good faith. The ambassador has been sacked, but this incident is far from over. Too many questions remain unanswered. It is the obligation and the responsibility of Government to ensure that Parliament and the public are given a full and frank exposition of this matter.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I often think it is a grave pity that the cameras in this House tend to be trained just on the individual speaking, because it means that the public did not get the opportunity that we did earlier to look at the faces of the Labour MPs as this debate began—to see the glum, serious look on their faces as they recognised the significance of the situation that faces their Prime Minister here and now. And I am sure that that glum, angry, serious look is shared not just by those here on the Treasury Bench today but by those who have been flogged in the public domain across broadcasting stations throughout the course of the last week.
The Chief Whip is no longer in his place, but I like to think that Sunday was the first occasion when he was happy to be in his new role, because he did not have to appear on the Sunday media rounds as Business Secretary to defend the indefensible and to tell us all, in the public domain, that Peter Mandelson has singular qualities that nobody else on these isles—nobody else on the planet—could possibly have that made him fitting to be the ambassador to the United States of America. What a pitiful state to find ourselves in. What a pitiful state for the Prime Minister to find himself in.
I hate to say it, but this is mired in politics, because this was a political decision by the Prime Minister. He chose to stand at the Dispatch Box last week and tell not just us but the public that there was nothing to see here—that he had absolute confidence in Lord Mandelson. It is the Prime Minister who chose to ignore the facts that were plainly in front of him, not for weeks, hours or days, but for months. He was the man who appointed Peter Mandelson to be the ambassador to the United States. Peter Mandelson told a Financial Times journalist earlier this year to “fuck off”—his quote, not mine—when he was asked about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. That was what Lord Mandelson said. He also said it was “an FT obsession”. Well, guess what? It is our obsession now, and we are going to make sure that we get to the bottom of this.
The Prime Minister is not above the scrutiny of the House of Commons; neither is he above the scrutiny of the public at home. The greatest scandal of all is the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom appointed a man to that role, knowing that that man had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein despite the fact that Epstein had been convicted in 2008, in Florida, of having 14-year-old girls masturbate him. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom thought it was fitting for the best friend of that individual to hold the highest diplomatic office in the United States of America on behalf of the people of these isles. What a complete disgrace.
The only thing that seems to have caused any consternation for the Prime Minister in any of this is not that that happened, but the fact that for a short period, Peter Mandelson appeared to think Jeffrey Epstein was innocent. That draws us to the conclusion that if Peter Mandelson had maintained the friendship with Jeffrey Epstein but thought he was guilty, he would still be in post. What has happened to the moral compass of this place, and of the office of the Prime Minister, where we can simply accept a rationale such as that?
How can any victim of child sex abuse in these isles or elsewhere have confidence in the structures that we put in place when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), shakes his head. Does he want to intervene? Is there something he disagrees with in my assessment of those facts, or does he want to present the additional detail to this House that makes any of that untrue whatsoever? No. I notice he is not shaking his head now, but I can tell him who is shaking their head: the public—at him and his Prime Minister for the decisions they have taken.
We are going into recess. All of us are mindful of the fact that this House is shutting down. But when we come back, we expect answers. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom hopes that this is going to go away, but I and every other Member sitting in this House right now can assure him that it is not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Colleagues—there are children in the Gallery. Let us keep our language tempered and ensure that we are being moderate in everything we say.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) was able to outline so clearly what today is about, and what today is about is an exceptionally serious matter. We are talking about the appointment of somebody who would have to have the highest security clearance—higher than a lot of Ministers—and who would have sensitive information going across his desk. Yet, at the same time, it was known in the public domain that this individual was severely compromised. That should raise a question for everybody.
Government Back Benchers have been following today’s debate in a state of despair. I admire them for that, because they understand the gravity of the situation. As the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South mentioned, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), has done nothing but treat the debate so far with contempt. He was smirking at the Leader of the Opposition and he has been shaking his head at some of the allegations made that are in the public domain. That speaks to the apparent attitude at the heart of this Government.
I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is going to have to respond to the debate. We work closely together and he is a good man, but he has been sent to the slaughter today. This is a decision that was made around the Cabinet table. The Minister had to come to this House last week and announce that the Prime Minister had instructed the Foreign Secretary to withdraw the ambassador. Where is the Foreign Secretary? This is one of the most serious issues this House has debated in this Parliament, and once again the Government have the Minister to answer these questions.
To be fair to the Minister, many questions will be put, and he is not going to be able to answer them. That is why he has been sent here today: because he can push it off into the distance. I have nothing but respect for the Minister; we work closely together on international affairs and on NATO, and he has always been honest and up front. I know he must be dreading responding today. Maybe he can tell us when he actually knew that the ambassador had been withdrawn, because on Thursday he certainly looked like a man who was slightly worried about what he had to come into this House to do.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I have talked to my constituents, and it is a fact that in the last few days they have talked about little else. Like the leader of the SNP in this place, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), said, this issue is not going to go away. I hope politicians realise that. It will get bigger and bigger as time goes on. To take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), these questions will have to be answered—there’s no two ways about it. When the general public speak so firmly to me in that way, and to all of us, we know they speak the truth.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Let us not shy away from what this is about: this is about a man who defended a convicted paedophile, which most people know would lead to any vetting process being failed because the person could be compromised when they have defended someone of those serious criminal offences. We know from what is in the public domain how much he was in hock to this convicted paedophile, and yet processes were overridden.
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raked up the past and, quite frankly, the resignation of a director of communications is very different from the withdrawal of an ambassador with top secret access. When the Conservatives were in government, we didn’t exactly not have our scandals and heartaches that we had to go through. I remind the House that what did for Boris Johnson as the Prime Minister was not the allegations thrown from the Labour side of the House; it was when he said to this House that he was not aware of any of the allegations made against Chris Pincher, and then it turned out that he had evidence that he was aware.
We know that this Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box last Wednesday and said he had not been made aware and did not have any documents, when we now know that his office had them. The question has to be answered: when did he know and how can it be shown that he did not know beforehand? The Conservatives moved against Boris Johnson as Prime Minister when it became apparent that he did know. I say to those Labour Back Benchers and those giving opinions in the press, “Do you have the courage now to move against a Prime Minister who has done exactly what the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson did in this country?” This party moved against him it became clear that that was not correct. It is said that “the buck stops here”. Well, the buck really needs to stop here.
John Slinger
The right hon. Gentleman refers to the previous Prime Minister as having conducted himself in certain ways. One of those ways was not actually having an independent ethics adviser for a period of time, whereas this Prime Minister has an independent ethics adviser and acts on their advice.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I took that intervention because I knew the hon. Gentleman would not be able to help himself. The reality is the Prime Minister made all this thing about, “I’ve appointed an ethics adviser, I’ve done this—” and yet, when asked the very straightforward question by the BBC, “Would you sack a Minister who has broken the ethics code?” he could not answer. He obfuscated, as he always does. This is smoke and mirrors, and this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today.
It is not good enough to say, “We didn’t know.” I come back to the fact that people who were subject to a paedophile had to watch somebody who defended that paedophile get put in one of the highest offices in the world, carrying some of the greatest secrets of state—and yet this Prime Minister said, “That’s all fine; we’ll override it.”
I do not want to go beyond the six minutes I was allowed, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will just ask these questions of the Minister—some of them have been implied.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am afraid I will not. I do not want to test the patience of the House—a lot of people want to speak.
The question the Minister has to answer decisively today is, “Who knew what and when?” He has to answer who made the decision to award the ambassadorship to Peter Mandelson and what lobbying took place. Any of us who have been to America working in international affairs know from meeting Karen Pierce that she is one of the most respected and capable ambassadors. It cannot be true to say that such a distinguished ambassador as Dame Karen would not have been able to carry out the task—a task for which members sitting around the Cabinet table today felt that man was worth the risk.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
There have been some powerful speeches from both sides of the House, and it is apparent that everybody is agreed that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as ambassador to Washington. It matters because ambassadors are critically important to our nation. They are the leaders in projecting our soft power. They are viewed as embodiments of the United Kingdom, and it is them who influence very largely how the UK is perceived.
As has been said, we have had some really good ambassadors to the United States, going back to the late Sir Christopher Meyer, who I knew well and who did a terrific job, Lord Kim Darroch, and Dame Karen Pierce. Sometimes there have even been good political appointments. There was a certain amount of controversy when Peter Jay was appointed US ambassador—he was the son-in-law of the Prime Minister—but he did a reasonable job. Ed Llewellyn became our ambassador to Paris, and now to Rome, and has done a terrific job.
As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), pointed out, because Ed Llewellyn’s appointment was a political one, he was interrogated by the Select Committee. As she said, the Committee, on which I serve, has attempted numerous times to have Peter Mandelson appear. We were told, in the Foreign Office’s most recent letter to the Chair, that the Committee would have the opportunity to talk to him on a visit to Washington. I was at both meetings, so I can say that the first was a briefing about the state of American politics when we first arrived, and the second was a breakfast at which he hosted opinion-formers to discuss with us what was happening in the US Capitol. At no stage did we have any opportunity to cross-examine or ask Peter Mandelson the questions that we would have asked had he appeared before the Committee. It is ridiculous to suggest that those meetings somehow compensated for his failure to appear.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I was with the right hon. Gentleman at those Foreign Affairs Committee meetings. We should also say that there was no opportunity for us to quiz Lord Mandelson in a public setting.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was important that we had that opportunity. Had we done so, the questions being asked now could have been asked then, and we could have explored rather more why the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson was taken—it is still causing bewilderment to a large number of people. As has been said, it is now apparent that he should never have been appointed. I will not recap what my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and many others have said about his record, his previous resignations and his unsavoury links, all of which should have rung every alarm bell.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend is making an important contribution. Does he not agree that although there is a tendency to say that it is about what we can do in the future, this debate is about what has gone wrong in the past, about the Government’s role in it, and about the Prime Minister shouldering responsibility and taking us through what he knew?
Sir John Whittingdale
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Actually, the two are related, because we can determine the lessons learned and decide what to do in the future only if we know what went wrong this time. In order to know, we must obtain the answers to our questions.
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee set out and ran through a number of important questions in her contribution, and we have now had an answer from the Foreign Office. She referred to the letter that was sent to her. What we know from the letter—it does not tell us much—is, first, that the Foreign Office had nothing really to do with this. It says that the appointment was carried out following the propriety and ethics committee investigation, which was carried out in the Cabinet Office. The Foreign Office was then told of that and instructed to appoint Lord Mandelson as ambassador. After his appointment was announced, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting.
National security vetting—deep vetting—has been referred to. We need to know what that says, but we are told by the Foreign Office that national security vetting is independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Essentially, the Foreign Office appears to be saying, “Well, we were told about his past, but we were not told anything about what was uncovered, about the questions that were asked or about his answers.” Yet this is someone who already had very serious offences against him, which had caused him to resign twice, and real question marks about his record as European Commissioner and about some of his friendships. All of those questions must, one assumes, have been asked during deep vetting, yet he passed. The final outcome was, “Fine, he can be appointed.” The Foreign Office was told that but was not given any other detail.
Frankly, I find that completely astonishing. It raises even more serious questions about the deep vetting process and what it showed, and why, if Ministers were not given any detail about what the process uncovered, they did not ask any questions about it. I look forward to the Minister addressing that in his response.
Sir John Whittingdale
I give way to another fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Edward Morello
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the Committee’s repeated requests to meet Lord Mandelson before his appointment. He also raises the various responses that we got from the Foreign Secretary. The important fact that there were questions about the suitability of the appointment means that there must also be questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. Did he ask to read the propriety and ethics and security vetting reports before making the appointment, and did he go ahead despite their content?
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman asks valid questions. We need to have the answers to them all. I know that he will join me in urging the Foreign Affairs Committee to continue pressing this case. It may well be that another body—perhaps the Liaison Committee, which has the opportunity to interrogate the Prime Minister—will also pursue these matters. As has been said several times, this will not go away. There is real anger across this House and across the country, and people will demand answers.
The Committee attempted today to try to put those questions by summoning two members of the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, but we were told that neither was available. I can tell the House that I have some experience in summoning people who do not wish to appear before Select Committees—there is a procedure—and I hope that, when we return after recess, the Committee will pursue these matters and will require Ministers to appear, and that if they refuse, we will see what other actions can be taken.
These are very serious matters. The questions have been asked, but the answers have not been forthcoming so far. We will go on pursuing this until they are.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I assume that everyone who is bobbing wishes to contribute—there seems to be a lot of movement in the Chamber.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing this debate. Like everyone in the Chamber, my thoughts are first and foremost with the victims of that dreadful man whose name I refuse to mention.
A week is a long time in politics. Last week, we saw the Prime Minister stand at the Dispatch Box to back, and then sack, the now former ambassador to the US. At Prime Minister’s questions last week, my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), questioned the Prime Minister on Lord Mandelson’s appointment. The Prime Minister stood by it, confirming that rigorous background checks had taken place.
This entire situation has left a nasty taste in the mouth, to put it mildly. The fact that the ambassador to the US—the most coveted ambassadorial position in the United Kingdom by many metrics—was seemingly okay with the moral turpitude of the man whose name I will not mention, even after his conviction, casts a long shadow on Britain’s place in the world. The timing and nature of this episode—not that it could ever be anything other than terrible—is catastrophically bad. The optics are dreadful. While we should be demonstrating moral leadership in an increasingly volatile international climate, our emissary to our closest ally has been discredited by scandal.
The President of the United States lands in this country today for his unprecedented second state visit. When the Prime Minister wines and dines him, will he take a principled stand on the matters of great importance to the people of this country? Will he press on Gaza? Will he make progress on our long awaited bespoke trade deal to insulate ourselves from Trump’s tariffs? Will he be supporting our NATO allies in making the case for better US engagement in the defence of Ukraine and shoring up Europe’s eastern flank to Russian incursions into Poland and Romania?
As if not already bad enough, this murky affair has been thickened by the fact that a source from MI6 has reportedly claimed that they failed to clear Mandelson and warned that his links to the man I refuse to name “would compromise him”. Downing Street pressed ahead with the appointment anyway. It is vital that the Civil Service Commission investigates whether the ambassador broke the diplomatic service code by failing to come clean over these revelations sooner.
If it is true, it raises wider questions about what other advice from the security services was neglected. Why did Downing Street officials fail this most basic duty? Why did the team in No. 10 send the Prime Minister out to bat sticking to the line of confidence in Mandelson, only to defenestrate the ambassador a few hours later? Why was the Prime Minister not on top of his brief? If it is the case that key details and information were withheld from the Prime Minister, why has no one been outed and swiftly given the boot?
In the late 1920s, a German philosopher called Karl Popper famously said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. It is my sincere hope that that is not the case for this Government, for whom I usually have a degree of respect. There are so many questions. We on these Benches and my constituents in Tiverton and Minehead demand answers.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
When I heard that this debate had been granted, I thought long and hard about what I could add and whether I should even take part. Many of the questions that spring to mind about the process—where, when, why, how and so on—have already been asked far more eloquently and in more detail than I could. In essence, it comes down to the fact that this was a political appointment, so the PM is the person who should carry the risk—that is the job. If it is someone else’s, we need to know who that is. Stepping back a bit, I thought, “What would the man and woman on Hinckley high street say if I talked to them about it?” They do talk about it, and it hits hard. They have many of the process questions that we have.
This seems a bit of a pyrrhic victory. I am acutely aware that the sword of hypocrisy has a blade on both sides, and swung heavily in this House, it can hit both sides equally, but it is not the wound that can kill; it is the subsequent infection. That is the problem we are seeing today. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) pointed to the past and talked about context. He is right: context is important to the public in this debate, and we on the Conservative Benches are paying the price for some of the decisions that were taken before. It was not the fact that a previous Prime Minister ate cake. It was the fact that it was then covered up, and we had to come to this House following the report to say that we felt the Prime Minister had lied.
The new Prime Minister came in saying, “There will be change. There will be something different.” Those were his words. It was even on the lectern: “Plan for change”. Herein lies the problem. When the Transport Secretary was found to have committed fraud, when the anti-corruption Minister was investigated for corruption, when the homelessness Minister had to resign for making people homeless, and when the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary was found not to have paid her tax, it was not because the Prime Minister pushed them out there—it was because the media and this place did their job in holding them to account. That is the difference I am looking for today.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Does my hon. Friend agree it is a vital point that if our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had not taken down the Prime Minister step by step last week, we may have gone into a recess with this scrutiny still not happening?
Dr Evans
My right hon. Friend is spot on. Respect should be given to the many people who have raised concerns, including the Leader of the Opposition, many in the media and many Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
This is my primary point: the Prime Minister said he wanted to do something different. Well, what could he do differently? He could come to this House, tell people the truth and answer the questions. There is nothing stopping him from delivering a statement, putting himself up for scrutiny and answering these questions. He could convene a Committee of the House—I am sure many would be happy to attend—to answer the questions put to him.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The point keeps being raised about the three-week gap that is coming, but the reality is that key Select Committees can continue to investigate this issue through the recess, which they should, and could call the Prime Minister to give evidence, so that we do not wait three weeks, with the Government hoping that it dies. That is the key.
Dr Evans
My right hon. Friend is spot on.
The Prime Minister said he would do things differently. If he wants to show leadership, he could come to the Dispatch Box himself. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister who will have to defend this situation, but he is not the decision maker—he is not the risk holder when it comes to this decision. Therein lies the point. I am sad today, because the public will look on and see that a new Prime Minister came in on a landslide majority saying he would do things differently, by his own standards that he set, and he has chosen not to. He has ignored the questions. He has answered the media, saying in his one outing, “I wouldn’t have made the decision if I knew the information.” That is not good enough to allow the public to understand.
I finish where I started: today is a pyrrhic victory—a hollow victory—but I live in hope. On the day that the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I am hopeful that the Prime Minister could still lead the change that he set out. He could still live by his own standards that he set for himself and his Government, and he could still clear up once and for all exactly what happened. I live in hope that that might be the case.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The reality is that the Prime Minister personally decided to appoint Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, and in so doing, he has humiliated and embarrassed this nation on the international stage, because Lord Mandelson is someone who described himself as the “best pal” of a paedophile and advised that paedophile to use his time in prison as “an opportunity”—truly shocking.
There are two separate issues that require proper examination: first, the judgment of the Prime Minister, and secondly, whether he inadvertently misled the House last Wednesday in responding to the Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at the judgment of the Prime Minister. We know now that as he made the personal decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, he received a two-page document outlining some of his links to the paedophile, and yet he carried on with that decision to appoint him. He made the appointment in that knowledge. That is woefully incompetent judgment.
Last week, in the knowledge that there was a cache of emails about Lord Mandelson’s links to this paedophile, the Prime Minister made the judgment—as a lawyer who supposedly is forensic—not to ask the questions about what was in the emails. That seems to me an absolute failure of judgment. He then made the judgment to come to this House and say he had confidence in the man about whom he knew there was a cache of emails that he thought it inappropriate to ask the detail of. The whole point of lawyers and barristers is that they do due diligence, but no—not our Prime Minister.
That brings me to the critical issue of whether the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. He said two things to the Leader of the Opposition. First, he said twice that he had “confidence in” Lord Mandelson, and yet he knew the day before about a cache of emails, which he did not want to know the detail of, on Lord Mandelson’s links to Epstein. The day after, the Prime Minister fired Lord Mandelson. Is it credible to believe that one can have confidence in a man, given those two facts that came about within a 24-hour period?
Secondly, even more significantly, the Prime Minister said that “full due process” had been “followed during this appointment”. We now learn that that is not the case, because the due process was carried out after the decision by the Prime Minister to appoint Lord Mandelson and after it had been announced to the world at large. Those two things cannot be true. Either full due process was carried out before the decision to appoint, or it was carried out afterwards—it was not carried out “during”.
For that reason, regrettably, I conclude personally that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons and the British people. Therefore, the Prime Minister needs to come to the House and give absolute clarity on what he knew and when, why he made those decisions, and why he chose not to ask for detailed forensic investigations at the appropriate time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Members to temper their speeches. We do not, at any point, accuse other Members of dishonesty. I know that the next Member to speak will get that right.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
On rare moments, Members on both sides of the House come to the Chamber with the same question on their minds: how did it get to this? The Prime Minister is proud of his record as Director of Public Prosecutions and of his skill to prosecute, interrogate and investigate—skills that are absent here. He will also be more than familiar with the basic legal principle of caveat emptor—buyer beware. That can be translated across the board to many scenarios and, in essence, means that we have to do our research and ask pointed questions.
On that point, the Prime Minister exposed himself in interviews yesterday. He claimed that he did not know the content of the Bloomberg emails, yet he knew that they existed—where was the inquiry? He knew that an investigation had been launched by the Foreign Office, but not the content—where was the inquiry? He was waiting for answers from the disgraced ambassador, even though we understand that his chief of staff was in contact with him for much of the previous day—where was the inquiry? Given the knowledge that such outstanding questions remained unanswered, anyone—not just a lawyer—would have drawn breath and paused before giving such a vote of confidence in the ambassador during PMQs. It was wilful ignorance at best, or political belligerence at worst.
The Prime Minister now says:
“Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him”.
The former Foreign Secretary said:
“The truth is all the issues were weighed and in that time it was known that Peter Mandelson had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but the scale and extent of that was only known last Wednesday evening when the prime minister surveyed those emails.”
We understand, however, that the Foreign Office contacted No. 10 on Tuesday and that an investigation was opened. Something does not add up.
There is such a lack of clarity on this matter, and where there is a lack of clarity, we need transparency. A proper due diligence exercise relies on the disclosure given, as the Prime Minister will be well aware from his practice. It is time to disclose. I am therefore sure that the Government will oblige the request of the Leader of the Opposition to provide the House with all correspondence and documents in the Mandelson files.
The matter, however, goes beyond judgment calls made by the Prime Minister and the previous Foreign Secretary, given that both are involved in the appointment of ambassadors; it is also a matter of ethics. What is deemed acceptable behaviour for those in positions of power? The Nolan principles are integral to all of us who serve the public: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those principles apply as much to the former ambassador as to the Prime Minister. Under “Leadership”, the principles state:
“Holders of public office should…actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”
Given the known record of Peter Mandelson, even before the details of the Bloomberg emails came to light, does the Prime Minister believe that that principle has been met? On that basis, will the Prime Minister be referring himself and others involved in the appointment process to the independent ethics adviser?
The role of ambassador in Washington is a crucial one, entrusted with the most sensitive information and shaping our reputation on the world stage. It is not too much to ask that its appointee embodies the highest standards.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Let us be crystal clear: this emergency debate is about honesty, integrity and the credibility of this Labour Government. It is about what the Prime Minister knew about Lord Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, and when he knew it. The public deserve the truth, but instead they have been treated to evasion, delay and, as my constituents have been clear, a cover-up.
The decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US was extraordinary. The links between Mandelson and Epstein were well known, as we have heard this afternoon. The vetting process surely should have raised red flags, yet the Prime Minister—yes, the Prime Minister—oversaw the appointment. Where is he today? He is perhaps happier to talk to the BBC than at the Dispatch Box.
The Prime Minister told us himself that he had “confidence in” Lord Mandelson, even as the questions mounted and the damning Bloomberg emails were about to surface. That surely was not an accident; it was a choice, and one that goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s judgment.
Let us remind ourselves what the emails revealed: Mandelson offering words of support to a convicted paedophile. Those were not casual contacts but sustained and deeply troubling links. Yet when the Prime Minister was pressed on what he knew, his story shifted: first, perhaps ignorance; then an awareness of media inquiries; and then the claim that he had not seen the contents of the emails until the last moment. All the while, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff was in touch with Lord Mandelson for “much of the day” before PMQs. Which is it? The House deserves answers to the most basic questions about a scandal engulfing the Prime Minister and his former ambassador.
The lapse is not isolated, however. Two of the Prime Minister’s most senior appointments have unravelled in recent weeks. It seems to me that Labour likes to lecture us all about integrity, but in little more than a year in office it is mired in scandal, putting loyalty to insiders ahead of the basic decency that the public rightly expect.
While the Government tie themselves in knots, our country faces grave challenges. Last week, Russian drones crossed into Polish airspace, testing NATO’s resolve. Bond rates here at home have hit their highest level in 30 years. Illegal migrant boat crossings reached record numbers in 2025. In the west midlands, bin strikes roll into their sixth month, while Labour MPs from that city and region sit silent. In my constituency, swathes of our precious green belt are under siege because of Labour’s planning reforms. Those are the issues that my constituents expect this place to be focused on. Instead, the Prime Minister is distracted by a scandal of his own making.
To get back to the central question, what must happen now? I think the answer is simple. The Mandelson-Epstein files must be released in full, urgently and without caveats. That means the two-page vetting document and the evidence behind it; all correspondence between the chief of staff and Lord Mandelson; the communications between the Foreign Office, No.10 and our embassy in Washington about the Bloomberg files; and any other documents presented to the Prime Minister in making the appointment. This House and the public we serve have a right to see them.
Recess will be upon us within hours, but this scandal cannot and must not be sent into recess in the hope that this failing Government can sweep it under the carpet. The longer that Labour refuses to publish the files, the more damning the conclusion becomes, and the more damaging it is to democracy in our country and to the trust of the public.
The Labour party went into last year’s election on a slogan of change, but every day it is demonstrating that it is change for the worse. At a moment when we should be projecting clarity, strength and integrity on the world stage, we are instead led by a Prime Minister who is distracted by scandal and paralysed by poor judgment. It is time to end the rumour, publish the files and finally put the country before narrow party interests—nothing less will do.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I want to use the few minutes that I have to focus on how it could be that, just last Wednesday, the Prime Minister of this country came to tell this House that he had “confidence” in Lord Mandelson, the friend of the paedophile, in his role as a key ambassador for the Government. The Prime Minister said that not once but twice, when the Leader of the Opposition rightly asked him, declaring:
“I have confidence in him”,
and
“I have confidence in the ambassador”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 860.]
Those were his ringing endorsements of Lord Mandelson.
I want to examine the circumstances that then prevailed when he said that he had confidence in Lord Mandelson. What is confidence? Confidence is having trust, faith and belief in someone. That is what the Prime Minister was telling this House in respect of Lord Mandelson last Wednesday, yet by Monday it was a matter of public knowledge that the Bloomberg emails had been published.
The Prime Minister has since made some startling claims. He said that when he was answering Prime Minister’s questions he knew that questions were being asked, but he knew only about media inquiries about the emails and that questions were being put to Lord Mandelson. Our Prime Minister is a King’s Counsel. The natural instinct of a lawyer is to interrogate, and the training of a lawyer is to equip them to interrogate. However, this House is being told that when the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said “I have confidence” in Lord Mandelson, even though he knew that questions were being asked, he did not interrogate them for himself or ask about what was being asked. When he told the House that he knew that there were media inquiries about emails, we are being asked to believe that he did not ask, “What emails? What did they say?”
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. The Prime Minister said that he had “confidence in the ambassador”. He did not say “pending investigation or a suspension”, “I’ll look into it” or “I’ll follow process”, but “I have confidence.” Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the Prime Minister did not say that he would look into the situation seriously, and instead said from the Dispatch Box specifically that he had “confidence”?
Jim Allister
That is the most troubling thing about this. Equipped with the knowledge that he inevitably had—Monday night’s publication, and the knowledge that questions had been asked and that there were media inquiries about the emails—the credibility of the House is stretched to be asked to believe that the Prime Minister, a trained lawyer, never interrogated any of that and never asked, “What emails? What did they say? What questions have we asked?” We are asked to believe that he came to the House blind to all of that.
Not only in the appointment of Lord Mandelson do we see serious flaws in the judgment of the Prime Minister. If it is truly the situation, that he came to the House with a limited but uninterrogated knowledge of these matters, then that raises further questions about his judgment. I fear that this House has many answers yet to receive. It is a matter of regret to me, as it is to other hon. Members, that the Prime Minister is not here today to answer those demanding, alarming yet simple questions: they are questions that go not only to the heart of the Prime Minister’s confidence in Lord Mandelson, but to the question of whether this House, and this people, can have confidence in the Prime Minister.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The UK has a proud tradition of appointing career civil servants as ambassadors. Our senior diplomatic service is respected worldwide and, while travelling with the Foreign Affairs Committee this year, I have heard high praise for our “Rolls-Royce civil service”. It is professional, reliable and globally respected.
One strength of the British civil service lies in the clear separation between politicians and officials. Since the Northcote and Trevelyan report of 1854, civil service impartiality has been a sine qua non of a permanent civil service, and the reputation of the British Government depends upon it. That rigid distinction has served us well across the decades and applies in the staffing of our most senior diplomatic posts.
There have been occasional exceptions. For example, Baron Llewellyn of Steep, the former chief of staff to Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Prime Minister, was appointed ambassador to France in 2016 and now serves now as His Majesty’s ambassador to Italy. He gained experience with Chris Patten in Hong Kong—later Baron Patten—and then with Lord Ashdown when he was high representative for Bosnia, so he plainly has enormous international experience. Crucially, shortly after the political appointment of Baron Llewellyn was made, he was called to the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2017 to give evidence.
Let us contrast the British way with how the United States makes its ambassadorial appointments. It is common for American Presidents to reward political donors or allies with ambassadorial posts. Donald Trump’s choice for new ambassador to London is a case in point: he is an investment banker and a donor to the Republican party, not a career diplomat. By 3 September, Donald Trump had appointed 67 ambassadors in his second term, 61 of whom—more than 90%—are political appointees.
In the United States, such appointments are subject to public scrutiny. Every US ambassador must first appear before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, submitting detailed disclosures on their background, finances and potential conflicts of interest, before facing direct questioning in a public hearing. In the United States, only after that confirmation hearing does the nomination proceed to the full Senate, where a confirmation vote is required. That ensures a level of transparency and accountability that is absent from the UK system.
Our system is set up for the appointment of senior civil servants, who receive vetting on a rolling basis. The Foreign Affairs Committee was not afforded the opportunity to question Lord Mandelson, either in public before his appointment or subsequentially. With the appointment of Lord Mandelson, we saw neither the professionalism of the appointment of a British civil servant nor the scrutiny associated with political appointees in the US system.
We should also look hard at what has happened in US-UK relations since Lord Mandelson took up his post last December. On Ukraine, Lord Mandelson’s line was arguably closer to the US than to the UK, prior to his appointment as ambassador. He spoke frivolously on the Kuenssberg programme about
“whatever happens to the fringes of Ukraine territory”.
That was not the British Government’s position. In March this year, after his appointment, Mandelson said that President Zelensky should be
“more supportive of US peace efforts”.
Those remarks were so out of step that Ministers were forced to clarify that the comments did not reflect British Government policy.
On the middle east, we know that the UK and US Governments have taken different approaches to the conflict, which leaves us wondering in what circumstances the UK position has not been portrayed correctly in Washington DC.
Trade is another area of concern. On 1 April, I gave the First Reading of the UK-USA Trade Agreements (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill arguing for stronger parliamentary scrutiny of any trade deal. While parliamentary scrutiny of any transatlantic partnership with the United States is essential, it is also essential with appointments to the role of ambassador. My instinct is that the UK ambassador to the US should be a professional British civil servant or an official.
David Davis
The hon. Member has made a theoretical argument and a general argument, but the actual argument is that Karen Pierce was a brilliant campaigner who would never have made the mistakes made by Lord Mandelson, which he alludes to, and she should not have been replaced.
Richard Foord
I agree wholeheartedly. I commend the right hon. Gentleman on calling this debate in the first place, and he is right. It was rumoured that Karen Pierce wanted to or was at least willing to stay on in post for another year, and she would have represented us in an excellent manner, which we know was characteristic of her.
The Prime Minister has extensive powers to appoint senior officials. Usually the civil service commissioners lead this process to ensure that the selection is on the basis of merit. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, or CRaG, allows the Prime Minister to bypass that check on his power, and in this case it has had disastrous consequences.
As I conclude, I have two questions for the Minister. Will the Government give a commitment that in future any political appointment to a senior diplomatic role will go before the Foreign Affairs Committee for scrutiny before the appointment is confirmed? Will the Government amend section 10(2) of CRaG to ensure that diplomats, like senior civil servants, are appointed on the basis of merit and “fair and open competition”?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing this emergency debate.
The focus of the debate thus far has been primarily on three areas: the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s appalling crimes, the conduct of Lord Mandelson prior to his being appointed and the judgment of the Prime Minister in both appointing and firing Lord Mandelson as the British ambassador to Washington. Quite rightly, in this debate the House has focused on those three areas, but I will add a fourth area that I find as chilling as the other three. Since December last year, our ambassador in Washington has been potentially subject to leverage and blackmail, because someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on Lord Mandelson throughout his whole time in office.
I am amazed that the Foreign Office has not gone into full lockdown and damage limitation mode, having found out that potentially Lord Mandelson could have been blackmailed this entire time. If it had turned out that he had been an agent of a foreign state, the Foreign Office would have done that. All it knows now is that someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on him that whole time.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about some of the behaviours of Lord Mandelson in office, and that is the bit I am concerned about. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that Sir Ben Wallace gave an interview to Times Radio recently in which he said that Lord Mandelson had been lobbying No. 10 Downing Street on behalf of a single defence manufacturer for Britain to buy an unmanned military set of equipment—a major buy—without a competition, bypassing UK small and medium-sized enterprises and expertise. I will not put two and two together, but it seems extraordinary that someone who was meant to be promoting British interests overseas was instead promoting US defence capability to No. 10. We buy a lot of good kit from America, of course, but the absence of a competition skews the pitch and is odd behaviour.
I hope that when the Minister gets an opportunity to speak, he will talk about what measures No. 10 and the Foreign Office are taking to examine every single thing that Lord Mandelson did when he was our ambassador, in order to establish the extent to which the politically fatal kompromat had skewed his judgment and driven his behaviour.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The now former ambassador to the United States has been sacked due to the nature of his relationship with a convicted paedophile—a relationship that has come as no surprise to anybody except the Prime Minister, it would appear. The Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), knew of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, yet his appointment was felt to be worth the risk. That is despite warnings from President Trump’s co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita, who criticised the replacement of the former ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, as replacing a
“professional universally respected ambo with an absolute moron”.
Even the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who was effusive in her praise for Lord Mandelson, asked for him to come before her Committee to
“allow my colleagues to hear directly why the Prime Minister has appointed him”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.]
With her face pressed up against the Cabinet Room window like Tiny Tim out in the cold, I am surprised that she could be heard, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is looking sheepish in his place on the Front Bench, was emphatic. He stated:
“We are absolutely convinced that Lord Mandelson will do an excellent job as our representative in Washington”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.]
Yet that whole time, the Government were aware of the security warnings that Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein crossed the line of what is acceptable and failed to meet the standard expected of what is arguably our most critical ambassadorial appointment.
The President of the United States arrives for his second state visit tomorrow, yet we now suffer the embarrassment and indignity of having had to sack our ambassador for his proximity to a man found guilty of soliciting prostitution from a child—a man whose girlfriend was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking, conspiracy and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. Indeed, an aspect of this matter that remains unclear is the nature of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. The New York Times has described this issue as “a stinging embarrassment” that
“casts a shadow over the planned state visit”.
How has the Prime Minister allowed this to happen, ignoring the advice from his security assessment to appoint him anyway, embracing the risk then having it blow up in his face?
Prior to entering Parliament, I worked for Barclays bank. In 2021, the bank’s CEO Jes Staley resigned amid a regulatory probe into whether he mischaracterised his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I actually raised a complaint with my managers, which was roundly ignored and never advanced beyond managing director level, such was the squeamishness that surrounded the story. I was furious that Barclays still paid Staley his £2.4 million salary and £120,000 pension contribution while being defenestrated for his relationship with Epstein. That is not privileged information—it was widely reported—yet while the financial world saw fit to wash its hands of Staley, this Labour Government welcomed Lord Mandelson with open arms.
Those linked to Jeffrey Epstein who maintained a relationship with him after his conviction and who many times visited his island, where the crimes took place, have long since been deplatformed and deemed too toxic to hold positions of power, yet the hubris of the Prime Minister saw him ride roughshod over such glaringly obvious concerns. Being the Prime Minister is to take the mantle of the UK’s decision-maker-in-chief; it is to own the responsibility of making not just difficult decisions, but the most difficult decisions. Appointing an ambassador to the United States is not the political banana skin that should bring down the Government, yet here we are. The Government are teetering on the brink.
Yesterday the Prime Minister gingerly began climbing down over his handling of the Mandelson sacking. When he came to the Chamber last Wednesday, he robustly defended Lord Mandelson and played to the baying crowd. He even had the chutzpah to claim that the Conservative party has a leadership contest going on—was it not interesting to see him in the Smoking Room last night between votes? [Laughter.] Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister stated that
“full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]
He said that twice. If that is true, the Prime Minister knew the full scope of Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. If he did not know and new information subsequently came to light, either the vetting standards of the Government are incompetent or the claim of “full due process” is inaccurate. The Prime Minister also said that
“I have confidence in the ambassador”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 860.]
He said that twice, too.
The Prime Minister’s explanation yesterday stated that there were three reasons for his tergiversation:
“The nature and extent of the relationship being far different to what I’d understood to be the position at the point of appointment, the questioning and challenging of the conviction, which…goes to the heart and cuts across what this government is doing on violence against women and girls and the unsatisfactory nature of responses from Peter Mandelson last week to the inquiries made of him by government officials – I took the decision to remove him.”
Can the Government lay out precisely what was the full due process that was followed? The Prime Minister claims that he did not learn the content of the Bloomberg emails until after his robust defence at PMQs, so did Lord Mandelson fail to disclose that information during his vetting interview? Was there even a vetting interview, or did Lord Mandelson disclose everything and the Prime Minister is displaying wilful ignorance?
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The hon. Member’s speech reminds me of an earlier episode in UK-US relations, when Donald Rumsfeld referred to known knowns, unknown unknowns and known unknowns. While the Government might be forgiven for not holding Peter Mandelson to account for unknown unknowns, does he agree that it is unforgivable that they have staked Britain’s diplomatic relationship with the US on known unknowns?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. It is incredible that the Government have engaged in such lax vetting regarding such an obvious conflict of interest.
On the nature and extent of the relationship, we knew about Mandelson’s closeness to Jeffrey Epstein when the notorious birthday book was published, in which Lord Mandelson described the convicted paedophile as his “best pal” and signed off his many pages of unctuous praise with the line “yum yum”. What else did the Prime Minister learn beyond that? He claims that he knew only of Mandelson’s “association” with Jeffrey Epstein—that would appear to be questionable.
Turning to Lord Mandelson’s questioning and challenging of the conviction, was he asked his opinion of the conviction of his “best pal” during his vetting interview? Did Lord Mandelson disclose that he felt, or had ever felt, that the conviction was unjustified? Either he was not asked, in which case the vetting was incompetent; he did not disclose it, in which case he was not a suitable appointment; or he did disclose it, and it was ignored by the Prime Minister. Which is it?
The unsatisfactory nature of the responses is the only aspect of the investigation we are yet to learn about. The Prime Minister must publish the new information, so that this House can fully understand. If Lord Mandelson’s answers are unsatisfying now, but were not before, that suggests that full due process was not followed, in contradiction to what the Prime Minister claimed last week.
This whole sorry episode looks set to derail the visit of the President of the United States tomorrow. We are a long way from the chummy bonhomie of the Prime Minister feeling that he had stuck the landing with his perfectly stage-managed hand delivery of an invitation letter to President Trump. I wonder how he is going to explain all this to the President tomorrow. The Prime Minister knows that his days are numbered; those in his new Cabinet know his days are numbered; his Back Benchers know his days are numbered—perhaps he should try talking to them on a regular basis, not just greasing up to them in the Smoking Room when he needs their support. If the Prime Minister cannot exercise the judgment required of his office, he must resign.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. Colleagues who have spoken should be making their way back to the Chamber.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
On Thursday, I came to this House to announce that the Prime Minister had asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. At the outset, may I say—there were many comments to this effect from across the House—that all of us are appalled by Epstein’s crimes, and all those who have suffered as a result need to be at the forefront of our minds today.
I also thank a number of right hon. and hon. Members for what I think were genuine suggestions about scrutiny of processes in relation to ambassadorial appointments. In particular, the Government have listened to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), on this matter, and we will consider all options to support the Committee in its work in future.
Stephen Doughty
I will not give way at first. I need to respond to many of the points that have been made in the debate, after which I will happily take some interventions.
The Prime Minister took this decision after new information showed that the nature and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson suggested that Epstein’s conviction was wrongful, encouraged him to fight for early release, and said that Epstein had been through “years of torture”. We know that the only people tortured were the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by Epstein’s heinous crimes. I associate myself with the remarks that a number of right hon. and hon. Members made on that point, both about the crimes and the victims.
Stephen Flynn
Is the Minister effectively telling the House that Lord Mandelson retaining his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein despite him being a paedophile was fine, and that the only problem was that Lord Mandelson thought that Jeffrey Epstein was innocent? Is the Minister conveying the message to the public that if Lord Mandelson had not sent those emails and had said to the Prime Minister that Jeffrey Epstein was guilty, that would not have been a problem?
Stephen Doughty
The Prime Minister has been explicitly clear that the new information was not compatible with the duty that we owe to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrendous crimes against women and girls, and with this Government’s clear commitment to tackling that kind of violence and abuse. As such, the Prime Minister took decisive action to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. He has also been clear—he undertook a number of media interviews yesterday—that Lord Mandelson would not have been appointed if all the information we now have was available at the time. I point the House to what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday:
“Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him.”
Following Lord Mandelson’s departure and in line with standard diplomatic practice, the deputy head of mission, James Roscoe—an experienced and capable diplomat—has been put in place as the chargé d’affaires.
Dr Evans
The Minister is doing a fair job, but I have one simple question for him: why is he, not the Prime Minister, in the Chamber answering the House’s questions? The Minister clearly cannot answer them—no disrespect to him. The Prime Minister said that he did not know something, but now he knows something. Where is the Prime Minister, and why is he not at the Dispatch Box?
Stephen Doughty
I am in the Chamber responding for the Government as the Minister for North America. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are very important matters taking place today that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are involved with. We have also seen the new Hillsborough law launched today, which has been referenced during the debate.
Stephen Doughty
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in short order, but first I want to say something about our excellent diplomats and officials across the world.
We have an excellent team at the British embassy in Washington—indeed, we have had many excellent ambassadors, and we have a wide network across the United States, not just in Washington—and in King Charles Street. I pay tribute to them and all the work they are doing, particularly in supporting the outcomes of this week’s important and historic state visit. I associate myself totally with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about their professionalism, which I know has been experienced by many Members across the House. It is important that we put that on the record. This is a crucial moment for UK-US relations; together, we are focused on delivering on jobs, growth and security for people on both sides of the Atlantic.
I said that I would give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), so I will.
Sir Julian Lewis
Given that the Minister is such a decent Minister, who enjoys respect on both sides of the House, I am tempted to repeat the advice that Lloyd George gave to Churchill during the Norway debate of 1940, which is not to make himself an air raid shelter to protect his colleagues—in this case, the Prime Minister—from the splinters. If the Prime Minister’s case is as strong as the Minister makes out, can he explain why, if I remember correctly, only a single Labour Back Bencher has made a speech in the Prime Minister’s favour?
Stephen Doughty
With respect, this is an emergency debate that was secured by the Opposition. I am in the Chamber setting out the case very clearly, and we have had a number of contributions from Labour Members. The right hon. Member knows that I and Members from across the House have affection for him and the work he does, including his previous roles chairing many important Committees of this House.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have asked a number of specific questions, including about the vetting process and security clearances that applied in this particular case. I fully understand the interest in those questions, and undoubtedly other questions will be raised over the course of discussions in this place. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the practice of successive Administrations—including precedents from the last Government—not to comment on which officials have access to confidential information. That remains the case today.
I want to pay particular attention to this matter, because it is important and because Members present have asked very sensible questions. The national security vetting process is confidential, and the UK Government’s vetting charter includes an undertaking to protect personal data and other information in the strictest confidence. I am not going to depart from that approach in this Chamber today and release personal information about an individual’s confidential vetting. However, while I will not talk about the confidential details relating to this case, I can provide details of the overall processes that a number of people have asked about, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who opened the debate.
Prior to the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office undertook a due diligence process, and after his appointment was announced on 20 December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting. That vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO, and concluded with clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up his post in February.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I accept that private data cannot be disclosed, but is there a mechanism by which the Minister can ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to look into the question of whether somebody—a civil servant, for example—who was known to have had a close association with a convicted paedophile would have passed the vetting process to hold such a sensitive position? That could be something that the Minister passes on to the ISC to look at, because it goes to the heart of the situation. I very much doubt that a person with that sort of association would be given the highest security clearance.
Stephen Doughty
I know the right hon. Gentleman makes that point with sincerity, but I will not comment on the national security vetting process. That would not be appropriate or in line with being consistent from Government to Government.
Stephen Doughty
I will not give way; the hon. Gentleman was not here for the debate and he has just popped up now to try to intervene.
National security vetting is a long-standing formal process undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of individual Departments, and it reports back to them. It helps Departments to identify and manage risks where individuals have access to sensitive assets or sites, and there are established processes within national security vetting to consider any security concerns raised and to manage such risks appropriately. Importantly, the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Exactly the same procedures were followed in this case.
Stephen Doughty
I will make a little more progress and then will happily give way.
To return to the fundamental question that has been asked by many Members, as I said at the start, in the light of new information, the Prime Minister made the decision to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. The Prime Minister took decisive action on these issues, and now the Government’s focus is seizing the opportunities of our US partnership as we look forward to the next phase of government, moving from fixing the foundations to driving forward growth and national renewal.
A lot of Members asked sensible questions about the relationship with the United States, our economy, our security and the state visit that is happening this week. I point the House to the fact that last week we secured and announced a £400 million contract with Google Cloud, boosting secure communications between the UK and US and building new intelligence capabilities for the UK armed forces. On Sunday, we announced more than £1.2 billion of private US investment in the UK’s world-leading financial services sector, and that new investment will create 1,800 new jobs across the UK and boost benefits for millions of customers. [Interruption.] Just yesterday, we announced a new UK-US partnership on civil nuclear power as part of our drive to put billions of pounds of private investment into clean energy, and I look forward to further announcements over the coming days.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I can barely hear the Minister speak.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have taken a number of interventions, and I do want to make some progress.
Hon. and right hon. Members have asked about the US-UK relationship. I can tell them that it is strong, thriving and growing. The steps that I have mentioned will ensure that our two nations continue to lead the world in innovation. We have trade worth more than £315 billion last year, and the US and UK economies are inextricably linked. Through the state visit, we will take that relationship even further, making trade and investment deals that will benefit hard-working families across these countries and regions.
Richard Tice
Last week, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in Lord Mandelson. This week, does the Minister express his confidence in national security vetting?
Stephen Doughty
Of course I have confidence in our national security vetting staff. They do incredibly important work keeping this country safe. I will not comment on individual cases—I have been clear about that. I will return to the fundamental question asked by the hon. Member and others.
Emily Thornberry
Will the Minister help us with this? In the letter that the new Foreign Secretary wrote to me, she said that the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team conducted a due diligence process at the request of No. 10 prior to the announcement of the appointment, and that the FCDO was not asked to contribute to that process and no issues were raised with the FCDO as a result of it. Now that the Minister has heard that, is he surprised that the Foreign Office was not involved?
Stephen Doughty
I have set out the process clearly, and I note that the Chair of the Select Committee has received that letter, which also sets it out clearly. She may have slightly missed the commitment that I made to her and to members of her Committee at the start of the debate, which was about considering all options to support the Committee in its work on pre-scrutiny processes. She makes an important and sensible point.
Stephen Doughty
I am going to conclude, and I do want to get back to the fundamental question.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that Lord Mandelson should not and would not have been appointed as ambassador in the light of the shocking information that came to light in the past week. The argument that we have heard from Opposition Members today is that the information was clear all along. But if the full depth and extent of this relationship had been so obvious, I hardly think that Lord Mandelson would have been one of the leading candidates to become chancellor of Oxford University—but he was. I highly doubt that he would have been offered a job as a presenter on Times Radio—but he was. He also appeared on BBC “Newsnight”, a programme that has done important work investigating the crimes of—
Sir Desmond Swayne
It is. Am I mistaken in my belief that there is a convention in the House that when the Leader of the Opposition puts their hand on the Dispatch Box and seeks to intervene, the Minister gives way?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister if he wishes to give way or not.
Stephen Doughty
I was making an important point about the scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein conducted by BBC’s “Newsnight”; such serious questions might have been asked of Lord Mandelson, but to my recollection none were. [Interruption.] Indeed, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition wants to intervene, because I have a question for her. She and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as well as other Opposition Members, have raised questions today, but did they say a word in this House about Lord Mandelson’s appointment before last Wednesday? I do not have any record of that. In fact, the record shows that they did not raise it and they did not ask questions. The reality is that in the light of new information, the Prime Minister has acted decisively.
Mrs Badenoch
We did not need any new information to know that it was an unsuitable appointment. The Minister is making a doughty defence of Lord Mandelson, but the truth is that this debate has been about the Prime Minister’s judgment. When I was a Secretary of State and questions were asked about judgment, I did not send junior Ministers to answer my questions; I faced the House and I explained what had happened. The Prime Minister is not doing so. Will the Minister commit now to answering all the questions that I asked in writing? Will he also take this opportunity to apologise to the victims? He has not done so and the Government have not done so. The debate is nearly over. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the victims for the appointment of Lord Mandelson?
Stephen Doughty
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not in her seat at the start of the debate, because I made very clear our position on Epstein’s victims and our horror at the revelations, and said that all our thoughts are with them. I did that in sincerity in response to the points that have been made across this House, and I say that again. However, she could not answer my question. She did not raise this issue before last Wednesday. If it was all so obvious, why did not she do that?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I hope it is a proper point of order.
Dr Evans
I would hate for the Minister to mislead the House inadvertently, because I raised the examples earlier of Sky News and of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who raised concerns about Mr Mandelson. Even in this debate, we heard evidence of what the Opposition have been doing, including talking about the inappropriateness of this ambassador back in May.
Stephen Doughty
I was referring to whether this matter had been raised in the House by the Leader of the Opposition and others.
The Prime Minister acted decisively in response to the new information, which is exactly what should have happened. The former ambassador has been withdrawn. The Prime Minister and the Government are focused on deepening our special relationship with the United States in the interests of people across the Atlantic for jobs, growth, prosperity, security and our defence. That relationship with the United States is a relationship that has endured, is enduring, and will endure for the prosperity and security of our peoples well into the future.
David Davis
I am going to pause for a second. Let me say first to the Minster that I think everyone who spoke remembered the victims. After the sound of this political gunfire is long forgotten, they will still be suffering the scarring of what happened to them as a result of Mr Epstein’s behaviour, and I would say to the Minister that, without U-turns or whatever, he should say to his Prime Minister that at the next possible opportunity, at that Dispatch Box, he should apologise to those victims for what the Government have done to date.
Secondly, let me say to the Minister that he is highly respected in the House. I see him almost as the last Spartan at Thermopylae, full of arrows as he stands there trying to defend an impossible position. It is a position in which a number of us have been ourselves, so I have some sympathy for him. The simple truth is, however, that I found it very hard to reconcile what he said about this clearance process with what I know was known by the agencies as long ago as 2008 about Mandelson’s behaviour, connections and the like, and the clear possibility of kompromat, to which one of my hon. Friends referred.
There seem to be two possibilities. What often happens with direct vetting is that the agencies produce a series of risks for a Minister, and the Minister—in this case the Prime Minister, I assume—decides that those risks are worth taking. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that the vetting process was completely broken, and somehow or other it did not detect all those things that were in plain sight. That strikes me as implausible. I am afraid that what this Minister has told the House does not seem to figure, especially when it is added to what was said by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee about the report from the propriety and ethics team being produced effectively without the FCDO’s input, which is—again—absolutely astonishing.
The House itself has been remarkably unanimous, with one exception. The Leader of the Opposition made a characteristically sharply focused speech, and she made a number of comments with which, almost uniquely, the leader of every other party here agreed. She said that we needed the information and we needed the accountability. What does that mean? It means something that was highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton): we need the release of all the documents. There is no need to hide behind security, because there is no national interest security issue. The issue is whether the system is working, and we cannot know unless we see those documents. We need the Ministers involved, and the advisers involved, to appear before the relevant Select Committees and to answer questions on this matter—and, if the Minister wants to hide behind security, they can even do that in camera, as long as it is done properly and they have the opportunity to test some of these assertions.
The Minister and others received a great deal of good advice from a number of people, most notably the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but from others too. They said that these problems are bad enough when they are to do with the original error, but they get worse in the cover-up. They get worse if people do not actually admit what has happened. Honesty is not just important in this; it is also a survival characteristic for the Ministers involved.
As I said, the Minister is the last Spartan at Thermopylae. He has not been sent here with the weapons to deal with this. He has not been sent here with the answers to the questions that we all properly have. I will finish as I started, by reminding him about that Bill that the Government announced today. On the Order Paper it is described as a
“Bill to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness; to make provision for the enforcement of that duty in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; to require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority”.
That is what we expect, and frankly, if we do not get the answers—by the sounds of it, we are not going to get them—we will return to this matter. The entire Opposition will return to the matter, and I suspect some Members from the Minister’s own party will return to the matter. I guarantee that I will be seeking to make sure that Ministers too are covered by the Bill, and when it eventually passes next year, I will be looking at what happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the appointment process and the circumstances leading to the dismissal of the former United Kingdom Ambassador to the United States, Lord Mandelson.
Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit)
Tuesday 16th September 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberChild Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill 2024-26 View all Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
15:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 89 / Noes: 79 - Question accordingly agreed to.
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a child poverty strategy which includes proposals for removing the limit on the number of children or qualifying young persons included in the calculation of an award of Universal Credit; and for connected purposes.
In July 2024, the Prime Minister said:
“For too long children have been left behind, and no decisive action has been taken to address the root causes of poverty. This is completely unacceptable—no child should be left hungry, cold or have their future held back.
That’s why we’re prioritising work on an ambitious child poverty strategy and my ministers will leave no stone unturned to give every child the very best start at life.”
That was 426 days ago, but that action has not been taken. It will not be taken by today, by tomorrow or in the spring of 2025, as promised; it has been punted back to the autumn. Since the Prime Minister made this statement, 100 more children a day have been pushed into poverty by the two-child cap—100 more every single day.
Failing to take action to tackle child poverty has left more children in families that are unable to afford the essentials. The two-child cap has pushed 730,000 more children into poverty. How much longer do these children have to wait? The two-child cap is cruel, and it must be scrapped now. These children and families are having their life chances and their futures actively harmed by the Labour party’s persistent dither and delay. If child poverty really was a priority for this Labour Government, the Prime Minister would have scrapped the cruel two-child cap on day one of his premiership. He has now had over a year to do so. Labour is supposed to be the party of the left. What more progressive policy could there be than drastically cutting child poverty overnight?
The UK is the only country in the world that withholds state support from children based on there being more than two in a family. A lone parent with three children who works full-time for the minimum wage is currently £4,500 a year under the poverty line if they are affected by the two-child limit. Scrapping the policy would mean that that worker was still £1,000 a year under the line. Even on median earnings, a lone parent working full-time with three children is currently under the poverty line if she is hit by the two-child limit.
The Child Poverty Action Group has said:
“Poverty harms children’s health, social and emotional wellbeing, and education. It harms their childhoods and their futures.”
The two-child cap is cruel, and children are having to go without essentials. Over 7 million low-income families are still going without essentials such as food, heating and basic toiletries. Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures for low-income families with three or more children show that almost nine in 10 went without essentials, over eight in 10 were in arrears, and seven in 10 had taken out a loan to pay for essentials.
Of the families that responded to a Child Poverty Action Group’s rolling survey, 93% said that the two-child limit meant they struggled to pay for food. On the current trajectory, 34% of bairns will be in poverty by 2029-30, including half of all children in large families. Scrapping the two-child limit would bring 670,000 people out of severe hardship immediately, including 470,000 children. CPAG has said:
“Abolishing the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty which is at a record level”.
Other experts and charities agree with this assessment. Stop arguing about affordability, because scrapping the two-child cap will cut poverty at a stroke, and it is the most cost-effective way to do so.
The two-child cap is cruel. How are we still having to argue about this? The new the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), said last year that it is “open to debate” whether the two-child cap is a harmful policy. It is a harmful policy. It is harming families and children. Why on earth would the Prime Minister put someone in charge of the DWP who wilfully ignores every single expert when it comes to the two-child limit? The two-child cap is cruel, and it is disproportionately impacting children in larger families, women and those in minority ethnic communities; people who are already vulnerable and already suffering disadvantage as a result of multiple issues.
The two-child cap is cruel and unfair. But, contrary to the Government’s arguments, this is not a problem of worklessness. Some 59% of families affected by the two-child cap have at least one working parent. By next month, 1 million children in working families will be hit by the two-child limit. Simply growing the economy will not change the lives of children in poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says:
“We can’t expect children to be ready for school or able to learn if they’re going without the basics.”
The UK Government will not see any progress on child poverty by the end of this Parliament, even with high economic growth, without investment in social security. We need real action to improve the lives of children and families the length and breadth of these islands.
Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling. This is a direct result of SNP policies, including the Scottish child payment, the Best Start grant and the baby box, as well as the SNP Government’s decision to mitigate the bedroom tax and the two-child cap. In the SNP, we recognise that the two-child cap is cruel, and we will mitigate it from March 2026, but we should not have to. On average, the poorest 10% of families with bairns are £2,600 a year better off in Scotland because of the Scottish Government’s actions. In Scotland, both relative and absolute poverty were nine percentage points below the UK average in 2023-24.
Keeping the two-child cap in place is holding Scotland back from reducing child poverty as much as we would like. It is keeping children and families in the rest of the UK stuck in that cycle of poverty. Matching the Scottish child payment of £27.15 per child per week, scrapping the two-child limit, the benefit cap and the bedroom tax, would take 2.3 million households out of poverty overnight, including 96,000 in Scotland.
Members should not just believe me that the two-child cap is cruel. The Child Poverty Action Group has testimonies from parents:
“The two-child limit is the difference between us being in debt and not. We have utilities debt and at the end of the month have to use credit cards just to keep living. I didn’t expect to be on universal credit. No one would want to be, and I don’t plan to be on benefits for ever. But nobody knows what’s going to happen to them.”
“We’ve been really struggling and although we’re starting to get out of debt, there are times when I don’t eat so I can feed the children. I do my best to put healthy food on the table, but it is not always possible and occasionally we’ve had to use a foodbank. I never have a haircut because I just can’t afford it. It doesn’t feel fair that just because your child was born after a certain date, there isn’t support for her and you have to spread the support over all three children.”
“I have to buy things on credit and the children can’t do the clubs they want to do. The policy is punishing children—that’s what’s wrong with it. I’m a taxpayer and my children will grow up and pay tax—the country expects them to—but when they need support now, there’s no help for them—they’ve been deserted.”
The two-child cap is cruel, and it is keeping children in poverty. Those who support scrapping the cruel two-child cap include: Save the Children, the Resolution Foundation, Sadiq Khan, Gordon Brown, Action for Children, Alison Thewliss, the Trussell Trust, Andy Burnham, AberNeccessities, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Aberlour, Neil Kinnock, Barnardo’s, Includem and the Child Poverty Action Group. There are so many important Labour members and so many incredible charities working to oppose child poverty and remove it.
This is a key test of whether the Labour Government are capable of the change they promised the electorate, or whether Labour MPs will keep following a Prime Minister who is making the same mistakes that have hammered families and seen support for the Labour party collapse during his first year in office. Labour MPs must vote for the Bill and send the Prime Minister a clear message that a radical change in direction is urgent and essential. Downing Street is briefing newspapers that it will resist pressure from the SNP and Labour’s soft left to scrap the cap. What is the point in Labour if it is not even willing to support soft left policies? This Bill is a common-sense change that will support working people. It is a cost-effective way to take children out of poverty. It will ensure that families can make ends meet and that bairns are not facing a childhood without essentials.
I know that many Labour MPs agree with me. If they hold their nose and refuse to vote in favour of the Bill in some misguided attempt to prop up the failing Labour Government, they will be choosing to put their party above the lives of children—children who live in their constituencies; children whose life chances are being hammered by the cruel two-child cap. All MPs, especially Labour MPs, must put maximum pressure on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor to remove the cruel two-child cap once and for all, and they can start by supporting the Bill. History will judge Labour Members by their actions today.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Before I begin, I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for introducing the ten-minute rule Bill today. While we may not agree on the Bill, I believe that this House is at its best when Members argue for what they believe in, and I am glad we have the opportunity to do so today.
My Conservative colleagues and I cannot support this Bill. We oppose it because we fundamentally believe in two core principles: fairness and personal responsibility. I believe that this Bill undermines both. Let us be clear: this debate is not about the principle of child benefit. As the eldest of three children from a single-parent family, I know from my own lived experience the challenges faced by those in genuine poverty—having to scrabble around at the end of the week to find enough money to keep the electricity meter running, having to go next door to borrow a cup of sugar to make it to the end of the week, and having to go without the basics at school that most of my friends had. Every child deserves the best start in life, and we should support that, but what is being proposed is something entirely different.
The Bill seeks to remove the two-child benefit cap—a cap introduced by the previous Government to address a spiralling bill in a welfare system that was, at times, being abused. Such a cap is fair to the hard-pressed taxpayer. Why should individuals already in receipt of state support gain additional benefit for having yet more children, while working families who get up early, pay their taxes and take full responsibility for their lives do not? Removing the cap would not foster fairness. Instead, it would penalise the people we should be championing: working families who play by the rules. It is only the Conservative party that is standing up for those families, promoting individual responsibility and protecting the country’s fragile finances.
Meanwhile, Members on the Government Benches—not content with the chaos they have recently inflicted on the nation—are now competing to be the most socialist, declaring their support for scrapping the cap despite knowing full well it will cost the country an eye-watering £4.5 billion a year. We must be honest with the British people: removing the two-child cap is a massive unfunded commitment that does not reward people for doing the right thing.
Simply put, I ask the House: why should a small business owner in Mid Leicestershire, who is already burdened with additional taxes, be asked to pay even more to support someone else’s children, especially when they are struggling to support their own? At the heart of this matter is a philosophical debate. As Conservatives, we believe in incentivising work, not penalising those who seek it. We do not consign people to a life of state dependency; we encourage them to strive, to achieve and to be the best they can be.
Unfortunately, it is not just those on the Government Benches who are promoting this recklessness. The Green party wants to spend £40 billion on its radical net zero agenda while still backing the two-child cap’s removal, and the SNP wants to add billions to their welfare bill by pursuing an open borders immigration policy paid for by hard-working Scots. Most surprisingly of all, though, is Reform UK’s position. Many of their hon. Members are proud Thatcherites—or so I thought. They appear to have undergone a damascene conversion and are now, I believe, backing scrapping the cap—a policy that would hammer hard-working ordinary white van men across the country. As we approach what would have been Mrs Thatcher’s centenary, I can only imagine what she would have to say about such an anti-aspirational and profligate approach to the public finances. Politicians simply cannot claim to want to reduce the welfare bill while pursuing policies that would push that bill up by billions.
Let me speak directly to the British public, who are inherently conservative-minded: if your political beliefs are rooted in economic freedom and low taxation, can you really support parties that want to take your hard-earned money and hand it to those unwilling to take responsibility? Only the Conservative party stands with you. We believe in letting people keep more of the money they have earned. We believe in addressing poverty at its roots, not just by writing cheques but by reforming the system that traps people in dependency.
Our approach is clear. A future Conservative Government will stop sickness benefits for foreign nationals, fix the UK’s sick note culture and reintroduce face-to-face assessments to stop people gaming the system, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), has said. We need to bring about a cultural shift where work, personal responsibility and self-reliance are once again core to our national ethos. As I said at the Work and Pensions Committee last week, we should not blindly throw money at the welfare system. We must instead highlight the importance of getting a job, promote better financial management and uphold a meritocratic system where hard work always triumphs over idleness.
The Conservatives will vote against this Bill. We are the only party telling the uncomfortable truth about our out-of-control welfare system and the serious financial realities facing our country. We owe it to our constituents to protect the public purse, we owe it to hard-working families to uphold fairness, and we owe it to future generations to build a society built not on entitlement but on effort, enterprise and aspiration.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 7 April, with the shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, I tabled a question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office about updating guidance for Ministers on declaring hospitality and meetings with social media platforms. As this is the last sitting day before the six-month anniversary of tabling that question, may I ask you whether there has been any indication from the Government that they intend either to answer that question on the Floor of this House or to write to me in the near future?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He will know that that is not a matter for the Chair. However, I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard his point of order and will be exhorting their Cabinet Office colleagues to respond as soon as possible.
Sentencing Bill
Tuesday 16th September 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 340 / Noes: 77 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Robert Jenrick has been selected.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is my pleasure to open this debate—my first since being appointed Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. It is an honour to be back on this beat and to take up this brief. Justice has always been at the heart of my politics over the past 25 years. Far from being abstract, it runs through every aspect of our lives: our education, our health and the opportunities that people have to succeed. It has shaped my life, from studying and practising law to serving as a Minister in the old Department for Constitutional Affairs, and of course as shadow Justice Secretary.
During David Cameron’s period as Prime Minister, I was asked to conduct an independent review on racial disparity in the justice system. I grew up as a working-class kid in Tottenham and saw too many young black men end up on the wrong side of the law. I represented Tottenham during the 2011 London riots, addressing at first hand the destruction caused when peaceful protests were hijacked by violent criminals. During the Lammy review I also saw the state of our prisons, which are operating at close to maximum capacity, putting the public at risk of harm.
Public protection is exactly why we have introduced the Bill before us today. At the heart of it is the threat that the previous Conservative Government left us with: that our prisons could run of out places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders, police without the capacity to make arrests, courts unable to hold trials and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. As Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, I will never allow that to happen, because the first duty of Government is to keep the public safe.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I broadly welcome the Bill’s provisions, which will take on the mess that the Conservatives left behind. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is important to get the right balance between the purpose of prison, particularly for violent crime, which is to rehabilitate criminals, but also to provide a deterrent and punishment, and maintaining public safety and delivering restorative justice?
Mr Lammy
That is a very good summary. We must have punishment that works, and I will talk about that later in my speech.
When we look at the record of the previous Government, and I have looked at the figures very closely, we see that the recidivism rates were running at 60%, 65%, 68%. Something is not working when people go back to prison over and over again. I got the Department to give me the figures: over 5 million offences. All those offences have victims. We have to do something about it, and the Bill will begin to get us into the right place, because the first duty of government is to keep the public safe.
But the Bill is not only about preventing an emergency; it also takes us back to the purpose of sentencing, which must be, as has been said, punishment that works—punishment that works for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; punishment that works for society, which wants criminals to return to society less dangerous, not more; and punishment that works to prevent crime.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
There is much to welcome in the Sentencing Bill, including the inclusion of restriction zone measures, which are testament to the tireless work of my constituent Rhianon Bragg and her fellow campaigners. Details need to be clarified, however. Which offenders will be automatically included? Will the measures be applied retrospectively and, if so, to which offenders? Where will the zones be in relation to victims, and how will they be used and monitored in ways that are different from the current exclusion zone arrangements?
Mr Lammy
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member’s constituents for fighting to ensure that we got the balance right. At the heart of this—again, I will come on to this, and I know it will be explored in depth in Committee—the system of exclusion zones we have effectively excludes people from areas, and a lot of women who face domestic violence, who have had stalkers or who have faced violent men have had the situation where someone has been excluded. What we are doing is turning that on its head and restricting the individual to a particular place, house or street, which will give those women much more safety than they have had previously. I hope that her constituents will welcome that, because I know it is something that domestic violence campaigners in particular were calling for.
I want to thank David Gauke and his panel of criminal justice experts for carrying out the independent sentencing review, which laid the groundwork for the Bill. It was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work. I went through it in detail, obviously, when I got into the job. I also thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for her work in bringing the Bill to this point.
When it comes to prison places running out, the constituents of Members right across the House ask, “Why don’t we just build more prisons?” That is what they ask on the street. In their 14 years in office, how many prison cells did the Conservatives find? I have shadowed the Foreign Affairs brief or been in the Foreign Affairs job for about three and a half or four years, so I could not quite believe the figure when I arrived in the Department. I thought it was wrong. In 14 years in office, 500 cells were all they found—500!
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Earlier at Justice questions, the right hon. Gentleman’s Department attempted to take credit for HMP Millsike—and for its 1,468 places, which were confirmed to me in a written parliamentary answer—even though it was approved under the Conservative Government. Does he acknowledge that that prison was in fact started under the Conservative Government in 2021?
Mr Lammy
If the hon. Gentleman stops baying like a child and lets me come to the point, he asks me about the Conservatives’ record and their record was this: violence up in prisons, self-harm up in prisons, suicide skyrocketing in prisons, assaults rising by 113% and assaults on staff rising by 217%. That was their record. The hon. Gentleman can look at it in detail in the Ministry of Justice figures.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The right hon. Gentleman will not remember but I used to live adjacent to his constituency, and I remember what he was like as a local MP. He did not answer my question about the 1,468 places at HMP Millsike. He accuses me of “baying like a child”, and I appreciate that when he is on the back foot, he likes to give a little nervous chuckle to avoid answering the question, but instead of deflecting, will he address the point about the prison places that his Minister claimed this morning were built by his Government when they were in fact started four years ago by the last Conservative Government?
Mr Lammy
I have had fun with the hon. Gentleman, but I must make some progress.
The Government are funding the largest expansion since the Victorians. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, answering the question that our constituents ask: “Where are the prisons?” However, unless we act on sentencing as well, we could still run out of places by early next year. Demand is projected to outstrip supply by many thousands in spring 2028. We cannot simply build our way out. We must reform sentencing and deliver punishment that works.
The Government’s starting point is clear: the public must be protected. More than 16,000 prisoners convicted of the most serious and heinous crimes are serving extended determinate or life sentences. Those serving the former can be released early only by the independent Parole Board, and those serving the latter can only ever be released at its discretion. Nothing in the Bill will change that, because it is punishment that works. Those who commit the gravest crimes will continue to face the toughest sentences.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Road accidents caused by negligence and people on drugs and alcohol cause havoc for those who lose members of their family. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in thanking those families and activist groups, including RoadPeace, Mat MacDonald, our local media in Birmingham and the journalist Jane Haynes, for their campaign to bring about life sentences for the worst driving?
Mr Lammy
Dangerous and reckless driving that takes innocent lives is a serious and painful issue that causes lots of anguish across our country, so I applaud the work of the hon. Member’s constituents and thank him for raising that issue; no doubt it can be explored further in Committee.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the new Justice Secretary will not want to be accused of misleading the House on such important matters. A moment ago, he referred to the measures before the House not affecting the sentences for people accused of “the gravest crimes”. The measures before the House will reduce sentences for rapists and child abusers. He either thinks that those are grave crimes and wants to correct the record, or he does not—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is quite simply not a point of order but a point of debate, which the shadow Secretary of State could well come to in due course.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On that point, will the Justice Secretary give way?
Mr Lammy
I am going to make some progress.
The Bill introduces a new progression model for standard determinate sentences, incentivising offenders to behave in prison. It draws heavily on reforms that were pioneered in Texas, which ended their capacity crisis. I was very pleased last week to meet Derek Cohen, a leading Republican thinker.
I refer the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) to clauses 20 and 21, which amend the release point. For regular standard determinate sentences, a minimum of one third will be served in prison. For more serious crimes on a standard determinate sentence, at least half must be served inside. Bad behaviour—violence, possession of a mobile phone and so on—could add more time in custody.
To ensure that the worst behaved offenders stay inside longer, we will double the maximum additional days for a single incident from 42 to 84. This has got to be punishment that works, with sentences that are tougher when offenders show contempt for the rules of prison. What we want, and what I think the public want, are people coming out of prison reformed. That is what we are attempting to do.
Sir Edward Leigh
I have a lot of sympathy with the Bill and with the argument that there is no point calling for longer and longer sentences unless we build prisons. I accept that, but I am worried about the presumption that if someone is sentenced to fewer than 12 months, they should not receive a custodial sentence. As a former practising barrister, I understand the arguments for why short sentences often do not work, but people committing offences such as shoplifting are complete pests, and they are causing enormous damage to the economy. It may sound hard, but sometimes we have to issue short sentences for that sort of offence. We should trust the courts and not try as parliamentarians to impose our judgment on them.
Mr Lammy
I understand the seriousness of the point the Father of the House makes. Let me say this. First, we are not abolishing short sentences. The presumption to suspend short sentences does apply, but not where there is significant risk of harm to an individual.
In 2019, the last Government commissioned work on this, which David Gauke relied on in his review, and it was deep research. The problem was that the recidivism rate for those who were committing short offences was desperate. They are prolific precisely because prison does not work for that particular cohort. What is also in the Bill—I think this is good, catholic stuff—is the intensive supervision court, where the judge gets to grips with what is happening with the defendant. Is it drugs? Is it alcohol? Is it addiction? What is going on? The judge really grips what is going on to get underneath the prolific offending. I emphasise that we are not abolishing short sentences entirely. I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
Under the measures, released offenders will still be deprived of their liberty. Immediately after prison, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision by the Probation Service. Clauses 24 and 25 introduce a strengthened licence period with strict conditions tailored to risk and offence, and it will be possible to apply new restrictive licence conditions to stop offenders from going to the pub, attending football matches or driving cars—restricting their liberties and their life in order to prevent them from being prolific.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor describes a system that will rest heavily on the Probation Service and the reliability of tagging systems. Unfortunately, in my constituency surgeries I have recently heard from constituents who are living in fear as the victims of violent crime, because the perpetrators have not been efficiently tagged in time on release. Will the Lord Chancellor assure us that there will be adequate resources for the Probation Service, and that contracts given to tagging firms such as Serco will be supervised to ensure that the services are of a reliable standard?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which was why I ensured that my first visit in post was to a probation setting. I pay tribute to our probation workers. They deserve full credit for all that they do. It has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into probation, to grow the numbers and the support, and to ensure appropriate supervision of tagging—to fine Serco where necessary but to ensure that the system is robust and works. That is of course a priority for this Government, as the hon. Gentleman might expect. I am grateful to him for raising the importance of probation.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I saw a worrying statistic that one in 20 people in the UK will be victims of domestic violence, which is truly shocking. I am sure that communities such as mine in Harlow will be particularly concerned about that. What will the Bill do to tackle that scourge?
Mr Lammy
Domestic violence is a serious issue. That is why having a flag in the system is important to ensure appropriate provision for that particular cohort of offenders who might leave prison and continue to offend, so that they can be recalled. Such provision is particularly important to domestic violence campaigners.
It will be possible to apply new restrictive licence conditions and, as mentioned, tagging will be central to depriving offenders of their freedom while they are outside prison. That is why I am introducing a new presumption in our system, that every offender is tagged on leaving prison. Reoffending rates, as I have said, are 20% lower when curfew tagging is used in community sentences. Today, about 20,000 people in the justice system are tagged. The proposed expansion will see up to 22,000 more tagged each year, and many under curfews and exclusion zones as well. This is punishment that works —not just a spell inside, but strict conditions outside, enforced by technology that we know cuts crime.
For the final phase of a sentence, the independent review recommended an “at risk” period without supervision. I think that that provision would cause concern across the House, so I rejected it. Under this legislation, all offenders released into the community will remain on licence. The highest risk will receive intensive supervision. Others will remain liable for recall to prison, with any further offence potentially leading to recall, even if it would not normally attract a custodial sentence. The prospect of prison must continue to hang over offenders, both as a means of ensuring that they mend their ways and as a punishment should they fail to do so.
In June 2018, there were 6,300 recalled offenders in prison. Today there are more than 13,500 prisoners in that category. Clauses 26 to 30 therefore introduce a standard 56-day recall, which gives prison staff time to manage risk and prepare for release. Some offenders will be excluded from this change and will continue to receive standard-term recalls, including those serving extended sentences and sentences for offenders of particular concern; those referred to the Parole Board under the power to detain; those convicted of terrorism, terrorism-connected offences and national security offences; and those who pose a terrorist or national security risk.
Those under higher levels of multi-agency public protection arrangements—levels 2 and 3—will also be excluded. That includes many of the most dangerous domestic abusers and sex offenders. Finally, those recalled on account of being charged with any further offence will be excluded too. They will only be released before the end of their sentence under a risk-assessed review or if the Parole Board says they are safe. This is punishment that works: breaches met with swift consequences, so offenders know that recall is a real threat hanging over their lives.
For some offenders, sadly prison is the only option. For others, we must ask whether custody is the most effective approach. The evidence is damning. In the most recent cohort, over a third of all adult offenders released from custody or who started a court order reoffended. More than 60% of those on short sentences of less than 12 months reoffend within a year. This is the legacy of the last Government: a system that fails to turn offenders away from crime and a revolving door of repeat offending.
The scale is shocking. Of the July to September 2023 cohort, 21,936 adults went on to reoffend within a year, and for the first time since 2018, over 100,000 reoffences were committed. That is what happens when there is a failure to take the tough choices needed to reform the system, a failure to invest in probation, as has been discussed, and a failure to act on the evidence.
Clause 1 introduces a presumption to suspend short prison sentences, and is expected to prevent over 10,000 reoffences each year. Let me be clear: this change will not abolish short sentences, as I said to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Judges will retain the power to impose them in certain instances, such as where there is significant risk of harm to an individual, including victims at risk in domestic abuse cases; where a court order has been breached—for example, if a prolific offender fails to comply with the requirements of a community order or suspended sentence; and in any other exceptional circumstances.
Similarly, clause 2 widens the scope for suspended sentences, increasing the limit from two years to three, but custody will remain available wherever necessary to protect the public. Clause 41 also updates the “no real prospect” test in the Bail Act 1976, clarifying that bail should be granted if custody is unlikely. But, again, the courts will continue to be able to remand offenders where there is a need to do so. This is punishment that works: short sentences and custody reserved for those who pose a real risk, while others are punished more effectively in the community, unlike the previous approach, which left reoffending out of control.
Punishment must apply whether sentences are served inside or outside prison. Just as offenders released from prison will face restrictions to their liberty, similar curtailments will be available for those serving sentences in the community. As I have discussed, that includes tagging, where appropriate, and clauses 13 to 15 will mean that it could also include banning people from a pub, from attending a football match or from driving a car.
Clause 3 will also make it possible to introduce income reduction orders, requiring certain offenders with a higher income who avoid prison through suspended sentences to pay a percentage of their income for the good of the victims, ensuring that crime does not pay. There is community payback, which we will also expand. Working with local authorities, offenders will restore neighbourhoods, remove fly-tipping, clear rubbish and clean the streets. Again, this is punishment that works, with liberty restricted, income reduced and hard work demanded to repair the harm done.
Some 80% of offenders are now reoffenders. Alongside punishment, we must address the causes of crime. Four intensive supervision courts already operate, targeting offenders driven by addiction or poor mental health, and they impose tough requirements to tackle those causes. Evidence from Texas shows that these courts cut crime, with a 33% fall in arrests compared with prison sentences. More than three quarters of offenders here meet the conditions set, and we will expand that work, opening new courts across the country to target prolific offenders, with expressions of interest now launched to identify future sites. Again, we are following the evidence here. Pilots show that intensive courts cut crime, and we will scale them up.
Victims must be at the heart of our system. Too often they have been an afterthought in the justice system, and this Bill changes that. Clause 4 amends the statutory purposes of sentencing to reference protecting victims as part of public protection, requiring courts to consider victims—and we are going to go further. Clauses 16 and 24 strengthen the restriction on the movement of offenders. Current exclusion zones protect victims at home, but leave them fearful when they step outside. For that reason, the Bill establishes a new power that restricts the movement of offenders more comprehensively than ever before.
These new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that the victims can move freely everywhere else. That was campaigned for by the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation, Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, who I understand are in the Public Gallery today; I pay tribute to them and to all who have campaigned for this crucial change.
It is vital that we ensure our monitoring is equal to the risk that offenders pose and the protections that victims need. Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which enables probation to identify abusers early, to track patterns of behaviour and to put safeguards in place.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Does the Lord Chancellor agree with my concerns that neither the Bill nor the excellent report that preceded it make any mention of restorative justice—a process that truly puts the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process? Will he pledge in future legislation to address that omission?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that a huge number of his own Back Benchers would like to get in this afternoon. He might therefore like to think about getting to the end of his contribution.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the steer. You know how it is, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is my first outing, and I was getting a little carried away with how good this Bill is. The intensive supervision courts will be able to look closely at restorative justice, which, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) rightly says, is a fundamental part of our criminal justice system.
There is a growing area of crime in relation to sexual offences. It is important that I mention the trial that has been running for three years in the south-west, piloting medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. These drugs restrain sexual urges in offenders who could pose a risk to the public, and are delivered alongside psychological interventions that target other drivers of offending, including asserting power and control. Although the evidence base is limited, it is positive. For that reason, we will roll out the approach nationwide, starting with two new regions—the north-west and the north-east—covering up to 20 prisons.
I have already discussed investing in probation, so mindful of your encouragement, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end by saying that the Bill ensures that our prisons will never run out of space again. But it does more than that: it ensures that prison sentences rehabilitate, turning offenders away from crime; it ensures that victims are at the heart of justice, with safeguards in place; it expands effective sentencing outside of prison for those who can be managed in the community; it follows the evidence of what works; it is pragmatic and principled, protecting the public; and it draws a clear line under the Tory record of failure. After 14 years that left the average number of reoffences per offender at a record high, Labour is delivering punishment that works through a justice system that follows the evidence.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Before the Lord Chancellor finishes, I want to welcome and highlight the measures in the Bill that deal with offenders, particularly clauses 7 to 10, which respond directly to Russia’s increasing use of petty criminals instead of its own agents in its campaigns of sabotage. This is something that my constituents have already been directly affected by, after incidents of warehouse arson and Islamophobic vandalism earlier in the year. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that we need to clearly advertise that petty criminals who work with malign states will be investigated, tried and sentenced in line with the threat they pose?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend knows that in my previous role, I unfortunately saw the increased risk of state threats and the pedagogy through which states are committing those crimes. It is absolutely right that a cohort of young men—petty criminals—are being used, and not just by Russia; there are other states that we could mention as well. It is important that those crimes are dealt with.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Before the Lord Chancellor finishes his speech, can I direct him to part 4 of the Bill, which is one of the parts that applies to the whole United Kingdom? It provides for the deportation of criminal offenders. Has he considered the viability of that necessary clause, clause 42, in the light of the fact that in Northern Ireland—because of article 2 of the Windsor framework—those offenders sadly enjoy enhanced protections due to the importation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights? Will the Lord Chancellor take steps to ensure that part 4 will apply to the whole United Kingdom by imposing a notwithstanding clause, stating that, notwithstanding article 2 of the Windsor framework, the same provisions will apply across the United Kingdom? It really would be preposterous if foreign criminals could be deported from one part of the United Kingdom but not from another.
Mr Lammy
Our intention is clear: foreign national offenders must be removed from our system. We will study this issue in detail in Committee. I am proud that on my watch as Foreign Secretary, we increased returns by 14%. It is hugely important that people do not feel able to come to our country and commit crime, unimpeded.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Sentencing Bill, despite supporting measures to better identify domestic abusers on sentencing, because the Bill will lead to an increase in the number of dangerous criminals on the streets, putting the public, particularly women and girls, at risk, and this is compounded by HM Inspectorate of Probation’s finding that HM Prison and Probation Service ‘requires improvement’ meaning it is not equipped to deal with the further pressures imposed by this Bill; because the Bill will undermine public confidence, particularly victims’ confidence, in the criminal justice system by enabling serious violent and sexual offenders to be released from prison early, and repealing measures to ensure law-enforcement and victims’ perspectives are secured in parole decisions; and will cause further loss of public trust in the criminal justice system because it will not end the scandal of identity-based sentencing.”
I welcome the Justice Secretary once again to his position, and congratulate him again on his demotion to Deputy Prime Minister. When he rose to introduce the Bill, I half-expected him to rise waving a flag instead of a Bill. It would not be a Union flag or a St George’s flag, of course, although if he were inclined, I would be happy to come to his constituency and help him put those up. It would be a white flag, because this Bill is nothing less than a complete and total surrender—a surrender of our streets and our safety to the criminals presently terrorising them. The Justice Secretary is already a man known for surrendering the Chagos islands, but if this Bill passes, he will be remembered as the man who surrendered our streets to criminals here at home, too. Make no mistake: this plan will unleash a crime wave across the country, paving the way for fresh injustices on our streets. The Secretary of State is fond of quoting figures and principles, so let me quote some back for context. Up to 43,000 criminals will avoid jail every year as a result of this plan. The numbers are eye-watering. That is more than half of all offenders who currently go to jail. It is the biggest reduction in sentences in British history.
The backbone of this Bill is a brand-new presumption against short sentences. In practice, it means that Labour is abolishing prison terms under 12 months. It is all but impossible for an individual to be sentenced for 12 months or less. Who are these individuals? Let us be honest with ourselves about who we are talking about here. Burglars, shoplifters, thieves and even thugs convicted of nasty assaults will henceforth be spared jail and handed a community order instead. If we apply this Bill to those imprisoned last year, it would mean: up to 3,000 thugs jailed for assaulting an emergency worker avoiding jail; 1,200 violent offenders convicted of grievous bodily harm avoiding jail; 11,000 shoplifters terrorising communities in each and every constituency avoiding jail; 2,700 burglars who rob families of their peace of mind avoiding jail; and 600 muggers who strike fear into people going about their daily business on the streets of this country avoiding jail. Those figures are eye-watering. This is a “get out of jail free” card on an unprecedented scale.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
In the spirit of honesty, does the shadow Minister recognise that it was the previous Government who left our prisons at 99% capacity for most of the recent years? They let out 10,000 prisoners, largely in secret, and brought our criminal justice system to the brink of collapse. Does he take responsibility for all of that?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady perhaps does not remember the last years of the last Labour Government. They let out 80,000 criminals on to our streets. That is how they emptied the prisons—not by building more, but by opening the doors. We did not do that.
There is a better way. Another way is possible. A third of all those in our prisons are either foreign national offenders or individuals on remand. The first answer to this challenge is to get the foreign national offenders out of our prisons and out of our country. The number of foreign prisoners in our prisons has gone up under Labour. The second answer is to fix the remand problem by getting the courts sitting around the clock to get the court backlog down. What has happened to the court backlog? It has gone up. If the hon. Lady is looking for someone to blame, she should look no further than those on her Front Bench.
Behind the many thousands of criminals who will walk free because of this Bill are thousands of victims, and each has a harrowing story. Daniel Tweed launched a vicious attack on his partner in their home in Northampton. He punched her multiple times. He dragged her by her hair. He kicked her and stamped on her. She was subsequently taken to hospital. He was sentenced to 12 months. [Interruption.] Someone said that is not enough, and I agree. Most people in this country would say that is not enough. That disgusting man should be in jail for far longer, but under the Bill, violent domestic abusers like Daniel will walk free. I say to Members, “Be under no illusions about what you are voting for this evening: Daniel Tweed and men like him will walk free.” There is no specific domestic abuse carve-out from the presumption against short sentences. That is what we are voting on tonight.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The truth that dare not speak its name, at least on the other side of the Chamber, is that the public know what many on this side know too: that many more people should be imprisoned for much, much longer. Successive Governments have failed to grasp that nettle, because they have given in to what the Justice Secretary, who, by the way, is a personal friend of mine—[Interruption.] He is desperate to avoid that description. They have given in to what the Justice Secretary amplified today, namely the foolish idea that crime is an illness to be treated rather than a malevolent choice to be punished. We need a retributive justice system that recognises what the public recognise: that people like the thug whom my right hon. Friend described need to be punished, and punished severely.
Robert Jenrick
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The truth is this: most people in this country are already raging at the fact that prisoners get let out of prison early. They were sick of that happening under the last Government, and what are this Government doing in response? They are letting out more, and they are asking them to serve even shorter sentences. That is not justice. That is not what the people of this country want.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I was struck by the example that my right hon. Friend gave of someone who committed a vicious assault getting only 12 months, and now getting no months and no prison time at all. Of course, it could work the other way round: it could be that when a judge is forced to confront the fact that if he gives a sentence of only 12 months for a vicious attack the prisoner will walk free, he will feel that he must make the sentence somewhat longer—in which case the Government’s plan to free up a prison space will not even work, will it?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend may well be right. A number of the policies introduced by this Government have had the most extraordinary unintended consequences. The Secretary of State said earlier that a number of people have been recalled. That is because of the failure of the Government’s policy; it is because they let people out on early release when they should not have been let out. Who knows what the unintended consequences of these policies are? But let me ask one thing of every Member of this House: think what you would say to the victim of Daniel Tweed. Should that man be walking the streets of this country, or should he be in jail? I know what I would say. I know what we believe on this side of the House.
Ministers defend this policy by saying that short sentences are counterproductive, noting that 62% of offenders who served under 12 months reoffended within a year, but here’s a thing: 100% of criminals left on the streets have the opportunity to reoffend immediately. It is cold comfort to the victim of burglary that a man who ransacked her home gets a stern talking to, unpaid work or, worse, “prison outside prison”—that ludicrous and empty slogan put out by the Justice Secretary’s predecessor—rather than even a few months behind bars. Short sentences exist for a reason. Sometimes a short sharp shock is exactly what is needed to change behaviour, and sometimes a short sentence is the only thing standing between a dangerous individual and his or her next victim. The approach in this Bill is totally naive.
The Government celebrate their new earned-release progression model as the centrepiece of the Bill—a Texas-inspired scheme, we are told. Well, this could not be further from Texas if the Justice Secretary tried. Texas’s incarceration rate is triple that of England. Who exactly will benefit from the right hon. Gentleman’s new scheme? Burglars, rapists, paedophiles, and those convicted of domestic abuse-related offences such as battery, stalking, and coercive and controlling behaviour. Disgracefully, all such prisoners who supposedly behave themselves will be released after serving just a third of their sentence—yes, one third. They have to behave themselves, not be rehabilitated, as the Secretary of State suggested. They do not have to come out with some skill, course or restorative justice; they must just not be a thug while they are in jail. Is that all we are asking for now?
Only the so-called most dangerous offenders are excluded. Forgive me if I am not reassured. If a violent domestic abuser, who was given, say, nine years, can stroll out of prison in three years because he attended a few workshops and kept his nose clean on the inside, how exactly does that protect the public, how does that protect the victim and how is that justice? The Conservative Government had moved to toughen sentences for serious crimes, requiring many violent and sexual offenders to serve two thirds of their term before release precisely to stop such tragedies. Now the Justice Secretary seeks to reverse that vital progress and water it down again to half. Hard-working, law-abiding citizens are being told that their safety hinges on a criminal’s good behaviour after conviction, rather than the severity of the crime itself. Public safety should depend on what criminals did to their victims and whether they remain a threat to the public, not on whether they earn gold stars on a prison conduct chart.
To sugar-coat the largest reduction in sentences in the history of our country, the Government promise intensive supervision of offenders in the community. Even that assumes that our Probation Service, which the Secretary of State was right to say is stretched to breaking point, has the capacity to monitor the beeping lights on all these new tracking devices. At Justice questions, he himself said that the contract was not working, yet we are now going to place even more reliance on tags—tags for goodness’ sake—but is that justice? Who exactly will watch the offenders? We are told that probation officers are already swamped and that, struggling with huge caseloads and staff shortages, they are at 104% capacity. Now, every petty thief, burglar and drug dealer who would have spent a few months in prison will instead be out in the community with a mere tag between them and their potential victim. Is the Justice Secretary seriously suggesting that this will stop a violent offender abusing their partner? If he is, he should explain that to the House.
What of the expanded menu of community restrictions of which Ministers are so proud? The Bill gives courts the powers to ban offenders from certain activities and places—bars, pubs, sporting events—and the press release issued to the media gleefully talked about criminals being barred from football matches and pubs as a way to curtail their freedom. However, do any Labour MPs here truly believe that these bans will strike fear into the hearts of hardened offenders? Don’t be ridiculous! A career burglar or repeat shoplifter will not quiver at the thought of being forbidden from entering the Dog & Duck—ridiculous!
I turn to some of the less trumpeted parts of the Bill—the changes to parole and the oversight of the Sentencing Council. These are technical on the surface, but they reveal much about the Government’s priorities. First, on parole, in a little-noticed clause—clause 38—the Bill repeals the power that would have allowed the Secretary of State to require certain parole board cases to have particular members, such as ex-police officers, on the panel. That power was designed by the last Government to ensure that, for the most serious and high-stakes release decisions, there was a law enforcement perspective in the room, with someone who has seen the worst of what offenders can do. Now the Justice Secretary has just scrapped it entirely before it even came into force. So when a convicted murderer or rapist comes up for parole, they will no longer be guaranteed that there is a voice of law enforcement or a victims’ champion at the hearing. Removing that safeguard tilts the balance further in favour of the prisoner’s release.
Secondly, on the Sentencing Council, the Labour Government’s Sentencing Bill lifts its central idea from a Bill we previously put before the House, which they voted down but now support, having wasted Parliament’s time with an interim Act. Yet after all that, they water it down. They propose to force the Sentencing Council, which drafts judges’ guidelines, to get approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lord or Lady Chief Justice for new guidelines and to submit an annual plan for ministerial sign-off. That is political oversight in principle—something Labour voted against when we proposed a stronger version—but in practice it is too little, too late. Only after I raised this issue on the Floor of the House did Ministers scramble to block those outrageous guidelines at the eleventh hour. Even the former Justice Secretary had to admit that such “differential treatment is unacceptable”. But remember, if Labour had listened to us sooner, this entire debacle would have been avoided.
The Sentencing Council is a creature of the last Labour Government—a quango deliberately insulated from democratic accountability. We warned that an unchecked council would go rogue and it did. Sure enough, it tried to rewrite sentencing by stealth and almost succeeded. Labour’s belated tweak, requiring ministerial sign-off on guidelines, adopts our position that the council needs democratic oversight, but it barely scratches the surface. The truth is that the council is a totally flawed structure. When Labour set it up in 2009, they made it answerable to nobody. As a result, an unelected body nearly smuggled in identity-based sentencing.
If the Justice Secretary really opposes identity-based sentencing, let us look at what is in the pipeline. Will he use this power on the forthcoming immigration guidelines, signed off by the previous Labour Lord Chancellor, which will deny Parliament’s clear will that immigration offenders should be locked up and subject to automatic deportation? Will he scrap those guidelines? They are in his in-tray. He is taking the power to do so. It is on him.
Despite this being a new role for the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say that the Justice Secretary cannot feign ignorance on this approach. It was his 2017 review that fixated on statistical disparities in the justice system. His answer was not to enforce the law impartially; it was to impose outcomes by quota. His review’s guiding principle was “explain or reform”, effectively demanding that if an institution cannot explain a disparity in minority outcomes, it must change its practices until the numbers look equal. In theory, that sounds like holding the system to account. In reality, it invites social engineering and double standards.
The right hon. Gentleman openly champions equity over equality. In plainer terms, that means believing in bias by design—a justice system that explicitly favours some groups in order to tweak the statistics. We just saw the consequences of that thinking. The Sentencing Council’s two-tier guidelines were a textbook application of the Justice Secretary’s long-held belief: a two-tier system where justice is not blind, as it must be, but rather squints at your skin colour, your gender, your faith or your age before deciding how to punish you. On the Conservative Benches, we will always believe in the universal principle of equality before the law, not equity. That is the difference.
Turning to the matter of foreign criminals, for all the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, as of 30 June this year there were 10,772 foreign nationals in our prisons—12% of the total. That is up on last year.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s one-man show on why he should be leader of the Conservative party. He will get no argument from me on the fact that we need to reduce the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons—I agree that that is what we do need to do, as does my party. However, between 2019 and 2024 under his Government, the numbers increased by 12%. He knows that it is a difficult thing to achieve; he knows there is no simple answer, because if there was, his party would have done it when it was in government. Rather than offering simple magic-wand solutions, what is he actually suggesting that we do to deliver a reduction? If he knows the answer, why did he not do it when he was in government?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is on rocky ground, because the Justice Secretary literally put his name to a letter stopping the then Government deporting foreign criminals from our country back to their own countries. [Interruption.] He did, I am afraid, as I think did the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. You literally could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What is the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)? It is simple: change our human rights laws and address the European convention on human rights so that it is possible to remove each and every foreign national offender in a timely fashion, and then use every lever of the British state—whether it is revoking visas or suspending foreign aid—to achieve that.
Let me give the House an example of just how ludicrous the present situation is. When the Justice Secretary was Foreign Secretary, it was reported that he got into a debate with Pakistan over whether it would take back three grooming gang perpetrators—rapists—to their home country. Pakistan held out, saying that in return for taking back its own citizens—despicable rape gang perpetrators—we needed to agree to resume flights from a disreputable airline that has had safety challenges in the past. How weak is this country? How weak is this country that we will not stand up to that? We are giving more than £100 million a year in foreign aid to Pakistan. We should be using every lever of the British state to get these people out of our country and our prisons so that we do not have to carry out the early release of dangerous people, which is what this Bill will do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
I must make progress—I need to bring my remarks to a close.
In plain English, there are more FNOs overall, and more FNO sex offenders in particular, while those on Labour’s Front Bench have spent years campaigning against their removal. That will change only if the Justice Secretary confronts the broken ECHR, which is the biggest legal obstacle to their removal—everything else is tinkering. For the good of the country, I urge the Justice Secretary to support anyone within the Government who seeks change to the ECHR, because he will never resolve this challenge without that change.
The Sentencing Bill is soft on crime, soft on criminals and brutal on the hard-working, law-abiding people of this country. It offers oven-ready excuses to offenders to get out of jail early and cold comfort to victims. The Justice Secretary has a choice: he can plough ahead with this farce and watch as our streets are swept by the coming crime wave, or he can heed our warning—shared by victims groups and rooted in common sense—and think again. The British people deserve safer streets. Instead, under this Bill, they are going to get a jailbreak. A crime wave is coming.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Prisons in England and Wales are almost at capacity. The prison population currently stands at 87,578, with a current operational capacity of 89,664. The latest prison population projections estimate that the population will rise to between 95,700 and 105,200 by March 2029. This troubling picture means that reform is essential if we are to reduce the prison population and return to a functional criminal justice system. I welcome the reforms suggested in the Bill; they are both a necessity and the right direction of travel for an effective prison system. The Government have taken up most of the recommendations made in David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, which if taken together will reduce the numbers in custody by almost 10,000.
The prison system is in a unique place. It will be accommodating the highest number of inmates in history while working hard to find non-custodial punishments for a growing number of offenders. This is necessary following the irresponsible neglect of the criminal justice system under successive Tory Governments. It is also the first step to a prison and probation system that puts rehabilitation alongside punishment as an objective—that objective being a reduction in reoffending, with beneficial outcomes for offenders, victims and the taxpayer alike. I have no issue with the strategy, but I have serious concerns about the specific measures needed to achieve its purpose.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is always courteous in the Chamber. Let us be clear: is the Bill a result of too few prison places —I acknowledge, by the way, that successive Governments have built too few prisons—or is it driven by a certain ideology? Is it about rehabilitation, which I describe as the treatmentist approach to crime? There is a confused message emanating from this Chamber. On the one hand we are told that it is a matter of convenience, because we do not have the places, but on the other hand we are told it is a matter of principle, because we do not believe in prison. Where does the hon. Member stand on that?
Andy Slaughter
The right hon. Member is not easily confused. I will turn to exactly that point later, but in brief it is both, and there is a contradiction in it being both. There is going to be a massive expansion in prison places, and there are going to be more people in prison. However, at the same time, partly to reduce the need for even more prisons to be built and partly because there are alternatives to custody, there will be people leaving prison as well. It is a difficult trick to pull off, I appreciate, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is up to the task.
The Sentencing Bill shifts the focus from custodial sentences to dealing with offenders in the community. It is paramount, therefore, that probation services are adequately funded to manage the substantial increase in workload and that supporting resources, such as electronic monitoring, are available and reliable. There are several measures in the Bill that will increase the pressure on probation services. These include a statutory presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less; an extension of the availability of suspended sentences to three years rather than two; and new community orders, including those that ban offenders from public events and drinking establishments, prohibit offenders from driving and impose restriction zones on them.
In the 2023-24 annual report and accounts for the Prison and Probation Service, the overall annual leaving rate for Probation Service staff was over 10%. His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation said:
“High workloads and a lack of support are critical factors in driving practitioners away from their roles”.
A report leaked to the BBC estimated that there is currently a shortfall of around 10,000 probation staff, which is four or five times the number being recruited. I welcome the extra £700 million pledged during the spending review period to assist the Probation Service in dealing with the increased pressures. It will be vital in filling the shortfall and increasing staff retention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged that in response to me during Justice questions today.
The success of the measures in the Bill relies heavily on the use of electronic monitoring, primarily through the use of tags. The Justice Committee has continually raised its concerns about the performance of Serco, the Government’s current tagging provider. In correspondence with the Committee dated 7 May this year, the Prisons Minister revealed to us the shocking fact that Serco had received financial penalties for poor performance every month since it took on the electronic monitoring contract a year earlier.
In oral evidence given to the Committee, Ministers have recognised that Serco’s performance has been unacceptable and that stronger punishments for Serco are possible, should it continue to fail. Those should include possible debarment and exclusion from bidding for public contracts. Indeed, some of us wondered how Serco was ever awarded that contract by the previous Government after the appalling fraud it committed during its previous tenure as contractor. Ministers have reassured us that Serco’s performance is beginning to improve. It is difficult to see how the Government can continue to have faith in Serco, but it is also evident that they cannot easily shift to another contractor as there appears to be no viable alternative.
Sir Julian Lewis
Naturally, I had assumed that if people were not going to serve short sentences, in many cases they would be tagged. It is worrying to hear what the hon. Member is saying about Serco’s performance. Is he saying that effectively the people being tagged are not being properly monitored? In which case, does that not bring the viability of the whole system into question?
Andy Slaughter
That is a valid concern. Ministers assure us that performance on the contract is improving in exactly those areas, but we are not just waiting for that improvement; we are introducing a huge additional burden, because all those offenders who will now remain in the community, rather than being incarcerated, will need tagging. I worry that an unreliable contractor with a poor record—even if it is improving—is being given a great additional burden.
Let me turn to another aspect of the Bill. It amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to revise down the statutory release point for standard determinate sentence prisoners to one third, although additional days added to time in custody as a consequence of breaches of the Prison Rules 1999, known as adjudications, will be served after the one-third point. Those changes follow the sentencing review’s recommendation that the Government should introduce an earned progression model for those serving SDSs. The review argued that, as a large proportion of offenders will be released after one third of their sentence,
“custodial sentences should be used to incentivise good behaviour and focus on limiting the risks of reoffending.”
As the sentencing review set out:
“The criteria for compliance should also include the expectation that the offender will engage in purposeful activity and attend any required work, education, treatments and/or training obligations where these are available.”
The review also held the view that,
“as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.”
I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on what exactly is meant by a “more demanding” regime.
The Justice Committee is currently halfway through its inquiry into the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders. It has heard of the difficulties that prisons face in administering proper rehabilitation programmes when prisons are full, which results in most of their efforts being focused on dealing with day-to-day incidents and combating widespread drug use. Rehabilitative programmes also vary greatly between prisons.
I welcome the steps taken towards an earned progression model in the Bill and hope they can free up capacity to allow for a better and more consistent rehabilitative regime. It is important that once the changes are made, rehabilitative regimes remain robust and continue to be focused on combating the behaviours that lead to reoffending, rather than being focused primarily on prisoners meeting the goals that lead to their early release—that is a rare point of agreement with the shadow Lord Chancellor.
Under the earned progression model, there is also the possibility that some prisoners may stay in prison for longer than they currently would as they do not meet the new criteria for release and are required to serve additional days. That, of course, will put further strain on the numbers in prison. Prisoners should be provided with clear guidance setting out how they should implement the earned progression model. This will ensure consistency for prisoners subject to the model and ensure that victims are informed of what to expect under the scheme.
In brief, we need to ensure, first, that the reasons for rehabilitation are clear—are they undertaking additional work, or are they simply keeping their noses clean in prison? We need to consider how rehabilitation will be used in prisons in future, and we need look at every aspect of incarceration as to how the earned progression model will work.
The Bill contains two clauses that make provisions relating to the Sentencing Council. Clause 19 introduces a statutory obligation on the Sentencing Council to obtain joint approval from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice for all sentencing guidelines before final definitive guidelines are issued. It is borne out of the disagreement of the former Lord Chancellor with the Sentencing Council earlier this year regarding the revised guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. The revised guideline was the subject of much, and often poor-quality, political debate at the time.
The former Lord Chancellor promised to further review the Sentencing Council’s powers during the Bill stages of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 in April this year. On Second Reading, I expressed my concern that it could cause
“damage to the relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary.”——[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 1012.]
I also expressed regret about how it had been used to support attacks on the judiciary. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact that the Lord Chancellor’s veto in clause 19 could have on the judicial independence of the Sentencing Council.
However, if we are to have a double lock, perhaps we should have a triple lock. One suggestion that was made to me was that the Justice Committee—as well as or instead of the Lord Chancellor—should be granted the power to veto or approve guidelines. That would operate alongside the equivalent power of the Lady Chief Justice. It would go beyond the Committee’s current role as a statutory consultee for ordinary Sentencing Council guidelines, but the logic would be to rebalance power so that democratic parliamentary oversight is given to the guidelines, rather than there being a veto on behalf of only the Executive and the judiciary.
One area not covered in the Gauke review or the Bill is the question of those who are in prison on imprisonment for public protection sentences. It has been 12 years since the last IPP sentence was handed down, yet around 2,500 people are still serving IPP sentences in prison. It is now widely acknowledged that the nature of such sentences causes serious distress for those who are serving them and their loved ones. I welcome the Government’s progress in reducing the numbers of IPP prisoners, with a 9% reduction in the year to 31 March 2025. More could still be done, but the work being done through the action plan by the current Prisons Minister, and indeed the previous sentencing Minister, has gone some way towards achieving that.
In 2022, the previous Justice Committee recommended that a resentencing exercise should be carried out to bring the sentencing for IPP prisoners into line with current sentencing practice. Successive Governments have chosen not to take up that recommendation. My position remains that a resentencing exercise is the most effective and comprehensive way to reduce the number of IPP prisoners, and I think IPP prisoners should have been included in this legislation.
In conclusion, I welcome the legislation and commend the Government for bringing forward these bold reforms. However, I note that there are a number of areas where more detail is needed and where I can see challenges in its implementation. Many of the measures in the Bill will place extra pressures on an already stretched Probation Service. I hope that some of the issues that I have highlighted can be covered during the Bill’s passage through the House, despite the limited time that we will have in Committee of the whole House. I and my colleagues on the Justice Committee will consider ways in which we may be able to press the Government on points of concern through amendments. I hope that the Bill will go at least some way towards solving our prisons crisis and restoring the faith of the public in our damaged criminal justice system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The last Conservative Government crashed our criminal justice system, and ever since it is victims who have been paying the price. The shadow Justice Secretary spoke today of surrender, but who was it that surrendered victims to years-long waits for trials? They did. Who surrendered victims to reoffending rates through the roof? They did. Who surrendered victims to a failing tagging regime? They did. Who surrendered victims to their own early release scheme, with no specific exclusions for domestic abusers? They did. This is not justice; this is Conservative chaos.
Sir Julian Lewis
Will the hon. Gentleman just remind the House with whom the Conservatives were in coalition for several years when they started their 14-year term?
Josh Babarinde
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but should he look at the figures for 2015, he will see that all the things that I have described surged under the last Conservative Government. It is chaos and it cannot go on.
The Bill contains a number of measures that Lib Dems have proposed to help fix our pummelled prisons and crashed courts, but it also contains some problematic provisions that will need to be addressed if the Bill is properly to deliver justice for victims and survivors. The Liberal Democrats therefore cautiously support the Bill on Second Reading, but unless considerable changes are made throughout the remainder of the legislative process, the Government cannot expect our support any further.
Following a long campaign on one of the measures in the Bill, working with fellow victims and survivors of domestic abuse, I am heartened that the Government are honouring the commitment they made to them and to me to create a formal domestic abuse identifier in the criminal law for the first time. Convicted abusers will fly under the radar no longer. I thank the survivors who campaigned on this alongside us, including Elizabeth Hudson, as well as Women’s Aid, Refuge, Victim Support, ManKind and the 50,000 people who signed my petition in favour of greater identification of domestic abuse in the law.
Sir John Hayes
I did not know that the hon. Gentleman had done that, so may I congratulate him on that? What he says is absolutely right and will, I think, be widely welcomed across the House. However, I must press him on one point. Does he, like me, believe that such people, once caught and convicted, should spend much longer in prison? Does he agree that they should be incarcerated because punishment is the right thing for people who have done wicked things, spoiled lives, and hurt families, hurt women and hurt children?
Josh Babarinde
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Speaking as a survivor of domestic and child abuse myself, and as someone who has been hurt in those very contexts, I have significant sympathy and alignment with a lot of what he describes. When I come to the domestic abuse identifier later, I will talk about how I think that should play out when it comes to the presumption against short sentences.
We will be closely monitoring the force of the new identifier through its implementation, and we will continue to make the case for a full aggravated offence of domestic abuse to strengthen the identifier.
Can the Government confirm that they will work with organisations such as Fair Hearing to provide domestic abuse training for judges and magistrates, so that the domestic abuse determinations that they make under clause 6 of the Bill can be informed by domestic abuse survivors’ experiences?
We also welcome measures to introduce a presumption against short sentences, which we know are failing to reduce reoffending. According to Ministry of Justice figures, 62% of people receiving a sentence of 12 months or less go on to reoffend. This compares with a 24% reoffending rate for equivalent suspended sentences. However, there must be an exclusion for domestic abuse offences. For domestic abuse victims and survivors, the respite period—as it is often referred to—represented by a custodial sentence for their abuser is critical. Will the Government commit to excluding any offender convicted of a crime where the new domestic abuse identifier is applied from the presumption against short sentences?
We welcome the reasonable and proportionate use of robust community sentences and licence conditions in the context of the earned progression model, but the Probation Service must have the tools it needs to manage this. I am sure we will hear again that the Government have pledged £700 million to the Probation Service to help enhance its capacity, but how will they resolve the 2,315 full-time equivalent shortfall in probation officers by next spring when those measures are set to be enacted?
On some of the new conditions, the income reduction orders and the additional driving prohibition powers may disincentivise or even inhibit employment, which is a key factor when it comes to rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. How will the Government militate against that unintended consequence of potentially driving up reoffending through those measures?
The recall provisions need to change. It cannot be the case that offenders can benefit from an automatic “get out of jail free” card after 56 days, with no assessment by the Parole Board before re-release. The Bill also threatens the independence of the judiciary from the Government by granting the Lord Chancellor a veto over judge-made sentencing guidelines. That looks like textbook Executive overreach, and it must be reviewed.
On foreign national offenders, the Bill offers placeholders for secondary legislation, which will evade scrutiny by the whole House. Our constituents instead deserve clarity and full parliamentary scrutiny of that matter, and I hope the Minister will commit to providing that.
Beyond that, there is lots missing from this legislation. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, where is the reform on IPP sentences? Where is David Gauke’s recommendation of an independent advisory body on prison capacity? Where are the measures to prevent offending in the first instance and not just to increase the supply of prison places? Where is the statutory footing for the publication of sentencing remarks for those victims of sex offences in perpetuity?
I will ask many more questions throughout the process, but I hope the Government will work with us and with the victims and survivors whose concerns we have all been platforming this evening to make significant improvements in the Bill which fix the criminal justice system that the Conservatives broke, while affording victims the freedom, dignity and welfare they need.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The police in Torbay tell me that in Paignton and Torquay town centres a number of habitual offenders see a call back to prison as just a professional risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that after years of a lack of investment by the Conservatives, we need to see investment in rehabilitation to help keep those individuals on the straight and narrow?
Josh Babarinde
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I refer to the comments I made on recall. As someone who spent their career setting up an organisation that supports young ex-offenders out of crime and into employment, I know that investment in rehabilitation is key. Rehabilitation prevents reoffending, and preventing reoffending prevents victims, reducing misery and improving lives.
I hope the Government have heard loud and clear where we stand on this issue. We stand ready to work with them to improve the Bill.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I rise to speak in the debate from the perspective of a former serving police officer; I saw first hand how our justice system far too often failed communities and, most importantly, victims—repeat offenders cycling in and out of custody, victims living in fear, and prisons at breaking point. That is why we need urgent reform and why I welcome this Government’s delivering the most significant changes to sentencing in over a generation.
Last summer, prison overcrowding reached an all-time high, as we have heard. Our system was stretched to crisis level, and we cannot let that happen again. The independent sentencing review exposed what many of us working in the system knew all too well: too few prison spaces, too little support for victims and short sentences doing nothing to cut reoffending.
The Conservatives extended sentences for serious crimes by almost two years on average, but built just 500 new places in 14 years. The result was prisons so overstretched that 10,000 offenders had to be released early. That is unacceptable and unsustainable, and it must not happen again. I welcome the Government’s commitment to building 14,000 prison places over the next decade; 2,500 have been added already.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The expansions of the prison estate by 10,000 additional places through new houseblocks and through refurbishments, including for category D prisons, are rated “red” because the supplier has gone into administration. I heard nothing this morning from the Minister about what the Government are doing to ensure that the plans stay on track. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns?
Matt Bishop
I would share those concerns, but I have complete faith and confidence in my Front-Bench colleagues—more so than the previous Government.
Building new places alone is not enough. If we are serious about cutting crime, we must change the way in which sentencing works and future-proof the justice system. In the police force, I saw victims living in fear as violent offenders were released early, while petty offenders wasted away in jail cells serving short sentences that did nothing to change their behaviour and nothing to make our communities safer. I also saw the opposite: community sentences—the tough and visible ones that we are talking about—gave offenders a chance to change course. I remember offenders cleaning graffiti, clearing rubbish and, for the first time, making a positive contribution to the very communities that they had once damaged. For some vulnerable offenders, a short prison stay is not a deterrent but a danger. It exposes them to hardened criminals, pulls them into more violent lifestyles and leads them further down a path of reoffending.
That is why the Bill’s provision to suspend short sentences in favour of unpaid work and community service-style punishment is so important. Done properly, such sentences can foster community cohesion by making offenders visibly repay the public for the damage that they have done, reassure victims that wrongdoers are held to account, and deter crime by breaking the cycle of reoffending that short sentences too often fuel.
Another thing that is close to my heart is the idea that victims and survivors deserve a system that keeps them safe and listens to their fears—too often, they do not have that. That is why I welcome the provisions for victims in this Bill. Domestic abuse will now be explicitly called out in court, creating a clear and consistent record that will help to protect victims and manage offenders. Specialist domestic abuse courts will mean stronger support for victims and proper rehabilitation for abusers. Victims of rape and sexual offences will have access to judges’ sentencing remarks and better information. And above all, the purposes of sentencing will now place the protection of victims at the heart of justice. I will continue to advocate for transparency so that victims can understand how sentencing works. After experiencing crime, they should not have to face a justice system that leaves them in the dark. We need to do more for victims, such as giving them unfiltered victims statements and allowing them to say what they want during sentencing, but that is a step for another Bill.
In my policing days, I saw how victims were left unheard and unprotected, and how sentencing failed to deliver justice or reduce crime. The Bill begins to put that right. We are building prison places, reforming sentencing and putting victims—finally—at the centre of justice. That is what the public expects, it is what victims deserve, and it is what this Labour Government will deliver. The Bill is about turning sentencing from a revolving door into a system that protects victims and cuts crime.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
We need more prisons and prison places, but I find the Conservative case absolutely incoherent. They talk about being tough on crime, but they closed police stations, closed courts, cut the number of police officers and completely failed to deliver the number of prison places that they speak about—talking tough without delivering the goods. Frankly, that does not work and the country has had enough of it. We need to move on.
I recognise, however, that courts need to make greater use of community sentences. Courts need to be agile, and they need tools that deal harshly with persistent offending. Community sentences can do that. Defaulting to prison every time, almost fetishising prison, cares nothing about the victims of petty criminals who are sent to prison for short stays, where they learn more about crime than they had ever learnt in their whole lives, and then come out and reoffend. We heard no concern from Conservative Members about the victims of reoffending. Why not? It is not convenient for their argument that prison is always the answer. Community sentences, demonstrating that people are paying back to their community and society, can be a tough sentence and the right sentence.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that requiring an offender to look at the root causes of their offending is far from the easy option? Facing up to those life difficulties is very hard, but it is a really effective way of stopping the cycle of offending.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Lady makes a compelling point about the depths to which that kind of sentencing can go. The lack of concern from Conservative Members about reoffending after short-term prison stays is surprising, to say the least.
Coming down hard on crime means we need to bring back proper community policing, quicker justice that halves the time between the offence and the sentence, and better and tougher supervision of community sentences, as set out in our Lib Dem manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) referred to our position on the Bill, which I wholeheartedly support, and he does a tremendous job.
In my Taunton and Wellington constituency, I am working with local businesses and the police to try to stamp out shops that are trading illegally. Time and again, police and trading standards raid premises and find counterfeit cigarettes or unlicensed alcohol, with evidence of sales to under-age youngsters. However, I have spoken to the police about this, and they find that the only person they can put before the courts is the individual behind the counter—a fall guy for the shadowy layers of owners who lie behind the business. Conniving and cowardly fraudsters are basically employing and putting behind the counter vulnerable people who often have little grasp of the law and the regulations that apply.
All criminal behaviour deserves to be punished, but sentencing the fall guy for up to 10 years in prison, as provided for in the Trade Marks Act 1994, does not effectively deal with the menace of dangerous goods being sold to our children. The convicted man or woman often deserves less blame than their employers, while those employers—the shadowy bosses—simply open a new business under a new name in the same shop and carry on trading illegally, with a different fall guy behind the counter.
Back in 2008, research in the British Medical Journal found that
“Smuggled tobacco kills four times more people than all illicit drugs combined”.
In 2018, the Mesothelioma Center reported on a study of counterfeit cigarettes imported into Australia from China which showed alarming results:
“Each cigarette is packed with up to 80 percent more nicotine and emits 130 percent more carbon monoxide. Worse still, many contain other impurities such as rat poison, traces of lead, dead flies, human and animal feces and asbestos.”
It is a menace that we have to deal with.
Why should those who are trading honestly—like my constituents who run shops, pubs and businesses, sustaining town centres and communities across Taunton and Wellington—and paying their taxes be forced to compete with criminal enterprises, for which it takes months and months to obtain a closure order under the current legal process? Is it not time to change the law to “one strike and you’re out” when it comes to shops trading in illegal substances? Why must it take months for such orders to be granted? Why can we not empower the police officers in my constituency, who are as frustrated as I am, to close down premises overnight? I hope that the Secretary of State will meet me to discuss that aspect of the legislation—I will explain that to him afterwards, if I have the chance, because I am not quite sure that he caught it. Being tough on this kind of crime should mean being swift with the punishment. That would put a stop to the behaviour immediately, and rightly send a shiver down the spine of any shop owner contemplating illegal sales.
In conclusion, although better supervision is needed, tough new community sentences including tagging are welcome to deter repeat offending. That will not increase the reoffending in the way that prison often does. There is, though, a wider lesson: sentencing reform alone is not enough when the real culprits are able to hide in the shadows. We need to strengthen the powers of the police and councils not only to prosecute the individuals at the counter, but to close down the premises that police know are repeatedly flouting the law. If we do not, we risk punishing the least powerful while allowing the real fraudsters to keep raking in their gains, to keep harming our children, and to keep evading their taxes.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill for many of the reasons already highlighted by the Justice Secretary and many Labour colleagues earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) made many of the points that I wished to make so, because of the shortage of time, I do not intend to repeat them, although I would like to reinforce them.
The Bill is a bold step towards easing the pressure on our overcrowded prisons and repairing a criminal justice system so badly broken by the Conservative party’s agenda of economically illiterate austerity. However, concerns have been expressed to me by the trade unions—including Napo, which represents probation staff—especially on the extra workload that the Bill will mean for their members. I say respectfully to the Minister and to the Justice Secretary that I hope they will engage fully with the justice unions as the Bill progresses in order to address these legitimate concerns in good faith.
Robust community sentences in the right circumstances —contrary to what many Opposition Members have been saying—can offer a better and more effective alternative to prison, provided that they are supported by new tagging technology, but only if that is done correctly. At Justice questions this morning, the Justice Secretary gave some excellent responses to concerns raised about the existing contract that the previous Government signed with Serco. Indeed, the Government’s own assessment suggests that change will be required, and the changes will require hundreds of additional probation officers in order to keep the public safe. Early release for good behaviour is supported by the unions, provided that prisoners show that they are turning their lives around and addressing the issues behind their offending. Again, early release comes at a cost, and at a cost to the Probation Service.
Other measures in the Bill have been welcomed by people working in the sector. Probation staff have long complained that rehabilitation activity requirements and post-sentence supervision, which are leftovers from the previous Government’s failed privatisation experiment, are ineffective and time-consuming. Napo is therefore relieved to see the Bill abolish them for good. Although it is true that this will free up more staff time, the Bill still puts additional pressure on the Probation Service. Yes, the extra resources already announced by Ministers will help to bring more staff into the service, but what will make them stay? Attrition rates—the rates of skilled probation officers leaving the service—are appalling. That is unsurprising, given the unbearable workloads for staff on top of 15 years of real-terms pay cuts and a degradation in the service presided over by the previous Administration. I am also told that the Government still have not made a formal pay offer to probation staff this year, so I respectfully encourage Ministers to reflect on how best to hold on to these key workers, who perform such a vital and demanding role.
The Bill would benefit from stronger safeguards around tagging and unpaid work, to ensure that the biggest beneficiaries are the public at large, not profit-hungry private corporations. We have heard many times in the House recently, including at Justice questions this morning, about Serco’s catalogue of contractual failures, especially with electronic monitoring. As we expand the use of tagging, we should try our hardest to reduce private sector involvement, partly because it has proved to be such a costly failure in the past and partly because this new form of punishment should be harnessed and used for the public good, not private profit. The Government have earmarked an extra £4 million a year at least for tagging expansion, but that money must not be used simply to line the pockets of rip-off failing privateers.
In conclusion, if we want to turn our criminal justice system around, we must work harder to prioritise public good, not private profit. I know that this Labour Government share that ambition and I hope that they will work closely with their own frontline workers in the Probation Service to fully realise the benefits that the Bill could bring.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It has become increasingly clear that we see huge discrepancies across sentencing for offences. Comparatively trivial offences receive stiff penalties, while serious crimes appear to go relatively or actually unpunished. There is an increasing feeling that the punishment rarely fits the crime, that the law is soft, that criminals act with impunity and that justice has become hard to come by.
I would like to recount a story about a family from my constituency. Michael Gough was a keen cyclist and had been cycling weekly, on Saturday mornings, with a group of four friends for a number of years. He would head off early, before 8 am, and go out for three to four hours, returning home by lunch time. He rode all over Cambridgeshire, usually covering between 35 km to 50 km on a ride. As a keen cyclist myself, who rides the same roads and the same sort of distances, I know what a joy it is to get out on my bike at the weekend.
On 16 March last year, Mike and the group went out as usual. His daughter, Kim, recalls what happened as the family waited for him to return:
“I had gone to mum’s around 12.25 and we set off shortly after. Mum did think it was unusual dad wasn’t back yet, but he did like to talk so thought he’d probably had an extra cuppa at their cake and cuppa stop. We only made it round the corner when my phone started to ring. Mum picked it up and answered it as she noticed it was dad’s friend Tim calling. I pulled over as soon as I could. Tim had said there had been an accident and dad had been knocked off his bike”.
The family made their way to the scene of the accident on George Street, in Huntingdon town centre.
“We were stood in the street outside Elphicks, opposite Wetherspoons, waiting not having a clue what was going on. Lots of the public were walking up the street and being allowed to walk up and past the scene of the accident to get to where they wanted to go but we were told we had to wait. After a while an officer came down from the scene to talk to us. He asked us to sit in the back of the police car where we were told that dad had been knocked off his bike and had died from his injuries.”
The post-mortem subsequently outlined that Mike had been crushed across his chest and could not be resuscitated.
It was not until December 2024, some nine months later, that the Crown Prosecution Service charged the driver with causing death by careless driving. A further six months later, on 27 June 2025, the driver—Dennis Roberts, aged 74—plead guilty to causing death by careless driving. He was banned from driving with immediate effect. Roberts was given a one-year sentence suspended for two years, a two-year driving ban and 250 hours’ unpaid work, and was ordered to pay court charges of around £200. As Kim says:
“The sentence is within the guidelines of the law, but does the law fit the crime? He has lived his life like normal for 18 months, whilst we have lost our dad, husband, friend, grandad, and lived the last 18 months encompassed in a whirlwind of grief. Even after sentencing he continues to live his life, just with a small inconvenience of not being able to drive and giving up a few hours to work unpaid. How is that justice?”
Mike’s tragic and untimely death is sadly not an outlier, but the current sentencing guidelines for causing death by careless driving are far too lenient, given the impact that such a tragedy clearly has on family and loved ones. The factors determining culpability as “careless” as opposed to “dangerous” are largely subjective and the difference between them is opaque, but it is the factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation that I find difficult to understand.
A good driving record is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. The inexperience of the driver is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. Efforts made to assist or to seek assistance for the victim are taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. A lack of maturity is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. A mental disorder or learning disability is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. A deprived background is taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. The prospects of education are taken into account upon having killed someone through carelessness. What prospects do the victims have now—or their family or dependants?
These mitigating factors beggar belief. This is not a trivial offence or a victimless crime; it is one that devastates lives. Would any one of us here who lost their partner, child or parent to the carelessness of someone’s driving be content to see that person leave court with little more than the inconvenience of having to get a lift home? Furthermore, the minimum level of sentencing starts at a medium-level community order to one year’s custody. The bare minimum must be a custodial sentence, and it must not be suspended. If we are to trivialise a crime with the most serious outcome—that of ultimately taking a life, even through carelessness—then what price stiffer sentences for less serious crimes?
I would not wish anyone to suffer the trauma of enduring such a tragedy, but those who sadly do should at least take comfort that justice has been served. We must stiffen the sentence for causing death by careless driving. We must eliminate the ludicrous mitigation factors that offer too much opportunity for offenders to avoid justice. We must ensure that victims and their families get justice. To prevent others from suffering the lack of justice that Mike and his family have endured, I will table an amendment to address this issue and ensure that Mike’s death was not in vain.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
When this Government came into power last year, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. After 14 years of Tory neglect and underfunding, our prisons were at breaking point. If we had not acted, prison places would have run out within weeks. When our prisons are full, violence rises, putting prison officers at risk. When no cells are available, suspects cannot be held in custody, which means that vanloads of dangerous people are circling the country with nowhere to go. That is the appalling situation that the Conservatives left us with.
Rather than letting that happen, this Government took decisive action and are ensuring the future of the system by introducing this landmark piece of legislation. There are many forward-thinking measures in this Bill. This is about creating a sentencing system that punishes those who commit crime, ensuring that victims see justice served. It is also about creating a system that works for rehabilitating those who have committed crime and, critically, preventing reoffending.
Similarly to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), I will focus my remarks on driving bans and vehicle crime. Since becoming an MP, I have heard countless stories from families and individuals who have lost loved ones or had loved ones seriously injured on our roads. I have heard horrific stories of grandmothers killed in hit-and-runs, and of tiny toddlers whose lives have been cut short by drivers racing around in stolen cars and fleeing the scene. These families have been let down by huge backlogs that have been in the system for years.
I have been working closely with the charity RoadPeace, which was mentioned earlier. It has opened my eyes to all the ways in which the system is failing. I was shocked to find out that even after someone has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, they are often allowed to continue driving until they are actually found guilty, which can take years and years; that may be similar to the case that was just mentioned.
The thing I found most shocking is that once offenders are released from prison, they often have incredibly short driving bans. One such case is that of a woman who ended up in prison after taking the life of a man from Tividale in my area. Martyn Gall was an experienced cyclist. He was killed by a woman who was on her phone for her entire journey—sending messages, taking pictures and using social media apps behind the wheel. The first call she made after hitting Martyn was not 999; it was to her sister. That driver was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, but following her release she will have a driving ban of only five years—which I and Diane, Martyn’s wife, think is far too lenient for the suffering that she has caused.
Another indication of the historical failure of the system is the chronic rate of reoffending in our country. We know that half of all crime in the UK is committed by just 10% of offenders. The campaign group Crush Crime has highlighted examples of chronic offenders, who commit crime again and again. Unfortunately, the same is true of serious driving offences. Data released to me following a parliamentary question shows that nearly 20% of offenders convicted of dangerous driving in 2024 had committed a similar offence previously. Of those offenders, 6% had received several convictions for dangerous driving, and the worse the offence, the higher the reoffending rate. While nearly 20% of those convicted of dangerous driving were reoffenders, less than 5% of those convicted of careless driving had a previous conviction.
The length of bans given to those who commit these serious offences needs to be much longer. Let me give the House some examples. One man hit a 13-year-old girl in a 60 mph hit and run. The child suffered life-changing injuries. The perpetrator already had a conviction for dangerous driving, yet when he was released from prison, he only received a five-year driving ban. In another case, a woman who was doing 60 mph in a 30 zone smashed into a taxi. She was uninsured, was under the influence of cannabis, and had a baby in the front seat. It was her second driving conviction that week, but she was given a driving ban of just two years and five months.
Jane Haynes, a campaigning journalist from the Birmingham Mail, alerted me to one of the very worst cases I have heard of. Grant Meredith-Trafford was doing more than double the 30 mph limit on Tipton Road in the Black Country when he mowed down and killed a 64-year-old pedestrian in January 2023. The driver sped away and tried to cover his tracks—he went on the run for weeks and hid in a country hotel. The most shocking part is that he was already disqualified from driving. Following the crash, he was jailed for 15 years and banned from driving for 17 years. Even though the judge described the case as
“one of the most serious cases of its kind…in recent times”,
the offender still did not receive a lifetime driving ban. I think most of the public would be shocked that some of these people will ever be allowed behind the wheel again, yet the reality is that just 1% of people who were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving in 2024 had their licences revoked for life.
I think the public would also be shocked to realise how many people with 12 points on their licence are still on our roads. In 2021, research by Cycling UK found that one in five people were spared an automatic ban when they reached 12 points by claiming exceptional hardship—for example, that they needed their car for their job. In my view, if a person requires a licence for their job, they should be extra careful on our roads. The exceptional hardship frame is being applied far too liberally, and this loophole needs to be addressed. I encourage Ministers to look at how we can tighten up the rules around that loophole and lengthen driving bans as this Bill progresses through Parliament.
My final point is how important it is that the Bill uses driving bans as part of community sentences and licence conditions. Driving is a privilege, not an inalienable right, and vehicle crime is often linked to other types of crime. It is absolutely correct that a driving ban is one of the options available to judges to ensure a tough sentence for offenders who receive a community sentence or are released on licence.
At the heart of this Bill is the question of how we deliver justice for victims, tough punishments for perpetrators, and protection for the public. After years of failure by the Conservative party, I am proud that this Government will take the strong action needed to fix our prison system and ensure criminal justice in Britain is working once more.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I cannot deny that clause 4 of the sentencing Bill is a step forward for victims, but I believe it can go further by specifically mentioning physical and psychological harm. Clause 4 amends the statutory purposes of sentencing to specifically include the protection of victims of crime, a measure recommended by the independent sentencing review. By adding an explicit reference to protecting victims into the statutory purposes of sentencing, it makes clear that justice is not just about deterring future crime or punishing offenders, but about safeguarding those who have already suffered. It is about recognising not only the harm that has been done, but the very real need to shield victims from ongoing and future harm.
Four months ago in my constituency of West Dorset, 14-year-old Isabella was lured to a cemetery by another girl she knew. As she arrived, somebody already had their phone out, recording—they knew what was about to happen. Moments later, Isabella was savagely attacked. She was stamped on and kicked in the face repeatedly, and her head was smashed on a concrete step. The physical attack was horrific, but so was what followed: the video of Isabella’s attack was deliberately circulated almost immediately, shared on social media and in private WhatsApp groups across schools in Beaminster, Bridport and Lyme Regis. Children who did not even know Isabella watched her brutal assault play out on their phones. What might have been one terrible moment has instead become a lasting trauma. This is exactly why strengthening clause 4 matters, because sentencing must reflect not only the physical harm caused to the victims, but the lasting psychological harm, the humiliation, the distress and the ongoing trauma that follows them for months and even years after the attack. The bruises may have faded, but Isabella’s pain has not.
I cite Isabella’s case as an example of a wider problem. According to the Youth Endowment Fund, 70% of young people report having seen real-world violence online in the past year. That means that countless children across the country are being victimised twice: first in the violence itself and then in the endless replaying of that violence on phones and on social media. Clause 4 gives us an opportunity to send a clear message that the law will stand with victims. However, we should go further and expressly include physical and psychological harm. That would mean that when judges and magistrates pass sentence, they treat cases such as Isabella’s not as a single moment of violence, but as an ongoing and deliberate act of cruelty that continues long after the assault ends. I hope that the Government will use the opportunity as this legislation moves forward to strengthen the provision.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I am glad to support a Bill put forward by the only party serious about reforming our criminal justice system. I say that as a barrister with 19 years’ experience, and I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Having been in full-time practice right up until last July’s elections, I saw at first hand the chaos in our prisons, the leaking and inadequate court buildings, and the overstretched probation officers, criminal barristers and others who were doing more for less in increasingly challenging circumstances.
This Bill is critical to delivering meaningful justice for victims, protecting them more effectively, punishing perpetrators and rehabilitating offenders so that they become better citizens, not better criminals. We often talk about the Government’s inheritance from the Conservatives, but I argue that the prison and probation system is the area of the public realm that is most affected by the Tories—where they did most damage. They had 14 years, and they created 500 prison places, as the Lord Chancellor said. The number of frontline prison officers fell by 31% and the Conservatives decimated the Probation Service. Their so-called transforming rehabilitation reforms, which privatised part of the Probation Service, resulted in taxpayers bailing out failing private companies with £467 million of public money. There is nothing more serious than ensuring law and order, and the Conservatives became the party of lawlessness and disorder.
It will take time to fix our prison and probation system, and this Bill begins that vital work. There is much I strongly support in this Bill. I particularly welcome the commitment to transition to an earned progression model for standard determinate sentences, inspired by reforms in Texas. There, as we heard, crime is at record lows, and it is important to stress that the behaviour of prisoners will impact their release. The principle on which this reform is based—that offender risk is relevant to how long they will stay in prison—is sound. If they reoffend and breach the terms of release under this system, the system will come down on them like a ton of bricks.
The inescapable fact is that we send too many people to prison who then become better criminals. The point of prison is to face punishment as part of taking personal responsibility for their actions, but most people in prison can be rehabilitated. People must be accountable for their actions without us becoming cynical about human nature.
I also strongly support other measures in this Bill, such as the expansion of tagging to monitor offenders in the community, which, as the Lord Chancellor said, has been shown to cut crime. I also strongly support the streamlining of deportation for foreign national offenders, on which I have a recent constituency example. In June, three men from Folkestone and Dover were convicted of raping a child and committing related sexual offences. They were together sentenced to around 54 years’ imprisonment. It was an utterly horrendous case. They were foreign nationals. Under existing laws, they can only be deported after serving the minimum term of their custodial sentence, which is often between a third and a half of it. Why should the British taxpayer foot the bill for their incarceration here for the next seven, eight or nine years while our prisons are at capacity?
Clause 32 of the Bill answers that question by allowing the Home Office to remove the offender from prison at any time and subject them to deportation action, irrespective of how long they have spent in prison here. I support that common-sense measure, which is yet another example of a measure that could have been enacted by the Conservatives, yet was not.
Sir Julian Lewis
Despite the party political edge to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s remarks, I want to ask him a serious question. Presumably there need to be safeguards to ensure that when people are deported before they have served their sentences, those sentences will be served in the country to which they are deported. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what sort of guarantees there will be that these people will not get off scot-free after deportation? I am sure that there must be some such safeguards.
Tony Vaughan
I do not think anyone is suggesting that people are going to leave their sentences early from the UK and walk free in their country of origin. There is a range of existing rules relating to prisoner transfer agreements and so forth, which will apply in any event. This may be a matter that the right hon. Member will be able to raise in Committee, but I have no doubt whatsoever that this measure—which will still be subject to the safeguards that are already in existence, whether in the deportation process or the justice process—will ensure that justice is done, which is the whole point of the Bill.
There is much in the Bill that I welcome, but let me ask the Minister a few questions. How can we keep the strongest possible safeguards in place for victims during the transition to more community sentences, how can we ensure that our Probation Service is well resourced and able to support the expansion of such sentences, and what additional measures are Ministers considering to support more effective rehabilitation of prisoners who have addiction and mental health conditions?
The Bill is a serious and radical response to our prisons crisis and our reoffending crisis, which are costing our society more and more every day in every way, and I invite Members to vote for it today.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
I was a magistrate for 20 years, so I hope that I speak with some authority and have something to contribute on Second Reading.
This Bill is based on recommendations in the recent Gauke review, which falls woefully short of addressing the many concerns that the British people have about the current judicial system. Worse still, it does nothing to reverse the current trend for woke justice, and enables the further politicisation of our once great judicial system. The left will describe the Bill as progressive, but in fact it is unrealistic, requires vast amounts of investment and funding for the Probation Service, and will take years to implement, and in the meantime it puts the public at risk.
The Bill makes whole life orders mandatory for certain types of murder, but does not specify which types of murder. It allows for
“special sentences for offenders of particular concern”
to be imposed for rape and certain other serious sexual offences, without giving any explanation of what that actually means. The British people want to know that life means life—that murderers, terrorists, rapists, hate preachers and paedophiles will be sent to prison and never allowed out to threaten the safety of the British people again, that they will face harsh conditions in prison, and that prison is punishment, not a soft option.
The Bill does nothing to defend our democracy and end the era of two-tier justice in this country, where free speech is a crime punishable by a more severe sentence than sexual assaults or paedophilia. It enables the continued facilitation of the special treatment of defendants according to their racial, cultural or religious identity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Pochin
I will make some progress, please. It allows for the even earlier release of dangerous criminals into the community on licence, reducing the time served from 50% of a sentence to a mere third. The implications for public safety in general, and for the safety of women from repeat offender domestic violence perpetrators in particular, are concerning. Prisoners recalled to prison for breaking licence conditions would receive a reduced sentence of, I believe, 56 days—it was 28 in the Gauke review—as opposed to serving the full term of their sentences. That would apply to criminals convicted of serious offences, which is a betrayal of justice for victims and for brave women who have gone through the harrowing experience of a trial.
What of the Bill’s intention to eradicate custodial sentences of less than 12 months? That in effect removes the ability of the magistrates court to give out a custodial sentence, leaving only community orders available as a means of rehabilitation and punishment. By the time a streetwise defendant has pleaded mental health problems and declared they are on universal credit, there are very few options available to the sentencing bench, and without custody there are even fewer.
These elements of the Bill are designed to free up prison spaces as opposed to administering the justice that the British people want convicted criminals to face in return for the crimes committed. There are no concrete plans to increase prison capacity, and there is no policy on deportation. This Bill is all about leniency, not about the reality of the dangerous places that prisons currently are.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is speaking with great authority from her experience as a magistrate, but she criticises the Bill for having no concrete plans to expand prison capacity. Could she talk about her party’s plans to increase prison capacity, how much they would cost and when that capacity would come on line?
Sarah Pochin
I thank the hon. Member—I was going to call him an hon. Friend, but I am not sure that is appropriate—and, yes, I could do that, but I think all Members know Reform’s policies on building prisons. [Hon. Members: “No, we do not.”] Let me finish my speech.
The Bill proposes increased powers for the Probation Service such that it could shorten the length of a community order. It is entirely inappropriate for the Probation Service to be able to alter the sentence given by a magistrate or a judge. All this is open to abuse, and it means that the already stretched Probation Service can release convicted criminals from its books to free up capacity, rather than because rehabilitation or punishment has been successfully completed. The Bill is purposely vague and open to interpretation. It is not tough enough, and it does not address the problems our judicial system is facing. For that reason, I will not be supporting it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
To respond to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), in 1997—I do not know if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was with us then—we were concerned that the prison population was 40,000; it is now 80,000 and it is predicted to go up to 112,000 if we continue on the current flightpath. I just say to the hon. Lady that we are all straining to do our best to make sure that all our constituents are safe and that there is a just and effective system in our society to deal with crime and injustices. However, based on what I heard of her understanding of the Bill, I suggest it would be worth her while to sit down with Justice Ministers so that they can take her through some of the detail of the Bill, because I genuinely think there are elements of it that she has completely misconstrued. I say that not in any party knockabout way; I just think that would be worth while, because we want, particularly with this Bill, to build as much consensus as possible to reassure people out there that this House cares about their concerns.
I declare an interest in that I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. There is no financial relationship or nexus to that and, as I have said before, the POA has made it clear that there is no benefit to me whatsoever—I would not get a south-facing cell, an extra pillow or anything like that; it is a privilege. I want to make four or five points very briefly, because I know that others want to speak, and they will to a certain extent echo those of my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).
On the sentence management process, all the advice we get from Napo, which represents probation officers, shows that there is a shortfall of about 10,000 staff, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick said. The morale in the service itself—remember that probation officers have gone through privatisation, and then been brought back as a public service—is pretty low. They are very committed professionals, but having wages stagnate for a long period has had its effect, and recruitment and retention is a real issue that we need to address. I would not underestimate the stress they are under at the moment. We welcome the additional resource, but realistically there is a demand for more that we need to take on board.
One issue with resettlement that has been raised with us by probation officers and others is that because of the cutbacks in local government and other funding regimes, a lot of the voluntary sector bodies that they relied on to refer their clients to are no longer operating or have been starved of resources for a long period. A lot of those voluntary sector bodies were specialists in their own way, in particular with regard to drug abuse.
The second issue is about prison. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick that we need a lot more detail about earned progression, but prison officers tell us that the reality is that rehabilitation is almost impossible at the moment. Prisoners cannot access the courses that are needed. We do not even have the staff who will go to their cells to accompany them to rehabilitation and education courses. Again, the pressure staff are under is immense.
One specific issue with the skilled worker visa system has been raised by the Prison Officers Association. It has had an impact on the number of staff working in our prisons. I was not aware of this to be honest, but there were recruitment campaigns in Africa and elsewhere. Staff have been brought here and now we are at risk of losing them because they fall foul of the new visa regime. It does not just affect prisons—it affects a whole range of services—but it needs to be looked at again.
Another issue that has been discussed is the supervision of unpaid work. I am really worried that there are discussions about privatising that again. In London, we had the experience of Serco a number of years ago when it was privatised. To be frank, it was an absolute disaster. I am worried that it could be interpreted as simply exploiting prisoners for private profit in some instances.
There is not much reference in the Bill to children and I wonder whether we will come back to that, because unless we look at the regime for children as well, we could be in a situation where children will be serving longer sentences than some adults. One other point in relation to children that has been raised by a number of organisations, such as the Howard League, is the publication of a prisoner’s or convicted person’s photo. I can understand the motivation behind that, but I believe the family often serves the sentence just as much as the prisoner. As a result, stigma is attached to the whole family. What we have found from our experience is that children have suffered because of crimes perpetrated by the parent. We need to be very careful about how we use the identification process. We need to do it wisely and look at the implications for the whole family.
I will make two final points. On race, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been goaded by the Opposition, but the work he did on an exploration of the justice system highlighted discrimination in the system—we have to admit that. It is not about two-tier justice; it is about trying to get fair justice for everybody. The reality is that all the statistics demonstrate that for the same crime, those who are black or Asian will get a harsher sentence and will almost certainly have a harsher regime when in prison than others. We need to follow up the work done by my right hon. Friend. We need to be open and transparent, and get all the information out there again and re-examine it on intersectionality and the implications for the justice system.
Finally, I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick on IPP. We have been at this for a number of years and the Select Committee made its recommendation on re-sentencing. The Government rejected it, because they were worried about being branded as releasing prisoners into the community and worried that there would be risks. The re-sentencing exercise was about how to manage and minimise those risks.
Every time we have this debate and we do not move forward, what happens? We have had suicides of those IPP prisoners. I am worried that unless we speed up the resolution of this problem, we will have an injustice. Lord Blunkett, who introduced the system, has subsequently absolutely condemned it, saying it was one of the worst mistakes he ever made in politics. We will render those injustices continuing ones and do more harm to both the prisoners themselves and—as those who have had constituents who have endured this will know—their families. As I say, the families serve the sentence as much as the individuals concerned. Although there has been progress on this, I do think we need to revisit it in some legislative form in the near future.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
As a former Crown prosecutor of 21 years, like my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), I have seen close up the impact of our broken criminal justice system on victims, on communities and on our country as a whole. Because of that, I can say, hand on heart, that I am proud to be stood here today in support of this Bill and the transformative reforms it proposes—changes that will target reoffending and address the root causes of crime in a meaningful, lasting way.
I will use my time to talk specifically about probation resourcing. Before I get into the specifics, I ask Members to cast their minds back to just over a year ago. The Secretary of State has already set some of this out, but, having heard from Opposition Members, I think it is worth reiterating what last year looked like and remembering the crises we inherited from the previous Government: prisons nearing maximum capacity, the Probation Service understaffed and stretched to the brink of collapse, and a court backlog of more than 73,000 cases. And to what effect? Justice delayed is justice denied. We had a revolving door of offenders going through an underfunded, under-resourced system that was nearing the point of being unable to effectively deter, punish or rehabilitate criminals.
Difficult decisions were taken to manage those issues, regain control of our prisons and ensure that the most dangerous offenders were kept off our streets. I am pleased that the Government acted quickly and decisively, but we must never find ourselves in that position again. That is why it is time to look forward and to consider how we can create a system that breaks down the cycles of reoffending, enables victims to secure swift, fair justice, and always has space to lock away society’s most violent and perverted offenders.
Those are precisely the provisions that the Bill will drive through, with measures such as the move away from short custodial sentences, which are shown to be ineffective in deterring and rehabilitating offenders, and towards a system that puts those aims at its heart. Current evidence shows that nearly 60% of people sentenced to 12 months or less in prison reoffend within a year of release—a clear sign of a system not working as it should. It is not cheap, either: it is estimated to cost the taxpayer £47,000 per year per prisoner. Those shocking statistics only confirm what I witnessed year in, year out when I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service, where I repeatedly saw the same people coming through the system, often committing the very same offences. I am old enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, that throughout my years working for the CPS, I was saddened to see those regulars later joined by their children, with entire generations of families caught up in gruelling cycles of reoffending.
The Bill introduces a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, subject to certain exceptions, and creates the pathway to improved community sentences with more effective measures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for her wisdom. There are many measures in the Bill that the DUP supports and sees as commendable, but I would respectfully say that we have some concerns about reducing the length of custody for offenders, and our concern is sufficiently grave that we, as a party, will be supporting the reasoned amendment. I am sorry to say that, but I have to put it on record. There are many things that are good, but that is not good.
Linsey Farnsworth
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am saddened to hear that that is his position, but I am afraid it does not change my view of the Bill.
Strict and stringent measures will be in place to encourage rehabilitation. Those will be accompanied by a simplified probation requirement, which will empower the Probation Service to determine the terms and volume of rehabilitation activity for each offender on a specific and individual level. Every offence is different, and under this system tailored community orders will reflect the nature of the offence and the offender. That means putting in place measures best suited to punish offenders for their crimes, encourage rehabilitation and deter them from future criminal activity. That is supported by evidence. The rate of reoffending for those on community orders is 36%, and it is 24% for suspended sentence orders with requirements, so this approach works.
Let it be clear stated that in this system offenders are far from free to do whatever they like. They will be supervised intensively and placed under a set of strict conditions. That will lead to a shift away from the root causes of crime, such as addiction, and towards gradual reintegration into society.
Of course, these reforms must be accompanied by significant investment in our Probation Service, and I am pleased that the Government have already committed to an extra £700 million in funding and recruited 1,000 new probation officers, with 1,300 more to come. However, as I said in previous debates when the sentencing review’s recommendations were first announced, the Government must be prepared to provide further resources to the Probation Service if that becomes necessary.
I am honoured to sit on the Justice Committee. Our inquiries have involved speaking to probation officers, and two things have been made clear. First, officers are absolutely committed to rehabilitating offers. Secondly, regardless of their goodwill and no matter how hard they work, probation officers cannot do their jobs effectively without proper resources. It is clear that the Probation Service has been working for many years on extremely limited resources, and we cannot let that continue under the measures in the Bill.
As a young prosecutor in the mid-2000s, under the previous Labour Government’s Respect agenda, I worked as part of the community justice initiative in Nottingham. The initiative, which was based on the Red Hook community justice centre in Brooklyn—America’s first multi-jurisdictional community court—adopted a holistic approach to tackle the root causes of a person’s offending, with agents such as housing officers, drug treatment workers and employment advisers under one roof taking part in the sentencing process together. The approach has been shown to significantly reduce the number of people receiving jail sentences while enhancing public confidence in the Government. The award-winning centre is still running today, but sadly the Nottingham community justice court is not. Despite early and promising signs of success, it lacked resources and sustained funding. We must learn from our previous mistakes.
Many of the recommendations of the independent sentencing review are carried forward in the Bill. Importantly, the review noted specifically that probation officers
“should be provided with the time, resources and autonomy necessary to build meaningful relationships with offenders and discharge this new responsibility to determine the appropriate content of probation requirements.”
Justice, the cross-party law reform and human rights charity, has also outlined concerns about shortfalls of probation staff, including a deficit of around 10,000 Probation Service staff in August this year. The charity suggests that despite more Probation Service officers being appointed in the last year, the target staffing level of full-time equivalent probation officers has not yet been met.
As I said, I have seen at first hand what happens to great projects and well-evidenced initiatives if they are under-resourced. The Bill’s provisions rightly place increased responsibility on the Probation Service to deliver proper justice and to rehabilitate offenders, but it needs to be supported to do so. Therefore, although I welcome the Bill and the Government’s announcement of increased funding for the Probation Service and the aim to recruit more probation officers, I am compelled to urge the Minister to ensure that adequate resource is in place so that the changes in the Bill will ensure that our criminal justice system can once again keep our country safe, protect victims and reduce crime.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, which seeks to make our society safer through more effective sentencing of offenders, whether in custody or in the community. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on penal affairs and as a member of the Justice Committee. I also declare a prior professional interest as an historian of criminal justice.
Sentencing is one of the ultimate powers of the state: the power to punish by depriving a citizen of their liberty. It also protects the liberty of others by preventing crime, whether through deterrence or rehabilitation. The history of our prisons system tells us that when prison neither deters nor rehabilitates, prison fails and the public are let down.
The Bill draws on the independent sentencing review conducted by the former Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke. The review was driven, as we have heard, by a crisis we inherited from the previous Government, with a massive rise in the number of inmates and an utter failure to plan and prepare for them. We have far too many people in prison. The number has doubled over the past 30 years, from 43,000 in 1993 to over 87,000 last year. That rise in inmate numbers has been caused not by an increase in reported crime, but largely by an increase in the use of short custodial sentences and an increase in recalls to prison of those who have breached their licence conditions. When our prisons are packed to the gunwales, they cannot do their vital job of turning offenders away from crime and they cannot offer value for the billions of pounds of public money put into them.
The Gauke review found that, in the year to September 2024, nearly 45,000 people—58% of all custodial sentences—were given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. It also found that the recall population has more than doubled over the past seven years, rising from around 6,000 to well over 13,000.
In recent months the Justice Committee—I am surrounded by several members of the Committee—has heard shocking evidence about the everyday impacts on a prison system that is running red hot. We have heard about education sessions that cannot be delivered due to lack of space, about substance-free wings being used to house inmates who may not need those services but simply need a cell, and about repairs to crumbling prison buildings that cannot be completed because no decant space is available.
The Bill seeks to tackle that by reviewing short sentences and resetting sentencing culture. It will do that by: as set out in clause 1, a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less unless exceptional circumstances apply; and, in clause 2, extending the availability of suspended sentences. As we have heard, the Bill will do much more than that. Notably, it will strengthen community justice and refresh the powers of our Probation Service, although I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) about the resources needed to sustain that. It also seeks to make it easier for domestic abusers to be flagged across the justice system. That is all to be welcomed.
That said, some proposals in the Bill will require close attention in Committee. For me those include: the procedural mechanisms for flagging domestic abusers, which must be robust; the proposed use of photographs of offenders undertaking paid work, which will need careful consideration; definitions of excess wealth when applying income reduction orders; and the procurement arrangements for enhanced electronic tagging. I hope that Ministers will be willing to engage on those questions as a means of strengthening this much-needed Bill, as this is a much-needed reset of our sentencing processes.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I want to speak today about how the Sentencing Bill will bring some common sense to sentencing and bring in an evidence-based approach to stopping reoffending and protecting victims of crime. That is the primary duty of government: to protect citizens from harm. I will particularly highlight changes that mean that victims and survivors will be at the heart of sentencing and that punishments will fit the crime, protect survivors and focus on true rehabilitation, not just warehousing.
One example is the move from the existing system of exclusion zones, which prevent domestic abuse or sexual assault offenders from entering specific areas where the victim might be, to restriction zones that will limit the offender’s movement to an agreed-upon area. For too long, the burden has been on the victim, with survivors moving house, switching jobs and changing bus routes to avoid the person who hurt them. Restriction zones mean it is the offender whose life is reshaped, not the victim’s. Technology will track compliance, breaches will mean prison and survivors will help design the zones alongside probation officers, so that their freedom, not the attacker’s, is the priority.
For years, magistrates and judges have been calling for more constructive and flexible sentencing options—more than fines that can be dodged or custody that does not fix the underlying criminal behaviour. The Bill introduces that, whether through driving bans, travel restrictions, football banning orders or sexual harm prevention orders. It moves past a one-size-fits-all approach and allows judges to deliver personalised punishment, hitting criminals where it hurts.
Short prison sentences do not cut crime and they do not stop reoffending. Hon. Members need not just take my word for it, or decades of evidence; maybe the Conservatives will accept the word of a former screw. My constituent James, who worked in the Prison Service for decades, said to me:
“Short sentences do nothing.”
He welcomes many of the measures in the Bill:
“In short, the Bill is the law we’ve all been advocating for, for a long time.”
All the money that we currently spend on short prison sentences is not spent on Best Start centres, hospitals, schools, healthcare and drug treatment, where the root causes of crime can actually be addressed.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am trying to go along with the thrust of the hon. Lady’s argument, but I just wonder whether it is as absolute as she suggests. Admittedly, people who undergo short sentences may be repeat offenders, and that is particularly true of shoplifters, for example, as we have heard. However, if a store is a victim of the same shoplifter over and over again, to be relieved of that shoplifter raiding the premises even for a period of eight or 10 months must be some sort of salvation, must it not?
Lizzi Collinge
I agree that retail premises need relief from that shoplifting, but I would like that relief to be permanent. I would like to see the causes of shoplifting stopped, and quite often that is drug use and organised criminal behaviour. I do not want just to chuck people in prison for a bit and then let them out to reoffend again.
We need sentences that give offenders proper access to drug and alcohol rehab and mental health care—the kind of support that tackles the root causes of crime. We need sentences that ensure the offender pays back their debt to society. Public safety is the bottom line here. Judges will have discretion to hand out prison sentences of less than 12 months, say, for domestic abusers or violent offenders. They will be able to make sure that survivors have the confidence to rebuild their lives knowing that the perpetrator is behind bars. Rapists and criminals who commit other serious sexual offences will spend their custodial term in prison.
Lizzi Collinge
I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the Bill is correct. I understand that perhaps he has some personal experience here and I appreciate that he has very strong feelings on the matter. Perhaps he will listen again to my former prison officer, who welcomed the changes.
Lizzi Collinge
I will not give way—[Interruption.] I think the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not showing the House the respect it deserves—[Interruption.] I would appreciate it if he would allow me to continue without this continuous chuntering.
At their core, these reforms do two things at once. They keep the most dangerous offenders where they belong, in prison, protecting the public, and they end the waste of locking up low-risk offenders. The evidence is really clear. I know that the Conservatives really struggle when the evidence contradicts their instincts and their prejudices, but it is simply true. The hon. Gentleman disagreeing does not make it any less true.
The victims of crime in my constituency deserve better than this current crumbling justice system. They deserve better than our overstuffed prisons that just churn out more and more criminals. They deserve this Sentencing Bill.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I want to speak today about justice; not just about punishment but about rehabilitation, dignity and the transformative power of second chances. For too long, our criminal justice system has been shaped by short-term thinking and political posturing—we have seen a fair amount of that in this debate—but we are changing that. This Government are committed to a smarter, fairer approach to sentencing that protects the public, supports victims and gives offenders a real chance to rebuild their lives. That is why this Bill matters. It enacts key recommendations from the independent sentencing review and marks a turning point in how to deliver justice.
This landmark legislation will ensure that our prison system never again reaches the brink of collapse. It introduces a presumption against short custodial sentences under 12 months, except in cases of serious risk or a breach of court orders. Instead, we are expanding the use of robust community sentences and giving judges greater flexibility to tailor punishments to the individual. Also, as has been mentioned, we are investing in technology to monitor offenders outside prison. This has very much been shown to reduce reoffending. Overall reoffending rates in 2023 were 26.3%. This was far too high, and short custodial sentences were a significant problem. Over 56% of offenders serving less than 12 months go on to reoffend. Young people are especially vulnerable. Those aged 18 to 20 have the highest reoffending rate at 36.2%, followed closely by 15 to 17-year-olds at 32.6%. Theft offences top the list with 48.4% of individuals reoffending. That highlights the deep link between socioeconomic hardship and repeat crime.
These figures underscore the urgent need for targeted rehabilitation, education and employment support to break the cycle, and one of the most pressing challenges is literacy. Over half of the UK’s prison population struggle with basic reading. According to the Ministry of Justice, 57% of adult prisoners read below the level of an average 11-year-old. That is incredible. In 2022-23, 65% of those assessed were at entry levels 1 to 3 in English, which is below the lowest GCSE level. Poor literacy is closely linked to higher reoffending rates and diminished chances of rehabilitation. However, we can look to other countries for inspiration in this area.
In Brazil, the Remission for Reading programme offers a powerful example of how education can transform lives. Introduced in 2012, it allows prisoners to reduce their sentences by reading books and writing reviews. Each approved review earns four days of sentence remission, up to 48 days per year. This is not just about reading; it is about rehabilitation. As one teacher involved in the programme said,
“This is about acquiring knowledge and culture and being able to join another universe.”
The programme fosters literacy, empathy and self-reflection. It gives prisoners a new perspective and a pathway to reintegration.
The Philippines has also followed suit, with the “Read your way out” initiative launched in 2023. This time, prisoners can reduce their sentences by 15 days for every 60 hours of reading, study, teaching or mentoring. Thirteen new prison libraries have been created to support the scheme.
The programmes show what is possible when we treat prisoners not just as offenders, but as people capable of change and growth. I ask the Minister if the Government would adopt a similar scheme to the “Remission for Reading” programme in Brazil across our entire prison estate. The initiative would make our justice system smarter, safer and more humane. It would provide an opportunity for change while still being tough on the causes of crime. Of course, this approach aligns with the principles set out in the independent sentencing review, chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke.
Let me be clear: dangerous criminals will continue to be locked up for a very long time. For those who can be rehabilitated, we must offer hope. Helping them improve their literacy is one way to do that. The Conservatives left us with a broken system. We are building a better one that is smarter, safer and more humane.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare the interest that, as a former prison officer, I am still a member of the Prison Officers’ Association. Having served as a Justice Parliamentary Private Secretary until only last week, this is the first time I have been able to speak on these departmental matters in the Chamber since I was elected. I want to use this opportunity to pay tribute to my friends and former colleagues at His Majesty’s Prison and Young Offender Institution Moorland who I served with prior to the general election. They are some of the bravest and most dedicated people I have ever known and, as only the second prison officer ever elected to this place, I want to use my time on these Benches to ensure that their voices are heard.
I want to acknowledge the work done by the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), and the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), as well as the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending in the other place, for all they have done to get us to today. I wish the very best of luck to the new Minister and the new Lord Chancellor in their roles.
I am proud that this Government have had the backbone to take the bold but necessary steps to reform our sentencing and justice systems in this country. Context in this debate is incredibly important, because over the last year I have heard the shadow Front Benchers criticise this Government month after month, and it has been, frankly, galling—the sheer audacity of them sitting there with their faux outrage, knowing what they have done. The Conservatives nearly brought our prison system to the point of collapse; it is frankly beyond comprehension. Under them, we saw huge rises in violence, self-harm, drug abuse, overcrowding and an abject failure to build the spaces we needed. Rather than deal with that crisis, rather than face up to the challenge, they called a general election. This dereliction of duty is not something we can shrug off or pass over because they are not in power any more. Catastrophic handling on that scale means that they should be held accountable. Their decision making, or lack of it, has put the safety of our prison estate in huge jeopardy and has had real-life and horrific consequences for staff and prisoners. I for one will not forget their legacy, and I will not allow anyone else to forget it either.
I want to shine a light on the additional measures in the Bill that are focused on victims, who must always be at the centre of our thinking when discussing the justice system: creating new restriction zones, limiting the movement of offenders, better identifying perpetrators of domestic abuse and creating a defined category that can be used to better manage domestic abuse perpetrators, both in custody and on release. I hope that that package of strengthened rights for victims will, along with all the other measures, be an important step forward in the journey towards ensuring that their rights are respected and their voices heard.
I am also pleased that the legislation recognises that prisoner behaviour should dictate whether they are released as part of the earned progression model. Although it is important that we are able to manage population numbers, it should not come at the detriment of support for good behaviour and punishment for bad. The additional powers to extend the number of days added at adjudication level are important. I am keen to explore in more detail with the Minister how we can use and improve the adjudication system to enforce that. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that, as a trained adjudication liaison officer myself, I have many views on how to strengthen the system so that prisoners who are violent—they are, frankly, the chief trouble-causers—face maximum penalties, and we capture those who should not benefit from the earned progression model. I ask Ministers to consult operationally experienced voices at every level of implementation to ensure maximum impact in that area.
I am aware that there is limited time and many colleagues wish to speak, so I will not go into further detail on the Bill. These reforms are not just about cutting prisoner numbers—we will have more prisoners at the end of this Parliament than we had in the previous one—but about making our prison system safer and more manageable, and, in doing so, giving prisons space to focus once again on rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and driving down the number of victims.
I hope that the success of the Bill will mean that, in time, we are able to place extra focus on supporting groups of people who are often over-represented in the prison system—not least care leavers. It is estimated that 52% of young offenders and 29% of the overall prison population are care-experienced. That is not something that we as a society can accept; change must come. I hope that reforms in the legislation will allow the space for that to happen over time.
We must ensure that our prisons are safer for prison staff, we must drive down reoffending rates to protect victims, and we must recognise that the previous Government’s approach did not work. These reforms are bold, yes, but they are long, long overdue. I congratulate the Government on taking the first steps towards getting a grip of our prisons and wider criminal justice system so that we never again find the system on the point of collapse.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Like my colleagues, I very much welcome the move to favour community sentences over short custodial sentences, as the Sentencing Bill provides. As we know, short-term sentences often lead to reoffending, which places a much-needed emphasis on rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation plays a vital role in addressing the root causes of offending. There is a wealth of research on the risk factors associated with offending and reoffending, with drug and alcohol dependency among the most prominent factors. Although there is slightly less research on this matter, I am increasingly concerned about the link between problem gambling and crime. Gambling disorders can and do lead to criminal offending, which is often committed out of desperation. The Commission on Crime and Gambling Related Harms has highlighted clear connections between gambling and various types of crime, including acquisitive crime, street robbery, domestic abuse, criminal damage and drug offences. Although gambling can be a fun activity for some, a gambling disorder can very easily take over an individual’s life: rates of suicide are significant, disordered gambling can ruin families, and gambling disorders push people into debt and subsequently into crime.
I am concerned about the fact that gambling disorders are not given parity of esteem with substance addictions by the criminal justice system. There is a range of rehabilitation requirements to support prisoners sentenced with severe drug and alcohol dependencies, but there is no such statutory support for gambling-related offences. That is a potential gap in the Bill that could be addressed in Committee. Gambling disorders share similar cognitive and mental health characteristics to substance addiction. Problem gambling is officially recognised as a mental health disorder in both the World Health Organisation’s international classification of diseases, and the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, sitting alongside traditional substance addictions. Addressing problem gambling in the criminal justice system must therefore be treated as a public health and rehabilitative issue, in much the same way that we address drug and alcohol addiction.
The gambling levy, introduced in April, will fund treatment, research, education and prevention in relation to gambling harms. I credit the Government and the NHS for working exceptionally hard to support those suffering from this cruel addiction. However, I am concerned that departmental silos may hinder the effective delivery of support in the criminal justice system.
The Sentencing Act 2020 mandated drug rehabilitation for offenders convicted of drug and alcohol-related crimes. Part 10(19)(1)(a) of schedule 9 to the Act states that the offender
“must submit to drug rehabilitation treatment, which may be resident treatment or non-resident treatment”.
Dr Gardner
Unfortunately, the legislation did not mandate that individuals sentenced for gambling-related offences must seek rehabilitative treatment for their gambling disorder. Again, I suggest that the Bill could correct that as it progresses through the House.
In a survey conducted by the University of Staffordshire, 99.6% of stakeholders supported sentencing options that mirror those used for drug and alcohol addiction, including the option to contribute to rehabilitation activity requirement days. Currently, community sentence treatment requirements propose drug and alcohol rehabilitation requirements for individuals sentenced to a community order, where the offender has consented to receiving treatment for substance misuse. Again, that is not offered to those with gambling disorders.
There is a clear need for greater intervention. In a report commissioned by the Centre for Crime, Justice and Security at the University of Staffordshire, between 2022 and 2024, 41% of people under probation supervision reported regular gambling. I echo the heartfelt support that Government Members have expressed for all the probation officers and prison officers working extremely hard and their need for resources to support offenders in rehabilitating.
In 2023, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities estimated that the imprisonment costs associated with problem gambling are equivalent to £167.3 million per year. I thank the Minister for our conversations regarding this issue. I ask him to consider the merits of mandating rehabilitative treatment for individuals sentenced for gambling-related offences because of a gambling disorder and whether a proportion of the gambling levy funds could be ringfenced to fund this treatment.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, put yourself in the place of a victim of crime. You want to go out for a walk with your family, out to the park or to the other side of town, but you are worried that the perpetrator might see you there. You want to go for a night out or to support your football team, but you are worried about what they might do or how you might react if they are there too, so you do not. They are the one who was convicted, but you still feel like the prisoner. They received the sentence, but you are being punished. It happens too often, and I have come across cases like these not just as an MP but in my time as a barrister.
This is a Bill whose time has come, because it turns that injustice on its head. Currently, some offenders can be excluded from certain limited areas, but under this Bill, they can be restricted from all areas apart from a limited one. Whether it is the pub, the match or driving around, expanding community punishments and licensing conditions will ensure that it is the offenders who face restrictions on what they can do and enjoy, not the victims.
I do not need to tell my constituents in Derby North about the situation inherited from the Conservatives—a broken justice system, prisons full and in crisis, severe criminal court backlogs and decaying infrastructure—because too many of them live the reality of having to deal with the thousands of antisocial behaviour incidents that we see in our city every year. There is a need to tackle prolific and persistent offenders with strict monitoring and co-ordinated support. The expansion of intensive supervision courts is designed to do just that, and it is hugely welcomed by those I have spoken to who work in our criminal courts. They have said to me, “Roll this out as fast as possible.”
The additional £700 million that this Government are investing in our Probation Service—with the recruitment of 1,000 trainee probation officers already and 1,300 more to be recruited in the next six months—is rebuilding that service. We are rebuilding after the Conservative Government’s vandalism, their failed experiment in privatising probation, which pushed it to crisis, and their having to bring it back into public hands. Probation officers work incredibly hard to keep our communities safe, and I am grateful that this Government are investing in their essential work.
May I also take this opportunity to thank those who work in our prisons? The number of prisoners will, of course, still go up. The Government are building more prison places—something that the previous Government all but failed to do—and more offenders will be behind bars than ever before under this Government. We therefore need to turn prisons from creating better criminals to creating better citizens. The earned progression model rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour in our prisons. It is an important tool to break the cycles of offending that we have seen for far too long, and when offenders stop offending, our communities are safer.
The Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending—a businessman who throughout his career enabled offenders to turn their lives around and to break those cycles—knows better than anyone how to make this work. I recently visited HMP Ranby to see how it is increasing the type of work that the prisoners there undertake, from creating furniture and doing laundry for prisons and other public services, saving taxpayers’ money, to working on reading and writing, or undertaking work for the private sector, giving offenders the skills to secure work on release. Utilising and increasing the opportunities for offenders to work in prison can build on the important measures in the Bill, reducing reoffending by giving them purpose and skills, while instilling a work routine. I will make that case in an Adjournment debate on 15 October.
I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight these three aspects of the approach: the intensive supervision to tackle antisocial behaviour and prolific offending; measures to help end the revolving door of offending; and new restriction zones and community punishments to give freedom back to victims. The Bill was born of necessity, because of the mess in which the Conservatives left our prisons and criminal courts. While born of necessity, though, I am excited about the transformative difference that the Bill will make, so that fewer offenders reoffend, victims are where they must be—the focus of our criminal justice system—and our communities are safer as a result.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill, because in so many ways it epitomises what the Government have had to do over the last 14 months. We inherited a prison system in crisis, having been fit to burst for years—something that evidently did not catch the attention of the then Ministers, given that in their 14 years they added only 500 places, one 40th of what they promised the people of this country they would deliver.
Despite rapidly ramping up prison building as a national infrastructure priority to address the failed legacy of the Conservatives—whose reputation as the supposed party of law and order is, frankly, in tatters—this Government are being honest with the public that we will still face a shortfall in prison places of some 9,500 by 2028. That is why generational reform of sentencing is needed to ensure that our legal system is fit for the future. That is the responsible thing to do, which is why it is so unedifying to see the party of Peel, Disraeli and David Gauke disgracing itself with the scaremongering and party political point scoring we have heard from the Conservatives, over a Bill that will clean up the mess that they created.
Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. The changes to early release will ensure that that release is genuinely earned. It is indisputable that over many years we have seen an erosion of discipline and order in many of our prisons, as evidenced by the amount of contraband that makes it into secure facilities and the number of assaults on prison officers. The changes in the Bill will ensure that possession of a mobile phone, for example, or violent behaviour can add months to a sentence, and that there will be no limit to that, as additional time can be added consecutively. Far from being soft on criminals, the clear message is that if people cause disorder and intimidation in our prisons, they will spend longer behind bars.
On rehabilitation, we have to be pragmatic and do what works. In my view, the primary purpose of our sentencing system is to punish offenders and make them repay society for their crimes, but I am also a pragmatist. If, as the Justice Secretary clearly outlined, the reoffending rate and the likelihood of offenders going on to commit more serious crimes is sky high, particularly for those serving short custodial sentences, then we have a duty to look at this again. It is right that the consequences that are proven to be more effective, such as community orders, are used, but with vital carve-outs for dangerous and prolific offenders, so that judges can ensure that victims, like those of vile domestic and sexual violence, are protected.
On that point, this Government’s efforts to fix the mess that the last Government made of tagging will help us to protect victims through pragmatic changes, including a pilot of tagging before prisoners reach the gate for release. That will be coupled with the measures in the Bill of which I am proudest: restriction zones, which will be important for victims, often women, who have so much to fear from offenders—often ex-partners or family members.
In one of the first surgeries that I held as an MP last July, I spoke to a constituent who lived in constant fear of her manipulative, violent and abusive ex-partner, who she felt would kill her. She had a restraining order in place but she felt that it was no protection at all, because her ex-partner would repeatedly find out where she lived and knew exactly how to get around the order. I know that many hon. Members have heard such stories, where the victim feels that they are now the one being restricted to a geographical area. Under this Bill, it will be the offender who feels that sense of geographical restriction. It should always have been that way around.
On making offenders feel restrictions on their life and liberty, I also welcome the proposed reforms to community sentences, so that rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that will not affect every offender, there will instead be a broad range of punishments that can be tailored to the nature of the offending and to what would act as a deterrent to each offender.
Finally, I welcome the Bill’s introduction of a requirement that the Lord Chancellor is consulted on new sentencing guidelines. That was a firm commitment made by the previous Justice Secretary, when new guidelines—stating that judges should take facts including the defendant’s ethnicity into account—were put before us without her oversight. She stated that this Government would take urgent legislative action to address that, and that commitment is being put into effect in this Bill.
In conclusion, the measures in the Bill are necessary after the last Government’s abject record of failure on criminal justice and prisons. They will ensure that all our constituents can have the assurance that the criminal justice system is once again effective, fit for purpose and on a solid footing for the future.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak on Second Reading. This is an historic debate, as I believe it is the first piece of legislation to be introduced by a Deputy Prime Minister who is a graduate of the King’s school in Peterborough. I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place, as well as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards).
As an MP who represents a prison and a crown court, I am very much alive to the issues that the Bill covers, including the failure not only of full prisons, but of a criminal justice system on the point of collapse, with backlogs in the courts, crime unpunished and, for too many people, often justice denied. Having listened to many of the important contributions from Members on the Government Benches, I wish that more Members from the Conservative Benches could have been here to bear witness to the legacy that they have left this country, which this Government are beginning to unpick.
In my advice surgeries and in my postbag, I regularly hear the issues: of families worried that justice will not be served, but also of a broken system, where the idea that people can offend but go on to have a good life has been lost. I warmly welcome the speed with which the Justice Secretary is grasping the prison crisis with two hands, because that crisis is also a crisis of trust in our public services. It is crucial that we have a just system that punishes offenders and supports victims.
To make better use of time, I will not repeat many points, but I will focus on one particular aspect of the legislation and talk in favour of rebuilding our broken probation system. One of the biggest challenges facing society is that our prisons still turn out too many repeat offenders, particularly among young people. Recent data shows that if someone leaving prison is employed within six weeks of release, their likelihood of reoffending is cut by half. That is a powerful testament to the impact and meaningful nature of work. It also speaks to a truth: too many young offenders have been failed by school or lack the skills and opportunities to get on in life. They should be held accountable for the crimes they have committed, but we need a pathway back, with community orders in the Bill to give people a chance to contribute to society as well as serving their time and doing their punishment.
This issue interests me greatly through both my faith and my values, and it matters greatly in Peterborough. I am lucky enough to know Gez and Rosy Chetal, who set up Prismstart to work with employers, prisons and offenders to create work experience opportunities. Through their huge efforts, they have secured meaningful employment for more than 60% of the individuals who have come through their scheme and have produced work experience and opportunities for others.
I also draw the House’s attention to the work I have been doing as a Co-op MP with the Co-operative movement. In July this year, the Co-operative Group launched a new partnership with City & Guilds for a new apprenticeship scheme for serving prisoners at HMP Highpoint in Suffolk. The scheme offers level 2 rail engineering operative apprenticeships, with guaranteed employment in the rail sector on release. This initiative aims to address the rail skill shortage that this country desperately needs to fill and to reduce reoffending by providing prisoners with qualifications and work experience before they leave prison. The scheme speaks to something that I hope this House holds dear. By providing clear employment pathways, we can break the cycle of reoffending, fix our prisons and rebuild our country.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Every single one of us is here because we want to deliver justice for every one of our constituents. As a former police officer, it has been really welcome to hear of the lived experiences of barristers, criminal prosecutors and people who have worked in our Prison Service, because it is their expertise that makes this place deliver for people.
As a former police officer, I know that this Government have inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse after 14 years of Conservative neglect. I can see that the early release scheme has been in action tonight, with Conservative Members being absent. Probation was hollowed out and police numbers see-sawed; they were cut in the early part of the Conservatives’ tenure, only to grow later after crime rose. The stark truth is that the Conservatives left prisons full at the end of their term; they know that, and they have never apologised for that derogation of responsibility. The Conservative party is the party of law and disorder, and this is its failure. No matter the gimmicks of the shadow Justice Ministers—whether it be chasing people in tube stations or climbing lamp posts—that record will have been on their watch. That is why this Bill is so urgent.
We know that the number of prison places is growing, with 14,000 more before the end of the decade. We have a Government who are finally stepping up and listening to the public when it comes to putting people in prison, but we know that that cannot be the only solution and that we need to adopt other approaches. That is why the Sentencing Bill is so necessary; it recognises that capacity must be built, but also that sentences must be reformed so that the right people are behind bars for the right length of time and the public can have confidence in justice. Our prisons should not be a revolving door for ever more prison experience and criminals rotating through the system, and we need to change that.
This Bill takes a clear-eyed approach. Let us be clear about this: dangerous offenders and those posing the highest risk will continue to serve long sentences—no ifs, no buts. For most offenders, though, we will move towards an earned progression model. Behaviour in custody will determine how much of a sentence is served. As we have learned from the States, that is a model that works, and I look forward to seeing it develop in action, overseen by Ministers who will consult with the professional bodies and prison staff. I welcome the reforms to the way in which we approach sentencing, listening to professionals such as The Times’ Crime and Justice Commission and David Gauke so that we can have a system that delivers the outcomes we want. This shift is not about being soft; it is about being smart and ensuring that punishment is effective.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill is not perfect, and I look forward to improving it in Committee, working with all Members. It learns from the failures of the past, of which there are many; it builds on the findings of an independent review; and it balances punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. I hope Members will support it today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am grateful to colleagues on all sides of the House for their contributions to the debate, and I welcome the Minister to his post—I think today is his first time at the Dispatch Box. As I have said before, wanting to see more consistent delivery of justice for victims of serious crime was one of the primary reasons I sought election to this place, and I do not think that any Government in my lifetime has universally delivered that. For decades, across parties, our justice system has fallen short far too often. I am sure that many Members from all parties can relate to the experience of hearing about some of the most horrific crimes that take place and being appalled by the sentences given. That is not new, but the question we have to ask ourselves today is whether the Bill we are considering will make the situation worse or better. Will more victims get what we would consider justice as a result of this Bill, or fewer?
Since this Labour Government came to power, we have quite rightly been holding them for account for the measures they have already taken to let people out of prison earlier. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with the consistent debate we have had about pressure on prison places, where responsibility for that lies, and what can be done about it. Labour Members point to our prison-building record, while I point out to them that the pressure on the prison system left by the last Labour Government was worse, and that there are other options for foreign nationals and the remand population. A lot of heat is generated, but there is not much more to it. Labour Members point out that they have had to take emergency steps, and it is true that the measures they have taken have not been permanent changes to our sentencing framework. However, I say to them that the Bill we are considering today does something very different.
As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and others have demonstrated, I am not sure that Labour Members fully recognise what the Government are asking them to support today. There are measures to be welcomed in this Bill—the new restriction zones and the measures to better track domestic abuse cases, which the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), also supported—but there are a number of reasons why I do not support the Bill. We have heard Members including the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), raise criticisms relating to short sentences, community sentences, Parole Board reform, probation and the Sentencing Council, but I am not surprised that Labour Members do not agree with those criticisms.
However, I do not believe Labour Members can sincerely think what I am about to talk about is something they would knowingly want to support. I am going to read out a list of offences: rape; assault by penetration; rape of a child under 13; assault of a child under 13 by penetration; inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13; kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence; and creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. I hope Labour Members felt as uncomfortable being forced to consider those offences and what they entail as I did while reading them out. I am going to read them again: rape; assault by penetration; rape of a child under 13; assault of a child under 13 by penetration; inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13; kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence; and creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. In fact, there are even more of those sorts of offences that we need to have in mind this evening.
Why do we need to consider these offences? Because despite what some Labour Members have said to the contrary—without ill will, I accept—and for all the things it does that Members might support, the Bill we are considering this evening will mean one thing for the vile criminals who commit those sorts of offences. It will mean that they are let out of prison earlier, not as a temporary measure in response to the kind of short-term prison crowding challenge that we have debated and recognised, but as a permanent and profound change to our sentencing laws.
Members who support this Bill will be putting their name to legislation that will forever change our sentencing laws to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) talked about legacy. I cannot honestly believe that Government Members want to support a Bill that will allow rapists and paedophiles to get out of prison earlier. That is not political posturing or hyperbole or scaremongering, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) described it. It is not an unfair interpretation or misrepresentation of the Bill before the House today. Rapists and paedophiles—those are the people that Members will be voting to let out of prison early if they support this Bill this evening. Is that really what they came to this place to do?
Gareth Snell
The shadow Minister is reading out a series of crimes that are reprehensible, and no one in this House would want to see the individuals who commit such crimes having anything but the book thrown at them. In the spirit and tone in which he has read that list out, his Government oversaw a 2.6% charge rate for people who were arrested for rape. Does he want to say anything to the House about that particular damning figure? There are people today who have not been let out of prison early, because they never even got there in the first place. What does he say to that?
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member will have noted that at the outset of my remarks I said that I have never been entirely in support of all the policies of a Government of either party on these issues. He has every right to make those criticisms, but they do not change the vote he is being asked to make tonight. They do not change the policy he will be putting his name to and supporting. There is no excuse for the things he will be changing on a permanent—not temporary—basis to deal with a short-term prison crisis. I do not think that that is what any Government Member’s constituents want.
These profound and permanent changes to our sentencing laws are the exact opposite of what the vast majority of victims, their families and the public want. They will sit on the record of those Members and this Government until the next election. They will need to justify themselves to their voters. I do not believe that the majority of Labour Members, deep down, want to support such changes tonight. It will be a great compliment to party managers if, after this reality has been spelled out to Labour Members, they decide to support this Bill anyway. If they speak to their constituents like I speak to mine, and ask them about child abusers and rapists, their constituents will tell them that they are already concerned by the limited time they spend in prison, which undermines justice. We have heard so many times from Members in this House about the horror of rape and other sexual offences, about the victims of grooming gangs and about the horror of all kinds of sexual abuse. Not once do I recall a campaign or a concern raised by Members that the answer is to make such offenders spend less time in prison.
I accept that there is a different debate to be had about different cohorts of offenders and different offences. There is always a tension between prison time as a punishment and helping to rehabilitate offenders. As others have said, and I agree, I do not think the Bill strikes the right balance in that area, but I respect those Government Members and members of the public who would draw the line in a different place from me for certain types of offences and offenders. However, we are not talking about drug addicts stealing to fund their habit, or the young man from a broken home who spent their childhood in care and vandalises the local playground. The hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), and others coherently and sensibly raised the debates we might have about how long those individuals spend in prison and how we rehabilitate them.
However, here we are talking about rapists and paedophiles—criminals who sexually assault children, criminals who create sexual images of children and circulate them around the world and criminals who snatch unsuspecting women walking home through a park, drag them into the bushes and rape them. Those are the sorts of criminals that Labour Members will agree should be let out of prison earlier if they support this Bill.
We should be clear that not a single voice among victims’ representatives supports this element of the Bill—not a single one. The Victims’ Commissioner does not support it. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner does not support it. Justice for Victims does not support it. Victim Support does not support it. The Victims’ Commissioner for London does not support it. Apparently, however, we will see this evening that Labour MPs do.
Let me also clear up any confusion about the circumstances under which these violent and sexual offenders will be released early. Members, innocently, may have been led to believe that prisoners will have to jump over considerable hurdles to secure early release. In fact, the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) told us they would need to “earn” their release. The reality of the proposals in the Bill make clear what a complete sham that suggestion was. Actually, prisoners will actively need to break prison rules to run the risk of losing early release. That is not earning anything. That is doing what the majority of the public do day in, day out, without any reward—just behaving themselves and not breaking the rules. Apparently, however, if a rapist or a child abuser does it, Labour Members think that should entitle them to walk away from the proper punishment that they have been given for their crimes.
In fact, what Labour said to the press in an attempt to manage the news of this terrible set of policies gave the impression that the large discounts amounting to, in some cases, many years off prison time could be quickly reversed for bad behaviour, and that this was a radical departure. While the amount of time after which the Government are choosing to let people out is certainly radical, the mechanism to keep people in is nothing of the sort. As we see in the detail of the Bill, they will simply make use of the existing prison punishment legislation.
I wonder whether Labour Members are aware of the average number of days in prison that is added by the prison punishment regime. According to the latest data I could find, the average number of additional days given to a prisoner who breaks the rules is 16. When sentences for rapists and child abusers will be discounted by many months and years, they run the risk of having a handful of days added back on for breaking prison rules. That is shameful, and it does not apply only to the offences that I have mentioned. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) spoke about a 15 year sentence, and about how the victims of the person concerned would feel about their not being given a lifelong driving ban. How will they feel when they are told that instead of serving 15 years in prison, that person will spend five years there?
The parlous state of this Government is a blessing for Labour Members tonight. There are many other issues receiving media coverage at present—the political survival of the Prime Minister himself is in question—so they may get away with voting this Bill through unnoticed. However, this is just the first stage. I know that the timetable for the Bill is as short as the Government could make it—just a day of Committee of the whole House, which also means that the many victims groups will not be able to come before the House and voice their objections, and then one day for Report and Third Reading. The Government clearly hope that the Bill will also go through its future stages unnoticed by their constituents, who, they hope, will not know that Labour MPs want to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier. [Interruption.] That is the reality of the Bill that they are voting through. Labour Members are chuntering and saying, “Shameful.” What is shameful is that they are preparing to vote for that policy this evening. Shame on all of them.
The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Justice Secretary and I will do our utmost to hold Labour Members to account for this grave, grave injustice to victims and their families. We will do our best to make sure that their constituents do know, do hold them to account, and do understand the choice that they make in the end. I honestly do not believe, despite the chuntering, that that is a choice many of them would want to make if they had listened clearly to the position that I have set out. I do not think it is a choice that any of them came to this place to make.
We have seen Labour Back Benchers exercise their power over the welfare Bill. They can do that again—if not tonight, in future stages of the Bill, because we will seek to amend it. Labour Members can support us in that. Rape, assault by penetration, rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration, inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, paying for the sexual services of a child under 13, kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence, creating or possessing indecent photographs of children—tell your Whips that you will not support people responsible for those offences being let out of prison early. Do your job as representatives of your constituents, do your job as advocates for women and girls—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. “You” and “your”—it has to stop, Dr Mullan.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I see that we have a fresh Minister, whom I congratulate and welcome to the Dispatch Box. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to deliver the closing speech on Second Reading of this important Bill, which will tackle the prisons crisis that we inherited from the Conservative Government and confront the scourge of reoffending in this country. I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions to the debate—some more thoughtful than others—because this should be an agenda that enjoys support throughout the Chamber.
Most of today’s debate has been measured and helpful, indicating a recognition that it is necessary to stabilise a broken criminal justice system after 14 years of Tory misrule and to prioritise victims and the prevention of crime. The Bill achieves that aim. It is necessary to fix our prisons crisis, and it is also desirable, as it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safer. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in his opening speech, it takes us back to the central purpose of sentencing: punishment that works.
Let me deal with the Conservative amendment and the arguments we heard from the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the shadow Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). They say that the Bill puts the public at risk, but without it we face the threat of prisons running out of places entirely, with no space to lock up the most dangerous offenders, which was their legacy when they left office last July. They say it will undermine the confidence of victims, but nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which was their legacy when they left office last July. They say that the Probation Service cannot cope, and it certainly could not cope under the Tories, with a botched part-privatisation that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds and a persistent shortage of staff.
We are beginning to rebuild the Probation Service. We will increase investment in probation by up to £700 million by 2028-29, which is a 45% increase. We are recruiting: we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers in our first year, and we are on track for 1,300 more this year. It is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of an independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke. I take this opportunity to thank him for all his work, as well as the previous ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin).
It is a great shame that the Opposition have attempted to play politics on sentencing and law and order. The Conservatives could have adopted a more mature position, appreciating the difficult context in which this Government took office. They could have drawn on previous Conservative traditions on rehabilitation and prison reform to support an agenda that aims to cut reoffending and keep our communities safer. Instead, they are more interested in social media clicks than serious government. It is their mess that makes this legislation so urgent. It is their failure to deliver appropriate prison places and their failure to confront reoffending rates and invest in community sentencing that has led to the mess this Government are clearing up.
As for Reform, I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), and I say with the greatest respect that it is quite clear she simply has not read the Bill. She was given ample opportunity during her speech to set out what Reform’s position is, and she simply refused. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to her, but I notice that she is not going to intervene. She lent on her role as a magistrate, and there are an enormous number of magistrates across the country, but I note that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said of her time as a magistrate that her behaviour
“fell below the standards expected of a magistrate”,
and her speech fell below those of an MP.
I want to address a number of the points raised by hon. Members in this debate. The issue of probation was raised by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), whose expertise in this area we will no doubt lean upon. It was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth).
We are very aware of the pressures the Probation Service faces, especially after the damage done by the last Conservative Government. That is why we are investing £8 million in new technology to lift the administrative burdens on probation officers and enable them to refocus their time on where it has the greatest impact. I joined the Justice Secretary on his first visit to speak to probation staff, and they told us how important that technological change could be to the work they do. However, that is not enough, and as I have said, we are increasing funding by £700 million—a 45% increase—and hiring more probation officers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) raised the issue of trade unions, and the challenges that this new sentencing regime will place on probation officers. I reassure him that I and the Justice Secretary will be having conversations with the trade unions throughout this process.
Electronic monitoring was raised by a number of Members, including the Chair of the Justice Committee and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. There are significant challenges in how we ensure that tagging works, but we know that tagging does work. There is clear and reliable proof of an individual’s whereabouts and behaviour, and reoffending rates are reduced by 20% when tagging is used as part of a community sentence. That is why we are investing £100 million—a 30% increase—on the biggest expansion of tagging since 1999.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), spoke passionately, as he always does, about victims. In my submission, this Bill strengthens protections for victims in our system. The Government inherited a prison system that was in crisis, and—as I have said before, but it is worth repeating—if our prisons collapse, it is victims who will pay the price.
The Bill is not just about building prison capacity and stabilising the prison system. The legislation aims to go further in offering victims protection. The Bill updates the statutory purposes of sentencing to make it clear that judges must consider the protection of victims during sentencing. This is a really important reform and I am very pleased to hear that the Liberal Democrats support that aspect of the Bill.
On domestic abuse, I again praise the hon. Member for Eastbourne for his campaign on the domestic abuse flag. I listened to the arguments he made today and I will no doubt have further conversations with him in future. The domestic abuse flag is a massive improvement to ensure that protective services across Government—local government and Whitehall—have better powers to track domestic abusers and keep victims safe. I am pleased that that measure has received so much support.
I would push back on the argument we have heard today about short sentences. I want to be absolutely clear, on behalf of the Government: we are not abolishing short sentences. Judges will have the power to send offenders to prison when they want to: where a court order has been breached, where there is significant risk of harm, and in any exceptional circumstances. I want to put it on record that in many domestic abuse cases short sentences have a really important role to play. They will continue to play that role under this legislation.
Very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am aware of the time—we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), who brought great expertise from his experience in the police. He spoke about the depressing reality of reoffending in our communities, whereby offenders are caught and put in jail for a few weeks, and then come out and reoffend again. That is why we are taking this action today. Alongside sentencing reform, we need better rehabilitation in our prisons. That is why my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised important issues relating to literacy and gambling. I have already had conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and I will be having more with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley.
Before I close, I will address two shorter issues if I may. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich Albion—[Laughter.] Forgive me, I got carried away there; it’s nearly recess. I mean my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). They raised important and very serious cases relating to driving offences. I reassure them that I have heard their speeches and will follow up in due course about the specific cases they raise, but also the general issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a number of issues, but one very important one was youth sentencing. Youth sentencing is outside the scope of the Bill, but I reassure him that I will be looking into the consequences of this legislation for youth sentencing in due course.
There are few more acute crises than that which this Government inherited in our prisons. Last summer, the Government took the difficult but necessary decisions to keep the system afloat. Now, we need long-term and sustainable reform, and that is what the Bill delivers. Alongside our efforts to boost prison capacity, it is time for fundamental sentencing reform to stabilise the prison estate, confront our rates of reoffending and deliver punishment that works. We know it is possible because the evidence is clear, but we must have a laser focus on public protection and reducing reoffending. That must mean a system that incentivises offenders to become better citizens, not better criminals, and reacts swiftly when they breach the conditions of their release; that puts strong restrictions on offenders serving sentences outside prison, enforcing them where possible with the best technology available; that tackles the root causes of reoffending; and that puts victims first, with the right safeguards to protect them.
It is a great shame that, as I said, the Opposition have chosen to chase social media traction, rather than engage sensibly with this important agenda. The modern iteration of the Conservative party has stuck its head in the sand on progress, rather than facing up to the legacy it left. I am pleased the Bill does not shirk from the challenge we have been given, but faces up to it head-on and delivers the change that will keep our communities safer in the years and decades ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Petitions
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North. The petitioners declare that their constituency
“should be considered for support from the Government’s forthcoming Plan for Neighbourhoods funding.”
In particular, we hope that we can raise money from this fund for reinvestment and regeneration in the area of Glebe Farm and Tile Cross. It is an area rich in community spirit and blessed with extraordinary community groups, but it has suffered grievously over the last few years. This funding could make the world of difference. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to allocate funding to Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North constituency,
Declares that this constituency should be considered for support from the Government’s forthcoming Plan for Neighbourhoods funding.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to re-allocate funding under its Plan for Neighbourhoods to support Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003112]
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition about road safety around primary schools in Suffolk Coastal. There is growing concern about speeding and dangerous driving that puts children, parents and staff at serious risk. Many schools also lack basic measures, such as 20 mph zones, pedestrian crossings and safe walking routes. In fact, I have one school that has a 60 mph road along the outside of it.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure Suffolk County Council prioritises the safety of children by developing and publishing a tailored Road Safety Action Plan for every primary school in the Suffolk Coastal constituency.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the Suffolk Coastal constituency,
Declares that there is growing concern about the prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving near primary schools across the constituency, which puts the safety of children, parents, and school staff at serious risk. This petition further declares that many schools lack adequate road safety measures such as 20mph zones, pedestrian crossings, speed enforcement, and safe walking routes.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure Suffolk County Council prioritises the safety of children by developing and publishing a tailored Road Safety Action Plan for every primary school in the Suffolk Coastal constituency.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003114]
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to present this petition which calls on the Government to protect our peatlands in any new planning framework or legislation. I want to thank all the 486 signatories to the petition and the Friends of Lindow Moss, which has campaigned for years to protect Lindow Moss in Tatton, a site made famous by the discovery of the preserved Iron Age body known as Lindow Pete. The petition rests on the premise that we must protect sites of environmental and ecological significance and that we cannot allow the destruction of sites of natural carbon capture. We must ensure that the ecological and environmental benefits of peatlands remain for generations to come.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to require a special development strategy in relation to peatlands as part of any new planning framework and legislation.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Tatton,
Declares that the vital importance of peatland is recognised from an environmental perspective in terms of both carbon storage and unique biodiversity, and measures implemented to protect it from environmental harm and impose specific responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect peatland environments.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to require a special development strategy in relation to peatlands as part of any new planning framework and legislation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003115]
Police: Professional Standards
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to her place. I requested this debate following some shocking constituency cases that I have dealt with since my election to this place last summer. I am sure that I am not the only Member to have serious concerns about the police complaints and professional standards process.
It is important that I make it clear from the outset that this is not a criticism of the hard-working police officers who do a fantastic job with limited resources. I must take this opportunity to pay tribute to my excellent local sector inspectors Adam Stonehill and Gregory Hodgkiss for their dedication and hard work. However, I must always give voice to my constituents when they feel that a justice has occurred and there is a clear need for wholesale institutional change. Systemic issues in the professional standards department at Devon and Cornwall police have shattered my constituents’ trust in the police.
While knocking on doors during the general election last summer, I met one such constituent. Lisa Rufus had completely lost faith in the police and felt that she would never see justice for her son, Kye, who was involved in a motorcycle accident involving a collision with a car back in 2019. He suffered life-changing injuries. Kye was found by the police to be entirely at fault, and he was therefore not entitled to any compensation from his insurance company for his resulting 24-hour care needs.
Kye’s mother Lisa raised a series of serious issues about the way the investigation was conducted. Crucially, the investigating officer had decided not to close the road in accordance with usual procedure when a fatality is likely, and, quite incredibly, a forensic collisions investigator was not called to the scene by the investigating officer, even though the explicit guidance in the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice is that the roles of forensic collision investigator and lead investigator are completely separate, and an individual should not perform both roles, as occurred in this case.
Other concerns about the case included the fact that Kye’s bike was later removed and destroyed without Lisa or any of her family being informed. The police initially told Lisa that there was no body-worn camera footage from the scene, yet it later emerged that there was—but only after Kye had been taken to hospital. The initial police report described how Kye must have slid across the road uphill, yet his clothes showed little sign of tearing or scuffing. A report from paramedics and a car mechanic mentioned serious damage to the car, but that was not detailed anywhere in the police report.
Lisa made a complaint to the professional standards department at Devon and Cornwall police and received a detailed response eight months later, on 12 February 2021. It took oral evidence from police officers who had attended the scene that day. Lisa’s complaint that an investigation of poor standard reached its conclusion at too early a stage was upheld by the investigating officer, as was her complaint that Kye’s motorbike was scrapped without her or her family’s knowledge, and that no photographs of it were taken beforehand.
In that report, one police constable explained how they felt reluctant to share photos of the scene with Lisa and her family because she did not feel it was a true representation of the scene. She said,
“I felt these photographs would raise more questions for the family and would not instil confidence in the investigation”.”
Another PC stated that he was
“astonished by the poor quality of the evidence package.”
The investigation report was then reviewed by a chief inspector who, quite incredibly, overruled all the report’s findings, and stated that the service provided by Devon and Cornwall police was “acceptable” and that there was
“no further action to be taken.”
No reasons or rationale were given for this decision.
Lisa then complained to the police and crime commissioner’s office, who again found that the service she had received was unacceptable and requested that reasons be given for this dramatic change. The chief inspector then followed up on 23 September 2021, detailing his reasons for reversing the decisions made in the original report and reiterating that the service was acceptable, though he did admit that there were
“investigative issues which could have been done better”—
this despite reversing the decision to uphold Lisa’s original complaint that a poor standard of investigation had occurred.
On the complaint that Kye’s motorbike was destroyed without informing the family, the chief inspector explained that there is no “written record of this” ever taking place that, but from the information available, it appears every effort was made to inform Lisa of the intention to scrap the motorbike. He goes on to conclude that, given the conflicting accounts, no definitive resolution can be determined—and yet he reversed the decision to uphold that complaint to “not upheld”.
I wrote to the professional standards department back on 5 November 2024, highlighting my serious concerns about this entire process that had arisen from the responses Lisa had received to her complaints. I finally received a response almost one year later, on 10 September, just a few days ago. This letter said that the chief inspector had been mistaken in setting out a second right to review and pointed Lisa to her right to seek a judicial review through the High Court if she was not satisfied with the responses she had received. I ask the Minister, is that really the only recourse for our constituents in this kind of situation?
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. A neurodivergent woman who was raped by her partner raised a complaint with the professional standards department last year due to the lack of any updates on her case, which, quite rightly, increased her anxiety that the perpetrator may retaliate for reporting him. When I requested an update from the police, they advised me that a complaint was already pending in the system so they could not access or update us on the case. Quite incredibly, the PC suggested that if she remained unsatisfied, she could “make a complaint”.
Another constituent, a teenage girl who is also neurodivergent, was raped by her partner on a night out. The crime was reported nearly two years ago, and the family had the impression that the case was already with the Crown Prosecution Service. They were recently told that the suspect was being re-interviewed. If they make a complaint, can they have any confidence that they will get a satisfactory response?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Professional standards set the tone and the culture for the whole organisation. I pay tribute to Roy Linden, who is the commander of South Devon police, the old F division. There is a significant challenge relating to the lack of knowledge within the police. There are lots of new officers, and if we do not have the professional standards holding people to account, police often fall short of the standards that many of us would expect of them.
Ben Maguire
I completely agree that it is essential we have police officers with the experience, skills and knowledge, to ensure that people have proper trust and confidence in our police and confidence that complaints will be dealt with properly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Shannon, I was beginning to get a little bit anxious, but finally you are on your feet.
Jim Shannon
I was holding my breath on this one. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has given three examples of things that have happened. Does he agree that in a world of grey, it is imperative that the conduct and professionalism of our police forces is black and white and that officers understand that once they put the application form in, their conduct must be of the highest standards, and this will be enforced at the highest level?
Ben Maguire
I completely agree we must hold our police officer to the highest standards, particularly when it comes to complaints. If those standards do not meet the threshold that we all rightly expect, we need to have a robust complaints system, in which we can have proper trust and confidence.
I will quickly mention one more constituent case—that of another teenage girl, who was sexually assaulted by a close neighbour and has had to move away from the family home while the investigation continues for months and months, without any updates at all from the police. I am afraid that the list goes on.
I am sure that other Members will agree that one of the greatest privileges of being a Member in this place is meeting some really inspiring constituents. The bravery of those young girls, and Lisa’s relentless campaigning on behalf of her son, have inspired me. I am proud to bring their cases before this House.
To conclude, I ask the Minister to please clarify some of the following questions. What can my constituents do when they have legitimate concerns that have not been properly addressed by the complaints process? Clearly, a judicial review is completely out of reach for most of our constituents.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate speech on behalf of his constituents on this difficult issue. As other Members have, I pay tribute to my police force, Surrey police. They do great work, but sadly things sometimes do go wrong. I have had to deal with a number of cases in my constituency office where the process has not worked in the way we would all like it to. People have gone to the police with complaints, only to find themselves in distress and unable to trust the outcomes because, in effect, the local force—although also in another case with the Met—has marked its own homework. The complaint has stayed with that force, which does not fill people with the confidence they need for their case. Does my hon. Friend agree that serious consideration is needed? If we want people to trust our fantastic police forces up and down the country, we need to look seriously at the current situation so that we can move to one where other forces review some of the most serious complaints.
Ben Maguire
I hope that the Minister heard that suggestion of complaints about one police force potentially being reviewed by another. That seems like a sensible suggestion that, importantly, would give a much-needed sense of independence in our complaints system.
Will the Minister consider introducing a statutory time limit for a response to such complaints, given the long delays faced by my constituents and by myself, when I have inquired on behalf of my constituents—almost a year, in the case I mentioned? The guidance of the Independent Office for Police Conduct is to give complainants 28-day, regular updates on their complaint. That guidance clearly was not followed in any of the cases I mentioned. What can our constituents do to ensure that those 28-day updates happen? Also, what is the current backlog of complaints? Will it be brought back to an acceptable level? How many extra staff have been recruited or are in the process of being recruited to bring it down? Importantly, have frontline officers been drafted away from their duties on the frontline to help reduce the backlog?
Finally, as I said at the start, confidence and trust in our police force are so important. Many people know of the soap opera at Devon and Cornwall police. We have had three chief constables under police and crime commissioner Alison Hernandez. We eagerly await the Government’s rural crime strategy—something that my private Member’s Bill, the Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill, also called for earlier this year. I urge the Minister to act quickly to restore that trust and confidence in the professional standards of our police.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing the debate. As he knows, I am a week into my new role as Policing Minister, but I did the shadow role for several years while we were in opposition. During that time and in the last week, I have spoken at some length and in some detail about these issues.
I pay tribute to Adam and Gregory, the police officers who he mentioned, for the work that they do. I also pay tribute to Lisa and Kye for the campaigning that Lisa has been forced to do because of the situation in which she has found herself, which must be devastating for her as a mother. The hon. Gentleman described Lisa’s frustration very well, and I think that we all felt it too.
The topic of professional standards in policing in the widest sense is enormously important. The hon. Gentleman was right to make the point that confidence in policing has been tracking in the wrong direction in recent years. It is always worth having the humility to accept that politicians have a substantially lower level of trust, but we have seen levels of trust in policing go down over recent years. The latest figures in the crime survey for England and Wales show a small increase in trust levels, so maybe there are shoots of improved confidence, but that has followed several year-on-year declines.
When we came into Government, public trust had been shaken by some very high-profile cases, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The visible reduction in neighbourhood policing had also badly eroded that sense of trust. At the same time, crime has become more complex: there are intense investigations into long-standing crimes, an explosion of fraud and online crime, and a high expectation, rightly, from the public that crimes will be dealt with, although there may not necessarily be the resources available to do that.
I am keen to carry on the work of the previous Policing Minister to ensure that standards are as high as they can be. We owe it to the vast majority of excellent police officers who are doing a brilliant job that we ensure that those standards are high. Last year, the previous Home Secretary announced some reforms to police standards, leading to a raft of legislative changes that strengthened the misconduct, vetting and performance systems. New regulations were laid to enable chief constables to dismiss officers who failed to maintain vetting. I understand that is separate to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but having a force where the leadership drives standards, whether through vetting, recruitment or valuing the work of professional standards teams and ensuring that their work is in the front of police chiefs’ minds, is part of the same picture.
We have already made some changes on that front, and we will continue to do so. We will put the vetting standards on statutory footing through regulations that we expect to lay this year. The Crime and Policing Bill that is currently going through Parliament also contains measures to strength misconduct and performance systems, so, for example, when officers fall seriously short of the high standards expected of them, they will be swiftly identified and dealt with robustly, including through a new presumption of dismissal for proving gross misconduct. Those measures will change that landscape.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some very upsetting crimes: we have to work harder and do better when it comes to violence against women and girls. Last year, the former Home Secretary announced plans to strengthen the requirement on forces to suspend police officers who are under criminal investigation for matters such as domestic abuse or sexual offences. Strong progress has been made, and I expect new legislation later this year.
Steve Darling
I alluded to the fact that we have sadly lost an awful lot of police officers with deep knowledge, and many of our police officers are relatively new to the position. Will the Minister reflect on how we can build that long-term knowledge back into the police force, because that can drive better standards where services are being provided, rather than looking for where things have already fallen over?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We saw a collapse in the numbers of police then huge recruitment under the last Government, which meant that we lost a lot of officers and gained a lot of new officers. The turnover of officers is higher than I would like it to be, for lots and lots of reasons; there is a whole other debate about keeping our workforce where it is. We have to have people with experience and expertise, and we want to try to develop that through our neighbourhood policing plans, for example. We want an increased number of people working in those neighbourhood roles, and we want them to stay in position.
In previous years, neighbourhood policing was very much a turnaround profession in which people would work for a short period of time then move on to something else. We want neighbourhood policing to be seen as a brilliant thing to do in the long term as a police officer, and I hope that will help. It is very much our intention that those officers will be better police officers as a result of the expertise they develop about their communities—the people who they are there to serve. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) makes a good point. I do not have all the answers, but it is absolutely key that we try to get that expertise and to get people to stay in the force for their whole career.
As I was saying, the Angiolini inquiry is considering a range of issues in policing and the safety of women. We are already working to deliver the recommendations from part 1 of the inquiry, and we will look very carefully at part 2 when it comes out.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the challenges in Devon and Cornwall police in recent times, and we all know about them. I acknowledge the significant progress that has been made by the force under the leadership of Chief Constable James Vaughan. The force has recently come out of the “engage” stage of monitoring by the inspector, which is a clear indication of progress, and I hope that the professional standards team is also on that journey of progress. When I meet the chief constable, I am sure that I will raise today’s debate.
Regarding the complaints system, the hon. Gentleman quite rightly talked about his constituents’ frustrations. People who are dissatisfied can apply for a review to the police and crime commissioner or the IOPC, but whether the case gets reviewed or not depends on its nature. I was interested in the suggestion of other forces policing each other, as it were, and the White Paper on police reform considers some of these things; we are looking at that at the moment and hope to publish it in the autumn. We can learn lessons from local government and elsewhere about how we ensure our policing is done in a way that means that where there are problems, there are good and effective ways of trying to resolve them.
I also hope our police are available to Members of Parliament, have good relationships with them and speak to each other, because that in and of itself is important. I would not undervalue the important role of Members of Parliament in raising these cases, and I hope that everybody has good relationships with their local police.
Police and crime commissioners have an important role in this space as well. They are the ones who are directly elected and responsible for holding their chief constable to account for the force’s performance, and they are also responsible for the appointment, suspension and removal of chief constables. They have the ability to determine which officer is best placed to lead the force.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am an MP from Sussex. We are about to go through local government reorganisation and see the creation of a Sussex mayor, and as part of that process, the role of the police and crime commissioner is going to become redundant. How does the Minister think that new mayoral responsibility is going to work in practice? Is it going to be exactly the same as it currently stands with PCCs, or will it be different?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. We are moving to a system with an increasing number of mayors, and the functions of police and crime commissioners will roll into the mayoral authority. The responsibilities vary from place to place—the larger devolved mayoral combined authorities are more developed and have bigger teams. We will see these systems develop over time, but it is an interesting development, and one that I think can work. I have worked with mayors who have that policing function who have had a deputy mayor who has the police and crime commissioner role. That works very well—it can be a powerful thing—but of course, people do not like the changeover. If the hon. Lady identifies particular problems or challenges, I am happy to have conversations with her and pick those up.
I should conclude, or we will run out of time. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall for securing the debate and for remembering his constituents, on whose behalf he has brought these issues before Parliament. I would like to think that as we move towards the reform of professional standards across the whole of policing, we will recognise that a lot of the challenges we face are matters of resource. It is not that the people who are doing the policing are not great people; it is often a matter of time and resource. However, it cannot be right that people have to wait such long periods of time and feel such frustration. Of course, I will look at the case that the hon. Member has raised—if he writes to me with more detail, I will be happy to look at it in more detail—but I thank him again, and thank everybody else for their useful contributions tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 16 July—my first statutory instrument in my new role. I look forward to many exchanges with the hon. Members for Mid Buckinghamshire and for Wimbledon in rooms like this. Let us hope that they are all on as sunny a morning as this one.
UK airspace and airlines are among the safest in the world. Even with that success, we are not complacent: the Government are committed to maintaining and improving the high safety standards in aviation. The UK is committed to ensuring that technical requirements remain up to date and in line with international standards and best practice. The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for developing and advising the Government on amendments to the technical requirements and regulations.
This statutory instrument has four objectives, three of which relate to the continuing airworthiness regulation, which ensures that the maintenance and repair of aircraft is conducted safely. First, the instrument will make amendments to the continuing airworthiness regulation regarding the release of aircraft parts into service. Currently, for all components added to an aircraft, the maintenance organisation is required to issue a form 1, which certifies that the parts are safe to be released to service—a long and technically complex process. The instrument will allow approved design organisations to release components for service by making a less onerous declaration of maintenance; this declaration can be used only for parts that have a negligible impact on the safety of the aircraft, such as a pilot’s document holder. These amendments will complete the introduction of a policy that was introduced by the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2023 to the initial airworthiness regulation, and will help to reduce the burden on maintenance organisations.
Secondly, the instrument will rationalise parts of the continuing airworthiness regulation by combining similar requirements in one location, making the regulations easier to follow. The instrument will also reintroduce an amendment regarding qualification requirements for maintenance staff that was erroneously omitted.
Thirdly, the instrument will rationalise and correct references and errors in the continuing airworthiness regulation arising from the Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the 2023 regulations and the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Lastly, the instrument will amend articles 62 and 69 of the basic regulation. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the CAA has always had the ability to delegate its functions or tasks to third parties, known as qualified entities. A similar power existed under a previous version of the basic regulation and was used when the CAA considered that the relevant skills sat outside the CAA—for example to delegate to the Office for Nuclear Regulation the authorisation of the carriage of dangerous goods such as radioactive materials—or when a third party was better placed to assess an issue than the CAA or able to better protect the public. For example, the meteorological obligations resting with the CAA are delegated to the UK Met Office.
However, following changes to the 2018 basic regulation, those delegation powers could no longer be used by the CAA for aviation safety tasks. The instrument will amend articles 62 and 69 of the basic regulation in a way that reactivates the CAA’s power to delegate aviation safety tasks. The CAA intends to use these powers to delegate to qualified third parties the training and examination of drone pilots, as well as the assessment of drones’ flightworthiness. This is similar to the CAA’s approach to pilot training for fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft. By delegating those powers, the CAA will be able to support the sector to develop and grow new technologies more quickly, supporting growth and innovation.
We must continue to ensure that aviation remains among the safest forms of travel, as the safety of aviation and the travelling public is a high priority for this Government. The draft regulations represent a further step in ensuring that that remains the case. I commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As this is my first exchange as shadow Minister with the new Minister, I warmly welcome him to his place. It seems only five minutes ago that he arrived after his by-election; it is a credit to him that he is a Minister. Thankfully, I dare say that this morning’s exchange will be a softer landing than some of the exchanges in the weeks and months ahead, at least politically speaking.
Aviation safety is a story of constant evolution. Over the past 50 years, we have seen great strides in the safety of our aircraft, which has contributed to the growth in flying from which so many people across the country benefit. According to figures from the Aviation Safety Network, in the 1970s there were about six fatal airliner accidents for every 1 million commercial flights, which meant, sadly, that one in every 165,000 flights ended in a fatal accident. By contrast, data from 2024 shows that the figures have dropped to approximately half a fatal accident per 1 million flights. Although there will always be some variation, and there are devastating news stories that highlight the tragic consequences when accidents do occur, the long-term trend has clearly been positive.
The Conservatives will always welcome measures that provide greater clarity to our safety regime and improve on the existing system. The regulations set out by the Government today suggest relatively small changes. On a positive note, I particularly welcome it that the explanatory memorandum highlights sensible deregulation, for example allowing the installation of particular components without the need for a form 1, provided that they are declared safe by the design organisation. Furthermore, enabling the CAA to delegate aviation safety tasks appears to be a sensible step. For clarity, however, can the Minister outline which tasks he understands that the CAA may delegate? Is he confident in the CAA’s capacity to manage this delegation effectively, given that it has not had these powers for a period of time?
I also ask the Minister the same question that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee posed to the Department. Although I have no significant issues with the regulations, that Committee noted the limited ability to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, as a result of which the Department states that it
“will need to find a longer-term solution to make further amendments”.
Can the Minister outline how he intends to make changes on that basis and whether he has begun developing a long-term plan?
Ultimately, these limited regulations appear to make proportionate changes and are in line with existing aviation policies. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how future regulations might be amended or updated. The aviation industry knows that its continued success depends on the highest safety standards. If we are to encourage growth in the sector, we must ensure that Parliament is doing its part to enable the industry to maintain it.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive tone in engaging with me on the important issue of aviation safety. He asked how the CAA will put the powers to use. It intends to use them to delegate to qualified third parties the training and examination of drone pilots, as well as the assessments of drones’ flightworthiness. As the shadow Minister alluded to, that is incredibly important for growth opportunities and innovation in the UK aviation sector. It is important to have such a delegated power to accredited third parties with the expertise necessary to undertake the work.
The shadow Minister asked whether we are confident in the CAA’s ability to delegate these powers effectively. We are. The CAA has a strict accreditation regime when it delegates these powers. We will be working very closely with it as it implements the draft regulations.
Lastly, the shadow Minister asked me to comment on the powers gap that emerges from changes made as a result of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act. We will still have the power to make statutory instruments that relate to these measures, under both the affirmative and negative procedure, until the middle of next year, when that will change. We are exploring options to make regulations that are clearer and easier to follow; I can update the shadow Minister on that in due course. The CAA retains the right to use emergency regulation if it thinks that there is a pressing need to do so. I hope the shadow Minister feels that I have answered his questions, but if he requires any further information, I will be happy to respond in writing.
I thank Committee members for their consideration. The safety of aviation and travel in public remains an absolute priority for this Government. The Department for Transport is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe. The draft regulations represent a further step in doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
Future of Wingfield Manor
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 16th September 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2025 - (16 Sep 2025)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Just to be a real Grinch, tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 9.55 am District Councils’ Network National Association of Local Councils Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 10.25 am Local Government Association County Councils Network Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 10.55 am Catriona Riddell & Associates Ltd British Property Federation Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 11.25 am Power to Change The Football Supporters’ Association Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 2.40 pm Tracy Brabin, Chair, UK Mayors, and Mayor of West Yorkshire Ben Houchen, Metro Mayor of the Tees Valley Donna Jones, PCC and Mayoral candidate Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 3.10 pm British Independent Retailers Association UK Hospitality Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 3.40 pm National Audit Office Public Sector Audit Appointments Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Grant Thornton UK Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 4.30 pm IPPR North Professor John Denham, Director, Centre for English Identity and Politics, University of Southampton Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 4.50 pm Better Planning Coalition Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 5.10 pm Locality Tuesday 16 September Until no later than 5.30 pm Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally and without debate. Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to members by email. I will first call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee of the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 16 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 September;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 October;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 October;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 October;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 October;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 October;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 30 October;
(h) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 November;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 12 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; Schedule 1; Clauses 5 and 6; Schedule 2; Clauses 7 to 9; Schedule 3; Clauses 10 to 20; Schedule 4; Clauses 21 to 23; Schedule 5; Clause 24; Schedule 6; Clause 25; Schedule 7; Clauses 26 and 27; Schedule 8; Clauses 28 and 29; Schedule 9; Clause 30; Schedule 10; Clause 31; Schedule 11; Clause 32; Schedule 12; Schedule 13; Clause 33; Schedule 14; Clause 34; Schedule 15; Clause 35; Schedule 16; Clause 36; Schedule 17; Clause 37; Schedule 18; Clause 38; Schedule 19; Clauses 39 to 42; Schedule 20; Clauses 43 to 45; Schedule 21; Clause 46; Schedule 22; Clauses 47 to 50; Schedule 23; Clauses 51 to 55; Schedule 24; Clauses 56 and 57; Schedule 25; Clauses 58 and 59; Schedule 26; Clause 60; Schedule 27; Clause 61; Schedule 28; Clause 62; Schedule 29; Clauses 63 to 70; Schedule 30; Clause 71; Schedule 31; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 72 to 79; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Wednesday 12 November.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh).
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh).
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
The Chair
Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am a member of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I declare that I used to be a parish councillor and, until March, a district councillor for Stratford-on-Avon.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a director of Localis think-tank, which has contributed evidence. I am also a parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association and for London Councils, which has also submitted evidence.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I am a former councillor and I know lots of the witnesses from my previous role leader of Broxbourne council.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I declare, as per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, that I am a parish councillor.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
My husband is a sitting councillor on Rochdale borough council.
Vikki Slade
Apologies for having a second go, but my husband is also a sitting councillor and I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
In case we do not get to it this afternoon, Donna Jones, one of the witnesses, is a personal friend of mine.
The Chair
Thank you all for your forthright honesty. We will begin by hearing oral evidence from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, chair of the District Councils’ Network, and Justin Griggs, head of policy and communications for the National Association of Local Councils. I do not want to try to stop you before you have even started, but the panel will conclude at 9.55 am.
Examination of Witnesses
Sam Chapman-Allen and Justin Griggs gave evidence.
The Chair
Would the witnesses like to say a few words about themselves?
Justin Griggs: Good morning. I am Justin Griggs, head of policy and communications at the National Association of Local Councils. We work in partnership with our 43 county associations to support, promote and improve England’s 10,000 parish councils, which are the community tier of local government in England.
Sam Chapman-Allen: My name is Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen. I am the chairman of the District Councils’ Network for England, representing 169 district and unitary councils, the single biggest arm of local government, delivering 45% of all planning permissions across the country. I am also the leader of Breckland council in Norfolk.
David Simmonds
Q
Sam Chapman-Allen: To start off, at the DCN we are absolutely in favour of devolution as long as it is meaningful for our local community. I think the threat and the concerns that we have so far with what is presented in the Bill is that district councils, which are responsible as the planning and housing authority, have no seat round the table of the new strategic authorities that are being established. If we want to work in partnership with this Government, delivering 1.5 million homes, you need those planning authorities around that table.
Beyond that, many things are missing. If we look at what is being devolved from Whitehall and those Whitehall Departments, it is very short in its forthcomings. Some of those powers are just about recentralisation. If we are going to achieve what devolution should be, which is a bottom-up approach where local residents get to shape what their local communities look like, and the centre truly devolving, you need to make sure that those constituent councils—which are the housing authority and the planning authority, and are in control of economic growth—have a seat round that table to drive that agenda forward.
Justin Griggs: At the National Association of Local Councils, we have long advocated for a shift of power out of Whitehall and into our communities, but it is important that that devolution goes beyond the regional, sub-regional and principal authority levels, and into communities themselves. That is why we welcome the ambitions, taken together, that the Government have set out in the White Paper and the Bill. They provide some helpful recognition of the important role that parish and town councils play in their communities—as local leaders, with skin in the game, who know their places best, and providing a wide and growing range of hyper-local public services, such as using neighbourhood planning to plan for housing within their areas, tackling the cost of living crisis, stepping up to support communities during the covid pandemic and working with their communities on climate change.
However, it is important that the Bill goes further and takes more steps to strengthen communities, and parish and town councils. It is helpful that there are measures in the Bill that seek to strengthen the relationship between strategic authorities, unitary authorities and parish councils. That could very much be strengthened. But there are a number of other areas that the Bill could be strengthening to support parish and town councils to do more for their areas, to work with mayors and strategic authorities, and definitely to support colleagues in principal authorities to deliver public services in what is a very challenging financial environment.
David Simmonds
Q
Sam Chapman-Allen: The reason why my members are able to successfully deliver 45% of all new homes across the country is localism. It is being close to those communities and able to work across every mile within our villages, towns, cathedral cities and coastal communities. But it is about taking our communities with us, to understand where those houses need to be built, what the challenges are and how we overcome them together. When you begin to introduce strategic authorities at a large scale, which sometimes seem very distant, you have to have that piece in between it to allow people to have a local voice and representation.
How can a mayor, sitting in a strategic position, be supposed to deliver on housing and planning, when the local authority, which is responsible for housing and planning, does not have a seat round that table? That is the challenge and the risk. This Government have a clear mandate of 1.5 million homes. To achieve that, they need all those councils round that table. We need to make sure that the public have that ability—democratic accountability at a hyper-local level—driving forward not just housing but also wider place-shaping.
David Simmonds
Q
Sam Chapman-Allen: You will appreciate how busy your inboxes and mailsacks are, with the casework that you receive daily from your residents. When you begin to remove councillors, that casework does not disappear; it just becomes a bigger challenge for a single councillor. The risk is as we begin to get bigger those mega-councils, and we begin to think about how to ensure that those councillors can represent their communities. Does it become a full-time job? Does it then preclude other people from being able to stand to become community champions?
The reason why local government and district councils work successfully, in the same way as London boroughs and Manchester metropolitan councils, is because they are hyper-local. There are circa 200,000 to 350,000 residents per council, and they have local councillors representing a couple of thousand people. As we move forward with mega-councils, the risk is that a single councillor will be representing some tens of thousands. The independent think-tank Localis has done some analysis of the current proposal for a 500,000 threshold. We could see 90% of councillors across shire areas removed overnight. That would be a democratic deficit and an absolute catastrophe.
If we look back through the pandemic, as Justin has alluded to, community councillors were out every single day, just as you were as MPs, supporting the most vulnerable, making sure that communities could bounce back and, more importantly, giving support to local businesses to make sure that they could bounce back as well and grow from strength to strength. My concern is that if we begin to move ourselves to a distant model, there will be a democratic deficit and unaccountability, and the ability of a councillor to know that every resident, street, business and community leader will be lost.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Q
Strategic authorities are made up of constituent local authorities, and at their best, where they work, it is based on partnership. Can Councillor Chapman-Allen give the Committee examples from among his membership, where strategic authorities already operate, of that collaboration among the constituent authorities, which will always have a key role, working in tandem with the mayor to deliver for communities?
I also have a question for Mr Griggs. The role of neighbourhoods and the connection between communities and the places where elected representatives serve is fundamental to what we are trying to do with the Bill. The part of the legislation on neighbourhood governance is looking to bolster and strengthen that. What are your views on how that will create new opportunities not only for community partnership working but, critically, for community voice and power?
Sam Chapman-Allen: Thank you for your question. To start, I think the 500,000 figure as the initial threshold has caused confusion. I think that many of the submissions that will be received in the devolution priority areas next week and then in the rest of the country in November will show that many councils are submitting models of 500,000-plus. Let us put that into context: they will be some of the biggest councils in the western developed world. I think that will ensure there is a democratic deficit.
In relation to strategic authorities and constituent members, the only model where all district councils, or all principal councils, are members are in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. If you look at what is taking place there, you will see it is a really successful model. Yes, there is a little bit of grit every now and then, but that is why scrutiny, governance and accountability are so important. We will not always agree on everything.
If we look at a model in which all principal councils are members—I cite Greater Manchester, with Andy Burnham and his 10 councils within that area—they all share responsibility together. All of them within that locality are the responsible authorities for housing and for planning, and they are working together to drive the agenda forward around the real challenges that localities face. They have had some real successes, and I do not think anybody should take that away from them. I know that you have Lord Houchen giving evidence later; he will give exactly the same example of where you have those principal councils able to pull the levers to get stuff done.
Justin Griggs: First of all—
The Chair
Sorry to interrupt, Mr Griggs, but you are quite quietly spoken. Could you please speak up?
Justin Griggs: Yes, Dame Siobhain, I will definitely speak up a bit.
First, congratulations Minister on your appointment; we look forward to working closely with you. I will try to channel my remarks, and also pick up on what Mr Simmonds said about the democratic deficit and the distance that there will now be because of the reorganisation in respect of new unitary strategic authorities and in neighbourhoods.
It is undoubtedly the case that if we did not have a structure called parish and town councils across 92% of England, bringing together 100,000 people to improve their areas—parish councillors put 14.5 million hours into serving their communities—we would have to set one up. It is right in the White Paper and in parts of the Bill to seek to lean into that, because decisions will be taken much further away from places. That is why it is our view, and it has certainly been the case in previous rounds of reorganisation, that it is right for the role of parish and town councils to be strengthened and empowered and to be recognised and respected partners to our colleagues in the principal authorities and in the strategic authorities.
On Sam’s point, we wholeheartedly agree with the importance of collaboration. Where the Bill could go further—we would be keen to work closely with the Government on this—is around mechanisms for more partnership at the mayoral level, linking in much more closely with communities and neighbourhoods through their parish and town councils to provide a democratic voice. They work very closely around agendas for infrastructure, housing and skills in their areas, because they will be the places that are most affected. They are local leaders with skin in the game and they know their places best, so they will be well placed to work with them.
This is where a number of mechanisms can come in that are well tried and tested across other parts of the country that have reorganised, such as the development of charters and protocols to set out how to better work closely together, and parish liaison officers working closely with council associations and local councils across a sensible authority footprint. They are the people who know parish councils best and can work as a trusted partner with the principal authorities to build their capacity and capability.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to intervene but unfortunately we are having some audio problems and need to stop until they can be resolved. It should be a few minutes.
The Chair
We are back in public session. I apologise to members of the Committee, our witnesses and members of the public that we have had to relocate because of sound problems. The plan is to add the missed time to the end of the sitting, so we will end later than 11.25 am. We will allocate the correct amount of time to this panel, as a number of members of the Committee would very much like to ask you questions.
Manuela Perteghella
Q
Justin Griggs: That links back to Mr Simmonds’s question on the democratic deficit and moving decision making further away from communities, particularly in rural and sparsely populated areas where unitary authorities will be much further away. The point was made earlier that there will be fewer councils and fewer councillors, and those 100,000 parish councillors will become even more important.
As I explained in my previous answer to the Minister, that relationship can be strengthened in a number of ways, building on the good work that has been done in other parts of the country that have gone through local government reorganisation. That is where our network of county associations has been pivotal in working with principal authorities on their plans for reorganisation, being part of joint implementation teams, and co-designing how new structures and new partnerships can work. Certainly, in places without parish councils, they should be established. As I said earlier, you would need to set them up to give people a voice and an influence on decisions that affect them, and to be true partners with principal authorities.
The Chair
I am sorry, but this panel will finish at 10.14 am. Seven more Members want to ask questions, and we have six minutes.
Manuela Perteghella
Q
Sam Chapman-Allen: There should be more powers in the Bill for councils. They should have more tools, and it should be much more attractive to get involved in local democracy. We should not underestimate or overlook the people who already put themselves forward. The general power of competence, for example, that the Bill provides for strategic authorities is not extended to all councils. Parish and town councils are out of step with the rest of local government. That would be one measure.
There are ways in which the allowances system could encourage more people to come forward and stand for election. It is ludicrous that people with caring responsibilities at parish level are unable to reclaim an allowance to cover caring costs. A number of things, such as remote meetings and strengthening the standards regime, are missing from the Bill. If they were added, they would support local communities and local democracy.
Maya Ellis
Q
Justin Griggs: One of the ambitions that the Government set out in the White Paper and the Bill is to simplify local government structures and make them much more consistent. In 92% of England, if you leave your house, the first place where decisions are taken for you is in the stewardship of your park and open spaces, and in the supporting local organisations. You would not have that in many parts of England under local government reorganisation.
Those structures should be set up, and it is very much in keeping with other phases of reorganisation. Cornwall, Shropshire and Northumberland are fully parished. It would very much go with the grain and good practice of what has happened previously. It is really helpful—credit to Sam and many of his members—that many district councils are conducting community governance reviews to take a look at neighbourhood and community governance in their areas, where there is interest and appetite to set up new councils, so that they have a structure and a voice for taking action.
On the ingredients of how neighbourhoods can work, it is really helpful that the Government have set out that they see neighbourhood governance and models such as neighbourhood area committees as not undermining parish and town councils, but recognising their role and how they should be hardwired into representation on those committees. That goes to the heart of how we need to get all tiers of local government—strategic authorities, unitary authorities and parish councils—working collectively to benefit their residents.
Sam Chapman-Allen: It is important that the Secretary of State and Whitehall do not dictate what those local government and neighbourhood arrangements look like. It is for local places, local residents and local councillors—whether town, parish, district, unitary or county councillors—to decide what those types of neighbourhood models look like, bringing everyone together from the voluntary sector to the public sector, and the private sector if required, to deal with the challenges in that place-based locality.
Vikki Slade
Q
Sam Chapman-Allen: I come back to my previous response: it is for local places to decide. Everywhere will look different. Casting ourselves back to where we are in Norfolk, we have the fantastic cathedral city of Norwich and the two massive coastal ports of Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn. They are working out whether they need to establish a town or parish council, or whether the new unitary council can pick up that type of role—what is appropriate for them.
That civic place base is really important, with all the history and regalia that goes with it, but the most important bit is how those residents identify and interact with their local councillors and their local town hall. It is not for me, as chair of the District Councils Network, to tell them; I do not believe it is for Whitehall Departments either. It is for those local places to work out. That is what makes this Bill so special. It is for everybody in local communities to derive that. That is why it is important that local communities get to decide the structures, the size and scale, and the neighbourhood arrangements.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
Order. Sorry, Sam, but if the question is much longer, there will be no time for an answer.
Sam Carling
Sorry. Would you favour adding provisions to the Bill for strategic authorities to take over licensing powers to deal with that issue?
Sam Chapman-Allen: None of my 169 members has ever asked for taxi licensing to be removed from a local principal council up to the strategic authority. If that is the Government’s intent, I am not hearing it. The most important bit is that those principal councils are constituent members, so that they can pull that respectable, responsible lever to get done what needs doing.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee and apologise for the disruption.
Examination of Witnesses
Bev Craig, Kevin Bentley and Matthew Hicks gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Councillor Bev Craig, Labour group leader and vice-chair at the Local Government Association; Councillor Kevin Bentley, leader of Essex county council and Local Government Association senior vice-chair; and Councillor Matthew Hicks, chair of the County Councils Network. This panel will finish at 10.44 am.
David Simmonds
Q
Bev Craig: Good morning, I am Councillor Bev Craig. I am a Local Government Association vice-chair and leader of the Labour group. I am also the leader of Manchester city council, a city of 630,000 people. In my spare time, I am also the Greater Manchester combined authority deputy mayor for economy, business and international issues. In response to your question, the first thing to say is that, across the Local Government Association, we have been calling for devolution from Whitehall to communities for quite some time. We have spent a lot of time thinking through what accountability looks like in that context.
As we move from combined authorities to strategic authorities, it is important to make sure that the Bill reflects not only the competencies of local authorities within new strategic authorities but points of collaboration. For example, in the Greater Manchester system, each of the 10 local authority leaders holds a portfolio. That is perhaps a key difference from the London model, where deputy mayors appointed by the Mayor of London hold a portfolio.
From experience, looking across the country, we think it is really important to bind organisations that have different competencies in different areas into the same shared goal in a place. Many of our members have raised with interest what will happen in the move to majority decision making, rather than consensual decision making. From the LGA’s perspective, we have been quite keen to keep that under review. As it currently stands in Greater Manchester, it is consensual decision making that leads us into a place. A model that binds in local authorities from the beginning is really important. Let’s be honest, in my place, we are the ones building homes. My local authority and I are contributing to growing the economy, and Greater Manchester benefits when we work as one.
Kevin Bentley: I am Kevin Bentley, the senior vice-chair of the LGA and leader of Essex county council. Also, Matthew is actually the leader of Suffolk county council, not Sussex county council. There is no such authority as Sussex county council, unless something dramatic has happened overnight that we are not aware of—that would be rapid devolution.
I absolutely agree with what Bev has said, and we already have that form of scrutiny with police and crime commissioners, and it works well. That works on a model where constituent parts and people who are not necessarily in leadership roles actually have the ability to scrutinise. In the same way, we have scrutiny panels that could hold the mayor to account, which is important. Every action has a consequence, and every action should be challenged on behalf of the public. I absolutely believe there should be good scrutiny of mayors, and I think any mayor would welcome that good scrutiny.
Matthew Hicks: I am Matthew Hicks, the leader of Suffolk county council and chair of the CCN since last Wednesday. Sorry I could not be with you today—diaries are still clashing a bit.
I agree with my colleagues, as I think it is critical that we look at the mayoral commissioners and ensure they are subject to effective and proportionate scrutiny and accountability. Mayors can be voted out every four years, but genuine democratic accountability is really important. I think having structures in place on scrutiny, overview and audit will be key.
David Simmonds
Q
Kevin Bentley: It is a constant conversation. With the high needs block, you are talking about a system that needs to be changed rather than just an issue at the money end—that is perhaps another conversation for another panel. It needs to be addressed soon for the sake of society.
The debt question is a live one. The LGA and constituent councils within the DPP are talking to the Government about debt. Of course, there is good debt and bad debt. Asset debt means that a council is doing things, which is very good, and there are other debts that are not good. We are aware of the councils in that situation. It is a constant conversation. My view has always been that we cannot allow any new authority to start with a major deficit that it cannot cover. We must have that serious conversation with the Government, and we are having those conversations. Has enough attention been given to it? I would like to see more.
Bev Craig: That is a fairly consistent point across Local Government Association members. A significant underfunding of local government has built up over the last 14 to 15 years. There is a big job in taking local authorities back from the brink, which is a conversation for another panel. It is one of the reasons why we will continue to make the point that a well-resourced, well-run local authority can transform and change communities, so they need to be resourced in a way that they can do so.
Matthew Hicks: I echo that. From the CCN’s perspective, SEND is one of the biggest issues, and the growing DSG debt is a huge issue. The Government have said they are going to look at that imminently, and we would absolutely welcome positive changes. That debt is growing, and it is almost unspoken. It is critical that we understand that debt, but also understand the impact if we were to have fewer unitaries. That debt would be transferred to those new unitaries. How would very small unitaries cope with that?
The Chair
I understand that Councillor Craig has to go fairly soon.
Bev Craig: As long as we finish on time, I can make a quick exit.
The Chair
We will definitely finish on time, subject to any more technical difficulties.
Maya Ellis
Q
Bev Craig: With the pattern of devolution over the last few years, you are right that a number of combined authorities have cities as the driving economic force at their heart. That would probably do discredit to some of my colleagues who see themselves as already operating in more of a rural space.
The expansion of the competencies of strategic authorities within the Bill is quite important, as that is how you get the balance that matters for a place. We should also be mindful that size is not a barrier to democracy, and it does not create a deficit—that holds just as much for strategic authority size as local authority size. I run a city of 630,000 people, but my ward has 18,000 residents and I can still do a very good job on their behalf. A change of boundaries does not necessarily change someone’s association with a place.
An adjustment of some competencies still allows a new mayoral model to give a focus to place. The priorities will be different in rural and urban areas, but that is where having strong local authorities wedded into that helps some of that strategic planning.
Kevin Bentley: I absolutely agree because it already exists: Essex and Suffolk are both examples. The population of the Essex local authority area is 1.5 million; it is 80% rural and the rest is urban, so it already exists. In these matters, size must be appropriate to deliver services, but this is not 1974; it is 2025 and we operate differently and deliver our services differently. That needs to improve.
The previous Government delivered a lot of devolution very successfully, and the current Government are carrying that on with alacrity and speed. The bottom line is that it is important that people have excellent services delivered at best value. Modern-day local government does that in the best way it can, but the two-tier system does not allow it to be better. We are running on a 1974 model. It is time to change that.
In terms of local democracy, the neighbourhood delivery committees that we and the Government have proposed in the business case going forward will do something that has never happened before, with decision making going to local people in very local areas. That does not happen now and has never happened before, but it is going to happen with the Bill.
Matthew Hicks: From the CCN’s perspective, devolution is clearly a good thing, which we have pushed for and wanted for a long time. It is now moving forward at pace. The bottom line is that it ensures that decisions are made closer to local people, closer to communities and closer to the businesses they affect. The end result is a much more effective and better targeted authority, better public services, stronger growth and stronger partnerships in the private and public sectors, so it is positive across the board.
Kevin made a point about the partnership boards, which will also play a really strong part. In rural areas such as Suffolk where the population is 760,000, the large geography of the county allows us to deliver that more locally, even though we are a large rural area.
Paul Holmes
Q
My question is for all three of you: has there been a change of emphasis on that target from the early conversations that you had with a Minister, albeit a previous one? Do you think there has been a change in Government emphasis on the size, and how has that added to the confusion and the challenges of setting up these strategic authorities as the Bill goes forward?
Kevin Bentley: Yes, I certainly thought that was a hard target. Most colleagues thought it was a target to hit. It changed. It is important that we listen to people; lobbying was done around that and the Government listened to people. Those who do not change their mind never change anything, as Churchill would say, so it is important that the change took place, but it did cause confusion about what they meant.
For me, evidence leads the way. When we went into this in Essex, I was very clear that the evidence would tell us the shape and size of unitary authorities, and we would not set the number of unitary authorities and then make the evidence fit. That is what we have done. We are certainly doing that in the business case, and I believe other colleagues have done the same thing. It did cause confusion, and there was a lot of head scratching in the system to see whether we could test whether it was below, on, or above 500,000. To me, rules are there for the guidance of wise people, and the evidence leads the way.
Bev Craig: In my recollection, the Minister was always clear. Some of the questions arose with the conveying of that from colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At times, the sector felt desperate for a literal prescription, because until that point that was the kind of relationship we had had with Government. It had been quite some time since the Government had come to us and said, “Hey, come and be creative in terms of how these needs reflect your place.”
The 500,000 figure has helped people to understand that the programme of reform does not work if what is created is even more local authorities, each with 180,000 people. So we have taken on the guidance but it has become more clear as we move through the programme that this is indicative rather than prescriptive. I think the reality is about having sensible footprints, where services can be delivered at an economy of scale that helps services to perform well, can work with the strategic authority, and still speak to a sensible place that people can identify with. That is complicated; if it were easy, we would have done this before 1974.
Matthew Hicks: The size of the new unitary models really does matter; it is critical. Half of the members of the CCN are unitary authorities, and we see the benefits that this has brought, including large recurring savings, which is a big consideration. It also puts in place more sustainable structures. Back in February, the CCN supported the guidance in the invitation letters; we saw this as a means of reorganisation, with the numbers and the scale being about right for a sustainable long-term future.
I do think that some elements have been undermined by inconsistent messaging over recent months. The stated ambition for new unitary councils was that they would cover a population of about half a million or more. We saw similar issues coming up around social care and using existing council boundaries. There have been mixed messages around the building blocks of the new unitaries.
That inconsistent and slightly unhelpful messaging has led to a situation that will probably make life harder for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because we are now seeing a significant increase in the number of business cases coming forward, and that will make it more difficult for MHCLG to scrutinise. If we look at Suffolk now, we are going to have one application for three unitaries of 250,000 each, which is really very small, with new boundaries. So I think the mixed messaging will create more work for MHCLG, because it is important that it looks at the detail and the data, and that its decision is based on evidence, not just politically driven.
The Chair
Sorry, I don’t want to interrupt, but I have seven Members who want to ask questions and we have about 13 minutes, so perhaps that could give some guidance.
Paul Holmes
Q
Matthew Hicks: We certainly felt in the beginning that Suffolk, with a population of 750,000, was right in the middle of the range and would be an ideal candidate for one unitary.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Kevin Bentley: Thank you, and welcome to your new role; I am sure we will be seeing a lot of each other the coming months, Minister.
In Essex, there are 15 councils. If you want to look at councils of any shape or size, come to Essex; we pretty much have them all, and a lot of them, as well. And while there are four different business cases coming from Essex—and you would expect that, as it is a huge county in terms of population and people have differing views—each has been done thoughtfully and carefully. The overriding message is that the 15 councils are made up of all political parties and none, and there is common cause. No one has fallen out. There is no argument. There is no row going on at all. We meet regularly in something we call the Essex leaders and chief execs meeting—I am talking about Essex here; I will talk about the LGA in just a second—and certainly our experience is of collaboration.
We may have different views from the Government for them to consider, but the understanding that we need to do things differently is really there. That goes for all political parties. We understand that the current system cannot carry on, because it will just run out of money if we are not careful. We are already seeing that.
The one thing to say is that everyone across the sector should be allowed to have their view and decide what is right for their area. When I started as a leader, the one question that I continually asked myself, and still do today, is, “What does this mean for the public and does it improve their lives?” Unless you can answer that question affirmatively, you should stop. So far, for me the answer has been yes—yes, we can do it better than we currently do it—and I think colleagues are in the same position.
It is also important that our colleagues in local government across the country consult not only with each other but with the public to ask whether we can do this better. If they believe we cannot, okay, but I think they will find that we can. The most important thing is to not lose sight of why we are doing it. It is for the public and the people of this country, not for politicians and councils.
Matthew Hicks: I would echo that. For us, it is about building on the experience of others who have been through this. We have been out to places such as Cumbria to ask for advice on what they learned and what works well. We have learned how others delivered on business cases or struggled to deliver on some of the items they included.
Ultimately, for us, this is about a new and more positive relationship between local government and our residents and businesses; it is about doing things differently. With the two cases in Suffolk, ultimately, everyone has the interests of our residents at heart. The big issue is how you analyse the data that people are using, and the forecasting. That is where we are seeing the major variants, but the delivery and what we want to deliver are not too different.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Bev Craig: That is an important question. The difference for Greater Manchester was that we asked for devolution. That started the journey across the north of England initially, but it went out across the whole country. It has come off the back of a generation of co-operation in Greater Manchester, so it was built into a system. When the Greater Manchester authority was disestablished in the 1980s, my predecessors carried on with the meetings and kept that model alive.
I will come on to accountability, but what helps is that people do not identify with local authority boundaries. We represent people who, in their normal lives, say that they are from a place. A colleague might say that they are from Middleton and they are proud to be from Middleton, but when they are on holiday and people ask where they are from, they say “Near Manchester.” There is something about creating a place that people can identify with; that has been really strong. When you look at models where mayors have been successful, it is because they have tapped into a place identity. That links to my point that rural areas can still have place identity.
On accountability, in the Greater Manchester model of combined authorities, which moved to strategic authorities, we all have a role to play. Think about the role of the city. It is a major economic driver for not just Greater Manchester but the north of England as a whole. The whole region needs Manchester city centre to do well, in the same way that Manchester city centre needs the rest of Greater Manchester to do well if it is to have people with skills, good education, homes to live in and places to celebrate that they enjoy spending time in. That is why, through our model, we all hold portfolios. I am just as interested in getting Atom Valley in the north of the conurbation to be a success as I am in growing my life sciences sector in the city centre. There is something about getting people to take responsibility.
When we look at the competencies, that is why the LGA argues for clarity in the Bill that local authorities will still have a stake in some of the areas that we might think mayoral strategic authorities lead on. I say this with kindness, and I often say it to my Mayor’s face: he can give the parameters of the homes that we build and he can help fund them, and I will put on his logo and picture if we need to, but fundamentally it is Manchester city council that is out there building council homes. That is why we built more council and social homes last year than at any point over the last decade and a half. It works when we work together.
To clarify the role of commissioners in the context of the Bill, where they have been useful in Greater Manchester has been in an advisory capacity. We have been able to draw in people like Dame Sarah Storey as an active travel commissioner. She does not need to be a deputy mayor or take away my authority as a leader of a place, but she brings something that is additional. We must not lose sight of the fact that devolution models work with systems and Bills in place to deliver them, but actually it is about collaboration. There will need to be investment in the time that leaders of a place spend together if you are to get that relationship with the mayor to work.
Kevin Bentley: The identity question was raised before and it is important that we say political boundaries might change but communities do not. Identity of communities will always remain strong, whether you are in a district or county council. I represent 1.5 million people. That could be a disparate place. If you want to say, “Which is the most important to your leader?” they are all important, because they all have their own identities.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Q
Matthew Hicks: I have only been in post a week, so I cannot give you an answer as to whether those discussions have taken place in the past. Certainly I know we have looked at the Cornwall business case and Cornwall has always been well represented and a strong voice at the CCN, putting its case very strongly, and I am sure that will continue in the future. However, I cannot answer that question today.
Vikki Slade
Q
Bev Craig: As we touched on earlier, sometimes a conflation of resource and organisation. It is important to draw the distinction that we are not here today to put forward the LGA’s position around the resourcing component, but it is important that we still see that outside the Bill. From an LGA perspective, we would be looking for more clarity on competencies as people move into strategic authorities, and really important is thought around what capacity and support is given to councils as they move through their transition. There are other things that we will continue to push for—for example, thinking about the role of civic and cultural competencies in strategic authorities and how they play into place. Fundamentally, in the Bill we want recognition that local authorities play a key role in delivering all of this, and without collaboration there will not be success.
Kevin Bentley: If I can leave you with one word, it is implementation. Although it does not feel like it, drawing lines on a map and putting the evidence forward is the easy part. Doing it is something very different. We learn from the experience of others and we look at others. This round of devolution is very different from what has happened before. We are creating new large authorities and devolving and disaggregating services upward to those authorities, so we must resource implementation properly. I would like to see a much firmer line on resourcing—not telling us how to do it, because I think we know locally how to do it, but making sure there is resourcing for us to do it. We have to remember that while we are doing that, with shadow elections for us in 2027, we still have to deliver the day job. That is about people and certainly in upper tier authorities, it is about some vulnerable people.
My only concern throughout all of this, and I am and always have been a great devolutionist, is that we do something or miss something and somebody falls through a crack and is left behind. None of us must allow that to happen. I know we will not and we will work very hard, but we need the proper resourcing to make that happen. This is fundamental change and is very unlikely to happen again for the next 50, 60 or even more years in the future. We have to get it right. Our successors will not thank us if we do not.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions to this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Catriona Riddell and Ion Fletcher gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Catriona Riddell, the director of Catriona Riddell & Associates Ltd, and Ion Fletcher, the director of policy for finance and regulation at the British Property Federation. We will end this panel at 11.14 am.
David Simmonds
Q
Ion Fletcher: Good morning, everyone. My name is Ion Fletcher. I am the director of finance policy at the British Property Federation. Our members own, develop and invest in both commercial and residential property across the UK.
In high-level terms, our members have had a good experience with devolution so far. Having combined authorities with responsibility for planning, transport and place making, and strong convening powers, means that our members are able to invest with confidence, knowing the strategic aims for that area. We hope to see that replicated with strategic authorities. We can get into more detail—Cat is better placed to comment on the reorganisation and the impact on planning.
We feel that the way that upward-only rent reviews were introduced into legislation without any meaningful consultation is not good policymaking. We feel that it will not do much to help the high street and it could have a negative impact on new investment and development.
Catriona Riddell: Hello, I am Catriona Riddell, a strategic planning specialist. There are two components to this. First, it is about the fact that fewer than 30% of local plans are up to date. That is partly because all the decisions and all the financial, technical and political risk sit with individual local planning authorities. It is right that there is a separation of decision making in the way that we had before 2010 for 40 years.
If that decision making is now through the new strategic authorities, that is probably the right place for it in terms of the new spatial development strategy, which I know sits with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. However, there is no point in strategic authorities having the responsibility to prepare those strategies if they do not also have some responsibility to deliver them. The range of delivery mechanisms set out in the Bill will help that.
For example, in the last few weeks, the Mayor of the North East combined authority announced a massive housing development in Newcastle on a site that has been derelict and unviable for many years. She has used her convening and financial powers to bring together Homes England, local authorities and others to bring forward development on that site. On the delivery side, the powers and funding that the mayors will have to make sure that spatial development strategies and local plans are implemented will be really important
In terms of local government restructuring, it is fair to say, as everybody has already this morning, that resources are thin on the ground. They are getting thinner the longer this goes on. People want a resolution. They want to move to the new local government structure as soon as possible to make sure that the resources within the local government family remain.
But, again, before 2010, for 40 years planning resources were done in two ways. The strategic level is where all the specialist skills sat, and then the planners and others were within the local authorities. They worked as two parts of the same team. We do not have the specialist skills in local authorities anymore; they have to pay to bring that back. A lot of specialist skills are rare anyway, so they are difficult to get. Having some teams and general support at the strategic scale will be invaluable to local authorities going forward.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Northern Ireland went through a very similar reform about a decade and a half ago. I am interested in your assessment, because most people would look at that property market and think it works well. There was a transition, and it has ended up in a position that, most people would argue, is not just benign and effective but consistent with what we see in other countries. I am interested in your views, and then I will have a question for both of you.
Ion Fletcher: I think that Mark would also say that the way it was announced was not great; it should have been done with prior consultation. One of our main concerns is about how one of our members was recently in Malaysia and Singapore, and his investors were asking him questions about it: “Where did it come from? Why was there no consultation?” It has been noticed overseas, and by people who are deploying capital into our towns and cities. It was not something that was trailed, either in the Labour manifesto or in any of the discussions about devolution. In fact, it is a bit odd to find commercial leasing provisions in a Bill that is mainly about local government reorganisation and strategic authority powers.
There is also the focus on the high street. Upward-only rent reviews are not what is keeping shops empty at the moment. That is more to do with business rates and a lack of demand for space. Most high street shops are on leases of five years or less, so upward-only rent reviews are not going to be an issue; they do not have those clauses in them.
The real value of upward-only rent reviews to investors and developers is that they provide predictability of income. If you are thinking about undertaking a new development project or refurbishing an existing commercial building, having the confidence about the level of income that you are going to get gives you much more security, and it de-risks the project. It makes it more likely to happen. At the moment, there is a shortage of development going on—there is a bit of a development viability crisis across both residential and commercial property—so adding more uncertainty in the form of unexpected policy changes does not help.
In relation to your point about international comparators, yes, Ireland went through this, as did Australia about 20 years ago. There is a transition period. The industry can and would find ways to adapt, but the point is: what problem is it really trying to solve? Is the disruption that it is going to cause in the meantime—the transitional costs, for example—worth the candle?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Ion Fletcher: England and Wales is an international outlier in that; it is also an international outlier in the strength of the rights that it gives to occupiers to renew their leases. Generally speaking, where countries offer occupiers the automatic and statutory right to renew their commercial leases, it tends to be restricted to particular sectors. That is not the case in England and Wales. You have to look at it in the round.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Catriona Riddell: What is set out in the Bill is going to help to develop things more quickly. We have just talked about viability; that is such a massive factor in everything that we do at the moment. In relation to strategic planning and spatial development strategy, I think the Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook, has referred to it as a spatial investment framework. If you look at it as that, and not as a big local plan, and if it does that role, that is going to set the precedent. It is going to say: “This is where we want to invest.”
They are also long-term plans; they are 10, 20 or 30-year frameworks. Again, that is to start building investor confidence in these areas. What is needed, in terms of building investor confidence, is leadership and that is where the strategic authorities can help. Some of the planning mechanisms in the Bill are really important, but actually, it is more about the wider powers, such as the convening powers and the duty to talk to your neighbouring mayor—the sum of the parts has to add up to a national picture. We do not have a national spatial framework in this country, so the sum of the SDSs has to add up to that national picture. I think the softer powers in the Bill that mayors and strategic authorities will have to bring together stakeholders will be really important.
I would say the measure needs to go further. My understanding of the convening powers is that they are largely about bringing local authorities and the public sector together, but one of the biggest challenges we have is around the infrastructure side of things—with utility companies, such as water companies and electricity companies, that engage at the very end of the process. We need to use these mechanisms—the convening powers—to bring them into the plan-making bit about the spatial development strategy from the start, so that there are no surprises at the end and nobody says, “We don’t have enough water or electricity to plug into these new homes that we have already permitted,” because that is what is happening all over the place. This is about getting the system working up front, much further upstream, so that the decisions on planning applications are much easier further down. The strategic authorities have a huge role to play in that.
The only other, minor change I would mention is on national parks. I think that once we have gone through local government restructuring, all local planning authorities will effectively be a constituent member of a strategic authority. National parks will continue to be local planning authorities. They have plan-making powers and development management powers. At the end of this, they will be the only planning authorities that will not actually be part of the strategic authority, so I guess we need a shout-out to national parks and some thinking about what their role should be in this.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Q
Ion Fletcher: That is a really good question. Yes, as currently drafted, the Bill applies to all commercial tenancies, regardless of whether they are on the high street or in an industrial park, a data centre or a laboratory.
Upward-only rent reviews have definitely been highlighted as an issue among high street small businesses and in the hospitality sector, and I have a lot of sympathy for businesses that have been on high streets and going through a lot of change and turbulence over the last decade or so. At the same time, they have not really been raised as an issue by occupiers in logistics parks or in office buildings. I guess the main reason is that property costs are a far smaller proportion of their total cost base than for retailers and hospitality businesses.
Larger businesses also tend to be well advised and are aware of the trade-offs that come with upward-only rent reviews. They can allow property owners to give a longer rent-free period, for example, or a bigger contribution to fit-out costs. There is definitely merit in thinking about how the Bill might be more closely targeted at those areas where there is perceived to be more of an issue.
Mike Reader
Q
Ion Fletcher: Apart from the targeting point, it is interesting to think ahead to what is likely to change about the way commercial leases are structured. What is quite common in other jurisdictions is that they are more closely linked to an index like inflation or construction costs, or they are stepped, so there are pre-agreed rents up front. I think that is what we are likely to see.
We also need to be mindful of the use of caps and collars. It is quite common in other countries, and even in the UK for some types of longer leases, for the rent to be tied to a particular inflation index that has a cap on it, so if inflation goes above 4%, the rent will not increase by more than that. Similarly, with a collar, if deflation were to happen, the rent would not fall into negative territory. I think there is huge value in having that sort of approach. It is fair to the occupier, who gets a cap on inflation-linked increases, and fair to the property owner, who gets a floor if inflation goes negative.
Mike Reader
Q
Catriona Riddell: In the engagement process, that will be another role for the strategic authorities. We have seen increasing use of tools such as citizens’ assemblies. If I were helping to set up a strategic authority, I would say that every strategic authority should have its own fully representative citizens’ assembly, not just for planning but to test out its policy and approach.
We have oodles of experience in how to engage. I have been involved in structure plans and regional spatial strategies. It is difficult to engage on high-level frameworks. That will be one of the challenges, because there are no site allocations in the frameworks, but there will be specific growth areas. The frameworks will have to provide the spatial articulation of the local growth plans, which is another of the challenges. They will have to set out where the economic priorities should be, and how they should be addressed in those areas. It is quite difficult to engage local communities on those matters.
Stakeholders will get engaged but engagement is going to be really important in how these plans are tested. Advice from citizen panels and things like that are really good methods because they get to build up more knowledge so that they are not starting green every time. You could use them from the start of the process, all the way through, and they are far more representative than the usual engagement: the consultation responses that we get through the planning process.
Ion Fletcher: Some really interesting stuff is going on with digital citizen engagement tools. At a strategic authority level, Liverpool City Region combined authority used Commonplace, a digital engagement platform. It helped the authority reach a far broader and more diverse audience than might otherwise have been the case.
Catriona Riddell: What Liverpool did is probably the right thing. “Spatial development strategies” is a very technical term. It is not an attractive proposition for local communities, so the combined authority went out and talked about place: how places are going to change and grow, and what the priorities are around climate and health—health was a big aspect of the authority’s emerging spatial development strategy. We need to change the conversation so that it is not technical.
Mrs Blundell
Q
Catriona Riddell: Yes. I am all for democratic accountability, but we have to make sure that it does not hinder the job that has to be done. There are different ways of working with local councils, rather than necessarily having them sitting on boards. More proactive engagement and co-operation will work better. Local government, generally, is good at that and the strategic authorities are going to have to get really good at that as well. They will have to learn how to engage with local communities, and how to use their democratic representation with the likes of housing associations, and in lots of other activities around housing.
One element of the Bill worries me. The Greater London Authority has been around for 25 years, and it is a massive organisation. It is struggling with its housing role, and a lot of the measures in the Bill around housing will replicate what the GLA has. I worry that even the established strategic authorities are fairly small and they will have to take on a very big role for housing delivery, and specifically for affordable housing. I am concerned that they might be biting off more than they can chew. Some of the housing delivery roles that are expected by the Bill might be a step too far, at least initially.
Manuela Perteghella
Q
Catriona Riddell: If we get spatial development strategies right, they should be the ringmasters of sustainable development, as I call them. Their job is to provide spatial articulation for local growth plans, local nature recovery strategies, local transport plans and health strategies—the range of powers, strategies and plans that strategic authorities and local authorities have. SDSs will have to take into account local nature recovery strategy priorities.
The challenge we have is that the local growth plans and local nature recovery strategies are being prepared in advance of SDSs. Of the draft local growth plans that I have seen, there was maybe one that had any spatial content at all, and I think it is similar for local nature recovery strategies, so there will have to be some catch-up. SDSs are there to bring all the different plans and strategies together, to set out what that looks like across a place and to use local plans at a more detailed level. Do not forget that SDSs and local plans are part of the same development plan; they are two parts of a plan for an area, so they have to work together.
Paul Holmes
Q
Mr Fletcher, you are absolutely right to say that this, as well as local government reorganisation, was not in the governing party’s manifesto. I therefore think that it is right that we try to make the policy work as best we can through scrutiny mechanisms such as this Committee. In London, there are structural and spatial planning powers and business powers that are currently operable and invested in the GLA and the London mayoralty. For example, the GLA has a scrutinising mechanism and a housing role, and the mayor has business retention powers and spatial planning powers.
We have seen housing delivery fall under the current administration in London, and we have seen recent announcements that London is essentially a no-go investment area for many relevant organisations. Given the—I would argue—perceived failure in policy delivery in London, what lessons can we learn when the Government are attempting to replicate a structure in London that is not working elsewhere?
Ion Fletcher: In general terms, it is helpful that London has its London plan and its spatial development strategy. The London plan was also the first to acknowledge the important role of build-to-rent housing—housing developed and managed specifically for rental purposes—and was a pioneer in protecting logistics in industrial space, so it does have those positives.
The other side of the coin is that the London plan, in the view of our members, has become too long and too repetitive of policies that already exist either at a national level or at a local borough level. One of our members recently did some analysis and worked out that you could consolidate or eliminate roughly half the policies in the London plan in the latest iteration, so there is definitely scope for simplification. The lesson I would draw is that the new strategic authority should be focusing on the strategic stuff rather than getting too much into the development control side of things, which ultimately adds uncertainty and cost to the planning process.
Catriona Riddell: I totally agree. The national decision-making policies that will soon come forward will help to strip out a lot of what is in the London plan. The idea behind spatial development strategies—this new model—is that they will be very high-level, they will not be very long, and they certainly will not be the London plan model. There is still a difference in terms of governance and decision making in London, and there still will be after the Bill. The decision making for the spatial development strategy in London—the London plan—sits with the mayor. I think a two-thirds majority of the GLA is needed to overturn that, whereas under the strategic authorities it would be a majority vote in most cases. There is a difference with the mayors under the Bill, and other places will have less power.
One of the challenges for London and many other parts of the country is that the planning system has been overburdened with a lot of red tape and regulation that sits not within planning, but within building control or other regulatory systems. That has been one of the big blockages for the market in London. There is no doubt that that has had a knock-on impact right across the board. Stripping out some of the regulation that does not sit within planning, and making planning simpler, will help. I think the London plan has changed things significantly; in its 25 years, it has shown that it has actually been able to deliver. I do not think that it is the London plan that is the problem; it is the delivery end of things, which the mayor is facing at the moment. That is where the challenge is.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Catriona Riddell: I am a very strong supporter of the Bill’s “health in all policies” approach. Mayors and strategic authorities will have to demonstrate how they will improve health inequalities and others through everything they do. Many will know that the planning system is embedded in health; that is how it came about. We have been trying very hard to make sure that local plans and the new spatial development strategies address health. That is not just about infrastructure, but about healthy places generally.
As you know, it is a real challenge at the local level to plan for health infrastructure up front. Most of that will still be done at the local plan level, not the SDS level, but the SDS level will have to look at strategic infrastructure around health. If any major new health infrastructure is needed, that will have to be embedded into the SDS. As with all the work of strategic authorities, it is not just about a planning responsibility; the strategic authority will be working with the health authorities, and they will need to have a role in how the SDSs deal with health. The Liverpool city region is a great example of working with health authorities and others to embed health into the spatial development strategy that it is preparing at the moment, so it can be done.
It is much more difficult to find the answer for local infrastructure such as doctors’ surgeries and GPs. I know there are examples where land has been left aside for doctors’ surgeries, but GPs and others have not moved forward to make it happen. I guess there are more challenges in health infrastructure outside the planning system, but getting them at the table up front, in terms of in spatial development strategies and the flow-through to local plans, is absolutely the right thing.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Catriona Riddell: I was not talking about powers; I was talking about resources. I was talking about creating shared teams at the strategic level to support the local authorities individually. It is about sharing skills and having teams at the strategic level with the specialist skills that individual local planning authorities cannot access easily; it is not about taking powers away from local authorities.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Catriona Riddell: No, because you do not have the strategic authorities.
Lewis Cocking
But you could do what you have described without the Bill; you do not need a strategic authority for it. If local authorities want to group together and do that under the county model, they could.
Catriona Riddell: Yes, and I have been involved with several local authority groupings that have tried to do that. The challenge is that resources are tight, and individual local authorities want control over what they do. They find it really difficult to have that shared resource unless it has a separate footing or is part of a separate organisation.
It worked well in the old structural plan days when that resource sat within the county council—but the county council was a strategic planning authority and was funded to have these responsibilities. You need to have the funding for it, which is really difficult. I know from many experiences, including in Hertfordshire, that it is difficult to pool that resource without that structure. Having them sit within the strategic authorities is probably the right place. It protects that resource for the future as well.
The Chair
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Nick Plumb and Robbie Whittaker gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Nick Plumb, policy director at Power to Change, and Robbie Whittaker, a member of the Football Supporters’ Association national council. This panel, and our morning sitting, will finish no later than 11.44 am.
Vikki Slade
Q
Nick Plumb: At Power to Change, we think that the Bill’s provisions on community right to buy are a positive step forward. Power to Change has been calling for this for several years. To illustrate why the right is so needed, the key piece of data on the current regime on assets of community value and the community right to bid is that of every 1,000 assets that are listed as assets of community value, only 15 end up in community hands. The expansion of the definition of assets of community value to include economic as well as social benefit is a positive step, as is the introduction of a community right to buy as opposed to a community right to bid.
Some of the questions lie in the implementation. We think that there are potential challenges with this new right if you are asking councils to maintain a broader list of assets of community value and trying to get the new right to live up to the expectations that communities are rightly bringing forward. One thing that Power to Change has been calling for since the end of the community ownership fund is continued community ownership funding to support groups, particularly at the early stage at which groups might have a great idea for an asset but are not quite sure how to take it forward. A combination of revenue and capital funding is really important.
One of the lessons of the community ownership fund is that communities have a real ability to raise funds themselves. One of the great stories of the fund was that Government money leveraged lots of other investment, whether that was through private loans or by community share raising, where groups go out to the community to raise money from local members. Any future funding model for community ownership to sit alongside the community right to buy could be quite mixed. It could involve grant, loan and, importantly, revenue funding support and training. I know that there is mention of that in the Bill, and I am pleased to see that.
There is one final point to add, on the economic contribution of community-owned assets. Power to Change recently did some work with the 11,000 community businesses across England and found that they contribute roughly £1.5 billion in direct gross value added to the economy, which is equivalent to the solar sector, so they are important economic actors. Importantly, the economic contribution of community-owned assets sticks locally: we found that roughly 56p in every £1 circulates in the local economy, due to local supply chains, compared with roughly 40p for large private businesses. With the agenda around local growth, I see a successfully implemented community right to buy as a key driver of local growth outcomes.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Nick Plumb: I want to make a couple of points. It was a really interesting conversation this morning on neighbourhood governance from colleagues from parish councils and local government. Power to Change is a member of the We’re Right Here campaign, which has been campaigning for community power legislation such as some of the measures in this Bill. We are keen that the neighbourhood governance measures that are introduced through the Bill allow for local variation and for a whole range of different organisations that exist at a neighbourhood level to be a part of that neighbourhood governance arrangement. We think that one of the risks with the area committee model is that it is a prescriptive top-down model that says, “This is the way to do things,” rather than saying, “What exists already in a neighbourhood, and how do we build on that?”
One of the ideas that Power to Change has been working on and testing in place is a community covenant. We have been testing that so far in Market Drayton in Shropshire through a partnership of 20 local organisations—everyone from the local authority to community organisations to representatives from town and parish councils—on the idea of a family and neighbourhood hub. So far, the results from that work are really positive. There was some initial scepticism about a new way of working, but one of the council officers has fed back that the new approach is a real gift that has helped them to move much further and faster with their communities than they would have done if they were just doing things from the council down.
One of the calls from us through this legislation is to try not to be too prescriptive with neighbourhood governance but lean into a model that puts people on an equal footing and gives people an equal seat at the table. I will not spend too long on this, but my other point is that it is great that we have a piece of legislation with “community empowerment” in its title, and I think that community right to buy and neighbourhood governance, if done right, go some way. Power to Change and the We’re Right Here campaign would like to see community right to buy as one of several community rights. We have been calling for a community right to shape public services, which would entail involving the people who receive services from the state in the design, delivery and development of public services. That would build on provisions in the Localism Act, such as the right to challenge, and it would make that a much more expansive right.
We would also like to see a community right to control investment, which would involve certain bits of investment from central Government sitting at that neighbourhood level. Both of those rights really lean into some of the Government’s existing agenda. The plan for neighbourhoods is a real example of that. There are some questions still to be answered on what that looks like, but it could involve trusting neighbourhoods to take hold of money and think, “How do we improve our lot together?”
The right to shape public services is very in line with some of the test, learn and grow work that is happening in the Cabinet Office. We would see the community empowerment element of the Bill really living up to its name if it was the beginning of a set of community rights rather than the community right to buy tick and done.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Robbie Whittaker: Thank you, Minister. We are certainly very encouraged by the proposal to create a new designation of a sporting asset of community value. It builds on what we have traditionally had before. It is something that we have lobbied for because we think—as we would—that sporting institutions have a valuable role to play in local communities, particularly in promoting empowerment of the kind that Nick was talking about.
One of the interesting benefits of this proposal is that in the last year, as you will all know, we have created an independent regulator for football, which is going to bring profound change for a relatively small number of clubs—only 116 clubs at the very top of the English pyramid. The proposal in the Bill potentially attracts a far larger cohort of clubs further down the pyramid, which are not necessarily as commercially attractive to buyers from outside the country. Therefore, the right to buy is actually a realistic aspiration that some of those communities can have.
We are increasingly seeing valuations of football clubs at the top end of the pyramid that take them beyond the reach of local community or fan groups. But that is not the case lower down. The extent to which you can create an opportunity here for local communities and people who follow relatively small clubs to feel that it is a pathway that they can go down and sustain is very welcome.
I echo what Nick said about community ownership funding, or some equivalent thereof; the existence of that fund played a large part in the creation of the phoenix club at Bury. You may remember that Bury AFC failed spectacularly in 2019, and has caused a lot of angst within the football community ever since. The existence of that fund was quite crucial to enabling a new club to emerge in Bury that was able to play at the ground that had been used for around about a century.
The Chair
Your answer, Mr Whittaker, made me consider whether I should declare that I am an AFC Wimbledon season ticket holder and a member of the Dons Trust.
Manuela Perteghella
Q
Robbie Whittaker: That is a difficult question to answer, because as you go down the size scale of sports clubs, the extent to which they are able to mobilise to take advantage of opportunities is different. However, where people in the local area can do that, there is no reason why the legislation should not be flexible in allowing it to happen. I do think that it is a horses-for-courses thing. One of the things that I have learned through my involvement with the FSA is that no two areas or clubs are alike, and no two sets of local circumstances are necessarily alike. It is an area where the legislation should probably give flexibility without mandating any particular approach.
Maya Ellis
Q
Nick Plumb: That is a really good question, thank you. I have a couple of points on this. To make clear our starting point, I think we are at a point where there is real distrust in democratic institutions, and a democratic deficit, which I heard other witnesses speak about this morning. We need a dynamic view of accountability—one that, yes, works with existing democratic structures, whether that is at the local authority or parish council level, but also recognises that there are lots of different ways in which people exercise their agency at a neighbourhood level. Often, that might be participation in local groups, charities or community organisations. We did some polling recently that looked at neighbourhood governance options, which found that roughly 57% of people are supportive of councils working with existing community organisations. That drops to 19% when we are talking about new democratic institutions such as parish councils. There is something to think about when it comes to the current state of people’s trust in institutions and how we build on what is already there.
The other side of the accountability question is recognising that there needs to be some oversight of what this neighbourhood governance looks like. One of the things that Power to Change, the We’re Right Here campaign and the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods have been calling for is an independent commissioner for community power. That would exist to recognise challenges from the community around neighbourhood governance and whether it was working well, responding to people’s queries about whether neighbourhood governance models such as community covenants were being introduced. It would also recognise that if those things were not working well, an independent commissioner could step in and say, “This is not working,” and find a different way. For us, it is about that diversity and recognising that parish councils are great in lots of places, but there is only 40% coverage at the moment across the population of England. In some places, the roll-out of new parishes might be the right thing to do; in others, it will not, so it is about how we work with the messiness of neighbourhood institutions.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. That brings us to the end of the morning session. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm in Committee Room 8, where we are now, to continue taking oral evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 16th September 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2025 - (16 Sep 2025)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Tracy Brabin, chair of UK Mayors and Mayor of West Yorkshire; Lord Houchen, Metro Mayor of the Tees Valley; and Donna Jones, Hampshire police and crime commissioner and mayoral candidate. We have until 2.40 pm for this panel.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
Tracy Brabin: Thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence. It is a real pleasure to be here. I am very excited about the way that mayors can help you as you take the Bill through Parliament. When I was a Member of Parliament, I sat on Bill Committees going through Bills line by line, as you are. It is great that we can have our voices heard.
The opportunities for the Bill are exceptional. It gives us a statutory footing for mayoral strategic authorities and clarity around the framework for devolution. We have seen from the leadership of the Government that devolution by default is the theme. One challenge when we have not had clarity is that some Departments have bought into that memo and some have not. The Bill gives us the statutory framework so that mayors who are new and are coming on to devolution understand the three tiers.
The Bill gives us that great opportunity for clarity, but also elements such as the right to request. You will know that a number of established mayors and mayoral strategic authorities across the country are further along than newer mayoral strategic authorities, have certain powers and are already delivering faster growth than the rest of the country. The Bill gives them the opportunity to request further powers, freedoms and flexibilities. For example, as UK Mayors, we have a consensus on 16-to-19 skills, on careers, and on a visitor levy that would give us the opportunity to have an income stream—£20 million for London and potentially £1 million to £2 million for my own region—that we could reinvest in our regions.
The challenges are always about potentially not being brave enough and pulling back from devolution. We have a country that is so centralised. If we continue to do what we have always done we will get the same results. I think this is a revolution of devolution, and I am really pleased to see the enthusiasm and determination of so many Ministers and Members of Parliament to get it over the line.
We are also here to help you go further. This is only part of the process. As we say among the mayors, this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling; it will be iterative as we go forward over the years. We are here to support your thinking and help with understanding.
Donna Jones: Thank you very much for the question. I have only got positive things to say. This was started by the previous Government and has been continued with gusto by the Labour Government, and I am very grateful for it and welcome it. When the new mayoral combined authority in my area, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—two counties; 2.2 million people—is created in May next year, it will be one of the largest in the country straightaway.
We should have had a devolution deal 10 years ago. I remember negotiating, when I was the leader of a city council, with Greg Clark, the then Secretary of State. We had the deal on the table from the Treasury and it covered about 50% of the geographical area that I currently represent as police and crime commissioner. We lost out. The Secretary of State was shuffled into another Department and it fell by the wayside. That was a great pity, particularly for the health inequalities that we have across my sub-region of the country, and for the businesses that I believe have lost out on inward investment and opportunity—the opportunity cost really is the biggest thing. When you look at the most recent pot of money that the Government announced, in March this year, the roads infrastructure fund— £15.7 billion—I have calculated that my area probably would have got over £2 billion of that money for roads, and we desperately need that.
We need a seat around the table that Tracy is chairing and at the Council of Nations and Regions meeting as well. We need a mayor to be championing and spearheading my sub-region. The final positive thing for me is the opportunity in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, two of the largest parts of the south-east of England. Over the last decade, on average, our gross value added has been about £800 per head under that of the rest of the south-east. We have opportunity, but we do need some investment and we need someone to be spearheading.
I do not really want to be negative, but I am going to identify one challenge. I think it will dissipate over time, but to start with, for whoever becomes the mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, it is going to be a bit of a sales job, because the public are saying, “It’s another layer of government.” On the whole, there is a lot of misunderstanding around the opportunity that is coming. However, over time, when you are able to demonstrate the programmes you have delivered, the investment you can secure and the positive things that can come out of working closer with the Government, I think the public will very quickly come around to the fact that they really do desperately need a mayor for Hampshire and the Solent.
Ben Houchen: I will pick out a few points. First, to directly answer the question, I think the planning powers coming through the Bill are going to be hugely helpful. Giving mayors a strategic role in that, including in setting the spatial framework—I appreciate that we used to have spatial frameworks and we are coming full circle back to them—and having democratic oversight invested in a single individual, or what people see as a single individual, anyway, is really important. Obviously, we will have to get the permission of the majority of the councils within the combined authority area, but having that focal point is really important.
The drawback of the planning powers is that they are going to be very slow to arrive. The current indication from the Department is that by the time the legislation has passed and all of statutory instruments have gone through, we will not get the powers until maybe July, potentially September, next year. That is a long time to wait for powers that I think we can all agree are going to help with our growth and progress as a country.
The other thing that is still to be clarified is how we will be able to exercise those powers. There is still some grey around what types of planning permissions we will be able to instigate ourselves, through mayoral development orders, and what we will be able to do to call in. In effect, we are getting similar powers to the Mayor of London, but at what threshold? In my area, Teesside, being able to call in maybe 10, 20 or 30 houses would be significant to drive through development and growth, but we are not sure whether the threshold is going to be set at 20 or 30 houses or at 100, 200 or 300 houses. Some clarity on that is going to be really helpful. The reason we need the clarity is that we are all in the process of having to set up the teams within the organisations, and recruit the planners and the experts. That really needs to start now, and without that clarity it is quite difficult to take that step forward. But planning is substantially the best power within the Bill to date.
I personally think—as a mayor, I would say this; I am sure Tracy would agree with me—that more mayoral powers give us directly elected mayors more democratic oversight and accountability with the public. The other side of that coin is that there is a rebalancing of powers at the combined authority, slightly away from the collective of the councils that we have in our combined authority cabinet, and towards investing direct powers in mayors. I absolutely do come down on that side, not just because I am mayor, but because there is a way in which you can make quicker progress by investing more mayoral powers, whether in the establishment of development corporations, in some of the planning powers or in various other things in the Bill. We saw it a little bit at the end of the previous Government, but we are seeing with this Government an acceleration of those powers. Again, it really depends which side of the fence you sit on whether that is a positive or a negative.
Single pot has been parroted as a huge success. I think it is a good success and a good step forward, but I am mindful that we should not over-celebrate something that is not the success that it is sometimes portrayed to be. There are still a lot of restrictions on how you can move the money around. Sometimes it is communicated as, “We’ll have a pot of money and it will be for us to decide how to move those pots of money around.” Actually, within the rules, there is a percentage of money that can be moved from one pot to another. Even within that, sometimes, there are so-called retained projects; in particular, for example, with transport money, the Department for Transport keeps its claws in by saying, “Okay, it’s your money, but we’re going to keep oversight of this project,” and if it is not happy, in effect it has a veto on taking it to the next stage.
It is a good step, but it feels, throughout the Bill, that we have taken half a step from where we want to be. That is not a criticism—the Government have done really well in getting the Bill to where it is. This goes to the point about the right to request. Nobody wants to have taken the strategic decision about what devolution should be, so the Bill is a bit of a halfway house to move devolution on a bit. I think we need, as a collective, and as a UK Government, to decide on the future destination of devolution. The Government have only been allowed to get to where they are because that question has not been answered and, to be frank, it was not answered for three or four years under the previous Government either.
The Bill is a good step forward, but there are lots of things to be cautious about. I make those points because if we want to go as quickly as the Government have said—and I completely agree with their rhetoric around growth—it could have gone a little bit further, a little bit more quickly.
Tracy Brabin: Not every mayor has the potential for the integrated settlement at the speed at which they feel they are ready. That is a challenge. For Members’ understanding, the organisation is funded from top-slicing of projects, so there is a real desire from mayors to have dedicated funding to run the organisation—for example, your legal or HR departments. Everything is top-sliced from projects. That is not necessarily the most sustainable or strategic way to fund an organisation.
David Simmonds
Q
The Chair
Pithy answers, please.
Tracy Brabin: The mayoral precept is democratically held by the mayor for the public. It would be for transport projects; it would be allocated to something specific. For example, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, uses it for young people’s travel. The Bill widens the opportunity to use the precept, but none of the public would be happy if you were paying off debts. It is fundamentally for betterment of and investment in communities, in the way that the police and crime commissioner precept is held to deliver better outcomes, whether that is more police community support officers on the street or initiatives around violence against women and girls. It is democratically held by the mayor. We have not introduced it as yet in West Yorkshire, but others have.
Donna Jones: I will be very brief because I am conscious that there are lots of Members on the Committee. The referendum limit is the prohibitor. Essentially, a mayor, like a police and crime commissioner and a council, can precept to the level that they want, but you have to have a referendum if you are going over that limit. Although the Government are right to want some checks and balances, so that you do not get areas that are really out of kilter with others, a referendum is prohibitive: it becomes very political, and it is very costly to do. Therefore, I think there should be a simpler mechanism if a mayor wants to precept above the Secretary of State’s agreed level. Perhaps that could be with written consent from the Secretary of State, as opposed to a referendum.
Ben Houchen: I am not a fan of mayoral precepts generally. I have not raised one, and have promised ever since I was elected not to raise one. Some transparency could be brought to the legislation. You have mayoral precepts, you have transport levies, and there is lobbying from a number of mayors around tourism taxes and so on. From a constituent point of view, forgetting the rights and wrongs of it, all that could be consolidated into a single precept, rather than having a separate transport levy, which can be quite opaque, particularly where you have new combined authorities. Some of those taxations are merged into combined authorities, and who has actually raised the levy can be quite lost. It ultimately all comes into the combined authority once it is established, but the Committee could take away the question of how that could be consolidated to streamline the precept. From the public’s point of view, the mayor has the ability to raise a mayoral precept; there is no reason to have a transport levy as well. For transparency’s sake, that should be clarified as a single levy, if you are going to have one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Q
Tracy Brabin: I will be pithy—and congratulations on your role, by the way; I know that we have a champion by our side. What is important is the way that we can collectively come to a consensus on the Mayoral Council and say, “The mayors are agreed that this is the next step,” and then the Government have to explain why we cannot have it. There is also an opportunity for individual mayors to have something of value that relates to them and their region specifically. The key to that, Minister, is surely for it to be as straightforward and efficient as possible, rather than hoops and processes.
As mayors, one of the things that we are discussing at the moment is taxi licensing. Just to give you the numbers, 49% of private hires operating in Greater Manchester are licensed by authorities outside of the 10 local authorities. We know, from Baroness Casey’s work about violence against women and girls, how that is a weakness in the system when it comes to the safety of young women. As mayors, we are looking to the council to help us to understand how we can do that more efficiently, but that may be something that affects only some urban metro mayors and not others. It is about how we can collectively ask, which is a really fast-track process, but then there will be individual conversations.
Donna Jones: I really welcome the right to request. Following on from what Tracy just said about mayors and their unique geographical areas, in my patch, I—or whoever is successful next year—will have the largest island, aside from Ireland itself, of course, that we represent in part of England: the Isle of Wight. That piece of water creates a lot of problems for the Isle of Wight in terms of the supply chain and the skills market; things are a lot more expensive on the Isle of Wight.
One of the things that I am really pleased about is that the Government are looking, through the Bill to establish Great British Railways, which is coming forward, to give mayors greater powers around the planning, performance, improvement and project management of rail networks in their areas. I argue that that should be extended to ferries, particularly for my area. The Isle of Wight has three main transporters: Wightlink and Red Funnel are the two car and foot passenger ferries, and Hovertravel is a hovercraft that runs until 6.30 pm every day. For a lot of people who live on the island, it is cost prohibitive to travel off it and back. If it is not included in Committee or picked up by you, Minister, I will be requesting the right to have a regulator power over the ferry companies that operate across the Solent, because of course they need Crown permission to operate across that piece of water.
Following on from Tracy’s point about the uniqueness of certain geographical areas, I think that there are other good things, such as lane rental approval. I love the idea of that. Utility companies are given permission by the highway authority to dig up the road, and it goes on and on. That has an effect on transport, pollution and people’s travel to work time, and it has a knock-on effect on economic growth in the area, putting people off travelling to or from work or taking up jobs. We have to look at that. Giving mayors the ability to effectively tax or fine companies every day they go over the set period of two weeks, or however long it would be, is absolutely key. I could go on—there are some brilliant things in here—but I welcome what you are trying to achieve.
Ben Houchen: The right to request is an interesting one. There is a bit of an academic argument about the Government wanting to standardise mayoral powers so they are same across the board, but then the right to request, if done correctly, would allow for differentiation. There is an issue about whether we are looking for a standard model or whether we want more of a patchwork. That is for members of the Committee to think about, but it is important: at the nth degree, if you have differentiation through the right to request, you could have areas with hugely different powers. That is going to create political problems, with people feeling like one area has more control than another.
Administration from a central Government point of view is also difficult. Irrespective of devolution, there is always a clawback into central Government. That is probably right, rather than giving us carte blanche over everything, but it goes back to the strategic question about what you want to happen. The ultimate right to request—this is where you are going to have proper devolution that allows for earned autonomy over time—is the relationship between combined authorities, the Department and the Treasury. The key question that needs to be answered is how you get the combined authority to have an accountable officer within the organisation. Where I think combined authorities should get to is being treated as geographical Departments. We should be treated in the same way as a Department, bidding into Budgets and spending reviews, with our full, eclectic mix—from housing to transport and everything in between—and we should be accountabledirectly to the Treasury.
The only thing holding that up is the internal civil service mechanism of having an accountable officer outside Whitehall. That sounds flippant, but it is a difficult thing for the civil service to deal with; once you deal with that, it negates the need for a right to request or anything else, because over the years organisations will mature with that direct relationship with the Treasury.
It also gets into some key niggles that I know other mayors care about: “Why do you therefore need organisations like Homes England?”. If you get into the right to request, you do not need them. At the minute we are already doing half of what Homes England does. The Government have again gone into this halfway house of strategic partnerships, instead of taking the bold leap they should have taken: where you have mayors, you do not need Homes England, so make them the financially accountable body and ensure there are ties back in to central Government for oversight and value for money. Something more strategic could be done, but for me it goes back to the point that the Government did not want to address the strategic question of where devolution is going over the next five or 10 years.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Q
Tracy Brabin: Thank you for that question; I know your mayor has raised that with me. The strategic overview is really helpful, because some councils might have different processes. Uniformity across mayoral strategic authorities can only be helpful. I would say that the majority of mayors feel that that is a solution to some of the problem, where we have seen cowboys from way outside people’s patches, not necessarily with the same expectations on their vehicles or safety and so on, and we do not know who they are. It is important to have that clarity for the safety of the public.
Sam Carling
Q
Tracy Brabin: I suppose the same question could be asked of the police and crime commissioner. The deputy mayor for policing and crime, Alison Lowe, is not directly elected by the public; she is accountable to me. I am the one directly elected, and we hold the chief constable to account. That is democracy. The outcomes from that individual will reflect on the impact that the mayor is having, good or bad, so that is about public scrutiny as well.
It is also helpful, if you are a strategic or combined authority, to have a good mix of partners. In West Yorkshire, we have three opposition members, so we are open to scrutiny and to challenge; that is where you can get the clear water of what is going on.
Donna Jones: On licensing and the taxi point, when I was leader of Portsmouth city council 10 years ago, we were one of the areas where Uber exploded first. We were a growth area for it on the south coast, but I think its registered office and its licensing for drivers was up in Wolverhampton or somewhere, so it was miles away and had no bearing on what I was trying to deliver in Portsmouth, in terms of signage on taxis and the uniformity we were trying to achieve.
On safety, and the point Tracy made about what we have been calling for as police and crime commissioners, I was calling three years ago for CCTV to be mandatory in taxis. What you could do, through Parliament, is to mandate that through separate taxi licensing regulation and law. Strategic authorities could play a part, if the licensing authorities remain, like local planning authorities, at the lowest level with the unitary authorities—as it will be after local government reorganisation. The strategic authorities could then have the right to call in or set some strategic licensing powers that the licensing authorities beneath them have to implement. That could be a way to address it.
Ben Houchen: On the commissioner point, I echo what Tracy says: ultimately, the democratic power of that is vested in the mayor. It is for the mayor to appoint, or not. That goes further than just commissioners, with the changes in the Bill around the establishment of mayoral development corporations, the appointment to the boards of those and the fact they can, if they choose, take planning powers, compulsory purchase order powers and so on. You are in effect appointing a board that the mayor appoints—nobody else appoints it; it does not have to be democratically elected, with the exception that there has to be a councillor from the authority where that development corporation is established. We have had some experience of that over the last couple of years in Teesside, as I am sure you are aware.
Ultimately, if you are not happy with that, or with the strategic direction that the mayor is setting for the board to follow, while individuals are not necessarily directly elected, the mayor is accountable. Therefore, if people are not happy with the commissioner, that can be shown through the ballot box at a mayoral election. Whether it is the night tsar or someone else—I apologise; I forget the one you said was appointed in Peterborough—ultimately, it is for the public to decide whether they are happy with how the mayor conducts matters and uses the powers given to them via the Government and Parliament.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Q
Welcome back, Mayor Brabin; I wanted to ask about some of the evidence we heard earlier from the District Councils’ Network. There was a concern that the legislation could undermine some of the traditional links between the public and their parish and town councils. I will ask for a brief answer, because I am aware that there are other Members who want to ask questions. For the two existing mayors, can you give an example of how you have managed to encapsulate the views of town and parish councils to help to guide you through your mayoral term, and whether there are any lessons that could be learned? Donna, have you started to think about how you will encapsulate that and make sure that people are listened to on a ground level politically?
Tracy Brabin: We have not been subject to much of that larger reorganisation, but we are determined to listen to the voices of others, whether through mayor’s question time, going out to the public, where councillors and individuals can ask any question, or “Message the Mayor” on the BBC, where anybody can ring in and ask any question. That also includes working with our voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, whether that is on the mayor’s cost of living fund, or working with smaller organisations on the impact in their communities, towns and villages. I would hope there would be a consensus in West Yorkshire that people felt heard.
I know for a lot of people there will be a sense that there is potentially a power grab and powers are going in the wrong direction. I absolutely believe that this is localism in its pure sense, because these people are elected by the public—275,000 people voted for a Labour mayor in West Yorkshire. You have that mandate. We have skin in the game. We know our communities, businesses, further education colleges, universities, innovators and entrepreneurs. We can definitely deliver for villages, towns and cities in our patch.
Ben Houchen: The honest answer is that, with the development of combined authorities and regional mayors, and a lot of reorganisation going on at county council level, as well as lots of unitaries—Teesside was one of the first unitary areas, many years ago—there are a lot of people looking over their shoulders at what reorganisation might mean. I say this as a previous town councillor and a former unitary councillor: I am not hugely convinced of town and parish council involvement at a regional level. There is a more fundamental question that should be asked around the modern need for town and parish councils in their current form. That is obviously well above my pay grade, and I am sure you will be considering that at some point in the future. It is not something I personally foresee getting much traction or involvement at a combined authority level.
Paul Holmes
I thought you might say that—thank you.
Donna Jones: I have represented my two counties, with 2.2 million people, for four and a bit years now. It is tough, because I have two large geographical counties; it would take me three and a half hours to travel from north to south of my patch, and I know colleagues have the same issue. If you are doing your job well and you are delivering, the press—the media, radio and TV—is your best friend. The power of being able to work with the press to get out the good news of what you are doing is very impactful. For mayors who have police under them, if the police are delivering and helping, that is another way of getting messaging out there.
On parish and town councils, I think that in my area, the rub will come with local government reorganisation, which thankfully is a year or two behind devolution—or planned to be one year behind it. I am trying to very clearly separate the two: this is about spending and more power to our elbow in Hampshire and the Solent, and that is about how we save money through local government reorganisation.
If I was still a unitary authority leader, facing the prospect of moving from 15 councils in my area to perhaps four or five, I would be consulting on parish and town councils, if we did not have them in the area that I represented. When you have four very large unitary authorities across a county such as Hampshire, which has 1.8 million people, the nucleus of your council becomes much further away from the village or town that you live in. Therefore, from a democratic perspective, getting things at that lower level to give real buy-in will be key.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Q
How do you understand those different areas? In my area, Wessex, there will be four counties, with two different police authorities and two different fire authorities, and the authority itself. It will all have to line up eventually. I am really concerned about how you can improve services for your residents, because that is what this is all about. It feels very remote when services such as police and fire might be very different in the New Forest compared with the centre of Portsmouth, the North York Moors or one of the cities.
Tracy Brabin: If I could just make the case for mayors and police and crime commissioners, we have had so many amazing opportunities because of those two responsibilities—the teaming and ladling of responsibilities and moneys, and being able to have a strategic police and crime plan. Crime does not just come from bad people; it comes from poor housing, a lack of skills and opportunity, and a lack of transport to get to jobs and training. The ability to bring together those responsibilities in a Venn diagram gives us really great outcomes.
One example is using money from the apprenticeship levy share scheme that would have gone back to Whitehall. We have kept some of that money in the region, including £1 million from Morrisons, to train up 15 PCSOs to go on my bus network and in bus stations, so that we can target my safety of women and girls plan. That opportunity is a gift. I know that the Mayor of South Yorkshire called an early election in order to get those powers, because he saw the opportunity. I also know that Kim McGuinness, who has been a PCC and is now a mayor, is desperate for PCC responsibilities, because she knows the benefit.
To your point, the challenge is coterminosity. I know that the previous Home Secretary was very focused on trying to identify how to get not just savings, but efficiencies, in coterminosity. Bringing fire into that makes a fair bit of sense. In West Yorkshire, we already have a really decent relationship between fire and police, so I am not sure whether having additional powers would make a substantive difference, but I will say to the Committee that mayors need to be in local resilience forums. Following the horrendous attack in Southport, the public, the Government and the press went to the mayor, but the mayor is not privy to all the information in the first instance. The resilience piece is really important, and I know the Bill is going to address that.
The Chair
Donna Jones, we have five minutes left for this panel.
Donna Jones: I will be very brief. While I was effectively advocating for my own job to go, I support what Tracy is saying, because it is about representing the public as best we can and spending taxpayers’ money wisely.
I will give you an example of why there is support for police and crime powers, as well as fire, going into a mayor’s office. One of the biggest frustrations that I have had as a police and crime commissioner has been the lack of ability to convene. I can convene with good will, so I can ask people and bring them together, but I get all different levels from different councils. Sometimes I get the director of children’s services or the director of adult social care coming to my strategic violence reduction meetings; sometimes I get the community safety manager.
Community safety partnerships are hit and miss in a lot of councils—you will know that from your patch. Some district councils see the benefit in community safety, and they still have their community wardens; in others, the emergency planning manager is doubling up as the CSP manager. PCCs have historically paid money towards the CSP manager and the functions that they are delivering, knowing that really, they are just propping up the council’s emergency planning management team, and there is not really a CSP at all. It comes together when, sadly, a baby has died or there is a need to convene a domestic homicide review. That still sits at the district council level, which is an oddity to me.
A whole load of things are aggravating factors. On the serious violence duty, for example, my requirement is to make sure that everyone who has a duty under that is fulfilling it, but I do not have a direct duty myself. I have to make sure that all the councils are doing what they need to do. Each year, I am given a pot of money from the Home Office to do the strategic needs assessment, and then I co-ordinate that and pass it back to the Home Office, on behalf of prisons, probation, the police and all my councils. Some councils turn up and play a part in that; some do not.
Giving the mayor the public safety commissioner role, so that what the councils are currently doing can be pulled through the mayor, and so that the mayor has the right and ability to convene and make sure that people are working and fulfilling their duty to collaborate, will be a game changer. It will make communities safer. However, police moneys are ringfenced, while fire money is not—that is a matter for you.
In relation to local resilience forums, I completely agree. Baroness Jane Scott, who was Minister in the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, did a pilot about having sub-committees sitting under the main LRF executive, which is politically led, to brief MPs and council leaders on the highest risks that the council chief execs are working on with all the statutory agencies. We were not one of the selected areas, but we have decided to go ahead and set one up in my area and, as the police and crime commissioner, I am currently chairing it.
Ben Houchen: There has been a huge Government push, in recent months, to try to get the co-ordination and coterminous boundaries to match, because this Government have definitely doubled down on the idea that mayors should be both police and crime commissioners and in charge of the fire authority.
It probably does not surprise many people in this room that I am one of the exceptions among pretty much all the mayors that are currently elected. Again, for me, it comes back to the strategic point. It is not particularly about the police; it is about the role of the mayor and the role of the combined authority. I personally believe—and I would say this, would I not?—that one of the reasons many of the combined authorities have been so successful is because we have a very narrow remit, which is largely economic regeneration, investment and job creation. That obviously links in to things such as transport and skills, and there is therefore a logical argument to take that further to health, policing and fire and so on.
I would go a different way. If it were me—as I have said, it is not me and it will not be me—I would not give us such broad powers. I would not give me police or fire. What I would give me is more powers over the things I already have a remit for. I would go deeper, rather than broader.
I would therefore try to build into a Bill the need and requirement for better consultation and co-ordination with other democratically elected leaders. The LRF is a perfect example of better co-ordination. The mayor should be on the local resilience forum—that is just a miss, because we are brand new. It does not mean that we have to take over the local resilience forum and be in charge of it all; I think the concept goes beyond that. Obviously, I would say that, as a small-state Conservative, because the more powers you give us, the broader, the more bureaucratic and the less effective we become. Keeping us narrow, but giving us more powers in relation to what we have control over, rather than just broadening it out, will give you better outcomes from us. As I say, I know that I am the exception to the rule in that opinion.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Q
Tracy Brabin: I am the Mayor of West Yorkshire because there was not a one Yorkshire, so I would say that it is for local people to decide.
Donna Jones: The Government have made a commitment to have all of England in a devolved deal by 2029. If the Government want to deliver on that mandate, which they ran on in the general election, I think that they have no choice but to intervene.
Ben Houchen: I think we are now at a stage where Government need to force it.
The Chair
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all our witnesses for coming and answering the questions. We now move on to our next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Andrew Goodacre and Allen Simpson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Andrew Goodacre, chief executive officer of the British Independent Retailers Association, and Allen Simpson, deputy chief executive of UKHospitality. For this panel we have until 3.10 pm.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Q
Andrew Goodacre: Looking at it from a wider view, we are largely supportive of devolution and what is in the White Paper. If I put the retail lens on it, though, especially independent retail, which are the businesses that we represent, they will always ask, “What is in it for us?” There is a fear among those businesses that if you look at the national growth strategy, neither retail nor hospitality really feature in there as one of the eight key areas for investment and growth. I have not seen all the local growth plans. I have looked at the north-east and the west midlands one—that is where we are based—and largely those growth plans are aligned to the national growth areas. I understand that: the mayors, the areas and the regions want to create jobs that are skilled and well paid, and that grow the local economy by focusing on industries of growth.
You could argue that retail, and high street retail especially, has seen itself decline over the years as customer behaviour has changed, so I understand where the direction is, but there has to be a fear. If I was a shop owner now looking out, I would be saying, “Okay, I hear where you’re going to spend money. How does that work for me? How does that make a difference for me in my high street in Coleshill in the west midlands, near where I live?”—or in Solihull, or anywhere else in the UK that they might be?
If you look at the north-east plan, I do not see high streets mentioned once—I have only scan read it; someone may be able to point me in the right direction—and in the west midlands plan, I see priority high streets mentioned. Priority high streets are where they are planning to invest and create jobs, so they recognise the need to invest in high streets in the areas where they are creating jobs. I am not sure where that leaves the others. If you look at it purely from a retail point of view, there has to be a fear that the focus on high-tech, highly skilled jobs and on creating in the local economy will create pockets of success, but it will also create pockets of neglect as well, if we are not careful.
Allen Simpson: I agree with that. The element of a local growth plan that I think is really positive is the word “growth”. Quite often, when we ask local communities what they want, we are talking to them about whether they do or do not want housing, but encouraging local communities to think about what sort of growth they want is really valuable.
I think you are right about the tendency that exists. Often, if you ask local political leaders what sort of growth they want, they will start talking about wanting to be a fintech hub. In an old life, when I was at a devolved organisation that used London mayoral money to drive economic development, I quite often used to get asked by people around the country how they could create a fintech hub in Devon, Dorset or wherever. I used to say, “You’re probably not going to. You’re likely not going to succeed, but there are industries that you can develop.” That might have been agritech, agricultural tourism or food supply chains, depending on where they were in the country.
Your point about encouraging local communities to think about the role of hospitality and retail in driving quite visible growth is really powerful. There is something about the distribution of the value of growth that we would encourage local communities to consider. I happen to know your patch quite well—I am from Maidstone, so it is a world I know. If you look at the areas around the Kent coast, for example, which have done well over the last few years, the characteristic of the growth strategy has been to use hospitality, leisure and experience as a way of driving other forms of growth. Take Folkestone, for example, and the work around the Harbour Arm there, or Margate, or 20 years ago, Whitstable. With growth strategies that, first, ask how you make a place liveable and attractive, you find that you crowd in other forms of growth, which may be within the eight industrial sectors.
I am very in favour of local growth plans, because they help to encourage local communities to ask what sort of growth they want and to be pro it. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and if you ask people what sort of growth they want, you get an answer about what growth they want. If you ask people what other sorts of development they want, often you get an anti-development answer.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Q
Andrew Goodacre: I am really lucky in the role that I do. I get to visit places around the country. I have become involved with initiatives. Recently, there was an initiative from Visa, which sponsored the “Let’s Celebrate Towns” awards. I was judge for one section of the awards, which was about high streets that had been regenerated. Local areas had to put themselves forward, and we considered elements of the regeneration—partly digital, and partly how they have integrated transformation into their world and understood their target market. I have visited three of those places since in the last two months.
In fact, last month, I was in a place called Oakengates in Shropshire, near Telford. I visited Enniskillen in Northern Ireland, and I visited New Malden, a suburb in south London. Those are three different areas—three different socioeconomic places with different background foundations. What they all have in common is local pride, local involvement and local people making decisions. Not all of them are councillors or politicians, or sit on a local authority. New Malden was about a focus group looking at ways they could improve their status, being between Wimbledon and Richmond—often the forgotten part. They have created a fantastic cultural experience, because they have a large Korean population that is integrated very well into it.
If you go to Oakengates, it has a very simple local high street. It has a huge retail park near it, but it works well. The local council and local people work well with the local authority, and they receive funding. It has free car parking as a policy—no wonder there is a 94% occupancy rate on the high street against an average of 86%. Enniskillen has a business improvement district, which is funded by rate payers, although it is slightly different in Northern Ireland. Again, local people are proud of their high street. When I walked up and down, I saw only one empty unit.
It is about local people with pride in their area who really understand what they are trying to achieve. Each one has a different mission. New Malden wants to become a food centre and a tourist attraction in that respect. Enniskillen wants to build on the fact that it is the only island town in Northern Ireland and is worth visiting; it has so many fantastic local features. Oakengates wants to be a local place for local people, and not forgotten about despite the huge retail park next to it.
I see plenty examples of local people, if they are given a chance and the right involvement and engagement, being able to make the right decisions for their areas, because they really understand what they need. Sometimes they need help and guidance, and it is not always perfect. I am sure that if I really thought about it, I could think of some bad examples, but just recently I have had the privilege of seeing three where it works.
Allen Simpson: Great examples. I mentioned Folkestone as an example of somewhere that has regenerated incredibly strongly. That is, to some degree, non-replicable because one thing that has driven Folkestone’s success is a wealthy local man who has ploughed a lot of his personal wealth into regenerating his community—largely, from what I can see, for social purposes. Bootle is an interesting case study of a specific national Government grant being used locally to drive high street regeneration, with the intention of bringing in other sorts of business behind it. That has been quite successful. There is another example up in Aberdeen around the dock area, where a mixture of local businesses and—I think I am right in saying—council grants have reduced the cost of access.
A universal trend seems to be peppercorn renting, to the extent that an ex-industrial, brownfield site will be brought online. This was true in Peckham when the cocktail bar, Frank’s, opened above the Peckhamplex. I was young at the time, so it was 15 or 20 years ago. Low rents have two benefits. First, they allow businesses to take a risk on opening in an area where it is unclear whether there is live spend available to them. Secondly, those opportunities are open to local people. That is an important point, because the wealth generated tends to be returned to the community in quite a powerful way. I come back to the point that if you can get that right—and there are lots of examples of where it has been less successful—you get other sorts of economic activity crowding in. If it goes well, you have to manage questions of gentrification and how you keep the character of the local area, but that is a second-order concern for a lot of areas.
The Chair
Can I just ask you to keep your answers fairly short? We have two very important questioners coming up. I call the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
The Chair
Before you answer, can I ask you to direct your answers to the speaker or the Chair, rather than to each other?
Andrew Goodacre: Running a high street business, whether it be retail or whatever else, is expensive, and the costs are going up all the time. When you talk to those business owners, they will tell you that the three biggest chunks are labour, business rates and rent. If your rent is only ever going to go up because the lease stipulates it and there is no negotiation around that, irrespective of what the economic climate might be or what has happened in the local area to perhaps take footfall away to a different part of town, your business is left with ever-increasing costs and no power to change it. That just does not seem right.
If there is pain because of a change in the area, the landlord, the property owner, has to feel some of that as well. At the moment it is only ever faced by the commercial tenant who has a difficult decision to make: either they go with the higher rent in the hope that they can compensate for it or they leave the business. They should not be faced with that choice, in fairness. These are hardworking businesses. People have probably been running those businesses for many years. There needs to be a more sensible, mature conversation taking place between landlords and commercial tenants. I think it does happen; I think there are good examples of it. But if we leave it to best practice, if we leave it to the industry and good actors dominating, we will be waiting another 20 years and sat here moaning about upward-only rents, so we do need to remove it.
Allen Simpson: Two quick points on rent reviews. The first thing is that upward-only rent reviews also drive up business rates because of the link between rateable values and rents. So the Government’s intention to reduce business rates expenses for businesses relies on addressing upward-only rent reviews. They do bake in inflation in the way that you say. There is an A/B test here, which is that the pubs code, of course, banned them some years ago. That has increased the amount of time that the average pub tenant stays on site. It has not led, that I can see, to any other negative outcomes, so there is evidence that it does actually increase tenancy rates.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Andrew Goodacre: We touched on good examples, and we should look to learn from them. On local engagement, you need local leadership, but they need help sometimes. That help could be internally from the next level of authority up, or it could be from an external body. One body that I thought was beneficial to high street regeneration at a local authority level was the high streets taskforce that was set up as part of the Institute of Place Management for Manchester Metropolitan University. It has now ended as a body, although in name it carries on because stakeholders—we were one of those stakeholders—would meet on a quarterly basis to discuss opportunities, challenges, good news and bad news on high streets and high street regeneration. We would share those ideas and share them back with the high streets taskforce, and they would help that local decision making.
Quite often what you find is that people know what they want to do. They just do not quite always know how to do it. A think-tank independently managed and run could help them with that “how” and the implementation of their ideas. If you do not bring it back as it was, something similar would really help that local decision making, because sometimes the pride is there, the passion is there; they just do not always have the nous to make it work in the way they hoped for.
With regard to high streets, I see it from a retail point of view, but I recognise the fact that high streets are increasingly dominated by experiential elements—cultural, leisure, more hospitality driven—and I have no issue with that. It does mean that we need better change of use of some of the retail sites that become empty. I know planning is part of this whole issue, so speeding up the planning process is important.
Ideally, I would like to bring homes back into high streets where the possibility exists. There are some large, empty buildings. I live quite near Stratford-upon-Avon and I still go past a VHS store that closed in 2016. It is still empty. I find it remarkable that a landlord can let a big place like that stay empty for so long. We have not looked at the opportunity of what more we could do with that, or what we could do differently with that. If we can bring homes and people back into high streets as places where people want to live, preferably with affordable properties for younger people, I think you would start to create local economies that would drive some of those high streets as well.
Allen Simpson: The question is what level you devolve at. Clearly, we are all nimbys. Nimby is an irregular verb—you are a nimby; I am concerned about my local environment. There are circumstances in which we need to find ways of treating high streets like strategic infrastructure. There will be asymmetric benefits and costs if you live close to a high street or, as people used to, above shops—that is less common than it was—versus being in the surrounding community. Sometimes local politicians do need help. We have seen an approach to that in London that the Committee will have views on.
I am very much in favour of hospitality zones, which have specific licensing approaches, where there is some form of recognition that you get to a “yes” more quickly. There is a specific question around Andrew’s point about bringing people back into former high street or commercial areas, in the City of London or elsewhere, around agents of change. I am very in favour of placing a burden on developers to fit the development around hospitality, rather than buying a flat next door to a pub and then being annoyed that there is a beer garden, for which I have zero sympathy.
David Simmonds
Q
Andrew Goodacre: That is a good question. What works well at the moment is the business improvement district model. Where it falls down slightly again depends on the people involved. A good BID represents the voice of local businesses, which are paying through business rates, because the levy is on the business rate, as we know. What I saw in Enniskillen at that time was a BID that really listened to its stakeholders, shared ideas with them and took back the feedback. One of the things introduced there was an Enniskillen gift card that could be used in any shop in that area—ideal for the tourist market that it is trying to appeal to.
We should establish BIDs; the problem with them is that they can be very indifferent, in terms of their make-up and the quality of them. Again, the funding often becomes a point of contention because you are adding to business rates, which is already a massive point of contention for most business owners. In a way, I would like to see BIDs funded in different ways, through the devolution White Paper. Their performance would therefore be a bit more targeted. Part of their performance metrics should be the ability for them to show that they have engaged, understood and taken forward what local business people want, in my case, within their high street.
Allen Simpson: An observation: if you are looking to drive growth, by definition you are looking to bring in businesses that are not there or do not exist, so to some extent your problem is how you consult businesses that do not currently exist. To some degree, it is less about having consultation with specific businesses and more about having an approach that is pro the foundation of businesses in a given area. Clearly, there will be examples where licensing rules could be better consulted on so that existing businesses can expand, but I wonder whether it is less about consultation and more about taking a proactive approach to growth.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Q
Andrew Goodacre: I think it would be a shame if we lost some of those brands that people have worked hard to create. I think the visitor economy is so important. The most successful independent retailers are in those visitor economies, because people often visit looking for something different that you do not see in a chain store of a large retailer. Creating that identity is something that I hear all the time from successful places. They feel as if they are part of an identity—they have something around them that says, “Yes, we can buy into this.” The riviera example is a good one. It would be a shame if that local effort—that local sense—was lost. I think Falmouth is another good example. Falmouth has created its own essence of Cornwall within that place. You should not lose that. They are so important. It seems counterintuitive that a push for devolution to create more power at a local level means that you would lose local identities. That would be counterintuitive, so we need to make sure that does not happen. Actually, those should be reinforced with better funding.
Allen Simpson: I ran Visit London for five years, so I worked on this a lot. My observation is that the money is not there. Unless you are London, Edinburgh or, to a certain degree, Manchester, which has a very high-quality marketing agency of its own, the money just is not there to do it. Visit Kent has just gone bust. The ability to market a region—sometimes, we devolve the responsibility but not the money with it, and I think that is an example. Equally, not everywhere can be branded. I am not going to pick on anywhere in particular or have one of my regular digs at Essex, but where there is a solid local brand, at the moment, we do not have sensible ways of doing that—just mechanisms to do it. Visit Britain works quite hard internationally to disperse people’s awareness of the UK outside of Edinburgh, York, Lincoln and London, but towards a domestic market, which I think is largely what you are talking about, the exam question is, “What is the pot of money handed down to local communities to do it?” because it is incredibly expensive doing marketing.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, on behalf of the Committee, I thank both our witnesses for their evidence. We will now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Gareth Davies and Bill Butler gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Gareth Davies, Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office, and Bill Butler, chair of Public Sector Audit Appointments. For this panel, we have until 3.40 pm.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Gareth Davies: I will start, and then Bill can come in with some facts and figures on the current state of play with the firm’s contracts. First, it is important to say that, before I did this job at the National Audit Office, I was an auditor in local government, so in the past I have had a foot in both camps. Audit in the public sector is a fundamental part of our democracy; in local government, it is a fundamental part of local democracy.
Ensuring effective local accountability through independently audited council accounts, governance and value for money arrangements is a fundamental part of a healthy, functioning, tax-paying society. There is no doubt that we have run into some very serious problems with that in recent years, such as big backlogs of unaudited accounts. When those backlogs start to be cleared, at first we are seeing disclaimed audit opinions, which are essentially the auditors giving no assurance on those accounts. That is an unprecedented and unacceptable position to find ourselves in for a significant amount of public money. People have a right to expect audited accounts as a bare minimum when they pay their council tax and business rates, so this is a big system failure that needs fixing as quickly and robustly as possible. That is my starting point.
The obvious question is: why has this happened? Unusually, we have a natural experiment in the UK on this. No other devolved country has the same problem as England, with a failure of local government accountability and audited accounts. Everybody has had a pandemic and changes in auditing standards and so on, but only one country has dismantled its audit machinery and expected it to function nonetheless. Those changes were not implemented in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so we do not have to look far for the explanation. That is why I welcome the creation of the Local Audit Office in the Bill. It is the right measure to correct that problem. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. We will want to explore what else will be necessary.
The reason it is necessary is that it brings back together the essential functions that make for a robust audit regime. That includes letting the contracts with the firms to do the work, specifying that work; holding the firms to account for delivery on time and to the right quality standard; supporting the firms with technical advice and help with tricky issues, many of which we are seeing across local government; and robustly speaking with local government about where problems need to be fixed.
It also includes working as a partner with local government to improve the quality of accounts, and make them less burdensome to local authorities and more useful to taxpayers and businesses. There is a big agenda beyond just the creation of the Local Audit Office—it is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.
Bill Butler: I should also declare an interest, although mine is slightly more historic than Gareth’s. I spent 35 years in local government audit before I escaped. As you can see, Chair, I have been dragged back. I hope I am not going to sound too much like an echo, but I agree with everything that Gareth said. The effective audit of public bodies, which are funded by compulsory taxation and not by voluntary shareholders, is fundamental to proper democracy, governance and the financial credibility of English local government.
The world looks down on the large number of disclaimed audit opinions. We should not underestimate what bankers in New York and the large accountancy firms are thinking. When they look at that, they cannot comprehend how we have ended up in this position. We therefore strongly welcome the commitment to reform, the changes in the Bill and the creation of the Local Audit Office.
We particularly like the fact that it will reestablish a co-ordinated local audit system, and bring together responsibility for audit appointments, the code of practice, audit quality and the performance of auditors, because local government audit is in a very bad position. The only option available that anybody could think of to tackle the increasing backlog of delayed accounts was to disclaim opinions. It is really important that we do not replace a backlog with disclaimed opinions. Currently, there are 273 bodies that have received disclaimed opinions—51% of the bodies in England and Wales that we are responsible for appointing to. That is up to ’23-’24. Of those, 236 are for two or more years, and 53—that is 11%—are for four or more years. In total, that means there are 716 sets of accounts in English local government for which there is no assurance from the auditors. Gareth did not mention this, but it also affects his opinion on the whole of Government accounts, which he has had to disclaim owing to the disclaimers in local government, which affect and knock on to the credibility of Government across the country.
We also think that there is a risk to the broader proposed local government reform because of the bad apple in the barrel. If you are constituting a new authority and you are incorporating an authority with a number of years of disclaimed opinions, sorting that out will get in the way of the effectiveness of those bodies at exactly the time when you want them to be focusing on their new responsibilities and opportunities. I will say the same thing as Gareth, but in a slightly different way: we cannot envisage a solution without the Local Audit Office, but it is not the solution. Bold action is required to cut through the Gordian knot that exists at present. The sector seems unlikely to resolve the underlying issues without, as Gareth has made clear, support both to those bodies preparing accounts and to those auditing the accounts.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Gareth Davies: The first would be skills and capacity. This sector has suffered from a loss of skilled expertise. Public audit is not interchangeable with company audit; it is a specialist field—you are auditing political institutions and reporting in the public interest. It is a different skillset, with some common areas with the rest of the auditing profession, and it attracts people who are interested in how public bodies become successful and how they achieve value for money, and so on. The pool of experts in that area has reduced sharply, so the system faces the challenge of building up that body of expertise and skills.
It is not just the auditors. In the past, the auditors did a lot of the training, and people then went on to careers in local government, the rest of the public sector and other sectors. It was a breeding ground for the finance function of local authorities. Individual local authorities cannot typically sustain large training programmes of accountants on their own, so having a regime that supports the development of that skillset is vital.
The other essential is getting hold of local government financial reporting and radically simplifying it, streamlining it in a way that can still be incorporated into the whole of Government accounts. That is always the caveat, and the reason for some of the complexity, but I do not believe that it is an impossible task. At the moment, the accounts are too easily dismissed as only of interest to the auditor because they are long, complex and quite difficult to follow in many places. There is no reason why we should put up with that. I know the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the wider profession have started work on what professionals think would represent a high-quality, meaningful financial statement that would clearly explain to taxpayers how we have used their resources.
There is a danger that everyone focuses only on the council budget and ignores the accounts. That is dangerous, because the balance sheet matters as well as annual expenditure.
Bill Butler: I can save quite a lot of time by saying that I agree with all of that. This may happen on a number of occasions, and we have not shared briefs. If you start with those who prepare the accounts, that needs to be revitalised. It is moribund, and people are looking at the scale of this task and finding it difficult. Some of this can be the support that Members and Ministers can bring to bear in terms of its importance, because—again, echoing Gareth—it is not considered to be interesting and it is too easily put aside, but that is not going to get any better. There is a real risk that it will get worse unless preparers are properly supported, and unless it is clear what revisions are possible to make the accounts simpler and deliverable.
There are issues around how we encourage colleagues who work in the audit firms. That is a broader issue, because they are bound by the technical standards imposed across the firms by their relationship with the Financial Reporting Council. However, at the moment, that seems occasionally to act as a block to overcoming that risk. We need to be honest about the fact that that risk assessment is there and about what we can do around it.
As Gareth said, we have been looking, with CIPFA, at reforming local government accounts for some considerable time. The clock has now ticked down, I think. One of the things I hope for is that the commitment shown to reform so far carries on across these broader areas, not of all of which are susceptible to legislation, but all of which would be, I hope, susceptible to encouragement.
Gareth Davies: I would like to add one other thing, because an important bit of the full picture is governance arrangements in local authorities. I know that the Bill includes provisions on audit committees, but it is important that local authorities have robust audit committee-type arrangements. I am not prescriptive about exactly what form they should take, but meaningful engagement with internal and external audit and a connection to the governance of the authority as a whole through its political leadership are essential to good governance. That means having somewhere where difficult questions can be asked and answers gained.
In quite a few of the disasters we have seen in local government finance in recent years, it is the governance arrangements that are primarily at fault in not picking up on excessive risk-taking and lack of understanding of the nature of the risk being taken on, and so on. It is another example of where a more robust audit system will not, on its own, solve everything—although it will definitely help, because it will bring those questions to the audit committee table—but the audit committee itself needs to be a functioning, robust and effective part of the governance of the authority.
Bill Butler: If I may say so, these are not things that can wait for the Local Audit Office, which has a massive task to perform anyway. If we wait, these problems become intractable, and the organisation’s chances of succeeding, if it has any at all, are very low,. They are issues that need to be addressed now, while we have the opportunity and—I hope everybody agrees—a pressing need.
David Simmonds
Q
In a local authority, there is the collection fund, which essentially covers all the income that it is due to collect, then there are pension schemes, the dedicated schools grant, the housing revenue account and the parking revenue account, where there are slightly variable legal ringfences. All of those pose risks and many of them are impacted by elements of the devolution proposals affecting who will be responsible for decision making and what that revenue might underpin in terms of borrowing or day-to-day expenditure. Will you give us a sense, from your experience, of what the risks are, what the potential opportunities are and where changes are needed to, for example, the ringfences, and your views on the inclusion of the dedicated schools grant in the annual, legal council tax-fixing process, which might help or hinder the proper management of some of those financial risks.
Gareth Davies: Do you want to go first, Bill?
Bill Butler: Yes, then you can agree with me.
The Chair
We heard that!
Bill Butler: I think the nature of those statutory balances is actually one of the significant things in how we handle the disclaimers, because they are a part of the mechanism that is different from a balance sheet outside of local government. Of course, because they are statutory, that does mean that they are amenable to change.
On how they will affect the broader issues, it depends on where you are, because there are still quite a lot of places where there are no problems and where you can deal with it. The problem arises, as I alluded to earlier, when there is a bad apple in the barrel. We have seen in previous reorganisations that bringing on board a set of accounts and an organisation that is not on top of those things—where there is no assurance about where those boundaries have been set—poisons the water across the whole thing.
If you have one district coming into a newly constituted authority or organisation, the whole of the account will cause problems. That problem tends to be long standing in nature; the people who might have been able to help you resolve it have gone, and the attention is focused elsewhere. It is impossible to say, other than on a case-by-case basis, how that would impact things, but my view—our view, I think—would be that if those issues can be addressed and clarified now, that will lead to a better situation. If you have places with four years’ worth of disclaimers, finding a way through the statutory balances is will be fundamental to avoiding problems down the line.
Gareth Davies: All I would add is that, in a way, that is a good example of the accreted layers of complexity that now represent local government accounts. There was a strong argument for each ringfence when it was created, but when you stand back, the total picture is now very messy and complex. This is an opportunity to take stock and say, “Which bits of this actually serve our purpose now? Is there an opportunity here for simplification?”
As Bill says, some of these are statutory balances, which can be determined by Government, and that may be one way of accelerating the restoration of proper audit opinions, for example. Rather than the auditor agonising over questions like, “Where do I get the assurance over this statutory balance? It’s not been signed off for many years,” using the statutory process for determination of the balances might be part of the solution. Of course, there are all sorts of downsides with that kind of thing, but it is important that we are clear about how long it will take to get to a properly constituted set of accounts for a new organisation.
Bill Butler: Striving for something that is good, rather than pursuing excellence and achieving nothing, is fundamentally important.
David Simmonds
Q
Secondly, in respect of specific funds, in debates around devolution, it is often argued that, for example, there should be freedom to spend the proceeds of the parking revenue account beyond the current constraints—that the revenue, for example, should be used to prop up social care, or whatever it may be, in a way that it simply cannot within the current legal framework. Do you have any views about decisions or tweaks that the Bill should make to those arrangements, based on the risk and assurance issues you have outlined?
Bill Butler: Not from where I sit. It is a policy area that I would avoid, although I understand why you would ask the question.
Gareth Davies: Yes, I am required to avoid it. The reason I am here today is to discuss public audits, essentially, rather than policy decisions on those kinds of financial matters. Clearly, there is a point at which the two things meet, which is really where we are talking now, but it is not for me to give a view on what should or should not be in a ringfence.
David Simmonds
Q
Bill Butler: There is a standard basis for it standardisation and simplification so that you can move between sets of accounts. It seems hugely sensible. Interestingly, I can remember having similar discussions in the early 1980s, when I first qualified, with the then Department of the Environment’s technical advisers. We have made some progress. Yes, the inconsistency is odd. As Gareth said, it causes problems for auditors as well, because they move between places. It does not help the underlying problem that we have been discussing.
Vikki Slade
Q
Gareth Davies: I work with the current Public Accounts Committee in Parliament. In that set-up, it is an essential part of the effectiveness of the accountability system. I have seen how the Committee works, and it works extremely well on a non-partisan basis. It has a hugely dedicated membership pursuing accountability across government, so it is a very effective model in the House of Commons. Such a body is normally positive in local government in the context of combined authorities—that is where I have seen it mentioned most. As I said earlier, having an audit committee in every local authority is an essential part of good governance. Questions like, “Are we managing the risks to the organisation effectively? Are the controls that we think we have in place operating as intended?” are the meat and drink of an audit committee agenda.
Where a local public accounts committee might have an effect would be in looking across the public service landscape—say, at a combined authority or sub-regional scale, in Greater Manchester, in the west midlands or wherever. I think there is a gap there at the moment. One of my last roles before I stopped auditing local government was auditing the Greater Manchester combined authority; it was ramping up in scale at the time, and it was getting to be very significant, including some health spending and so on. As we know, it is the most developed of the devolved set-ups at the moment. I can see how, in that arena, a local public accounts committee would add real value by looking beyond the institution, which an individual audit committee cannot do, and by looking at value for money in the sub-region. If that is what we are talking about, it would be a body that we in the National Audit Office could engage with in order to follow the public pound from national policy making, through to sub-regional infrastructure and so on, and through to council delivery. All parts of that are important, including right at the individual local authority level.
Bill Butler: I have nothing to add.
The Chair
Do you agree with Gareth?
Bill Butler: I do. My only plea at the moment is that what we have got does not work, so that may be an aspiration.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Q
Gareth Davies: My view is that they are part of the local government landscape. They should be properly audited as part of the local government landscape, and the strengthening that this Bill brings to local government audit needs to apply to those parts of local government as well. I certainly would not try to lift them out of the local government set-up and make them subject to the National Audit Office. We are absolutely national; it should be the Local Audit Office that has a remit for mayoral corporations. I think this is less about the structural picture than about strengthening the local audit arrangements so that every part of the local set-up is audited effectively, including those.
Andrew Cooper
Q
Gareth Davies: As we have said, it is not going to be quick or easy, but this is the right approach. It is just going to need substantial application of shoulder to the wheel and strong leadership of the new Local Audit Office, when that is created. That will make a big difference because it will have a loud voice in this area of work, and all the levers necessary to acquire the capacity required to perform to a high standard and to restore proper accountability. Even though we know that will not be easy, and we have explained why it is not simple, I think that is the right approach.
Bill Butler: This is getting tedious, but I agree with Gareth. It is a local issue. It is fundamentally important that we recognise that these are local democratic bodies and that the Local Audit Office, and auditors, need to operate independently from them and without unnecessary interference from anywhere else. The job needs to be done properly, and framework in the Bill for reforming local audit is exactly the right direction to go.
As I think we said, we need to address a number of environmental issues now to see that benefit. The risks you described apply to all 716 sets of unassured accounts. In my experience in this area, although audit does not always find a problem, I find it difficult to believe that there are not significant problems lurking where audits have not been completed. I hope there are not many. I would be delighted, but very surprised, if there were none.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Q
Gareth Davies: It is about the person and their skills and approach more than any office they hold or party they come from. You need the right approach and the right skills to do a good job. I have seen elected politicians fulfil that role brilliantly. The reason I said what I said is that I am a bit suspicious of anything that says, for example, “We must have an independent chair who is not a member of the council.” The audit committee is there to be part of the council’s governance arrangements. If it is too independent of the council, it does not engage with the machinery of running the council or influence the decision makers sufficiently, in my experience. If it is entirely made up of members who, with the best will in the world, do not have the skills required to perform a role that sometimes has technical elements, that model also has weaknesses.
The best models I have seen consist of a cross-party committee of members who are very interested in getting value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring that controls are operating properly across the council, and in ensuring that the council is maintaining public trust; you need people with those kind of motivations, supplemented with some independent membership. The chair does not necessarily have to come from that independent membership, but it must be somebody who is prepared to read all the accounts and ask difficult questions about why a surprising number has appeared out of nowhere.
That is why I would not be prescriptive. You need a mix of skills around the table and the committee must be connected to the leadership of the council, so that difficult messages coming out of the audits are relayed to the decision makers, raised in full council if necessary, and certainly raised with the executive or the mayor. That linkage needs to be clear and fully operational for it to work properly.
Bill Butler: That is not different—
The Chair
We are going to finish.
Bill Butler: I will be brief. I have chaired quite a few audit committees, but not in local government. A good audit committee works. It ensures that the organisation operates effectively by being part of it, while everybody knows that if it has a problem, it will voice it and it will be trusted. That is what you are looking for in any audit committee.
The Chair
Thank you both very much for being the guardians of the public purse. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you again for your time and for all the work you do for us.
Examination of Witness
Mark Stocks gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Mark Stocks, head of public sector assurance at Grant Thornton UK. For this panel we have until 4 pm, unless we are interrupted by a vote—I am sorry about that, Mr Stocks.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Mark Stocks: I have done this for a rather long time. I was an auditor with District Audit back in the day, then with the Audit Commission, and I am now with Grant Thornton. I have seen quite a lot of changes. The division of the Audit Commission duties has probably been the most impactful change, because it has created quite a confused landscape in terms of what the priorities are. The National Audit Office maintains responsibility for the code, which sets out the basis of our work, but our primary regulator has been the Financial Reporting Council, whose focus tends to be on the accounts. Public Sector Audit Appointments sets out the fees, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales decides whether we can act as a key account partner. That is quite difficult to cope with.
Throughout my whole history as an local auditor, the accounts have been important, but it has been equally important that I spend my time on value for money. I have to look at the financial sustainability of authorities, as well as their governance and performance. That has changed, to be candid, over the last 10 years. The code changed, so we spent less time on value for money. Then it changed again, so we spent more time on value for money. However, our primary focus in the last five years has been on the accounts, which has led to a confused environment in terms of how local auditors have acted.
In terms of what the Bill does, bringing in the Local Audit Office is crucial. Somebody needs to speak to the Government about the issues that auditors are seeing and what is actually happening out there, because some of the pressures on local government are quite immense. To be candid, I need somewhere to go and someone to speak to when I am concerned about what I am finding—someone who can say, “Let’s do this, or we’ll speak to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.” The changes in the Bill are crucial for a functioning local audit in the future.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Mark Stocks: You only have the private sector. It provides all of local audit now. We are used to working with the PSAA, so I do not see any issue in working with the Local Audit Office. It will make it easier; we will have a single code and a single arbiter of what quality is for a local auditor. I think that will be easier for us, as the private sector auditors, than it is now. I would not want the Committee to go away thinking that there is no commitment to this from the private sector. It was a difficult procurement the last time round, but the PSAA did manage to appoint sufficient auditors and we remain committed—I certainly remain committed—to a successful local audit system.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Mark Stocks: It is still fragile. I thought Gareth and Bill were accurate in what they said. We need to have more capacity so that we are not reliant on just a few suppliers. For that, there has to be consistency in terms of message. We need to get to grips with local authority accounts. If I went and did a set of NHS accounts, they are perhaps 100 pages long. The average local government accounts are 200 to 250 pages long, so the work involved is immense. That is why it takes longer, so we have to get that right.
We need to start to deal with some of the risks in local government, to be candid. It is quite difficult to deal with the breadth of what local government does. If you add on top of that the financial issues that they face and the issues that are asked of them in terms of policy, that layers on quite a scope for auditors, which means that we have to bring in specialists to do some of the work. I do not think that will get any easier under the current landscape.
David Simmonds
Q
Mark Stocks: Local government accounts are complex. These are highly complex sorts of businesses, if I can use that phrase, that deal with any number of services. What we see now are local finance teams who are stretched, to be candid. There has been a lack of investment in them over the years. Gareth talked about trainees going from the Audit Commission into local government, but that does not happen now. There is a bunch of people who are around 50, who may be disappearing in the short term, so we have to sort out the strength of local government finance teams. As I said, we also need to sort out the complexity of the accounts.
In terms of the standards, all local government accounts are under international financial reporting standards, and that will not change. That is a Treasury requirement. How that is interpreted and what is important in those accounts is open to judgment. The emphasis from the LAO on whether it is more important for us to audit income or to audit property will make a difference to what local auditors do. I would always argue that it is more important to audit income.
It is very difficult to standardise anything that we do, because local government is not standardised. I can take you from a district authority that spends £60 million, most of which is housing benefit, to an authority that spends £4 billion and has significant regeneration schemes and companies. The skillsets that you need and the ability to standardise is very difficult. You have to have the right skills to do the work.
Manuela Perteghella
Q
Mark Stocks: The Local Audit Office cannot look like the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission took a particular tack in terms of what it did and the level of scrutiny that it put on local government. If the Local Audit Office follows suit, which this Bill does not allow it to, I am sure there will be problems. But the way the Local Audit Office is configured in the Bill is to make local audit stronger. As long as the Local Audit Office sticks to that, I do not think there will be too much of a problem.
The Chair
We will continue this session for 10 minutes. We have 10 minutes’ extra time—no penalties.
Mark Stocks: I have one final comment, if I may. The Member was asking whether the Local Audit Office was going to come into contention with local government. Some of the things we do are contentious, such as when we issue statutory recommendations and public interest reports. One of the things I have missed in the last decade or so is the support of a body when we do something as difficult as that, because, as you can imagine, it is me against the authority, even though we have the firm there. I would hope and expect the Local Audit Office to be part of the decision making around public interest reports and statutory recommendations, which I think will lead to some contention with local government, because that is the difficult end of what we do. However, we need to do that, because sometimes things go wrong.
Sam Carling
Q
Mark Stocks: That is a good question. There is a remit for a local public accounts committee, but only one, if we do that. The NAO provides all the information to the national Public Accounts Committee, so it is then about how you co-ordinate that across local auditors to deliver the information for a public accounts committee to hold local government to account. Personally, I think that should be a long-term aim and aspiration. I would worry at the moment about whether there is enough capacity in local audit to support a public accounts committee. At the moment we have just enough of us to do the job that we are doing.
Sam Carling
Q
Mark Stocks: I think it depends on how you view it and how much detail you want to get into. The contentious parts of local government are where things like regeneration schemes go awry, or where there are management decisions that lead to claims against the council in some form or another. Those tend to be national issues. I agree that to delve down into each one for an authority would be enormous, but looking at things in terms of thematics—how councils are coping with children’s social care, adult social care, regeneration or some of the Government policies—would I think be possible at a national level. Again, if you started to push it down into local committees, it is about who provides the information. That is always going to be the difficulty in having those committees.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, on behalf of the Committee, I thank you for coming to give evidence, Mr Stocks.
Examination of Witnesses
Zoë Billingham and Professor John Denham gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Zoë Billingham, director of IPPR North, and we welcome back Professor John Denham, professorial research fellow in the department of politics and international relations—that is a long title—at the University of Southampton and director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics. We will have until 4.40 pm for this panel.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Professor Denham: Thank you very much, Minister. It is absolutely crucial that the Bill underpins a really robust legal framework for devolution if it is to last—it cannot be for one Parliament. I will talk today about work that I have developed with Sir David Lidington—so that was a Labour Minister and a Conservative Minister coming together to say, “You need to have a consensus that lasts; otherwise, the Government changes.”
This is where I would say we are at the moment: there are many good things in the Bill, but there are some real areas of weakness that could lead to it being undermined quite quickly. It depends on financial commitments to integrated settlements and long-term funding, which are not even mentioned in the Bill. The Bill creates no forum in which finance can be discussed between strategic authorities and central Government. One of the ways in which that could be mitigated, at least to some extent, is to put the mayoral council on a statutory basis. Mayor Brabin said earlier today, “Well, the mayoral council is where we talk about new powers for mayors.” The mayoral council is not in the Bill. If Ministers decided tomorrow that it was not going to meet any more, it would not. It has no terms of reference and no secretariat. The mayors have no legal right to put items on its agenda.
I would give that as one example of where things could be embedded much more deeply. Parliament would have to come back and say, “We are going to abolish it”, in order to stop that meeting happening. If that sounds very radical in our system, every other European nation with a devolved system of government has a layer between the devolved level and central Government. I would suggest that it will be of benefit to Ministers, too. It is probably possible to manage relationships with a relatively small number of powerful mayors, but when there is one for every part of the country, there will be a cacophony of people demanding special treatment for their areas. The ability to corral that into a proper process would be an advantage.
This has to be embedded. Prior to this, regional arrangements lasted for about 10 years before Government lost interest in them. If you want this to be here in 30 years’ time, doing the Bill, but adding to it, is crucial.
Zoë Billingham: I absolutely agree that it is essential that devolution through this Bill should be put on a statutory footing. I would highlight a few things that I think achieve that entrenchment, in addition to the legal aspect of that. First, the broadening and deepening is absolutely essential, with the right to request in combination with that, so that strategic authorities can decide what further powers they wish to request from Government. I agree with John that the integrated settlement is a really important entrenchment to give places the flexibility they need to demonstrate how different places make different choices about how they spend public money. That will be essential to showing how devolution can deliver differently according to the needs of different places.
The moves towards votes at 16 and returning to a supplementary vote system for our mayors is absolutely essential to broaden the number of people who can take part in in local democracy. I would urge the Committee to consider going further in a few areas in the Bill, to build on that entrenchment from a statutory footing. Fiscal devolution has so far been completely omitted from the Bill. We at IPPR North have been looking at options, including a visitor levy to start with, to start the process of fiscal devolution that we think will really help to mature the model that we have today. Accountability is another key area. I know that you have talked in previous sessions today about LPACs, and we absolutely agree that we need to beef up the accountability of mayoral combined authorities—that is a two-way street, but I am sure we can get on to it later.
Finally, in terms of public support, the flip side, if you will, of further empowering and rolling out devolution to the country is demonstrating to the public what devolution can deliver for them. The evidence shows that in places that have more powers and freedoms, voting turnout and engagement with local democracy go up, so we think it is important not just for the economy, but for democratic reform.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Secondly, we need to ensure strong scrutiny and accountability for any institution. We heard in the last session about some of the challenges with local government accountability and scrutiny. I am interested in your views on what we need to do to strengthen that and the provisions in the Bill to build on that.
Zoë Billingham: First, to your point on the democratic engagement of mayors, I do think, and I stand by the evidence that suggests this, that the more powers that mayors get, the more they are able to demonstrate to the public how they can tailor and do things differently in their places, according to what the public want. That is essential for the responsiveness of democracy; therefore, I also think that votes at 16 and the return to a supplementary vote are helpful additional aspects to this Bill, in terms of demonstrating that the Government are serious about broadening engagement with mayoral combined authorities.
I would also pick up the proposal in the Bill for neighbour area committees. Something along those lines is essential. We know that, as currently drafted, the Bill is proposing full unitarisation of local authorities to a 500,000 population level, which is far larger than we see in local government in our European counterparts, for example. There is a question about how those unitaries engage with those communities, not on an ad hoc basis, but as an ongoing community conversation. I wonder whether, for instance, the neighbourhood area committees could be predominantly made up of community representatives and young people, so that they do not replicate the district level that the Bill proposes to abolish, but instead create an ongoing, democratic renewal at that local level.
Secondly, to pick up your point on scrutiny, this is essential. If you speak to local leaders, mayors included, they are absolutely game for it. It is not something that central Government are imposing; it is an essential part of both enabling the further devolution of power and resources, and ensuring that the current model is not undermined because there is not enough scrutiny in place for what is already there. I totally support the proposal for a local public accounts committee—we have built on that idea ourselves at IPPR North, looking at mayoral accounts committees, which bring together overview and scrutiny, and local public accounts committees.
We think that those committees need to represent place leadership; this is no longer narrow lines of inquiry about certain budgetary lines or solely about audit. It must be much broader. This is about place-based leadership, not only by the mayor and the mayoral cabinet, but by other public leaders locally who could be brought in front of such committees. We think that is a really important thing to go hand in hand with the future of devolution.
Professor Denham: May I pick up and develop a couple of those points? There is no doubt that the Bill has a danger of an upwards movement of power: things are being moved from local authorities to strategic authorities and mayors have more autonomy. I understand why that is being done, but the Bill needs to build in a healthy counterpoint to that. I, too, would go beyond the neighbourhood governance proposal, which sounds a bit narrow and a bit prescriptive, as though the same model will work everywhere.
Sir David and I proposed what we called community empowerment plans, and we proposed them even when we did not know there was going to be local government reorganisation. The strategic authorities should have a legal duty to set out how they will engage with local people across the whole range of activity—I should have declared an interest, in that I am the honorary president of the Hampshire Association of Local Councils—
Paul Holmes
Hear, hear!
Professor Denham: So I am familiar with town and parish councils, and there are some very good ones, including in Mr Holmes’s constituency. But they are not uniform everywhere within the area, so a single prescriptive approach is unlikely to work.
There has also been, in the last 10 or 15 years, a transformation in our understanding of deliberative, participative engagement with local communities by many local authorities. We need both the strategic authorities and the unitary authorities to set out, in a document that should be challengeable, how they propose to do that. I think that would be useful.
Secondly—I will embarrass her—Zoë has written the best policy paper on local public accounts committees, so I will not say any more about that, except that I agree with Gareth Davies in an earlier panel: the challenge here is not local council audit, but the whole of public spending across a mayoral area. I was delighted to see the new Secretary of State backing the concept of total place, which is something I was involved in as a Minister 15 years ago; but, if that is going to work, you cannot combine that with upwards accountability to departmental accounting officers.
Local authority scrutiny has very good people, but it is not up to the job. You have to create a new local institution, the local public accounts committee and, picking up on what Mayor Houchen said earlier, make the chief executive within the area the local accounting officer. So you have a complete audit model at local level that is not then channelled upwards through departmental accounting officers. I think that is what we need to work towards. Those two things would not only empower local people, but ensure that you have local scrutiny of what is being spent and what is being done with their money.
The Chair
Could that paper be sent to the secretariat and circulated around the Committee?
Zoë Billingham: Certainly.
David Simmonds
Q
And to come to the point that both of you have touched on, the Bill as drafted assumes power upwards to mayors, and it introduces a raft of powers—in chapter after chapter of the Bill—whereby the Secretary of State will direct the mayor and the authority, requiring them to produce various strategies. In a country that is already very centralised anyway, how do we develop and encourage local leaders to come forward in a context where there will be significantly fewer roles for them to fulfil, and where those roles will be significantly more constrained than they have been used to?
Professor Denham: Let me break that down into a number of sections. First, on local government reorganisation and size, I will be straightforward: Sir David and I did not propose local government reorganisation. We proposed creating what would now be called strategic authorities from what we generally call upper-tier authorities—the unitaries and the counties. I am not saying that there would not have been a need down the line to do something about what will be a messy system, but in terms of getting growth plans and those things up and running—I just put that on the record, because I am not going to get too far into the issue. However, if you are where you are at the moment, I would commend the idea of community empowerment plans and a proper legal framework for devolution below those levels.
What I would say, though, is that there is a level of devolved function that needs to operate at the level of strategic authorities. If you are going to have really good local growth strategies, and if they are going to tie into a national industrial strategy, it could not be done, say, at the level of a city such as Southampton, where I was an MP for a long time. You need a bigger body. However you do it at the micro level, that strategic level must operate effectively.
To tie my threads together, if you go to other European countries with a higher level of devolution, they have an intermediate forum between the strategic body and the national, where these issues are thrashed out, best practice is worked out and, in a sense, the Secretary of State does not exercise their direction powers without discussing it with the mayoral council first. You actually say, “How is that going to work then? How is that power going to be used?” So building in that layer means the right sort of compromise between the desire of Governments to get on with things and the need to engage people at local level. That would be one way of dealing with it.
You are inviting me to say we should keep all the district councils, but I am going to pass on that one, because that was not part of our proposals.
Zoë Billingham: Let me just build on that and the question of scale. As John says, the proposed 500,000 scale of the unitaries post-reorganisation is very large compared with European counterparts, and that poses some big questions, not least whether the projected efficiency savings will be realised. However, town and parish councils still exist within the system, and we have previously done work that looks at what we call the hyper-local tier of governance. While they are imperfect bodies, there are improvements that can be built upon at that hyper-local level, in addition to having some sort of formal forum, as John says, to engage with communities.
If the neighbourhood area committee proposal continues as planned, I would really urge that to be—the majority—taken up by community leaders and young people. There are other ways that we can help to counterbalance this through democratic innovations. There was talk, for instance, about remote meetings and remote voting, which are not currently available. Especially when you speak to young people about why they do not engage with local politics, they say that meetings are at the wrong time and too far away, and if you do not have a car, you cannot get to them, especially in rural communities. So I think this could be a real opportunity to see how normal council business is done and improve on it.
Finally, to build on the point about participatory methods, it is about making sure that unitaries are committed to properly engaging with their communities on the big questions they face, and not seeing it as distancing from communities.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Q
In order for Cornwall to access the highest level of devolution, as the Bill is drafted, it requires the Government to breach article 16 of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. The Cornish are the only people in the UK that have national minority status but do not have access to the highest level of devolution. How flexible should the Government be when determining what powers different types of strategic authorities can exercise? Is there a case for exceptions in places such as Cornwall? I ask that you try to avoid the temptation to talk about identity—we can identify with lots of parts of the country and with football teams and pop bands—and talk more about national minority status.
Professor Denham: I confess that I am not an expert on the framework convention, so I am not sure I will address that from a satisfactory legal point of view. In terms of the devolution policy, it was always my view that whether to have a mayor should have been a local choice and not a national prescription. That boat may have sailed, but that was my view. Clearly, there are cases where mayoral leadership is seen by everybody as an advantage, but I think there was a case for having some flexibility over that.
The other thing that I think is worth exploring is that one size fits all is not always going to be the right arrangement. I would imagine that, in the case of Cornwall, there are some functions on which it is in Cornwall’s interest to collaborate very closely with Devon, and maybe the new Wessex strategic authority around strategic transport, and other areas on which you would not want to. There should be a way in the Bill—we have talked about the pooling of regional powers—to enable strategic authorities to build larger bodies with neighbouring strategic authorities when it is in their interest to do so, without requiring the agreement of central Government.
I suppose my in-principle answer to your question, which is very unhelpful to the Minister, is that maybe the choice whether to have a mayor should have been given more local discretion. As we are where we are, certainly I would like to see a system where Cornwall can build the sort of strategic authority it wants but also have the benefits of collaboration across the south-west peninsula, or whatever, on areas of common interest and where everybody might benefit from having a regional rather than a county-based approach.
Zoë Billingham: I speak only from the experience of pan-northern collaboration, which has changed and been flexible, and has taken the form of transport co-ordination. Its latest guise is the Great North, which is a great innovation and a great step forward for northern leadership. I think that is an example of how flexibility should be offered to all parts of the country where they see benefits beyond devolution just in their patch, so to speak.
I think you speak to a larger point about inconsistency in devolution. As many have said, it is very much building the plane while it is flying, and I think we need to be comfortable with that. We are far behind many of our OECD counterparts in terms of decentralising power. We are yet to settle on a model, and we should not settle on a very rigid model at this stage; we should be open to it being flexible in the future. I am sure that the Bill will be a very important first step in this Parliament, but it should by no means be the last word; the question of how devolution is taken forward in this country will need to be revisited on an ongoing basis.
Professor Denham: It might be worth exploring in Committee whether the right to request powers is sufficiently broad. For somewhere like Cornwall, even if you are currently on the lowest tier, you could none the less have the right to request powers specific to Cornwall, for the reasons that you want. There may be scope in the Bill to create something that does not necessarily guarantee you what you want, but gives you a route towards it.
Kevin McKenna
Q
One of the concerns that has been raised locally is that, by replicating the electoral and political structure of Kent and having Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone, which are very different types of towns, predominate the political nature of the mayoralty, we will just replicate the same problem and our needs in terms of economic development, and therefore social support and social economics, will be overridden. Effectively, we can be categorised as a little bit of the red wall in the south-east of England. One of the dangers to me is that we—
Kevin McKenna
Sorry, Ms Vaz—there is. What do you think we can do when setting up mayoral authorities to prevent aberrant areas—I say that in a very positive way—within a broader, more homogenous mayoral district from being neglected?
Zoë Billingham: We have some similar dynamics in the north, where certain combined authorities comprise some areas of low and modest incomes and some areas of great wealth, so some parallels can be drawn. Setting and influencing early mayoral priorities is really key. While in the north-east there are some areas of great wealth, Kim McGuinness’s priority is child poverty, and she has made that very clear. Obviously, that speaks directly to the areas of the north-east that suffer most from high levels of deprivation and child poverty. The initial setting of the mayoral agenda is absolutely essential in that.
Professor Denham: I recognise a lot of what you say, because I live in Hampshire. We have Southampton, Portsmouth and the island, which was mentioned earlier and is completely different.
There are two things that are crucially important. First, the unitarisation approach must be sensitive to those local geographies. Simply forcing people into a 500,000 unit because, mathematically, that is what came out of a PwC report two years ago would be counterproductive if that meant you lost the focus on those areas. That is a part of it: we need sufficient flexibility in the unitarisation approach.
The second thing is to try to build in from the beginning the idea that not every combined authority needs to replicate the structures that evolved initially in Manchester and the west midlands around a centralised authority. There are different ways of structuring a combined authority, its functions and its leadership that recognise the different constituent elements in an area. If I have one concern at the moment, it is that because we are asking people to reorganise their district councils and create a combined authority at the same time, it is very hard to find the headroom for that creative thinking about, “How are the internal dynamics of this going to work in the future?”
That is two things. First, we need flexibility on unitarisation, so that you do not disappear into an area that does not understand your needs. That is replicated in cathedral cities and all sorts of places right across the country. Secondly, we need to look at structuring a combined authority that builds in an understanding of those different geographies from the outset, and does not necessarily create a superior tier of authority.
Zoë Billingham: May I add one more point? It is about interventions at the neighbourhood level. A welcome focus of the Bill is that, as you raised, there can be as much inequality within combined authorities as between combined authorities. Sometimes the intervention needs to be at the neighbourhood level, so that should also be introduced as a focus of the combined authority. The basis on which they intervene and where is also a useful way to address disparities within regions.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Q
On the democratic deficit, we are talking about getting rid of elected authorities. The response from you, Zoë, was, “Well, we can do some more consultation. We can have online meetings and votes at 16,” but how can any of that replicate a free and fair democratic election to a local council?
Professor Denham: I made my position clear: I think you might have needed to reorganise in future; I did not think it was the priority. But we are where we are. Personally, I am sceptical about savings materialising at the scale that has been said, because costs are always higher. If you followed what I suggested about having some flexibility in the size of the new unitaries, that undermines what was in the original proposal, but I think it is necessary for democratic reasons.
I would say, though, that we have never really taken a strategic approach to what happens below unitary and strategic authorities, even in areas that have only unitaries and strategic authorities. Everything I said about community empowerment plans, I would apply to met boroughs and to Greater Manchester and all the rest of it. It probably sounds particularly relevant because we have this process of local government reorganisation, but it should apply equally strongly to the duties that exist on current unitary authorities and strategic authorities. It is a national policy, rather than purely a local one.
Zoë Billingham: I would only add that, as John said, I am not sure there were many external voices calling for the abolition of district councils. It was seen as a quid pro quo, as I understand it, for the mayoral tier. As I stated previously, I am sceptical about the backroom savings that are considered to come with reducing headcount, office space and so on, but I will leave others to speak to that. As John said, unitarisation is not new, so there are examples of places that have tackled it well. We should look to those before thinking it is a foregone conclusion that it is not the right thing to do.
On democratic innovations, although the Bill challenges the current model, I think we should use this moment to consider what they are. Looking at voting levels at the last election, we just about got 50% of the country voting for MPs. At some of the local and regional elections, we mostly have less than the majority of the population coming out to vote. We can improve on the current system, and I hope this is a real opportunity to do that. That is why thinking about how people engage with democracy, why they come out to vote, and who comes out to vote is really important at this stage—especially with such a difficult political atmosphere in this country.
Maya Ellis
Q
Professor Denham: My view is that it would be reasonable for the legislation to enable Ministers to set out the broad parameters of the plans, but not to do that in a way that specifies exactly how it should be done in particular areas. It will vary: if you have strong town councils, you would sensibly build them in, but if you have communities that do not engage at all, you would use deliberative participation. People should be required to set out which tools they are going to use, why they are going to use them, how they would monitor the effect of that, how they will keep an eye on who is taking part in those processes, and so on. It is not just a slogan; it is a proper structured framework for doing it.
Zoë Billingham: I absolutely agree with that, and with allowing local tailoring. You are right; sometimes even community conversations can be captured by usual suspects. That is why using participatory methods on an ongoing basis is really important. We have seen some innovation in this space already through the mayors; they do mayoral question times, or invite young people to come in and ask them questions in a public forum. There are lots of ways it can be done.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you both very much for your erudite evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Richard Hebditch and Naomi Luhde-Thompson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Richard Hebditch, coalition co-ordinator at the Better Planning Coalition, and Naomi Luhde-Thompson, member of the Better Planning Coalition steering group and director of rights community action at the Better Planning Coalition. We have until 5 pm for this panel.
Siân Berry
Q
Richard Hebditch: I think the Bill could be a very powerful tool from a planning point of view. The ability to co-ordinate across housing, transport and planning is really important. As in the London model, which obviously you know very well, that can be very powerful. One thing that is interesting with the Bill is the comparison with London’s accountability. What has been really important in London is the fact that you have the directly elected Assembly, committee structures with powers, and active civil society and media. There is also the statutory passenger watchdog in London, London TravelWatch, of which I am a board member. There is a developed infrastructure to scrutinise what the strategic authority and the mayor do, and that is important. Particularly given the increased powers there will be for strategic authorities elsewhere to call in planning applications and have mayoral development bodies, it is important to have that level of accountability.
Siân Berry
Naomi, do you have anything to add?
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: I could mention a little bit about public participation, but I do not know if you have a question on that later.
Siân Berry
Q
Richard Hebditch: As I mentioned, these are potentially very powerful bodies, as the Bill collects powers and duties from other legislation, rather than being a stand-alone piece of legislation. The health duty is potentially important. We would like to see duties around climate and nature. Those are long-term issues; they are not the kinds of things where, as a mayor or an authority, you are under short-term pressure—or, necessarily, pressure from central Government—to deliver, but they are really important. In the collection of duties from elsewhere—on local transport plans, for example—there are duties to have regard to national policy, but not in terms of the exercise of your functions, so these strategic authorities will be powerful delivery bodies in their own right, not simply as plan-making and strategy bodies, which makes it important to have those climate and nature duties as well.
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: The Labour Government in Wales introduced a different format in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—a public authority duty. It has a series of goals, and each public authority has to carry out those duties in relation to their functions. I should declare that I am a member of the Eryri national park authority, so I have a very close view of how this is actually carried out. It comes to the point about where the public interest is in the proposals in front of us. There is growth and a bit about health, but where is the public interest? It does not seem to me to be properly explained or described in the Bill that this is all about delivering on the public interest—what is the Government’s role in doing that?
There is a bit of confusion between the two Bills. Look at the health duty in this Bill and then look at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is obviously in the Lords at the moment. There is no consultation for health groups in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but there is a health duty on the combined county authority. It is just not connected. On the spatial development strategies, it is not particularly mentioned as a group, but there is a duty on the CCA, so it is really important to examine the connection between the two a bit more closely.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
At the community level, we obviously want to build in a way that is sustainable, but we need to make sure that there is public consent. I am interested in how we ensure that strategic planning powers sit alongside community engagement and community consent to make sure that there is a whole place sense of the direction of travel and the development that needs to happen, in a way that builds public support.
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: On public participation, the UK is a signatory of the Aarhus convention. Article 393 of the trade and co-operation agreement is really clear that when you are doing something that has an impact on the environment you must have a proper process of public participation. It must happen at an early enough time to influence the outcomes; otherwise, what is the point of having people involved? You are literally just asking them, “What colour do you want the gates to be?” You are not asking them to be involved in the full decision.
The issue that you have here—I will talk about the products that are produced—is that, if you look at the spatial development strategies, it specifically says in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, in proposed new section 12I of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004:
“No person is to have a right to be heard at an examination.”
That is completely the opposite of what you have on local plans: any person who makes representations must be given the opportunity to be heard in front of the examiner. That is not going to send out a strong signal that you actually want people to participate in the making of these spatial development strategies.
It is not a sell-out event to go to a plan examination, so I do not think that you need to be worried about that. I do, however, think that you need a right to be involved at that stage, and it cannot be at the discretion of someone else. I think that is one of the issues: if you have to wait for somebody else to give you consent or permission to enter that space, you do not have a right to enter it, because it is at somebody else’s discretion. That is why the formulation of such a right of access—a right to participate—is really important.
Your other point was about the duties, and how that is carried out. I would be really interested to see how the local growth plan is supposed to comply with, for example, the environmental principles policy statement. How does it combine with that? How does it combine with the spatial development strategy? What is the interaction there? It is quite complex, if you look at the organogram of the different plans that, if you are a member of the public, might affect and shape the place in which you live, and therefore what the purpose of all these plans are—whether they are there to achieve sustainable development in the public interest—and how you are supposed to get involved in influencing the outcome of the decisions that are made through these plans.
Richard Hebditch: It is probably also worth talking about the resourcing of all this. As people have discussed, we have the local government reorganisation at the same time. The new format for local plans, which are out of date, has new housing targets as well. Then we have the SDSs—spatial development strategies—on top of that. How do we make sure that we have the resourcing to develop all those things, which are happening at the same time? We then have wider planning reform, and we might have another planning Bill in the new year. There is a lot of potential chaos at the same time. I am sure the Government want to address that, and the resourcing for planners to develop the SDSs is very helpful, but there is a risk of not necessarily having a clear road map for how you get to that place. As I was saying, we are very supportive of the idea of spatial development strategies and the strategic layer, but the journey there is going to be quite chaotic. I think it would be good to look at issues around workforce skills and the timing of all the different things that are going on.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: I think we need to reflect on what became of the regional spatial strategies, and on whether that was an issue around social licence and public consent. Obviously, an examination was attached to them in their development, and there was accountability in different formats. If it is not clear to people that they are going to be involved, you will just get disempowerment and disenfranchisement, and then people are just going to say, “Well, it’s nothing to do with me. I haven’t been able to be involved, and I haven’t been able to have an influence.” Those routes to influence and to participate properly, which means having an impact on the outcome, need to be very clearly laid out so that people can participate. I agree with you that it is a whole discussion. Planning is the way we organise ourselves in space, in society and in places. That is what it is supposed to be, so we need to make it like that.
Your point about democratic accountability is really important. One of the things that the Better Planning Coalition has been looking at is the national scheme of delegation, which will have a huge impact on whether there is democratic accountability for planning decisions at local level. If people realise what is happening only when the bulldozer turns up at the end of the road, that is obviously a failure of the system. If they feel that a decision has not been made in a way that is accountable, if there is no one for them to go and talk to, and if they do not have public speaking rights at planning committees any more and cannot have their say on that decision, I think that will lead to a democratic deficit.
David Simmonds
Q
The Chair
Bullet points would be great.
Richard Hebditch: This is not a good way to start an answer, but it is a massive challenge, and I very much recognise that. One of the things is around democratic legitimacy. As Naomi was saying, it is not about entirely removing local planning authorities’ say in how they deal with applications. It is important to ensure there is a community voice in the development of local plans as well. There is a challenge, as previously mentioned, if local government reorganisation is going on at the same time.
It is also about having a level of democratic accountability within the strategic layer. I mentioned the lack of structures for these new strategic authorities beyond the indirectly elected constituent authorities. The previous panel was discussing ideas that might improve engagement. There are risks in relying on elections every four years as the entire democratic legitimacy, particularly in a time when you have five parties all quite close together in polling, and you are seeing that in local authority elections at the moment.
There are risks in relying on that to justify your decisions without necessarily having a structure for what happens in the gap between those four years to ensure democratic voice and community engagement. It is not necessarily for the Bill, but maybe there is something around ensuring that there are adequate reviews of how this will operate, drawing on the ideas that the previous panel was discussing. We also now have the national covenant between civil society and national Government, so it is about whether we can look at similar things at a strategic layer and at a local layer.
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Let me add just one example. I do not know whether anyone knows about the Salt Cross area action plan. It is West Oxfordshire district council: 2,000 homes on a greenfield site, and they want it to be zero carbon. It is going to have business on it and affordable housing. The community is really supportive, because that development is bringing things for them. The only problem is that those developing it want to strip out some of the things about zero carbon, for example, so there is a conflict there. I think that is all about—this is a whole different conversation—land values and land value capture, and how you get the public benefit out of development.
Manuela Perteghella
Q
Richard Hebditch: The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has the requirements on training for councillors when they make decisions. That is something we have welcomed, at that level. I think this goes back to the point on resourcing as well. The funding that has gone in to pay for planners to help develop at the SDS level is welcome. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill changes on being able to retain fee income from planning, and to vary fee income, are also welcome.
There is still an ongoing issue, and there are particular issues that the Royal Town Planning Institute has raised around apprenticeships and being able to have new entrants into planning. Changes in the rules around apprenticeships might threaten that input for planners.
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: We should be applying the subsidiarity principle. We should be making the decision at the closest level at which it is relevant to make that decision.
Mike Reader
Q
Richard Hebditch: Can we just say yes?
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: You need duties, because then it provides a framework. All those parts of the green economy have had no stability over the last few years because they have not known which way the policy has been going. If you provide stability in terms of a framework—“This is the direction of travel: we have to mitigate and we have to adapt”—and it is stable and long-term, then you know in which direction you are going.
The Chair
Thank you. That brings us to the end of our time for this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you both very much for your evidence.
Examination of Witness
Sacha Bedding gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Sacha Bedding MBE, chief executive of Wharton Trust and a member of Locality. For this panel, we have until 5.20 pm.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Sacha Bedding: We welcome the community right to buy. It is a good step, a big step, and it is important. Communities often do not feel that they have those rights, because they do not, and when they see a treasured building or space go up for sale, and they have no opportunity to purchase or reclaim it—lots of these things are already ours—they feel disillusioned and hopeless. To have an avenue and pathway to change that will be important and helpful. It will need to be properly resourced; I think we should look again at a community ownership fund or a successor to it. Places that do not have capacity but have a willingness and desire should be supported in creating that. But it is a great opportunity for the people of this country.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Sacha Bedding: I watched some of the proceedings, and I understand why there is a desire for an expansion of parish councils. It is what we look like, and it is a reflection of this at a local level, but it is not right for everywhere. There are places up and down England where organisations like mine—Locality has hundreds of them as members—have the opportunity to create an active role in making sure that decisions reflect the will, the want and the need of the people who are going to be affected by those decisions.
That will happen only if we do not prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution to what neighbourhood governance looks like. Neighbourhood governance should mean that when the people in that community are asked, “Do you feel you have a stake in this place and the opportunity to shape where you live?” the answer is yes. At the moment, our opinion is no: roughly 80% of people say they do not feel they have that stake in their community. We see that in election turnout: the by-elections in Hartlepool, which I know well, had turnout of under 20% or 15%. That is an issue, and I am afraid that it is not going to be solved by creating another layer of councillor. I live in a parish area, by the way. Where parish councils do tremendous work, perfect—build on it—but where it is not right, let’s not mandate it. Let’s be creative and braver than we have been so far.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Sacha Bedding: The first thing is that we have to make it accessible. I will always advocate for a community organising approach, because I think that releasing people’s agency, so that they feel that they can take action on the things they care about, is a route to that. However, whether it is asset-based community development, old traditional community development or community organising, that is where we start. We start where people are, not where we would like them to be.
If we can do that and resource that, there are thousands of people willing to roll up their sleeves and get involved where they live. I see it every day; you see it in your constituencies every day. This is not some great big secret—it is just, “Go out and ask them.” On the flipside of that, our sector, like every other sector, has been hammered for a long time, but releasing the skills and talents of local people to take action on the things they care about will answer that question.
Vikki Slade
Q
Sacha Bedding: I do not work in an area of environmental concern. If there are environmental opportunities in places, the broader the scope of what we consider an asset of community value to be, the better, in my opinion. I do not think we should prescribe that it must be bricks and mortar. For us in Hartlepool, things such as long-term plans for neighbourhoods should include the sea. That is our greatest asset, after the people who live there, and every community plan could involve the sea, for example. The environmental opportunities are there; whether we can distinguish whether they are social or environmental does not matter—let us expand the scope.
However, we should also look at the right to shape public services, because too often the people who are receiving services do not have a stake in the design of those services and the right to control investment. That is a big one. I do not mean, for example, Hartlepool getting 10 nuclear modular power stations, although that is great news; I mean at the neighbourhood level, where houses can be built, or not built, as we have just heard. People should have a stake in that decision. If you want more housing built, work alongside people who live in that community now. Do not just internally exile them, flatten the houses and say, “Hard luck, son.” That is not an answer.
The more expansive the assets of community value are, the better. The opportunity to expand the community rights is there, and it makes more sense for everybody. On homelessness strategies, where people are still on the streets and we are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, or a literacy strategy, where one in three people is illiterate and that works with cohesion, if people can bring those together, they will coalesce around a place, and they can do that far better if those rights are enhanced.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Mr Bedding, for coming down and for your evidence. I will suspend the Committee for 10 minutes, because our Minister has been sitting here and she has to give evidence next. We will resume at 5.20 pm.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Thank you very much for agreeing to do it today when you were just sitting here listening to all the evidence; it is a tough day for you, Minister. For this panel, we have until 5.40 pm.
Paul Holmes
Q
I would like to angle in on two issues. I think it is fair to say that most witnesses today have said that there has been confusion and doubt about the benefits, and there have been some concerns about the disjointed nature of planning reforms. I do not think I have seen before a Government bring forward two major pieces of legislation that, maybe unintentionally, deliver completely different things.
My first question is: has your Department done any analysis or assessments on how much will be saved in local government from the unitarisation and devolution measures that you are introducing?
Miatta Fahnbulleh: First, no, I do not think I have inherited a disjointed mess from my predecessor. Candidly, we are having to fix 15 years of another Government making a complete mess of the local government landscape. To the extent that these are big reforms and that we are having to drive through some big changes simultaneously, that is a function of where the Conservative party—and the hon. Member and his colleagues—left us.
On the specific question about local government reorganisation, yes, savings are part of this, but it is much bigger than that. Ultimately—I think this came out really clearly in all the evidence sessions—this is about delivering better services and better outcomes for communities. It is about dealing with the fact that the landscape of local government is currently fragmented. It is about dealing with the fact that we do not have sufficient alignment around different types of services that we need to bring together in order to deliver the outcomes for communities. It is about ensuring that we are aggregating our resources and driving through efficiencies. It is about all of that.
Candidly, when you speak to communities, they do not know who in their local area is responsible for what, so we have to strengthen that sense of accountability. The reforms go back to what works in service of communities. That is driving us. We are very clear that where we are is not where we need to be. If you speak to communities, they are clear that the landscape does not serve them in the way that they need it to, and that is what these reforms are trying to drive though. Yes, it is about efficiency savings, but it is a much bigger agenda than that.
Paul Holmes
Q
Can I just drill down again, as you have not answered the question: has your Department done any analysis on estimated savings from the unitarisation of local authorities across England, and the devolution measures that you have put forward to the House today?
Miatta Fahnbulleh: There is a big evidence base that sits behind the proposals, and an impact assessment that sits alongside this piece of legislation. Ultimately, we have taken an approach of asking places to come forward with proposals. That is the right approach because, in the end, it is about places and communities. A locality must make the decision about what works for their communities. It is quite hard to have a full and comprehensive assessment until you have that set of proposals. It is a function of the approach that we have taken, but I do not think a single Committee member would say that we should have just imposed boundaries across the country rather than go to communities and say, “What is the boundary that makes sense for you that will deliver the outcomes that we need for your communities?”
Paul Holmes
Q
Paul Holmes
I have one more question, if I may. We will move on, because it is clear that there was no assessment of the spending.
On 16 December 2024, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) sent a letter to local authority leaders setting out a target of 500,000 people per local authority. On 3 June, he said that that was a set principle and that any local authority that wanted to go above or below it would need to set out a clear rationale. On 20 July, he said that he continued to be asked about the 500,000 target, indicating the concern and confusion among local government leaders. Do you think that the Government have behaved in the right way to ensure an efficient and streamlined consultation process for local government leaders in the country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh: Councillor Craig summed it up perfectly: the 500,000 was an indication of the type of scale that we thought makes sense for the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. I go back to the need to deal with fragmentation, the alignment of services and, fundamentally, the impact for communities on the ground. Ultimately, though, there has to be some give within that. It has to be aligned with the existing institutions and with what local communities believe is the right geography to deliver the outcomes they want.
I think that we have been consistent, and I understand that my predecessor was pretty consistent. People ask whether it is 10,000 or 1 million; the 500,000 gives an indication. But part of the devolution process is about empowering places to use their judgment to come up with the right outcomes, and that is what we are trying to do. We have given an indication but, ultimately, we want proposals to come forward from places that say, “We can achieve the scale in the geography that makes sense to deliver the outcomes for our communities.” In the end, that is what this is all about.
The Chair
If we keep our questions and answers short, everyone will get in. I call Perran Moon.
Perran Moon
Q
“Article 16 prohibits restricting the enjoyment of the rights of the Framework Convention in connection with the redrawing of borders.”
The Bill currently excludes Cornwall from accessing the highest level of devolution unless we compromise our national minority status. Is there an appetite in the Government, before we pass a Bill that breaches the framework convention, for making special provision in the Bill for Cornwall so that it can access the highest level of devolution without compromising our national minority status?
Miatta Fahnbulleh: First, let me thank you for being such a consistent, persistent and passionate advocate for Cornwall. The Government absolutely recognise Cornwall’s national minority status. We recognise the uniqueness of Cornwall and are trying to operate within that framework. Ultimately, strategic authorities, at their best, try to drive economic performance and growth, so geography matters.
The conversation that we want to have with Cornwall is: “If you want to drive growth and employment opportunities, and if you want to create jobs in your area, what is the best geography to do that in?” That is not to deny Cornwall’s uniqueness and specialness, which I think every single Committee member recognises and appreciates, but it is to say that if our objective is to make sure we are delivering for your community in Cornwall, what is the best spatial strategy to do that? That might require collaboration beyond the boundaries of Cornwall.
David Simmonds
Q
Clearly, a number of those authority areas are in the process of finalising their bids, and in some areas there is dispute at different levels of local authority as to what the footprint should be. Many of us will have been pleased to hear you say earlier, Minister, that that was flexible, in your view—that it was not intended to be a strong guideline, but was something where you were looking at a much greater level of latitude. So that we can have assurances in relation to the relevant groupings later in the Committee process, will you commit to all those local leaders—in particular any who have submitted a bid on the understanding that it had to be around that 500,000—that there will be the opportunity to revisit that if it was not dictated by their local circumstances and preferences but, in their minds, something required by the Government?
David Simmonds
That is the question.
Miatta Fahnbulleh: I come back to, “What is the purpose of this?” We are not doing reorganisation for the fun of it—it is not fun. We are doing it because we think it will help us to drive certain outcomes. Our assessment is that around 500,000 is the sort of scale that allows us to do certain functions. That has to be consistent and compliant with what makes sense locally. The whole purpose of localism is that you have that interaction between the two. We have therefore given a benchmark for what we think makes sense, but when we look at proposals we will, of course, take into account the specific circumstances. If an authority comes forward with 100,000 or 200,000, we are likely to say that that probably does not cut the mustard, but we want to have that conversation, because fundamentally this has to be aligned and make sense on the ground. Otherwise, none of this will play out in the way that we want it to.
David Simmonds
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: I come back to the fact that it is not just about savings and efficiency, but about removing fragmentation and about what makes sense in terms of the types of services that we are asking local authorities to deliver—it is a whole set of things. That is our benchmark, but ultimately the basis of localism is to say to places, “Given these parameters, what do you think makes sense?” We will use that to make decisions.
Vikki Slade
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: The push of powers to communities is absolutely critical to us, and the duty on local authorities to think about neighbourhood governance is trying to get to the heart of that. Parish councils may be the structures and institutions that the local authority decides to build on, but it is not consistent across the country, so we have to ensure that we are finding the right governance structures for different places so that communities have a genuine voice. We have to ensure that we have diversity of representation, which we need for this to be enduring and for it to ensure that there is power and voice for communities. The commitment is there, and that is why we have it. We were very clear that this was not just about strategic authorities or local authorities, but was absolutely about the neighbourhood level. How we get that right has to be a conversation—an iterative relationship with places. That is the bit that we are absolutely committed to.
Mrs Blundell
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are clear that councillors have an absolutely fundamental role to play in the democratic system that we are trying to create. They are not only elected, but champions and conduits for their community.
As we drive through these reforms, there is a question about how we build on the power of councillors and the role that they play, whether within our neighbourhood governance structures or, indeed, in how they interact with the mayor, and the accountability and scrutiny of the mayor.
You can have our assurance that councillors have a fundamental role in the landscape and are part of the infrastructure that we need to build on. There are huge opportunities for that as we take the process forward.
Siân Berry
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: We recognise that, if you like, the scrutiny landscape is not as it should be, which is why some of the measures that we are driving through the Bill try to address that. We are moving at pace and creating institutions at pace—we recognise that and do not resile from it. We are doing so because we looked at the inheritance and were not pleased with it, so we thought that we had better make some progress in the time that we have.
However, it is absolutely the case that strong, accountable leaders are only as strong and accountable as the scrutiny institutions that you build around them. I think they have emerged organically in some instances, but we hope to use the Bill to create more structure around that so that alongside—hopefully—powerful mayors and powerful local authorities, we have that scrutiny function in place. Again, we will learn from what is working well and we will look at how we build on what is working well.
Siân Berry
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: Resourcing is a challenge across the piece. As we think about the structures that we are creating, we are also thinking about how we build capacity, because if we do not do that, we will create structures that will not be effective, which is not the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: There are two things that I would say. Even in our urban areas, or what are defined as urban areas—for example, North of Tyne—there are big rural constituencies within them. Actually, many of our metro mayors straddle urban areas—in some instances, there are core cities—and rural areas.
The benefits are the same for both. If your starting position is, “How do we drive economic growth?”—that is one of the big issues—the evidence of the last decade and a half, as well as that from other countries, is that such a strategic level creates a massive opportunity to unlock growth. That is as true for our urban areas as it is for our rural areas.
However, I would also say that, yes, there is a model that we are trying to drive forward, but it has to be specific to particular places. There will be different constellations, if you like, of strategic authorities. That is okay, because what matters is that we create governance structures that can fundamentally drive outcomes that are tailored and specific to those areas.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: Ultimately, the approach that we are taking is to say to places, “What makes sense?”, and there is a journey for places to go on. Some places will choose to be foundational authorities, because that makes sense for them. Actually, we are being overwhelmed. It is not just urban areas that are coming forward to us with an appetite to move to—
Lewis Cocking
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: Well, no. We said, “This is the suite—
Lewis Cocking
You have.
Miatta Fahnbulleh: We said, “This is the suite of powers that you can get.” Places have seen the opportunity and are looking to other areas that have gone through this journey. Look at Greater Manchester, with some of the highest productivity growth that we have had. I was there at the start, when we began this journey. People are seeing that there is something here that is working and there is an appetite for that.
The Government have done their bit by saying, “Look, we understand you need the powers; this is the suite of powers. We’re not going to ask you to do lots of deals and jump through hoops,” and places are lining up. I think that every place needs to figure out what makes sense for it. However, the evidence so far is that places see that there is a strategic opportunity, because they care about growth and outcomes for their communities.
Mike Reader
Q
The Chair
That was a request and not a question.
We come to the end of today’s session. Minister, thank you very much; I know that it has been a hard day for you.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
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
International Day of Democracy
(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
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the International Day of Democracy.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. It is an honour to speak on this topic, not only as an MP deeply invested in the state of our democracy, but as the representative of the Cities of London and Westminster, where we are today. I was stunned to learn that this House has not marked International Day of Democracy since 2017—and how much has changed since then. At home, we have seen Parliament unlawfully prorogued to push through a Government’s partisan agenda, restrictions introduced on voting and freedom of protest, and a Prime Minister who broke the stringent lockdown rules he set for a nation of millions.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the unlawful constitutional vandalism wrought by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Having read recent reporting by The Guardian on his many commercial activities since leaving this place, does my hon. Friend agree that far stricter enforcement is required on the revolving door between Governments and the private sector? The current lobbying regulations surrounding that risk are clearly unfit for purpose.
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I agree that that is an area for considerably more thought.
Abroad, we have seen democracy in decline for a sixth consecutive year. According to analysis from Freedom House, in 2024, 60 countries experienced a deterioration in their political rights and liberties and only 34 secured improvements. Anti-democratic coups in central and west Africa, and the sustained illegal invasion of Ukraine by an increasingly authoritarian Russia, serve as reminders to us all that democracy is not just in decline, but being actively assaulted. At home and around the world, we are facing increasing radicalisation to the far left and far right, as the politics of meeting generational challenges, such as international conflicts, rewiring our global economy and countering climate change, are confronted by polarisation through disinformation and social media.
Last weekend, over 100,000 people marched through my constituency. Many expressed a long-standing freedom of speech without concern for harm or disorder, but some acted in ways that we need to condemn: assaults on members of law enforcement; speeches propagating racist conspiracy theories; foreign tech billionaires demanding “revolutionary” Government change to a democratically elected Administration; and calls to shoot the Prime Minister. That does not reflect who we are and what our democracy can achieve.
Many of those who marched on Saturday did so under the Union flag, which has so many times united us as a country; it united us at the millennium celebrations, the Olympics, and even every Thursday during lockdown as we clapped for our key workers. We cannot let this flag and our national pride be corrupted by the elements within this movement that espouse anti-British values.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that our democracy, and wider democracies around the globe, need to be sufficiently strong, wide and deep to tolerate views and opinions that we may fundamentally disagree with, but are allowed to be expressed peacefully and democratically?
Rachel Blake
I would agree. I will come on to some of the ways in which we can strengthen our democracy later. I welcome the point made by the hon. Member. This movement cannot be supported in espousing anti-British values.
My constituency is home to Soho, built from the ground up by migrants and the LGBT community living, working and organising together. It is home to the City of London, whose status as a heart of business and growth has been strengthened by waves of refugees fleeing persecution, such as the 16th-century Huguenots. It is home to Fitzrovia, the heart of artistic and academic excellence from generations of freethinkers. This is the London that I know and love, and this is the country that I know and love, and that the leaders of far-right movements want to take away from us.
We have seen what it looks like when our rights and freedoms are taken away in the experience of those such as my constituent Jimmy Lai, who as of today has been detained unlawfully for 1,721 days for standing up for freedom in Hong Kong. That China would feel emboldened to imprison a British citizen, a journalist, a grandfather, and put him through a sham trial is completely unacceptable.
Our rules-based international order, which upheld fundamental human rights, has decayed at a remarkable rate. Some in this country would degrade it further by withdrawing from and dismantling the European convention on human rights, which the United Kingdom founded and which enshrines fundamental British values such as the right to life, and the freedoms of speech and thought, on an international level.
I also see threats to democracy at local level, in my work as a constituency MP. The frustration, disillusionment and disappointment with which constituents contact us is just a small signifier of the strength and depth of the malaise in our democracy today. We must confront head-on the fact that our democracy is at a crossroads. Voters increasingly feel that the social contract between them and their leaders is wearing thin, with only 12% of them trusting the Government to act in the popular interest, above that of their party.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate on renewing our democracy. First past the post served Labour and the Conservatives well in the 20th century, but the blowing open of electoral politics by smaller political parties means that many more people are now feeling under-represented. Does the hon. Member accept that it is time to replace first past the post with proportional representation?
Rachel Blake
I welcome the hon. Member’s suggestion about reviewing and considering the alternative ways in which we can conduct our democracy. I will come on to some of that later.
People feel that their vote does not matter, and that politicians are not listening. People feel that the system is broken and does not work for them. But we are not powerless. We are not just a solitary ship being buffeted by the tides of change. We sit today in the mother of all Parliaments, where, despite some weaknesses, the UK remains one of the most advanced and resilient democracies in the world. Our democracy means everyone does have a say. This place has adapted with the times, whether that is with the extension of the franchise, the tempering of the monarchy and the Lords or, most recently, the devolution of power to the nations and regions of the UK by successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments.
I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that promised generational change to our democracy—changes that this Government are enacting. We are extending the franchise to the 16 and 17-year-olds we already trust to pay tax and serve in our armed forces. We are tackling the influence of dirty money in politics, with new restrictions on foreign donations and improved transparency, and restoring independence to the Electoral Commission.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned young people. Last Friday, I met some A-level politics students at Huish Episcopi academy in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton and I was struck by the political enthusiasm of the young women in the classroom. However, we face an alarming rise of extreme misogyny through people like Andrew Tate. If women and girls feel that politics is hostile to them they retreat from it altogether, so does the hon. Member agree it is important that we show young women that there are political role models, so that they know their place is at the heart of British politics?
Rachel Blake
I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member on the work that she is doing to encourage and support young women into politics. That is something really important in our role as Members of Parliament. I definitely agree that we need to be supporting women into politics, as Members of Parliament and throughout public life, to give young women confidence that there is a place for them in public life.
We also need to push power to our communities and neighbourhoods with the landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, with a community right to buy and a right for any area to ask any power of central Government. I think we can go further still. That is why I am so honoured to open this debate. It is inspiring to know that Members across Westminster Hall want to talk about our democracy and how we can have these debates together and openly.
I am delighted to be joined by colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, with whom I am working on the UK’s anti-corruption strategy. I know they will agree with me that we need to fight head-on the money and influence attempting to corrupt our politics. I am really pleased to see so many MPs present who share my background in local government and so keenly support this Government’s agenda to decentralise power out into communities. Residents in my constituency and across the country are raring to go to take on the responsibilities that for too long have been held in the Palace of Westminster, not the Cities of London and Westminster.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am very aware of her background in local government. Does she agree that the local level is where we see democracy work? We see excellent representation by councillors and an opportunity to have local debate through neighbourhood plans or other mechanisms. Does she agree that we must prioritise those local voices and that local representation to protect our democracy?
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for that support for local councillors and the hard work that they do every single day working with communities. It is important that we support and empower them to deliver for communities. In fact, that is a vital part of restoring confidence in our democracy.
It is a pleasure to see members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, who are leading a wide-ranging discussion on the future of our electoral system. I know many of us across the House are concerned about the division that our electoral system has seen. It is right that we have a robust discussion about that. In recent polling for More in Common, 62% of voters stated that our political and social institutions are worth preserving and improving in spite of the headwinds that we face. This is the country that I know: one that faces the challenges before us and acts to meet the moment. We can address the frustration and disillusionment that last weekend saw people marching in my constituency, while making our democracy richer and more inclusive.
Today let us mark International Day of Democracy by recognising the threats that face us and the opportunities that change can bring. I look forward to hearing from all the speakers gathered here today and from the Minister, what such change can and should look like.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob to catch my eye—I can see they are already doing that. Let us try to get everyone in by limiting the length of speeches. I will not set a limit; I will leave that to Members’ discretion. I call Liz Saville Roberts.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this debate. Today is Owain Glyndŵr Day, which celebrates Wales’s first Parliament in Machynlleth and in Harlech 620-odd years ago.
This past weekend Elon Musk addressed those gathered in London. He spoke about freedom of speech, about knowing what is real and defending Britain’s future and democracy. That is what he said, but at the heart of his remarks was an explicit justification for division and violence. That should concern us all because it is fundamentally at odds with the values of democracy. Mr Musk has already contributed to destabilising political life in the United States. His decision to intervene in our debates makes it clear that we are not immune, so parliamentarians—I think this will be a common theme across the Chamber today—must choose how to act to counter the rising tide of authoritarianism.
Silence is a dangerous form of consent that leaves the space open for others to harness people’s unhappiness to their own political ambitions when, in reality, much of that unhappiness is a direct result of decisions taken by those in power and the very wealthy—decisions that benefit themselves and, at the same time, impoverish whole communities.
Too many people have no secure roof over their heads. Too many of our public spaces, sources of community pride—our parks, libraries, schools, hospitals and even our roads—are left to decay. Public services are hanging on a thread, and the quality of day-to-day life is evidently declining. Years of austerity and poor policy decisions have very real consequences for people’s lives. We need to recognise that, because people are rightly angry.
Into that void of anger rushes misinformation, disinformation and lies straddling the no man’s land between empirical facts and tub-thumping opinion. Social media moguls play on our basic needs for belonging, affirmation and friends in an atomised age of lonely screens. They monetise us and our very actions in a cynical mockery of community. The rise of artificial intelligence exacerbates and accelerates that, creating new ways to generate and spread falsehoods. That is why institutions that strengthen democracy are so important, now more than ever.
I will speak first of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which supported more than 44,000 people last year in 64 locally led programmes in 58 countries and territories across the world. It is primarily funded by the Foreign Office, and I am glad that the Minister is here to speak for that Department. Those programmes give communities the tools to hold power to account and to build resilience against those who seek to undermine democracy. I am proud to be the small parties governor on the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
On one Westminster Foundation trip, I learned how Finland, Europe’s most literate country, has made media literacy a key part of the education curriculum, so that even six-year-olds are equipped with the skills to spot fake news and online manipulation.
I have also met Joe Brinker, the policy fellow for democratic resilience at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. NATO’s article 2 states that member countries will work towards “strengthening their free institutions” and promote social “stability and well-being.” The Parliamentary Assembly has called for a centre for democratic resilience at NATO headquarters to counter the threats posed by authoritarian regimes and give strength to NATO’s commitment to democracy. That aspect of NATO’s work is critical, and we should be pushing for more attention to it and raise our expectations of what it does.
In closing, I hope other Members will join in referring to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy at a time of worldwide uncertainty. I also hope to secure a meeting for other governors with the Minister to ensure there is sufficient funding and reach for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to continue to function so effectively. Our values include democracy at their heart, and they cannot be defended by words alone. We should be willing to pay for what we want to keep.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I also put on record my disappointment that there is only one Conservative, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), present, although I look forward to his views because I respect his opinions.
To keep our bodies healthy, we take care of ourselves. We eat the right food, we take exercise and we avoid unnecessary dangers. We maintain our homes and our roads, and our farmers nurture the soil and tend the crops. I will argue that this applies to democracy, too.
Democracy is a living process. Without nourishment it will decline in efficacy, and it will decay. The International Day of Democracy is an important reminder to us all, at home and abroad, that democracy is not a given. There is no inexorable, divinely ordained path towards it. It is a precious, fragile, vulnerable thing, and it needs nurturing and protecting by every one of us and by every organisation and institution of our country.
On the International Day of Democracy, and because I am an ardent internationalist, I heed the words of the UN Secretary-General, who said that he admires,
“the courage of people everywhere who are shaping their societies through dialogue, participation and trust. At a time when democracy and the rule of law are under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.
Democracy is about respecting the political process. It is about respecting the rules, and acknowledging that it is the rules that protect democracy from the forces that would undermine it from within.
At a fundamental level, democracy requires us all to accept that we both should and will resolve our differences through respectful debate, free and fair elections, and peaceful and law-abiding protest if necessary, and never, ever—under any circumstances—through violence. Violence has no place in a democratic system. Let us not kid ourselves, and let us not allow Orwellian doublethink to drag us into a post-truth reality peddled increasingly by the powerful on social media. Britain is not a crime-ridden dystopia teetering on the edge of anarchy, as some would have us believe. In fact, violent crime in London has dropped by 13%.
Britain is not a nation that suppresses free speech or free assembly, as Saturday’s march so obviously indicates. We are not a country whose elites prevent new parties from forming to represent the people—just ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Words are at their most potent when used in political debate, and those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than most in how they wield them.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I am interested by my hon. Friend’s reference to Orwellian thought. Did he notice that on Saturday, Elon Musk was wearing a T-shirt that said, “What would Orwell think?”, and does he agree that anyone with a passing knowledge of George Orwell’s work knows exactly what George Orwell would think of Elon Musk and his actions over the weekend?
John Slinger
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a matter of opinion, and Mr Musk is entirely entitled to express his opinion about Orwell in any way he sees fit, although my opinion is that Orwell would be turning in his grave about that speech and many other things in our society. Orwell also spoke about the dangers of unbridled nationalism versus patriotism, which is a very positive force in our world and belongs to all of us, not to one group.
As I was saying, those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than other people in how they wield words, because words inspire real action that is both constructive and destructive. That is why I immediately condemned the appalling assassination of Charlie Kirk and offered my condolences to his family. There can be no double standards when it comes to rejecting violence. How stark the contrast is with Elon Musk telling the crowd on Saturday:
“The left is the party of murder.”
I have challenged Mr Musk’s foreign interference in our sovereign democracy, and his shameful framing of the debate through the lens of imminent violence. I have challenged this on my social media channels, and I am doing it today. I encourage all who value democracy to do so similarly.
Democracy implores us to regard our political opponents as just that: opponents, not enemies. We must not demonise, dehumanise or delegitimise our opponents. To do so is to build a road, whether wilfully or not, into the abyss. I have said publicly that 99.999% of politicians in this place and beyond are motivated by a desire to improve their community and, by extension, their country. If we imply otherwise and question their motivation, we are implying to our supporters that we do not regard our opponents or their views, or the views of their supporters, as legitimate.
It is unfortunate that GCSE and A-level politics 101 needs to be rehearsed here today, but frankly, at this moment in time, it does. Democracy requires the losing candidate and party, and their supporters, to accept the outcome of the election and, I would argue, to show respect to the winners by congratulating them and wishing them well, as we do in this country. Democracy also requires that the victorious candidate or candidates—the winners—show magnanimity towards those they defeated and those who supported them. That means that, in the immediate aftermath of an election, there can be a peaceful transfer of power that protects both winners and losers from retribution.
Democracy is about respecting freedom of speech and a free media, but not weaponising and fetishising them to enable and amplify hatred through the incitement of violence and intimidation, and hon. Members across the House know all too much about that. A healthy democracy requires education so that citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, how the system works and the ways in which they can engage with it. It also means highlighting how the ordinary workings of democratic politics should, can and will improve people’s lives.
I end by returning to my argument about nourishment. Just as we take care of our bodies, a healthy democracy requires sustenance and care, a diet of trust and honesty, and regular exercise in civic participation and open debate. It must be protected from the cancer of political violence, and our population must be empowered to identify and challenge snake oil salesmen, wherever they lurk.
Failure to tend to our democracy will leave it malnourished and brittle, vulnerable to the corrosion of cynicism, apathy and all that flows from the unholy, abusive and manipulative dance between angry voters and powerful political actors who exploit grievance and stoke cynicism for their own gain, dressing it up as speaking for the people. That tactic is as old as the hills. It is as old as the Greek city states, and the history of nations is littered with disasters arising from the apathy of those who failed to protect democracy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate. It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate, as the importance of democracy lies in the protection of rights, the accountability of power and, indeed, public participation. That is what gives each and every individual of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and beyond, a right to civil liberty. I am honoured to speak in support of that.
I welcome the Minister to his new role as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. He is probably glad that he is no longer in charge of the Whip. He hopefully has an easier job. I look forward to his contribution. He always has a calmness, and in this debate we will see how calm he can be when it comes to answering all the questions. I wish him well.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to Jimmy Lai, and I wholeheartedly agree with what she said. He is deteriorating, health-wise, in a Hong Kong prison on trumped-up charges made by the Chinese Communist party. It is important that we, in this House and elsewhere, take a stand.
For decades, democracy has been used across Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure free and fair elections. With our universal suffrage for all citizens aged 18 and over, the separation of powers and the rule of law that all must follow, democracy in the United Kingdom has delivered representation and accountability, but it must always remain resilient, fair and inclusive. Democracy must be the cornerstone of any country, as we have seen in Northern Ireland from the era of the troubles until now, albeit there is still much work to be done.
This debate is timely. I, as an elected representative, would not feel right participating in it without mentioning the attack on democracy and the freedom of expression that we all witnessed in Utah last week in the murder of Charlie Kirk. It hit all too close to home, following the murder of our own David Amess and Jo Cox, and many others.
Free speech—the right to speak freely—is fundamental to any democracy, or any state with democratic principles, as this mother of Parliaments very much demonstrates. Back home in Northern Ireland, we know all too well the damage that political violence can do. It is upsetting and shocking to witness further instances of it in other parts of the world. Each Member who represents Northern Ireland, and indeed those who do not, will understand the 30 years of conflict that we had, to which many of us, and our families, were subject directly.
Charlie Kirk spoke boldly for what he believed. He used his voice to challenge the damaging culture of the day and to shape the future of America. Charlie highlighted how one person’s words can move hearts, spark debate and leave a mark on history. On that gazebo last weekend was written, “Prove me wrong”. He was open to debate and to exchanging views. At the same time, he was open to being able to persuade others of what he was trying to say.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The murder of Charlie Kirk shows the most concerning aspect of democracy in the United States, but almost as concerning was the aftermath, when a number of people sought to justify his murder, and to explain it and define it, by quoting—sometimes in context, sometimes out of context—something he is alleged to have said. We need to be careful in the aftermath of violent acts.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing grieved me as much, and probably grieved others in this House and further afield, as those awful remarks that were almost rejoicing in Charlie Kirk’s murder. I find it almost inconceivable to comprehend that, especially when a wife and children, and many others, are grieving.
It cannot be overestimated how loved and well respected Charlie was, especially among the young people of this generation. I have some seven staff who work with me, and there are four young ones among them. Those four are in their 20s, and they were genuinely devastated by the news—they said they felt grief and loss. That tells me that the impact of the murder of Charlie Kirk went far beyond America and across this great nation as well. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has tabled an early-day motion on the murder, and I have tabled one as well.
Those in my constituency from older age groups have also outlined how they are equally as shocked and saddened. Charlie spread the word of God, the word of family, faith and freedom, and the importance of conservative politics today. I do not care what someone’s political aspirations or religious views are—they are not important. The fact is that no individual on this Earth deserves to have their life ripped away from them.
Lizzi Collinge
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the murder of Charlie Kirk was an appalling act. No one should ever feel threatened by violence; no one should ever be killed for their beliefs or their actions. However much we disagree with the horrendous nature of his death, does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the statements made by Charlie Kirk in life meant that other people felt that their freedom was being threatened, and that they were not safe to speak out?
Jim Shannon
I agree that we have the right to freedom of speech, and it is very important to have that. Charlie Kirk took full value of his right to speak. Tommy Robinson, whom I disagree with very much, has a right to speak as well.
What we need to be careful about in life is this. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) about how when I am on recess I spend at least two half days on the doors, just to keep in touch with people and understand what they are thinking. The issue of immigration is massive. Now, I may not agree with all the things that are said about immigration—I have my own point of view—but I understand that many people worry about immigration. Those are not the people who are going out to wreck and smash; they are ordinary, middle-class, churchgoing people who have concerns. There are many concerns that people have. We should be careful with our words. I try to be careful with my words in this House, and I hope that others do the same.
Liz Saville Roberts
We all agree that the murder of Charlie Kirk was horrific—it was abhorrent. That is the only response to it. I am sure that we also feel that it is the duty of Governments, following these terrible actions, to ensure that community safety is a priority. There is always a tension in allowing and enabling voices from across a whole spectrum, while at the same time maintaining that safety. That is one of the not irreconcilable tensions of a democracy, and it is something we must face every time we are challenged in this way.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Lady is right. That is fundamental to the society we live in and the way that we move forward. Freedom of speech is the very essence of democracy. Let me be clear that murder does not silence. As Erika Kirk stated:
“If you thought my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea…what you have unleashed across this country and this world”.
Freedom of speech—that viewpoint—must be maintained.
Charlie’s message mattered to people, democracy matters to people and freedom of expression matters to people. This wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland matters to people. As the right hon. Lady said, having respect for other people’s opinions matters; it matters to me and everyone in this House. Personally speaking, I try to get on with everyone in this House. I might disagree with many things, and I probably disagree with many of the votes that are cast in this House, but that does not stop me being respectful to others. That is something we should all be trying to do.
John Slinger
As a relatively new Member of Parliament, I put it on the record that the hon. Gentleman epitomises that approach to politics. He has shown kindness to me, and I am sure that that is true of hon. Members right across the House. That is to be commended. We should all try to act in the way that he does.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is most kind. I serve my God and saviour. That is who I try to represent in this House, and that is my purpose for being here.
Political violence undermines democracy by disrupting peaceful political processes and intimidating others. On the International Day of Democracy, I celebrate those who uphold democracy. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster did so in her introduction, as did everyone else who spoke, and others will do the same. Unfortunately, we live in a world where those with violent vendettas seek to silence and take over, and we must never allow that to happen.
Democracy without morality is not possible. We must not forget those who stood up and fought for the principles of democracy. Charlie wanted to be remembered for his courage and his faith, which will never be forgotten. Those who share his values and feel silenced by these acts—and there are many—should not forget the importance of democracy and how many people before us fought for our rights in wars throughout history. I look to the Minister for his commitment to respect and freedom of expression, and for condemnation of these horrific acts of political violence. We must do more in this great nation, this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together—to stand up against them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am going to call people for the wind-ups just before 10.30 am. You can see what time it is, so let us try to get everyone in—be powerful and pithy, please.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) not just on securing the debate, but on a powerful speech, and especially on her tribute to how our Parliament is evolving. It is vital to recognise that we have agency in this place and that there is cause for hope.
Not only is it customary to open a speech in that way, but it speaks to something that is core to our democracy: that civility matters. We make progress as a society and as a country through considered debate and by contesting ideas. We value the opinions of those on all sides of the political divide. The process of building consensus is invariably a strength and not a weakness.
People who represent different political views or parties can be, and often are, our friends. I consider everyone who serves in the House of Commons to be a colleague. Many will be my political opponents, but they will never be my enemies. That may seem self-evident in a mature democracy such as the United Kingdom, but we live in a time when democracy needs renewal and reaffirmation.
We can take nothing for granted, and the comments of Elon Musk on Saturday demonstrate why. At a rally that was purportedly about the uniting the kingdom, Musk told the crowd that
“violence is coming to you”
and that Parliament should be dissolved, on the basis that he did not like the result of the last election very much.
Since 1929, we have run fully democratic elections in our country, with universal suffrage for men and women. Our democracy has endured and grown stronger through the horrors of war with the Nazis, global financial crises and a pandemic. We are not going to be cowed by a foreign billionaire who does not live in this country and cannot even pretend to understand it.
We must not overstate the political abilities of this man. A couple of days ago, Musk announced that his AI tool, Grok, would once again be sent for reprogramming because it inconveniently shared facts that contradicted its master’s argument. If he cannot win an argument with his own AI tool, he is not going to win an argument with the British people.
We should have confidence in our democracy but never be complacent about its future. We live in a world of mass information, where private companies that design social media algorithms hold more power to shape political debate than the editors of newspapers or the producers of broadcast news. The debate online has coarsened, which is precisely why our conduct in Parliament matters more than ever: we have to set an example. At times, it may feel quaint that we refer to each other in this place as hon. Members, but there is honour in debate, disagreement and democracy.
There is no doubt that we live in fragile times. Putin has brought war to Europe, and I am speaking on the morning that the United Nations commission of inquiry has concluded that Israel’s leadership has committed four of the five acts of genocide defined under the 1948 genocide convention.
The times we live in make it all the more important to look back at how democracy became a beacon of hope after we emerged from the second world war, the darkest chapter in our history. The response then to suffering was not to turn inward, to stigmatise or to attack others—it was the opposite. Signed by 50 nations in June 1945, the UN charter’s purpose was to reaffirm
“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women”.
It went on to say that all signatories must
“practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”.
This country was at the vanguard of defending democracy even in our darkest hour. If a previous generation could succeed in championing democracy then, we can and must do it now.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, particularly as board member for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
The UN has titled this International Day of Democracy “From Voice to Action”, which is a fitting message, because we need those who support democracy and freedom now more than ever. We are at a crucial moment. As a liberal and a democrat, I was horrified by events last week. The murder of Charlie Kirk in the US has captured the world’s attention, and rightly so. No one in this room will be surprised to learn that I disagreed with the opinions and thoughts that Mr Kirk pushed through his social media channels and debating tours, but as a liberal I believe it is my job to challenge such opinions through debate and argument.
People should not die for holding opposing views, and it is vital that liberals stand up against violence and bloodshed because, tragically, we have experienced such events too. The horrendous murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess are proof that we in this country are not immune to attacks on our democratic way of life. We should never take our freedoms for granted.
Research published last week showed that global freedom levels have declined for the 20th consecutive year. The UN Secretary-General said that the very rule of law, and justice and democracy are
“under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.
A threat to democracy globally is a threat to our democracy here, and democracies across the globe are declining and suffering. Cuts to the aid budget are driving the downward spiral. I heard first hand from the Red Cross that next year it will have to reduce its operations by 18%, despite there being a 25% rise in global conflict.
Respect for international humanitarian law has also waned. We have seen the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers, with hundreds dying and many more injured or being held captive.
There are also threats to our democratic way of life here in the UK. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate has reported that the platform X has not followed its own rules on preventing the amplification of serious political violence. We know that the spread of misinformation and the incitement of violence go hand in hand. Last summer’s violent riots, fuelled by misinformation, almost spread to my Cheadle constituency. I was proud that communities and faith groups from all over the constituency came together to show solidarity.
The threats posed by the growth of social media and the small handful of media barons who control the platforms need to be addressed. We cannot allow this pattern of misinformation and disruption to our way of life continue as it is.
Despite the worrying developments, we must reflect on and embrace the existing strength of UK democracy. I am very proud to represent the Cheadle constituency, a place with a profound sense of identity and strong community cohesion. It is driven by community groups who bring voice to action. Whether by standing up for nature, tackling flooding or fighting to get better access to transport, community groups are, as the UN Secretary General said,
“shaping their societies through dialogue, participation, and trust.”
Liz Saville Roberts
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I am sure he will agree that, with the United States withdrawing from grant in aid, there is the potential for the role of the United Kingdom and its presence on the world stage to be considerably enhanced by the actions we take to support democracy both at home and abroad.
Mr Morrison
I absolutely agree. The Government must invest more in our democracy at home to ensure that the country stays on the right path, with sustained economic growth, thriving global partnerships and a place on the world stage that is as influential as it is admired.
The Government must increase the aid budget, as it is not only a lifeline for millions but a strategic priority that strengthens our democratic allies and makes future allies around the globe. We cannot and must not ignore this soft power. I am proud to sit on the board of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which, for more than 30 years, has worked tirelessly on programmes that have supported so many democratic nations to grow and prosper. These are huge success stories for our nation. These are huge moments that place us as a key player on the world stage, and we should not take them for granted.
I will conclude by returning to my opening remarks. We are at a crucial moment both at home and abroad, with the rise of extremism, the polarisation of debate and misinformation being fuelled by the growing influence of social media. We, as liberals and democrats, must take a stand. If we do not, I truly worry what will happen next.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Lizzi Collinge. There are two after you, Lizzi, so bear that in mind.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate.
We rightly talk about a lack of trust in politics, and there is one key element as to why that is: the first-past-the-post voting system. I found a beautiful quote the other day from Elie Wiesel:
“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”
We can see that indifference in the lack of participation in even general elections. Left unchanged, the first-past-the-post system will continue to erode public trust, produce unfair and unrepresentative outcomes, and undermine the stability of our democracy. A majority of the voting public support a change to the voting system. What I and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are calling for is a national commission on electoral reform, so that all options can be examined independently and impartially.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that I have views on what a new electoral system should have. It needs to be more proportionate, but it needs to take into account other things as well. I believe in constituency MPs. I believe in each MP’s representing a defined geographical area. However, the guidelines at the last boundary review, which had very tight numbers, have left us with some slightly odd constituencies.
My constituency crosses the county boundaries of Lancashire and Westmorland, and it includes the Yorkshire Dales national park. I have three planning authorities, which is great fun. Although it is great for me to walk through the Yorkshire dales to see a red squirrel in Cowgill, I can see why people in Dentdale do not feel particularly connected to people in Morecambe, which is an hour’s drive away, so I think the Boundary Commission needs a bit more flexibility. I also think that any voting system should allow voters to rank their preferences, so they can say, “That person is my favourite. That person is also acceptable, as is that person.” They should also be able to not rank people if they definitely do not wish them to be elected. Some of my colleagues have spoken about the action that the Labour Government are taking on political donations, which I welcome.
We cannot talk about the deficits in our democracy without talking about young people. We have a lovely history of older people bemoaning the youth of today; I found a brilliant social media thread with examples that go back to Plato. We have to stop berating young people for not engaging and do the work ourselves. I know that some people are on TikTok—that is not really for me. I do not think disengagement comes from the lack of me lip-synching along to pop songs. It comes from young people not being listened to and their concerns not being addressed.
We are taking some steps. The Labour Government are giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, which is fantastic. If people start voting young, they keep voting. I know people who are older than me who have not voted just because they do not know how it works. They literally do not know how to physically go and vote, which is a real shame. More foundational changes also need to be made. If elections hinge on certain constituencies or certain voting blocs, then policies and campaigns will cater to them at the expense of other groups. Whenever I see young people, I tell them to vote. I say, “If you vote, you’ll get policies that work for you.”
This week, the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections published suggested terms of reference for a national commission on electoral reform. This is a clear proposal for the Government to set up a national commission that could independently ask the big questions about our democracy. How do we build an electoral system that represents all voices fairly? How do we inspire public trust? How can we ensure that every vote, every voice and every citizen counts? It is only by answering these questions that we can protect our democracy, strengthen our democratic institutions and show that every voter matters.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When we think of the International Day of Democracy, it is relevant and appropriate to reflect on what the essence of a functioning democracy is. When we distil it down, the essence of a functioning democracy is that those who are governed elect those who govern them, and that those who make the laws for any people are elected by the people over whom those laws have control. That is the very essence of a functioning democracy.
We might talk about things around the world, but we need to stop, pause and ask ourselves, “Is that operating in this United Kingdom?” I have to say that in the part of the United Kingdom that I come from—Northern Ireland—that fundamental has been shredded. It is not allowed to operate because not in one, not in 30, but in 300 areas of law, the laws that govern Northern Ireland are made not in Stormont or Westminster, or by anyone elected from anywhere in Northern Ireland. They are made by a foreign Parliament—indeed, by the Parliament of 27 other nations. Why? Because of the iniquitous Windsor framework.
Annexe 2, which I invite people to look at, lists hundreds upon hundreds of laws that are made in the European Parliament—not here—but enforced on Northern Ireland. Those laws touch upon the fundamentals of many of our lives. They govern the trade of Northern Ireland; they govern the manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, and how we package those goods, their contents, and how they are labelled; they govern the environment; and they even govern rights under article 2 of the Windsor framework, and culminate in the imposition of a partitioning border in this United Kingdom.
So, before we get too excited about the lack of democracy elsewhere in the world, let us take the mote out of our own eye and work towards restoring that most fundamental principle: that wherever someone lives, they should be able to elect those who make the laws that govern them. It is a shame of the past Government and of the current Government that they continue, sanguinely, to allow this situation to prevail.
I hear talk about young people. I just heard talk about, “Isn’t it great that young people will be able to vote?” I recently listened to a video from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). He said, “We want young people to feel they have the same chance as everyone else to make the laws to which they are subject.” How I wish that applied to not just the young but the old in Northern Ireland—the right to make the laws that govern us.
We present ourselves as a world-leading democracy, and yet are killing the legitimate expectation in Northern Ireland that people should be able to make the laws that govern them and not be subject to colony-like rule, because the essence of colonial rule is that people are governed by someone else’s laws, as they are not considered worthy of making their own laws, such that a foreign jurisdiction must make the laws for them.
That is the essential constitutional and democratic affront of the Windsor framework. Let us set about taking the mote out of the eye of the United Kingdom. Let us set about restoring fundamental democracy to Northern Ireland.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Jeevun Sandher. I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.28 am.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The truth is that today democracy is dying and we have to face that if we want to save it as it stands. We are living in a divided nation, where people are losing faith in democracy because they cannot afford a decent life, they do not see a way forward and they see others who can. A nation as divided as ours cannot stand and it will not endure unless we protect and save it.
We are divided by economics, by geography and online. We live in a nation where record numbers cannot afford a decent living. We live in different places in our country. Young people go to university and then never come back home. They live in major cities, living entirely different lives to those they have left behind. We occupy completely different spaces online. On average, we spend two and a half hours scrolling a day, hearing and listening to things that others do not, inhabiting completely different worlds.
If we want to address that, and want people to once again have faith in our democracy, we need both a policy answer and a political answer. On the policy side, people need to see that democracy can and does deliver for them. There is a cost of living crisis today. What delivering means is good jobs in every single place for people. It means places where people can cohere and come together in their local communities, as well as ending the pervading sense of loneliness that leads people to live their lives online, seeing more extreme content, engaging with it, living within it and being driven by it.
More than that, there is a political answer. How do we come together as one nation and one people? The answer is by living up to the greatest values of Britishness—unity, decency and determination. That is what has made this nation make the impossible seem only remarkable. It is how we saved democracy in Europe and saw it spread across the globe. It is how we came together during a pandemic. And beyond those great moments are the small, everyday ones that make life worth while—having a pint, queuing politely, a cup of tea. That is what it means to be British, cohering as one nation, together.
The radical right will say, “No, no, no—we can fix all our problems by attacking immigrants.” The radical left will say, “It is all about corporations.” It is for us to say that we stand as one British people for decency— not blaming, but cohering together. Unity, decency, determination: that is how we protect our democracy, that is how we save it and that is how we keep it for future generations.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Thank you very much to everyone for being so disciplined with their speeches. We have had an excellent debate so far. Let us hope that continues. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this really interesting debate. I echo your words, Sir John—it has been really valuable. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, many of which I agreed with very strongly and some of which I did not agree with quite so much, but it has been an excellent illustration of what a functioning democracy looks like on this International Day of Democracy.
It is often said these days that we face a crisis in democracy. Authoritarian regimes in Beijing and Moscow become bolder, while long-standing democracies in Europe and the USA appear to struggle in the face of populism. It has never been more important for us as British parliamentarians to stand against those who would erode and diminish our hard-fought democratic freedoms, both here and abroad.
I will speak today about this crisis, but also about the opportunities that the response to it presents both here in the UK and around the world. It starts with respecting the building blocks of any successful democracy—the rule of law, free and fair elections, rights and freedoms, and accountability and transparency.
In some countries, the erosion of these building blocks is worrying. In Georgia, for instance, the stakes could not be higher. Last November the Georgian Government suspended EU accession talks, a choice that outraged a nation where polls consistently show overwhelming support for integration with Europe. Since then, protesters have filled Rustaveli Avenue almost daily, braving batons and water cannons to say, “Our future is ours”.
Over the summer, the Georgian Dream Government started arresting opposition leaders. Just weeks ago, I was informed that my friend Giorgi Vashadze, a leading opposition figure, had been arrested and sentenced to eight months in prison. Just yesterday another, Elene Khoshtaria, was arrested. The heinous crime of which she is accused? Damage to the mayor of Tbilisi’s election posters. How we respond to these challenges to democracy defines us as much as it defines those countries who are seeing their rights diminished.
Another example is Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Dayton peace agreement is being undermined by Milorad Dodik and his breakaway Republika Srpska. Less than a week ago, Dodik was hosted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow. The decision under the last Government to withdraw British troops from the EUFOR peacekeeping force in 2020 was a strategic blunder. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to recommit to the EUFOR mission, to support the civic groups painstakingly building bridges between communities and to reinforce Britain’s commitment to democracy and peace in the Balkans.
That also holds true in Serbia, where anger over corruption, negligence and brutality erupted after the Novi Sad railway station disaster last November. What began as mourning for victims became a nationwide anti-corruption movement, drawing hundreds of thousands on to the street. Rather than listening, President Vučić smeared protesters as foreign agents and invited Russian backing, while riot police fired stun grenades and tear gas. There were five nights of unrest and party offices in flames, but still there has been no meaningful reform.
The UK must send an unmistakable message: the Balkans cannot become a playground for Moscow’s interference. That means fair and transparent elections where the results are respected. Those of us in positions of responsibility and power must uphold those standards. If we do not, the consequences can be violent, as we saw in January 2021 when the US Congress was stormed by those who agreed with the current US President that the election result, in which he had been clearly defeated, was illegitimate and sought to overturn it.
Across Europe and around the world, we find democracy under pressure. From Tbilisi to Hong Kong, hard-won freedoms are being eroded, legislatures hollowed out and the voices of citizens silenced. The Liberal Democrats understand that democracy is more than just a mechanism for simply choosing Governments; it is a covenant between people and power—between rights and responsibility. It is how ordinary citizens hold the mighty to account. These crises are a symptom of a broader malaise.
James Naish
On the point about accountability, the hon. Member may be aware that at the end of August, the leader of Nottinghamshire county council banned the Nottingham Post and Nottinghamshire Live from speaking to him and his organisation with immediate effect. That included a ban on the local democracy reporting service. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and the Society of Editors that picking and choosing media scrutiny is avoiding accountability, it is profoundly wrong and it is dangerous to our democracy?
James MacCleary
Yes, I did see that story, and it is absolutely shocking. Anyone who purports to care about free speech and accountability, then bans journalists from attending meetings for no good reason, does not respect that at all. We cannot pick and choose who provides that scrutiny. I have not spoken at length here about the media, but it performs a fundamental role. We have spoken today about the iniquitous role of some social media, and that has shown the transition in the way that people consume information about democracy. We must protect and support local government reporters, which the hon. Member mentioned, who are absolutely essential to the democratic process in this country. That is an important point.
I was just about to say that globally, records show declines in press freedom on every continent. Rule of law is slipping. One in five nations saw a deterioration in freedom of expression, economic equality and access to justice. Hong Kong activists face intimidation, even on British soil, with Chinese Communist party-linked bounties pinned to lamp posts, even in our own towns. In Iran, the Revolutionary Guard exports terror and targets women demanding freedom. In Russia, Vladimir Putin claimed an 87% “victory” in a sham election while jailing and killing rivals. These regimes do not simply repress at home; they meddle abroad, launder their money through London and seek to divide our alliances.
Crucially, Britain’s credibility must start at home. Many people feel that democracy is not working for them in this country. They feel detached and distanced from this place, and look to those who offer easy answers. Our politics is realigning, and our system of democracy must realign with it. That means real electoral reform; a system of proportional representation that reflects what people actually voted for. There is a real danger that at the next election the distorted first-past-the-post system, which both the Conservative and Labour parties have done so much to protect, will sweep them away. The time for change is now.
Democracy is something precious that we must all work to protect, but it is not certain, and it is not inevitable. Too many people who claim to cherish our democracy now spend time subverting it—deliberately or not—by undermining our judiciary, discrediting serious media outlets and attacking the integrity of election results that do not suit them. The Liberal Democrats’ answer is clear: we must restore Britain’s moral authority by defending rights robustly, here and abroad; champion a proportional electoral system, so that every vote counts and political monopolies cannot fester; enshrine the ministerial code in law; uphold the Human Rights Act 1998 against those who would dilute it; impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on those who persecute in Hong Kong, Georgia, Serbia and elsewhere; and fund development and diplomacy properly by reversing aid cuts that leave vacuums for autocrats to exploit.
Democracy is not merely a ballot box. It is a citizen in Tbilisi protesting without fear; a journalist in Belgrade exposing corruption without a midnight knock at the door; a student in Hong Kong refusing to be silenced by Beijing; a Ukrainian citizen voting for their future under Russian fire; and a voter in Lewes knowing that their vote will really count. Authoritarianism spreads when democracy grows timid, and we Liberal Democrats will not be timid. We will stand with the people of Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, with Hong Kong’s exiles and Ukraine’s heroic defenders, and with every community fighting to have their voice heard. Britain must be known as a country that does not just lecture on democracy, but lives it, defends it and invests in it.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this timely debate to mark the International Day of Democracy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition I absolutely endorse her words about Jimmy Lai; her constituent should be released immediately.
It is right that this debate has been brought to the Floor of the House today, and that we all pause and reflect on the centrality of democracy, which in various forms runs right the way through our own national story and to the principles that we the United Kingdom hold dear across the world. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the birthplace of parliamentary democracy. Our history, our institutions and our very identity as a nation are bound up by that great achievement of democracy.
The story of our constitution—the balance between Crown and Parliament, and the empowerment of the individual through common law—was a British innovation that has evolved organically over many centuries. By the good fortune of our history and the wisdom of our forebears, we achieved a parliamentary system that blends monarchy and an upper Chamber, and which includes the state Church, the judiciary, science, the armed forces, academia and business. Of course, we have the vehicle to represent the popular will of the people here in this democratically elected House of Commons. Despite what some would describe as anachronisms of history, I believe that we in this country have a model parliamentary democracy. At the heart of our democracy is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty: our people, through their elected representatives, are the final authority. That is the cornerstone of our freedom.
Britain’s democratic reach extends far beyond these islands. From the very outset of our imperial past, England, then Great Britain, and then the United Kingdom was able to replicate the best of our democratic traditions in the far reaches of the planet. In many of our former colonies, the right to vote was established and extended even more broadly than it was at the same time in the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth of Nations embodies these democratic principles: 56 nations bound together not by force, but by free choice and by the shared democratic values enshrined in the Commonwealth charter. I believe that the Commonwealth of Nations is an undervalued institution. To have its headquarters a mere few minutes’ walk from where we sit today surely makes us the envy of any western democracy.
I read with great interest ahead of this debate the briefing from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy —an organisation that I was proud to serve as a board member for nine years and have worked with for 20 to 30 years. It was established by John Major’s Government following the fall of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, at the time when Margaret Thatcher was our Prime Minister. We commemorate the 100th anniversary of her birth next month, on 13 October. As we all know, Mrs Thatcher was a courageous leader, who was not afraid to oppose communism and stood up for freedom and democracy in Europe, resulting in an end to the communist tyranny that dominated the eastern side of the continent.
In 1993, I established a freedom training programme, with the support of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, through the Conservative party’s international office and the European Young Conservatives, which I chaired at the time, to help to spread the ideas of free people, free nations, free markets, democracy and the rule of law. We were doing all that via sister parties; the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, all political parties did the same. I worked with countries ranging from Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia to Belarus—where I launched the Free Belarus campaign in 1997—Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Moldova and Albania, as well as Ukraine and Russia, and even nations as far away as Argentina, a country that regained its democracy after Margaret Thatcher ensured the defeat of the military dictatorship in 1982 by the forces of the Crown in the south Atlantic.
Andrew Rosindell
I am afraid not, because we are very limited for time.
Britain should do more to strengthen international democracy, and the Commonwealth is a perfect vehicle for that. We have seen a queue of nations, particularly on the African continent, that want to join the Commonwealth. A good example of that is Togo. I am proud to have assisted that nation’s accession to the Commonwealth, which formally took place in 2022, following my visit to Togo in 2019. Therefore I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to assist the Commonwealth with its operations abroad? Surely the Commonwealth should be central to this Government’s strategy in promoting democracy and our democratic traditions abroad.
We are seeing the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world. I am thinking of, among others, the People’s Republic of China, Russia and Iran, the leaders of which came together in a show of force in Beijing only a fortnight ago. These countries pose a serious threat to democracy around the world. Therefore I ask the Minister: why are the Government willing to give the world’s leading authoritarian country the largest embassy in Europe and a base to spy on its dissenting citizens—those who simply disagree with Chinese communism? These nations have openly expressed their intent of reshaping the international system, so how is Britain making use of its seat on the UN Human Rights Council to push back against those who would seek to water down our democratic norms?
Also, of course, there is the matter of the Chagos islands. The Government denied the Chagossian people any form of serious consultation over the future of their homeland and ultimately decided to hand their islands, which belong to them, over to a nation in cahoots with China. Will the Minister reflect on the discussion we have had today and give the Chagossian people the democratic right, which I believe they are entitled to and which all of us, regardless of party, are supporting today—the right to determine their own future? That is democracy. Decolonisation must mean giving self-determination to those whose homeland it is. Why should our loyal and God-fearing British Chagossian friends be denied that right?
In closing, I will mention, as many Members have done today, the horrifying event that took place in the United States of America last week. Charlie Kirk’s murder was, I believe, an affront to the democratic values that have bound our two nations together for hundreds of years. Of course, Members across the House may not have agreed with Charlie’s views on a number of issues—we all disagree, on all kinds of issues—but this is a place where we can discuss our differences and the pursuit of truth in well-intentioned debate, without intimidation, hatred or violence. So I believe it is fitting to conclude with a quote from Charlie that sums him up best. He is someone who I actually met, when he came to the House of Commons in 2018—I gave him a tour and he went to Speaker’s House for a Christian celebration. Let me end my comments today by quoting from Charlie, because I believe that what he said encapsulates the very issue we are discussing today:
“When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group…What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his remarks about my appointment—I think most Members do not realise that I have been silent for a good two years, so it is nice to know that the voice box is still working.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I thank Members from across the House for the cordial way in which we have debated today—clearly without everyone agreeing, which is the whole point of democracy in this place and in institutions around our United Kingdom. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate to mark such an important day and for her work to advocate for her constituent, Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case remains a priority for the UK Government. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Mr Lai. I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions of other hon. Members and will try to respond to all the points raised.
In these unpredictable times of global tension and turmoil, with democracy under threat, the stakes are high. When we stand up for our democratic values, we are not only doing what is right, we are safeguarding our own future, for we know that accountable governance is the foundation for a safer, greener, healthier and more prosperous world. Although public support for democracy remains strong, as has been mentioned, over the last 20 years, the world has, overall, become less democratic. Today, more than seven in 10 people around the world live in autocracies, and democracy is under pressure from climate change, conflict and irregular migration, among many other factors. Even long-established democracies like our own are affected. That is why in the UK we continue to work with partners at home and abroad to ensure that democratic principles remain strong.
We need to maintain public trust and support for democracy by showing that democratic Governments can meet today’s challenges and deliver for their citizens. We must address the threats posed by countries such as Russia that are working to undermine democratic systems and values in the UK and around the world. We must also support our partners where the shoots of democracy are still growing to defend the space for civil society, uphold the rule of law, champion equal rights, support accountable, inclusive institutions, and tackle global challenges such as dirty money and corruption.
The Government have already taken big steps to strengthen democracy at home. As has been mentioned, we are giving 16-year-olds the right to vote in UK elections—a major change that will boost young people’s trust in democracy. We are making sure that eligible voters are not prevented or deterred from voting by permitting the use of UK-issued bank cards as an accepted form of ID at polling stations. We are introducing tougher rules on political donations, striking the right balance between safeguarding against foreign interference and making sure that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns.
We are also empowering the Electoral Commission to clamp down on those who breach political finance rules, with fines of up to half a million pounds, and there will be tougher sentences for those who abuse election campaigners, or elected representatives or their staff. Our commitment to give more decision-making power, funding and tools to local leaders and mayors in England will enable them to effectively address local needs, drive growth and improve public services.
Alongside our efforts to strengthen democracy at home, we must protect ourselves from those overseas who do not share our values. The defending democracy taskforce, chaired by the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), is leading a whole-of-society effort to protect the integrity of British democracy. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been stepping up its efforts to expose those who manipulate information, interfere with our democratic processes and institutions, or undermine the rights, freedoms and security of our citizens.
The international nature of the threats requires an international response. We are working through partnerships such as Five Eyes and the G7 to share expertise and take co-ordinated measures against actions by states such as Russia, China and Iran. Last month, the UK and our G7 partners condemned the latest round of arrest warrants and bounties issued by the Hong Kong police as acts of transnational repression. In July, we exposed and sanctioned the Russian interference agency African Initiative for its role in malign influence operations across Africa.
It is equally important to nurture and support democratic government around the world. We are delivering on that commitment through our extensive diplomatic and development partnerships. The UK supports elections, Parliaments and political parties in over 30 countries through our arms-length body, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I have heard the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and I am more than happy to engage with the WFD governors and ensure that FCDO officials do too. Election observation remains an essential part of the UK’s support for free and fair elections. This year and last year, we sent more than 160 observers to watch votes around the world, including in Moldova, Georgia and Uzbekistan.
Freedom of expression and a free media are the bedrock of a healthy democracy, empowering citizens to hold institutions to account. However, as the persecution of Jimmy Lai demonstrates, in many parts of the world the freedom of the media is under threat. The UK is one of the most significant champions of international media freedom. Our support for the BBC World Service brings impartial, accurate news to 320 million people around the world, in 42 languages, every week. It remains the world’s most trusted international news service.
Illicit finance and corruption are transnational challenges, undermining growth and democratic governance, and fuelling organised crime and conflict. We are strengthening our domestic defences and stepping up efforts internationally to ensure that dirty money has nowhere to hide. In April, we sanctioned the cronies of corrupt leaders who are undermining democracy and the rule of law in Georgia and Guatemala.
It is unacceptable that in the UK and around the world, women face barriers to participation in politics and are increasingly exposed to abuse and threats. Our special envoy for women and girls, my noble Friend Baroness Harman, is championing gender equality worldwide and co-ordinating international efforts to ensure that women and girls are empowered and their rights are protected. I am sure that Members from across this House can agree that there is no more powerful advocate for ensuring that women and girls are able to take part in our democratic processes.
To briefly answer the point from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—having spent many years myself not always getting answers as an Opposition Member—I understand more than most Members of this House the importance of the Commonwealth, having served on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK and international for years. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government recognise the importance of the Commonwealth, and we are working with the new secretary-general. I give him the assurance that we will continue to do that work.
This Government are working to protect and strengthen democracy internationally because it is the right thing to do and is clearly in our national interest.
Chris Elmore
I am running out of time.
A world where rights are respected and states are well governed is a more peaceful world—one where Britain and our partners will be more secure and prosperous. We are working flat out to achieve that goal.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am delighted that the Minister has broken his vow of silence. I call Rachel Blake to sum up.
Rachel Blake
Thank you, Sir John, for bringing us together for this important debate. I put on record my thanks to everybody who has joined us in the Public Gallery to listen to this debate. What better demonstration of how democracy is alive and well than that people will come out on a Tuesday morning to listen to a debate about the International Day of Democracy.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for talking about lobbying rules and the risks of revolving doors; to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who talked about the importance of free speech; to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who discussed electoral reform; to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, who talked about the important role of women in politics; to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for talking about the vital contributions of local communities; to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for discussing the rise of disinformation and authoritarianism; to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for a powerful discussion about how democracy must be nurtured; to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for a powerful tribute to free speech; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for talking about how important it is to have these respectful debates.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) about the values of democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) gave a powerful discussion of electoral reform. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) talked about the Windsor framework. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) talked about how we can overcome division by investing in the social contract. Finally, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the vital role of international support for contribution, while the Opposition spokes- person, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), discussed support for the Commonwealth in his contribution. I also welcome the Minister’s remarks.
In this debate, we have heard about the scale and complexity of the challenge that we face. We have all been sobered by the rise of disinformation and authoritarianism. We have been able to discuss the terrible political violence that occurred in America last week, and able to discuss the importance of investing in the social contract and overcoming some of the barriers in order to have confidence in democracy.
Democracy means a stake in one’s community, a stake in the rules, and a stake in all our futures. In this debate, we have seen how democracy helps us to disagree. I agree with much of what was said and disagree with some remarks, but this debate has given us a chance to come together and discuss. I imagine that every hon. Member in this Chamber has lost an election. I might be unusual among politicians to think that, every once in a while, such losses are an important opportunity to learn lessons about how we conduct ourselves going forward. Through that process, we have all learned how to be better politicians—one example of how disagreeing respectfully is an important part of democracy.
We have learned that freedom of speech and expression is not the preserve of the right or the left, but a foundational principle in our democracy, and one that I know we will all defend. I finish by saying that there is hope. Every day, communities in the UK and internationally are organising and influencing their democracy and the decisions made by their leaders, at some level or another. There is hope in investing to tackle the cost of living crisis and investing in the social contract, and hope in the international support for the release of my constituent, Jimmy Lai.
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and the confidence he has given about the Government’s commitment to espousing democratic values and supporting democracy internationally. I am grateful, too, for your chairship, Sir John.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the International Day of Democracy.
Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects: Suffolk Coast
(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
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will call Jenny Riddell-Carpenter to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. Other Members should be aware that they can contribute only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. Sadly, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate, because we have only half an hour.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the coordination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for energy on the Suffolk coast.
Suffolk Coastal is central to the UK’s energy ambitions. It is often said that up to 30% of Britain’s future energy is expected to be generated in, or transmitted through, my constituency. Suffolk Coastal is home to nationally and internationally important landscapes, including national landscapes, sites of special scientific interest, the Suffolk heritage coast and wetlands that form part of the east Atlantic flyway migratory bird route. Those are not simply scenic features; they underpin local economies and nature-based tourism, and they are vital to national commitments to biodiversity and environmental protection.
As the Minister will be aware, the nationally significant infrastructure projects that I will refer to are being delivered within a small, 10-mile radius, and sit in the heart of those national landscapes, including in nature reserves run by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and on important national sites. They stretch from LionLink in Walberswick, which is just south of Southwold, down to Sea Link in Aldeburgh, then next door to Sizewell C, which is Europe’s largest energy project, and link into proposed converter stations in Friston and Saxmundham. Some of those projects have consent while others are going through the process as we speak.
What is remarkable—it is the point of the debate—is the lack of co-ordination between the plans. No attempt has been made to plan for the cumulative impact of the projects or to consider how better to co-ordinate them. In fact, in March 2024, National Grid published details showing that it has no intention to co-ordinate LionLink, led by National Grid Ventures, with the more advanced Sea Link project, led by National Grid Electricity Transmission.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for introducing the debate. She is right to highlight the issues of coastal communities, where there are very many difficulties. My constituency suffers from coastal erosion, for example, which has been worked on, but there is also the potential to produce clean renewable energy. Does she agree that there is, perhaps, an opportunity for the Minister and the Government to put their minds and money into harnessing that energy for the benefit of all communities throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
As I said, the multiple NSIPs in Suffolk Coastal are within just a 10-mile radius. They are being planned in an area of the country that is mostly served by B roads and country lanes. It seems remarkable that developers are being allowed to bring forward these proposals on some of England’s most important nature sites, when offshore alternatives could easily have been considered. I will focus in this debate on how Suffolk Coastal is being let down and why I am asking the Government to work with me to require the developers to look again at their plans and improve their proposals to minimise disruption to both people and the environment.
As the Minister will know, the previous Government totally vacated the leadership space when it came to our country’s energy and biodiversity planning, and the void was filled by energy developers. They decided to take the lead and were left to make proposals for totally unsuitable landscapes, all because it was cheaper than developing brownfield sites. What we have been left with is a series of unco-ordinated whack-a-mole projects on the Suffolk coast. We have an opportunity under the new Government to provide greater planning and leadership on these critical infrastructure challenges.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Having worked in the energy industry, I continue to be a strong proponent of local area energy plans, because they would empower communities to make decisions about their own energy needs and how much energy they want to export. At the moment the process feels very reactive and is based on private and landowner interests, as opposed to empowering communities across a local authority area to make decisions. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to have energy planning on a statutory footing across every local authority in the country?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I know that my hon. Friend has been passionate about this since his arrival in this place last year. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that point, but yes, I do agree; in fact, I will come on to some of those themes later.
There is an opportunity to set up an overarching body to ensure that the many competing schemes, whether already consented, within the development consent order process or in the pipeline, are properly co-ordinated. The body could be departmental or independent from the Government, but it would operate under the direction of the Secretary of State. Although the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consulted on the concept of a future systems operator for electricity, that does not go far enough or quickly enough. There needs to be oversight of the cumulative impact of all NSIP schemes in an area. The failings that arise in the absence of such oversight are evident in many areas of my constituency, but are perhaps best highlighted by the case of Boden Farms.
Boden Farms was subject to compulsory purchase of land to accommodate Sizewell C’s development phase, and work has begun on a new relief road on the farm’s former land. The farmer has been told by National Grid Ventures that it, too, will need to access his land in order to lay cables for LionLink. It cannot tell him where, when or if it will be made subject to a compulsory purchase order, but it can tell him that in a year or maybe two it will be digging up the very same land that is being worked on right now by Sizewell C, including, most likely, parts of the new relief road that is being built as we speak.
I am very concerned by reports that the only plans LionLink has ever received for the link road are the ones the landowner provided himself. Surely, that cannot be right, but it is not a one-off; this story is repeated across my constituency, in every parish where lines are being laid or work is being planned. That is in no one’s interest—not the community’s, not nature’s and not even the developer’s—so I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have made it a legal requirement for energy developers to co-ordinate their work.
Farmers from Woodbridge to Leiston, and parishes from Friston to Walberswick and Yoxford to Peasenhall, all ask the same thing: why are these projects popping up with no co-ordination, and why is there no legal requirement for them to work together? It is our communities and our environment that have to endure the cumulative impact of all this.
Developers are also failing to put proper mitigations in place or to listen to the concerns of local residents, which is having a real impact. Farmers have told me of issues engaging with energy developers when they have raised objections to cables being buried to a depth of less than 1.8 metres on their land, in breach of electrical safety guidance, leaving them unable to use the land for arable farming. Energy developers have been unwilling to engage, which means that land risks being taken out of arable food production permanently. In laying any cables on active agricultural land, developers should guarantee that arable farmland will be safeguarded for future farming use, and I tabled another amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have made it a legal requirement for energy developers to lay cables to a minimum depth of 1.8 metres.
The depth of cables is an issue not just for farmers, but for offshore shipping. Members will appreciate that I have shipping lanes off the coast of my constituency, and the Harwich Haven Authority has told me that it is concerned that energy developers must do more to engage with it to ensure that cables are buried at a sufficient depth that projects do not compromise navigational safety. The Sunk area around Harwich Haven is a vital and highly complex shipping zone. Any offshore developments must be planned with strict adherence to safety requirements.
The UK has let developers lead the conversation and the strategy. We have ended up with a mismatch of proposals, in the wrong place, with no co-ordination and no desire to think of better alternatives. Other countries are stealing a march. Holistic network design criteria are adopted and adhered to in North sea countries including Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. As a result, they choose brownfield sites at the outset for their energy infrastructure hubs and, in doing so, manage to avoid adverse impacts on communities and ecologies.
Places such as Zeebrugge and Rotterdam industrial zones are chosen for building substations, with space to build future projects, including hydrogen storage. Those projects are co-ordinated in order to minimise needless damage, maximise efficiencies and move at pace. For the same reasons, energy developers in the UK should be required to pursue as a first option brownfield hubs where multiple projects can co-exist without any adverse impact on nature.
We need to create a legal duty for developers working in the same area to exchange information, seek opportunities for shared infrastructure, reduce cumulative impact and align timelines. A framework of co-ordination, co-design, community benefit and compensation would mean that communities, town and parish councils and the Government could see the whole picture, not just the smallest of fragments. So many of my constituents are devastated by the cumulative impact that these energy projects within a 10-mile radius are having on nature, and no one organisation has ever looked at it.
We can get this right. If we do, we can deliver on our climate ambitions and protect nature at the same time, but it will require greater leadership, oversight and scrutiny, and greater emphasis on making sure that we co-ordinate, plan and implement a clean, green energy revolution that is strategic and not just whack-a-mole. It must be rooted in knowing the land and the geography, and not in the whims of the developer. Getting this right now will mean better protections for our natural environment, better safeguards for our local communities and a lasting legacy for the next generation.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—no, I am underselling him. I call the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Thank you, Sir John, for recognising that my role is exactly the same and yet somehow changed in title. I am grateful still to be the Energy Minister, because, as I often say in this place, the debates that we have are always hugely interesting and bring in so many different aspects of how we plan our future energy system. Indeed, you and I, Sir John, have had many conversations about this particular issue.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this debate and for her contribution. She and I have had a number of conversations about this issue. Let me say at the outset that I actually agree with her on the need for better co-ordination—I have said that many times here and to her personally. I think it is a source of deep regret for all of us—I think the previous Government will look back on this as well—that we did not more properly co-ordinate what has been a huge build-out of new, important infrastructure.
As my hon. Friend said, the previous Government vacated the space of leadership in planning the future of our energy system. That was not because it was an impossible task; I can only assume it was because they thought it was too difficult to do. We have grasped that task in the 14 months that we have been in office. I will talk a bit more about that later.
I want to start with a bit of context, which is important. My hon. Friend also mentioned this point. We are committed as a Government to building things in this country again. For far too long, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, we have held back a lot of critical infrastructure. The plan for delivering economic growth across the country does require us to build infrastructure. Energy infrastructure is going to be absolutely key, not least because even if we were not on the journey to clean power, which is critical, we would still be having to upgrade much of the energy infrastructure, particularly the transmission network, which has been so under-invested in over the past 50 or 60 years.
Our mission as a Government is to move towards clean power, making sure that we deliver our energy security; and every wind turbine, solar panel and nuclear power station that we build protects us from future energy shocks and delivers our energy security here at home. So, it is a critical mission.
New energy infrastructure—indeed, new infrastructure of any kind—is always controversial in some circumstances; there are always impacts and there are always differing views about whether it should be built or not. That is why we have a planning system that seeks to balance the pros and cons of applications against a framework that sets out, as a country, that we have to build things somewhere. So, the planning system is there to make sure that the planning process is rigorous and open, but ultimately so that we make decisions and build things.
For obvious reasons, I will not comment on individual planning applications; they will be decided in due course in the usual way. However, I will make a fundamental point about why we are on this journey and why we think that building this infrastructure is so important. The reason is that the only way to reduce our exposure to the volatility of fossil fuels is to build a new clean power system. That means new nuclear, renewables and storage working together to bring down bills and tackle the climate crisis.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal is aware of the NSIP regime, but for the purposes of the hordes of people that I am sure are watching this debate at home, let me say a little about it. The “nationally significant” in NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—is really important for us to recognise. The reason we have an NSIP process is that some decisions have to be made that local communities might not be able to make in isolation because they are of critical national importance, whether that is in transport, water or energy projects. It is important that we have this process and it is a robust process, involving the Planning Inspectorate, and various statutory bodies such as national environment bodies. Projects are judged on a case-by-case basis, weighed against the local impacts, be they environmental, economic or social. The need for this process is set out for all to see in local and national planning policy, and of course national policy statements are scrutinised by this place before being agreed.
When an applicant submits an application for a development consent order or DCO, the Planning Inspectorate, particularly for energy NSIPs, will appoint an independent inspector to examine the application. A recommendation will be made to the Secretary of State about whether permission should be given and the Secretary of State makes the final decision; that decision might be made by a junior Minister on their behalf, but the law states that the decision is still in the name of the Secretary of State. Such applications are considered against the relevant national policy statements as approved by Parliament, which make the case for infrastructure and all the various considerations that have to be made.
Cumulative impact is an issue that my hon. Friend raised with me today, and that a number of hon. Friends have raised with me previously. I know that it is a particular concern. Projects must consider their cumulative impact as part of their applications. Also, the local authority that hosts the infrastructure and surrounding local authorities—given that often these projects are on the borders with other local authorities—are invited to submit impact reports as part of the process, to ensure that the potential impacts of an individual project are taken into account, based on local knowledge.
Of course, there are also opportunities for local communities to have a say. Members of the public can get involved not just in the planning application itself, but in the pre-consultation process and in the discussions before applications emerge. They can also register through the Planning Inspectorate during the pre-examination phase.
On planning reform, we are mindful as a Government that the planning process can take much longer than we think it should. Let me say at the outset that that is not about trying to get to the decision that one particular group might want; it is about getting to any kind of decision much faster, so that instead of projects and communities being held up for year after year, with people not knowing whether something will proceed or not, decisions are made.
The average time to secure development consent for NSIPs has increased from 2.6 years in 2012 to 3.6 years in 2024. Such delays cost a vast amount of money—£1.5 million a month for some large projects—and that of course impacts taxpayers and bill payers, who foot the bill for these projects.
There is always a balance to be struck, as we have said throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Of course we want communities to have a say and we want the process to be as robust as possible, but we need to get decisions and end the uncertainty as quickly as possible, and the Bill will be key to improving the process. Our reforms are about trying to make sure that the system is flexible, proportionate and responsive to Government priorities. The Government must deliver the change on which we were elected; in the energy space, that means building the clean power system of the future. The planning system should reflect the priorities of the democratically elected Government of the day.
Public engagement is key to this process. We want communities to participate in the planning system, but as I will come back to in a moment when I talk about strategic planning, we also want communities to have a say much earlier in the process. It is not just about individual applications, but about the whole question of infrastructure in communities more generally. We are consulting on further proposals to streamline the NSIP process, including for new guidance on engagement following proposals in the Bill to remove statutory pre-application consultation requirements, and we encourage feedback from communities. We are also keen to hear views on the practical next steps and on how the system will actually work. I understand that the consultation is now open and will close at the end of October.
On the siting of energy projects, I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be much more strategic as a country in considering what the future of our energy system should look like, and in planning holistically what infrastructure should be built and where. She made a powerful point about the sheer amount in her part of the country. Had we been strategically planning a decade or so ago, we might have avoided some of those planning decisions, so it is important that we take this step. I regret the fact that we have not done so for the past few decades, but we are moving forward with a strategic view as quickly as possible.
The problem with being the Minister for Energy Security is that we are not short of acronyms—let me just go through some of them. The strategic spatial energy plan, or SSEP, and the centralised strategic network plan, or CSNP, are two crucial parts of how we will provide a holistic design much more carefully. The strategic spatial energy plan is about looking at the whole of Great Britain and how we map out the future of our energy system, and it will be published by the end of 2026—there is work going on at the moment. The centralised strategic network plan will follow, so that we can work out what infrastructure we need on the grid in order to meet the strategic spatial energy plan, and it will be published by the end of 2027.
This is about taking a much more active planning role in the future of energy right across England, Scotland and Wales, both inland and at sea. My hon. Friend rightly brings both of those things from her constituency into this discussion. It will be about assessing the optimal locations for things and the type of energy infrastructure that we need in the future. We must look beyond a developer’s five or 10-year plan and ensure that we meet future energy demand, knowing that it will significantly increase in the years ahead.
The centralised strategic network plan will build on the SSEP by ensuring that our transmission infrastructure meets the need and, crucially, is co-ordinated. My hon. Friend made that point very powerfully, and I was in Denmark last week to talk about this very question with EU Energy Ministers. The North sea is already congested with a lot of infrastructure, and the only way we will effectively plan the future of the North sea— for a whole range of uses, from fishing and energy to carbon capture and storage—is by working together. We will be part of much more co-ordination on the infrastructure in the North sea.
It all feeds into my hon. Friend’s point: we will only get this right by having a holistic view and enabling the efficient and co-ordinated use of infrastructure. That is better for communities affected by this issue directly, but we can also bring down the cost of building infrastructure if we plan it more coherently. That will benefit every person right across the country.
James Naish
The Minister describes something that I am extremely passionate about, as he knows, but it is a very top-down approach. I wonder whether we simultaneously need a bottom-up approach that engages with communities via local authorities in order to look at what land is available and how it could be used. Is that not something that we could do side by side with the vital strategic approach that he describes?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend foresees what I was going to say. I was just about to come on to his earlier intervention, which was really important. He is right about the need for infrastructure plans to be generated by communities and bottom-up. We need to take a national view of the future of the energy system as well, but I think both can work together.
The third great part of this planning is the regional energy plans. We also see a place, on a very localised level, for the local energy plans that many local authorities and combined mayoral authorities are working on, but the regional plans break up the whole of Great Britain into smaller areas so that we can look in detail at what energy can be sited in different areas, and crucially, at how the two kinds of plan can work together—the Government’s land use framework for the future use of land in the country alongside the capability and interest from communities to host infrastructure as well. I hope that we are doing that, but my hon. Friend should continue to bring that challenge to the Government, because it is something that we are committed to doing. I am confident that he will do so, which is great.
Let me finish on a point around the impact on communities. We do not want to get to a place where the future energy system is something that is done to communities, and we recognise that the failure of strategic planning across the country has meant that that is all too often what it has felt like for communities. We have a role to play in ensuring that, where communities do host important energy infrastructure, they benefit from it. Hosting such infrastructure benefits the whole country—without a resilient energy system, we all lose out, and we will not deliver the economic growth that we need—but the communities that host this infrastructure should feel a benefit from doing so.
That is why, in March, we announced two community benefit initiatives, guidance on community funds for communities that host this key infrastructure, and a bill discount scheme for households that are sited in proximity to new transmission infrastructure. The guidance sets out our expectations for how communities hosting that infrastructure should benefit. We will have more to say as the bill discount scheme is developed through secondary legislation, but that is an important statement: people should directly benefit, through money off their bills, if they are doing the country a favour by hosting that infrastructure. In May we also published a working paper on wider questions around community benefits, to make sure that other types of energy infrastructure also benefit communities.
In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for securing the debate. I know that we will continue to have these conversations. In this job I sometimes wish, for a number of reasons, that we could turn back the clock and do things slightly differently. I have been told repeatedly that, unfortunately, that is not an option, although I continue to push for it. Strategic planning is one of those regrets. As a country, whatever the political view, we will look back and wish that we had planned our energy system more holistically across the country. We are doing that. That does not change some of the decisions that have been made and some of the decisions that are in the system now, but it will allow us to build a more holistic system in the future.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Will the Minister meet me to talk about what more co-ordination can happen now through the projects that are live, in the way that I set out in my speech?
Michael Shanks
I am always happy to meet any hon. Member from either side of the House, and I do regularly, but I will certainly meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. For obvious reasons, it is difficult to comment on specific applications in the system, but I am happy to meet her.
Let me finish with a general point that brings us back to our national mission. As a country, we must move quickly to replace a 19th-century fossil fuel-based energy system with a system that is fit for the 21st century. Even if we were not on that mission, the huge increase in demand for electricity necessitates the building of more energy infrastructure across the country. We must make the change that we are making to bring down bills and benefit consumers, to benefit our national energy security in an increasingly uncertain world, and to tackle climate change. Anyone who says that we can get by with not building any infrastructure is quite wrong.
Since time began, there has been opposition to any pieces of infrastructure built in any part of the country, but we must as a country recognise that, for us to deliver on the outcomes we want as a Government and improve people’s lives, we have to build infrastructure across the country. We want to do that in partnership with communities, to ensure that we do so in as well planned and strategic a way as possible, and to ensure that communities that host such infrastructure genuinely benefit from it. There is much more work to do, and I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on these difficult questions so that we can find the right solution for the country and local communities. I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
London Fashion Week: Cultural Contribution
(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
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cultural contribution of London Fashion Week.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am honoured to have secured this debate on the cultural contribution of London Fashion Week, which begins on Thursday. This is an industry and a week with a buzz that is almost indescribable, but in this speech I will do my best to put it into words. About now, across our country and capital, designers and creative directors are reviewing their collections for the final time. Stylists are curating every detail. Make-up artists are checking and rechecking their kits. Streetwear creators are planning their content grids. Production teams are transforming venues across this city into extraordinary stages.
For many of us, fashion is a career driven not just by ambition but by a deep love of the industry and a passion for creativity. When I was 16 fashion was, as it is for many young people, a form of self-expression while I was still trying to figure out who I was, so I was thrilled when I got my first insight into the industry when I was offered a part-time job at Topshop on Kettering’s High Street. I am sure I need not remind colleagues that in 2013 Topshop was quite the brand. It represented a connection to global trends, creativity and culture that felt far away from my day-to-day life in Kettering. I loved watching trends trickle down from the catwalk to the high street and spotting that one piece of the season finally landing in Kettering after seeing it online weeks before. It was in those moments that I realised I did not want to be just on the shop floor, looking at the clothes; I wanted to be part of the world that created them.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this really important debate. Lynne Franks is a good friend of mine and a constituent, and she is also the creator of London Fashion Week. However, her impact does not end there. It is global, but also local. She is the founder of the SEED Hub in Wincanton, which provides a space for female entrepreneurs in the area. Will the hon. Member join me in congratulating Lynne Franks on her amazing career in the fashion industry? Does she agree that we must invest in arts education, ensuring that courses are well funded and apprenticeships are available, so that the UK can maintain its global creative and fashion hub?
Rosie Wrighting
Yes, absolutely. I join the hon. Member in congratulating Lynne Franks on her incredible career. The hon. Member is right, and later I will go into more detail on how important it is that we invest in the next generation of creatives across the country, not just in our capital.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. Although I am not extremely up to date on fashion—I am probably not a “Dedicated Follower Of Fashion”, as the song goes; my wife knows that for definite—I can certainly appreciate the opportunities that it brings for young people across the UK. A young lady from Northern Ireland whose name is Hope Macaulay has founded her own brand, Hope Macaulay knitwear. She showed her graduate collection at London’s Graduate Fashion Week and in London Fashion Week as well. Does the hon. Lady agree that, along with offering culture, London Fashion Week can offer young aspiring designers real opportunities to get their products on show to support and boost their careers? That is what it does for some of the people in Northern Ireland. I believe it does the same for people across this great United Kingdom—for people in Great Britain as well.
Rosie Wrighting
I absolutely agree. Stories of the careers of graduates who have gone on to be influential designers come from all across the UK. We need to ensure that young people potentially watching this debate now are seeing fashion as a future career and feel as though there are steps they can take and there is a vibrant career ahead of them, so I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
I grew up with my fair share of challenges, but the thought of a career in fashion gave me drive and determination that shaped the rest of my life. The belief that creativity can be a path forward is something that London Fashion Week represents to me and to thousands of young people across the country, who see their opportunity to be a part of something bigger than themselves.
The talent at London Fashion Week is unmatched and embodies the best of Britain—our creativity, diversity and resilience, which comes from every corner of the UK. Take the story of Lee McQueen, the son of a taxi driver and a teaching assistant who became one of the most influential designers the world has ever seen. Lee’s path into fashion was not paved with privilege; he fought his way in. The story goes that he turned up, portfolio in hand, and quite literally knocked on the door of Central Saint Martins, asking for a place on its MA course. At first he was turned away, but his work spoke for itself and he was eventually given a chance.
That image—of a young designer knocking on a door and refusing to be invisible—captures something vital about London Fashion Week and the British fashion industry. It is a space where raw talent, determination and creativity can break through. Lee McQueen—Alexander McQueen—created collections that were provocative, political and deeply emotional, blending his working-class roots with British history and culture.
Fashion was accessible to me when I was growing up in Kettering and it was accessible to Lee when he banged on that door. But it worries me that there are potentially young people today who cannot force their way into fashion in quite the way that Lee did.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate, and I congratulate her on being one of the best-dressed Members of Parliament. [Laughter.]
My constituency of Stratford and Bow is home to so much art and fashion in London, from Hackney Wick to Fish Island, where we have a fashion show this weekend at The Trampery. And in the Olympic Park, we have the incredible London College of Fashion, which is training up the next generation of students and fashion creators. However, both the teachers and students there have told me that although the fashion industry is a massive force for growth and opportunity, its current practices are an existential threat to its future, because they are prohibiting people from becoming involved in the industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever that we keep fashion accessible, and that the UK’s world-leading fashion sector prioritises circularity and sustainability in the heart of everything it does? And if she does agree, would she ask the Government to consider those points, too?
Rosie Wrighting
I thank my hon. Friend, both for her intervention and for how much she champions the fashion industry and the creatives in her constituency. East London is a massive part of Fashion Week and she is a great champion of it. And I absolutely agree with her intervention, particularly on the importance of circularity and sustainability. Fashion must move very quickly, given the challenges facing the UK and the world, and it is right that it is supported in that regard.
We must ensure that fashion remains a viable career for young people, particularly those from outside London and from working-class communities. That means making it easier for designers and brands to scale up their businesses without being forced to sell early or relocate abroad. It also means providing stronger financial education and mentoring for young creatives, so that talent is matched with tools to build sustainable businesses. It also means tackling unfair payment practices, because too many freelancers, small brands and small suppliers have to wait months to be paid, making it impossible for them to grow, or sometimes even survive.
We know that talent survives when it is supported. This year is the 25th anniversary of Fashion East, ERDEM and Roxana.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for London Fashion Week; I agree with everything she has said. I am very pleased to note that last week Manchester Fashion Week returned after a decade’s break, showcasing our city’s talent, sustainable practices and rich textile heritage. Does she agree that we should do more to celebrate innovation in fashion across the UK?
Rosie Wrighting
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I know from my own career that Manchester’s influence on British fashion has increased massively over the last decade. It is right that creatives up there—I know there are many who study at Manchester Metropolitan University on its fashion courses—are supported, so that we harness talent from across our country. So, I thank him for that intervention.
From Vivienne Westwood to John Galliano, Aaron Esh and Simone Rocha, from Savile Row to the rise of grime and contemporary streetwear, fashion in Britain crosses into art, theatre, subculture and politics. If we do not tackle the current challenges, we risk losing some of the very talent that makes Britain a leading name in international fashion.
The British Fashion Council’s work is crucial in that space. London Fashion Week keeps the door open for new voices, providing a shared space, mentoring and practical support for new-gen designers. For many designers, such as Christopher Kane and JW Anderson, who are now some of the biggest names in the industry, it serves as a launchpad. The British Fashion Council and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport support their talent to grow into a business, helping so many designers get their first break here in the UK.
I could not talk about the British Fashion Council without mentioning decisions made by the new chief executive Laura Weir, who is here in the Gallery today, to scrap fees, levelling the playing field for independent designers and small brands that had been priced out of participating in recent years. Her choice to extend the NEWGEN programme for three years and expand scholarship funding and mentoring for fashion students will directly benefit children who grew up in situations such as mine.
These changes will undoubtedly support working-class creatives in this space, but they will also influence an industry that is fundamentally better off when there are working-class voices within it. A wide variety of voices have made fashion week what it is: an opportunity to bring together different cultures and lived experiences, especially in a week in which London has faced division on our streets. London Fashion Week shows off British values, culture and inclusivity at their best. At a time like this, that should be celebrated.
Fashion has a responsibility to make creativity sustainable. Designers are experimenting with recycled fabrics, circularity, digital presentation and harnessing some of the benefits of artificial intelligence. The result is innovation that is cultural as well as technical. London Fashion Week is an opportunity for Britain to lead not just in fashion but in cultural responsibility. It is also a vital commercial engine for British fashion. It enables emerging and established SME brands to showcase new lines and collections to domestic and international retail buyers.
The cultural and creative industries are rightly recognised in the Government’s industrial strategy as one of this country’s greatest strengths. Over the last decade, the sector has grown one and a half times faster than the wider economy. Within that, fashion makes enormous contributions, adding more than £60 billion to the economy each year and supporting nearly 900,000 jobs. London Fashion Week is a clear example of how British creativity translates into growth, skills exports and cultural influence that is recognised across the world.
In praising that work, we must acknowledge the challenges that the sector continues to face. The pandemic exposed how precarious many creative careers are, and the worsening barriers to entry that risk narrowing the pipeline of talent that London Fashion Week relies on. I have spoken to friends and colleagues in the industry who feel deeply the uncertainty and fear of being priced out of a sector that they love. I am standing here today —in my first Westminster Hall debate and the first ever debate on London Fashion Week in this place—because of the opportunities I had and the drive and determination I learnt from working in fashion.
I admit that—against the advice of my staff—I sometimes read the comments on my Twitter page. Almost every day I see negativity about my background in fashion, as if it somehow makes me less accomplished or less intelligent, but I can tell you that those who thrive in fashion are some of the most resilient, resourceful and driven people I know. It is a career that demands creativity, initiative, quick thinking, a thick skin and intellect. The industry of pattern cutters, make-up artists, buyers, designers, photographers, models, content creators, stylists, set designers and countless others brings so much to our country, often with little recognition.
London Fashion Week reflects who we are, and it shows the world that Britain is and will remain a nation of innovation, artistry and resilience. It cements Britain’s position as a global leader in fashion, and strengthens the UK’s soft power. It is a beacon for the very best of our creativity, craftmanship and bold innovation.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) for securing this debate. I would like to highlight how adaptive fashion is being promoted at this year’s London Fashion Week.
Adaptive fashion enables people who have difficulties in dressing themselves, whether because of physical disabilities, limited mobility or chronic pain, to dress themselves comfortably and confidently. Clothing pieces are often equipped with additional functions such as zips, Velcro and magnetic fastenings, which can help with independent dressing while also providing discreet access for medical ports.
As the parent of a child with cerebral palsy, I know how important adaptive clothing is for someone with a physical disability and limited mobility. I pay tribute to fashion labels such as Unhidden, founded by Victoria Jenkins, that aim to make fashion accessible and inclusive for those with disabilities. Victoria’s new collection, which will be unveiled at this year’s London Fashion Week, will be modelled by individuals living with disabilities, chronic conditions or visible differences.
I applaud Victoria’s mission, but I am also aware of the need for adaptive clothing on the high street. I visited the Primark branch in Bexleyheath last year, where it was outlined to me how the company has launched an adaptive fashion range that was co-designed with Victoria and is available across 96 of its stores. It was refreshing to see a global brand such as Primark making clothing accessible, both physically and financially, for disabled people on the high street. Primark has joined other high street names, such as Asda and my former employer Marks & Spencer, which have adaptive clothing ranges for adults and children. I welcome the increase of adaptive fashion on the high street and in high-end fashion, but I am aware that more can still be done to ensure that it is not just a phenomenon, but easily accessible and available for every disabled person.
As a London MP, I welcome the impact that London Fashion Week has on the economy of our capital. I hope that in future years it will continue to use its role to promote adaptive clothing. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering once again for securing this valuable debate.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. It is important, but it is also celebratory; I do not think we do enough of that in this House, so I am glad to see the subject debated today.
Our creative industries are central to driving growth. They are not only powerful economic drivers, but a source of huge cultural influence across the world, which is why they are at the heart of our industrial strategy. London Fashion Week exemplifies that impact. It provides a unique global stage for both established and emerging talent, showcasing British creativity to the world and reinforcing the UK’s position as a hub for innovation in fashion.
Welsh designers are very much a part of this creative story. As a Welsh MP, I am pleased to say that Welsh designers show that the UK’s creative excellence extends far beyond London. Across Wales, a vibrant tapestry of designers, artisans and makers are drawing inspiration from their rich cultural heritage, producing innovative works that resonate on both the national and the international stage. The impact of Welsh designers on British fashion over the years has been undeniable. Laura Ashley, whose designs were sported by Princess Diana, still holds a place in contemporary fashion. Ashley herself noted that she owed much of her success to the hard-working people of mid-Wales. Local women flocked to her Carno factory, making it the largest employer in north Powys. Her influence extended to her community, which is so important. The iconic Welsh designer David Emanuel, who designed Princess Diana’s wedding dress, called Ashley an inspiration.
Wales has other designers who are well known across the world, such as Julien Macdonald, whose international client list includes Victoria Beckham and Beyoncé. New to the scene, we have Jayne Pierson, who is focusing on showcasing Welsh heritage to the world, having played a huge role in shaping the global fashion scene. I have not mentioned these people just to boast about the cultural and economic impacts that Wales has had across the world. What is more pertinent is the hope that young people, in Wales and beyond, gain when they see the success of our designers. They see that a creative career is not out of reach and that they too can make their mark.
In my constituency of Clwyd North, the transformative power of creativity is clear in businesses such as the Lost Sheep Company in Colwyn Bay. With the aim of championing Welsh wool, it has grown into a heritage crafts centre that blends creativity with community enterprise, and I was pleased to see its staff at No. 10 as part of the Prime Minister’s celebration of St David’s day. To champion wool, it takes Welsh products out into the world. That small business has an impact right at the heart of my community; it is a great example of how art, craft and tradition can come together to support rural economies, celebrate local identity and inspire new generations to embark on creative pathways. Baa Stool—pun intended—in Denbigh complements this creative ecosystem, providing tools and materials for local makers and craftspeople, and ensuring that people who are looking to pursue creative careers have access to the supplies, advice and community that they need, right on their doorstep.
The opportunities that London Fashion Week provides show what can be achieved when talent is given the right platform. If the same visibility and support were extended to creative hubs across the UK, including in Wales, we could unlock even more potential. By investing in regional infrastructure and nurturing local talent, we can ensure that the creative industries thrive across all our nations and regions.
London Fashion Week is not just about the designers on the runway. It is also about the inspiration that they spark. Seeing Welsh creatives succeed on the national and international stage gives young people tangible examples of what is possible, inspiring them to explore and pursue their own creative paths. That sense of hope and possibility is every bit as important as the economic impact.
I have always been and will continue to be a staunch supporter of the creative sector. I am passionate about ensuring that young people see careers in the arts and creative industries as not only available, but achievable. Role models matter. When our young people see designers and artists from Wales and other parts of the UK succeeding on a global stage such as London Fashion Week, it shows them that they too could follow that path. By showcasing these opportunities, we can inspire the next generation of creatives to dream big and believe in their potential, strengthening not only the economic future of our country, but the cultural richness that defines who we are.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) for securing the debate. This is the first time that this subject has been discussed in this place, and I cannot think of anyone better to introduce it.
I am thrilled to take part in this debate on London Fashion Week, which has been one of the highlights of British fashion and creativity since it began in February 1984. London’s is the youngest of the big four fashion weeks; the others are in New York, Milan and Paris. Full disclosure: my partner is one of the global editors at Condé Nast, which owns publications that are iconic brands from GQ, which I was delighted to see championing and celebrating all things British in its latest edition, to Tatler, Traveller, Wired, Glamour, The New Yorker and very possibly the most famous of all, Vogue.
In 2019, Vogue characterised London’s essence as “fearless imagination” and explained how fashion has long allowed designers to explore “tongue-in-cheek rebellion”. Perhaps the most famous is Vivienne Westwood, who was born in Hollingworth village just north-west of Derbyshire. London Fashion Week provides us all with a brilliant opportunity to champion designers and creatives from right across our country. I remember poring over borrowed and old copies of Vogue as a teenager living in a council house in Nottingham and aspiring to feel as classy and fancy-pants as some of the women I saw and read about.
Through an introduction from Chris Warren at Condé Nast, I had the great pleasure of meeting Claire Singer and Ottilie Chichester at Vogue, who told me how they have recently launched the initiative “Vogue Values”, under the banner “Fashion is for everyone”. It is an attempt to recognise that fashion can be a driver of positive change, not just in terms of creativity and culture, but in addressing overproduction, waste and exclusion. When publications as influential as Vogue begin to put sustainability and inclusivity at the centre of their agenda, that suggests that London Fashion Week and the UK fashion industry are entering a new era in which creativity, commerce and responsibility are at the centre. It is so exciting to see British platforms helping to lead that change.
It filters down to our high streets and shopping habits, too. In Melbourne, in my constituency of South Derbyshire, Best Kept Secret is a dress agency selling pristine-quality, previously loved designer clothing. It offers high-end brands such as Dolce & Gabbana, Versace and Louis Vuitton. We also have some brilliant charity shops giving clothes a second lease of life. In Swadlincote, our Sue Ryder charity shop is a bargain hunter’s paradise, as well as raising money for those experiencing grief, and the Salvation Army offers affordable vintage clothing and raises money for homeless shelters in the UK and disaster relief overseas.
It is great to see young people focusing on sustainability. Students at Burton and South Derbyshire college have worked with Loved Once Again to bring sustainability to life through a series of innovative projects. And there are a great many MPs—women and men—who buy their clothes on sites such as eBay and Vinted. Our very own hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) is inspiring people, including my office manager, with her #NoBuyingNew campaign. Each day, she says where her outfits were from. They are always vintage, which helps to reduce waste to landfill one outfit at a time. Her socials are most certainly worth a follow. I wonder whether at London Fashion Week 2026 there might be room for an MPs’ runway.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) for securing this debate.
London Fashion Week is known worldwide. As we probably all know, it started in 1984 in a tent in a Kensington car park, where the British Fashion Council brought British designers together to show their work. From those modest beginnings, it has grown into one of the most famous fashion events in the world, showing the best of Britain: innovative and inviting the world in.
I had the pleasure of working with two of London Fashion Week’s stalwarts, who sadly are both no longer with us: Hilary Alexander and Lesley Goring. They choreographed two fashion shows in which I took part for Breast Cancer Care in 2009 and 2014, helping to raise many hundreds of thousands of pounds for that charity. They had me on the runway twice in a day in each of those years, with other breast cancer survivors, parading in six or seven different outfits from top designers including Jeff Banks and Stella McCartney. We did it in front of 1,000 people at each session. Looking at me now, you would hardly describe me as a fashion model.
Over the years, London Fashion Week has set new trends, not just in clothing but in values. It was one of the first runways to ban fur, and it is going further this year by banning exotic animal skins such as snake and crocodile. That is important: it shows that the fashion industry can lead the world not only in style but in responsibility.
The fashion and textile industry adds more than £60 billion to our economy and gives work to more than 1 million people. It is not just about glamour on the runway; it is about people’s livelihoods, businesses in our towns and cities, and exports abroad. In London, the effect is clear: during the 2023 fashion week, footfall in London rose by almost 18% compared with a normal day, giving a significant boost to our traders. Shops, cafés, restaurants and taxis all benefited from London Fashion Week. That local boost matters, and it shows how culture and commerce can go hand in hand.
London Fashion Week is not only about money; it is about who we are. Designers from around the world come to London to share ideas and work with our home-grown talent. Our designers shape culture, tell stories through fashion, and give Britain a strong creative voice on the world stage. Through its NEWGEN programme, the British Fashion Council gives young designers a platform to show what they can do. Many well-known names today started out with that support.
Talent does not appear out of nowhere. It begins in our classrooms, our colleges and our apprenticeships. That is why we believe that arts education must be taken seriously. We would include arts subjects in the English baccalaureate, properly fund creative degrees and make sure that there are high-quality apprenticeships in creative and digital industries. Without that, we risk losing the pipeline of young people who will shape future fashion, music, film and design industries.
Of course, there is more that the fashion industry could do. Last year, out of 206 member brands at the British Fashion Council, just seven had published targets for reducing emissions and only five had targets in line with the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change. That is disappointing; the UK average across all sectors is 65%. Progress has been made with the recycling of clothing, and many people use platforms such as Vinted and Depop, but around 300 tonnes of clothing are still thrown away every year.
London Fashion Week is well known for embracing sustainable fashion and has a runway dedicated to it, and some designers are using recycled or eco-friendly fabrics, but we need to try to do better. The UK can and should lead the world, not just in style, but in sustainable fashion. That means tackling waste, fixing supply chains and supporting innovation in new materials.
Closer to home, my constituency of Wokingham may not host catwalks, but our young people, our schools and our small businesses are all part of the bigger creative economy. Local designers, digital start-ups and independent shops all have a stake in the future of the fashion industry. The choices that we make here in Parliament about education, sustainability and support for the arts directly affect opportunities for people in our local communities.
London Fashion Week matters on many levels: economically, it is a powerhouse; culturally, it is a beacon of creativity; and socially, it has the chance to lead on sustainability and ethics, but we must not take it for granted. We must invest in the education that produces the next generation of designers. We must demand higher standards on sustainability, and we must recognise the value of fashion, not just as business, but as part of our culture and identity. Our fashion industry is world leading, and the Liberal Democrats believe that, with the right support, it can remain world leading, not only in creativity but in responsibility.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) on securing this important debate and all hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the Minister to his new role and I wish him well in government.
London Fashion Week has been a regular part of Britain’s cultural calendar since it was first held in 1984. In four decades, it has grown to become one of the world’s leading fashion events, standing alongside Paris, Milan and New York as one of the big four fashion weeks. It is now firmly established as an international institution, but one that is rooted in Britain’s traditions of creativity, design and craftsmanship.
We can look at London Fashion Week’s contribution through several different lenses. There is the economic impact that we have heard about already today, which is unsurprisingly substantial. There is its international reach and the way it helps to shape Britain’s reputation abroad. As we heard from the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), there is its role in supporting education, training and careers for young designers. There is its influence on sustainability, innovation and regional economies. Perhaps most importantly, there is the less tangible but equally vital contribution it makes to Britain’s cultural life and identity.
It is important to begin with the economic dimension. The fashion industry, as a whole, directly contributes close to £30 billion annually to the UK’s economy and supports nearly 900,000 jobs across the country. London Fashion Week plays a central role in that wider success. Each season, it brings together hundreds of designers, buyers, journalists and photographers from around the world. The event is not only about catwalk shows; it is also about deals and contracts that sustain designers and businesses throughout the year. Many small and medium-sized companies rely on the exposure that London Fashion Week provides. It gives them the opportunity to secure international orders, attract investors and build long-term relationships with global retailers.
The economic impact also extends into the hospitality and tourism sectors. International visitors attending London Fashion Week stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants, use our transport system—when it is working—and support our local shops. The event generates millions of pounds of spending, providing a much-needed boost of inward investment for the wider London economy.
Importantly, as the title of this debate makes clear, London Fashion Week is not simply an economic generator; its cultural importance is equally significant. Fashion, at its heart, is a form of cultural expression. It reflects the values, identities and moods of a society. What people wear and how designers present clothing speaks to wider cultural trends, although I must admit that I am not that up on fashion. My sister got all the fashion genes in our house, so she tries to steer me in the right direction when I am looking particularly scruffy.
British fashion has long been known for its creativity and originality. From the craftsmanship of Savile Row tailoring to the rebellious punk energy of the 1970s and the dramatic visions of designers such as Alexander McQueen, British fashion has always had a distinctive voice. London Fashion Week provides the stage on which that voice is heard. At each event, designers bring together traditional materials and skills with new ideas. Tweed, tartan and wool, for example, are reinterpreted for new generations. Alongside them, we see collections that make use of digital technologies, sustainable fabrics and innovative production methods.
London Fashion Week is therefore both a guardian of tradition and a hub for creative experimentation. I have had the pleasure of seeing that when I am out and about in Old Bexley and Sidcup—I will not name all the boutiques that operate in my constituency, as I am bound to forget one and get myself in a lot of trouble. We also have arts students at the likes of Bird college and Rose Bruford college, a big part of whose work involves costume design that feeds the west end and a lot of the talent we enjoy in London.
One of the most striking aspects of London Fashion Week is its global reach. It is reported in newspapers, magazines and online platforms across the world, as we have already heard. Images from the catwalks are shared instantly on social media, reaching audiences far beyond those who have the privilege of attending in person. That means that London Fashion Week plays an important role in shaping how Britain is seen internationally. It presents Britain as creative, innovative and outward-looking. It demonstrates that our country still has something distinctive to contribute to global culture, and it acts as one of the best forms of cultural diplomacy. Just as our music, theatre and sport project Britain’s identity abroad, so too does London Fashion Week.
A vital part of London Fashion Week’s contribution lies in its links to education and training. Britain has some of the world’s most highly regarded fashion schools, including Central Saint Martins, London College of Fashion and the Royal College of Art. These institutions attract students from across the globe, and many of the designers who now show collections at London Fashion Week began their career in their classrooms and studios.
The pipeline from education to the catwalk is clear. Students are trained in technical skills, encouraged in creativity and given the chance to develop their own design identity. London Fashion Week then provides a platform where they can present their work to international audiences. The pathway is vital to sustaining Britain’s long-term success in fashion and those vital careers that we all want to see flourish.
Linked to that is the emphasis that London Fashion Week places on supporting emerging talent. As we have already heard, the British Fashion Council’s excellent NEWGEN programme provides opportunities for new designers to show their work, gain visibility and build their careers. Many of today’s established names first appeared through such initiatives. That commitment to new talent ensures that London Fashion Week remains dynamic and forward-looking. It prevents the event from becoming static or predictable and keeps Britain at the forefront of global design patterns.
Young designers tend to be even more eco-conscious than their predecessors, and London Fashion Week has made an important contribution to sustainability. Globally, the fashion industry has faced growing questions about its environmental footprint, from the use of resources in production to the disposal of clothing. Many British designers and retailers lead the way in exploring sustainable practices, including the use of recycled fabrics, investment in traceable and transparent supply chains, and the development of circular economy models in which garments are reused and repurposed. London Fashion Week has become a stage on which such ideas are shared around the world.
On that point, I wish to give a shout-out—which I do not always do—to my local council, which works with an organisation called Traid to recycle textiles in the London borough of Bexley. I would like to see other boroughs roll out that important initiative for recycling fashion, alongside the work of charity shops and others.
By promoting sustainable practices, London Fashion Week not only addresses environmental concerns but shapes the cultural conversation about fashion. It shows that creativity and responsibility can go hand in hand. As that makes clear, fashion does not exist in isolation. It intersects with many other areas of the creative economy. Film, television and music all rely on fashion for costumes, styling and identity. Sports stars and musicians frequently collaborate with fashion designers, and their influence shapes trends in turn. As much as I would like footballers to be more focused on football, a lot of them are budding fashionistas on their social media profiles. London Fashion Week strengthens such connections, contributing to a wider ecosystem of cultural activity.
London Fashion Week has been held for almost 40 years, and its longevity is a sign of its importance. Over time, it has adapted to new technologies, consumer habits and cultural movements, yet it has retained its identity as a showcase for British creativity. The balance of continuity and change is a great part of its success.
London Fashion Week makes a significant contribution to the United Kingdom. Economically, it generates income, supports jobs and boosts tourism. Culturally, it showcases creativity, reflects our traditions and helps define our new identities. Internationally, it strengthens Britain’s reputation and influence. It supports education, encourages new talent, promotes sustainability and even sustains regional industries. It is not simply a series of shows; it is a major cultural event that brings together tradition, innovation, creativity, commerce, national identity and international reach. In conclusion, I again thank the hon. Member for Kettering for securing this important debate, and thank hon. Members for their contributions.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Ian Murray)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, for my first Westminster Hall debate in my new role. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), for his welcome. May I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), with her long track record and experience in the industry, introduced this debate with a wonderful speech? If that is her first speech in Westminster Hall, I look forward to many more in the years to come. I particularly liked the way she described how young people relate to fashion as a way of expressing themselves, and how young people should be able to get on to that fashion career path. It is a great passion of the Secretary of State and myself to get more young people from all over the country, particularly from working-class backgrounds, into industries that have been impenetrable for too many for too long.
I am proud, in this debate, to celebrate the successes of Britain’s fashion industry and particularly London Fashion Week, which starts on Thursday. It will be the 41st showcase, and I am delighted to join my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering in welcoming the new chief executive officer, Laura Weir, who has such a busy week ahead but has taken the time to join us in the Public Gallery. As everyone in Westminster Hall can see with their own eyes, my fashion sense makes me perfectly qualified to reply to this debate—indeed, it has caused much consternation and hilarity in the Department that I am responding.
I am responding to this debate, however, because Britain’s fashion is world leading. It is a cornerstone of our creative economy, as many hon. Members have said, with 800,000 people contributing to it. It puts nearly £30 billion into the UK economy, which is more than aerospace and defence combined, and it drives £16 billion of consumer spending in related industries, such as tourism.
London Fashion Week stands at the centre of that success. It is far more than a showcase of style; it is an important driver of economic growth, cultural diplomacy and our national identity. Each season it generates substantial revenue through direct sales, international orders and high-value trade opportunities.
The British Fashion Council estimates that orders placed during London Fashion Week exceed £100 million from overseas buyers alone. By drawing a global audience of buyers, media and investors, London Fashion Week reinforces the UK’s standing as one of the world’s leading creative superpowers. That is really important for the posture of this country, in terms of our creative industries. Moreover, as one of the big four fashion weeks, London Fashion Week puts Britain’s fashion on the global stage. It acts as a cultural ambassador, profiling British creativity, influencing perceptions and attracting tourism, trade and talent from across the globe.
London Fashion Week is not just about London. The BFC’s City Wide Celebration takes the experience and excitement of the capital’s fashion week programme to other cities, such as Liverpool, Manchester—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan)—and Newcastle. Throughout this month, more than 100,000 activations and promotions are taking place all across the country as part of the City Wide celebrations. City Wide Liverpool took place two weeks ago, during which Liverpool ONE shopping centre saw a quarter of million visitors and a 14% uplift in sales.
We have heard the voice of the Welsh fashion industry from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German), showcasing the Welsh creators and the contribution to our national fashion scene. It would be remiss of me, with my accent and constituency, not to mention Scotland’s contribution to the fashion industry. Not only are there great designers and great fashion innovators, but tartan itself is a great fashion icon. I recall a story from when I was in New York for Tartan Week this year. Anyone who goes to America or anywhere else in the world and wears their kilt will know that they often get asked what tartan it is. I said mine, which is the Murray of Atholl—a dark green colour with a red stripe—to this rather flamboyant chap who was marching down Sixth Avenue with us in the Tartan Day parade. When I asked him what his tartan was—it was yellow and black—I expected him to give me the name of some Scottish ancestral tartan, but he merely replied “Vivienne Westwood.” So our wonderful British fashion icons do span the globe.
Alongside its impact in the realms of economics and soft power, as we have all discussed, London Fashion Week is a vital incubator for new talent, and that is really important. It is the only fashion week in the world to host a shared space for emerging designers. The British Fashion Council’s NEWGEN programme, which supports the best new fashion design talent, is now in its 32nd year. It has been the launchpad for the careers of some of the country’s most prominent designers, whose names we have heard in Westminster Hall this afternoon, including Alexander McQueen, Christopher Kane and Grace Wales Bonner. We need to continue to encourage that really important programme. We have recognised its importance, and the Government have supported NEWGEN designers in showcasing at London Fashion Week.
It is right that the Government invest in the talent of the future in that way, and I am proud that we committed to continuing the funding for the UK’s fashion talent pipeline in the creative industries sector plan, which I hope all Members have read. The industry was heavily involved in making sure that fashion was a key part of that programme.
Fashion is a cornerstone of the UK’s creative industries—an area of national pride and economic strength. Together, the creative industries contribute 2.4 million jobs to our economy and £124 billion in gross value added, while also shaping how we see ourselves and how the world sees us. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering mentioned the recent activities on the streets of London and other cities and towns across the country. I firmly believe that the creative industries are the glue that binds our communities and us all together, so driving that innovation, investment and cultural influence is in all our national interests.
The sector is an ecosystem—that is the most important word we can use for it—where designers, artists, businesses and freelancers inspire one another, and fashion plays a key and leading role. Sir Paul Smith is a powerful example of that. His designs are globally renowned, spanning clothing, furniture, cars and film. Through Paul Smith’s Foundation, he is also nurturing the next generation of creatives with mentoring and training and by giving opportunities to others. That contribution was recognised by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on a recent visit to the foundation.
That is why the Government have put the creative industries at the heart of our plan for change. Our creative industries sector plan, launched in June, commits £380 million to extra support for innovation, skills, access to finance and regional growth over the next decade. That includes expanding the British Business Bank’s support to help creative SMEs to secure investment, new flexibilities in training to tackle the skills gap, refreshed careers services for young people, which is hugely important, and measures to boost exports.
For fashion specifically, as well as backing NEWGEN at London Fashion Week, as I mentioned, and supporting British designers on the international stage, including through the British Fashion Council’s showroom at Paris Fashion Week, these initiatives connect emerging UK designers with global buyers and press, driving sales and raising the profile of our British talent worldwide.
Of course, the creative industries do much more than enrich culture; they fuel progress across the wider economy. From video game technology advancing medical research to fashion materials supporting space exploration, creativity is powering innovation and shaping the future of our lives, our communities and the wider country. Like other creative industries, fashion is making an impact beyond its boundaries. The industry has led the way on sustainability by embedding circular design principles into businesses, adopting new low-impact materials, and innovating with production processes and waste reduction, as we heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who encouraged us all to use Vinted and eBay more often. I am not sure that even on Vinted and eBay I could get a cheaper suit than I am wearing at the moment, but I shall try. She had a pitch to be the new CEO of an MPs’ catwalk next year; she might have dismissed the suggestion rather quickly, but it is in the mix none the less.
The UK Research and Innovation circular fashion programme has provided a launchpad for all this work by facilitating collaboration across the UK fashion and textiles industry to produce a comprehensive national textile recycling infrastructure plan and a practical framework for extended producer responsibility, as well as further insights into the challenges and opportunities of sustainability in the fashion sector. London Fashion Week plays a key role in driving this agenda, and it is the first of the big four fashion weeks to have adopted sustainability requirements for exhibiting brands.
Designers themselves are going further. This week will provide a platform for labels such as Patrick McDowell and Paolo Carzana to showcase designs based around innovative, low-impact and recycled materials. Similarly, the fashion industry has taken actions to advance equity, diversity and inclusivity across all its workforce, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). London Fashion Week has been at the forefront of all this progress, driving change globally and pioneering representation by championing designers and models who reflect the richness and diversity of all of society—from designers such as Sinéad O’Dwyer, who focuses on size inclusivity, to disabled models such as Kelly Knox. This year’s show will feature Victoria Jenkins’s label Unhidden, which focuses on clothing for people with disabilities, producing stylish, inclusive and adaptive designs, and providing means of expression for the disabled and chronically sick community through fashion.
It has been a privilege to participate in this debate and celebrate the cultural contribution of London Fashion Week. The Government are committed to supporting the fashion sector and the wider creative industries, as shown by the ambitious sector plan that we published earlier this year. I will attend London Fashion Week this week in some capacity, and I look forward to celebrating British creativity and innovation on the global stage. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering for securing the debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members for taking part and for all their excellent contributions.
Rosie Wrighting
I thank hon. Members from across the House for attending this debate—the first ever debate on London Fashion Week in this place. It is telling that we had Members from across the country talking about how much fashion means to their constituencies and about designers who come from their constituencies. That shows how important this vital industry and sector is to Members across the House. It was great to hear from Members from different parties on what fashion means for their constituencies.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who spoke about adaptive fashion, which is deeply important to him. We have had conversations in the Tea Room about our careers in retail, and I was so pleased to hear his contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) spoke passionately about Laura Ashley and what she means for her constituency. I particularly like how my hon. Friend spoke about fashion as giving hope to young people. It so often does, particularly in areas outside London; it ignites a passion that can sometimes be hard to find.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) described fashion as “fearless imagination”, which is brilliant. She mentioned Vivienne Westwood, who is such an influential designer and who shows how important it is that we continue to support talent across the UK, including in areas such as Derbyshire. I also put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). Her videos come up on my TikTok sometimes, and I often watch her “#NoBuyingNew” videos.
I welcome the Minister to his place. I am incredibly pleased to see him here, and I am honoured that, in his first Westminster Hall debate in the role, he is talking about fashion. I hope that my passion for this industry came across and that he recognises the importance of investing in the next generation of designers. It was so important to me to secure this debate, because I believe that the challenges the industry faces at the moment mean that we are at a crucial point. Fashion brings so much to the UK, but unless it is correctly supported, we risk losing incredible talent. I hope to continue to work with him in supporting this vital week and the sector that means so much to me. London Fashion Week makes a huge cultural contribution to our capital and the rest of the UK, and I look forward to it starting on Thursday.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cultural contribution of London Fashion Week.
Religious Crematoriums
(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
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of religious crematoria.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to have secured this important debate on the provision of religious crematoriums and the access issues faced by faith communities across our country.
At its heart, this debate is about dignity, respect and equality. How we support families at the end of life is a test of our society’s values. Every person, regardless of faith or background, deserves the opportunity to say farewell to their loved ones in a manner that honours traditions and beliefs. For many, cremation or burial may seem a straightforward matter, an administrative process supported by local authorities and funeral providers. Yet for a significant section of our population, and particularly those from minority faiths, the reality is far more complex. Limited provision, a lack of awareness, and regulatory barriers too often mean that families are left distressed and unsupported at the moment when they most need compassion.
I want to begin with the provision of crematoriums. There are more than 300 crematoriums across the United Kingdom, but the vast majority operate on a standardised model that does not reflect the full diversity of religious practice. For many communities, including Hindu and Buddhist communities, religious tradition often requires that cremation be accompanied by specific rites—including chanting, prayers and periods of meditation before the cremation itself—yet many crematoriums impose strict time limits, restrict the length of services or fail to provide space for those rituals to take place with the dignity they deserve. Families are therefore required to adapt their practices, often in ways that feel at odds with centuries of teaching. That adaptation is accepted by some. For others, it leaves a sense that their most sacred rituals are being denied.
This is not a question of faith; it is about fairness and equality. We must not have a situation in which some families can conduct funerals according to their beliefs with ease, while others must travel hundreds of miles, negotiate with reluctant providers or compromise on their most cherished traditions.
That inequality is compounded by financial barriers. In many parts of the UK, families seeking more accommodating crematoriums find themselves reliant on private providers. The cost of travelling, combined with higher fees, makes it impossible for many to access the services they need. For some, this results in long delays or fragmented ceremonies, which add to the distress of bereavement. Local authorities are, of course, under immense financial pressure, but the Equality Act 2010 places clear duties on public bodies. They must have due regard to the needs of religious communities under the public sector equality duty. Inadequate provision risks indirect discrimination against minority faiths, undermining the principle of equal treatment before the law.
There are some examples of progress. At Great Glen crematorium in Leicestershire, a dedicated Hindu shrine has been installed to support ritual practice. Leicester city council’s burial space strategy recognises the growing demand from Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities for more suitable provision.
Alongside cremation, I want to address burial. For Muslim families and Jewish families, religious teaching requires that a body be buried as soon as possible—within 24 hours of death. That is not a matter of preference; it is a religious obligation. Reading borough council took the local Muslim community’s needs into account when updating its cemetery regulations, but the truth is that good practice remains the exception, not the rule.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. As she knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak out for those of Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith, because we believe that everyone should be treated equally. Does the hon. Lady agree it is vital that we enable people of all faiths to access facilities to ensure that their loved ones’ wishes for their burial or cremation are respected, and even more so when it comes to the expression of that person’s faith and deeply held belief?
Susan Murray
I completely agree with that principle, but our systems are not always designed with it in mind. Delays in death certification, the coronial process and registration services frequently mean that families are unable to bury their loved ones within the required timescale. Some local authorities have taken steps to improve responsiveness by offering out-of-hours registration services. Those efforts show that, with the right planning and partnership, it is possible to respect religious obligations around timely burial, but provision remains patchy across the country and too often families are left facing painful delays at a time of grief. In 21st-century Britain, it is not unreasonable to ask that every family should be confident that their loved one can be buried according to their faith.
I understand that it is important to recognise the devolved aspect of this matter. In Scotland, the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 provides a modern legislative framework with greater recognition of religious needs. In Wales and Northern Ireland, responsibility also lies with the devolved Administrations, but in England the responsibility rests with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
At UK level, Parliament remains responsible for equalities law and for setting the broader standards of fairness and human rights that underpin our system. That means the Government cannot simply say that crematoriums are a local issue. There is a role for national leadership. All communities across the UK are entitled to expect that their needs will not be ignored because they are in a local minority. Minimum standards, guidance and funding support are all tools available to the Government to ensure fairness across the country.
Constituents and communities have raised this issue for many years. Hindu and Sikh organisations have petitioned successive Governments to highlight the lack of appropriate crematoriums. Muslim representatives have repeatedly drawn attention to the difficulties caused by delays in burial, which has also been highlighted by Jewish representatives. Behind every one of those campaigns is a grieving family—real people facing unnecessary distress because our systems are not flexible enough to accommodate their faith.
The basic concept is simple: public services must reflect the diversity of the people they serve. That is not a question of favouring one group over another, but of recognising that equality sometimes requires accommodation. A one-size-fits-all approach, designed for the majority, inevitably excludes minorities, and that is not good enough in modern Britain.
I therefore ask the Minister to commit to three steps. The first is to review the provision of religiously appropriate crematoriums across Britain, to identify gaps and to work with local authorities to close them. The second is to work with the relevant authorities to ensure that coroner and registration services are able to respond to the urgent burial needs of certain faiths with clear national guidance. The third step is to ensure that the equality duty is properly considered in all planning and funding decisions relating to crematoriums and burial services, so that minority communities are not excluded.
How we treat people at the end of life reflects who we are as a society. A society that truly respects diversity and equality is one that values every community, however small, and ensures that they can say farewell to their loved ones in accordance with their beliefs. Families in grief should not face barriers, compromises or indignities. They should find public services that meet them with understanding, respect and compassion.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing today’s important debate. It was so good to hear her speak of the importance of the diversity of faiths in our country. As she says, all parts of government must consider properly their duties under the Equality Act.
I begin by acknowledging the unique needs of faith and belief communities regarding burial and cremation practices. As the hon. Member just said, each of us deserves dignity in death. Cremation offers a dignified way to say goodbye to a loved one by providing a respectful, professional and compassionate process for the deceased and their grieving family and friends.
Cremation has become the majority choice for funerals. According to the Cremation Society, cremation accounts for 80% of funerals in the United Kingdom, compared with about 35% in the 1960s. As cremations become more common, it is imperative that there are high-quality crematoriums that fully respect the cultural and religious traditions of all faiths and beliefs, as well as those, like me, of no faith at all. It is with that in mind that service providers should be expected to take into full consideration the sacred funeral rites and specific rituals of our diverse communities, particularly Hindus, Sikhs and Jains, as well as those of other religious backgrounds.
Although the Ministry of Justice is responsible for law and policy relating to cremation, the Government do not have direct operational responsibility for the provision of cremation services, which, as the hon. Member rightly pointed out, are provided by local authorities or, in some cases, private companies. As such, the UK Government are not directly involved with operational issues such as the provision of facilities or multilingual support in crematoriums, which remain a matter for individual cremation authorities. There is no central funding available for the building of crematoriums.
However, cremations must be conducted in accordance with the legislative framework set out in the Cremation Act 1902 and the Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008. The Act defines what constitutes a crematorium and includes siting restrictions, such as minimum required distances from residential dwellings and public highways, or other planning considerations. As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, sites must also meet environmental and planning requirements before any crematoriums can be built.
I am aware of the consultation carried out in 2016 under the previous Administration, and the then Government’s response covered some of the issues that we are discussing today. The consultation identified a number of issues with crematoriums. These included the inappropriate use of religious iconography, the lack of car parking spaces and a perceived lack of awareness of the specific needs of faith groups, as the hon. Member pointed out.
The previous Government’s response, published in 2019, highlighted the need to recognise that different cultures and faiths have particular needs, and that service providers, including local authorities, should take all reasonable steps to allow those specific needs to be met. The Minister for Faith at the time wrote to all local authorities in England to inform them of this.
Finally, I want to touch on the work of the Law Commission, and to respond to the points that the hon. Member made. The Law Commission is currently undertaking further work on this issue. Its project, “Burial, cremation and new funerary methods”, seeks to create a future-proof legal framework to address what happens to our bodies after we die, and to make recommendations that will provide modern, certain and consistent regulation across different funerary methods. As part of that, the Law Commission is considering issues pertaining to the different cultural and religious needs of faith groups. In my opinion, that ought to be a response in part to the points the hon. Member made.
The hon. Member asked me to consider a review of provision, to work with local authorities to respond to need, and to make sure that equality duty considerations are taken on board. I am not the Minister for Faith, who is currently in a Bill Committee, but I will relay to her the points that have been conveyed in this debate and suggest that she reaches out to discuss those points with the hon. Member in the context of that Law Commission review. At some point, there will undoubtedly be a full response to the review.
In my ongoing work with local authorities, I am sure that I will also have the opportunity to flag some of the issues that the hon. Member raised. I consider it very important that we all take our duties under the Equality Act very seriously. The burial and cremation strand of the Law Commission’s work began last year, the consultation closed in January, and I understand that it anticipates publishing its report on this strand of the project by the end of 2025. I am sure the Law Commission would welcome representations from the hon. Member.
I feel there are significant issues here, and I am sure that, between ministerial teams and concerned Members, we can make progress. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire for raising this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
(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
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Members across the House will know that I have the distinct honour of being the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, which is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames. There are 4,500 small businesses in my constituency. They are its lifeblood. There are also huge employers: BP’s global headquarters is in Spelthorne, as is the world’s second biggest film studios, at Shepperton. I visit as many small businesses as I can, and it is always fascinating to get their insight.
Indeed, I am very much looking forward to next Wednesday, when the Spelthorne Business Forum riverboat trip will see a number of small and medium-sized enterprises come together to go two hours along our beautiful stretch of the River Thames, networking and comparing stories and views. I have to be frank and say that our consideration of the Employment Rights Bill comes in the context of these businesses already smarting, struggling and, in some cases, closing as a result of this Government’s Budget—in particular, the triple whammy of the rise in employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage and business rates.
I should explain that I have a fair experience of life in business. After my 25 years in the Army, I spent 10 years in venture capital and private equity, running, investing in and, we hope, improving small businesses, and growing them into mid-sized businesses and publicly listed bodies. They were mostly in the financial sector, and all had a tech underpinning. Latterly, I spent four years attempting to get Britain’s first ever defined-benefit pension consolidator, the Pension SuperFund, past the Pensions Regulator—an experience from which I still bear the scars.
Yesterday, the House had the opportunity to discuss the measures in the Employment Rights Bill in some detail and to vote on a number of proposed improvements thereto, but I want to concentrate today on the cost of the Bill for businesses. In my view, the cost has been significantly underestimated, and I fear it will come as a shock when the Government see the extent to which it acts as a further sea anchor on growth and employment. Sadly, we have already seen unemployment rise by, I think, 300,000 since this Government took office.
The Government’s impact assessment estimates that the measures in the Bill could cost businesses up to £5 billion annually. According to the Institute of Economic Affairs,
“the £5bn figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate. It almost entirely relates to increased administrative burdens, failing to calculate the significant impacts on business costs and hiring from making it more expensive to employ people.
There is no attempt, for example, to calculate how many fewer people will be hired due to limiting zero hour contracts and day-one rights to unfair dismissal protection”
or
“the costs of more strike action as a result of repealing the measures that made it harder to strike in the Trade Union Act 2016.”
I have been in businesses where people are making very hard decisions. They want to generate growth, they know there is considerable work to be done, and they want to take the next step and make the next investment, but that is a very big decision point, as we will see as I develop this theme. I have seen with my own eyes, talking to Spelthorne businesses, that even today people are curtailing their growth and investment plans. My huge fear is that the new measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which will eventually become an Act, will further dent business confidence, meaning that these businesses will not grow and natural leavers will not be replaced.
Economic studies and business surveys suggest that that will largely be passed on to consumers through higher prices, workers earning lower wages or job losses. I am sure that the Government Members never wanted that to be the outcome of this legislation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that around 80% of the extra costs are passed on in the form of lower wages than would otherwise have been paid. According to the Government’s impact assessment:
“Costs will be proportionately higher for small and micro businesses due to the fixed costs of admin and compliance burdens”.
There is, of course, an irreducible minimum: if a business needs a menopause management plan and it has only three employees, someone still has to write and manage that plan. The legislation does not seem to derogate, whereby certain sizes of business can just take a knee and have a bye.
The Regulatory Policy Committee, which assesses the quality of Government impact assessments, says that the Government’s impact assessment for the Employment Rights Bill was “not fit for purpose” and that the Bill could lead to lower wages and fewer jobs. It assessed eight of the 23 individual impact assessments as not fit for purpose, and six were at the highest impact measure category of the original assessment.
The Regulatory Policy Committee said that the Government need to provide more evidence to support an
“imbalance of power between employers and workers in certain sectors of the economy”
as its rationale for introducing the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will have seen that the Bill is, to a certain extent, riven with trade union speak—they will have seen trade union interests being played out in the legislation. Of course, hon. Members in certain parts of the House benefit hugely from being the recipients of donations, as does the Labour party as a whole.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the flaws in the impact assessment—there has been wider commentary supporting that point. Does he agree that one of the issues is the accumulation of different aspects of the Bill? For example, not only will there be more hooks for grievances to be based on, but the removal of the 50% threshold for strike action makes it easier for strikes to follow as a result of those grievances. That is at odds with what Ministers themselves have said. For example, when the British Medical Association went on strike, the Health Secretary criticised the low turnout in the ballot, yet this Bill makes it easier to take strike action on some of those more dubious grievances.
Lincoln Jopp
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. When these measures kick in, we could see the law of unintended consequences playing out, with a series of compound impacts.
The RPC said that the fundamental basis for the creation of the Bill in the first place had not been made, and that there had been insufficient “considerations of alternative options” and an “inadequate assessment” of how the Bill would impact small businesses. Some of the individual impact assessments had
“missing business impacts, lack of proportionate monetisation and insufficient assessment of key risks.”
The areas in the impact assessment with the weakest scrutiny included day one unfair dismissal rights, reforms of trade union legislation, flexible working and third party harassment. Looking at the overall cost of the reforms, the Regulatory Policy Committee said:
“The direct impact on business estimate does not account for the likelihood employers may offset the costs of regulation and mandated benefits through wage adjustments, benefit reductions or other compensatory mechanisms which would eventually be borne by the employee.”
Let us see what other people think of the impact assessment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development published a report in April 2025 entitled “The (Unintended) Consequences of the Employment Rights Bill”. Its survey of 2,000 employers showed that about eight in 10 believed that the measures in the Employment Rights Bill will increase their employment costs. About half of the employers surveyed believed that, overall, the ERB measures will negatively affect employment at their organisation. When we look at how employers plan to respond to the seven measures, one by one, we can see that between 5% and 20% of employers indicate that each of the measures will lead them to reduce staff through redundancies and/or recruiting fewer workers to their organisations. So much for the No. 1 mission of growth.
Out of the measures proposed, the planned changes to the rules on unfair dismissal are expected to have the largest negative impact on employers’ recruitment and redundancy intentions. The conclusions from the report were that eight out of 10 employers believed that certain measures in the Bill, such as changes to unfair dismissal rules and the introduction of the new statutory probation period, will have the effect of increasing their workforce costs. Of those organisations, four in 10 expected to have to raise prices as a result, and a quarter said that they will cancel or scale down plans to invest or expand their business.
Of the organisations that said that employment costs will rise, almost a third anticipated cutting headcount due to reduced hiring or redundancies, and a further fifth reported that they will reduce overtime and/or bonuses, and cut spending on staff training. Of the organisations that expected the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, nearly a fifth reported that they are more likely to rely on temporary workers, while 10% reported that they will increase their use of what they call
“a typical workers and self-employed contractors”.
The legislation is not improving the lot of employees; it is reducing the number of employees, as employers find alternative solutions.
That potential shift to more temporary forms of employment is much higher in certain sectors. In addition, some employers anticipate recruiting fewer workers who may need more support, such as young workers or those with health conditions. A fifth of employers reported that the removal of the unfair dismissal qualifying period and the introduction of the new statutory probation period will make them less likely to recruit from those groups.
I want to make one last point. It is obviously a big thing to take on new employees and assimilate them into teams. Culture eats strategy for breakfast in business, and those crucial hires are some of the biggest decisions that any employer will make. I have taken part in hundreds of interview boards, and often, there is what is identified as the “risk candidate”. They are the different person, who thinks differently from the employer. They are the person the employer does not fully understand. More often than not, they are the person the employer should employ. My great fear is that, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, fewer diverse candidates will be employed, because people “won’t want to take the risk”. I believe that, ironically, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, far fewer women are going to be employed.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp).
Next year will mark 125 years since Seebohm Rowntree’s report into poverty. It was that report that sparked Seebohm and Joseph Rowntree to use their family business to institute rights for workers in my constituency: paying decent wages; introducing pensions and good terms and conditions; and providing welfare, education and leisure. Sickness levels fell, productivity boomed and workers were better off.
Concurrently, in the crucible of industrialised Britain, the trade unions were making a case for similar rights, often to less amenable employers. They organised, they fought, they spoke up and they succeeded in winning their battles. They wanted those rights for all workers, so they found their political voice and founded the Labour party. At this point, I will refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a trade union official for 17 years and a national officer for 12 years, and I have worked across many industrial sectors.
In response to the speech by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I would say that if we have strong partnerships between trade unions and business, or between trade unions and the public sector, we have the opportunity to hit a sweet spot. We will therefore not see the industrial action that he talked about and that we saw in spades under the last Government. We will also advance the interests of businesses and workers side by side, which is a strength, and where economic power comes from having strong employment rights.
Lincoln Jopp
Was the hon. Member affected by the tube strikes the other day?
Rachael Maskell
I was not, because I walk or cycle through London, which I recommend to everybody. Those strikes did not have an impact on me at all.
Good industrial relations are important for business, because when employers are in touch with their workers, business can boom. Ultimately, the people with the most vested interest in the success of a business are the people whose jobs depend on it, so when they are included in the industrial environment, the opportunities come.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne referred to employees’ talent. If employees are brought into the fold, so their imaginations run free and their creativity flourishes, that opportunity really strengthens business. That is why the measures that Labour introduced this week are good for workers and good for business. I congratulate the Labour Government on bringing forward what I hope will be just their first Employment Rights Bill. Instead of causing the fragmentation that we are seeing across our country, good workers’ rights are good people’s rights above all. They address equality and bring fairness, not only in the industrial setting but across wider society as well.
Too many workers have been left feeling insecure, however, such as those in the gig economy, the self-employed and the bogus self-employed. We have a duty to close those loopholes. Indeed, the hon. Member said that employers will seek more loopholes, but of course, we will close them if labour is being exploited. The picture of business for far too long has been about workers getting less of the wealth from business while contributing more. We have to restore such values in the workplace.
Yesterday, I was filled with real pride as we went through the voting Lobby—I think we went through 12 times. I am proud of the legislation, which will provide day one employment rights, giving people real security in employment; improve statutory sick pay; give greater flexibility to workers while ending abusive fire-and-rehire practices and exploitative zero-hours contracts; and strengthen collective redundancy rights.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
My constituents tell me how important it is to strengthen statutory sick pay, particularly for lower-paid workers who cannot afford to take time off work without it. Does the hon. Member agree that, contrary to the views of Opposition Members, that is a particularly important employment right?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning that. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights, we really fought for that right, not least during covid. What a difference it would have made to workers then, and it would have kept our country safer. Of course, we need to look after people when they are sick, so I dispute what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said about a menopause plan costing business—women generally would also certainly dispute that, because having a plan would be better for business and better for women at work.
We must reset the relationship with trade unions, which is why establishing a Fair Work Agency and championing engagement around equality are important. I look forward to the future for businesses with a traditional Labour agenda that benefits businesses and workers by bringing better security and better productivity, and providing the green shoots of rebuilding the economy.
I recognise that businesses are in a fragile environment. Over the summer, I held business summits for the daytime and night-time economy. The attendees are looking forward to engaging with me as we set out our plans for our city together: resetting the climate, realigning workers’ rights and giving businesses a boost. The voices of businesses are really important. The Living Wage Foundation notes that 87% of employers say that paying the living wage improved the reputation of their business, and two thirds said that it improved recruitment. A letter about the Employment Rights Bill from leading economists and employment lawyers, published by the Institute of Employment Rights, says:
“The emerging consensus is that labour laws do not, on the whole, have negative economic consequences, and may well have positive ones.”
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to assess the economic impact and consequences, which we have seen over a number of years, of low pay and insecure hours, and how they have contributed to high turnover and sickness absence in businesses? I believe that those problems are substantially addressed by the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully and brought that observation to the attention of the House. Low productivity was also a major feature of the last Administration.
The letter goes on to highlight how worker protection positively impacts productivity, how investment in skills improves the competency of workers, and how collective bargaining raises wages and stabilises employment. Over time, that positive investment will spill out to the wider economy and Government, so that there can be investment in the public services that have been so broken. If workers have more in their pockets, they are more likely to spend in the local economy, and wage disparities will be addressed so that wealth is more evenly spread, boosting local business. We also still have parts of the Taylor review and its 53 recommendations to implement to help small employers and those in irregular work.
Lincoln Jopp
A few months ago, The Times invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address its CEO summit. Just before the Chancellor was called up to the stage, the host reminded the audience that the Chancellor had promised that this would be the most pro-business Government ever. The host then invited the chief executive officers—I think there were 200 of them—to say how many of them, having seen the Labour Government at work, think that it is pro-business. Not a single hand went up. Is the hon. Member aware of that?
Rachael Maskell
In the first of five years, we have had to repair the economy. That has been our focus, but as we move forward, businesses will see the vision that Labour has for rebuilding the economy. In my constituency, I see the vibrant boom of entrepreneurs and their business concepts coming to fruition. People want to start a business and see its success. We will certainly build the wider infrastructure needed for that.
There is much more that we need to do to advance the rights of workers. Sector bargaining is a must, with standards and terms to boost economic sectors across the economy, address labour shortages and provide sector security. I would like to see workers on company boards, co-producing with businesses and seeing the success of workers. A single status for workers is really important as we move forward. That is an issue that I have worked on for many years.
On changing the culture in workplaces, I want to ensure that workers no longer have to fear negative behaviours at work. An issue close to my heart, and one that I have worked on for many years, if not decades, is bullying at work. In two different parliamentary Sessions, I have introduced a Bullying and Respect at Work Bill, addressing negative cultures in the workplace. Bullying costs business £18 billion, and 17 million working days are lost.
We need a legal definition of bullying, a route to an employment tribunal and a positive duty to prevent, as in Australian legislation. I hope the new Minister, who I welcome to her place, will be willing to meet me and campaigners to discuss such legislation to ensure that we can introduce such a measure on one of the biggest issues blighting business today.
If workers are not subjugated and their wages are not extracted, we will build a more equitable society, a strong economy and flourishing businesses. A cohesive society is certainly something that I know working people long to see under this Labour Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for his passion on this topic, which he illustrated incredibly well in his contribution. The issues that he raised are the ones that were in my speaking notes to highlight to the Government yesterday during the Employment Rights Bill debate.
What a pleasure it is to see the Minister in her place. I wish her all the best for the future. I am sure her energy and enthusiasm will help her along the way.
We are all very aware that small businesses are the backbone of the British economy, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. In March 2025, some 89.3% of businesses in Northern Ireland—72,465, to be precise—were micro-sized, with fewer than 10 employees. Only 2.2% of businesses had more than 50 employees. Four in 10 businesses —some 39.6%—had a turnover of less than £100,000, while a smaller 12.8% had a turnover exceeding £1 million.
These are not our Tescos and Waitroses, with their human resources departments and access to civil service occupational health services. These are small shops, for whom paying £250 for an occupational health referral body is a big deal. The impact on small businesses in my constituency is absolutely ginormous and will have great effect. They include local restaurants that cannot afford to pay their staff sick pay and get other staff in to replace them. They either step in themselves and do their own work through the night, or staff all work even harder than they already are to take up the slack, because they understand the financial pressures.
The Federation of Small Businesses has said that sickness absence already costs an average small employer more than £3,500 a year, or £5 billion across the economy. The Employment Rights Bill will see those costs rise dramatically from next April. We need a better focus from the Government and, with great respect, from the Minister and her Department, on helping small firms look after people and get them back into healthy work. I know the Government have said that is part of their policy, and I do not doubt it, but we need to see how that is going to work.
There is a clear impact for businesses, whose national insurance contributions for staff have risen, whose energy costs have spiralled out of all proportion, and whose staff wages have increased while the public’s disposable income has stagnated or decreased. The pressure on the high street is something that I have not experienced for a long time, but I see the pressures there—when people go, they are not replaced, and everyone is working that bit harder to make ends meet.
Tesco can weather the storm with its small profit margin but big reach, because that is how it works, but the local corner shop is not in that position. We must ensure that we support small businesses with the financial help to which the companies with a bigger turnover should not be entitled. I know that the Minister’s reply will give us some hope that I can pass on to my constituents back home and to the small businesses, which are a crucial part of the economic life of Strangford. Staff must be supported, but so too must small businesses. We need to step up now before the backbone of our economy breaks under the additional strain.
Employees deserve rights, but small businesses need support. We cannot have one without the other, so I ask the Minister how we can get that balance. How can we ensure that small businesses can keep employing people and will still be in business next year, while also ensuring that workers’ rights are protected?
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this debate. The Liberal Democrats support measures that work to strengthen employment rights, so yesterday we welcomed aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. All those measures move us in the right direction, but as the legislation progresses through Parliament, we remain concerned about the specific way in which many of them will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business.
In the debate yesterday, my colleagues and I highlighted several concerns about the absence of detail in the Bill. So many key elements will be left to secondary legislation or subject to consultation. Businesses in my constituency tell me that they are being left in limbo by the Government’s framing of the Bill, which prevents long-term planning. I am disappointed that the Government did not support the Liberal Democrat amendments that would have created more certainty for business in matters such as the definition of short notice when a shift is cancelled, or the changes to the period for making a claim for unfair dismissal.
Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, such reforming the broken business rates system, bringing down trade barriers and properly reforming the apprenticeship levy. Although the impact of the Employment Rights Bill will be a significant shift for businesses, there are many other factors that remain challenging.
Small businesses are at the centre of our communities and our local economies, creating the jobs on which we all rely. We are glad that raising the employment allowance will help to protect the very smallest employers, but thousands of local businesses, including many in the hospitality sector, will still feel the damaging impact of the national insurance increase. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have persistently opposed these measures at every turn. Once again, I urge the Government to scrap them.
The Government’s decision to raise the rate of national insurance contributions while also reducing the threshold at which they are levied has significantly raised the cost of employing part-time workers, delivering a disproportionately large blow to the hospitality sector. Just today, the latest labour market figures show rising numbers of people claiming unemployment benefits, alongside many businesses facing workforce shortages. The Government need to scrap this failed tax, or we will not get the growth that we need to rebuild our public services.
It is not just about staffing costs. The Government must take other steps to boost the hospitality workforce, including introducing a youth mobility scheme with much more urgency and properly investing in skills and training. More broadly, they must look at measures that would ease the pressure felt by so many businesses and boost the economy as a whole. We continue to call on them to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. We also know that many businesses are struggling with sky-high energy costs, so I urge the Minister to consider Liberal Democrat proposals that will cut energy bills by a half within 10 years, by breaking the link between gas prices and electricity costs so that households and businesses can get the benefit of cheap, clean power and lower energy bills. I urge the Minister to look at our proposals to give businesses the support that they desperately need.
Most employers want to do the right thing by their staff. I have spoken to many businesses and key stakeholder groups that support the aims of the Bill but have raised significant concerns that some of the measures could backfire, leading to the loss of thousands of flexible, part-time and entry-level roles in particular. So much of the detail of the Bill is still undecided. That will compound the challenges that small businesses are facing, from the Government’s changes to employer national insurance to the reduction in business rates relief and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices. We must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses trying to plan ahead.
The Liberal Democrats remain supportive of many of the measures that the Employment Rights Bill will introduce to improve support for workers. However, as we see the impact of the legislation, we will continue to seek the right balance for both employees and businesses.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing the debate. I welcome the Minister to her position; I believe that this is her first opportunity to contribute from the Dispatch Box. I heartily congratulate her on her achievement.
We have had an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne set out clearly some of the issues with the Employment Rights Bill from his constituents’ perspective. I then heard the completely opposite view from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who inexplicably has not been readmitted into the bosom of the Labour party. I hope her readmission is imminent, because she put the governing party lines across very clearly.
The clue is in the name of the debate: we have to focus on employment. Today’s labour market data was sobering and should serve as a wake-up call to the Labour Government. Payroll employment has fallen by 142,000—more people than any one of our constituencies contains—and has declined in every quarter. It is not a blip. Sadly, it is a trend, and it is happening on this Government’s watch because of measures such as the Employment Rights Bill and the jobs tax. Vacancies are also falling. My first question to the Minister is how she reconciles that with Labour’s mission to deliver economic growth.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to deny the employment facts from the Office for National Statistics?
Andy McDonald
I wish to intervene, not to have the shadow Minister shape the terms of my intervention. She is talking about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. How can that be? Has it yet been enacted?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman anticipates the rest of my contribution. Has the hon. Gentleman read the impact assessment that the Labour Government have put out for the Bill? It estimates that the cost on businesses will be £5 billion. I ask him how he thinks that will end up. It will not end with a hiring spree, I can assure him.
Against the background of rising unemployment, what is the Government’s answer? It is more regulation, more costs and more pressure on employers, as we saw last night when we debated the Employment Rights Bill. It would be more apt to call it the unemployment rights Bill. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of today’s rising unemployment and slowing job creation on those who really need an employer to give them their first chance, particularly young and entry-level workers?
If the Government are serious about making work pay, they must stop making it harder for businesses to hire, invest and grow. The British people deserve better than a shrinking jobs market and a Government who have clearly let the trade unions take the wheel. Yesterday, the Government chose to vote down all the amendments that had been agreed in the other place. They voted to reject the requirement to consult small businesses about the impact of the Bill. They voted against reinstating the requirement for the trade unions to choose to opt into the political fund. The Bill changes it to an opt-out. It is a vote for endless trade union payments. I hope that the Minister will declare her interest in relation to contributions from the unions to her election campaign.
Yesterday, the Government voted against the reinstatement of a 50% trade union member threshold for voting for industrial action. I am afraid that that is a vote for more strikes. How can the public trust that the Employment Rights Bill serves the national interest when over 200 Labour MPs have taken millions from the unions, and when the Bill appears to prioritise union access and strike powers over the much-desired economic growth?
As I have mentioned, the Government’s own impact assessment says that there will be a £5 billion cost to business. The Prime Minister’s new economic adviser, Minouche Shafik, has admitted that Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will lead to fewer jobs. We need not listen just to her. The National Farmers Union has warned that the Bill ignores the seasonal nature of agricultural work. The UK Cinema Association has said that it is “no exaggeration to say” that this Bill will bring the viability of some operators into question. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has highlighted the risk to small businesses: it is all but guaranteed, it says, that small businesses will adopt more risk-averse recruitment practices in response, if they are confident about taking on any new talent at all.
My heart goes out—my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made this point passionately—to all those people who need an employer to take a chance on them. I am thinking of the people who are perhaps a little riskier to take into an organisation and who really need someone to give them that chance—possibly their first chance. One well-known employer is exceptional in that regard: the large employer Mitie. It warns of higher costs and tribunal pressures, and that the right in relation to unfair dismissal will cripple smaller organisations. It adds that it is crucial that the Government permit some flexibility for employers that need to adapt to fluctuating demand.
These are not fringe concerns. These are the voices of employers across agriculture, culture, services and finance, who are united in their message that this employment rights legislation will make it harder to hire, harder for the country to grow and harder to serve the public. The Labour Government’s refusal to listen to these voices is not just reckless; it is simply ideological. I think we heard some of that in this afternoon’s debate.
The Bill is not about improving rights. It is about empowering the paymasters, the unions, and about punishing enterprise. What I can say to the country is that under Conservative leadership, we will stand with business, grow jobs and deliver growth in the overall economy, because that is the only way to build a stronger, fairer economy that gives everyone an opportunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, in what I am proud to say is my first time responding for the Department in a Westminster Hall debate. I thank the shadow Minister and all other Members for their kind words and welcome. I am grateful for all the thoughtful and considered contributions from both sides of the Chamber.
Business impact rightly remains a recurring theme in discussions on the Employment Rights Bill. I pay tribute to the SMEs and businesses that all Members have mentioned today, and particularly to those in my constituency that I have had the pleasure to meet over the past year, as their Member of Parliament. I am delighted to have the opportunity to reiterate this Bill’s positive impact on employers, workers and the wider economy.
I also pay tribute to the work done by those before us, not least that of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders)—
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I appreciate that this is the Minister’s first time responding to a debate in Westminster Hall. My point of order is simply that she may wish to consider putting her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on the record.
Kate Dearden
I was just about to get to that point. I thank the shadow Minister for the reminder.
I pay tribute to my predecessor for all his work and to the officials and colleagues who worked with him. Many Members of this House and the other place engaged constructively with the team, and their insight has materially shaped the Bill. I thank them for their valuable insights. Likewise, the Bill has been shaped by extensive engagement from external stakeholders, businesses, trade unions and civil society alike. I thank them all for their engagement to date, and I reassure them that this Government remain committed to full and proper consultation on the Bill’s implementation.
I declare my interest as a proud trade union member. I look forward to working with trade unions, businesses and all stakeholders, and to continuing the positive engagement that many stakeholders have had with the Department and with this Government so far.
The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to implementing “Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay” in full and to putting more money in working people’s pockets. The Employment Rights Bill is the legislative backbone of that promise. We will deliver the single biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. That is good for workers and good for business, because we believe that a strong package of workers’ rights and protections go hand in hand with a strong economy. Many good employers already know that. When staff feel secure, they stay longer, are more productive and help the business to succeed. The Bill will help to make that the norm across the economy.
Our first mission as a Government is to deliver economic growth in every single part of the country. The Employment Rights Bill is a vital step. It represents a cornerstone of our mission to grow the economy, and it is designed to modernise the UK labour market, raise living standards and support long-term growth.
Securing that growth is worth doing only if working people actually feel the benefits of it in their pay, in their security and in their daily lives. Too many people face practices that undermine both their security and our economy, from fire and rehire to zero-hours contracts and last-minute shift cancellations. Those practices breed insecurity, and insecurity stifles productivity.
That is why the Bill is at the centre of the Government’s plans and is so significant. It will benefit at least 15 million workers, or half of all UK workers, protecting them from those practices and providing economic safety for the lowest paid in our labour market.
Let us consider a few of the changes that the Bill will bring. Some 9 million employees will gain protection from unfair dismissal, not after two years, but from day one. Workers in some of the most deprived parts of the country will keep hundreds of pounds a year in their pockets instead of losing them to the hidden costs of insecure work, and nearly 1 million more people each year will benefit from bereavement leave when they lose a loved one.
I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her comments in support of the Bill and of the Government’s work in this area, and for her work on the impact of bullying in the workplace over a number of years. I would be happy to meet her to discuss those matters further.
Economic impacts were a key part of the contribution of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Some still argue that stronger rights are a cost, but I reject that. Stronger rights are an investment in people, in stability and in long-term growth. As set out in the Government’s published impact assessments for the Bill—I will respond in detail to his points on that—there are clear, evidence-based benefits to tackling issues holding back the UK labour market, which will have a positive impact on economic growth and will help to raise living standards across the country.
Steve Barclay
I join colleagues in welcoming the Minister to her place. She said in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that there would not be an additional cost, but the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has raised concerns about the additional costs and the funding gap, given that it will fall on local authorities and will therefore, in turn, require Government support. Could she clarify what she expects to be the extra cost of the Bill in terms of social care?
Kate Dearden
I am happy to come back to the right hon. Member on the particular social care interests and concerns that he might have.
Improving worker wellbeing, supporting productivity, reducing workplace conflict and creating a more level playing field for good employers would grant significant benefits, worth billions of pounds per year. That is why delivering the benefits of the Bill would offset the costs. That assessment is shared by organisations such as the Resolution Foundation. The £5 billion figure from our impact assessment, which the hon. Member for Spelthorne mentioned, is a top-end estimate of that cost, and will largely represent a direct transfer to the lowest paid in society, with the central estimate close to £1 billion. Even if we take that high-end estimate, the costs are therefore likely to be less than 0.4% of our national wage bill, and could even be as low as 0.1%. That is our best estimate at this stage.
Andy McDonald
If workers are in good, well-paid work, they can go on to lead good, flourishing lives, and they will return that as a dividend through their collaboration with their employer. They will also be in a position to be more active in the economy. We know that when working people have money, they are able to spend it and generate activity in the economy. Does the Minister agree?
Kate Dearden
I absolutely agree that all workers will benefit in some way from the Bill and be able to give back to the economy, whether by spending in the local economy or by contributing to other local businesses.
Lincoln Jopp
I think I am right in saying that the impact assessment’s estimate of a cost of £5 billion was at the higher end, but I read out quite an extensive set of quotations from the RPC saying that it was an inadequate impact assessment and that it completely under-gunned the financial impact of the measures. Does she just think that the RPC is wrong?
Kate Dearden
I will come back to the hon. Member’s point in a moment. A number of the measures already have strong support from businesses. An Institute for Public Policy Research survey of businesses found that the majority—at least 75%—supported the measures in our Bill, including nearly seven in 10 small businesses.
The hon. Member also mentioned the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion. I want to make it clear that that refers to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment, not the policy itself. Our impact assessments provide initial analysis of the impacts that could follow, and we will be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continue our consultation and engagement. I reiterate just how important that is in our next steps with the Bill. I am keen that we continue to work with businesses as part of that consultation and engagement.
All in all, with this legislative framework, we need to ensure that we can make work pay, by addressing the challenges that Britain faces today and by including up-to-date employment protections in areas that have cost Britain’s workers and businesses so dearly over a number of years and that are desperate need of updating. For that reason, the package is pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker. It supports our Government’s objective to boost growth and improve living standards for all.
The scale of the impacts will, of course, depend on further policies, which are ready for secondary legislation. I have already said that we will continue to engage and consult—[Interruption.]
Kate Dearden
Thank you, Dr Murrison. The hon. Member for Spelthorne also mentioned particular groups of workers who will benefit. I am glad he did so, because younger workers, women, people with disabilities and people from ethnic minority groups make up a higher than average share of those workers who will benefit from the package. Flexibility and the rebalancing of security are very important for that section of the workforce, so I am proud that the Bill will help those people to stay in work and that it will make their work more family-friendly, improve their living standards and put more money in their pockets.
Euan Stainbank
I welcome the Minister to her place. She is making an excellent point, but I refer her to specific sectors in which some Opposition parties have called for carve-outs. Does she agree that it is important that we do not carve out, for any particular sector, the strong provisions in the Bill, and that it is both morally and economically wrong to say to a young worker that if they work behind a bar, they should have fewer rights than if they worked behind a desk?
Kate Dearden
I want every single worker, no matter where they work, to have a good standard of rights in their workplace and to know their rights. The Bill will ensure that we can provide that opportunity for so many people, including young workers, and that they benefit from the legislation.
Kate Dearden
I want to make a bit of progress and respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank him for his warm welcome and his contributions to the debate. Our small businesses are absolutely crucial for our economy, and I pay credit to the businesses in his constituency that he mentioned.
The hon. Member also mentioned sick pay and cost. Our legislation is so important because 1.3 million employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay. The Health and Safety Executive found that stress, depression or anxiety accounted for 17.1 million working days lost in 2022-23. That is the equivalent of more than £5 billion of lost output annually. That is why it is important that sick pay is extended to so many workers in our economy; it will ultimately benefit businesses, because we can keep people in work, but people do not have to make that decision. The pandemic shone a light on the terrible situation that many workers face; I am proud that we will be extending sick pay to so many people, so they will not have to make that decision. Ultimately, that will help businesses, because we can keep people in work and support them when they need it.
We have listened carefully to concerns raised by business groups, trade associations and individual employers. I have already mentioned my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, who was tireless in his efforts to engage with stakeholders, and spoken of my intention to do the same.
The Bill brings an opportunity to modernise outdated practices and reduce exploitation. It aims to create a level playing field for responsible employers to start to operate and build their businesses. We are also, of course, mindful of the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. I speak as someone with personal experience: I come from a family of small business owners, and I know at first hand the pressures that they face.
That is why many provisions will be phased in, giving time to adapt, and the Department will give clear guidance and consultation. We are committed to ongoing engagement with businesses. The implementation road map, which we published on 1 July, has received high levels of praise from businesses for the clarity that it has provided. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), as she also mentioned it in her remarks.
Decent employers stand to gain when the rules are fair. The shadow Minister mentioned her concerns about the impact of the Bill on growth. In the three months to July, GDP grew by 0.2%, meaning that cumulative growth this year has already exceeded the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for the whole of 2025. I am absolutely confident in this Government’s growth agenda. We want to be bolder and more creative, and to ensure that every single area of this country feels the benefit of this Government and our growth priority. This Bill is absolutely key to that, as I have already outlined.
Our new Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle) has already spoken with more than 100 business leaders. He made putting that partnership at the heart of our growth mission a priority on coming into office. That laser focus on implementation, with his priority to double down on growth, is an absolute cornerstone of building powerful partnerships with business. We have shown we are listening; he touched on that a lot in the debate yesterday, so I will not repeat the arguments that he made very eloquently in the House.
To conclude, I reiterate that this Bill is about raising standards. It is about fairness, unlocking growth and future-proofing our economy. Fairness can drive growth. Businesses that treat their workers well can innovate more and grow faster. Stronger employment relations are absolutely essential to that.
As is typical with employment legislation, the technical details of many of the policies in this Bill will be provided through regulations, and in some cases codes of practice, following Royal Assent. We will be consulting extensively, because this Employment Rights Bill is a positive step forward for workers, for employers and for the economy. I look forward to working closely with all hon. Members of this House, and people outside it, to deliver on this landmark reform and make a real difference to workers, employers and our British economy.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I fear that it has been a bit of a conversation of the deaf, but we will see whether the number of women employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether the number of disabled people employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether these new regulations contribute to growth in the economy, or to further shrinkage and further increases in unemployment. I fear for the British economy; I think we are heading in a really bad direction, and this Employment Rights Bill is going to turbocharge our getting there.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses.
Written Correction
Other Corrections
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris McDonald
Hospitality Sector
The following extract is from the debate on the Hospitality Sector on 3 September 2025.
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is doing an amazing job of talking about the importance of small hospitality businesses to the local community. Does he agree that that extends beyond economic value to their value more generally? The Golden Smog, a friendly family pub in my constituency, supports an inclusive basketball team and has raised £700,000 from its annual “pALEgrimage”—it is like a pilgrimage but involves ale, so it is even better. Will he join me in congratulating that pub?
[Official Report, 3 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 370.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald):
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is doing an amazing job of talking about the importance of small hospitality businesses to the local community. Does he agree that that extends beyond economic value to their value more generally? The Golden Smog, a friendly family pub in my constituency, supports an inclusive basketball team and has raised £170,000 from its annual “pALEgrimage”—it is like a pilgrimage but involves ale, so it is even better. Will he join me in congratulating that pub?
Plan for Small Businesses
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
On 31 July, the Government launched our plan for small businesses, changing the status quo in order to support small businesses.
Economic growth remains the Government’s foremost priority. The UK’s 5.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs—are the backbone of our economy and the driving force behind growth in every community. SMEs are vital to the UK economy, making up 99.8% of all businesses, employing 60% of the private sector workforce, and generating £2.8 trillion in turnover. This underscores the importance of our commitment to supporting small businesses and ensuring they thrive.
While the UK is home to many outstanding businesses across sectors such as life sciences and the creative industries, too many SMEs have faced barriers to growth. Businesses seeking to grow report challenges ranging from access to finance and regulatory burdens to declining high streets.
Developed hand-in-hand with small businesses across the UK, Backing Your Business is our long-term strategy to break down barriers and unleash SME growth and productivity. This plan aims to transform the environment for starting and running a business, while placing SME growth at the heart of our growth mission
Key actions include:
Opening up opportunities
Launching a new business growth service to streamline access to advice and support, aligned with our vision for a modern digital Government.
Supporting under-represented entrepreneurs through improved data collection and initiatives such as the Lilac Review for disabled business owners.
Enhancing SME understanding of export opportunities by integrating export advice into the business growth service and expanding UK export finance by £20 billion to £80 billion, including a new small export builder insurance product.
Making it easier for SMEs to win Government contracts through a new procurement policy, an SME Procurement Education Programme, and a Defence SME Support Centre.
Supporting innovation through improved guidance on intellectual property and security, with resources from the Intellectual Property Office and Innovate UK.
Fixing the fundamentals
Introducing landmark legislation to tackle late payments, which cost the UK economy £11 billion annually and close 38 businesses each day. This will be the most significant legislation to tackle late payments in over 25 years and will establish the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7.
Cutting the administrative cost of regulation by 25%, freeing up time and resources for businesses.
Modernising the tax and customs system, including Al-powered tools and personalised digital services, as outlined in HMRC’s Transformation Roadmap.
Accelerating planning processes to address infrastructure gaps and support smaller housebuilders.
Helping businesses reduce energy costs and transition to net zero, with targeted advice and expanded training in retrofit and energy efficiency.
Unlocking access to finance
Expanding start-up loans to support 69,000 new businesses with finance and mentoring.
Committing to the British Business Bank’s growth guarantee scheme and increasing the ENABLE guarantee programme capacity from £3 billion to £5 billion.
Providing £340 million to boost early-stage equity finance for innovative firms.
Working with lenders to ensure fair use of personal guarantees, including a mandatory code of conduct under the growth guarantee scheme.
Backing the everyday economy
Introducing a new framework for local authorities and hospitality and night-time economy zones, following the Licensing Taskforce.
Supporting high street businesses through growth incubators, redevelopment of commercial space, and targeted investment.
Providing funding to up to 350 communities to support local regeneration.
Reforming business rates by introducing permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality, and leisure properties with rateable values under £500,000 from April 2026.
Banning upward only rent review clauses in commercial leases and continuing to promote High Street Rental Auctions and a new Community Right to Buy.
Supporting the growth of co-operatives and mutuals, including a call for evidence on how best to enable their expansion.
Enhancing community safety with 13,000 additional police officers, the Safer Streets initiative, and measures to tackle shoplifting and tool theft.
Future-proofing business skills
Promoting digital adoption through pilot schemes, industry partnerships, and expansion of the Made Smarter programme.
Supporting leadership development and mentoring through an industry-led Business Mentoring Council.
Encouraging youth enterprise through education, competitions, and a new Youth Entrepreneur category in the King’s Awards for Enterprise.
Ensuring SMEs benefit from the skills and apprenticeships system, including £1.2 billion of additional annual investment by 2028-29, and promoting access to T-Levels and apprenticeships via the Business Growth Service.
These measures are just the beginning. With over 200 actions, Backing Your Business will empower SMEs to grow, innovate and thrive in every corner of the UK. We are committed to delivering these actions over this parliament and will publish a delivery update in 2027. We launched this strategy in partnership with small businesses— and we will continue to work side-by-side with them to deliver real change.
One of the commitments in Backing Your Business is to increase the contingent liability for the ENABLE guarantee scheme administered by the British Business Bank to £5 billion. ENABLE guarantees are designed to encourage additional lending to smaller and medium-sized businesses. Participating institutions are incentivised by a Government-backed guarantee to support defined portfolios of debt finance in return for a fee. A departmental minute with full details of this contingent liability is being laid today.
[HCWS924]
Correction to PQ HL8160
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
We will issue this statement at a later date.
[HCWS932]
Football Governance Act Consultation: Owners and Directors Test
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government have today launched our targeted consultation on the statutory deadline for the Football Governance Act’s owners’ and directors’ tests. We have invited responses from the relevant competition organisers, clubs, the Football Association, the Football Supporters Association, and other appropriate individuals and organisations.
Football lies at the heart of our nation, and it touches the lives of so many of us across the country. Football clubs are treasured not just by their fans, but also by their local communities. That is why it is absolutely vital that only suitable owners and officers are allowed to be the custodians of these community institutions.
As the Government set out in the Act, the independent football regulator will have the power to test owners and officers to ensure they are fit and proper persons to be running a football club. As part of these tests, the Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy, will produce regulations specifying how long the IFR can take to make a determination on the suitability of new owners and officers. The responses to this consultation from key stakeholders will help us to set an appropriate deadline that works for the IFR and the industry. In particular, ensuring that the IFR has sufficient time to perform robust tests, without burdening the industry with a lengthy and bureaucratic approval process that might put clubs at risk or deter investment.
I want to thank all the fan groups, clubs, leagues, football bodies and industry experts who have engaged with the Government so far and encourage those that have been contacted to share their views.
[HCWS927]
NATO: Eastern Sentry
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On 10 September, Polish air space was recklessly violated by a number of Russian uncrewed aerial systems, in the most significant violation of NATO airspace by Russia since the start of Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Poland requested consultations at NATO under article 4 of the Washington treaty. The UK, alongside our allies, stands in full solidarity with Poland and denounces Russia’s reckless behaviour.
In response, I announced after the E5 defence ministerial meeting in London last week that I had asked our UK armed forces to look at options to bolster NATO’s air defence over Poland.
On 12 September, the NATO Secretary-General and Supreme Allied Commander Europe announced NATO was launching Eastern Sentry to bolster NATO’s posture further along its eastern flank.
Within days, the United Kingdom will deploy RAF Typhoon fighter jets to support NATO’s response to Eastern Sentry, reinforcing the alliance’s air defences on its eastern flank, and supported by RAF Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft. Operating from the UK, RAF Typhoons will conduct air defence missions over Poland, operating alongside allied forces, from Denmark, France, and Germany, to ensure the security of allied territory and deter further aggression. This activity will involve hundreds of UK personnel and I am, as always, grateful for the hard work and dedication of our armed forces for their work 24/7 to keep the UK and our allies safe.
The UK’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable. UK armed forces play a vital role in NATO’s defence, from the permanent British Army presence in Estonia as part of NATO’s Forward Land Forces to the RAF’s rotational air policing missions in eastern Europe. Over the past 18 months, RAF Typhoons have been deployed to Poland and Romania to protect NATO airspace. This deployment underscores the UK’s commitment to NATO and the security of Europe. The Government remain resolute in their duty to protect the UK and our NATO allies.
[HCWS931]
Great British Energy: Strategic Priorities
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Great British Energy (GBE) is central to this Government’s mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower and will play a pivotal role in accelerating the deployment of clean, secure, home-grown energy as the UK’s publicly owned clean energy company. GBE is putting energy back into the hands of the British public, enabling the benefits of the clean energy transition to flow back into communities, households and businesses, to protect billpayers for good.
At the spending review, the Government confirmed over £8.3 billion in capitalisation for GBE and Great British Energy Nuclear. The statement of strategic priorities—"the statement”— now sets out the Secretary of State’s vision for how Great British Energy should contribute to the mission. It does so by identifying two core objectives for GBE:
Drive clean energy deployment across the whole of the UK, as a strategic developer, investor, and owner of clean energy projects.
Ensure that UK taxpayers, billpayers, communities, and the current energy workforce benefit from the clean energy transition by increasing public ownership and community involvement in the development of clean energy projects, and by supporting jobs and economic growth across the UK.
The statement provides strategic direction by specifying that GBE should focus on three core groups of activities to deliver on GBE’s objectives:
The statement outlines the key principles for intervention. Underpinning these principles for intervention is a requirement for GBE to ensure that its portfolio of activities and investments is additional. The statement also outlines GBE’s long-term goal to become financially self-sustaining, and the importance of setting a clear path towards profitability with a plan for self-financing to be in place by 2030.
Partnerships with the private sector and other public sector organisations will be critical to GBE’s ability to deliver on its core objectives. The statement therefore provides detail on how GBE should work collaboratively with private and public sector organisations. This includes local and devolved governments, the National Wealth Fund, The Crown Estate and Great British Energy-Nuclear.
The statement also sets out the Secretary of State’s expectation that GBE put in place a robust corporate governance framework which adheres to corporate transparency principles.
GBE is foundational to this Government’s mission to bring energy security, protect billpayers, create good jobs and help protect future generations, and will be a key player in establishing the energy system of the future. In doing so, Great British Energy will demonstrate how modern public ownership can deliver a dynamic state which works with industry, workers, unions and local and devolved Governments to accelerate the clean energy transition and deliver benefits for citizens across the UK.
[HCWS925]
Pandemic Preparedness: Exercise Pegasus
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I am today confirming that, on 18 September, Exercise Pegasus, the national tier 1 pandemic preparedness exercise set to assess the UK’s ability to respond to a pandemic, will commence.
A pandemic remains the top risk of the UK’s national risk register, and experts are clear that it is a case of when, not if, the UK will experience another pandemic. We cannot be prepared if we do not actively look for opportunities to test the country’s capabilities, plans, protocols and procedures in the event of another major pandemic. Exercise Pegasus is a prime opportunity to do just that.
Exercise Pegasus will be the largest ever simulation of a pandemic in UK history and will involve participation from every Department, the devolved Governments and representation from arm’s length bodies and local resilience fora.
The exercise is due to take place from September to November 2025, led by the Department of Health and Social Care and delivered with the UK Health Security Agency. Core exercise days have been confirmed for 18 September, 9 October and 30 October, simulating the first phases of a pandemic: emergence, containment, and mitigation. A fourth phase—recovery—is also planned for 2026. The UK Government have committed to communicating the findings and lessons of the exercise as recommended by the covid-19 inquiry and a post-exercise report will be delivered in due course.
[HCWS926]
Home Office Science Advisory Committee: Renaming
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The Minister of State at the Home Office, my noble Friend Lord Hanson of Flint, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to announce the formal name change of the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group to the Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee.
The name change has sought to accurately encompass the full remit of this scientific advisory group, which works to provide Ministers with independent advice on matters relating to broad ethical issues in science, technology and data.
I would like to thank the group for its ongoing advice across many sectors of the Home Office, and I am pleased that this name change reflects both the breadth and depth of expertise held by all the members of the group. Continuous support has been provided to the Government by our members in matters ranging from the national DNA database to ethical advice on using large datasets and machine learning.
For a list of publications and information regarding the ongoing advice that this group provides, please see its website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/science-and-technology-ethics-advisory-committee
[HCWS929]
Provision of False Evidence by MI5: Investigatory Powers Commissioner
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
In July this year, the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal handed down judgments following MI5’s provision of incorrect evidence to the courts in relation to the case of agent X.
On 2 July the High Court concluded that the High Court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the associated special advocates were misled by MI5. It also concluded that—once it had been determined that the evidence given to the courts was incorrect—the subsequent investigations carried out suffered from serious procedural deficiencies. As such, the High Court ordered that a “further, robust and independent investigation” should take place and recommended that this should be led by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
In its judgment of 30 July, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal agreed with the High Court’s conclusions and set out further specific issues on the provision of false evidence. The tribunal requested these were answered via further investigation and again recommended this be taken forward by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. Both courts will use the outcome of this investigation to determine their next steps in relation to the case of agent X.
Exercising the power conferred by sections 230 & 234(3) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, I have now issued a direction to the commissioner to commence this investigation immediately. In accordance with my obligation to publish such directions under section 230 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, I am depositing a copy of the direction and terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS928]
Machinery of Government: Skills
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the attention of the House the following machinery of government change.
I am today confirming that responsibility for apprenticeships, adult further education, skills, training and careers, and Skills England, will move from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions.
Responsibility for higher education, and further education, skills, training and careers for those aged 19 years and under will remain with the Department for Education.
Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, will serve jointly across the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education.
This change is effective today, 16 September 2025.
[HCWS930]
National Health Service Regulations
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) Regulations 2015, as amended by the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts and Personal Medical Services Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, implementation of the 2025-26 GP contract changes is still under way. GP practices have recently been issued contract variations, but the changes have not yet taken full effect. The changes, agreed with the British Medical Association for the first time in four years, will improve access for patients and enable local health systems to hire more staff. The Government will closely monitor the impact once the changes are fully implemented in the coming weeks.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, my concern is about the degree to which GP contracts are dictated by extremely prescriptive legislation. The recent change to keep GPs’ computers switched on overnight—rightly, to improve data sharing—is a striking example. It did not require just negotiation with GPs or advice from security and privacy experts, as it of course should: it also required Parliament to legislate to change the contract details. Does the Minister not agree that embedding this level of micromanagement in legislation not only is unhelpful but actively stifles innovation in the NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is an interesting assessment of where we are; it is not one that I was about to speak of, but I hear what the noble Lord says. Let me say that, in implementing contract changes, it is absolutely usual—and, in my opinion, correct—that regulations are important and are consulted on. There is a whole list of things here around transparency. There was consultation with the BMA’s General Practitioners Committee, as well as the laying of the regulations and bringing them into force. This is all quite the usual practice—and actually, I think, good practice. I appreciate that GPs are very much the front door to our NHS and it is absolutely important that we make these changes in order to assist them and their patients.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. What assessment have the Government, in particular the Minister, made of the way in which the GP contract will impact on rural doctors—not least the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, which cannot even access the EPS system at the moment, which is obviously disadvantaging its patients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The expectation is that all GPs, including those in rural areas, will benefit greatly. The premise of the 10-year plan, which was announced recently, is to improve patient access. That is a particular issue in rural areas and is absolutely key, no matter where you are—whether you are appearing in person, are seeking to get online access to your GP or are on the phone. Remember, this is all about, for example, ending the 8 am scramble. Noble Lords have been very critical and I share in their criticism. I think that, particularly in rural areas, where people face various challenges in getting around, these changes will improve things massively for both GPs and patients.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has described these changes in terms of the benefits for patients. How will the Government know whether they are of benefit to patients, given the decision to wind up HealthWatch, which itself was less than adequate in terms of patient representation compared with Community Health Councils, an organisation I knew well many years ago? Surely, that is a negative step and there should be a mechanism for local consultation and local engagement with patients through an independent body.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate what my noble friend says about HealthWatch, which has done a sterling job over the years. However, in assessing where we are in ensuring that we have the right framework in place, including on patient safety—Dr Penny Dash recently published her report saying that the landscape was “cluttered” and it was difficult to hear the patient voice—it is right that we make the changes that we do to improve things. The reform to the GP contract very much assists general practice to be at the heart of a neighbourhood health service, and that is where we are going.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, when the new Government came in, I heard that they were planning walk-in clinics. How is that progressing?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In terms of development, as my noble friend will know, the 10-year health plan speaks very clearly of a “neighbourhood health service”, which people will find it easier to access. It will be up to local areas how they do that. In a number of areas, as my noble friend refers to, that will mean clinics where all services are under one roof. We would certainly encourage that. I can also give an example of a pilot scheme taking place now with mental health crisis centres. They are 24/7, all year round, and are available without referral for people who need mental health support, as well as advice and guidance: they can access those.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, the 2025 amendments to the regulations made several key changes, one of which was to keep online consultation talks open during surgery hours. While these Benches welcome the shift from analogue to digital, we understand that the National Pensioners Convention estimates that between 500,000 and 700,000 older people would not be able to access either the online consultation tool or patient records, either because they are not online or because they struggle to navigate apps and websites. Can the Minister update the House about what her department is doing to work with GPs and, in fact, the whole system of health and care, to make sure that that small minority of people who are not digitally literate, including older people, are not locked out of receiving health and social care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. There is absolutely no intention that people will be disadvantaged in any way. This is about equalising access, which means keeping all forms of access open. That may be online, but it will also be possible to deal with things in person and on the phone. Obviously, if we can take pressure off phone access, or personal access, through the use of online, that will assist the group to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend referred to Community Health Councils. I was one of the first CHC secretaries to be appointed in 1974.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Wait for it, my Lords—I was also the Minister who got its abolition through your Lordships’ House. Mea culpa; I was mistaken. We should bring it back.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend does himself credit with his honesty, which I too will take example from .
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, there are concerns about the use of physician associates in many general practices. They are not of course doctors but are now on the front line of giving advice and assistance. Is the Minister satisfied about the way in which these people are deployed? Is she happy that the security of patients is completely safe with the use of these people?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Physician associates often work in hospitals and are there to develop the availability of care. The noble Lord is right to say that there are concerns around physician associates. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced an independent review to work out where there are problems and what we need to do to make sure that there is no confusion among patients about who is treating them, and also that patient safety standards are upheld.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, from the patient’s point of view, the team around the GP is as important as the GP? As yet, we have no way of applying the regulations to teams. Does she think that this ought to be pursued, in the interests of the patient?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. In the contract changes, we have removed caps on the number of staff recruited. Importantly, we also expanded reimbursable roles to include practice nurses, to do the very thing that my noble friend asked about, which is to increase workforce capacity.
Ethiopia and Eritrea
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are monitoring the escalating tension between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and what steps they are taking to reduce the risk of renewed cross-border conflict and protect civilians in the region.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK does not support actions by any party that would bring conflict or instability to the region. Alongside partners, we continue to monitor the situation closely, to warn both countries about the risk of inflammatory action and to urge constructive dialogue.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, before I ask my supplementary question, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his deserved promotion and welcome him to his place on the Front Bench.
My noble friend will be aware that, in the Tigray war between 2020 and 2022, the Ethiopian federal Government and the Eritrean regime, with others, fought together against the TPLF in a war that caused between 160,000 and 600,000 civilian deaths. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the reason for, and the implications of, a new and unthinkable unholy alliance between Eritrea and the TPLF, apparently formed with the aim of facing Ethiopia? What lies ahead?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question and his congratulations; his vast experience and expertise make me feel considerable humility standing here.
We cannot speculate at this time about what position either Government will take in relation to the tensions within Tigray. However, we have been clear that, for sustainable peace, the full implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement is required, including the withdrawal of forces other than the Ethiopian National Defense Force from Ethiopian territory. Both Government Ministers and senior officials have made clear that we do not support inflammatory action, by either side, to both the Ethiopian and Eritrean Governments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the Minister to the Front Bench; I well remember my first Question many years ago and I am sure it is a difficult experience.
Ethiopia’s ambition of gaining access to the Red Sea is one of the core driving factors behind tensions in the region, so what discussions have Ministers or UK diplomats had with both Eritrean and Ethiopian counterparts about a fair, equitable and peaceful agreement that could solve this problem between the two parties?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question and for his kind words. The Government’s position is that countries must pursue commercial access to the sea through peaceful, negotiated means. The UK does not support aggressive action or rhetoric that threatens a country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The previous Foreign Secretary spoke to Ethiopia’s Foreign Minister Gedion in August, when he warned against the risk of miscalculation and encouraged dialogue with Eritrea. Similar points have been made to the Eritrean Government by our officials there.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord to his place, but does he recognise that the UK’s influence in the Horn of Africa and across the continent has been greatly diminished by a lack of consistent political leadership in the FCDO, exemplified by having no fewer than eight different Foreign Secretaries and nine different Ministers for Africa since 2016? Does he share my dismay that, despite promises of a new partnership with Africa, the current Government have acted like their predecessor in moving aside a highly regarded Africa Minister just over a year into his post and further diminishing our already waning influence on the continent?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government recognise that we need a new approach to Africa to reflect that the world and Africa have changed. We must progress beyond the paternalistic approach of previous Governments, which too often saw relationships through the lens of old-fashioned aid and short-term deals. In June, a summary was published of a wide-ranging consultation undertaken with African Governments, multilateral institutions, businesses, civil society, creatives, academia and diaspora organisations. Led by the Foreign Secretary, this Government are drawing on the evidence to shape and inform the new approach. We believe the UK can be a partner to Africa to boost sustainable growth, combat the climate crisis, tackle insecurity and address our migration priorities, drawing on our shared cultural and people-to-people links. That will remain the Government’s view despite ministerial changes. That is our plan, and that is what we shall seek.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, this conflict is another example of the UK’s reduced influence in the world as a result of our reduction in overseas development money. The previous Government took it down from 0.7% to 0.5% and the present one have taken it down from 0.5% to 0.3%—okay, we have increased our defence expenditure, but defence, diplomacy and development are the three cores of our influence. This conflict is another example of our diminished influence in the world. Would the Minister like to comment?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are reducing ODA to the equivalent of 0.3% of GNI in order, as I think everyone knows, to fund defence spending at 2.5% of GDP by 2027. We remain committed to the 0.7% target when fiscal circumstances allow, as set out in the International Development Act. Reducing ODA now is a difficult but necessary decision to respond to the pressing security challenges. With regard to Ethiopia specifically, Ethiopia is a long-standing and important development partner to the UK and one of the largest recipients of UK ODA. Ensuring the protection of civilians is our top priority. Our ODA budget for Ethiopia is £161.7 million this year, making us one of the top three donors, and that gives us a great deal of influence with Ethiopia and in the wider region.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, while I welcome the Minister to his position, I too align myself with the disappointment at the removal of the Minister for Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, was doing a sterling job, and I express the disappointment from all sides of the House.
The Question is focused on the important issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict; for well over a decade, the UK showed leadership on that. We established an international alliance. Tigray was an area of key focus on the issue of accountability for acts of sexual violence, particularly against girls and women. In one clinic alone, over 100 victims of rape and sexual violence are being reported in Tigray. What assurance can the Minister give me that this will remain a priority and that, with high-level week at the UN upon us, the UK will use its long legacy and recognition of leadership on this issue in convening a meeting at a high level with Ministers during high-level week in New York?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his work and commitment. His commitment was extended to helping me with the answers to these questions, so I have benefited from his enormous experience and loyalty.
On the question of protecting women and girls from violence caused by conflict, the conflict in Tigray, as the noble Lord says, has left deep emotional and psychological wounds, particularly among women who have survived conflict-related sexual violence. Recognising the urgent need for trauma healing, the UK is providing direct funding to CARE International to support locally-led initiatives addressing this crisis. We are also working with partners to provide support to survivors of gender-based violence and provide humanitarian cash to the most vulnerable households in Amhara. Last year, we reached over 776,000 people in the region. We continue to encourage Eritrea to endorse the declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister and thank him for his Answer. A recent report from Physicians for Human Rights and the Organization for Justice and Accountability on the Horn of Africa documents mass rape, sexual slavery and forced pregnancy in Tigray, allegedly committed by Eritrean and Ethiopian soldiers. It calls for an international investigation into a possible crime of genocide. What steps are the Government taking to support such investigations?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I have set out the Government’s concerns about these issues and the priority that we attach to them. With regard to the wider claims of genocide, the noble Baroness will be aware that there are international protocols on this which this Government follow.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who referred to the Tigray peace agreement, also known as the Pretoria agreement, the Minister will be aware that the US Government led those diplomatic initiatives and played a key role in making it happen. However, the Trump Administration have said that they do not want to get involved in any diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the current Ethiopian-Eritrean crisis. Given that the two European countries with the closest ties to Ethiopia and Eritrea, with active embassies and missions in both countries, are Italy and the UK, does it not behove the Government to play a key role in trying to de-escalate this potential crisis? Will the Minister visit both those capitals and make an effort to play his part as well?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord; I would be delighted to play my part. I put that on record now. The question of working with international partners is central to this Government’s approach. The approach to any tensions should be about dialogue. We have helped to identify suitable facilitators for that dialogue. To pursue co-operation with our international partners, in March the UK issued a joint statement with the EU and 23 countries emphasising our support for the cessation of hostilities agreement, to which the noble Lord refers, urging all parties to refrain from violence and engage in urgent dialogue. We regularly engage with all parties and the African Union guarantors to reiterate the importance of implementation and to encourage political dialogue.
Undocumented Migrants
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Massey of Hampstead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the specific factors driving the increase in the number of undocumented migrants leaving France to enter the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are committed to tackling illegal migration and the criminal networks that are behind it. There is no single universal push or pull factor independently driving irregular migration to the UK. In many cases, migrants are directed or coerced by organised criminal networks. That is why the Government’s focus is on tackling criminal gangs and securing ground-breaking co-operation with international partners while keeping all issues under review.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
The Home Secretary recently issued a statement with positive plans to deal with the crisis in relation to small boats. But, as we witnessed yesterday, even the deportation of a very small number of people back to France proved impossible. The focus of successive Governments on the criminal gangs and attempts to reach agreement with France has not impacted on numbers at all thus far. We are perceived quite widely as a soft touch, and our compassion is being exploited. So what further plans do the Government have to address the specific issues that make the UK so attractive relative to France? Does the noble Lord share my concern that the problem could get worse as European countries tighten their own immigration rules?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that the UK Government are not a soft touch. He will know that, through the immigration Bill, we are putting in place a Border Force command. We have employed 200 staff since last year to up our efforts on that. We have put an extra £150 million into Border Force funding. We have signed the agreement with France, and I can tell the noble Lord that returns are imminent and that that agreement is in place, delivering detention of individuals for return to France. Irrespective of that, we are also tackling some of the illegal migration and putting extra efforts into focusing on that undercover activity that allows people to work. I can give the noble Lord, outside the Chamber, a great deal of statistics on that result. We are not a soft touch; we are taking action and intend to reduce that flow over time.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, surely if we really want to reduce undocumented migrant movement pull factors, we should stop the emphasis on the resolution of conflict through costly military interventions that provoke worldwide population movements and plunder our development aid budgets. Is not the answer, in part, to more greatly resource third-world development, with measures to de-escalate conflict and—the holy grail—to re-examine the world’s commitment to the principle of prohibited intervention in failing states, as defined by the ICJ?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will share part of my noble friend’s analysis, in that factors of war, poverty and starvation are driving migration from many parts of the world into western Europe. He will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and other European countries and international partners, are looking at what those driving factors are. Part of the overall strategy needs to be how we deal with poverty, hunger, starvation and the impact of war. There are times when the UK and other partners need to help and support interventions, but I take the first part of my noble friend’s question extremely seriously, and that is something our international partners are very focused on.
Lord German (LD)
The Government’s French scheme has the benefit of giving us a safe route for people to come to this country. However, as the noble Lord has explained, it will not work unless it is ramped up. So would I be wrong in my expectation that the ramping up of the scheme will take place some time before the end of next year? In the meantime, what is happening to those who are now legally going to come to the United Kingdom? How are they being assessed, by whom, and where?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As noble Lords will know, we have negotiated the French pilot for the first time with the French to ensure that we have detention in the UK and return to France. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Massey, we intend to have returns under that scheme imminently. That is a pilot scheme; it will be assessed, and the intention, if both parties think it is valuable, is to increase its capacity over time to meet our obligations. In the meantime, there are a number of legal routes that people can apply to. There are asylum claims that individuals can make. We have put in additional support to speed up those asylum claims to determine who can stay and who can go. It is the responsibility of any responsible Government to try to deal with this with constructive solutions, of which I know the noble Lord is supportive. I look forward to his support in evaluating the success of the French pilot.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that we would be in a far better position to deal with issues like border security, access to services and knowing who is in the country illegally and who is not if the last Labour Government’s identity card scheme had not been scrapped by the Tories and the Liberals?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that, when I was last a Minister in the Home Office, we had an identity card scheme in place that was scrapped by the then-incoming Coalition Government of 2010-2015. It is an expensive business to re-jig ID cards, but all options are always being examined by this Government. I am genuinely sorry that the Coalition Government took the decision at the time to scrap that deal.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, leading on from the question from my noble friend Lord Massey, this week we were due to see the start of the Government’s much-vaunted one-in, one-out returns deal with France. However, due to the ongoing human rights claims and last-minute legal challenges, no one has yet returned to France, on the flights that left yesterday or today. Does the Minister not think that now is the time to endorse Conservative proposals to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration and asylum matters to prevent this very issue occurring in the future?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That was another good effort from the noble Lord to try to get me to say “yes” to an answer to which he knows I am going to say “no”. Amendments can be made to the ECHR, and the Government intend to make those amendments to ensure that we will make changes, particularly in relation to Article 8, and provide better interpretation for judges. On the French scheme, removals are imminent. It is a scheme his Government did not negotiate, and one that, hopefully, this Government and our French colleagues are going to make work to ensure that we have a proper deterrent and return people—unlike the wasteful Rwanda scheme, which achieved absolutely nothing and which the noble Lord supported.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, Home Office analysis of the factors that influence where people claim asylum highlights that the presence of family exerts a particularly strong effect on decisions on the ultimate country of destination. Given this finding, what assessment have the Government made of how the pause in family reunion applications might impact the level of channel crossings?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that question. I will certainly drop her a note after Question Time to give her detail on how we are examining the family reunion policy and the impact on children. I am afraid that in a 25-second answer I cannot sum up the detail that I would like to, but I will certainly write to her on that point.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, has Minister had any recent discussions with the Irish Government about the fact that there are so many migrants—some illegal, some not so illegal—coming across the border into Northern Ireland and then on into the rest of the United Kingdom? The Irish Government are now stopping people going the other way. Are His Majesty’s Government taking this as something that needs to be looked into very quickly?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. The UK Government continually discuss with the Irish Government the impact of a range of matters on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, including access to the rest of the United Kingdom via Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is extremely important, and we are focusing on that. I will certainly report back to the noble Baroness on that issue.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, does one of the principal answers to this question lie in the statistics the Minister was kind enough to give me last week: of the 160,000 small-boat arrivals since 2018, only 4% have been returned? In other words, if you come here illegally in a small boat, you stand a 96% chance of not being returned.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I did give those statistics to the noble Viscount, but I can also give him some more today if it helps. For example, between 1 January and 1 September this year, nearly 17,000 crossing attempts were stopped by joint action between the French and the British. Those do not show up in the statistics I gave the noble Viscount earlier. I can also tell him that in the past 12 months and in the period just before, 245 years of custodial sentence have been given to people traffickers who have been caught and captured. This is a very extreme challenge—let us not get away from it. We have to accept asylum seekers, we have to speed up the claims of those asylum seekers, and we have to determine who has a right to be here and who has to leave; but we have to stop at source the pernicious trade that is forcing people through illegal migration routes.
Economic Growth
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the growth figures for July 2025.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, UK GDP grew by 0.2% in the three months to July 2025, following an increase of 0.3% in the three months to June. Overall, the economy grew by 1% in the first half of this year, well above the OBR forecast of 0.6%. This means the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 over this period. Of course, we want to go further, which is why economic growth remains the Government’s number one priority.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Indeed it is, but the ONS said that there is zero growth in GDP. Of course, that means that GDP per capita will be negative, partly because productive people are leaving and less productive people are arriving. The markets have made their view of our economy clear, as our borrowing rates are higher than in any other country in the G7. Will the Minister agree to meet the Growth Commission, which has some excellent ideas on growth? As Treasury Minister, will he persuade his new colleagues of what every employer is saying, that the Employment Rights Bill will severely curtail growth? Now is the time to amend it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his question and for his thoughts on growing the economy. After his success in advocating for a Brexit deal that reduced GDP by 4%, it is always very helpful to get his advice on economic growth.
The noble Lord mentioned the monthly growth figures. I do not know whether he is an avid reader of the Office for National Statistics blog posts, but he may have seen that the ONS announced this week that it will be reverting to leading with the three-monthly growth figures, which are less volatile and provide a clearer picture of underlying economic momentum. He may therefore have seen that UK GDP increased in the three months to July. In that data released, we can see that the Government’s action to turn around the legacy of underinvestment from his Government, opposed now by the party opposite, is having an effect, and construction output increased by 0.6%, driven by 2.1% growth in new infrastructure work.
The noble Lord may also have seen that exports to the US increased in July. He may have seen that the UK economy grew by 1% in the first half of this year, and that as a result, the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He may have seen Lloyds Bank’s latest business barometer, which shows that business confidence rose for the fourth consecutive month to its highest level in 10 years.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, 50% of the economy is small and medium-sized businesses. In its commentary on today’s rise in unemployment and fall in vacancies, the British Chambers of Commerce highlighted employment costs; in particular, it singled out the hike in employers’ national insurance. Earlier today, those noble Lords who were in Prayers prayed for the wealth and tranquillity of our nation. Rather than wait for divine intervention, can the Minister now admit that the national insurance rise was wrong, and it is contributing to neither wealth nor tranquillity in this country?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is a welcome return for the noble Lord and a pleasure to be asked a question by him again after a somewhat lengthy absence. The answer to his question is no. We heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches strong support for the investment we announced in the spending review. They supported— I think—every single piece of regional, transport, health, and education investment right across the board. Not a single piece of investment that we announced did they oppose, but they are now saying that they oppose the way in which we raise that money. That, I am afraid, is something we see on many Liberal Democrat leaflets across the country. It is also the route that led to the Liz Truss mini-Budget, wanting to support outcomes but not supporting the difficult measures to support those outcomes.
The noble Lord mentioned small business. We set out a very clear small business strategy to support small businesses in this country.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister confirmed that growth in the United Kingdom in the first half of this year was the highest of all the G7 countries. Does he agree that those opposite who question and challenge this are talking Britain down and playing into the hands of the people who were on the streets at the weekend undermining parliamentary democracy?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I certainly agree with the first half of my noble friend’s question. It is important to restate that the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. The economy grew by 1% in the first half of this year, well above the OBR’s forecast of 0.6%. It is also worth drawing attention, as I did, to Lloyds’ latest business barometer, which shows business confidence rising for the fourth consecutive month. It is now at the highest level since 2015. UK firms remain optimistic about their own trading prospects, and firms remain upbeat about their business activity over the next 12 months.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this is a different world. Given that the economy is actually struggling to gain momentum, as every serious economic commentator is saying, thanks to the Government’s disastrous tax and regulatory policies, will the Minister answer my noble friend Lord Leigh’s questions? Will the Minister think again on the Employment Rights Bill, conveniently now coming back to the House? Will he answer my noble friend’s very good question on per capita growth, which, as the Minister and I have often agreed, is the key to success?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The answer to the first of the noble Baroness’s questions is no. As for the second question, she says she is interested in growth but let us look at just one measure that we are taking. Our planning reforms have the largest impact on growth of any non-fiscal measure the OBR has ever scored. Yet her party, evening after evening in this place, is doing every single thing it possibly can to hold up and obstruct our planning Bill in your Lordships’ House. Is that the action of a party that wants to grow the economy? Our capital spending increases economic growth. In this month’s GDP figures, we can see the effect it is having on driving new infrastructure work. Yet her party opposes the changes to the fiscal rules that make that possible. She says she wants growth but at every single turn, she opposes the measures this Government are taking to get that growth.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, people’s inability to buy goods and services is a major reason for low economic growth, and 14 years of Conservative rule delivered real wage cuts, the two-child benefit cap, frozen income thresholds, and unchecked profiteering. Some 16 million people live below the poverty line. What plans do the Government have to abandon Conservative policies and deliver redistribution of income and wealth, and curbs on profiteering?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely correct to say that we need a different approach to the economy from the one we had over the past 14 years, and he will have seen how we are delivering on that. He will know that living standards are forecast to grow over four times faster than in the previous Parliament, and real wages have already grown by more in the first 10 months of this Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Conservative Government. He will know that, in answer to the question opposite, GDP per capita is forecast to rise by 5.6% over this Parliament. Under the last Labour Government, productivity growth was the second fastest in the G7. Under the Tories, it fell to the second slowest in the G7.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the new chair of the Climate Change Committee, who warned today that any weakening or changing of our environmental policies would spook the markets and undermine growth?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord referred to “our” policies. I am pleased that he agrees with our policies. Absolutely, we are committed to delivering net zero in the way that we have set out.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, what analysis has been done between tax rates and the growth rate? Ignoring that ignores the effects of the Scully curve and crowding out in the economy.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The points the noble Lord makes are perfectly fair. Obviously, the Chancellor has to balance at any fiscal event the importance of fiscal responsibility and sustainability and the need to grow the economy. She will do so in the forthcoming Budget in the way that she always does.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I will always be grateful to the Minister for his historic observations about GDP per capita. But what is the current GDP per capita, and how is its growth developing over time? Will the Minister please acknowledge that efforts on these Benches on the planning Bill are constructive, supportive and well within the bounds of reasonable parliamentary scrutiny?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think the noble Lord’s comments about the planning Bill would stand up to a moment’s scrutiny in the outside world. In answer to his specific question, GDP per capita is forecast by the OBR to rise by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
Will my noble friend the Minister note that since the election interest rates have been cut five times? Will he also agree that this Government are not going to be lectured by an Opposition who, when in government, presided over the longest period of wage stagnation since the Napoleonic Wars, with real wages not returning to pre-2008 levels until 2025?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The last Conservative Government saw historic mistakes made over austerity, the Brexit deal and the Liz Truss mini-Budget. The consequences of those for working people were very real. Living standards are forecast to grow, as I have said, over four times faster during this Parliament than they did in the previous Parliament.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
“85ZB Co-operation in providing parents with admissions information(1) A local authority in England and the governing body of a maintained school in England must co-operate in the provision of admissions information to parents. (2) The governing body of such a school, where it is the admissions authority for the school, must provide the local authority with such admissions information as is specified in regulations in the electronic format set out in those regulations, within the timescale set out in those regulations.(3) Within one month of the deadline for schools to provide that information, a local authority must publish the information so provided and the equivalent information for schools for which it is the admissions authority in the same electronic format.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that complete, accurate, and consistent admissions information is available to all parents.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, my hope is that this amendment has been rendered unnecessary by the Government’s plan for school profiles, so I will speak to the principles of it rather than the details. For parents, admissions information is of great importance. If they are looking around for a school for their child, they need an understanding of which schools they have a chance of getting them into. The admission rules and outcomes from those rules are vital information for parents.
Local authorities used to publish a booklet every year setting out exactly that—what the rules were and what the outcomes had been—but the more that academy schools have grown, the less that has become the practice. I ran off the booklet for East Sussex—where I live—senior schools. Out of the 20 or so schools available at secondary level, full admissions information is available only for four of them. The others just say, “Contact school”. Although there is supposed to be a system whereby schools provide local authorities with the information they can put in their schools booklets, this is no longer happening.
East Sussex is by no means an outlier. This is common. The system for providing parents with easily accessible schools admissions information has broken down. If, as part of the forthcoming school profiles, we are to have proper school information available on the government website and if, as with the other excellent information that they provide on that website, it will be available in electronic form in bulk, then we have solved this problem. I hope that is the answer. If not, we must do something to get back to the position we all thought we were in. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have not had much input into the Bill, which colleagues with much greater knowledge of the issues than me have covered so ably, but I have tabled two amendments in this group, Amendments 452A and 452B. Refugee and asylum-seeking children and those on resettlement schemes may be among the most disadvantaged in our society. They may be accompanied, but the adult or adults with them may be as traumatised as the children. I should like any child in the asylum process or with refugee status, irrespective of whether they fall under the category of unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, to be treated as worthy of special treatment. This is unlikely to open the floodgates, but it would help some very needy children who otherwise would fall outside the criteria. I hope the Minister will be able to look kindly on these modest amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this is only the second intervention I have made in this very important Bill. I draw the attention of the Minister, the department and, indeed, the House to the plight and funding of rural schools.
One of the first actions that the incoming Government undertook was to end the rural services delivery grant, which had greatly benefited rural areas and allowed many outlying villages and farms to access the schools for their children. This has had an immense impact on counties such as the very rural and isolated North Yorkshire. When I was in the other place, a group of about 100 MPs felt that they represented deprived areas of local education funding, for the simple reasons that we lost what was initially an element of the funding for rural and sparsely populated areas and that the grants seem to change every single year. In addition to the loss of the rural services delivery grant, the Government took away the grant that was dedicated to rural schools’ transport funding, so there was a sort of double whammy, a double effect, from this first action from the Government.
In the year up to the end of the financial year 2023-24, I understand that the rural services grant totalled over £100 million, and the Government saw fit to redirect that money from what are called “more deprived areas”. On my Amendment 455, I want to point out the lack of understanding of how changes to this funding really impact individual rural schools—which face the risk of closure—and the parents and their children, who are trying to access what I believe are very good schools. I understand that the thinking of the Government is to transfer resources from rural to urban areas, so in this amendment I ask them to review within six months of the passing of the Bill their rural school admissions policies, to include an assessment of whether admissions policies in those areas have been affected by the availability of home-to-school transport.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
Amendment 456 in my name would require new state schools opened after this Bill enters the statute book to have a limit on faith-based selection for admissions of 50% when the school is oversubscribed. This has been a requirement since 2011, but, as it stands, the Bill would end that requirement. We often hear amendments being dismissed by Ministers who warn of unintended consequences, but this appears to be an example of a Bill itself in danger of causing unintended consequences.
The determination by a succession of Tory Governments, initially hand in hand with the Lib Dems, to undermine maintained schools while promoting academies and free schools vigorously has meant that, since 2011, all new schools had to be free schools. There was one benefit of that policy, because free schools are subject to the 50% faith-based cap on admissions as part of their funding agreement. Clause 57 would remove the presumption that all new schools should be free schools and would instead allow other types of schools to be opened. That includes voluntary aided or foundation schools, which can be 100% religiously selective. Those types of schools will be allowed to open for the first time since the cap was introduced 14 years ago.
Was that an unintended consequence? If it was initially, it seems that the Government were not greatly concerned by it. When the issue was debated in another place, an amendment similar to Amendment 456 was voted down by the Government in Committee, and the same thing happened on Report. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that, on deeper reflection, that is a position that she does not want to defend.
I say that because a cap on faith-based admissions has been demonstrated to strengthen ethnic integration. Analysis of data on faith schools shows that religiously selective schools operating under the 50% cap were significantly more ethnically diverse than schools that were 100% religiously selective. We should bear in mind that, at a time when the far right is seeking to divide communities on grounds of ethnicity, it is surely inappropriate to allow schools to entrench differences. This is a time for the Government to be promoting social and ethnic integration, not facilitating a means by which children grow up potentially not knowing anyone of their own age who is different from themselves. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want to see happening.
Faith-selective schools remain less inclusive across multiple factors. Compared to other schools, faith-selective schools admit fewer children eligible for free school meals than would be expected for their catchment areas, and 100% faith-selective admissions would only exacerbate inequalities in the school system. Last year, the Office of the Schools Adjudicator said that disadvantaged children, including those in care, miss out on school places because of faith-based admissions. Studies by the Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics reached the same conclusions. We know that 100% faith-selective schools will open if the provisions of Clause 57 remain. The Catholic Church and the Church of England will certainly do so, and it may be that Jewish, Muslim and Sikh groups would wish to do the same. They already exist.
In Committee in another place, the then Schools Minister Catherine McKinnell MP said,
“on the faith schools cap provision, we want to allow proposals for different types of school that will promote a diverse school system that supports parental choice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/25; col. 454.]
Supporting parental choice is admirable, but allowing new 100% faith-selective schools to open would not expand parental choice. It would actually limit it for parents in an area who do not adhere to the faith of the new school or indeed any faith. According to the British Social Attitudes survey, 53% of people now have no religion. Thus, potentially more than half of all parents have fewer choices for state-funded schools than their religious counterparts, and 100% faith selection allows their children to be rejected from an oversubscribed school on their doorstep in favour of the child of a parent in a home possibly miles away whose choice—that is, the religious affiliation—is the factor that allows them to be selected for admission.
I suggest that that is neither right nor fair. Lifting the 50% cap on admissions would be a regressive move, and not one that I believe should be sanctioned by a Labour Government. I suggest that Amendment 456 offers a means of avoiding that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my own Amendment 457 and to Amendment 456 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, both of which deal with the issue of faith- based selection in school admissions.
My Amendment 457 speaks to the missing data that the Schools Minister raised in Committee in the other place. The Department for Education currently does not collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools, and therefore we do not know how many parents are missing out on their preferred school placements because of their religion or because they do not have a religion. Collecting data would shed light on what the impact of faith-selective admissions is for parents and pupils and whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice.
Amendment 456 should, I hope, be uncontroversial. Since 2011, all new faith schools, as all new schools, had to be free schools, and have been subject in their funding agreements to a 50% cap on faith-based selection in admissions when oversubscribed. In this situation, Amendment 456 is a simple tidying-up exercise—that is how I read it anyway—extending a standing policy for free schools with a religious character to all new state-maintained schools with a religious character that could open under Clause 57.
The Government have not in any way suggested that they oppose the 50% cap in principle. Following a consultation on the cap that showed overwhelming support for it to continue, the Government have stated that they will maintain the cap for free schools with a religious character. If the Government are supportive of allowing new 100% faith-selective schools to open, I ask the Minister to state that clearly before the Committee.
I wish to be clear that neither of these amendments oppose the opening or continuing service of faith schools in this country, many of which provide exemplary education for their pupils. What the amendment seeks to do is ensure that faith schools cannot limit parental choice and pupil diversity by hand-selecting whom they wish to accept.
Using selection of faith leads to less inclusion. Church of England and minority religion schools, subject to a 50% cap, have higher ethnic diversity compared with those not subject to the cap. Faith schools compared with schools without a religious character in the same catchment area have been found to accept fewer children on free school meals, according to the Sutton Trust; fewer children in care, according to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator; and fewer children with additional learning needs, according to research from the London School of Economics. Amendment 456 and my Amendment 457 would promote fairness and parental choice in the schools admissions policy. I commend them both to the Committee.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to my amendment in this group and leave the summing up to my noble friend. I use the term “off-rolling” in this. It may be out of date and unfair, but the fact of the matter is that there has been an increase in the number of children not in school over recent years. A Commons report on the issue came out in 2020, but it has been exacerbated by the Covid situation. It is about time we had a real, in-depth dive into why more and more pupils are not within the mainstream system.
There has been some suggestion that the academy system wanting to get rid of bad pupils is to blame or that the greater emphasis on special educational needs has led to the thought that people might be more trouble for the school. I would like to know. I know that some of the academies—the better ones—have fought against this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, getting extremely annoyed about the idea of that practice in a Committee stage debate on another Bill. If there are academies that are avoiding it or some that are falling to this, we should know. If academies are here to stay, under this Bill, whether we like it or not, because we have accepted them, can we find out whether there is a specific problem there or if it is something else? The increased number of people not in school is a problem that we have referred to throughout Committee, and it is about time we had a decent and in-depth look at it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will make very few remarks. I am an active humanist and I would like to identify my support for the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and my noble friend Lord Watson. I hope that the Government will take heed of what these rather modest amendments propose. If there is something that needs to be discussed, I ask that my noble friend the Minister calls together those of us who are interested and committed to this to talk about it.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of these amendments and I want to do it from my own experience. First, I will start with the cap on faith. If your Lordships remember, this was originally introduced by the Tony Blair Government for any new schools. I thought at the time, “How sensible is that? If we live, as we do, in a multifaith, multicultural society, isn’t a good thing that children mix with children of different faiths?” Speaking on day nine in Committee, I referenced the fact that my daughter went to a Jewish school. It was wonderful for her to be able to have Jewish, Hindu, Christian and Muslim friends, because that was the ethos of that Jewish school. If you just put the Catholics there, the Anglicans there, the Jews there and the Muslims there, you divide people. I do not want a divided society. I want children to celebrate their faith and their culture, and the best place to do that is in school when they are learning and growing up. You only have to remember what happened in education in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, I want to talk about faith schools in terms of admissions. I am speaking to Amendment 456 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the 50% cap, and I cannot add anything further to his excellent contribution, so I turn to my noble friend Lady Burt’s Amendment 457. Faith schools do a fantastic job—I must stop using the word “fantastic”. They do a very good educational job. I look again at my own city, where the four Anglican schools are oversubscribed and are very popular. The way children are admitted raises real questions in my mind. Suddenly, the local Anglican churches, which are in the neighbourhood of that school, fill up their congregations, because when people apply to the school, they have to have a reference from the vicar.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, this group and the next one cover a range of issues in relation to admissions. My sense is that most of the amendments in this group are not really needed in practice, but the Minister will no doubt clarify.
In relation to Amendment 449 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, as my noble friend made clear, each individual school publishes its admissions policy on its website. I accept his point that local authorities no longer publish as many comprehensive booklets as perhaps they once did. It is reasonable to expect that parents should be able to look at different websites and the admissions policies of the schools that they are interested in sending their children to.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, my understanding is that under the fair access protocol, children in need of a school place will be found one. While I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s concerns about the groups of children she described, I am not sure it is helpful that we should place a priority on one group of children over another, but rather that we see the right to education as fundamental for every child.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s Amendment 455 relates to admissions policies for children living in rural areas. My noble friend raised some valid points about the financial pressures that rural schools, and in particular very small rural schools, face, but I am just not sure that it would be appropriate for an analysis of those policies to be done in the department.
I turn to Amendment 456 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. The noble Lord raises a valid point. There is a change in policy happening around the future ability of maintained free schools—although they will not be free schools in the sense that many of us understand—to be available, and that is different from what exists today for academies. So it is entirely fair of the noble Lord to probe the Government’s thinking on this.
As we heard, Amendment 457 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on school admissions policies, including an analysis of the proportion of places allocated based on faith-related criteria. Of course, as I said earlier, schools already publish their admissions policy, but I do not think they publish the outcomes in relation to faith-related criteria. Again, I am slightly puzzled about the value of doing this nationally as, obviously, parents typically look at schools in a pretty narrow geographic area close to where they live.
Finally, in relation to Amendment 475, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that off-rolling is not acceptable. In 2019, Ofsted defined off-rolling as
“the practice of removing a pupil from the school roll without using a permanent exclusion, when the removal is primarily in the best interests of the school, rather than the best interests of the pupil. This includes pressuring a parent to remove their child from the school roll”.
That aspect is clearly in the sights of the inspectorate, so I do not think that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed. The noble Lord also raised much wider issues around attendance, which go far beyond that definition of off-rolling, and I think that the new inspection framework from Ofsted, with its emphasis on inclusion, might serve to reassure the noble Lord that that continues to be in the sights of those who are responsible for holding our schools to account.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this first group cover admissions and related issues in relation to these clauses. This package of measures will help to ensure that decisions on place planning and admissions support the needs of communities and families while also supporting local authorities to deliver their statutory functions.
I turn first to Amendment 449 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 457 from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, which seek to ensure that admissions information is available to all parents. They would require the Secretary of State to publish information about schools admissions arrangements, including any faith-based arrangements. I hope to provide some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Admissions authorities are already required by the statutory school admissions code to publish their admissions arrangements on their school’s website, including the proportion of places that will be prioritised for pupils of faith, and ensure that parents can easily understand how admissions arrangements will be satisfied.
Admissions authorities must also provide information to enable local authorities to publish an annual admissions prospectus for parents. The code requires local authorities to publish this information for all schools via a composite prospectus. We believe that the existing approach is proportionate, reflects the diversity of admission arrangements and local circumstances and is not overly burdensome on schools or local authorities, while enabling parents to access the information they need about their local schools.
Amendment 455, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to insert a new clause to require a review of rural schools’ admissions policies. The admissions system already contains mechanisms to ensure that admissions policies meet local needs, including the policies of rural schools. Admissions authorities must consult locally before making changes, and anyone who considers a school’s admissions policy to be unfair or unlawful can object to the Schools Adjudicator.
Furthermore, our school travel policy ensures that no child is prevented from accessing education by a lack of transport. Local authorities must arrange free travel for children attending their nearest suitable school who could not walk there because of the distance or their special educational needs, disability or mobility problems, or due to route safety. The Government have also set out a plan to deliver better bus services and drive opportunity to underserved regions.
The noble Baroness talked in particular about the issue of the rural services delivery grant. In relation to that, the Government are committed to tackling the issues that matter to rural communities. We are allocating funding through improved needs formulae in 2025-26 to target funding where it is needed the most, investing in the priority services that people rely on the most. Places with significant rural populations will receive on average an almost 6% increase in their core spending power this financial year—a real-terms increase—and no council will see a reduction.
The rural services delivery grant does not properly account for need. In fact, many predominantly rural councils receive nothing from it. That is clearly not right. The Government consulted on proposals to repurpose this funding in the usual way, in the provisional 2025-26 settlement, but the Government are nevertheless keen to hear from councils about how best to consider the impact of rurality on the cost of services as part of the longer-term consultation on local authority funding reform, which was published in June.
Amendment 456 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson seeks to apply the 50% faith admissions cap to new state-funded schools designated as having a faith character. We greatly value the contribution that faith schools make to our schools system and support the ability of faith schools to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. This can support parents wishing to have their child educated in line with their religious beliefs; it is for the admissions authorities of individual schools to decide whether to adopt such arrangements.
Many faith schools are oversubscribed, which suggests that parents value and want these schools. We also understand that the ability of faith schools to prioritise children of faith when they are oversubscribed—and of course it is only at the point at which a school is oversubscribed that these admissions criteria would bite—is important and, at the risk of disappointing my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, we do not intend to change that approach at this time.
Removing the legal presumption that all new schools should be academies, which is what has brought about this issue, is intended to give local authorities the flexibility to make the best decisions to meet the needs of their communities. Decision-makers will carefully consider proposals from all groups and commission the right new schools to meet need and to ensure every child has the opportunity to achieve—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I do not feel that my noble friend the Minister has answered the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Watson asked about why this is a change. I do not expect to make any progress right now, but I do think that, before Report, we will need to discuss it further.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am certainly happy to write to my noble friends and perhaps facilitate the opportunity for them to meet the new Schools Minister to discuss this particular issue.
I was in the process of saying that this relates to the new provisions around opening schools. In doing that, decision-makers will carefully consider proposals from all groups and commission the right new schools to meet need and to ensure every child has the opportunity to achieve and to thrive.
Lord Storey (LD)
The Minister, when referring to Amendment 456 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said there were no plans to make a change “at this time”. What does she mean by that? Does that mean that the Government will consider it in the future or that it is not going to happen at all?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think I was pretty clear about the position that the Government take with respect to the admissions arrangements of faith schools, and it is not intended to change that.
Lord Lucas (Con)
But the Government are changing that, my Lords. I was part of the debates where we arrived at the 50% figure. I remember the Catholic schools playing a very strong part in that debate. It was very much understood that the schools created could quite clearly have a strong religious character and be directed and run in that way but not becoming isolated parts of the community, fracturing it and separating it. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, one has only to look at Northern Ireland to see the difficulties caused by a fully segregated system.
We agreed a system for avoiding that. Why are the Government now going back on it? Where is the argument coming from? It does not appear to be coming from the Church of England—the right reverend Prelate has been silent on these amendments. We have not heard any other religious voices saying, “Thank you so much, this is what we want”. Who has been lobbying for this? Where is the pressure coming from for the Government to give in and make this change? It is not at all obvious—and the Government are not being open or clear about—what the motivation is or what outcome they wish for. Presumably, they are hoping that a collection of 100% religious character schools will be founded over the next year or two. Where are those schools intended to be? What kind of schools are they looking at? What future are the Government letting us in for? I really think they owe us some clarity and some openness on this so that we can understand what they are doing and what they intend to do to our society.
This is a really important set of issues. Binding us together as a nation has never been more important. We are threatened from various angles now. Why are the Government adding to that dissolution of our nation? I can see that I am not going to get anything out of the Minister now.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will respond and, as I said, I will write. The noble Lord is enormously overstating the very specific circumstances to which these criteria would relate. This is not an invitation by the Government to enormously increase the number of faith schools. This is a requirement specifically relating to the provisions about opening a new school contained in the Bill. I will write to noble Lords about that point.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I look forward to that, but I very much regret that the settlement that we reached should be torn up in this way.
When it comes to my own Amendment 449, it is all very well for the Government to say that there should be a composite prospectus, but there is not one. It used to exist, absolutely, but that is not what is available now. If you look for an East Sussex composite prospectus, it is not there. What is there is a confusing passage among a collection of documents and websites; then it is back to the school and off to here or there. We have produced a system where the really diligent, intelligent, motivated parent can find their way through, but anyone—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In that case, East Sussex is not fulfilling the requirements of the statutory code that I spelled out in my response. I would be surprised if that were the case but, obviously, if it were, I would be willing to look into it. The Government have made clear the requirement both on schools to publish their admissions arrangements on their websites and on local authorities to publish a composite prospectus about the admissions arrangements of all the schools in their areas.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have not done a complete survey, but I am not aware of a single local authority that does produce a composite prospectus in the old style any more. I absolutely take—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord might have put quite a lot of emphasis on the “in the old style” expression there. I think the requirement is for this to be on a website. I am not sure that production of a written prospectus for all parents is necessarily something that we would require in this day and age, is it?
Lord Lucas (Con)
No, I would expect a website or maybe a PDF, but something containing the information that is supposed to make it possible for parents to go to one place and see the admissions criteria and how they work, for all the schools within the local authority that they might be interested in. This is widely not happening, and nor is that information available on school websites; I checked a few as the Minister had challenged on that and, no, I cannot find that either. There is supposed to be a system, but there is not so, yes, I will take up her invitation to pursue this afterwards. It is important that we get back to a system where ordinary, hard-pressed parents can easily find the information they need to make good decisions for their children.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me at some stage that the admissions information will form part of the school’s profile, as talked about in the announcement that was made at the same time as the announcement of the new Ofsted systems. There is real promise in that. I should like it if she could tell me more about the Government’s plans for what should be in that profile and how that will evolve; I should be very grateful. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Longfield
“85ZB Managed moves and the Fair Access Protocol(1) Before the initiation of any managed move of a registered pupil from one maintained school or Academy to another, the pupil must be considered under the local authority’s Fair Access Protocol.(2) The consideration under subsection (1) must include consultation with—(a) the current school,(b) the proposed receiving school, and(c) the parent or carer of the pupil, and where appropriate, the pupil.(3) The local authority must keep and maintain a record of all managed moves occurring to, from, or within its area.(4) Where a managed move results in the registration of a pupil at a school within the area of a different local authority, the responsibility for monitoring the educational outcomes and welfare of the pupil following the move shall transfer to that receiving local authority upon the pupil's registration at the new school.(5) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above does not apply—(a) in circumstances where the child of compulsory school age is removed from the roll of one school and registered at another school solely as a consequence of the child's change of ordinary residence, provided that—(i) the change of residence is documented and verified, and(ii) arrangements for re-registration at a new school are underway or have been made within a reasonable period.(6) A record under subsection (3) must include—(a) the reasons for the move,(b) the schools involved,(c) whether the move was voluntary or directed, and(d) the outcome for the pupil.(7) Each local authority must submit an annual report to the Secretary of State containing a summary of managed moves conducted under this section. (8) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local authorities and schools on the implementation of this section, to which they must have regard.(9) In this section—“managed moves” means a permanent change of the pupil’s school registration, where a move is not a result of—(a) a permanent exclusion under Section 51A of the Education Act 1996;(b) a transfer to a special school pursuant to Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014;(c) a change of registration due to school closure;(d) movement between educational phases;(e) change in school type as a consequence of the Academy Act 2010.“school” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Education Act 1996.”
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 450 on managed moves, as well as Amendment 453, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
The amendments concern a group of children who are literally moved between schools. At the moment, they are pretty much out of the spotlight and are not in any way accountable within the system. Mine is a very practical amendment: it seeks to provide a framework that is consistent, fair and transparent, so that we do not lose these children. It would ensure that we know where they are and that the moves are in their best interests. Managed moves relate to permanent changes of pupils on a school registration where the move is not the result of a permanent exclusion, transfer to a special school, school closure or movement between educational phases. They are currently unmonitored and unregulated in many areas.
While some local authorities have very strong protocols and partnerships that mean that managed moves operate well, the lack of appropriate guard-rails, to ensure moves between schools are in the best interests of the child, has allowed some problematic practices to emerge. In the current system, frequently neither the local authorities nor the Government know where, or even if, the child is being educated following a managed move. The Who is Losing Learning? report this year uncovered a deeply concerning trend: it estimated that, for every child that was permanently excluded, there were 10 more invisibly being moved around the system behind that. There are also reports that, sometimes, children can almost be traded between different schools and systems within this process. Some children will spend a lot of time out of school as a result, and others are moved time and time again.
The solution proposed in my amendment is very practical. It would bring managed moves in line with suspensions and exclusions. It proposes that they are put through the existing fair access protocol and that local authorities report on its use to the Department for Education. This would subject managed moves to a collaborative peer review and set out what knowledge and oversight the appropriate local authorities and the Department for Education have. It would be important that discussion of, and application to, the fair access protocol should happen before the move is initiated, to ensure that the child’s education does not get disrupted as a result.
We want local authorities to keep good records, as we must be clear on where responsibility lies for that child as they move between schools. We also want a stipulation that this does not apply to a child when they move from one school to another because of a change in the child’s residence. There is a real need for a definition of managed moves and for all those managed moves then to be reported back to the department, with an annual report on the numbers and nature of those moves.
There is an opportunity here to draw on the really good practice that occurs in many areas and to create a standardised approach that would be fair, transparent, accountable and, ultimately, in the best interests of the child. This speaks to the ambition that we all have for increasing opportunities for all children while also strengthening inclusion—that is what we all want to see. The provisions are practical and doable, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of my Amendments 452 and 454, on the control of admissions into schools. This is a fraught issue for parents trying to get their children into excellent schools that lack sufficient places, so rationing—that unpleasant word—has to apply. Where the shortage of places is structural, outstanding schools can be and are supported to expand their facilities. In my trust, we have an outstanding school that started out with us in special measures over 10 years ago. It has nearly doubled its cohort size over that time, and I am grateful to the local authority and indeed to the DfE for supporting that expansion in physical terms. This year, it was the highest-performing secondary school in Norfolk at GCSE, and I am incredibly proud of the staff who have achieved that. But, more relevant for this legislation, it shows that the system can work well and responsibly.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 452, which has just been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, which would limit local authorities’ interventions in admissions to situations where the admissions authority had failed to meet its admissions obligations or had behaved improperly.
Local authorities have a statutory responsibility under Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 to ensure that enough school places are available in their area for every child of compulsory school age. The provision in the Bill to create a duty on schools to co-operate with local authorities to enable them to carry out their place-planning duties as required by law and to co-operate on SEND inclusion and school admissions is entirely necessary and reasonable. It ends the nonsense of academies being allowed to set their own pupil numbers without regard to the number of pupils in the catchment area.
Multi-academy trusts are no longer outliers; they run over 46% of primary schools and 83% of secondary schools. The Government have a duty to ensure that local authorities, on which the legal requirement to provide school places falls, are able to do so. This must require local authorities and multi-academy trusts to work together to ensure that place planning is done effectively and cost-effectively. That is particularly important now, as we are experiencing a decline in the birth rate which is affecting primary places and will affect secondary places. The sustained rise we have seen in pupil numbers since the early 2010s has now been reversed. The number of pupils in England’s school system overall decreased in January, dropping by more than 59,000. Primary numbers have been falling for several years now, but secondary numbers are due to peak in 2027 before falling as the population bulge moves out of compulsory education.
These pupil demographics require co-ordinated place planning. We cannot have a situation where local authorities are legally responsible for providing places for pupils but have no powers to direct the majority of schools in their area, which are academies, to co-operate on place planning, admissions and exclusions. We cannot leave local authorities with the responsibility, but without the authority, to require co-operation on these legal duties.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. She may be pleased to hear that I have advised my noble friend on the correct pronunciation of her name.
I did not hear very well when we were here last week, but the word “devil” was mentioned. Having checked Hansard, I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, seemed to think that when we had some dealings in the Department for Education, I thought she was doing the devil’s work in working for unions. I could not possibly think that—I always found her the most charming person to deal with—and, as opposed to the devil’s work, I commend the unions on doing what seems to me the Lord’s work in their campaign on smartphones. I look forward to talking to them about that. I welcome the noble Baroness back from her sojourn in the Arctic this summer, and I hope she is finding the atmosphere in the Labour Party at the moment somewhat less glacial than she found it there—although in the current circumstances, maybe not very much so.
I rise to support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. Life in the real world teaches one that the benefits of competition are that strong organisations survive and expand, and weak ones demise. While I accept that there may be remote communities where the availability of these schools is essential, as an overriding policy in schools, allowing competition has been proven to be a good thing. Take for instance the London Academy of Excellence in Stratford, which resulted in a rising tide lifting all boats. Apart from its own excellent performance, it has had a dramatic effect on the performance of the other sixth forms in the area. Good schools must be allowed to expand. To not allow this is to deprive children of their benefits, and they certainly should not be forced to shrink.
Turning to my noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment, local authorities clearly have a conflict of interest under the proposed admission provisions. Surely there must be a right of appeal, as set out in his amendment. I also support my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendment 502YC, as highly performing schools should be given the freedom her amendment asks for.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has done. However, on managed moves, these are good things when done well, as they can prevent permanent exclusions. At their best they are in the best interests of the child.
I know Birmingham very well, and the size of Birmingham. Sometimes the managed moves are made on a consulting basis. I ask my noble friend Lady Longfield, who moved the amendment, to reflect that if you make that more bureaucratic in terms of the local authorities’ overall role, it will put too much of an administrative burden on what is working very well in some parts of the city. I am not saying that it is working well everywhere, but where it is working well on a consulting basis, it would be a shame to add layers of bureaucracy. However, on the whole, managed moves based on the framework she suggests are very good.
On admissions, my starting point is the same as that of the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Nash. Why would you want to prevent a good school expanding? Also, if something is good, why would you not want more children to go to it? That is at the centre of what this is about, because it is true. However, life is not as simple as that. It is not only the interests of the school and the children who might go to it that are affected by the amendments.
I was reflecting back on both noble Lords. One of the best things they did as Ministers was to recognise the early mistakes made by the coalition Government in having stand-alone academies and not encouraging schools to work together. The work they did on multi-academy trusts was a very good step forward from what we had at the start of the coalition Government. Inherent in that is the understanding that schools do not stand alone. At their best, they work with each other, help each other, depend on each other—and the key point is that they do no harm to each other. They do not make life more difficult for the school down the road.
This goes further than multi-academy trusts. Take geographical areas such as Birmingham, Camden or Coventry, which I know reasonably well. There is something about those places that every school in the area has in common. For example, it does not matter whether they are an academy, a maintained school, a faith school, a free school or an independent school—they teach the children of Birmingham. What they hold in common is that they teach the children who go to school in that area. They owe the same obligation to each other that I have just praised in multi-academy trusts—do no harm, support each other, help each other, and compete. You want to get to the top of the table, but not at the expense of the school down the road, because we want all schools to thrive. The problem with the amendments is admissions. If they were to follow these amendments, it would harm other schools serving the same group of children. That is a problem, and that is why I oppose these amendments.
If numbers are rising and there must be an expansion of places, then I take the point: why not expand the good schools? I have often thought that that is not as simple as it is claimed to be, because sometimes the success of the school is the size of the school. You cannot put in two, three, five or six more children—it does not work. You end up putting in 30 more children per school year. You raise it by one form of entry, and over seven years you have more than 200 pupils. The change in the size of the school sometimes makes it different in nature and different in culture. It might damage its academic performance and its pastoral work. Expanding good schools is not done at no cost at all. There is something to pay.
Lord Storey (LD)
I will pick up that last point, which was very incisively made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. My primary school was a two-form entry primary school. It was a popular school, and we wanted to increase the size to three forms of entry. The local authority initially said, “No, because if you do that, you’ll take children from the two other primary schools in the locality, which will weaken those schools”. At the time, I was a bit miffed about this, but I thought, “Okay”. The local authority said, “What we need to do is to build up the numbers and the esteem of those two other primary schools”, which it did very successfully. Then, guess what: it agreed that my school could become a three-form entry school.
It is not just about size; it also about schools working together. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, quite rightly paid tribute to the role that the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Nash, played as Ministers in establishing multi-academy trusts. One area which has never worked, to my mind, is that you can have the headquarters of the multi-academy trust at the other end of the country. It has never worked for me that a multi-academy trust can have schools in Devon and Cornwall but also in the north-east. Where is that community feel about them?
The trouble with expanding schools is that you can get to a situation in which schools just want to grow and grow, because they get more money. They can get too large for the existing children and families. I think of the school that my wife worked at, a seven-form entry comprehensive which was allowed to increase its size to 11. It became completely unmanageable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, rightly said, by taking children from one school, in many cases you are almost putting a close notice on that school. The way to deal with it is not by moving children or allowing schools to grow but by providing the resources and expertise and making that school popular, putting in real expertise to change its character and educational purpose.
I put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and I have also put an amendment down myself. Let us first understand the definition of a managed move. It is a permanent move of a child from one school to another for reasons not related to family relocation. It is important to put that into context and to remind ourselves that currently 1.49 million children are persistently absent from school and 171,000 children are severely absent from school.
The Who is Losing Learning? report of 2025 uncovered a deeply concerning trend; that
“for every child that is permanently excluded, 10 more invisibly move”
between schools or are off rolled entirely. These moves are unregulated and unmonitored, meaning that too often even the Department for Education does not know where or even if those children are being educated following a managed move.
Managed moves, when done correctly, can have great success for both the pupil and the school. That is why these two amendments, which are very similar, are so important. We need a fair access protocol to make sure that, when we carry out those managed moves between schools, we know how it is happening. I like the notion that the local authority should perhaps report on this—not creating more bureaucracy but just giving confidence to the system. I hope the Minister when she replies will tell us how important it is to get this right.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s amendments to Clause 56 and my noble friend Lord Agnew’s Amendment 454. I have heard much around the Committee this afternoon that is extremely important, but I think there are some wider points to make.
There are many romantic expectations of school admissions—that there is a perfect world in which every child will go to the school that they and their parents choose, in which every mainstream school can provide well for every child no matter how extreme their needs, and in which no child will ever cause harm to any other child or adult in a school. In this perfect world, the romantics expect children to be distributed perfectly evenly between schools on any measure by which we choose to analyse the population. But this is a dream, and chasing dreams rarely improves children’s experiences in the real world. Sadly, it is entirely possible that the extended powers to direct admissions will backfire, especially with policy pressure on local authorities to keep even the worst behaved children in mainstream schools irrespective of the consequences.
Consider a child for whom an LA is trying to find a managed move. If several schools decline to accept the child, it may mean that they are all shirking their responsibilities, or it may mean that they have correctly assessed that the child’s needs are too great for that school or any mainstream school to manage the child safely. One shocking case I saw as chief inspector related to a girl who was raped by a boy who had come to her school on a managed move and, worse, the receiving school had not been informed by either the LA or the sending school of the boy’s known history of serious sexual misconduct. No school should be levered into putting other children at risk in this way.
If the LA directs the child to one of its own schools, it still has direct responsibility for the child, but if it can direct the child to an academy, it has offloaded the problem, at least in part. There is an obvious incentive for local authorities to use this power to offload the most difficult children and leave academies to shoulder a disproportionate responsibility for the most difficult and even dangerous children, and to inflict the greatest risk on the other children and staff in those academies.
Let us also consider the point that, while a decision will relate to a single child, good schools also have to consider how many children with behavioural problems they can manage and support properly without destroying the very strengths that make them able to work effectively with such children. I have seen already how difficult this is for local authorities in the context of SEND. Local authorities control EHCPs, which name a school to which that child should be admitted. In theory, it is parents who choose that school, but in practice, local authorities have significant influence over those parent choices, and some local authorities have perhaps on occasion found it convenient to encourage parents to choose academies rather than maintained schools, or at the very least to not discourage them from doing so.
As a result, some popular and successful academies have at times found themselves facing real difficulties. I know of cases where local authorities expected a school to fill more than one-third of its year 7 places with children requiring intensive individual support, many of them for behavioural problems. This would have turned those schools into de facto special schools without the wider infrastructure and support that we expect of special schools.
It is in fact extraordinarily difficult for local authorities to be impartial between mainstream schools and academies. For this reason, I strongly support my noble friend’s Amendment 452ZA, requiring local authorities to act impartially between maintained schools and academies. It will still be difficult in practice, but the principle should be explicit in the Act.
Similarly, my noble friend’s Amendment 453A to Clause 56 and Amendments 457A and 457B seek to ensure that changes to school admission numbers are made in the interests of children and parents, rather than the administrative convenience of the local authority. Again, these decisions will always be hard and will never please everyone, but it is right and important that children’s needs are explicitly put first: otherwise, it is sadly all too certain that, with the shrinking birth cohort, some excellent schools will see their admissions restricted while mediocre schools carry on. My noble friend Lord Agnew’s Amendment 454 gives some protection to this principle. I hope the Government will see how unfortunate this would be and will take steps to guard against it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Clause 53 covers the role of schools in general and academies in particular in relation to pupil place planning. As we know, in the vast majority of cases, academies co-operate and fulfil their role in helping the local authority to meet its sufficiency duties, as the Bill says, so far as is reasonable. Clause 54 gives the local authority new powers to direct admission of individual pupils, despite the fact that those powers already exist for the Secretary of State to use within the funding agreement for all academies.
The policy notes say, slightly quaintly:
“Schools and local authorities’ interests may not always be aligned, and they are not expected to agree on all admissions and place planning matters. However, it is expected that they will behave reasonably and collaboratively, for example, considering the other party’s views, being willing to meet and discuss differences, and sharing information in a timely manner”.
All this is fine, but presumably the point of the clause is to get quicker decisions and to address a problem of academies apparently unreasonably refusing to accept these pupils. But where is the evidence that that is true? In the academic year 2023-24, there were just under 11,000 exclusions. Looking at the data on the department’s website for exclusions and suspensions, including repeat suspensions, one sees incredible differences, in the rates of permanent exclusion in particular, even in neighbouring local authorities. This is true for local authorities where almost all the secondaries are academies and for those where there are predominantly maintained schools.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Clauses 54 and 55, the latter of which the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, opposes standing part of the Bill. Together, they extend local authorities’ current powers to direct maintained schools to admit a child to enable them to direct academies in the same way.
There are important elements of this Bill that are about future-proofing the system. As I explained last week when talking about the nature of the national curriculum, if, quite rightly, a majority of our schools, or schools that are teaching the majority of our children, are academies, and if, as we do as a Government, we want to continue the progress to see more academies developing and opening, we need to future-proof the system. At the moment, local authorities can direct admissions in the particular circumstances in which they need to do so in only half of schools, and in the future in even fewer schools than that. The proposals enable the school admissions code to set out additional circumstances in which directions can be made to ensure school places for vulnerable children can be secured more quickly and efficiently.
Enabling local authorities to direct into academies without needing to make a request via the Secretary of State will help to reduce delays in securing vulnerable children a school place. It is right, as the noble Baroness says, that there is a route to direct into an academy, but that requires making a request to the Secretary of State and an average, as I understand it, of 38 days for that to be determined. That is a long time for a vulnerable child to be without a school place.
These clauses will also create a more streamlined directions process for children who have come out of care, or where the fair access protocol—the local process to secure places for unplaced and vulnerable children—has failed to secure a child a school place. Together, these measures will help provide a more robust and consistent safety net for vulnerable children, ensuring that no child falls between the cracks.
Amendment 452 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, seeks to amend the circumstances in which local authorities can direct admissions and places certain requirements on academy admissions, and Amendment 452ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requires local authorities to not take into account a school’s academy status in these decisions. Noble Lords are, of course, absolutely right that it is important that these decisions are made in the best interests of the child and that impartiality between types of schools should be maintained.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response and the emphasis that she has placed throughout on inclusion. The ambition is for all children to be able to benefit from a great education and for them to be able to thrive in school.
The amendment I put forward about managed moves is very much about keeping children within schools and the education system. It is a practical response, and I have been really pleased to bring together a group of schools and school leaders who are really putting forward a very positive practice by meeting with the education team and talking about that. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we have seen some of the most significant improvements in outcomes for pupils in our free schools, with schools such as Michaela and Ark Greenwich in London, Eden girls and boys, part of the Star academy trust in Birmingham, and the Mercia School in Sheffield, to name but a few, achieving remarkable results. I know that my noble friends Lord Harris, Lord Nash and Lord Agnew are very likely to add to that list of exceptional free schools that they have been part of creating.
Free schools have been a mechanism for the injection of new ideas, new energy and improving models of education into the state system. Free schools respond to parental and community demand; they provide parents with choice over their child’s education and they have driven up standards. Free schools are usually part of a strong multi-academy trust that has a track record of delivering high-quality education and the back-office capacity needed to support smooth and financially sustainable operations across HR, finance, IT, premises and more. Local authorities do not have and never have had the same capacity and ability to provide tailored support to schools.
The reason for the change in policy in the Bill to allow local authorities to open free schools in future is given in the policy summary, which says that the measure better aligns
“local authorities’ responsibility for securing sufficient school places with their ability to open new schools”.
Again, to loop back to the previous group, on which the Minister did not commit to write—I am sure that her officials noted my request for data—can she share the evidence that there really is a gap in their ability to secure sufficient school places and cite any instances where a local authority has been unable to meet its sufficiency duty as a result of a lack of applications from suitable trusts to establish a new free school? Certainly, during my time in office, there were always multiple applications for new presumption free schools, both mainstream and special schools.
My worry is that this is an example of bureaucratic tidiness being prioritised over outcomes for children. The English system is not tidy: we have voluntary-aided schools, voluntary-controlled schools, foundation schools and many other models. On paper, it might look messy, but we have still been able to rise significantly up the global league tables because we focused relentlessly on outcomes over bureaucracy. This clause feels like we are putting a bureaucrat’s diagrams first—even, I add before the Minister growls at me too much, a bureaucrat with a big heart and a lifelong commitment to children. All of this will change—and to the detriment of pupils.
It will also create higher costs for the Government. In an interview with Schools Week in April, Rachael Wardell, the new president of the ADCS, said, on the range of new responsibilities that councils will be given in the Bill, that
“part of our ongoing dialogue with government is going to be about, if you want us to do these things, then we’re going to need to be resourced accordingly”.
Can the Minister give an estimate of the additional funding needed for local authorities to fulfil their new duties, including in relation to free schools?
This proposed change creates a fundamental conflict of interest for the local authority. It will both invite proposals for a new free school when one is needed and be able to propose one itself, and it will then decide which proposal to approve. That is hardly a system designed to build confidence. We are told that, where it puts forward its own proposal, the Secretary of State, through the work of the regional directors, will be the decision-maker; however, this introduces an additional layer of work and, dare I say it, bureaucracy in a system that is currently working reasonably well. Organisations such as the New Schools Network have been critical in supporting trusts, establishing free schools and building capacity in the sector. We therefore think that the change in policy created by Clause 57 is a fundamental mistake and unnecessary, and I hope that the Minister will think again.
My Amendment 480 seeks to unblock the pipeline of free schools, which have been put on hold since the election. I think that 44 free schools are on hold, including some that bring high-quality 16-to-19 education to areas of very high deprivation, such as those with a high percentage of white, working-class boys, which the Secretary of State has recently focused on. Surely this is a way to demonstrate that focus and unlock those applications now.
The Government have, so far, spent twice as long reviewing the free schools pipeline as it took to open the first 24 free schools in 2010. The time between that election and the opening of free schools was 142 days; in contrast, the time between this Government’s announcement of the review in October 2024 and today has been about 288 days. Overall, it feels like the whole programme has been delayed, and I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that this is not the case and put some numbers on how many places will open in the next three years, in both special and mainstream schools.
Finally, I express my support for Amendment 481, in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, which would bring greater transparency to the accounts of maintained schools. I am sure that my noble friend, like me, is tired of being told that there is not enough transparency around academies, even though there is actually no financial visibility for maintained schools. I beg to move.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I will address my Amendment 481. This group is a bit of a mixed bag, but I think that my amendment is relevant and important, as it seeks to level the playing field by ensuring that there is a high level of financial governance for local authority schools compared to academies. Yet again, the credit must go to a previous Labour Government for setting out such strong foundations to underpin the governance of academies; comparing academies and local authority schools is like light and day.
I have a reputation for being something of a martinet when it comes to the disciplined management of school finances. Various people have made fun of me over the years, which does not trouble me in the least, because every pound I have saved from wasteful and poor management in schools is then available to go to the front line in improving the education of children. The Minister might even want to call me a bureaucrat, because I have been so assiduous in that part of the system. I would love to see the overall schools budget at a much higher level, but that will not happen given the parlous state of our country’s finances. We therefore have to work with what we have.
In the meantime, the level of accountability and visibility of LAs’ oversight of their own schools is murky at best. An academy trust has to complete a full external audit of its finances within four months of the close of the academic year—that is, between 31 August and 31 December. The accounts have to be filed with Companies House on that date. At that point, the full record of the trust’s financial affairs is available for public scrutiny for the year ending only four months earlier. You can get that information on any trust in England with about four clicks of a button. There is a red list in the DfE—I hope the Minister has seen it —of any trust that misses this deadline. When I was there, any trust more than a month late was immediately placed on a risk register. If schools’ managers or trustees cannot get the money right, how can they ever get the education right? It really is that simple.
But what visibility is there for local authority schools? There is virtually nothing that is easily accessed. Even as the Minister for the school system, I found it an endless battle to get this sort of information. Although LAs would complain frequently about not having enough money, they were rarely forthcoming about how they were spending what they had. This is a very unacceptable state of affairs. If we look at some key categories of oversight and compare the levels of transparency, I hope noble Lords will see why this very unbalanced situation needs correcting.
First, there is the accountable body. For academies, it is the board of trustees and the members sitting above that. The DfE Academy Trust Handbook sets the rules. These board members and the members themselves are on every academy’s website. For local authorities, they are their own accountable body—and try talking to that person.
Secondly, there are audited annual accounts, which I have already explained. But there are no requirements for anything similar for local authority schools. It is even worse that the average frequency of an internal local authority audit of its own schools is about every three years, and it is virtually impossible to see a copy of those reports. I failed consistently when I was in the department.
Thirdly, there is internal auditing. For trusts of a certain size, this is another annual requirement. For noble Lords not familiar with the term, an internal audit is not exactly as it says on the tin. An internal audit is conducted by external specialists but looks at different areas of schools’ operation beyond straight finances, such as deep dives into cyber vulnerability, payroll, the condition of the school estate and so on. There is no such requirement for local authorities.
Fourthly, there are financial returns. Academies are required to submit annual accounts to the DfE and indeed a three-year budget forecast. They also need to demonstrate compliance with their chart of accounts. For local authorities, again there is no standard national chart of accounts, and they are not required to submit three-year forecasts.
Fifthly, there are monthly management accounts. Academies are required to ensure that the chair of the board of trustees sees these at least four times a year. My noble friend Lady Barran actually reduced it. I had it at six, but she was right; my bureaucratic obsession probably had got the better of me. But this is not required for chairs of governors in local authority schools.
Sixthly, there is related-party transaction reporting. Academies have to comply with specific rules, such as needing independent authorisation from the DfE for larger sums. It was £20,000, but my noble friend—she might correct me—lifted it to £50,000. Again, there is nothing like that for local authority schools.
Seventhly, there is the publication of salaries. Academies have to disclose all salaries above £100,000, but local authority schools do not. This is required only for LA officers at LA level. Estimates I have seen indicate that there are over 1,000 staff in local authority schools across England who exceed that threshold, so any defence that it is not a material number of people in receipt of public money does not wash.
Eighthly, there is website reporting. Academies are required to publish their audited accounts on their website. There is no requirement for local authorities to publish their school accounts.
Ninthly, there is the accounting officer. Academies have to appoint an accounting officer with—I stress—personal responsibility for accurate and timely reporting. No such thing exists in local authority schools.
Given that LAs are facing an unprecedented financial squeeze, with some virtually bankrupt, such as Birmingham, there should be no excuse for them not to up their game. The costs—which will of course be the reflexive defence for not doing anything—would be trivial against the improvement in the spending going on inside the LA schools and would be recouped many times over the cost of the audit fee.
Every time I have taken over a local authority school, we have eliminated hundreds of thousands of pounds of wasteful expenditure, which is then focused on teaching. In every secondary school inside my trust, because of the very tight financial management, we have been able to extend the school day by three hours a week. If a child spends the full five years of his or her education in one of those schools, it is the equivalent of receiving another year’s education. That is what is at stake here. Norfolk is not a well-funded local authority; it is about middle ranking. We are not getting any handouts. It just shows you that, if there was more rigour in the system, it would make an enormous difference to the children in our country.
Lord Harris of Peckham (Con)
My Lords, I am very disappointed that we have over 50 schools from which we are still waiting to hear the results. We started taking free schools back in 2012. We have 16 free schools today, all handed to us under the Conservatives. We have got great results from these 16 schools: 12 are outstanding, four are good, and there are 15,000 children. This year, in those schools, the difference between the ordinary children and the disadvantaged children was only 1%; that proves that they are working. We want more of these schools. I want to see everyone get a good education.
The other point is that we want more schools because we have teachers whom we have trained. We have nearly 200 teachers trained to go into new schools. We are paying for them privately from investors to make this happen, but we cannot get the schools. We cannot get schools that are failing because they will have another two years of failing. That is very disappointing.
Look at the results in the free schools and the county schools. With primaries, looking at every school in the country, the results are 68% for free schools, at local council schools it is 62%, and I am proud to say that Harris is at 76%. At secondary level, which is finished for this year, our Progress 8 scores are at 0.24 while the council scores are at 0.001. A-level results at academies are fantastic: 29% of the children get A*s and As from our free schools against the country average of 26%. This makes a big difference. We are giving children a better education. We want to make sure they get a better education; I think that is a fantastic thing.
We have two schools that we have been working on for two years and three years respectively. One of them is at Bow, in an old mill, at the top of Tesco and in a building down the road. We were promised that we would get a new free school in Bow, where they are building 4,008 new houses, but at the moment we cannot get an answer. We have got the staff for it. Before, this school was always inadequate. It was inspected in the last month before the year’s end. The primary got “outstanding”, the secondary got “outstanding”, and the sixth form got “good”. The sixth form was over the top of the Tesco. It used to have only 40 students. Now we have 220. So in that poor area, in those poor conditions, we are giving good people a good education. That is what we need to do. We need a school where we can have 1,500 students, and it works.
I have heard people saying today that some primary schools are too big; I do agree, to a degree, but we have a primary school with 300 students and one with just under 1,000 students that are both outstanding. These schools are both in Thurrock, by the way. So we know it can happen, but you need motivated staff and motivated people. Motivated children want to come to school, but some of them are not.
When we take over a school, we set three years to make it outstanding, and 95% of the schools we have taken over are outstanding in three years. We talk to them. We put more people in them. We cut the cost, because the costs are very strong. They have got too many staff not doing things. We take them out, put good staff in and make sure it happens. Remember that a child gets only one chance of a good education. We have to make sure every child in this country, wherever they come from, gets a good education.
Then there is the school in Greenwich. This is very disappointing. We spent three years and nearly £1 million pounds of our budget to get it approved. I know the department spent a lot of money as well. We got it approved about six weeks before the election. It was in the press. Before it opened—it does not open for two years—it was oversubscribed in year 7. People want these good schools—not only our Harris schools—all over the country. We have to make sure we give them good schools, but we cannot have those schools that have been failing for two years failing for another two years, because that is nearly the lifetime of a child in education.
I am a great believer in education. I know everyone here is. We have got to make sure it works; we have got to make sure it happens; and we have got to make sure we give them a good education. I hope the Government look at these free schools and make it happen, because they are very successful.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I too speak in support of the free schools programme, Amendment 480 and the clause stand part notice in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran.
As we have just heard so powerfully, free schools have been a significant driver of education improvement in this country over the past decade and a half, and their impact has been felt most powerfully in the communities that needed the benefits they have brought the most. Today there are 741 free schools educating hundreds of thousands of children and their results speak for themselves. Of those free schools that have been inspected, 93% are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. As my noble friend Lord Harris just said, this summer’s exam results have confirmed their impact. Free schools once again outperformed other non-selective state schools in both GCSEs and A-levels, helping to drive up standards, particularly in areas of high deprivation and traditionally poor educational achievement.
Some 31.3% of A-levels taken by pupils at free schools achieved grade A or A*, compared with 25.2% of pupils in all state-funded schools; 23.7% of GCSEs taken by pupils at free schools were graded 7 or above, compared with 20.6% studied by pupils in all state-funded schools; and provisional results for 2025 key stage 2 showed that 70% of pupils at free schools met the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with 63% of pupils at all mainstream primary schools.
These are not isolated success stories. They are systemic proof that autonomy, innovation and freedom work. The success of free schools has been especially striking in disadvantaged communities. The New Schools Network report on the impact of free schools highlights that they have been disproportionately located in the most deprived parts of the country and played a key role in improving access to high-quality places where they are most needed. Many of the strongest performers, such as Reach Academy Feltham, Dixons Trinity Academy, Newham Collegiate Sixth Form and the Star Academies, all serve communities that have historically struggled with low attainment.
Giving school leaders the freedom to innovate, as we have heard, whether through a longer school day, a more stretching curriculum or developing closer links with businesses and universities, has a measurable impact on pupil outcomes, helping to close the disadvantage gap. Given this record, it is disappointing that the Government now seek, through Clause 57, to weaken the very mechanism that has allowed free schools to flourish by removing the requirement on local authorities to seek academy proposals first when a new school is needed. As Sir David Carter, a former National Schools Commissioner, observed:
“Free schools are an excellent way of filling gaps in provision that aren’t always obvious in Whitehall or in Local Authorities, and we should back school leaders and others to decide what their area needs”.
Finally, Amendment 480 tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of the 44 mainstream-approved free school projects that were paused in October 2024. As we have heard, many of these proposed new schools will offer incredible opportunities for the young people in the areas where they are due to be set up, from ensuring that every English region has a 16 to 19 university-backed maths school to proposals for new state sixth forms to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds through a collaboration between a leading private school and a multi-academy trust in Oldham, Middlesbrough and Dudley.
Since the pause, however, there has been a lack of information and progress. The 44 schools under review have not been publicly named and there has been a lack of transparency from the department about the review process being followed or indeed when it is due to conclude, with officials saying only that updates will be sent to trusts and local authorities in due course. Projects provided information to the department before Christmas but have heard little since. Can the Minister please update the House on when the review will conclude to provide certainty to these projects? She will know they will have put a huge amount of work and effort into submitting their applications but have been in limbo for almost a year.
Furthermore, at Education Oral Questions in the other place on 21 July in response to a question on capital resources to help expand Exeter Maths School, the former DfE Minister Stephen Morgan said that the department hopes
“to replicate the success of these settings across the country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/25; col. 534.]
There are two maths free schools in the pipeline—Nottingham and Durham—and a number of other 16 to 19 projects proposed for outside London by trusts with a track record of exceptional results. The Government have at their fingertips the means to replicate the previous success we have seen across the country, so why not approve the two maths free schools and all the 44 schools in the pipeline?
Free schools have delivered exceptional outcomes, expanded opportunity and brought high-quality education to communities that for too long were left behind. Clause 57 risks turning back the clock while Amendment 480 would give certainty to 44 much-needed projects and ensure that the next generation of free schools can continue this record of success. I hope the Minister will reflect on the positive contribution the free school programme has made and is making to hundreds of thousands of pupils’ lives and ensure it is able to continue to grow to further improve our education system, particularly in areas that need it the most.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to speak after the last two speakers and I will speak in support of the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. The speech from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the passion with which he spoke were a tribute to him and his team, who have done a most remarkable job. It is also a tribute to the previous Labour Government, who had the foresight to bring in people such as him to help turn around failing schools. That is why it is such a shame, as I have said before, to see this Labour Government appearing to row back on many of those proposals; I hope that is not really the case.
I will not begin to try to compete with my noble friend Lady Evans, who so ably ran the free schools programme and understands so much more about it than I do. My own experience of free schools is limited to my group opening one primary school in the grounds of Pimlico Academy because we believe strongly in an all-through education, a broad education and a subject-specific education even for primary school pupils where that can be delivered efficiently. We teach Latin in our primary schools, a subject which some believe is too exclusive for children in state schools.
The noble Baroness will be aware that my group, Future Academies, was appointed by the previous Government to run the Latin excellence programme, a £4 million contract to bring Latin to 40 state schools across the country which were not previously teaching it, something we were doing. Sadly, this Government binned that programme, which was a great pity, because the students love Latin; it helps them greatly with their grammar, their vocabulary and their thinking skills. I offer just one statistic. Noble Lords may be interested to know that this summer 48% of pupils at Pimlico Academy who took Latin GCSE, a subject which is thought to be very difficult, got a grade 9.
I understand that there are over 50 special and AP free schools in pre-opening, or which were approved prior to October last year. We desperately need more special schools and AP schools in this country. I ask the Minister kindly to tell me how many of those are now planned to open and how many are not. If she cannot do that today, and I understand why she may not be able to do so, perhaps she would write to me with the answer.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, as I had to go out and take an urgent phone call during the debate, I think it would be wrong for me to comment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this third group of amendments relates to the opening of new schools, including new maintained schools, academies and free schools, and the financial governance of maintained schools—but not to the noble Lord’s amendment about local elections, so I will not respond to that.
Clause 57 relates to how new schools are opened, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, opposes it standing part of the Bill. The clause ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academy schools. It requires local authorities to invite proposals for academies and other types of school when they think a new school should be established and gives them the option to put forward their own proposals for new schools. The current system allows local authorities to propose new schools only as a last resort or in very limited circumstances. Local authorities hold the statutory responsibility to secure sufficient school places in their area, and it is right that we give them greater ability to fulfil that duty effectively. These changes will enable consideration of any local offer that meets the needs of children and families.
Amendment 480, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, relates to the opening of projects in the free schools pipeline. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire—and the passion and enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who, as others have said, has played an enormously important role in improving the quality of schools for many of the children who need it the most—to ensure that the approved free school projects open as planned. I know that trusts and local authorities commit significant time and energy to supporting these projects.
However, noble Lords will also understand the need to consider carefully the use of a limited amount of school capital. Agreeing the amendment would commit the Secretary of State to opening all projects in the current pipeline, regardless of whether they are still needed or represent value for money. That is why the department is giving careful consideration to these proposals in relation to the need for places, their value for money and the extent to which they provide a distinctive local offer. It would be wrong to spend funding on new schools that cannot be financially viable while existing schools urgently need that funding to improve the condition of their buildings.
Amendment 481, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, would require local-authority-maintained schools to have an annual external audit. In response to the noble Lord’s contribution, I am afraid I must clarify that he was wrong to state that maintained schools do not have to publish salaries over £100,000 and that they do not have to submit three-year budget plans. Those requirements were introduced by the last Government in 2021 following a consultation put out by the noble Lord as a Minister. He has had more of an impact even than he realises.
I nevertheless understand the points the noble Lord made about the responsibility on all school leaders to ensure that public money is being spent as effectively as possible in order to maximise the amount that can be spent directly on supporting and educating our children. However, the Government do not believe it is necessary to mandate all maintained schools to have an annual external audit. Maintained school accounts form part of local authority’s accounts. A sample will be audited each year as part of the local authority audit process. Any maintained school that wants a separate audit has the right to commission one. We can argue about whether, as the noble Lord has suggested, auditing would save money. However, we are clear about how much it would cost. School audits can cost £10,000 or more—the total cost of separate audits for all maintained schools would be at least £100 million a year.
I hope that, given my explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her clause stand part notice, and other noble Lords will not move their amendments.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I accept what the Minister says—that of course the proposal for new free schools has to be properly interrogated, et cetera— but it has now been nearly a year. She alluded to the fact that some of the issues may be around the tight funding. At the very least, could she commit to contacting the schools or groups that have put forward proposals, just to give them an update? In some sense, it is the not knowing and not hearing that is the most frustrating for them, so perhaps she could at least do that.
As the Minister well recognises, it is a huge amount of work to do this, and there will be local groups, schools and parents desperately wanting to know if these schools are going to open. Even if she cannot tell us today, if she could perhaps commit to some further information for those in the pipeline, that would be a welcome move forward from their perspective.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness and the need for trusts to have certainty about their projects as soon as possible. We will provide an update on next steps to trusts and local authorities in due course, and I am sure that others in the department have heard the reasonable points made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am slightly surprised by the Minister’s response to this group. On the changes proposed by Clause 57, she repeated the point set out in the policy summary document about the importance of local authorities being able to meet their sufficiency duty, but she did not give us any examples or data to suggest that there had been instances where they were unable to meet their sufficiency duty because of a lack of suitable applications. Therefore, if I may, I will repeat my earlier request that the Minister write to me setting out exactly how often that has happened, maybe over the last five years, year by year, so we can get a picture of what this problem really is.
The Minister gave the House no reflection on the capacity of local authorities to deliver new free schools, no reflection on the conflicts of interest inherent in this policy and no real recognition of the contribution of free schools, which, as we heard particularly from my noble friend Lord Harris, have done really great and important work, particularly in narrowing disadvantage gaps. As my noble friend Lord Nash said in relation to the importance of the Latin Excellence programme, these schools have often been pioneers in raising the aspirations of children through the curriculum they offer. As we debated, and as I quoted in the debate last week on the curriculum, this is about opening doors for children—not moving the destination closer to them but building the bridge so they can get to that destination.
On my noble friend Lord Agnew’s Amendment 481, it is good that the Minister has the figure on the cost. I am sure my noble friend could negotiate that down given half a chance, but the real point is the one he made: that his trust has been able to unlock funding that gives three more hours a week to the children in that trust, or one year more of education. The Government’s accepting invisibility and probable financial inefficiency in local authority schools does the children in those schools a real disservice.
Baroness Barran
“Duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police(1) Where an act which meets the conditions set out in subsection (2) takes place which involves the use or threat of force against a member of a school’s staff, the school must report the incident to the police.(2) An act must be reported to the police where—(a) it is directed towards a member of school staff or their property, and(b) it takes place—(i) on school property, or(ii) because of the victim’s status as a member of a school’s staff.(3) The provisions of this section do not require or imply a duty on the police to take specific actions in response to such reports.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to create a duty for all schools to report acts or threats of violence against their staff to the police. It would not create a requirement for the police to charge the perpetrator.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments as it seeks to understand the Government’s attitude to behaviour in our schools and, in particular, how to balance the rights of children who have been excluded or have committed acts of violence with the rights of other pupils in the classroom, as well as how best to address bullying in schools.
Amendment 459 aims to bring clarity about acts of violence or threats of violence towards school staff. Pupils should understand that any such act would be referred to the police. We have made it clear that this is not intended to criminalise children, but we believe it would help to reset expectations on behaviour and give the police and children’s services important information about those pupils. I recognise, of course, that schools know their pupils very well and are able to exercise their professional judgment; but even with that, we are concerned that there might be pressure on the Government to move to a position such as we have seen in Scotland to reduce the use of exclusions and suspensions.
Noble Lords will be aware of the disastrous impact of the Scottish Government’s policies in this area, which have led to violent assaults by pupils on teachers with no power remaining to exclude them. More recently, the Mayor of London has launched an inclusion charter to reduce suspensions, and at an event hosted by the Children’s Commissioner last week, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, suggested that he would like to see all pupil referral units abolished.
Head teachers need and deserve reassurance that they will be backed to exclude or suspend when necessary, and the presumption will always be that the rate of these strategies should not be considered too high unless there is good reason to think otherwise. The correct rate of exclusion is “when necessary”; it is not “as low as we can make it”. Amendment 502YYA seeks to clarify this. We are concerned about the impact of councils pursuing zero-exclusion policies, either directly or indirectly, by asking schools to sign up to reduction charters or similar. Such policies create an implicit expectation that head teachers should not exclude, which, frankly, would be disastrous for pupils and staff who have to face the impact of these decisions.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran: head teachers need and deserve reassurance that they will be backed to exclude or suspend where necessary. I would like to pass on the experience of a head teacher who told me recently that he had had to permanently exclude two pupils who had set the school on fire; they were successfully moved back to a PRU.
I am now in the rather bizarre situation of speaking against an amendment to which I put my name: Amendment 459. As a teacher, I thought that this amendment was eminently sensible, given that the police would still be able to decide whether or not to act. But I found out that it is more complex than that. Rebecca Warren, the executive principal of the Mossbourne trust, says:
“I agree that on the face of it this appears eminently sensible as one would think it is vital to ensure that all services are alerted to ensure that the perpetrator … and victim are offered necessary support. Given that the police service is one of the three arms of Safeguarding Boards (along with the council and healthcare) then police should be alerted and equally responsible for the welfare and safeguarding of children. An act of violence against an adult in a school environment is, in itself, a safeguarding concern.
However, I am dismayed that once again no duty is placed on the police to respond or act. So, in the absence of a collegiate approach, I worry this will become just another duty for teaching professionals with no duty placed on fellow services. I must emphasise that this should not become yet another safeguarding duty placed on the shoulders of schools, with schools being potentially penalised if an act is not reported. Reporting to the police is very likely to erode the trust between child/home and school. This is only worth risking if there is a definite response and support from the police for the child and family.
My question is why the professional judgement of educators is deemed to be less worthy than the professional judgement of the police ie: educators have a statutory duty to report (and must always support) but Social Care and the Police have no statutory duty to support when a report is made”.
Peter Hughes, the chief exec of the Mossbourne trust, makes this plea:
“This Bill is in danger of treating schools as if they are full of idiots without the ability to make sensible decisions. Schools, as the second class citizens in the safeguarding arena, spend more time with children than the other three safeguarding partners combined. We are the only service that is in loco parentis 190 days a year from the age of 4-18. Like any good parent, we need to make judgments about what is in the best interests of our children balanced against society and the other members of our family (students and staff). I would ask that we are afforded that right”.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 501 by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and will speak to Amendment 464 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for all of whose support I am most grateful. The amendment implements and supplements an excellent recommendation of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It is difficult to understand why it has been left on the table when racism has been acknowledged as a problem in schools for so long.
Gypsy, Traveller and Roma parents have reported racist incidents as a reason for opting for home education for as long as I have been concerned about these communities. One of the problems in their case is that, because the children are usually white, they are often not recognised as members of a legally defined minority ethnic group. But they are ill-treated, ostracised and bullied for that membership just the same. Now, we also have seen religious prejudice, incidents and taunts demoralising children and undermining their motivation. This totally belies the right to freedom of religion and belief. It really is time to put this right and record and report such incidents. They should have no place in the conduct of the school day. Unless the data is captured, the position will not be understood and improved. This is an amendment, surely, whose time has definitely come.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 502YF in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Bailey, to require an assessment under the Children Act when a child is permanently excluded. The reason for this amendment is that, in my experience, when a pupil is permanently excluded without an adequate handover or adequate liaison between the school and the local authority, there is a risk that the pupil disappears into a black hole. I have sat on, thankfully, few PEx panels—we really do not like excluding pupils in my trust. I have always hated having to exclude a pupil, not just in its own right but because they just disappear from view.
In my view, schools should continue to have some involvement, if not responsibility, for PEx students to ensure that they receive adequate provision. As things stand, they have no say in where children go when PExed, often because the local authority has an arrangement or a contract with one or two AP providers such that there are no other options—and, of course, in some areas, the AP providers have no capacity. As I have said, that is why we desperately need more such provision. I would like to see schools with greater involvement in this. I understand that, in Milton Keynes, there is a model where about a dozen secondary schools—11, I think—co-operate well with the local authority on this. That could perhaps be a model for the future.
I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran in this group. Poor behaviour by a few students has a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of a school. Teachers spend a disproportionate amount of time dealing with a few pupils who exhibit very poor behaviour, and they are increasingly acting as social workers. We must protect the other pupils in the school, and we must support our teachers. There comes a time when the disruption this causes to other pupils and to teachers means it is necessary to exclude certain pupils.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 464 knowing that, had my right reverend friend the Bishop of Lincoln been in his place, he would very much have wanted to contribute to the debate. If passed, this amendment would introduce a duty on schools to record and report any incidents of racism or faith-based bullying on school premises. It would also help diocesan boards of education in collating and monitoring such cases and better assisting those church schools which might benefit from support.
In preparing for this speech, I spoke to our own director of education in Chelmsford diocese, whose team oversees 139 church schools. She told me that this proposed amendment had the potential to help the board of education strengthen anti-bullying and inclusive practices in partnership with schools.
Every child deserves to feel safe at school, yet we know that racist and faith-based bullying is a significant driver behind school exclusions. A report published last year by The Difference and the IPPR revealed that black Caribbean children are 1.5 times more likely to find themselves permanently excluded from schools than the national population. Irish Traveller children are three times more likely, and Romani, or Gypsy, and Roma children are four times more likely.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will make a couple of comments. When children fail, it is usually the result of a cocktail of inputs. One of those is frequently special educational needs. If you do not believe it, just look at the prison population—a gross overrepresentation of virtually every single special educational need you can mention. We do not get this right or spot it early enough. There are several more groups that touch on this, and I hope that when the Minister starts to sum up, she will have in the back of her mind how this all fits together.
Often, both the victims and the perpetrators of bullying have special educational needs—somebody does not fit in, they look for somebody weaker, and so on. It is disruptive to a classroom, and it affects everybody else. If you get in early enough, along with the other considerations made here—and I fully endorse the comments made about racism and so on—it can bring the whole thing together. How are we doing that? How are we working it in? I would hope that the Minister has an answer.
I would also hope that it does not fall on the teacher in the classroom. We are asking them to do a superhuman task anyway. What support are we going to give? We are going to come to this again and again. We may not get the Government’s strategy on the special educational needs bit in full until later on. If we could get some idea of the thinking, it would help in future debates on the Bill, both at this stage and on Report.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 502E in my name. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, just said. To judge by the numerous safeguarding and similar cases in which I have been involved as a lawyer, it is the failure to share information that causes huge damage and often leads to that cycle—the revolving door of children going in and out of school, which leads to many of them going into custody for crimes when they are not very old.
My Amendment 502E is an uncomplicated attempt to provide consistent standards and process in the way in which individual schools focus on bullying. I am grateful to the Anti-Bullying Alliance for providing me with information on this subject. The truth of the matter is that huge numbers of children are bullied, and we see it every day.
A few days ago, I was on a bus in north London at the time when children are just going home from school. There were three noisy, normal-looking 11 or 12 year-olds on the bus laughing and pointing through the window at something. I realised that they were pointing at another boy, on the pavement, who was actually the largest of the group. I deduced from what I saw that they had tricked that boy into getting off the bus at the wrong stop and then had got back on themselves. Off the bus went, and they were laughing at the disconsolate fourth boy as the bus passed him by. It was a small example of bullying, but what I saw was evidence—possibly, at least—of a much larger bullying issue relating to that fourth child.
It is a heartbreaking reality that over one in five children and young people report being bullied each year. That figure comes from the Office for National Statistics. It is a pervasive issue which not only disrupts their childhoods, mental health and education; its repercussions can persist well into adulthood. Many of us know people who have been affected by bullying, particularly at school, which they suffered from at a very young age.
There is plenty of evidence that children who are bullied are significantly more likely to suffer from mental health issues. I used to be the chair of a mental health charity called Addaction, now called We Are With You, which has to deal with many people who, among their multiple and often complex issues, suffered from bullying when they were young, either at school or possibly in the home. Children who are bullied often miss school, have a very poor sense of belonging and achieve poorer academic results. Parents learn that their children are being bullied, but they do not know how to deal with it because, in many schools, they are not given any real guidance on how to approach the school or what the school will do if their child is bullied.
The effects of bullying are even more pronounced among children with special educational needs—about whom we will soon be talking in another group—children in poverty, young carers, care-experienced young people and other at-risk groups. It really does not have to be this way. My suggestion is that something like my very straightforward Amendment 502E would at least ensure that schools have a consistent approach to these issues.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister that, in pursuance of their duties, head teachers of relevant schools in England should appoint a member of staff simply to be the school’s anti-bullying lead, just as they have leads in the sixth form and individual subject heads. The primary role of the anti-bullying lead should be to develop the school’s individual anti-bullying strategy, and that strategy should include details of the steps being taken by the school to prevent bullying in all its forms among pupils, including of course those with protected characteristics. There should be a standard way of recording incidences of bullying, just as there are standard and required ways of recording incidences of injury at school. Staff training on bullying should be available for all staff. I submit that this amendment is just common sense, and it would make a significant contribution to the way in which bullying is dealt with at school, to the advantage of children.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, but I really want to follow on from what the right reverend Prelate said about racism. Racism has been rife in schools from as far back as I can remember, but at that time social media was not there to inflame it further. Over recent years, it has become racism about not just colour but religion. The right reverend Prelate mentioned Islamophobia, but most underreported acts of bullying against faith are not Islamophobia.
People from my community endure it quietly. Where do they report it when, as often as not, it is the most misunderstood way of bullying? Parents say to me that children have told them that they will burn in hell and that, if they do not change their faith, this or that will happen. We have to find solutions that involve not just the teachers—they have more than enough to do already—but making sure, first, that what we say and do is reasonable. Secondly, families cannot abdicate from their duties in what happens in and out of school. They need to be part of the solution because, unfortunately, we have a lot of dysfunctional families— not by choice but, often, because of the economics of everything. We need to find ways for every child to go to school knowing that they will learn, like every other child, and not be fearful of going.
I grew up in a fearful atmosphere. That fearful atmosphere is back—even more now than ever before. It is amplified by social media. So I say, on my noble friend’s amendments, that yes of course the police have a duty; so do local authorities. They need to be the support mechanisms for the teachers, not standing on the sidelines waiting to offer help. They should be intrinsic in the integrated plans to make sure that we can respond to the needs of children who come with problems—not of their own making, mostly, but from their surroundings and their environment. We should not make excuses and say that it is acceptable and that everything should be on the teachers. It is not fair, and they are not well enough equipped.
As a child who went through a miserable time at school, I knew what bullying is like, dreading to go into school in case you are be beaten up by the next skinhead around the corner. I did not become a bully; I actually became resilient. We have to make sure that resilience is part of the teaching of our children.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will raise some reservations that I have about Amendments 501 and 502E, on bullying in schools, and Amendment 464, on the reporting of racism or faith-based bullying.
Bullying is a label that has been subject to the phenomena of concept creep. Bullying has now expanded enormously. It is an elastic term and so a wide range of behaviours can be described as bullying. I fear that it is becoming a vehicle to encourage pupils to lack resilience —a point was just raised about how we deal with the issue of resilience. I have written about this extensively. For now, I note that, via anti-bullying initiatives in schools already, pupils are taught that words hurt and damage, that words can become interchangeable with violence, and that name-calling is on a par with physical intimidation. Inevitably, that can lead the young to believe that speech is violence. I think all of us can acknowledge that that is a problem at the moment, with people who say that speech is violence then feeling able to use violence to deal with speech they dislike—a very current issue.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 502N, in my name, would insert a proposed new clause after Clause 62, which raises the issue of seclusion in education, particularly in the form of isolation rooms.
Isolation rooms have serious implications for the emotional and psychological well-being of children, especially disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs. This is a probing amendment that would introduce a statutory definition of seclusion. It would empower the Secretary of State to regulate its use through consultation. If regulations are made, my amendment requires minimum protections: banning seclusion as discipline, notifying parents, recording incidents and ensuring internal safeguarding oversight.
The experience of seclusion impacts too many children today—children with speech, language and communication needs—whose communication may not be understood, recognised or supported in that moment. Children with ADHD may find it hard to regulate strong emotions without timely support, and yet instead of being supported they are removed, placed alone and not free to leave, in rooms with such labels as isolation, calm, breakout room, nurture space or any other number of euphemisms. What they experience is seclusion, whether it happens in a locked room, a space with a closed door, or an area where the child is simply not permitted to leave. The impact is the same: a loss of connection and potential safety.
Disabled children and those with special educational needs are disproportionately affected. Some children are removed daily, and there is no guarantee that parents will be told. These experiences can be isolating, traumatic, and deeply damaging to a child’s sense of safety and belonging. Other sectors, such as healthcare and secure settings, already regulate seclusion and deprivation of liberty. Education should not be an exception.
The Department for Education acknowledged the issue in its 2020 guidance, but guidance alone does not close a legal loophole. This proposed new clause invites us to act thoughtfully and proportionately, to close a legal gap that has persisted for far too long. It is not a radical proposal. It is a proportionate, enabling amendment, grounded in evidence, shaped by lived experience and guided by the principle that no child should be left unsupported or invisible in the name of behaviour management. Seclusion happens in our schools, even if we do not call it that. This proposed new clause would not ban it but would give us the tools to see it, define it and scrutinise it. At the very least, we should agree that when a child is confined and not free to leave, we ought to know and we ought to care.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 502YF, proposed by my noble friend Lord Nash, and Amendments 502YV to 502YYA, proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran.
There has long been a lot of discomfort about permanent exclusions. No one likes the idea that there are children who cannot thrive in mainstream schools or who are too likely to harm others to be allowed to attend them, but last year’s youth justice statistics show 12,000 convictions of children for offences of violence, 3,000 for knife-related offences and 1,400 for sexual offences. Serious misconduct does not begin only once children have left school. There is also a lot of hope that keeping children in mainstream schools, no matter what they may do, will avert later criminality, but in fact excluded children are more likely to have come into contact with youth justice services before they are excluded than after. Because we have been remarkably successful in reducing the number of children in custody, there are more children with very serious behaviour problems in the school system who might once not have been there.
What I saw at Ofsted is that the vast majority of schools work extremely hard to keep children in mainstream schools. Relatively few exclusions are unjustified. Many parents, especially those with children who have been harmed by other children, believe that there is too much pressure rather than too little on schools not to exclude. The vast majority of exclusions are a culmination of a long period in which a school does all that it knows how to do to support a child and help them to progress academically and socially.
As a result, I believe that we have a problem of a different nature. Many teachers will tell you that it is often possible to spot the children who are most likely to fall out of school as early as reception year, or even earlier, but the pressure is always to keep them in mainstream schools, even when that school can do little more than warehouse a child with teaching assistants until this becomes manifestly unhelpful for the child and the parent succeeds in obtaining an EHCP and a special school place.
We do not start contingency planning for those children as early as we should and could, which contributes to there not being enough specialist provision. Even at the point of permanent exclusion, our laws and processes are focused on the legitimacy of the exclusion and the process that has been followed. What is not part of any of those processes is a pragmatic assessment of what kind of education to adulthood will give the excluded child the best chance in life, by which I mean reaching adulthood with basic skills in place, functioning within social norms, being willing and capable of holding down a job and, in the longer term, being capable of sustaining a marriage or stable relationship. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Nash will help to concentrate minds on how best to do what it is in the power of the state to do to help excluded children to the best possible future.
My noble friend’s Amendments 502YV and onwards in this group would also help to direct attention appropriately. They reflect a pragmatic recognition of the circumstances in which the harm to other children from reinstating a child is likely to exceed the benefits to the excluded child of reinstatement. For example, it is well known that sexual offending tends to be a persistent pattern of behaviour, and I referred to one such case in an earlier group. I add that the bullying survey suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, might be useful in showing how much fear and unhappiness can be induced in many other children by a very small number of their peers.
For many years, there has been a strong presumption that children should be reintegrated in mainstream schools as soon as possible after exclusion and policy and processes have been designed on this basis, but there is good data that shows that pupils who have been permanently excluded and returned to a mainstream school very rarely stay in mainstream to age 16. Nearly all will be moved into alternative provision subsequently, with or without another permanent exclusion, or drop out entirely. It would be useful to know what proportion of managed moves are in fact effective in the long run and which kinds of children and problems are most likely to be effectively dealt with in this way. My noble friend Lady Barran’s amendments, relating to a presumption against reinstatement for certain children, dovetail with my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment to steer schools and local authorities towards constructive and realistic planning for the children with the greatest difficulties in their lives.
I echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The last thing we need is more measures that could be weaponised and potentially cause more divisions in schools and society. When two young children fight, labelling the tussle as racially motivated may not help those two children get along and may in fact encourage factions in the class. Promoting and focusing on what we have in common and should value together is at least as important, and probably more important, than labelling and division if we are to achieve the social cohesion that we all aspire to.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this debate has been very thought-provoking. I always want to listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has to say; she always challenges my own thoughts.
We all know the saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me”. But, of course, words can harm you—sometimes tremendously so. They can almost “destroy” a pupil’s resilience and well-being. I think about a little girl called Millie, who was eight years old and a very good footballer. Her grandad took her to play football every Saturday morning on the fields by Otterspool Prom. Because she was so good, the other girls became quite jealous of her, so they contrived among themselves never to pass the ball to Millie. Millie just could not understand that; she wanted to take part in the game, but together they bullied her by not passing her ball.
She went to the parent who organised and refereed the football; one of his girls was part of this little group saying, “Let’s not pass the ball to Millie”. He said to her, “Oh grow up. Go away. You’re a footballer, come on, you can take it”. She went home feeling completely “destroyed” and chose not to play football again. I tell that tale because we actually forget the bully in that situation; the bully needs help and support as much as the person who has been bullied. We often do not consider that in school policies on anti-bullying.
I just want to say to the Minister that when we briefly discussed bullying in another group of amendments, she mentioned that schools have behavioural policies. I was arguing that we should have separate anti-bullying policies, because—I think I am correct in saying this—not every school has to have them.
This amendment simply says that we should know where we are. I will perhaps criticise myself a bit—as did the noble Lord opposite. All these amendments are seeking more information, quite rightly, on racist incidents, bullying and so on. But who has to collect that information? The school. Who in the school has to collect it? The teacher. When we talk about workload pressures on teachers, let us be aware that, all the time, we are creating more workload pressures for them. Nevertheless, some of these things are important. Certainly, information on racist incidents should be collected; we should know exactly what is happening with that. We should also know about bullying incidents, so that we know how to react and where we should go next.
My noble friend Lord Addington made an important point, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that while we might be good at collecting information, we are not good at sharing it—and it is a fat lot of good collecting the information if we do not share it with other people, particularly other agencies. I was going to share the details of why we want to do this, but the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, very eloquently spelled out the information that we were supplied by the Anti-Bullying Alliance. Those figures are quite shocking in respect of the number of children in our education system who are bullied.
Bullying comes with all types of events. I mentioned football but I could equally mention the sly little pinch every day from one child to another. I could mention a whole host of things. I think of my own friends, now are in their 60s and 70s, who were affected by bullying as young people and it formed part of how they behave and react to things. We need to address this issue, but we can do so only if we know how serious it is. So, despite more workload pressures for teachers, I hope the Minister might agree that this is an important route that we should follow.
I want to mention briefly, as time marches on, the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. It is important: teachers and head teachers may not be aware of how many children have parents or a parent in prison. We had thought it was somewhere around 31,000 but, in fact, according to figures, the number of children with a parent in prison is nearly 193,000. That is something that we need to address. I do not want to go into all the details but I very much support the right reverend Prelate’s amendment as well.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a good, wide-ranging debate on this group, which concerns how schools deal with acts of violence against their staff, pupil behaviour management, and tackling bullying in schools, including incidents that are racist or faith-based.
Violence and bullying in schools are never acceptable. No teacher should feel unsafe or face violence or abuse in the workplace. The department will always support teachers to ensure that they can work in safe and calm classrooms.
All schools must have a behaviour policy to regulate the conduct of pupils, to help ensure that teachers and pupils are protected from disruption and, most importantly, that they have a safe school environment in which to work and learn. When misbehaviour occurs, schools can use sanctions as a measure to improve behaviour; in the most serious cases, exclusion may be necessary to ensure that all pupils are protected from disruption and can benefit from the opportunities provided by education. To provide some assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we believe that pupil referral units have an important role to play in this.
To reiterate the importance with which the Government view this, we have recently announced the launch of new RISE attendance and behaviour hubs, focusing on supporting senior leaders to develop safe, supportive school cultures with high expectations for attendance and behaviour. Their role will include using data to identify and address areas of concern. We have now appointed the first 21 lead schools in this programme.
Amendment 459, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would require schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police. I want to be completely clear that, as I have already said, all forms of violence against school staff should be taken seriously. It is never acceptable for anyone to be harassed, intimidated or attacked.
The primary duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of all employees rests with the employer. The employer is responsible for doing what is reasonably practicable to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees and should take appropriate action where they are aware of any matters that could detract from that. Where violence is involved, schools should take immediate and appropriate action. Should the incident constitute a potential criminal offence, it would be for the school employer to consider involving the police, having followed the advice in WHEN TO CALL THE POLICE Guidance for Schools & Colleges from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, written in partnership with the department and the Home Office. Given those provisions and that guidance, we fear that this amendment would be likely to impose additional burdens on schools without necessarily strengthening protections for staff.
Amendment 464, in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, would place a duty on local authorities to require schools to record and report racist incidents or faith-based bullying, and the action taken. I wholly support the views of noble Lords who have identified how reprehensible these incidents are and how important it is that action is taken within the school to identify and educate students about the significance of that element of bullying.
Under the Equality Act 2010, every school in England has an existing legal obligation to not discriminate unlawfully on the grounds of a protected characteristic. We have confidence in the seriousness with which head teachers take any incidents that breach this requirement, as these would. Further reporting requirements for schools would risk creating a new burden and risk unintended consequences, as some noble Lords have touched on, discouraging children and staff from disclosing to school leaders due to privacy concerns and increasing the threshold at which schools may identify and respond to incidents due to perceived risk of reputational damage. We want children to be as open as possible within the school environment so that head teachers and teachers can determine the appropriate action.
I will take Amendments 501 and 502E together as both aim to address the importance of tackling bullying in schools and recognise the profound impact it can have on children’s lives. Amendment 501, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to introduce a duty on the department to collect and publish national data related to pupils’ experiences of bullying in schools. The department already monitors young people’s perceptions of bullying through the annual National Behaviour Survey, and I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that that survey will continue. It enables us to develop our understanding of bullying prevalence and trends.
Amendment 502E, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, seeks to mandate the appointment of an anti-bullying lead in schools to develop an anti-bullying strategy. In my introduction to this group, I referred to the legal requirement for schools to have a behaviour policy. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the law is clear that a school’s policy should include measures to prevent bullying. Schools are held to account by Ofsted and the Independent Schools Inspectorate on that.
School leaders are, and should be, free to tailor their approach and this can include deploying a lead for anti-bullying. Mandating how schools meet their obligations to prevent bullying, particularly in terms of staffing, does not recognise the need for flexibility in schools to ensure that approaches can be tailored to meet the needs of different settings and cohorts of pupils. This in no way suggests that we do not take this issue seriously and that is why the Department for Education is launching a procurement for an expert- and evidence-led review into best practice on preventing and tackling bullying. The learning from that best practice review will inform the support to be given in the longer term by the new attendance and behaviour hubs that I have already mentioned. This approach has been informed by recent engagement with a range of stakeholders, including teachers, parents, academics, charities and young people, to understand more about the issues around bullying.
Amendment 502N relates to a very important topic and it is right that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raises it. The department recognises that the misuse of seclusion in schools can have a significant and long-lasting effect on the pupils, staff members and parents involved, and we are committed to minimising its use in schools. Earlier this year, we held a 12-week public consultation on the draft Use of Reasonable Force and Other Restrictive Interventions in Schools guidance. We have listened to the views of the sector and taken the decision to pursue secondary legislation that mandates the recording and reporting of the use of seclusion in schools to parents. This important work is already under way. It is a significant and positive step forward for pupils and their families, and will support schools to have consistent, transparent policies on the use of reasonable force and restrictive interventions which aim to safeguard everybody within the school community.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I felt much happier listening to that reply than to her earlier one. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, it is important that head teachers know the Government have got their back in terms of managing very difficult situations with such dedication day in, day out. The Minister’s comments about the importance of safe, calm classrooms, her focus on the guidance that already exists in relation to suspensions and exclusions and her reassurance about the discretion that head teachers have on behaviour and permanent exclusions when they are necessary—and that the Government protect the rights of head teachers to do that—are important for them to hear, and I am grateful to her for making that very clear.
I am sure everyone in this Committee would echo her sentiment about early intervention strategies. That was picked up by my noble friend Lady Spielman. I warmed very much to the contrast she drew between the current focus on following process versus the opportunity to think about a plan for the future for each child who sadly finds himself in that position.
On Amendment 502YF in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Nash, I think I heard the Minister say that those children already qualify under Section 17 as children in need, and I agree with her. I wonder whether it would be helpful if, where that is not happening in practice, we bring those examples to the department for it to consider because clearly that is both the letter and the spirit of the law, and we all want to see that happening in practice.
I will skate over my minor fallout with my noble friend, as I hope I can call him, Lord Hampton. Things have been going so well and to fall over at 7 pm on Day 11 seems unfortunate, but there we go. I hope we can recover before Day 12 is out.
Briefly on the amendments regarding bullying in schools raised quite rightly by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Storey, I very much share their concern about the impact of bullying, but I argue that this is all about having a strong school culture where bullying and other forms of poor behaviour are not accepted. I worry that if you make an individual person responsible for it, rather than it being something that every member of staff upholds, that might not work as effectively as noble Lords would wish.
On information and data on bullying, I was relieved to hear that the behaviour survey will continue to be published. I am hoping that means it will have the same questions as in previous years, to allow for comparability. The noble Baroness might want to put that as a “PS” on one of the many letters she is going to write to me. The survey gives detailed information, and we also know from the response of the charity Parentkind that, in parental complaints, bullying peer behaviour, safety, safeguarding, behaviour and discipline —it is all very overlapping—are the top areas.
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is happy with and reassured by the Minister’s comments on seclusion rooms. Of course, we are able to offer the Minister the simplest way to reduce bullying in schools, which is for the Government to accept our ban on smartphones in schools. I say this with a smile, but in all seriousness, we know that this is the source of much bullying nowadays and it continues not just in school but out of school. [Interruption.] I am not sure what the noble Baroness is muttering, but if the Government do not want to listen to me then maybe they will listen to Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey, who has recently bravely launched a campaign against smartphones in schools, highlighting the terrible bullying and impact they had on Brianna. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Nash (Con)
May I just refer to my Amendment 502YF? I heard what the Minister said about the general duty under the Children Act, but I am still concerned about the black hole I spoke about. This is all part of improving the liaising between schools and local authorities on how we provide for these children. I will reflect on that, but I am still concerned. As far as my noble friend’s point about smartphones in schools and bullying goes, of course, bullying does happen outside school, when they still have those smartphones. It happens on social media, and that is why I am pleased to see the National Education Union and others pushing for increasing the age restriction in respect of social media to 16. As I say, I commend them in that endeavour.
Lord Storey
“National tutoring guarantee(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report outlining the steps necessary to introduce a national tutoring guarantee. (2) A “national tutoring guarantee” means a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure access to small group academic tutoring for all disadvantaged children who require academic support.(3) A report published under this section must include an assessment of how best to deliver targeted academic support from qualified tutors to children—(a) from low-income backgrounds,(b) with low prior attainment,(c) with additional needs, or(d) who are young carers.(4) In preparing a report under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with—(a) headteachers,(b) teachers,(c) school leaders,(d) parents of children from low-income backgrounds,(e) children from low-income backgrounds, and(f) other individuals or organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.(6) Within three months of a report under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take steps to begin implementation of the recommendations contained in the report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining the steps required to introduce a national tutoring guarantee, and to begin implementing its recommendations.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thought we might be breaking at quarter past, so you caught me unawares.
My Lords, Covid seems a long time ago, and I remember very well the virtual meetings we had as Members. We carried on our business, but for schools it was a very challenging time. Perhaps one of the successes of that time in terms of education was the national tutoring programme—I think it cost £1 billion—so that children could carry on their learning with a dedicated tutor online.
This amendment suggests that we look at introducing a national tutoring guarantee that is particularly aimed at children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The gap between children is growing and growing, and this might be one way we can accelerate children from disadvantaged backgrounds’ learning and help them overcome that deficit. It is, if you like, the rocket fuel that will ignite their educational needs. It is easy to do. It is effective, as we found during Covid. The amendment is just asking that we look at whether this is feasible. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 490 in my name; I thank my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for adding her name to it.
Special educational needs and disability education are not working in the UK right now. This is no fault of the excellent SENCOs up and down the country. It is no fault of teachers, who try to teach all of the children in front of them in their classes. It is certainly no fault of parents, who try to find their way through often labyrinthine, circumlocutory, beyond-bureaucratic practices in order to get the best for their children. It is obviously no fault of children with special educational needs or disabilities, who just want an inclusive educational experience to give of their talent.
Amendment 490 simply asks, in a probing manner, for a royal commission to look at the attainment gap for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I do not much mind if it is a royal commission; the weight of the issue merits a royal commission but, were the Government to undertake swiftly a task and finish group, so much the better. The attainment gap needs to be considered at all levels of the school experience, and right through all examinations from when they begin. Crucially, it is about putting a plan in place so that, in short order, we no longer talk about an education attainment gap, because there is no reason why there should be one just by dint of a young person having a special educational need or a disability.
That is all this amendment is asking for: simple, clear and effective measurement of the current situation and disability educational attainment gap. It is important to measure the gap. However, the aim—the mission—must be to close it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, sadly, my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester is unable to be here to speak to Amendment 482 in her name.
This amendment, which I support and has already been touched on by a couple of noble Lords in our debate on the previous group, would compel the Secretary of State to
“commission a report on the educational attainment of school age children with a parent who is in prison”,
and to
“make recommendations for how the educational attainment of those children can be improved”.
I will not presuppose what the recommendations of this report would be. However, through its work in supporting more than 1,450 children with a parent in prison, the charity Children Heard and Seen has shown that, through simple, targeted and tailored emotional support, you can drastically change outcomes for children with a parent in prison.
Having a parent in prison is among the most significant adverse childhood experiences, severely impacting children’s mental health and well-being. Children with an imprisoned parent are 25% more likely to suffer from mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, insomnia and eating disorders. Negative school experiences such as bullying, persistent truancy and academic underachievement are also common among this group. It is estimated that there are almost 200,000 children with a parent in prison in England and Wales, yet we still do not know who or where these children are. This means that they are not being brought to the attention of schools.
Due to the lack of awareness of the issue of parental imprisonment throughout schools, support for children with a parent in prison varies hugely from school to school. There is no uniform approach and many children are left without the appropriate support that they need. Amendment 482 would be a strong step in the right direction in increasing awareness and understanding of the harms within schools of parental imprisonment, ensuring that pupils and students who are affected by parental imprisonment are supported through an inclusive and non-judgmental approach. Children with a parent in prison should be given the same chance in life as any other child. The amendment would help enable them to mitigate the impacts of their parents’ imprisonment, overcoming educational barriers and allowing them to fulfil their academic potential.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate. We know for a fact that, as we just heard, children who have a parent in prison are at significantly greater risk of suffering mental health difficulties than children who do not, including low self-esteem, depression, disturbed sleeping patterns and symptoms of post-traumatic stress.
The Ministry of Justice’s research highlights a strong correlation between parental offending and child offending. Family members often explain that parental imprisonment for children is akin to a type of bereavement from losing a parent who suddenly leaves the home and never returns. It is not exactly the same, however. I remember visiting Holloway prison in the early 1990s, when it was a women’s prison, and it happened to be visiting hour for the children seeing their mothers for the first time possibly in many months because of the geographical distances involved in travel. It was wonderful to see the excitement and joy that the children had in greeting their mothers after perhaps a long time, but that turned to despair and anguish when visiting time was over. Sometimes, and I saw it, the children had to be physically separated from their mothers by prison officers. It was a horrific sight and it still haunts me.
Parental imprisonment is hugely under-researched. In most cases, schools, which have a crucial role to play here, are not even aware that a pupil’s parent has been imprisoned. These children are the forgotten and invisible victims of crime and they are totally innocent. Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all decisions and actions that affect children. This means that the best interests of the child should be taken into account at every stage of a parent’s journey through the criminal justice system, as these decisions affect these children directly.
The Labour Government, on page 71 of their manifesto for the last general election, commendably committed to identifying and supporting children with a parent in prison. What has happened? Nothing yet, as far as I can see. There is still no statutory mechanism for identifying and supporting children with a parent in prison, so can the Minister say when this manifesto commitment will be fulfilled?
I can answer my own question, because the right reverend Prelate’s wonderful amendment provides a golden opportunity to fulfil that commitment right now. It would not only raise awareness and understanding of parental imprisonment within schools but also provide clear guidance on how to mitigate the impacts of a parent going to prison so that children can fulfil their academic potential. Will the Government grasp this opportunity to do something and accept the amendment this evening?
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I start on this group of amendments by declaring an interest as a board member of the Education Authority in Northern Ireland, which is responsible for around 90% of education spend in Northern Ireland and, most pertinently as regards these amendments, has direct responsibility for all special educational needs education there.
I would be broadly in favour of all these amendments. I had one caveat as regards Amendment 460, but to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Storey—I am sure that he will be pleased to hear—allayed some of my concerns during his opening remarks. These amendments are important because they highlight the issue of the attainment gap in their different ways. Across different jurisdictions, while there may be some slight degree of variation in which groups have particular issues around attainment gaps and the extent of those gaps, we know that issues around educational underachievement and attainment gaps are universal in whatever part of the United Kingdom and, indeed, internationally. Three of the areas that seem to be particularly true in all jurisdictions are around children of socioeconomic disadvantage, children of prisoners and SEND children, so these amendments are apposite.
Given that challenge, whenever I was a Minister in Northern Ireland I saw one of my key priorities as tackling educational underachievement, ensuring that we could take whatever steps we could in a strategic manner to address the attainment gap. I established an expert panel to draw up a report on the issue—very much as a template, if you like, for some of the proposals put forward today. That panel was drawn not simply on the basis of ensuring that it had the right mix of a cross-community element and those drawn from educational sectors; it is particularly pertinent to the proposals in front of us today that, whether on a single report or a royal commission, we need to draw from a range of expertise. It was critical that we had people who came from an educational academic background, those who were involved with education from a community background and those who had the direct experience of leadership within schools. It was only with that mix of skills that the best report could be produced. I commend the efforts of that panel in Northern Ireland, which produced a report called A Fair Start under the great leadership of Dr Noel Purdy.
A lot of the conclusions reached in that report will not surprise the Committee. One of the major lessons that we face with any of these reports is that there is not a single solution that then closes the attainment gap. It is about a cocktail of measures, including ensuring that we have the right early intervention. It is also important that, whatever is developed at a strategic level by government, if we try to do it on a top-down basis and impose it on people, it will have a limited success. You have to get buy-in from the grassroots up as well.
Also of particular relevance was one of the conclusions of that report, which touches on Amendment 460: the advantage of small-group tutoring. It recommended an expansion of nurture units in Northern Ireland, and additional finance was able to be put into those. The one caveat I had was that, if this were to be done on a universal basis, an expansion of that nature could be very costly and difficult to achieve in the short term. However, I think that the model put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Storey—which in many ways was to look at a replica of, or something at least drawn from, the national tutoring programme at the time of Covid—is a good example. In Northern Ireland, we had our version of that called Engage, which was able to be set up and was very successful. If that is the type of model we are looking at, the Government would be wise to look at replicating that on a long-term basis.
I will touch on some of the specifics of the other amendments. It is right that, for a couple of major reasons, we focus on attainment issues for children of prisoners. First, on the basic principle, while I appreciate that the previous speaker made reference to Holloway, there is the old saying that the sins of the father should not be inflicted on the children—we know that, with a few exceptions, most prisoners are males, so that is perhaps particularly apposite. Ensuring that children are not punished in a system for something that is no fault of their own is important from an educational point of view.
From a societal point of view, we often talk about investing in society to save money in the long run. An issue that we will face within various families is a cycle of social problems that goes from generation to generation. If, through education being the great liberator, we can ensure that there is positive support for the children of prisoners then that is one important area where we can help to break that kind of cycle.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I rise—briefly, I hope—to urge the Minister to reject all three amendments. They come, I am sure, from the very best of intentions, making sure that disadvantaged children, children who labour under the additional difficulty of having a special educational need and children whose parents are in prison are deserving of our compassion and our support, but the means by which the Minister and the Government are being urged to support those children is a diversion of resource, an addition to bureaucracy and an impediment to progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, requests that we have a national tutoring guarantee. That seems to me to be an entire misdirection of resources. We should be concentrating on making sure that children are actually in school in the first place. When we have a level of persistent absence at the rate that we have at the moment, and when any national tutoring service would be staffed inevitably by people who are already stretched and are hard-pressed members of the teaching profession, it seems to me to be—I hesitate to suggest that such a thing would ever come from the Liberal Democrat Benches—a performative attempt to secure publicity rather than a thoughtful analysis of what is actually going on in our schools. If we want a national tutoring guarantee, perhaps we should make sure that, across the nation, tutors—or, as I prefer to think of them, teachers—are guaranteed the support they deserve in the classroom.
The children of criminals and those in prison deserve our support: the sins of the father and mother should not be visited on the son or daughter—absolutely. But equally deserving of support are the children of veterans, those who work in our emergency services and others in homes where daily stresses and pressures increase the likelihood of anxiety or depression in that household. To single out and devote administrative resource to the children of one vulnerable group rather than others is simply to divert the energy of the Minister’s civil servants from the work that they should be doing. Believe me, it is vital that we improve education in the criminal justice system, but it is the job of the Ministry of Justice to improve education in our prisons. That will make far more difference to ensuring that, when people who are currently incarcerated leave, they can be useful members of our society and supported in their parenting roles.
Most striking of course is the need to improve education for children who have special educational needs, but the term “SEND” has become so stretched and capacious that we have almost lost sight of what we are really talking about. There are children who have high-impact low-instance special educational needs: those living with severe learning difficulties, visual impairment or hearing loss, who need discrete tailored support—as well as children with physical disabilities, who will need significant investment in order to achieve everything of which they are capable. But there is a larger and growing group of children who have behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. They certainly deserve our support but occupy a very different category from those who are living with neurological, physical or other barriers to learning.
I know that civil servants currently working in the department and Ministers are paying attention to that. A royal commission—it is a cliché, but it is true—which takes minutes and lasts years, would not provide the focus required to deal with those children. It would be a diversion once more. Having been in the department and worked with the outstanding civil servants there, I know just how hard-pressed they are and that, almost every day, there are new calls on their time from well-intentioned lobby groups that have compassion in their hearts but will only lower the morale of those seeking to improve our schools.
The one thing that I say to the Minister is that we have actually seen, in living memory, a narrowing of the attainment gap in state schools. It happened as a result of the policies introduced by the coalition Government, which was as a direct result of giving front-line schools greater autonomy, making sure that Ofsted provided appropriate and rigorous scrutiny, with transparent judgments on schools that parents could understand. This was allied to strengthening our curriculum and our accountability measures at the end of key stage 2 and through GCSEs and A-levels. I am afraid that, overall, this legislation puts in peril some of those gains that saw the poorest children catch up with the wealthiest in our schools.
So, as well as urging the Minister to reject these well-intentioned but deeply flawed amendments, I hope she will be able to persuade the Secretary of State, for whom I have the highest regard, to think again about those measures in the Bill that will do damage to the gains that were made and that were supported once upon a time by every party in this House.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I was delighted to put my name to Amendment 490, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, because it took me back to thinking about my experience at school, which admittedly was a while ago. My parents used the work of Baroness Warnock to threaten to sue the Secretary of State for Wales over my right to go into mainstream education. Without that, I would not have had the career that I now have. The system that existed back then took a tiny percentage of disabled children and gave them a great education, but everyone else was left languishing in a special school system that did not even allow children to sit exams. At the school I nearly ended up in, I would have been able to sit three CSEs at most. So there was nothing around looking at the ambition of disabled children.
I had hoped that things would have moved on by now, but the reality is that disabled children in the UK still face a significant educational attainment gap compared to their non-disabled peers. Studies show that they are significantly behind in key exams and assessments and are less likely to achieve higher qualifications or degrees. The Education Policy Institute has research that shows that disabled children are some of the most educationally disadvantaged children in the English state school system. Around four in 10 children are identified as SEND at some point between the ages of five and 16. These children have been shown to have multiple grades lower than their peers. I find myself in a slightly interesting situation: I agree with some of what the noble Lord, Lord Gove, said about making sure that children are not absent, and I am certainly not seeking to expand the definition of “SEND”, but there has to be something in the middle of where we are now and where I came from through my educational experience. To me, it is about getting the right support to the children who need it.
Disability Rights UK has reported on the situation with the gap. There is a huge gap for disabled children, and it is even larger for children with an education, health and care plan. In 2019, children with an EHCP scored grades that were 3.4 places lower than a those of a non-disabled child, and by 2020 that gap had increased to 3.6 places lower. Whatever we are doing, it does not feel like we are able to educate and support disabled children in the best way that we can.
We already know that, when disabled people apply for jobs, they need at least a qualification higher than a non-disabled person. If the job requires a degree, a disabled person needs at least a master’s or a PhD to have a chance of getting it. If we do not get this right, we are not giving disabled people the chance to work, pay taxes or contribute to society.
Like other Members of your Lordships’ Committee, I feel that we need to understand where we are and what is required, whether through a royal commission or however it works out. This amendment fits with amendments I have tabled in other groups that talk about teacher training, because there is more that we need to do to make sure that teachers are in the best position to educate and teach everybody in the class. At the moment, that gap for disabled people is just too big.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will say just a few words, inspired particularly by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
We know that there is an attainment gap for those with disabilities, and we also know that bits of the education system do not help. The biggest one for me—and I remind the Committee yet again that I am president of the British Dyslexia Association—is English and maths, because guess what, the British Dyslexia Association also covers dyscalculia.
About three days ago, I sat down with a child who said that they had a brother with dyscalculia who had been made to sit English 14 times and still had not achieved a pass. What an incredible waste of time, because we have decided that English and maths are gatekeeper exams. People have a better target with English, because they seem to understand it a little better, but maths is a real problem. Getting some degree of flexibility and understanding and looking at the attainment gap and what causes it would be very helpful.
However, I must slightly disappoint my two, shall we say, noble colleagues on this—I do not think that I am allowed to call them noble friends, although I hope that they are friends—by saying that we would have to say, “identified special educational needs”, because we might know somebody who is blind or deaf, or who has impaired movement, which is pretty obvious. We know that, for instance, well over half of the dyslexics in the country are never identified. We do not know the situation for the others—dyspraxia, et cetera—and we are still very bad at identifying them.
Therefore, we could adjust this amendment to say that we should have a look at the attainment results of those who have been identified. That would give us an idea of how the system properly fails, because we know that there is a problem, we just have not addressed it. There is a problem that is running through here. When the Minister replies, I hope that she can start to address this, because we know that there is a problem here. We know that something is going on. If we have that information already, which we should if the problems are identified, we might be able to bring it forward, because addressing the problem itself would help.
Briefly on the other amendments, tutoring, if properly targeted, will help these people, especially if the tutors are trained to support. Also, for those in prison— I have worked in the prison sector, not extensively, but I have worked there—the fact that a child is disadvantaged or comes from an environment where everybody is expected to fail will probably work into the other two groups. As a dyslexic, I still say that the only time I have ever sat in a group of adults whose educational attainment was below mine was with a group of prisoners, and I am pretty badly dyslexic. How we address this problem, this idea and this culture is very important.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some idea of the general thinking of the Government. It is very important—if we are starting to address these deep-seated problems, which we have, in many cases, given lip service to in the past—to get support for which you do not have to fight and be a tiger parent to obtain. That is where we are coming from now.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that we do, of course, need to pay careful attention to the barriers that prevent children from low-income backgrounds, young carers and others from attaining higher grades and better results in school. Ensuring that every child has a fair and equal chance is paramount, and it is entirely right that we should look for ways to mitigate these barriers wherever they arise. That may well be achieved in different ways —for some children, through home schooling, and for others, through specialist academies, as we have already argued on other clauses of the Bill.
It is also important that we look beyond structure and address the socioeconomic reasons that often lie behind underperformance. Disadvantage, low prior attainment and the additional burdens carried by some young people all need to be recognised. We hope the Minister will use this opportunity to set out clearly how the Government are working to level the playing field, ensuring that no group of pupils, regardless of background, is either favoured or disadvantaged and that even well-intentioned measures do not lead to any kind of positive discrimination. The principles of fairness and opportunity for all must remain central.
For that reason, while we would have stopped short of saying that a statutory national tutoring guarantee is the best or only approach, we welcome the spirit of Amendment 460, and we look forward to hearing how the Government intend to address the issues it highlights.
On Amendment 482, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for raising this important issue. The children of parents who are in in prison are too often a hidden group, and yet they face particular challenges that can significantly affect their educational attainment and life chances.
We have had the opportunity to research the work that has been done by the charity Children Heard and Seen. That research suggests that schools were aware of just 30,000 children with a parent in prison, whereas the Ministry of Justice’s data estimates that the number of children with a parent in prison in England and Wales is more like 192,000.
This amendment rightly shines a light on these children’s needs and on our responsibility to ensure that they are not overlooked. We would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to set out what steps the Government are taking to address the barriers faced specifically by these children and whether they recognise them as a group that requires dedicated support and special help, in addition to helping schools identify those affected children who would indeed benefit from additional or tailored interventions in their place of learning. It is only by identifying and acknowledging such groups, not just children with parents in prison, that we can make sure that no child is left behind, whatever the circumstances of their family life.
Finally, we support the principle that lies behind Amendment 490. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for their tireless work in highlighting these challenges that are faced by children with special educational needs and disabilities. Their determination to improve outcomes for this group makes a huge difference, and we hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling across your Lordships’ Committee on this matter.
That said, we have reservations as to whether a royal commission is the best medium to close the attainment gap for people with special education needs and disabilities. Commissions can be lengthy and expensive, and sometimes produce recommendations that are overtaken by events before the findings themselves can be implemented.
Our goal is to ensure that we do everything we can to enable children with special educational needs to leave school with the skills, independence and confidence that will allow them to flourish and seize every opportunity available to them in the outside world. That requires schools and educational delivery to be formulated in ways that are genuinely tailored to children’s needs, not necessarily to meet a single uniform benchmark. For that reason, although we absolutely support the intent, allow me to suggest that another approach may be from the bottom up, focused on practice and provision on the ground and in the corridors, rather than launching a royal commission.
None the less, the underlying issue is of the greatest importance, and we hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out how the Government are addressing the attainment gap which has been made clear by noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, between those with special educational needs and those without, and to set out what more can be done to make sure that every child is given the best chance to succeed.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed on this important group of amendments. First of all, it is not going to be possible to give the list that everyone has specifically asked for, but I want to start by making it absolutely clear that raising attainment for all children with inclusivity in mind and recognising the gaps wherever they occur is absolutely a top priority for the Government. This is such a complex area of work, as has been eloquently highlighted by the contributions that we have had on the three amendments.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, he reminded us of the place we were in during those very dark days of Covid, and of the response to try to recognise that so many vulnerable young people in particular were being left behind as a result of their absence from the school system. I fully appreciate his concern and the concerns expressed by others, and particularly his interest in this and his understanding from his background of how this works locally. But I emphasise that it was a programme that was time limited for obvious reasons and has served its place.
I am very conscious of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about how we target the resource we have. One of the best resources we have is our schools and those involved in the system, and I believe it is much better to go to those schools and let them identify the best way forward. It could be that a tutoring programme has worked brilliantly for them specifically, but we know that this is not the case all over. We should have confidence in those schools to determine the best way that they can reach young people who really need that additional support.
As I say, schools can choose to continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, for example, and to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this amendment. Also, the Department for Education has published evaluations of the National Tutoring Programme; therefore we do not believe that it would be good value to have further reporting on it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir, for his comments. I am very interested in the work that he highlighted. If he could send me a link to the report that he mentioned, I would be grateful. It is of course critical that we listen to experience from our devolved regions and make sure we learn from all the experience that we have. As has been said, gathering information from across so many comments is one part of the issue. How we analyse that information and make it worthwhile and useful is another serious part.
My response to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is that we do not believe that it is necessary to set out the complete requirements and framework in statute. We have confidence in schools to take this forward.
Moving on to Amendment 482, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for stepping in and raising this whole important area. I of course recognise the concerns that have been expressed across the House. I am very grateful to her for raising such an important issue. Having a parent in prison can have a lasting detrimental effect on children’s life chances, including increasing their risk of low educational attainment, as we have heard. I appreciate that a supportive school environment can help to act as a buffer against these risks, and teachers can help children to navigate a challenging time and aspire towards further education.
The Government have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. This is not a simple or straightforward task. It is extremely difficult. We have to be aware of the gaps in our knowledge and perhaps try to understand why we have some of those gaps. We are considering how to support this cohort as part of the Government’s opportunity mission. Obviously, the theme running through all this is about making sure that educational attainment is at the centre, but there are many other factors that we need to bring in relating to the well-being of children and young people, and how that can have an impact.
While the request is welcome, it would risk duplicating efforts that are already being made to identify this cohort sensitively, ensuring that they are offered appropriate support. As the noble Lord, Lord Gove, said, the Ministry of Justice is stepping up in this space. The Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that all children affected by parental imprisonment, including those not of compulsory school age, are recognised and receive the support they need to achieve and thrive alongside their peers.
I say that this is sensitive because we cannot assume that all children whose parents are in prison have the same experience. Indeed, the difference in experience between siblings can be stark. It is a complex area. Some children who have a parent in custody might never have lived with that parent. We must be careful not to make assumptions about their experience. Our approach is looking at all children, recognising that their specific experiences can be very different indeed. Sensitivity is paramount in this area.
I turn to Amendment 490, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and thank him again for the way in which he expresses his concern around these issues. I extend those sentiments to everyone who has contributed to this area.
Again, I have to agree that establishing a royal commission on this subject may not be the way forward. As a Government, we have recognised that the whole area around special educational needs needs serious attention. Just to pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, recognising the complexity of all this is why we are looking at that review. I know that we will go on in the next group of amendments after the dinner break to look into some of these issues in more detail, so I do not want to cover too much of the ground that will be raised then.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the Minister for her detailed reply and all Members for their contributions. I was particularly taken by the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, who said that no child should be left behind—he is absolutely right. It was a very measured response to the amendments.
It was good to receive a contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Gove. As a coalition partner, he did work on education. I was a bit surprised that he thought the idea of a tutoring programme was a Lib Dem publicity stunt. During his time as Secretary of State for Education, he focused on the attainment gap, particularly for those with special educational needs, but that dial hardly shifted—for all the work he did in that cataclysmic period, the attainment gap hardly shifted.
The noble Lord asked how poorer pupils could catch up with wealthier pupils. Sadly, if a wealthier pupil is behind—guess what?—someone might hire a tutor to help them catch up. That is what the national tutoring guarantee scheme would have done. Despite some of the comments, I still believe that it is an area that we need closely to look at—not for all children and not for ever, but as a catch-up programme for young people and children from disadvantaged backgrounds. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Addington
“Establishment of a national body for SEND(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a national body for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in relation to children.(2) The functions of the national body for SEND will include, but not be limited to—(a) national coordination of SEND provision for children,(b) supporting the delivery of SEND support for children with very high needs, and(c) advising on funding needed by local authorities for SEND provision for children.(3) Any mechanism used by the national body for SEND in advising on funding under subsection (2)(c) should be based on current need and may disregard historic spend.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to establish a national body for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in relation to children.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for that compliment. We go back to special educational needs here, with a series of amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. My amendment is the most general of them, on a general duty to have a look at special educational needs. Some of the specifics in the other amendments probably should be included in that general duty.
On teacher training, unless you have teachers who are increasingly better equipped to spot conditions and deal with them in the classroom, you are always going to fail because you will have late diagnosis—or no diagnosis for many conditions—or the wrong practice. I am trying to convince people here that getting extra help for special educational needs may be a bad thing if that help is from the system by which you have already failed. If you do not know what is required and are being told “You’ve already failed to do this”—English would be a classic one—you will just not pass. My experience with dyslexia, which I have mentioned once today, is of being given an extra 15 spelling tests, one every week. You fail them all; you carry on doing it, but you just will not pass.
This is because having special educational needs usually means that you process information differently. There can be extreme cases. I have already referred to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—nobody expects somebody who is blind to copy off a blackboard. You would describe what it is. You have got to have a different system of working and different structures that go with it.
I could expand upon this for ages, but the hour is late and other noble Lords with more detailed amendments are waiting to speak. I beg leave to move my amendment and look forward to the rest of this debate.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I congratulate him on all the work that he continues to do in this area. I thank my friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for cosigning my Amendments 491 and 498. I will take them in reverse order, with Amendment 498 first.
Quite simply, it addresses the issue we discussed in the previous group: current SEND provision is not working. It is not working for the SENCOs, who try their utmost; it is not working for the teachers, who strain every sinew to educate all in their classrooms; it is not working for the parents; and, most importantly, it is not working for children with special educational needs or a disability. Yet it can, if we start from the provision of inclusive by design and set out an approach where the funding is identified and ascribed to that SEND provision. The department should and must reach out beyond its budgetary constraints, because the reality is that this is far more than an issue of education. For example, there is a clear causal relationship between the education attainment gap and the subsequent employment attainment gap for those with disabilities.
Other departments must also pull their weight in addressing this issue of special educational needs and disability provision. This is why in Amendment 491 I suggest a practical, reasonable and achievable measure to make a difference across government: to introduce a mentorship scheme for those young people with special educational needs or disabilities.
Before the question arises of distracting departmental officials from their incredibly important work, or of putting more pressure on already overstretched resources, I suggest to the Minister that this would be an ideal situation for an effective, practical and achievable public-private partnership. Imagine how local, regional, national and international businesses could get involved to help support and be part of the delivery of such a mentorship scheme for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Imagine the empowerment for those young people in hearing from adults in successful careers, professions, jobs, activities and third-sector work, across the piece, who have lived experience of being a disabled person and have come through, succeeded and achieved. That is not just mentorship; that is leadership and empowerment, enabling all those young people.
The scheme could be brought in with minimal, if any, disruption or resource pressures put on the department. The difference it would make for those children with special educational needs and disabilities could be profound, impacting their educational experience, setting them up for life and enabling them not only to positively be part of closing that education attainment gap but subsequently closing the employment attainment gap. Any Government should have this as one of their core provisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 491 and 498, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to which I have attached my name, and Amendments 502U and 502V in my name.
With regard to Amendment 491, we have already spoken about how disabled children are being left behind. I worry that we are wrapping some disabled children in cotton wool. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked in an earlier group about resilience. We have to do more to ensure that our disabled children in schools can build resilience. This is one way in which they can do that.
This amendment is not about physical activity, but disabled children are routinely excluded from physical activity in schools and physical activity is one way that they can build this resilience. There are myriad excuses—“Well, they are sent to the library”—which are often wrapped up in health and safety. It sometimes feels that we are writing off disabled children before they have been given a chance. Often their world is smaller: there is less opportunity and a lack of ambition that is placed upon them.
This is something that I would like all children to be offered. It is probably dependent on what His Majesty’s Government are thinking of on enrichment around the school day. I declare an interest here as chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, and we are talking to the Government about what this enrichment would look like. I believe that providing mentoring will help. It is about not just grades but building skills for life.
Amendment 498 simply seeks a view of SEND provision and how it is funded. Amendment 502U links to amendments that I have in other groups, but this one sits better in this group. I do not think that we have got right the support that disabled children are getting in school, and we must think about what more we can do.
The organisation Contact a Family and the Independent Provider of Special Education Advice surveyed 2,000 families with children and young people who have SEND but do not have an EHCP to see how the process was working. The survey concluded that there was not enough SEND support in schools, which leads many families to seek an EHCP to secure support for their child’s needs. This does not feel like the right way that the system should be supporting disabled children. It leads to school avoidance, absenteeism, pupils being put on part-time timetables and exclusion, and therefore an ever decreasing circle of support and ambition. This amendment seeks to ensure better support.
I am keen that access to the curriculum for disabled children is not reliant on a single member of staff. I do not, in this group of amendments, seek to debate the role of TAs. It is about how we get the right support beyond that so that we do not limit children’s opportunities. I know that there will probably be some discussion of whether, under this amendment, their role should sit under the supervision of a qualified teacher.
Finally, on Amendment 502V, we need to know how much we spend on SEND provision. In a previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton—admittedly not talking about this—said how important it was to identify how every penny is spent in schools. We must have a better understanding of how SEND money is spent. I do not mean to place a lot of additional work on schools, but we need to know that we are getting value for money and, ultimately, that we have the right provision for disabled children to thrive.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 502Q, 502R, 502S, 502T and 502W in my name. Amendment 502R is supported strongly by my noble friend Lady Bull, who has expressed sincere regrets at not being able to be with us tonight because of a long-standing engagement.
These amendments seek to achieve co-ordination between criminal justice services and schools in relation to children with special educational needs. The amendments are the product of a review carried out by the Michael Sieff Foundation, chaired by Professor Cheryl Thomas KC of University College London, of which the membership included Sir Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor. And I had a part in it too.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this group of amendments is important because I think we have a crisis in SEND provision. I am particularly attracted to Amendment 498, on the SEND provision review, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Also, on Amendment 502V in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on the need for more transparency and reporting on SEND funding in state-funded schools, that seems a key and obvious demand, because the SEND issue is having a huge financial impact on schools and education in general.
But for me, as well as that, the issue of SEND provision is important because it potentially shapes how young people see themselves, and in some instances they are being encouraged to develop a habit of dependence and pathologising their own everyday experiences. One in five children in the UK are now identified as having SEND needs, and the number of education, health and care plans for those with the most severe needs has increased by 83% from 2015-16 to 2023-24. The number of 11 to 15 year-olds receiving disability living allowance for which the main condition determining eligibility is a learning disability such as ADHD increased by 70% between 2018 and 2024. So something peculiar seems to be going on and, as part of explaining what is happening here, we need to acknowledge that there is a widening social definition of mental health and neurodiversity—an issue I will raise briefly again in the next group.
Informally, if you go into any school and talk to pupils of all ages, as I do—obviously, as teachers do and those who are familiar with young people—young people regularly describe themselves these days through the prism of a range of mental health acronyms or their particular divergence from the neurotypical norm. They use the language of medical textbooks and psychiatry with ease. Meanwhile, teachers too think in terms of these labels—I am sure that we are all watching “Educating Yorkshire” on Channel 4; it is great viewing—and, almost inevitably, if there is a behavioural issue, staff suggest testing the pupil for ADHD as both an explanation and a solution. So investigating what is going on here is essential, and that is why I am interested in the review.
In that context, I hope that the tablers of the amendment and the Minister get the opportunity to read—if they have not read it already—a new Policy Exchange report entitled Out of Control: Addressing the Rise in Psychiatric and Neurodevelopmental Disorders amongst Children and Young People. I do not always agree with Policy Exchange, but I found this report fascinating. One issue it identifies is a bug in the system of support. It argues that it is
“designed to meet the needs of a small number of specialised cases, rather than the sizeable”
numbers that it is now expected to support. Even more troublingly, it says:
“These systems of support can also incentivise diagnosis-seeking behaviour … which has squeezed support for those with the most severe needs”.
Those kinds of issues were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, in an earlier group.
So, to return to spending, spending on EHCPs for those with SEND has ballooned, but funding per head has fallen by nearly a third since 2015-16. So I hope that the tablers of the amendments and the Minister will consider the risks of overdiagnosis in relation to SEND but also how current support may inadvertently encourage an escalation in perceived need, rather than target the support where it is absolutely needed the most, as has been vividly described by some of the speakers on this group.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in contrast to the previous speaker, I would say the following. I do not know how many noble Lords attended the rally held in Parliament Square yesterday by parents and children about the SEND review, on getting it right, or how many noble Lords attended the drop-in held in our committee room upstairs, which was full of joy and optimism, with lots of Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum—including our new Schools Minister, Georgia Gould—who called in to listen to parents and children. It gives me hope and optimism that, if those listening exercises are taking place as this review goes on, we will end up with something that is worth having and that has involved listening to the people who are at the sharp end of this.
I am actually encouraged by the fact that our new Minister in the Commons has been the leader of a council, has been the Local Government Minister and has hands-on experience of what it is like dealing with the SEND system. I say to my noble friend the Minister that I am encouraged that the Government are listening to parents and children with that direct experience, and that gives me hope that this review is going to produce the right outcome.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, no one stands to speak here or anywhere else about SEND without preparing for a social media barrage from one direction or another. But unless we can discuss the underlying problems and tensions openly and honestly, there can be little hope of getting to a better place than we are in at the moment.
From the parents’ point of view, some are happy, but others say that theoretical entitlements do not translate into the support they believe their child needs. From the schools’ perspective, they are loaded with enormous expectations and have inadequate resources to meet them. From the funders’ perspective, eye-watering amounts of money are already being spent on SEND.
If you do the sums, the average household in England already contributes £450 a year just for the cost of the high needs funding block, on top of the other money it contributes for education. Yet local authorities, and behind them the taxpayer, must meet almost unlimited demand from this large but finite resource, with few levers to direct that resource to the activities where it will make the most difference.
As my noble friend Lord Gove said in a previous group, the SEND category has expanded and diversified to an extraordinary degree in recent years. Among other things, I think we are mixing up the children who have conditions that will always affect their lives with those who really only need some catch-up teaching or some extra encouragement, and who should be able to lead unimpaired adult lives. They are really quite different things.
Clearly, this situation cannot go on, and that explains the raft of amendments relating to SEND proposed for insertion after Clause 62, as the Bill does not contain any direct proposals for SEND. In aggregate, what I take from these proposed amendments is a hope that if only we can find a few more ways to extend and push harder, everything will be better.
There are certainly ideas that deserve attention within these amendments. We do need a national body for SEND, but what we need is the SEND equivalent of NICE: a body that collates and, where necessary, commissions evidence of the effectiveness of and value for money of SEND interventions, and that determines which treatments can be paid for out of the public purse and which cannot be justified. Someone needs to set and hold that line.
We need better join-up between schools and youth justice services. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has an alternative educational plan for children involved with youth justice that parallels my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment discussed in a previous group. We have already pushed identification and labelling to the point where they may be doing more harm than good to some children at the margins. Even though a label may feel reassuring, it can also do real harm if it lowers the child’s own expectations of what they can achieve, or their teacher’s expectations of them.
Neurodivergence is a term that has no clinical definition. In essence, it invites people who do not meet clinical criteria and thresholds to self-identify into services and funding streams intended for those who do meet those criteria. The definitions that float around for neurodivergence often sound like most young people’s adolescent experience. I suspect there are few of us who did not feel awkward, socially inept, and often just out of things in that period of life.
Good schools understand the adolescent experience and work to make a culture and framework in which teenagers have the structure and encouragement they need for most to succeed and emerge into adulthood without ever needing to be labelled as abnormal, and reserving specialist support for those who really need it.
The Government must take great care not to create incentives to segregate children within schools into SEND and non-SEND categories. With very few exceptions, children with rare physical needs need to learn the same things, and cognitive science shows us that they learn in the same way, though some may need the learning broken down into smaller steps with more repetition and reinforcement along the way. Most children with SEND will do the vast majority of their learning in their mainstream classrooms. Concentrating on getting that core classroom experience right for all children, with a strong, coherent, well-sequenced curriculum taught effectively, must come first, because doing this well minimises the number of children who come adrift, which is never a pleasant experience for the child, and it enables the expert SEND practitioners to concentrate on those who will always need their help. If, for example, we expect SEND funding to be spent on things that are specific to children with SEND, those mainstream classrooms will be neglected and starved of resource.
I look forward to the Government bringing forward their reform proposals for SEND and to proposing amendments in this vein in due course.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support Amendment 502W from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We need a much better standard and a much better quantity of data in this area. We need to start with some clear understanding and definitions of the terms we are using. There seems to have been a lot of drift and expansion in definitions, and we need to get back to something that is clear, commonly defined and commonly understood.
Then we really need to understand what works for these children. We need to track what we are doing and when and why it works. This is a really complex area, so we will not get the answer out of small studies and small amounts of data. We need to track every child who has been fingered as SEND, and then we will get enough data to start seeing some patterns. Perhaps we can add other categories, such as young carers and those who are in care, where there are known difficulties with their education that are not associated with SEND but which may well share some common characteristics. If we get better at data, we will really start to understand how to do better by the children and work the cost down at the same time, and that is important.
I am with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in the spirit of some of the other things that he is doing but I hope that, if this amendment ever came to be enacted, there would be alongside it a recognition of the interests of the other children in class.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we have heard some thoughtful speeches on the issues facing pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in general and neurodivergence in particular. There is no doubt that this is a pressing issue for parents, pupils, staff and of course local authorities, whose budgets are being severely impacted by the costs associated with education, health and care plans, or EHCPs. As all noble Lords are aware, the Government have committed to publishing a new White Paper on SEND and have been working with an expert group ably led by Tom Rees, the CEO of Ormiston Academies Trust. That is an incredibly important task, and we on these Benches hope very much that the Government can show a positive way forward that addresses some of the problems that beset the current system. I think the plans for that report mean that Amendment 498 is not needed.
I understand the criticism of the Children and Families Act 2014, which introduced the current system. However, all who were involved with that legislation, including some noble Lords who have been in the House today, had the best interests of children with special educational needs and disabilities at the forefront of their minds. Whatever the Government propose, I hope that they will take the time to pilot it and avoid the problems of implementation and the unintended consequences that the current approach has found.
I hope also that we can move away from blanket terms such as “SEND” or “neurodivergent”, as they cover such an incredibly wide spectrum. With that in mind, I am cautious about some of the amendments in this group, including Amendment 491 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would include mentors for all children with SEND, and the implications of Amendment 502S.
Given my earlier amendments on exclusions, it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that I do not agree with subsection (2) in his Amendment 502Q, which would make a presumption against permanent exclusion or fixed-term exclusion, for the reasons that I set out earlier. Similarly, I disagree with Amendment 502T in the noble Lord’s name, which would put a duty on schools to support reintegration for pupils who had been in custody without any balancing consideration about the impact on the other pupils in the classroom.
Again, I am not convinced that Amendment 502R, in the name of the noble Lord Carlile, or Amendment 502U, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are needed. There is already extensive content in the early years and core initial teacher training curricula following updates undertaken by the previous Government in relation to these issues. When I talk to experts on inclusive teaching, they are clear that for pupils who are able to attend mainstream school, the same approaches of very high-quality teaching apply to them too. I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lady Spielman when she says that the core way that we all learn is much bigger than many of us appreciate.
The SEND review of 2022 put it very clearly that:
“High-quality teaching, differentiated for individual pupils, is the first step in responding to children who have or may have SEN”.
I think there is a big gap in our understanding of the impact of different interventions. Some commentators have called for the creation of something a bit like NICE, which we have for pharmaceuticals, for SEND interventions. I have been sent examples of the kinds of requirements that are put on schools for children with education, health and care plans. Those I saw ranged between nine and 44 separate requirements, many of them not based on any academic evidence of their effectiveness, but all of them creating a great workload for schools. That is something that I hope the Government are going to grip in this review and address.
I have a lot of sympathy for Amendment 502V, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as I spent a lot of time trying to understand the flows of funding for EHCPs, as have many much more august organisations such as the IFS and the National Audit Office. It remains very difficult to get clarity on how the system works from a financial point of view. Given the sums of money involved, it surely would make sense to be able to do this.
Amendment 502W in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, builds on Amendment 502V and aims for cross-sector reporting. I hope that with the new single unique identifier some of that will become much more possible. It will certainly reveal some valuable data. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these amendments.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, a common theme of the debate this evening has been that noble Lords from across this House have recognised the pressures facing our special educational needs and disabilities system. It is a system that many families find frustrating to navigate, where too often the outcomes for children fall short of what they deserve, and where, as we have heard from noble Lords—I think including the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—a considerable amount of money is being spent with insufficient evidence of effective outcomes. It is certainly a system which has lost the trust of parents. For all those reasons, I can assure the House that the Government remain absolutely committed to reforming the SEND system. Our ambition is clear. We want all children to receive the support they need to succeed in their education and to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.
The amendments in this group raise important questions about the support available to children and young people with SEND. First, Amendment 498, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, concerns a review of SEND provision in England. Although I thank the noble Lord for both his amendment and his obvious commitment and concern to improve the situation, we do not need another review at this point. I think we know, and in fact we have heard in this debate this evening, many of the failings of the SEND system, and there have been many reviews by the previous Government, by Parliament and by the National Audit Office. The Government inherited a system with significant failings, and we know that too many children and young people with SEND are not getting the support that they need. That is why we are determined to take action, and we are committed to bringing about a more inclusive education system.
This is a difficult and complex task. We are working with parents, teachers and experts that we have appointed. We are fortunate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, to have the leadership of practitioners such as Tom Rees in this job, and, of course, particularly to be able to listen to those with lived experience to make sure that we get it right.
I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for her recognition of both the day of action and what that identified, and the attendance and the listening approach of my new ministerial colleague, Georgia Gould—absolutely at the beginning of her time in the role—who has been making sure that she is listening to the people who were most impacted as she takes forward the work that we are doing in this area. The details of our intended approach to SEND reform will be set out later this autumn.
Amendment 461, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. Once again, this is an important issue. As others have said, there is a range of ways in which we might want to bring national consistency into the approach being taken. The NICE idea is a nice idea. However, the important point being made there is the need to ensure evidence-based practice in what is proposed. I can assure noble Lords that that will be and is a very important element of the approach that the Government are considering. I do not believe another body would necessarily contribute to that at the moment. Our focus is on making the system less bureaucratic in getting support to children and young people who need it quickly and efficiently.
Amendments 502R and 502U were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, respectively. I appreciate them raising important issues around the quality and training of our staff, particularly mandatory training in SEND for school teaching staff and inclusive education standards for teachers. Inclusion lies at the heart of our work in the department, and our approach is vital in meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND.
All teachers are, to an extent, teachers of special educational needs and disabilities, and we need to approach their training in that spirit. In specific cases, teachers in special schools, for example, are already required to have qualified teacher status, unless they are working under an exemption. In compliance with the teachers’ standards, all teachers with QTS must be able to adapt their teaching to understand the needs of all pupils, including those with SEND. In October 2024, the Government also introduced the national professional qualification for SENCOs, a mandatory qualification supporting participants to develop the essential knowledge and skills needed to set the strategic direction on SEN policy.
From this month, initial teacher training will include significantly more content on supporting pupils with SEND and adaptive teaching. As others have said, all teachers need to know how to adapt their teaching for the range of students in their classes and to recognise special educational needs and disabilities in those classes. This is being delivered through the mandatory initial teacher training and early career framework. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed to provide more training for teachers on SEND, the details of which are currently being worked through.
Amendment 491, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, concerns the establishment of a school mentorship scheme for children with SEND. The SEND code of practice is clear that all children and young people with SEND should be prepared for adulthood, and that schools and colleges should use a wide range of imaginative approaches, such as taster opportunities, work experience, mentoring, exploring entrepreneurial options, role models and inspiring speakers. In addition, schools and colleges are expected to provide careers guidance to all children and young people, including at least one meaningful interaction with employers per pupil per year.
We are also funding employer engagement activities, and we will consider the feedback and experiences of previous mentoring activity. This includes the mentoring pilot for apprentices with learning difficulties and disabilities, which was delivered in 2024 and explored what additional support young people with additional needs may require from mentors.
Amendment 502V, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns transparency and the reporting of SEND funding in state-funded schools. As I said, one of the things we are clear about, aside from the question of additional transparency measures, is that the considerable amount of money currently being spent on the provision of SEND education is not delivering the outcomes for children that we would all want it to deliver. That was the clear message of the National Audit Office report. Nevertheless, I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making about how we can achieve more transparency in schools on how funding is allocated to SEND and delivered.
Ofsted’s inspection of schools of course covers how schools support pupils with SEND, but it is important that schools have autonomy over how they spend their core funding allocations, and we trust school leaders to make decisions that best serve their pupils. We would be concerned if asking schools to produce detailed annual reports of the kind proposed placed a burden on them. For example, asking teachers to work out precisely how much time they spent supporting children with SEND could result in increased paperwork and less time spent teaching. In this area, the call for transparency and clarity about the value for money and effectiveness and the outcomes that we are receiving from the money spent is very legitimate, but we need to be careful that we do not set up structures that actually increase burdens without increasing either real transparency or the ability to drive the most effective practice.
I turn to Amendments 502Q, 502S, 502T and 502W, all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They are aimed at preventing children and young people with SEND from unnecessarily entering the justice system. I thank him for raising this issue and for the important work that he has done on this. I noted his point about the Michael Seiff report. I shall certainly make sure, if it has not already happened, that it is brought to the attention of those people in the department working hard on this area.
In relation to Amendment 502Q, the Government recognise the importance of improving safeguarding and co-ordination regarding exclusions. However, the changes that the amendment would make to the statutory school exclusion review process may also cause unintended burdens, particularly on youth justice practitioners. In all cases, as we talked about in the earlier group, when thinking about exclusion, school leaders should consider early intervention to address misbehaviour before excluding. Any decision to exclude must also be lawful, reasonable and fair, including when there is police involvement or parallel criminal proceedings against a pupil.
Amendments 502S and 502T propose duties on schools to work with youth courts to provide assessments of SEND and support reintegration and rehabilitation for children post custody. We support the spirit of both amendments but believe that the existing statutory framework already provides mechanisms to deliver those outcomes. Local authorities have a statutory duty to establish a multi-agency youth offending team, with members from police, social services, probation, health and education. They are equipped to work with schools and other relevant partners to compile assessments and reports for youth courts, ensuring that children’s diverse needs are appropriately identified and responded to. In addition, youth offending teams also play a central role in supporting reintegration post custody. Their work is designed to provide continuity and consistency across services, and they are well placed to draw in education partners, including schools, where needed. Placing a direct duty on schools would therefore risk duplicating or confusing existing multi-agency working.
Amendment 502W proposes a cross-sector data management system. I welcome the intention to strengthen co-ordination across services and ensure that no child is left unseen or overlooked. However, we already have the means to understand the interplay between exclusions, social care involvement and special educational needs through nationally collected official statistics. These datasets provide a valuable foundation for joined-up working. On a unique reference number, I can reassure the Committee that this Bill already makes provision for a consistent identifier. We had important discussions about that earlier in this Committee. We have initiated a series of test and learn pilots to explore how best to expand its use across safeguarding and welfare datasets. These pilots will inform a careful and incremental approach to implementation.
The amendments in this group understandably identify the need for the considerable amount of work currently going on within the department—as I said at the beginning, alongside parents and other experts—in ensuring that we can improve our SEND system. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, in the certainty that noble Lords’ contributions will be adding to this really important work and helping us to deliver the system that our children deserve.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am reassured by the amount of attention paid to this subject, and that we are getting through and into the Government’s head. We do not know yet whether the results we have will be delivered. Just to sum up some of the arguments, the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, said that there are problems but there is overidentification or something, if I may paraphrase her. The fact of the matter is that we know that, for many of these hidden needs, these diverse educational problems—call them what you like—we do not identify most of them, and this means that you have somebody in an environment where the learning process is not one that they enjoy. It might be something such as delivering and receiving information, which is usually where the basic blocks are, but there are identified ways to deal with that now, most of which are quite cheap.
There is technology—I declare my interest as chairman of Microlink plc. Most of the technology you have is not specialist any more: a lot of it is on every computer already; it is about structuring how you get at it. It is also about identifying the structure and way in which you learn and making it acceptable in a mainstream classroom to be using it. Headphones are not regarded as a good thing in most classrooms, until you realise that they might be the way you are taking in information. Attitudes to technology will colour this. There is this great thing about no smartphones in school, but there is a wonderful platform to hold assistive technology going through them. Some suggest that these computers, screens and structures are bad things—no, they are not, if used correctly. The noble Earl shakes his head; they are not. We are going through this thing about how we use them, and how we go forward is the important bit here.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about the criminal justice system and special educational needs. He is right to draw attention to it, for this very simple reason: if you want to find what happens to somebody who does not address these needs, go into any prison and talk to them—any prison, for any of the groups. You will find a huge overrepresentation. Autism is greatly overrepresented in there: people who are manipulated or who react badly, with violence. There are so many complications here, but most of the solutions are comparatively simple, flexible, and made more easily available now than they were. I hope that, when we get this review, the Government will accept that they will probably save a great deal of money if they get this right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was quite right about one thing: when we implemented the last system—and I was on that Bill—I think I managed to convince the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to save one tree in a burning forest. We managed to get a concession on dyslexic youngsters taking apprenticeships, where they did not have to do the exam in that way going forward. That was all, though. We have the rest of it coming through. It is very easy to make mistakes by making assumptions.
Yet again, I hope that the Minister takes back to her department the fact that we are dealing with a problem, which we have identified but are struggling to deal with because the structures are just wrong. Considerations outside special educational needs will bear an incredible weight. I refer back to fact that if you have to pass English and maths to get on to any course, and you are dyslexic, dyscalculic or dyspraxic, so you cannot write quickly, you have a problem. That is the sort of balance I will be looking for from this. It is not just about help; it is about structure. Having said all that, the hour is late, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Duty of school governing bodies regarding mental health provision(1) Subject to subsection (3), the governing body of a maintained or academy school in England has a duty to make arrangements for provision in the school of a dedicated education mental health practitioner.(2) In subsection (1) “education mental health practitioner” means a person with a graduate-level or postgraduate-level qualification of that name earned through a course commissioned by NHS England.(3) Where a school has 100 or fewer pupils, the duty under subsection (1) may be satisfied through collaborative provision between several schools.(4) The Secretary of State must provide, or make arrangements for the provision of, appropriate financial and other support to school governing bodies for the purposes of facilitating the fulfilling of the duty in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the governing body of a maintained or academy school in England to make arrangements for provision in the school of a dedicated education mental health practitioner.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 462 is in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for adding their names.
This is a very important group. It is about the mental health and well-being of children, something that is, or indeed should be, central to the Bill. It is the name on the tin. My amendment would ensure a dedicated mental health practitioner in all schools qualified to a level—and this is the critical point—that they can deal safely with the problems that are more complex than those currently dealt with by early-intervention CBT—cognitive behavioural therapy—support, which is currently delivered by existing mental health support teams.
To be clear, I welcome and applaud the Government’s commitment in the spending review to expanding mental health support teams to all schools and colleges in England. These teams work with children, parents and wider school staff to promote good mental health and, funded through the health system, provide effective prevention and early-intervention support for children with a range of mild to moderate mental health needs, including things such as low mood and anxiety. They are doing important work.
These teams are staffed by education mental health practitioners. The terminology can be a bit confusing here, but it is a relatively new role within the children and young people’s mental health workforce system. As these mental health support teams expand, these practitioners in training are recruited for a work-based placement, while they complete a diploma or postgraduate qualification over a period of one academic year. During this time, practitioners are trained to deliver low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy to children or, in some cases, to parents, to allow them to directly support their children.
While this approach has been effective for children with lower-level needs, CBT is not appropriate for all. Evidence has shown that some groups of children are less likely to benefit from these interventions; this includes those with special educational needs, younger children, and children experiencing moderate to more complex mental health needs.
The problem is—and this is specifically what my amendment is designed to address—that these children with more complex needs still do not meet the very high threshold for child and adolescent mental health services, because their needs are deemed to be not severe enough. In short, they are currently falling through a gap in support, and it is often referred to as the “missing middle”.
In the last 12 months, CAMHS has closed 28% of referrals without offering any support. This results in mental health support teams in schools often being asked to hold cases that they are not trained to work with safely, leaving children at risk. These children include those who are at risk of or have indeed self-harmed, those who have experienced trauma, bereavement or loss, and those who have thoughts of suicide. These things are real; these children are not making those things up. These children are often clearly visible to the professionals within schools and the health service through repeat presentation at health services. Often, they are struggling, not attending school or unable to engage with learning.
It is worth noting that respected voluntary sector providers, such as Barnardo’s and Place2Be, have recommended that, as part of the Government’s rollout of mental health support teams,
“the model is expanded to include provision of funded … school-based counselling”.
They say it would fill this missing middle
“to ensure that all children in mental distress can access timely support”.
A dedicated mental health professional qualified at the right level, such as a school-based counsellor, would normally hold a degree in counselling or psychotherapy. That would improve outcomes for children whose needs are not currently being met and—this is critical—should help to reduce pressure on CAMHS in a cost-effective way. These professionals are trained to deliver a range of different therapeutic skills and approaches that allow them to understand the unique needs of each child. One size does not fit all; I am sure we can all agree on that.
Evidence from other UK nations demonstrates how embedding school counsellors can indeed reduce pressure on CAMHS. In Wales, where school counselling services are statutorily funded, only 1.7% of those accessing counselling need to be referred on to specialist CAMHS. Existing mental health support team staff and school-based counsellors have different routes of training, different qualifications and different skill sets. They each fill a different mental health need and working together could offer more support to more children than is currently the case.
In conclusion, my amendment proposes that the skill mix of the mental health support team workforce should be expanded to ensure that all children have access to an appropriately qualified mental health practitioner as part of the rollout. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this.
Finally, I want to express my strong support for Amendment 472 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, to which my name is also attached, and to Amendment 479 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I will make a just a few very quick points on Amendment 472. This is a Bill about children’s well-being but, frankly, with very few direct references to the broader issue of well-being and, certainly, without any provisions for measuring well-being. This amendment would provide for a single, optional online well-being survey, delivered annually in schools and with centralised support made available to schools that wished to take up the option.
That is a modest but important ask. School data from the surveys would not be published or used to penalise schools in any way, or be part of the formal accountability systems. In case of any misunderstanding, this would not be a stick with which to beat schools. The survey would be optional. Schools would not be mandated to participate. It would be up to them, as indeed it would be for parents, carers and pupils, to opt out should they choose. However, we know from a recent YouGov poll that 75% of parents agree that, to improve young people’s well-being, we need to measure it. Critically, the data collected would allow the whole system to respond, including children’s services, education, health and the voluntary sector, at both national and local level.
I end by pointing out what I think we all know: happy and healthy children are most likely to be present at school, to engage in learning and to achieve to their full potential. Surely that is what we all want. We have a real chance here to progress that aim. I beg to move.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on behalf of Amendment 472, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who has spoken very well, and the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Moynihan. This is a modest proposal, but it is probably the most important one. I have sat through all the hours of this debate and I would say to all noble Lords who have spoken that, if this does not go through, they will not succeed.
The reason I say that is that I have not spent over two decades in the Treasury without knowing that you need evidence: you need to prove what works. Your Lordships have talked various things. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, mentioned various interventions and wanting to know whether the costs and benefits were worthwhile; that is absolutely right. She mentioned NICE. The key thing about NICE is that it works out whether a given medicine is worthwhile by doing a cost-benefit analysis based on QALYs—quality adjusted life years. We now have more sophisticated measures known as WELLBYs—well-being years.
To understand whether a thing makes sense, we need to do the assessment and for that we need data. Your Lordships have all made suggestions: we want more physical exercise; we want less bullying; and we want to think about what things in SEND work. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we need some common definitions. We need a common definition of well-being that we can use; the department can give us that. Then we can work on the basis of exactly how important and how effective all these things are.
If we think about how this debate started, we all talked about our favourite brand of school: free schools, academies, you name it. How do we assess which one is better? Well, either implicitly or, in some cases, very explicitly, it was a matter of exam results or Ofsted rankings. Nobody talked about these schools’ impact on well-being, for the very good reason that we do not know. We do not have data. The only data we have is the world’s most embarrassing data of all, which nobody has mentioned yet: the PISA data. The PISA data shows us that, out of all of Europe, our young people have the lowest well-being. Of the 38 countries in the OECD, where do we come? In 37th place. My favourite football team, Manchester United, is not even that bad in the league.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 479 in my name. Before doing so, I offer an apology to noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Holmes of Richmond. I added my name to their amendments in the previous group and fully intended to speak in support of them, but I got my timings rather wrong and did not arrive here until the first three speeches had been made. Because of that discourtesy, I felt it would have been inappropriate to contribute on that grouping.
Amendment 479 would not mean a material change for schools and colleges because it aims to make the existing guidance statutory, with programmes and support around that guidance already in place. Previous Governments have acknowledged concern at the worsening mental health among children and young people, with the most significant policies stemming from the 2018 Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care joint Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health. That referenced the non-statutory guidance issued in 2015, Promoting Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing: A Whole School or College Approach.
I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have continued with this commitment. The announcement from the Department for Education in May indicated that the rollout of the mental health support team programme will continue, with additional funding committed for this year and full rollout—aiming for 100% coverage of schools—expected by the end of the 2029-30 academic year. However, as the guidance is non-statutory, there is a current inequity of access to support for schools that would like more help with improving mental health and well-being in their setting. Most schools will have a trained senior mental health lead who understands whole-school approaches, but that person is often a current member of staff who may be juggling other roles, such as a pastoral lead, a SENCO or a safeguarding lead. Also, many schools may not have further access to a mental health support team until that programme reaches its conclusion by 2029-30.
Additionally, without statutory status, leaders and senior managers in schools may be tempted, understandably, to overlook this approach to improving a school’s ethos and environment when they are faced with a range of other issues, not least the challenges presented by attendance and behaviour. The Schools Wellbeing Partnership campaign group argues that, by improving the mental health and well-being of pupils, attendance and behaviour can be positively affected. This forms the foundation of support for all pupils, so that they can feel a true sense of belonging at a school and can thrive in that school’s environment. Whether or not the current guidance is made statutory, it certainly requires updating; incidentally, that last occurred in 2021.
With that in mind, I want to elaborate a little on the points listed in my amendment on whole-school approaches. There is an old saying: “You cannot improve what you cannot measure”. This relates to what the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, just said about evidence. Incidentally, I say to him in passing that I have bad news for him: he suggested that Manchester United are not as bad as seventh in the league table, but it is twice as bad as that, I am afraid. You have to measure before you can begin improvements. Identifying and measuring children and young people’s mental health and well-being will offer the necessary data, which schools can use to improve their environment, their teaching and their support.
I welcome Amendment 472, but a whole-school approach already has the tools to respond to that data. However, the current guidance needs to be strengthened to offer more robust information about schools. Updating the guidance and making it statutory would support schools in turning data into action plans and action plans into improvement, although that improvement will require further training for mental health leads. The training for staff taking on these roles ended in March this year. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to say if and when that essential training will resume.
Access to mental health support in schools was a manifesto commitment last year, and I commend the Government for wasting no time as that delivery has now begun. That is very welcome, of course, although there is concern that some mental health support teams are not able to provide the support that some specific cohorts of children require in some schools.
Finally, I want to touch on wider aspects of a whole- school approach. The Schools Wellbeing Partnership has long campaigned on this issue and recently published eight principles necessary for that approach to be fully effective. I will not list them just now due to the time, but I am very encouraged to note that all eight of those principles are contained in Ofsted’s proposed new inspection framework, so there is a very good chance that they will soon enter the mainstream. That would strengthen the effectiveness of the whole-school approaches necessary to ensure that children’s and young people’s mental health are taken seriously, and the necessary support is properly resourced. That support is too important to be left to optional guidance and simply must be made statutory to ensure those in need of it get the support that they deserve.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, to which I have attached my name. I have to say that after such a powerful speech—probably one of the best we have had in Committee—I was sort of waiting for the Minister to jump to her feet and say, “Look, I can bring this to an end and accept that amendment. It makes such consummate sense that we need to underpin with data all the ambitious goals we have for the well-being of children”.
What can we do without data? Introducing policies that we do not know are effective or ineffective costs too much; we need data. Nobody is arguing today that this data should be compulsory among all schools. This is voluntary, but I expect virtually every school I have ever visited in the state sector to want to do this, to be party to this, because there can be opportunities to benefit from this as well.
Some of us had the opportunity the other day to listen to the CEO of Lego, Niels Christiansen, who was giving a presentation here in Parliament. He was talking about the work he and his company were doing with young kids—five year-olds in Slough—to get fantastic benefits at an early stage in life by playing with Lego rather than playing online. If you had the data and the evidence that companies such as Lego were doing such good work, more schools would want to do that. Having that information available would be second to none.
I am confident that this evening the Minister is going to be wholly supportive of this amendment. I am not going to dwell on the points that have been made so far, but on the reasons why. How would the measurement we are talking about benefit the well-being of young people? It would promote children’s mental health, enhance learning outcomes, promote fairness, strengthen accountability and build a healthier and fitter society. It would have long-term social benefits. Schools play an absolutely central role in shaping future citizens, and this information would help us foster well-being, which improves social cohesion, productivity and public health. It would help us create a national policy to support the UK’s wider commitments to tackling not just mental health problems but physical health problems and challenges, and it would reduce pressure on the NHS.
This data would support teachers and staff. Well-being measurement data can highlight systemic issues such as high-stress levels and workload concerns that also affect staff and allow us to address them. It can lead to healthier, happier school communities, benefiting both students and educators. Staff can use insights from well-being data to tailor pastoral care and teaching more appropriately and more effectively to the problem.
We can have a cultural shift in education. The more we know what is going on in schools on this front, the more we can do to have a cultural shift. Embedding well-being measurement reinforces the message that mental health and physical health is an important issue and, in many ways for many children, just as important as academic achievement. It normalises conversations about well-being and reduces stigma around mental health issues. This shift helps prepare young people for life beyond school, fostering resilience and emotional literacy.
I can see that the Minister is just about to get to her feet to accept this amendment. But if, in the event, she is just going to pause to reflect because she wants to hear a little more about how this amendment is going to benefit her Bill, her reputation and her legacy in education, I will say this: regular well-being measurement can help schools identify mental and physical health and well-being challenges before they escalate into serious issues. Earlier detection enables timely support, reduces long-term risks such as school dropout, self-harm and disengagement, and preventive intervention is more cost-effective than crisis management in the health and social care systems.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 472 and 479 briefly but very warmly. I will not try Treasury terms, though as a former civil servant, I of course recognise their strength.
Quite apart from the intrinsic value of enabling happiness, which I confess is my underlying reason, well-being has instrumental advantages for society. It stimulates motivation, energy and concentration, particularly for demoralised and alienated children, such as those from minority-ethnic groups who have experienced constant prejudice and belittling, among others. It encourages them on to a pathway of achievement. We know that children from disadvantaged backgrounds and on free school meals are more likely to have lower well-being, as are care leavers. In our credentialised society, improving motivation and raising achievement can reduce the disturbing proportion of NEETs who slot aimlessly into routes to unemployment and crime.
I think well-being is allied to a sense of self-worth—after all, if you feel your world does not think enough of you to value your happiness, you may well feel that you are not worth it yourself. It is this absence of sense of self-worth and self-respect that I noticed most strikingly among the criminals I met when I was a magistrate; also among the children at risk of delinquency who I used to run a club for; and even among a few so-called normal children when I did some teaching; and more recently in encounters with embittered adults whose childhood had surrounded them with prejudice and discrimination. Children can be resilient and can triumph over adversity if they are motivated enough, but the erosion of the ability to cope, which suffering and the absence of well-being causes, has clearly undermined an increasing number.
Well-being has been notably increased by the right kind of design and architecture in schools, and particularly by music education, including singing. There is good evidence for that, but well-being needs to be measured systematically in all schools. This would do much to start embedding a stable culture of resilience and happiness in our schools, so I very much hope my noble friend the Minister will accept these amendments.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 502YG, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and other noble Lords. Your Lordships may well have seen the helpful briefing from the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, of which I have the honour to be a parliamentary ambassador. For those noble Lords who have not had the chance to read it, I will share some brief highlights, given the hour.
Two children per class suffer from food allergies, on average. If your allergic reaction to milk, cheese, nuts or anything else triggers an anaphylactic shock, you need an immediate dose of adrenaline injected with an EpiPen, also known as an autoinjector. Half of all of England’s schools have not got one—that is 10,000 of them. Two-thirds of teachers have not had any formal training on what to do if a pupil suffers from an anaphylactic reaction or shock—and that is in the buildings outside the home where children are most likely to have an anaphylactic shock, unsurprisingly, since they spend six hours a day, five days a week, 38 weeks a year there.
I am confining my remarks on this amendment to the support of all elements relating to EpiPens and autoinjectors, but I support all of the amendment. Your Lordships can see from my comments that requiring all schools, not just half of all schools, to have an EpiPen and someone who knows how to use it has the potential to save lives and reassure countless parents that their children will be safe at school.
Your Lordships might be wondering why so many schools are completely unprepared for this sort of emergency. Schools have a vital day job to do. It is hard enough teaching maths to children who are not interested—please insert your own least favourite lesson if you happen to be a mathematics enthusiast—so is it fair to load this responsibility on to them as well? I gently say that all that is being asked at this point is that an EpiPen is in the school reception and that there is someone who knows one end of it from the other. I am not joking—I am afraid that there has been at least one incident of a member of staff injecting themselves with adrenaline rather than the pupil in shock.
Another argument which might be used against the amendment is that it is surely the responsibility of the pupils at risk to carry their own EpiPens and of their parents to make sure that they do. This is true, but I imagine that my noble friend the Minister agrees that it is not realistic to assume that every child will follow the rules every day without fail. The evidence shows that pupils are most at risk when they are 15 to 17 years-old, precisely the age when they are most likely to take risks.
I have spoken in this House on this issue before, as the mother of a now 17 year-old pupil who has suffered two episodes of anaphylactic shock. Yes, she has two EpiPens in her bag and yes, I try to make sure that she always does. But just like any other mother, I know that things do not always go to plan. I live with that fear just like so many others.
Shortly after my daughter’s first anaphylactic shock, 10 years ago, her doctor at the Evelina London Children’s Hospital, just across the river, asked for my phone after her emergency treatment. To my astonishment, he then took photos of my pale, limp and silent daughter as she lay in my arms. He explained to us that we should print out these photos and give them to her grandparents, her friends’ parents and anyone else who was a bit doubting that severe peanut allergy is really dangerous, and keep one for her first boyfriend in years to come, so that everyone who might have to treat severe allergies would understand that this is what can happen, and that the adrenaline in EpiPens is life-saving.
It is well worth requiring schools to keep them and for them to know how to use them. They save lives.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will be fairly brief. I mainly want to commend the Government on the restraint that they have shown in this Bill in clauses relating to mental health and well-being.
Despite the Bill’s title, there is a welcome absence of clauses that imply that well-being and activities that promote it are separate from, or even antithetical to, good education. In reality, they are strongly correlated. For most children, well-being is a likely outcome of being well taught, well supported, discovering and developing their wider interests, and forming good relationships with peers and with adults—developing a sense of belonging.
Further, there is a growing recognition that spending too much time talking about mental illness to young people who are not ill can be counterproductive. We may need less mental health awareness training in schools, not more. For those advocating more universal mental health interventions in their amendments, I recommend reading the findings published by DfE earlier this year on the effectiveness of several school mental health awareness interventions. These tests of established programmes found that they did not reduce emotional difficulties in the short term, and in the longer term appeared to be associated with greater emotional difficulties and decreased life satisfaction.
Those who have been around in education long enough may also remember the evaluation of the then popular SEAL programme; I think it was “social and emotional aspects of learning”. This study of the programme, which was for primary schools, showed not only that the positive outcomes expected did not materialise, but also that there was an unwelcome side-effect in that, to paraphrase, it taught the mean kids to be better bullies, using the techniques of emotional manipulation that the programme taught them. These findings are a valuable reminder that sometimes less is more.
A word of warning: much of what is proposed in these amendments is hugely well intentioned, but I am particularly nervous about some of the ideas around measurement. If we do not want measurement processes in themselves to harm children, we should not collect data by constantly asking children who are not unwell about their well-being, and especially about their negative emotions. I have seen so many dreadful examples in schools where even very young children are constantly prompted to express emotions and invited to say that they are experiencing negative emotions. You can see the change; they start to believe they are sad or worried or afraid, where this had not even occurred to them. Nothing could fit the phrase “throw the baby out with the bath-water” more accurately than to make children unhappy through well-intentioned measurement processes.
I therefore urge the Government to prioritise advice from expert clinicians in this field and to allow schools to do only—
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
I will just say one thing. The noble Baroness mentioned all the things on which she has been able to talk about the evidence because there was data. I just remind noble Lords that this amendment is talking about one annual survey. It is not asking people every couple of minutes how they are doing, just to be absolutely clear.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
Children are very frequently surveyed from different directions; another one would actually add to an extensive load of surveys that they already complete.
The wider point is that there are many ways of measuring indirectly. If we want to measure, we should look for indirect routes that do not involve constantly asking children to self-assess. We should make sure that schools are doing only what is genuinely likely to be helpful for children. The Government should resist the urge to launch crowd-pleasing but ultimately wasteful or even harmful initiatives.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 472 and everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan so passionately. I cannot agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, just said.
I frequently touch on themes of well-being, especially with regard to sport, physical activity, mental health, inclusion and financial security. The term “well-being” means different things to different people. If we do not define and measure it consistently, we leave it to drift and risk missing the opportunity to improve children’s lives in meaningful and measurable ways.
We all recognise that young people today face mounting pressures, whether increased anxiety or reduced physical activity, yet we lack a consistent national framework for measuring how children are really doing—not just academically but emotionally and physically. That is why I look forward to hearing how initiatives like the Be Well programme are progressing. Be Well is an example of what can be achieved when universities, charities and local authorities come together to prioritise children’s well-being. It can offer valuable lessons on how data, gathered and shared sensitively, can inform targeted support and drive better outcomes. Anything that improves children’s well-being and strengthens the evidence base behind policy has my full support.
This amendment, as we have heard, proposes an annual, voluntary and confidential national survey. It would equip schools, local authorities and policymakers with the data they need to understand and respond to what young people are really experiencing. Better data leads to better policy and ultimately to better outcomes. Back in 2023, Youth Sport Trust chief executive Ali Oliver said that “fewer than half” of children in the UK meet the Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines for the minimum recommended activities. She said:
“This is contributing to a nation where too many children are missing out, have poor wellbeing and lack a sense of belonging. The evidence is clear: unhappy and unhealthy children do not learn”.
Well-being is closely linked to educational attainment. When children feel better and more supported, they are much more likely to engage in learning and reach their full potential. Understanding that connection and measuring it properly is vital.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502YG and pass on the apologies of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, who has had to go but had agreed to introduce the amendment on behalf of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, who cannot take part on the Bill. In summary, the amendment is to improve allergy safety in schools, but it marks the culmination of a long campaign in conjunction with the inspirational Helen Blythe, following the tragic death of her son Benedict in 2021, when he was only five. An inquest last month concluded that Benedict’s death was avoidable and caused by the accidental ingestion of cows’ milk after his school failed to follow the processes and procedures in place to protect him.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, outlined, almost 20% of all allergic reactions take place in schools and, sadly, we now know that not only do they not necessarily have the EpiPens but they do not necessarily have a plan or training in place. Only putting these protective measures on a statutory footing will ensure that adequate protections are there for the two children in every classroom with allergies. Helen has worked tirelessly to establish the safety measures necessary to ensure that no child is ever lost again in such a tragic and avoidable way. I also pay tribute to the work of Alicia Kearns in the other place, MP for Rutland and Stamford, with which I am connected. Helen Blythe is her constituent.
The current government guidelines do not even mention allergies. There is only one line on food and one link to an anaphylaxis charity. The key aim is of course spare EpiPens, trained staff and a proper policy. The Government would prefer any change to be by way of guidance, but that just does not give the guarantees necessary—hence tonight’s amendment.
Between 1998 and 2018, 66 children died from allergic reactions. There are 680,000 pupils in England’s schools who have allergies—that is one or two per classroom, according to the Benedict Blythe Foundation’s REACT report of March 2024. At a time when the Department for Education is rightly focused on the attendance crisis, children miss half a million days of education due to allergy each year. These adrenaline auto-injections are life-savers, and the Benedict Blythe Foundation estimates that it would cost only £5 million for the rollout in English schools, plus the training. I remember a similar campaign to put defibrillators into every school; that was done, so why not put these EpiPens, and proper training and policy, in place? I welcome the department’s engagement, but the time for action is now.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I want to underline, in respect of Amendment 462, the importance of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about reducing the pressures on CAMHS. The family courts are being frustrated, as I know from recent experience, and impeded in reaching necessary long-term decisions about the future for children. They are told, week by week, that they are waiting for an appointment with CAMHS and then that they are waiting for an assessment report from CAMHS—and then that they are waiting for the recommended treatment to take place. If Amendment 462 serves to help with those tasks, children, their parents and the courts will benefit. The courts are being criticised for the delays in reaching decisions, and certainly the problems with CAMHS contribute to those delays.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I really want to challenge the assumption of some of the amendments in this group that what we need is more dedicated mental health practices and provision in schools. One of the problems is that there is too much emphasis on mental illness and mental health in education at the moment. That awareness is taking up too much time in school life, is over-preoccupying young people and is becoming a real problem.
If you look at what is going on in schools at the moment, there are indeed endless numbers of staff, volunteers and organisations with responsibility for emotional well-being: mental health leads, support teams, emotional literacy support and assistance, mental health first aiders, counsellors, and well-being officers. If you go into any school, the walls are covered in information about mental illness, mental health and so on; it is everywhere you go. Yet despite this booming, school-based mental health industrial complex, almost, the well-being of pupils continues to deteriorate—or that is what we are told.
Mental health problems and diagnoses are rising at the same time as all the awareness initiatives are taking place. Something is going wrong and that at least needs some investigation, but these amendments just assume that we should carry on doing the same and more of the same. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, I think that real, critical thinking needs to be done around some of the awareness campaigns.
I want to challenge the idea that schools are the vehicle for tackling the undoubted spiralling crisis of unhappiness among young people. It is also important that we untangle that from the crisis of CAMHS. There is actually a serious problem in NHS mental health support for children, and I would like that to be taken on. That is very different from the kind of discussion we are having here about schools, which is that mental distress becomes such a focus of all the discussions in schools.
I tend to agree—for possibly the only time—with Tony Blair on this. He said,
“you’ve got to be careful of encouraging people to think they’ve got some sort of condition other than simply confronting the challenges of life”.
That is true. Starting with children, we are encouraging the young to internalise the narrative of medicalised and pathologised explanations and the psychological vocabulary of adopting an identity of mental fragility, and that is not doing them any good. That can then create an increasing cohort of young people and parents demanding official diagnosis, more intervention and more support at school.
Dr Alastair Santhouse, a neuropsychiatrist at the Maudsley, argues this in his new book, No More Normal: Mental Health in an Age of Over-Diagnosis. He says that it has become crucial to reassess what constitutes mental illness, so that we can decide who needs to be treated with limited resources and who can be helped in other ways. He is talking about the NHS, and he warns that the NHS has buckled under a tsunami of referrals for some conditions. He also says that other state services such as schools are straining to the point of dysfunction in dealing with this issue, and I tend to agree with him.
I admire the passionate intervention by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, calling for measurement and evidence, but one of the problems is that I am not entirely sure we know what we are measuring. There is no clear definition of well-being to measure. The psychiatric profession is making the point that the definitions of what constitutes mental illness are now contended—there are arguments about them. What are you measuring? This woolliness of definitions is becoming a problem in schools.
The counsellor Lucy Beney, in her excellent recent pamphlet, worries that this means that mental illness in schools is leading to a kind of diagnostic inflation itself, as pupils compare notes on what they have got and go to different professionals to ask what they have got and so on. It can create a sort of social or cultural contagion, enticing the young to see all the ups and downs of life through the prism of mental health, which can be demoralising and counterproductive. There is no doubt that too many children and young people are not thriving mentally and emotionally in the UK today, and I would like to have that discussion, but I do not think that well-being and mental health is necessarily the way to do it. Schools are definitely not the places to solve it.
A lot of the well-being initiatives, counselling and therapeutic interventions encourage young people to look at life through the subjective filter of their own feelings and anxieties. That, in turn, is likely to lead to inward-looking, self-absorbed children. The role of education in schools is to introduce new generations to the wonders of the millennia, of knowledge outside their experience, which takes them outside themselves. That is what schools are for. That is what teachers are good at. It is not just about gaining credentials. In fact, I hate the credentialing aspect of it. But if you get into a brilliant novel, the law of physics, the history of our world or evolution, you forget your troubles. If you are constantly talking to the counsellor about your troubles, yourself and endlessly thinking of your own well-being, it is boring, demoralising and stunting. It is enough to make anybody depressed, including the young. It is important that schools do not get completely obsessed with this issue. I fear that they have, and it has made matters worse.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, first, I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the World Health Organization has a clear definition of well-being:
“Well-being is a positive state experienced by individuals in society … Well-being encompasses quality of life and the ability of people and societies to contribute to the world with a sense of meaning and purpose.”
So this is not about self-focus; it is clear that it is about people being in a position to contribute. The WHO goes on to say that a society’s well-being can be
“determined by the extent to which it is resilient, builds capacity for action, and is prepared to transcend challenges”.
Perhaps most of us can agree that that is something society needs to do much better.
I am afraid that I disagree entirely with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, said that the Dutch score particularly highly, along with Denmark, in the recent PISA figures on children’s well-being, and we score astonishingly badly. I was looking at a publication from a few years ago, The Dutch Way in Education. The publisher of that notes how the Dutch system measures not only academic achievement but also the well-being and involvement of students. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, that I have raised the study he referred to a number of times. I would like to raise it tonight, but in the interests of the Committee making progress, I will not. Every time we are told how much progress our schools have made, saying, “Look at the exam results”, I say, look at the state of well-being of our pupils. I say particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, that if we measure only the exam results, that is what we are going to judge our schools on. That is what we have been doing, and it is what has got us into this position.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
Ofsted, where I was chief inspector, took personal development, including children’s well-being, very seriously; it was one of the judgments there. I have never suggested, nor would ever suggest, that academic outcomes were the only thing that mattered for children.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
In responding to the noble Baroness, I can speak as a former school governor, and I have my own opinions of Ofsted. I want to put it on record that the Green Party wishes to abolish Ofsted, so that is where I am coming from.
It is important that we speak in support of Amendment 502YG about allergies. I also went to an event with the Benedict Blythe Foundation where I learned about this crucial issue, and the work of that foundation absolutely needs to be acknowledged.
There are two amendments in this group that have not yet been introduced. The first is Amendment 502B in my name, kindly backed by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I am also going to speak to Amendment 502Y, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Boycott. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, apologises greatly that she is unable to introduce her own amendment. Like me, the noble Baroness had a train to catch and, while I have now given up on mine, she had to catch hers, so she has departed.
Both amendments focus on the importance of nature in the physical spaces in and around school buildings, and to promote active-based learning and teaching in the school curriculum. It is important to say that far too often that is seen as a “nice to have”—an additional something for schools that have the resources to get money from parents to plant trees, make nice gardens and so on. It is a great pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is not here because this is something that she has literally written the book on. I am sure that many noble Lords already know that the title of her book is Good Nature: The New Science of How Nature Improves Our Health.
I shall highlight the difference between the two amendments. My Amendment 502B says:
“The Secretary of State shall have a duty to promote school pupils’ access to nature”,
and says there should be one hour of access to nature each week for every pupil. This is something on which there is bountiful evidence. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is much more limited but still important: it would require a review to be conducted on the benefits of nature-based learning to children’s health and well-being.
I have vast amounts of notes here that noble Lords will be pleased to know I am not going to read out, but it is worth focusing on just one study from 2015 that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, highlights, focusing on 3,000 primary-aged children in four standard urban schools in Barcelona. The test scores of children who were looking out of the window at green space were better than those of the children who did not have that view of green space. We are not talking here about forest schools; they were normal inner-city schools. The addition of trees and green infrastructure in the playground has real impact on exam results. More than that, there is significant evidence about improvements in anti-social behaviour, levels of mental health and teenage anxiety, and even reduced truancy, something that noble Lords and the Government are very concerned about.
The second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment is about nature-based skills. In other parts of the economy, in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we are focusing on the need to look after green spaces in our communities. Who is going to do the work of looking after that? It is crucial that we have the training.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has given me a great deal more information and I feel guilty that I am not going to pass it on, but in the interests of time I am going to sit down now and urge noble Lords to read the noble Baroness’s book.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 502YG. I declare my interest as the chief officer of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity.
Regrettably, we have an education system completely unprepared for the growing numbers of food-allergic children in the UK, with safeguarding standards varying widely from school to school. Recent incidents underscore the urgent need for thorough staff training and well implemented allergen management policies. Food allergy-related deaths, which for the most part are preventable, while uncommon, tragically occur in school.
A few months ago, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, noted, the inquest into the death of Benedict Blythe, who was aged just five, concluded. Today, as we discuss this amendment, I know that Benedict is in our hearts and our minds, as is his mother, Helen. She is the driver behind Amendment 502YG, which would be a critical addition to the Bill.
There are of course excellent examples of food allergy management in some of our schools. However, with two children in every classroom having a food allergy, and one in five allergic reactions to food occurring in school, too many schools lack policies for effective allergy management and staff are inadequately trained. There is also a lack of understanding around allergy in our schools. That all impacts on children’s attendance and puts them at risk.
At the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, we regularly hear from parents about schools that ignore their requests for reasonable adjustments or, worse still, are dismissive about a child’s allergy. These persistent challenges are faced by thousands of allergy families across the country, and they reinforce that allergies should be treated with the same seriousness and attention as other medical conditions in school settings. That is why, at the Natasha foundation, we launched Allergy School, which offers free practical resources to help teachers create inclusive and safe environments for children with food allergies.
However, charities and foundations cannot deliver change alone. The Government need to do more to help schools and early years settings be better equipped to manage food allergies, from improved staff training to safer food management practices. This amendment would achieve that. It would ensure that all schools had proper staff training; effective policies in place; data—I emphasise that for the sake of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell—on allergic reactions, which is woefully lacking; and spare AAIs, or adrenaline auto-injectors.
There are very few chronic conditions that can take a child from perfectly fine to unconscious in 30 minutes, but food allergy anaphylaxis is one of them. Who can disagree with life-saving medication being on site and quickly and easily accessible to save a child’s life? I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the hour is late. I have my name on some of these amendments. I simply say that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has highlighted that around 16% of children aged five to 16 now have a mental health disorder. CAMHS cannot cope with this. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, is certainly trying to plug that large hole.
I also remind the Committee that it has been estimated that in every class, on average, there is a child who has been bereaved of a parent or sibling. That is not trivial trauma; it is major. They need support and help, but they are often not getting it.
On collecting data, it is essential that we know what we are doing. However, we must use validated measures that have been properly evaluated, so that schools are measuring what people think they are measuring and they do not contain leading questions and so on. In addition, good-quality data allows a school to understand whether it is improving.
I declare my interest as having chaired the Science and Technology Committee’s sixth report on allergy, and I strongly underline all the comments made in it. During that inquiry, we heard about children being bullied by other children who put peanuts in their pockets, and about staff sometimes confusing anaphylaxis with panic attacks because they have not had training. It is a very simple measure to train staff and to make sure that they can access an EpiPen. With that, I hope that the Government will adopt the suggestions in these amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the amendments she has put forward. I hope that the Government are thoroughly behind the National Education Nature Park, which is a great initiative from the Department for Education, and are looking for ways to push that out, maybe through the natural history GCSE. If the noble Baroness feels in need of a holiday, I recommend Japan as a place that has really got on top of how to get young citizens involved with nature; that may surprise noble Lords, in view of the urban character of Japan, but it is very good at that.
I also agree with my noble friend Lady Spielman that indirect measures are best. They are very much the underpinning of the Good Schools Guide: watching, observing and looking for strong structures and relationships—and, yes, someone to turn to when you do not know what to do, but an excess of mental health professionals is almost always the sign of a school in trouble.
When it comes to children, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies. By asking a child a question, you create the answer; you have to be really careful how you try to measure well-being, particularly in young children. Maybe the Dutch can teach us to do it, but I share the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about much of what is going on in schools at the moment.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I shall add something on those points, although I do not want to drag this on. Clearly, this arouses a lot of emotions, but we are mixing a lot of things up. There are rooms full of evidence on how these effectively work, not least on the things that the noble Lord is putting forward. I do not think that schools are being asked to undertake surveys—it is about giving information to schools, which is a completely different aspect.
What we should all be talking about here is keeping children well, which means intervening when they need help; it does not mean taking them to clinics or overmedicalisation but it is about providing positive environments in which children can flourish. Also, it is not something that we are asking schools to take on; schools have had to take this on, because it comes through the door. We are talking about other professionals —health professionals, youth workers and others, who know about well-being—being able to work with schools to support those children. This is a win-win for everyone, and children and their families are the last ones who want to overmedicalise this and come up with what has been described as an industrialisation of a medical complex. That is not what anyone wants, and I do not think that it is there in any of the intentions that have been put forward.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am chair of Sport Wales. I strongly support Amendment 472 in the name of my noble friend Lord O’Donnell, and I agree that it is one of the most important things that we can do. At Sport Wales, we carry out a school sport survey, and we had responses from 116,000 children who gave their opinion on sport and well-being. We do not use it only to focus the funding; it is to help them to be part of the solution, to think about how their well-being might be improved.
I have my name on Amendment 500. I make a plea for physical literacy, and for giving it the same status as literacy and numeracy. We know that, if we teach children good physical literacy skills, it helps their mental well-being. The reason why we need to do this is that we are in a time of crisis. UK Active data shows that we have a generation of children who are more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. A press release issued by the Department for Work and Pensions on 18 June 2025 stated that one in eight young people is not in education, employment or training. I realise that that cuts across age groups and is looking at something different—but we have up to 93,000 young people between 16 and 24 on personal independence payments. This is not to criticise the Government, but the system is not sustainable in this current format. We cannot keep just pushing young people on to benefits, so we have to do something differently. This group of amendments is part of the solution to helping young people. In a Bill that has well-being in its Title, it would make sense that we measure well-being.
Lord Storey (LD)
The hour is late, so I shall be brief. This group of amendments has brought out the best in your Lordships. How people have spoken on each of these amendments I have found truly caring.
Stupidly perhaps, earlier on I was saying how the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made me consider more closely particular issues, but I have to say that on this issue I think she is wrong. For me, the most important thing in schools is not just getting children learning; it is about how they learn about themselves, and their well-being and mental health is so important. The sooner they can get the feeling of a sense of well-being and get any mental health problems sorted, the more their learning will accelerate—not as the noble Baroness suggests. We know that about ourselves; when we feel good about something, we give of our best, do we not? I know that I do. If I feel down and miserable and things are not going right for me, I do not give of my best. So it is important to get mental health issues sorted.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments focuses on the important issue of the mental well-being of pupils and the roles that schools could play in that. This obviously needs to be seen in the context of an adolescent mental health service which is currently struggling to keep up with demand, and where waiting lists are all too often extremely long, particularly with the rise in reports of poor mental health since Covid.
However, schools already have extensive guidance from the department on how to support both pupils and staff with mental well-being, and there is a mental health hub of resources. The previous Government introduced and began the rollout of mental health leads in our schools, and my understanding is the current Government have continued with this. So I am really not convinced that more duties and standards and guidance, as proposed in Amendments 462, 500 and 479, are the answer, although I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, regarding the range of qualifications one might want to have on a team.
We have also heard that we have some major red flags in relation to children’s mental health and well-being with the use of smartphones and social media and the extraordinary amount of time that children and young people typically spend on their screens. Once again, I urge the Government to address these root causes of isolation, loneliness and disconnection in our society, especially for young people, rather than introducing yet more guidance.
I am sympathetic to the spirit of Amendments 502B and 502Y in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, respectively. Many schools are able to offer a forest school in primary, but this is something that school leaders need to decide on.
As the Minister mentioned, we introduced the National Education Nature Park when we were in office, with an emphasis on schools in areas with few or no green spaces, and I was pleased when I looked at the National Education Nature Park website last night that more than 3,000 schools have signed up to the scheme. That will give those children the opportunity not only to spend more time in nature but to gather a range of relevant skills, including data capture and analysis.
Amendment 472, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, would establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme. We heard the noble Lord make a powerful case for such an approach, although I note the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Spielman and the suggestion that indirect measures might achieve some of the same ends. A lot of questions are put to pupils in the national behaviour survey regarding well-being, including about happiness, how worthwhile a pupil’s life feels, levels of anxiety, loneliness, bullying and more, and I think there is a case for looking at the range of data that is collected. If it does not meet some of the objectives that the noble Lord set out, perhaps we could dispense with some of the data collection and replace it with something more useful.
I was very struck when in office by the approach that is taken in Indonesia—the Committee cannot laugh at me at this hour—in relation to surveys of pupil well-being, which are completely built into its equivalent of an Ofsted framework. It is able to identify very quickly schools where pupils’ well-being is significantly better or worse than the average, which allows it to learn from the best and address the weaknesses of the poorest.
I am not going to speak to Amendment 496 unless someone tells me I should because I do not think that that amendment was introduced.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, reminded us of the tragic case of Benedict Blythe. Whether or not we are parents, we can all recognise the heartbreak of the death of a child, particularly where that death is avoidable. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, rightly pointed out the much wider and more prevalent issue of anxiety for parents of children at risk of an anaphylactic shock. I express my thanks to all the organisations in this area which have contributed to improving the response of schools to managing the safety of pupils with an allergy, particularly the Benedict Blythe Foundation for its work on the schools’ allergy code and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation for its work on the allergy school. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the concerns raised in that amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people to help pupils achieve and thrive in education. We also agree that all children and young people should have the opportunity to understand and connect with the natural world, and recognise the importance of supporting pupils with allergies.
On Amendment 462 on the dedicated mental health practitioner, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, this Government have announced that we will expand mental health support teams from 52% coverage of pupils and learners at the start of April 2025 to 100% by 2029-30. This will ensure that all schools have access to NHS-trained and -supported mental health practitioners. Additionally, funding of £13 million has been agreed to pilot enhancements to this service to support those with more serious needs; for instance, young people who have experienced trauma or those with neurodiversity or eating disorders. We will look at the experience of those pilots and how they could be extended.
The issue, as other noble Lords have identified, rests particularly in the numbers of mental health staff available to deal with the most acute needs of young people. This amendment would not add to the provision of mental health professionals, although the Government have committed to increase their number by 8,500, but switch responsibility from the NHS to schools. Schools provide a range of pastoral support, including counselling, but managing mental health professionals is not their job. Mental health support teams benefit from being recruited, trained, clinically supervised and having outcomes monitored by the NHS, and there is good evidence of their effectiveness.
Amendment 472, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, seeks to establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme. The Government are strongly committed to supporting all children and young people to achieve and thrive. To help us do this, we need to understand how our children and young people are feeling. There is immense value in schools measuring, understanding and taking action on the factors which influence whether their pupils attend, achieve and thrive. Around 60% of schools already conduct some type of well-being measurement voluntarily.
We agree with the noble Lord that measurement should remain voluntary for schools. However, we do not agree that a centrally administered survey, costing millions of pounds a year over this spending review, is necessarily the right way forward. We believe in measurement, but for schools to choose to measure, it is important that the tool they use is relevant to them and they can be assured that results will not be used for accountability in an overly simplistic way.
Therefore, we recognise the need for there to be consistency of that measurement. That is why the Government have already initiated a programme of work with similar aims, with measurement experts and providers, including from the Our Wellbeing, Our Voice campaign, and with the education sector. This will involve setting standardised questions for schools to ask pupils, including about their well-being, enabling benchmarking between schools.
We will go further and provide non-statutory guidance, including tools and resources, to support schools to measure in a more consistent and evidence-based way and, importantly, to act on the findings with partners to improve outcomes for children. We are confident that the adoption of a standard set of questions across the sector and publication of operational guidance will better enable schools to share data with one another and other local partners, to facilitate local benchmarking and joined-up community action.
I hear the noble Lord’s point about national collection, and in the longer term, we will also explore whether and how this data could be collected centrally to inform national policy. In the meantime, to further amplify the voices of young people, we have committed to publishing an annual data release containing collated national survey data on pupils’ experiences in school, including their sense of belonging, enjoyment and safety.
Amendment 479, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, would require statutory guidance for schools on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being. The Government already provide guidance, supporting schools to put in place whole-school approaches. While itself not statutory, this supports a range of statutory duties in relation to teaching, safeguarding, behaviour and special educational needs and disabilities, which are key to identifying need, and working with external services to meet that need. These existing statutory duties, the support already available to schools and the work that we are committed to on the framework, measurement and annual data collection, which I have just set out in response to Amendment 472, taken together, will provide a sound basis for all schools to put in place whole-school approaches and secure the support that their pupils need. I will write to the noble Lord about the specific point relating to the training grant and the Government’s approach to providing additional support for schools to do this.
I turn to Amendment 500, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would require newly published standards for schools in England on physical and mental well-being; this point was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Schools already have specific requirements to teach about physical and mental well-being, which are set out in the physical education national curriculum and the statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education. Ofsted inspects the delivery of these requirements. This approach allows schools to develop their own approaches to supporting physical and mental well-being that reflect the very different circumstances of their pupils. Centrally set delivery targets could not reflect this difference.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to this, as she said, wide-ranging—you could even say “interesting”, in a certain sense—debate. I simply reflect that, in terms of the tone of the debate that we have had, there was a time not so long ago—perhaps a few years ago—when, if you were talking about children’s mental health and well-being in this Chamber, there would have been a certain sort of debate. There would probably have been a general consensus about the problem and what we were trying to achieve, and there would probably have been some disagreement over the best way of getting there.
I have to say: that is no longer the case. As with so many things in this current world, this whole issue seems to have become highly polarised and contested in a way that I find pretty unhelpful, but we are where we are. We can all quote our favourite bit of evidence or research report that backs up our own worldview but, frankly, unless you are looking at these things in the round, that rarely takes you much further forward.
I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, talk about the need to look carefully at the root causes of mental health issues. That was a very helpful perspective; personally, pretending that a problem does not exist rarely helps to address it.
I do not recognise that schools have turned into some sort of industrial complex of mental health with an excess of mental health professionals. All I can say is that the schools I have visited are not like that; they tell me what an issue mental health is and how they want extra help and support. That is all I am going to say in general terms.
I will respond to a couple of the points on the amendments. On my amendment, I was moderately encouraged to hear the Minister talk about the pilots, looking at the enhanced levels of support from mental health support teams. That is exactly what I was trying to get at in my amendment about the missing middle, as I put it. It is about the skills mix. There is a legitimate question to look at there. I hope that that we can return to that point on Report because, according to the people I have talked to—practitioners on the front line—it is important.
There was such a strong consensus. Well, it was not a consensus, but many people in the Chamber could see clearly the case that was being mounted for a national well-being survey—a voluntary survey. No one would be forced to do it. None of it would form any part of the accountability system of schools, but it would be something that those schools could have and use.
Having and being able to use that data will be fundamental if we are to increase the well-being of children and young people in schools. As far as I am concerned, there is no running away from the PISA data that tells us that the UK’s young people have the lowest well-being in Europe and the second worst in the OECD. That is what PISA tells us. We need to do something about it. To do something about it, we need to be collecting that data.
I am sure we will want to think about this again, and about putting it across—the costs would be very modest indeed—in a way that will be acceptable to the Minister and to this Government. Until we have that, we will not be able to address the fundamental problem of children who have poor well-being, are unhappy with perhaps poor mental health, do not learn well, do not achieve, and do not live the fulfilling lives that we all want them to live. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Blower
“Duty to provide relationships and sex education and PSHE to persons who have not attained the age of 18 at further education institutions(1) The Children and Social Work Act 2017 is amended as follows. (2) In section 34 (education relating to relationships and sex)—(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) relationships and sex education to be provided to persons who have not attained the age of 18 and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.”;(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(d) in subsection (2)(c), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.(3) In section 35 (other personal, social, health and economic education)—(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) to persons who have not attained the age of 18 and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.”;(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;(d) in subsection (2)(c), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would extend the existing provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to people under the age of 18 who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, given that my noble friend Lady Lister is unable to be here this evening, it is my pleasure, with her permission, to read her speech to move this amendment.
It is an honour to move Amendment 463, which would extend the provision of relationships and sex education to young people aged under 16, in post-16 institutions in England. It is an honour because it has been dubbed the Massey amendment as a tribute to our late friend and colleague Baroness Massey of Darwen. Had she still been with us, she would have been the ideal person to move this amendment, given her experience and commitment to young people’s social health and well-being. It was to honour Doreen that I agreed to table this amendment, even though I do not claim any expertise in this area.
Another reason that I agreed to table the amendment was that I was so impressed by how Faustine Petron, who approached me, founded the Make It Mandatory campaign and enlisted the support of many important bodies such as Brook—of which Lady Massey was a former president—the Sex Education Forum and the End Violence Against Women and Girls coalition. She has received the endorsement for this amendment of 50 organisations, and has collected over 105,000 signatures for her petition. She says, in her own words:
“I am a university student and young survivor of domestic abuse. As an older teenager, I would have benefited from being provided with RSE after year 11 and an adequate education surrounding the early warning signs of domestic abuse, the different forms abuse can take, and places to get help”.
The third reason is that Faustine Petron has such a strong case: she has identified a real gap in the mandatory provision of relationships and sex education, which does not cover 16 and 17 year-olds, yet, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, these are still children.
Since RSE was made mandatory in schools, it has begun to make a real difference. The Office for Students is making it into a condition of registration for universities that they intend to prevent and address sexual violence. Filling the gap in FE and sixth-form colleges would contribute to a preventative strategy on sexual violence among young people.
This would also help address the concern voiced by the Public Accounts Committee that,
“to date, the approach to tackling violence against women and girls has not put enough emphasis on preventative measures that are necessary to achieve long-term change”.
The committee emphasised the key role that education can play in tackling this issue, including in preventing children from becoming perpetrators in the future. Among its recommendations was that the Department for Education should set out how it intends to work with children and young people to prevent violence against women and girls, including further changes to the relationships and sex education curriculum. Some 77% of young people surveyed—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for interjecting relatively late into her remarks, but I am reminded that, in the Companion, it is fairly clear that Members should not seek to have their speeches read by other Members of the House. Perhaps she could rephrase her remarks in a way that makes it clear that she is speaking for herself, not on behalf of another Peer.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee. Clearly, I and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, had misunderstood the rules relating to this.
As has been noted, national organisations backing the Make It Mandatory campaign, in addition to the Children’s Commissioner, all agree that the extension of relationships and sex education to this group would be important.
In conclusion, in a recent Commons debate on relationships education in schools, the Minister for School Standards emphasised the vital role that education plays in preventing violence and that the aim of relationships education is to support all young people to build positive relationships and to keep themselves safe. That education must equip them for adult life. It thus makes no sense that, just as they are at the cusp of adult life, they should not be assured access to relationships and sex education to help equip them. The Minister continued that, as part of the Government’s opportunity mission,
“we will equip our young people and children with the skills they need to form strong, positive relationships”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/25; col. 112WH.]
Although she was talking about the school context, this is clearly important in terms of an extension to post-16.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 463, to which I added my name. Government data shows that 16 to 19 year-olds experience the highest rates of domestic abuse of any age group. Without mandatory RSE, we are leaving many 16 to 18 year-olds unsupported, just as they are starting their first intimate relationships. Tender, a marvellous charity that goes into schools to educate children in relationships, has been working with this age group. It found that only around half of the students could identify signs of an abusive relationship or knew where to find support; by contrast, after participating in Tender’s workshops, over 90% can identify abuse and will know where to find help.
Victim-blaming and perpetrator-excusing attitudes are prevalent in this cohort, in part due to a high percentage of young people viewing harmful content online. The End Violence Against Women coalition agrees, quoting the National Association for Managers of Student Services in saying that, “As the front line of support services in post-16 education, we know it’s been never more important to give young people a safe place with structure, to discuss and learn about positive relationships and to address the social isolation and misinformation a world living on social media has created”. In a confusing world, 16 to 18 year-olds seeking guidance deserve to be supported to critically examine and challenge harmful attitudes among their peers in a safe, supportive environment, which we can create through mandatory RSE lessons.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Storey, who has unfortunately had to leave to get the last possible train home.
I want to say just a few words, as the hour is so late, on Amendments 471 and 465, which seek to clarify in legislation the requirement for schools to teach about non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, in religious education at all stages. I am aware of the ongoing review into the national curriculum. It may be that, through the review, it is recommended that religious education becomes part of the national curriculum. This would be welcome, to ensure that the subject becomes impartial, objective and balanced, with clear national minimum standards that teach children about all the main religions and non-religious belief systems within our country.
However, as this may not come to pass, my amendment seeks to ensure the teaching of non-religious beliefs in religious education. In 2015, the High Court ruling in R(Fox) v Secretary of State for Education declared that religious education curricula should include the teaching of non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, to comply with the rights of freedom and belief under the European Convention on Human Rights. Nearly a decade later, in 2024, Ofsted released Deep and Meaningful? The Religious Education Subject Report. It reported that half of all secondary schools and a majority of primary schools still did not teach about non-religious world views in their RE lessons.
It is vital that children and young people learn about non-religious belief systems alongside the major religions. Humanism has a long and significant history in the UK, stretching through our sciences, arts, culture and politics. Many people in the UK live their lives around the values of the scientific method, making ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and a concern for all living life, and that in the absence of a God or afterlife we must strive to improve ourselves and our communities in the time that we have.
My Amendment 471 would ensure that religious education must teach about non-religious beliefs, providing clarity and direction to schools and local authorities. Amendment 465 seeks to remove the requirement for collective daily worship in all state-funded schools without a religious character. It would not remove the ability for schools without a religious character to provide collective worship if they choose to do so, nor, as some noble Lords have seemingly misunderstood, would it ban prayers, Christmas carols or any religious holidays.
It simply removes the legal requirement of mandatory Christian worship in these non-faith schools. While faith schools will still be required to provide collective worship, schools without a religious character will have to provide an assembly once a week that furthers the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of all pupils, regardless of their faith or belief.
This amendment is about freedom of choice and respecting the diversity of our society. It cannot be justified, when in the recent census over a third of the population in England and Wales had no religion, rising to over half of those in their 20s, that when non-religious parents send their children to a non-religious school, the school is still legally obliged to perform Christian worship. When the alternative is to pull children out of lessons or assemblies and leave them sitting in classrooms or corridors by themselves, this is not a real choice.
The current situation demands that parents choose between ostracising their children and forcing them into religious worship they do not want for their family. I know that there are many noble Lords who deeply and sincerely believe in the values of Christian worship, and I respect that belief. That is why my amendment does not remove the requirement of collective worship in faith schools. In return, I ask noble Lords to respect those of us in society who do not believe in any faith, and to allow parents the equally valid choice to have their children attend schools that do not require daily worship. Children should also have the right, as under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to remove themselves from worship if they do not believe in it.
Maintaining the daily collective worship obligation for state-funded schools without a religious character is not respectful to those families from other religions or with no religion. We should provide more choice, not less, to schools and parents, to reflect the needs and beliefs of children.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, at this late hour, I sound a slight note of caution and concern over Amendments 465 and 471. I do not have any particular problem with Amendment 463, which is something all of us should be able to embrace, in terms of ensuring education around prevention of sexual violence and promoting respectful relationships.
Amendment 465 in many ways transposes the proposed Private Member’s legislation and tries to put it within this legislation. By removing the requirement for collective worship, what is put in its place seems to be quite vague and ill-defined in its nature. It talks about assemblies that have to promote
“spiritual, moral, social and cultural”
aspects. It strikes me that it almost replaces a religious assembly with what is, in effect, a humanist assembly. That is a conclusion which a lot of people will draw.
The vagueness of what is being proposed to, in effect, replace the collective worship will lead a lot of schools into trying to find other forms of lectures and lessons that they will try to put across within an assembly. There is no doubt that this will lead to a widespread and vast difference of interpretation. There is also no doubt that many of the subjects, while very merited, can be quite controversial. We would be naive if we did not believe that this would create a situation in a number of schools in which there were levels of friction, perhaps between parents and the school, or between governors and the school. There is a certain element of the hornet’s nest being stirred up.
The proposer of the amendment also then talked about choice. It is absolutely right at present that no child or family is compelled to attend religious or collective worship. The right to opt out is enshrined in legislation and, as such, clearly will remain, and I think everyone would accept that. However, the way the amendment before us today is drafted creates this alternative form of assembly, which is compulsory for everyone. It would mean that if a parent objected to a particular assembly, to a lesson, there is no right for them to withdraw their child because there is no provision directly to do that.
There is a danger of unintended consequences as a result of this. Mention was made on a number of occasions today of not wanting to go down the route of Northern Ireland education. Without going into the details, some of what has been said was a bit oversimplified and wrong. But leaving that aside, Members made the point that they see the best social mix of education where there is a wide range of faiths—where, indeed, there is a considerable level of mixing. Removing collective acts of religious worship will actually push some parents much more towards faith schools, feeling that perhaps the faith of their children is not being represented. That will create a situation that makes integration less likely, albeit perhaps in a relatively small fashion. So there is that question of unintended consequences.
I do not believe that Amendment 471 is necessary. The curriculum already at times reflects non-religious topics within RE. This, to some extent, supercharges the non-religious issues within RE. Whether we have faith or not, I think everyone in this House probably, in different ways, holds non-religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell is gone. I share with him one unfortunate trait, in that I am a lifelong Manchester United supporter. I have a belief that within the next few years, Manchester United will win the Premiership again. Perhaps that is not a non-religious belief, because the amount of faith required to hold that belief is such that it perhaps tips over into being much more a matter of faith over hope and experience.
Nevertheless, we have seen that the definition is tied to the provisions of a particular part of the ECHR. We know that, as a result of that clause, there has been quite a lot of case law, not just here but throughout Europe, in relation to the definition of non-religious beliefs. A very wide range of topics has come into play and been defined in case law. Again, all those are perfectly legitimate topics. However, it raises the prospect of the non-religious belief side overwhelming the religious side of RE. I may be quite literalist in my view, but I think religious education should principally be about religion, and this clearly dilutes that to an unacceptable extent.
In conclusion, I appreciate, given many of the figures that have been quoted, that we are becoming an increasingly secular society, so I suppose what I am saying may be regarded as a bit unfashionable. But I believe that, in an age when perhaps there are a lot of unnecessary divisions within this country, a lot of our laws and collective values ultimately rely on Judeo-Christian values and traditions. We should not abandon those in a school setting, on a casual basis without specific consultation. These amendments take us too far in that direction.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the naivety that the noble Lord referred to is actually his own naivety. Because of the area in which it is, the primary school that I attended in Manningham—which is part of my title—in Bradford now has a population that is over 70% Muslim. The idea that, by law, that school has to have Christian services and assemblies is naive and possibly offensive to the parents of those children. Our society needs to recognise that it is not fair to impose these things upon those parents and children.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Time does not permit me to properly debate and discuss Amendment 471, so I will confine my comments to Amendment 465. I thought that the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, were very apposite, and I more or less wholly agree with him.
I want to specifically talk about the first part of the amendment, which would replace the duty to provide an act of worship with
“an assembly which is principally directed towards furthering the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education”,
rather than the specific issue of replacing the daily act of worship. This amendment contains an incoherent phrasing that, in effect, amounts to an imposition of humanist beliefs. To refer to spiritual education, regardless of religion or belief, is absurd. To refer to moral education, regardless of belief, is irrational. It is impossible to make moral judgments without beliefs about what is right or wrong or beliefs about how these judgments should be made.
It is not possible to understand British society and culture without regard for the religious beliefs that have shaped its literature, music, art, history and institutions. The exclusion of religious belief from a social and cultural education in assemblies is illogical and will restrict pupils’ understanding. The assumption that it is possible to provide an assembly
“directed towards furthering the spiritual, moral … education of the pupils”,
without regard to belief, is illogical. In effect, these new assemblies would promote humanist beliefs and provide pupils with a highly partial account of spiritual, moral, social and cultural education.
As humanists are keen to point out, not everyone is religious. There are people who hold non-religious beliefs, but these are beliefs, and consequently shape the perspective, values and attitudes of those who hold them in ways that are not neutral. They are sincerely held, but they are not universally held. This is why Humanists UK, for example, campaigns so vigorously—it needs to persuade others who currently disagree with it.
There is also a disparity in parents’ rights to withdraw their child. Currently, all parents have the right to withdraw their children from collective acts of worship, but this amendment allows parents to withdraw their children from assemblies in schools that contain an act of worship but does not allow parents to withdraw their children from humanist assemblies. This two-tier system is deeply inconsistent and unfair. The state educates children on behalf of parents with their permission, and not against their wishes; the amendment is inconsistent with Section 9 of the Education Act 1996, and incompatible with Article 2 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. I surmise that there has been no consultation with the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church or any religious bodies on this in respect of this amendment.
Without the context of religion, the content of these assemblies will inevitably focus on issues of a political nature, and views on these issues will have to be considered with religious perspectives excluded. There are already concerns about political impartiality in schools, and this amendment risks making matters worse.
Britain and its values are rooted in Christianity, and this continues to be reflected in our national life. Currently schools can accommodate important national days, such as Remembrance Day, within their acts of collective worship. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, spoke in favour of the Private Member’s Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, earlier in the year, which aims to achieve similar changes to this amendment, arguing:
“Children need to be taught early the importance of generosity, kindness, neighbourliness … community support”.—[Official Report, 7/2/25; col. 968.]
But the fact that these are valued in contemporary British society is due in large part to the impact of Christianity. These values have positively transformed society and are still cherished in modern Britain. It is impossible to explain the development of these values to pupils without regard for the context of the religious beliefs from which they arose.
There is an assumption that Britain is becoming an increasingly secular country, which is used to support these amendments, but it is not borne out by recent studies which demonstrate a sharp increase in young people attending church. Dr Rhiannon McAleer, co-author of The Quiet Revival, states:
“While some traditional denominations continue to face challenges, we’ve seen significant, broad-based growth among most expressions of Church—particularly in Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism. There are now over 2 million more people attending church than there were six years ago”.
The present legislation already allows for the consideration of all beliefs, and requires the head teacher to have regard for the background of pupils in determining the extent to which collective worship reflects Christian belief. If still unhappy, parents can withdraw their child. The proposals are trying to fix a problem that does not exist.
There is also the issue that the amendment extends to Wales, where the education system and governance are devolved.
For all the reasons that I have laid out, I oppose this damaging and wholly unnecessary amendment.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
As it is late, I shall just register my support for Amendments 465 and 471. I agree that a large number of young people and their parents do not adhere to a religious faith. It is clearly valuable and important for them to learn about the central faiths that influence our culture, but they are also entitled to have access to moral and ethical frameworks which do not depend on a religious faith so that they may arrive at their own moral compass. These amendments would enable that positive development.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer Green support for all three of these amendments, but in the interests of time I shall make two brief remarks about Amendments 463 and 465.
On Amendment 463, I agree with all the contributions made thus far, but with a focus particularly on the relationship and sex education part of it. I think that it is also important that we focus on the PSHE element of that. This is education about the financial sector and managing personal finances, something that it is generally agreed there is a real shortage of. This is education about physical and mental health—and I cross-reference the earlier amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about the importance of physical literacy in particular. It is also about rights and responsibilities. We have to note that, with votes at 16 now being government policy and coming in this direction, it is surely important that we provide education about voting and our political system to young people in our further education system.
When I say that we need that kind of education, people sometimes say that that is an argument against votes at 16. I think that 16 year-olds are as well informed about our political system as 60 year-olds, and they all need more information and more education. Educating 16 and 17 year-olds will also provide information that will disseminate out into the general community through their family, friends and colleagues in the workplace.
On Amendment 465, I want to respond directly to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, who, I think, suggested that there was something odd about the idea that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, had previously brought two Private Members’ Bills—I have spoken in support of both—and that their subject was now being put forward as an amendment to a government Bill. There is a very well-trodden path for—
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
No, I did not. In case there is any misunderstanding, I was simply pointing out that this was, in effect, a transposition. I did not suggest that it was some sort of irregular route or that there was something wrong with it. I pointed out that, if it were to become part of the Bill, it would not have gone through the same level of consultation as the rest of the Bill. However, I did not suggest that this was an oddly trodden path—in case there was any misunderstanding on that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Of course, what he just said applies to any amendment that your Lordships’ House inserts into a government Bill.
The argument for Amendment 465 has already been powerfully made, but we are talking about a law that dates back to 1944. This is a 20th-century arrangement for the 21st century, which, as others have said, simply does not fit our society any more. A poll in 2024 said that 70% of school leaders wanted to get rid of the current legal arrangement.
On alternative moral, spiritual and cultural development, we hear from all sides of your Lordships’ House regular lamenting about how much cultural education we have lost from our current system and how little space there is to fit into the curriculum things such as cultural activities and cultural learning. This provision would be one way to create a little more space for something that is pretty well universally agreed as being essential.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will very briefly say a few words about this group.
On Amendment 463, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, may have taken up the baton from somebody else, but she did it pretty well—nobody has disagreed with her. It seems agreed that she is on very solid ground. The amendment is about useful information that people should have. I hope that the Government are at least friendly to the amendment.
On the two amendments tabled by my noble friend, I very much doubt that one assembly a week will change anybody’s religious views either way. Not making one point of view compulsory will probably not change religious views either way. The similarity in the values of religions—the fact that we should be nice to people seems to be common across the board—is something that we can probably convey elsewhere; it does not have to be put forward in this way. I do not think that it will make much difference. It would certainly bring it in line with a bigger chunk of the population. If people want spiritual activity somewhere else, it would be available.
I turn to the final amendment in the group. I hope that my noble friend will not hit me too much when I say that the provision should already be there. Any education about religion must include the contrary arguments, so I think this is really belt and braces. I am not getting snarled at by my noble friend, so I think I am not too far off in saying that. I hope that the Minister can confirm that Amendment 471 should be covered, at least partially, in all current religious education.