Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
This Government’s approach is founded on the bedrock of the best scientific evidence, which, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says that net zero by 2050 is essential to limiting global warming to 1.5°. That is why we supported Baroness May’s decision to put net zero by 2050 into law; that was based on advice from the Climate Change Committee. That decision was right for the climate, for energy security, and for the jobs and growth that it can bring to our country.
Mary Kelly Foy
This Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is not only delivering against climate targets, but delivering jobs and investment in places like Durham and the wider north-east, where around 500 renewable energy companies already employ around 17,000 people in good-quality jobs—a figure that is set to rise to 24,000. Those who take a stand against climate action would put that growth at risk. Does the Secretary of State share my concerns that the fearmongering by some in this House about the cost and safety of renewables is not only misguided, but fundamentally against our national interests, and will he work with local teams to provide suitable knowledge and education, as suggested by Retrofit Reimagined?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the Climate Change Act 2008 is now an issue that divides this House. I think Rain Newton-Smith, the director general of the CBI, put it very well recently when she said,
“The Climate Act has been the bedrock for investment flowing into the UK.”
Ripping up the framework that has given investors confidence that the UK is serious about sustainable growth through a low-carbon future would damage our economy. Seeking to abolish the Climate Change Act is not just a betrayal of young people—it is anti-jobs and anti-investment.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
May I gently remind the Energy Secretary that it is his job to answer questions from MPs on behalf of their constituents? I will ask the same question that I asked him last time: if the UK became net zero tomorrow, by how much would it reduce the Earth’s temperature?
Ed Miliband
I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer I gave him last time. Action by the UK makes a difference here. Of course, we are 1% of global emissions, but our action means that other countries act. Where is the evidence for that? Well, it actually happened. When the Climate Change Act passed, 60 other countries passed their own versions of it. Net zero was signed into law in this country, and now 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero. That is the difference the UK makes. I believe in Britain; the hon. Gentleman does not.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Lord Stern reminded us just today that
“Investment in climate action is the…growth story of the 21st century,”
while expecting growth from fossil fuels is
“futile because the damage it causes ends in self-destruction.”
The Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed the same thing in the summer, referring to the huge cost of not taking climate action. Is it not the truth that the energy transition is essential, not only to address climate action, but to exactly how we deliver economic success?
Ed Miliband
The Chair of the Select Committee speaks very wisely on this matter. The net zero economy grew three times faster than the economy as a whole last year. This is the growth opportunity of the 21st century. Now, we could let China or India take that opportunity, but I say that we need that opportunity for Britain.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Climate Change Act forces Ministers to meet rigid, legally binding emissions targets, regardless of the economic consequences. Does the Secretary of State accept that this law has directly contributed to higher energy bills, the loss of British industry and declining competitiveness, and that the only sensible course of action is to repeal it?
Ed Miliband
No, and British business roundly condemned the Conservatives when they came out with that argument. The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), sitting on the Front Bench, who said just in March last year—life comes at you fast, Mr Speaker—that Britain was the “poster child” for net zero. She was lauding everything associated with that, and now she wants to abolish the Act that made it possible.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
We are delivering a strategic spatial energy plan to support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure. It will consider wider demands, including food production, water supply and nature recovery. The Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Energy Security and Net Zero will ensure that the strategic spatial energy plan and the land use framework work together.
Sarah Green
Residents in my constituency are concerned about a proposed site for a battery energy storage system on agricultural land in the green belt. With tales of similar storage systems catching fire, there is understandable fear in the community. Would the Minister meet me to discuss making local fire services statutory consultees for certain types of battery storage planning applications, and to hear my residents’ concerns, and will he reassure them that they will not be guinea pigs for new or untested technology?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right to say that public confidence in the safety of all infrastructure is incredibly important. Battery technology is no more unsafe than any other technology, but if there is a public perception that it is, then it is right that we take action to deal with that. That is why I am hosting a roundtable to look at what more we can do around safety, and it is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing work on some of the regulations in this space. This is regulated closely by the Health and Safety Executive, but I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss what more we can do.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that answer. In my constituency, several planning applications are pending, and one has already been granted in the villages of Wilsden and Cullingworth for battery storage and onshore wind in the wider area. Can the Minister explain how constituents with clean energy infrastructure in their area can benefit from both cheaper bills and community funding?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that building renewable infrastructure is how we will bring down bills for everyone in the long term. It is incredibly important that we can store cheaper electricity, including through battery storage, so that we can deploy it in the system far more regularly than we are currently deploying gas, which is what is driving up people’s bills. We also want the communities that host the infrastructure to benefit directly from it. They will benefit from cheaper bills, as well as from direct community benefits. We have been consulting over the past few months on whether those should be made mandatory, and whether we should raise the expectations on developers.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
Ensuring that everyone has access to a safe and warm home is our priority. From this winter, we estimate that an extra 280,000 families in the north-west will receive £150 off their energy bills, thanks to decisions taken by this Government. Through our warm homes plan, we will bring down bills for families right across the country.
Mr Morrison
According to National Energy Action, adults in the north are more likely to ration their energy this winter, and in my constituency almost 8,000 people are in fuel poverty and at risk of poor living conditions, illness and suffering. A balance must be struck to deliver both clean heating and a people-first approach. After serious delay, will the Minister finally bring forward a warm homes plan, and explain how it will achieve that balance and ensure that low-income households in Cheadle are guaranteed clean, affordable heating for the winters to come?
Martin McCluskey
We will bring forward the warm homes plan this year. In March, we allocated around £1.8 billion to local authorities and social housing providers through the warm homes local grant. The hon. Member may want to direct his constituents to the Greater Manchester combined authority, which received a settlement of £134.9 million of devolved capital funding for buildings retrofit. They can access that through the retrofit portal, which has an eligibility checker, so that households can check whether they qualify for free or discounted home upgrades.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
From this winter, an additional 2.7 million households across the UK will receive £150 off their energy bills, which makes a total of nearly 6 million low-income households receiving this vital support. That is the difference that this Government are making to our communities.
Paul Waugh
I am delighted that thanks to this Government and the warm home discount eligibility extension, thousands more Rochdale families will be eligible for £150 off their bills this winter. It will ensure that young and old alike get more help with their bills this winter. I would like to raise the case of my constituent Keith Gumbridge, who had his cavity wall insulation botched under the previous Government, and who was left with huge legal bills after so-called “no win, no fee” law firm Pure Legal went bust. Mr Gumbridge’s case has been with the Legal Ombudsman for nearly three years; does the Minister agree that that is far too long to wait for justice?
Martin McCluskey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work championing causes for his constituents. He will know that an extra 280,000 households in the north-west will be eligible for the warm home discount, and that 2.7 million households across the country will be helped this year. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the case of Mr Gumbridge. Ensuring confidence in the insulation system will be crucial to rolling out the warm homes plan.
Adam Jogee
I congratulate the Minister on being freed from the Government Whips Office and welcome him to his position on the Front Bench. I commend the Government on extending the warm home discount to a further 2.7 million low-income households, but there is much more to do. With that in mind, will the Minister find time to meet me, so that we can discuss how we can keep people in Newcastle-under-Lyme alive, safe and warm in the colder months ahead?
Martin McCluskey
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on my liberation from the Government Whips Office. I know that he is a champion for his constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am always happy to meet to discuss these important issues. He will know, as I do, that with wholesale gas costs 77% higher than before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we must get people off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices and on to clean home-grown power.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Nearly 3 million households in the UK live in fuel poverty. At the same time, a recent report from the Common Wealth think-tank told us that energy company profits average about a quarter of everybody’s bills. In the last few years, £70 billion has been paid to shareholders, instead of being reinvested or used to help tackle fuel poverty. Will the Minister commit to tackling those energy company profits by taxing them fairly and reinvesting the money in the urgent work that is needed—for example, through the warm homes plan—to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty in our country?
Martin McCluskey
The cost of energy has to come down, and one of my jobs as Minister for energy consumers is driving down the cost of bills, but we must also remember that the Government introduced a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, and we have the price cap on energy, which caps the profits of energy companies. We will continue to take that action.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Despite the oil price being at a six-month low this week, energy prices remain stubbornly high. Given the onset of winter, what further steps will the Minister and his Department take by way of a warm home scheme?
Martin McCluskey
We are taking action through the warm home discount, which is being provided to an extra 2.7 million households across the country, and the warm homes plan, which we will roll out before the end of the year.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
High and volatile energy prices are bad for growth, take money out of consumers’ pockets and make our businesses less competitive. Through our mission to achieve clean power by 2030, we are taking the country off the rollercoaster of global fossil fuel prices and have set a route to home-grown cheap and greener energy.
Stephen Gethins
The Minister and I come from one of the most energy-rich parts of Europe, yet its consumers have among the highest energy bills in Europe. That drives up fuel poverty and hits the cost of living crisis. He will be aware of that. Labour promised to bring down bills by £300; they will have gone up by about the same amount. Does the Minister understand why people are so frustrated with the Government?
Martin McCluskey
Like the hon. Member, I understand people’s frustration when they look at their energy bills each month. [Interruption.] That promise stands. That is why we are taking concerted action through the warm home discount, which is providing 2.7 million households with support this winter, and the warm homes plan, which we will roll out this year.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
Economic growth is a key driver for all our constituents. What is the Government’s estimate of the number of jobs that will be created in the UK by 2030? Is it true to say that it will be triple the number in the old economy?
Martin McCluskey
Hundreds of thousands of jobs will come from the clean power revolution. That is why it is so important that we push ahead with it and do not adopt the tactics of the Conservative party, or their friends on the Back Benches. We need to push ahead with clean power in order to unlock those hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I welcome the new Ministers to the Front Bench. On the first day of recess, away from scrutiny, the Labour party published the prices for its allocation round 7 of the renewables auction. Labour used to say that renewables were nine times cheaper, but the prices that the Secretary of State has said he is willing to pay are 40% higher than the current cost of electricity—they are the highest prices in a decade—and he has extended the contract length to 20 years. Those are not just the prices that we will be paying; they are the prices that our children will be paying. Will the Minister explain how locking us into higher prices for longer will cut bills by £300?
Martin McCluskey
The right hon. Lady’s comparison is absolute nonsense, and she knows it. She compares the cost of building and operating new renewables, which is what the contract for difference relates to, with the cost of operating—not building—gas plants. Once we make a fair comparison, the truth is that renewables are cheaper to build. We will take no lessons on energy policy from the Conservative party, which abandoned its commitment to clean energy at its party conference.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Earlier this month, Great British Energy jointly funded 46 new community energy projects in Scotland, including an island solar farm, a community ice rink and a small community wind farm. Great British Energy is also helping public services in England with their energy bills through its solar for all programme, which benefits schools and hospitals. In this way, GBE is transferring money from the pockets of energy companies to local communities and frontline services.
Katrina Murray
Many leisure centres, such as the Tryst in Cumbernauld, which was built and opened in 1973, are desperate to decarbonise, but face huge costs and the practical challenge of retrofitting renewable technologies into older buildings. Will my right hon. Friend set out how Great British Energy will support vital community facilities of that kind in making the switch to clean energy, and in reducing their bills?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks very well about these issues. GB Energy is already taking advantage of the huge potential of clean energy, and hundreds of schools, hospitals and NHS sites across the country are already benefiting. The statement of strategic priorities made it clear that GBE will work collaboratively and in partnership with Scottish public bodies and the Scottish Government to increase investment in the local community energy sector in Scotland. Organisations such as my hon. Friend’s leisure centre sound like ideal candidates.
Jacob Collier
Thanks to Great British Energy and this Government, Queen’s hospital in Burton will get solar panels, which will save the trust money that can be ploughed directly into the frontline and be spent on patients. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is significant opportunity to expand that programme to other public buildings, and is he exploring that with his Department?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right, and I hope that the massive expansion to schools and hospitals that we have already ensured in 15 months is welcomed across the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
They did not need GBE to do it.
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman says that we did not need GB Energy to do that, but the Conservatives never did it—not in 14 years. It is precisely through a publicly owned energy company that we are doing this, to the benefit of citizens across our country. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) that there is huge opportunity here, and we intend to expand the plan.
Rachel Hopkins
I for one welcome the announcement that the publicly owned Great British Energy will roll out solar panels to more schools and hospitals in the coming year. What benefits will that bring to our communities, and what can places such as Luton South and South Bedfordshire do to take advantage of the clean power transition?
Ed Miliband
This is really important. Public institutions face significantly high energy bills because of the legacy of the last Government. GBE, with its programme, is cutting those bills. That is a transfer of resources from energy bills to frontline public services. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) is chuntering from the Front Bench. He should visit some of the teachers and NHS staff who think that this is a brilliant programme.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituency of Esher and Walton is home to the UK’s largest floating installation of solar panels; there are 23,000 on the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir, helping to support public services by powering a Thames Water treatment plant. It is a fantastically innovative renewables project, but very few of my constituents know about it. How will the Government use Great British Energy to argue more effectively for the benefits of renewables for communities and public services across the UK?
Ed Miliband
The Energy Minister says that he went on a profile-raising visit to the programme two weeks ago, so many more people now know about it, thanks to that. Indeed, even more—thousands, millions—will know about it as a result of watching this question time. The hon. Lady makes an important point about how GB Energy can roll this out across the country, and floating solar has real potential as well.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Over a year ago, the UK Government promised that there would be hundreds of jobs for GB Energy in Aberdeen. A year on, the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen is haemorrhaging thousands of jobs and we are barely into double figures for GB Energy jobs. When will that promise be kept?
Ed Miliband
I have to say that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the work that GB Energy is doing. When I talk to industry representatives, they say that GB Energy now plays a crucial role. There is investment coming into the supply chain—a supply chain fund of £1 billion, thanks to the spending review, which the Conservatives would abolish because they do not seem to want jobs in Britain. There is £1 billion in the supply chain and GB Energy is rolling out community energy projects in schools and hospitals in England, as well as the ones in Scotland that I have talked about. GB Energy is partnering with the private sector. This is all part of the clean energy workforce plan, which we will publish soon, for 400,000 extra jobs as a result of our clean energy mission.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
By prioritising partnerships with schools, we will help to protect their budgets. I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to schools in Maidenhead, and specifically Furze Platt senior school—where I happen to be a governor—which recently partnered with MaidEnergy to install solar panels on the school’s building, thereby doing right by its budgets and by the environment, and setting a great example for the students taught there.
Ed Miliband
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being a school governor and on the work the school is doing. We can talk about the tangible benefits, but the wider point is that young people want us to act on these issues, and that is part of having an education system that teaches them about the benefits of moving towards clean energy. When I go into schools, there is massive enthusiasm for that kind of initiative.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
I am delighted that my first outing at the Dispatch Box is to answer a question from my hon. Friend, and on a topic that we have worked on so much over the past year. We on the Labour side know that net zero is the greatest economic opportunity of our generation. Unlike the previous Conservative Government, which allowed industry to wither, we do not accept that decarbonisation means deindustrialisation. Through our modern industrial strategy, we are working with business to help it to invest, grow and meet our climate ambition.
Gareth Snell
I congratulate the Minister on his well-deserved elevation to the Front Bench. He has worked quite hard with the ceramic sector on this issue. Energy-intensive industries, such as ceramics, are at the mercy of an international gas market over which very few countries have direct control, but one of the things that could help is looking at electricity costs. May I therefore encourage the Minister, in his new role, to consider expanding eligibility for the supercharger scheme so that energy-intensive industries, such as ceramics, can benefit from the support available until the supercharger scheme comes online in 2027?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the scope of the supercharger, which we are going to look at in 2026. He will be aware that some parts of the ceramics supply chain can access the supercharger, but I too am concerned about the impacts of high energy costs on the ceramics sector. I will meet the head of Ceramics UK this month, I am chairing a meeting of the Energy Intensive Users Group, and I look forward to further engagement with the sector in the new year.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I welcome the Minister to his place. Talking about industry, the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire is in receivership and is currently being sold, but thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk and the workers there are desperately concerned that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the official receiver are not running a proper process, frustrating potential bidders for the whole site. Will the Minister, in his new job, commit to helping ensure that the whole site is sold to a successful bidder?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Member said that thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk in this country; they are at risk from the climate-denying policies of Reform. The Institution of Chemical Engineers reported last week that there are 800,000 jobs in the green economy in this country—thousands and thousands in the constituencies of every single Member in this House—and the hon. Member’s party is putting that investment at risk.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
How many jobs have to be sacrificed on the altar of this Secretary of State’s vainglorious eco-zealotry before the Government acknowledge the utter destruction of the UK’s industrial base that is being wreaked by policies driven by an out-of-touch green lobby that has captured what is laughably still called the Department for Energy Security?
Chris McDonald
It is no wonder that there is so much laughter around the Chamber, because the policies of the previous Conservative Government saw industry decline. They were prepared to let industry decline because, fundamentally, they do not believe in industry, and now we find that they do not believe in climate science. We on this side of the House know that we can achieve decarbonisation in this country by winning investment from industry—investment that is coming in from all around the world. Our policies are giving industry the confidence to invest in creating jobs here in the UK.
Andrew Bowie
On their watch, two oil refineries have closed in just one year, with Jim Ratcliffe warning of a million job losses to come. Thousands are being laid off in the North sea, as companies divest themselves of assets and investment dries up. Factories are closing and plants are shutting down. It is no wonder that the head of Unite the union is calling for the Secretary of State to be sacked. We know that the Prime Minister tried to do that but failed, so, short of that, will they instead consider our plans, which would save industry and jobs: scrapping the Climate Change Act 2008, scrapping the levies, scrapping the windfall tax and putting cheap energy first?
Chris McDonald
I would like to thank the Minister for reminding the House of the litany of errors that we had to pick up when we came into office. My portfolio is filled with companies that have struggled so much over the past 10 years, but those companies now find that they have a partner in Government who will work with them to attract the investment to build jobs in the UK. If the Opposition do not like those jobs, they can continue as they are.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
We are building a resilient grid for the future after decades of under-investment. We are halving the development time for new transmission infrastructure, including through reforms to planning regulation and supply chains, and delivering the grid capacity needed to deliver clean power by 2030 and the economic growth that this country needs.
Graeme Downie
In January, when Storm Éowyn hit the UK, hundreds of thousands of people across Scotland were without power for several days. That included thousands of my constituents, in rural villages such as Oakley and Blairhall, and a number were reliant on power for critical medical equipment. Engineers performed heroic work to restore power as quickly as possible, but that was delayed by outdated grid infrastructure. As the new winter storm season has already begun this year, what steps are the Minister and the Department taking to ensure the future reliance of the grid to withstand worsening storms? How can that be done to protect vulnerable people in my constituency and across the UK?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend asks an incredibly important question. First, I would like to thank all the engineers and customer service staff who worked through the recent Storm Amy to ensure that people were reconnected as quickly as possible, including in some incredibly difficult circumstances—they did a fantastic job. We are trying to ensure that the UK’s grid remains as resilient as possible. That requires investment, and those who oppose the building of new infrastructure to improve our grid’s resilience will need to explain to their constituents why they want them to be much more at risk of disconnections in those storms.
Secondly, these storms are becoming more common, because climate change is impacting all our lives. The answer is to move more quickly towards clean power and to recognise that climate change is a problem, not to bury our heads in the sand and fail to deliver the necessary investment.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Proposals for 90 miles of pylons from Grimsby to Walpole in my constituency would have a major detrimental impact on rural areas due to the scale of the infrastructure, the loss of high-quality farmland and the proximity of the infrastructure to homes. Does the Minister understand—I do not think he does—why local people say no to pylons? Will he get National Grid to look properly at undergrounding or offshoring, to reduce the impact on these communities and ensure that if the proposals do go ahead, communities are properly compensated?
Michael Shanks
I could not have organised that better if I had tried: immediately after I said, “If you are against grid infrastructure, you are against economic growth”, up pops the hon. Gentleman to make exactly that point. His party is against building the future of this country, and we are not going to follow that path at all. Decades of under-investment have led to the issues we face today. They hold back economic growth across the country. This infrastructure has to be built somewhere. We are determined that communities benefit from that by introducing what the previous Government failed to do: community benefits for the communities who are hosting the infrastructure.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
On grid infrastructure, the Chinese wind turbine manufacturer Ming Yang has said that it is looking to set up a wind turbine factory in Scotland. Our security services have warned us about the risks of Chinese state-sponsored hackers trying to infiltrate and destroy energy systems in the west, and hidden kill switches have been found in Chinese solar installation technology in the United States. Can the Minister provide the House with a very clear assurance that neither Ming Yang nor the Chinese state will be able to remotely control our energy infrastructure—yes or no?
Michael Shanks
First, I will take no lessons from the party that brought Chinese investors right into building our nuclear power station. This Government are delivering a nuclear power station with British Government funding, not Chinese funding, so I will take no lessons from the Conservatives on that. Many companies want to come and invest in the UK, and we absolutely welcome investment into this country, but every single decision and investment obviously has to pass stringent national security tests. I will not engage right now in what those tests will be, but we will say very clearly that no decision we make will ever compromise our national security.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the hon. Lady for her continued advocacy on this agenda. I have enjoyed working with her from the Back Benches and hope to continue to do so in this new post. I am excited to share with her and the whole House the carbon budget growth and delivery plan later this month. What I can say now is that ensuring that low and middle-income families can benefit from the energy transition is absolutely central to our mission. It is why we are rolling out the biggest home upgrade scheme in a generation and why we are moving away from expensive fossil fuels towards cheap, clean British power in homes and communities across our country.
Carla Denyer
I welcome the Minister to her new position and thank her for her answer. I know how much she will want the new carbon budget delivery plan to reflect the scale of ambition required while ensuring that the poorest are not asked to pay the price, and also to signal that it is an absolute priority across Government. Can she assure us that the new plan will not just be slipped out, but will be launched properly and, crucially, with the Prime Minister?
Katie White
It is slightly above my pay grade to determine the Prime Minister’s diary, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we will proudly launch the carbon budget growth and delivery plan later this month.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
In the best traditions of the UK, we see it as our duty to work with other countries to tackle the climate crisis and protect future generations. It was British leadership that saw the Climate Change Act 2008 emulated in 60 countries across the world, and it was the leadership of the UK at COP26 that now sees 80% of global GDP covered by net zero. We will maintain that tradition of leadership into COP30 in Brazil and beyond.
Tom Hayes
The Amazon rainforest is the lungs of the earth, but it is gasping for breath. I am pleased that COP30 will be in the heart of the Amazon. Ella, a school student from my constituency, would like to know what steps the Government will be taking to stop deforestation and back nature-based solutions. On behalf of Ella, may I urge the Secretary of State to go as far as possible and do all he can?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and Ella for her interest in and enthusiasm for this incredibly important issue. Deforestation is a terrible thing for the planet, but it is also terrible for the people who are affected—the indigenous people who live in the forest. Nature-based solutions and solutions that put indigenous people at the centre make a huge difference. This is a COP in the forest, and I think the Brazilian presidency deserves congratulations on that emphasis. It is developing a number of initiatives, including the so-called TFFF—the tropical forest forever facility—to finance the prevention of deforestation, and we are working with it on that.
Warinder Juss
Young people in my constituency of Wolverhampton West are particularly concerned about protecting the environment and the future of our planet. I have been contacted by students at Wolverhampton girls’ high school and St Edmund’s Catholic academy, and recently I was proud to attend a climate justice art exhibition prepared by pupils at St Teresa’s Catholic primary academy. What steps are we taking to encourage international awareness of the dangers of global warming and the need to recycle and limit plastic waste, thereby also reducing marine pollution?
Ed Miliband
Plastic waste is something that my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work on. I think my hon. Friend’s wider point is important. There is a global context to this—and sometimes that context might not actually be as it appears—which is that, when we look across the world, we see that countries are still acting on these issues. Why? Because they recognise that it is in their national interest economically and in the long term for future generations. There is no future if people bury their heads in the sand and say, “We’re not going to act.”
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
COP30 begins next month in Brazil. The UK must play a leading role on the world stage to tackle climate change. At home, however, Somerset council is hampered in its attempts to achieve net zero by an escalating financial crisis following the maladministration of its previous Conservative administration. What steps will the Minister and Cabinet colleagues take to support councils in their net zero transitions?
Ed Miliband
Part of what we are doing is devolving more of the funding around warm homes, for example, so that local authorities can play a leading role. I congratulate local authorities on the interest that they are taking in this. The hon. Lady raises the wider picture of COP30, which is important—this is a crucial moment. The UK has already shown leadership in the past 15 months, including by publishing our nationally determined contribution at COP29 last year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers. The fact is that we are all in this together. We must understand that third-world countries have a role to play, just as the United Kingdom does, but we are the richer country. I am conscious that it may not always be financially possible for third-world countries to do the things that we ask them to, so what assistance can we give them to ensure that when we approach the task of doing this together, we actually achieve it together?
Ed Miliband
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. Part of the answer here is that the economics have changed, so getting private finance into developing countries can make a massive difference. The “Baku to Belém road map” is being produced as part of the COP process—it is a $1.3 trillion road map—and most of that is about private finance. We can see across the world the effect of private finance in developing countries. In Pakistan, for example, solar has gone from playing almost no part in its electricity system to being the top part of that system in only three or four years, because it is in Pakistan’s economic interests. That is what we are seeing across the world. We need the private and public sectors to play their role.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
I thank my hon. Friend for repeatedly raising these issues in the House—I know that climate change is of huge concern to her and her constituents. I am proud that Britain has led the way with our independent Committee on Climate Change, established under the Climate Change Act 2008, which has worked effectively for nearly two decades, under leadership from Labour and the Conservatives—I sincerely hope that we can re-establish that consensus. We are grateful to the Committee for its scientific recommendations to the Department. Obviously, it is for the Department now to consider them, and we will report back on our decisions at the end of the month.
Florence Eshalomi
I welcome the Minister to her place—it is good to see her among the line of men on the Treasury Bench. I have just finished chairing a meeting of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. One issue that we discussed was decent home standards. Emissions from homes is another key area that we need to bear down on, given the Government’s priority of improving minimum energy performance certificate standards by 2030. I appreciate that the Minister has been in post for only a few weeks, but what discussions has she had with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the private rented sector database will contain information on EPC ratings, so that all our residents can live in warm, secure and safe homes?
Katie White
Homes and home standards are absolutely key to decarbonisation for a variety of reasons, including the health benefits for residents. We will consult on the warm homes plan, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), spoke about the warm home discount earlier. We are working with MHCLG on bringing forward the future home standard.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
A major gap in our ability to make progress in reducing emissions is the disconnect—both literally and figuratively—between small renewable energy schemes and the communities in which they are situated. I think in particular of the Coniston hydro scheme, which faces resilience and sustainability issues relating to the removal of rocks. Is the answer to this not the creation of local energy markets to reduce the gap between service users and energy producers? Will the Government back the urgent delivery of P441 to make local energy markets a reality, save Coniston hydro scheme and service the local community?
Katie White
In this role, there are a lot of acronyms. I have to say that I did not know P441 until I sat on this Bench, but I understand from my colleagues that we are looking into that. We support local community projects, and we will be looking at that project and will come back to the hon. Member on P441.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
We want to make sure that businesses benefit from our clean energy mission, especially those in vital industries such as brewing. Our forthcoming carbon budget and growth delivery plan and our refreshed industrial decarbonisation strategy will help to provide further clarity for such businesses, including on how we intend to support them to electrify.
Mr Forster
One of the many brands of Woking-based Asahi is Cornish Orchards, which has recently decarbonised and cut its emissions by 94% by investing in renewable energy. Does the Minister agree that that is exactly the sort of innovation we need? What further steps will his Department take to ensure that the brewing industry can decarbonise and use renewable electricity a lot more than it does currently?
Chris McDonald
I commend Asahi, which I know is an important employer in the hon. Member’s constituency, for its work on decarbonisation and also for being my favourite Japanese beer. In a previous life, I worked as a fitter’s mate in a brewery, and I know how difficult it is to decarbonise the process there. Maybe it is something I should learn more about, and I would be very happy to come along to Asahi if I were invited.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The Government have published an onshore wind strategy to remove barriers to help companies build more onshore wind, with actions across several areas including planning, aviation, workforce and routes to market.
Mr Quigley
The UK is committed to growing our wind energy manufacturing capacity, but this requires investment in innovation to develop the next generation of products that could be made in the UK, using expertise that exists in places like my constituency of Isle of Wight West. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are doing everything possible to provide the funding to not only create jobs but provide sovereign ownership of blade technology and development in the UK, so that we become a true energy superpower?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to recognise the importance of the industry in his constituency. Vestas is a key part of the UK’s wind supply chain. The Isle of Wight is already a successful centre for wind blade manufacturing and research and development. I can assure him that we are doing everything we can to work with partners and right across Government on the proposal, and that includes the agreement in principle between Vestas and the Government to support the factory’s repurposing to make onshore wind blades, saving 300 jobs.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Energy companies of any kind, whether oil and gas or renewables, need certainty to plan to invest, whether it is onshore or offshore. The Government’s consultation on the North sea’s energy future closed on 30 April, almost six months ago, and the industry is still awaiting an outcome. The only guidance on timing on the Government’s website is to
“Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback.”
The ongoing delay is causing huge uncertainty for sectors of all types of energy investment. Can the Minister confirm when the outcome of the consultation will be published with a date or a week, not a vague timescale?
Michael Shanks
On the substance of the hon. Member’s question, we launched the future of energy in the North sea consultation with a detailed set of questions, which we are analysing at the moment. We will publish the response to that as soon as possible, but I am sure she will understand that we want to make sure we have it absolutely right. I have engaged with industry to tell it about the timeframes for that throughout the process.
Let me just say one thing. The hon. Member talks about uncertainty. What could be more uncertain than the Leader of the Opposition coming to Aberdeen and talking down the investment in offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture—the very thing that will retain the supply chain in the north-east of Scotland? Uncertainty is what the Conservative party brings to this.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
The Government believe that our mission to deliver clean power by 2030 is the best way to break our dependence on global fossil fuel markets and protect bill payers permanently. We recognise that we need to support households struggling with bills while we transition to clean power. That is why we are expanding the warm home discount to around an additional 2.7 million households.
Dr Chambers
I recently visited St Bartholomew’s church in Hyde, which has served the residents of Winchester for over 915 years, as part of its Give to Go Green day, which raised £2,400 to support its efforts to decarbonise the church and reduce energy bills. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the congregation and the community volunteers for the leadership they are showing in this area, and will he outline what steps the Government are taking to support faith and community groups in decarbonising historic buildings while preserving their heritage?
Martin McCluskey
I join the hon. Gentleman in praising the whole congregation and community at St Bartholomew’s in Winchester for supporting those efforts. Such efforts by community and faith groups across the country show the support that exists for taking the right action, not just on clean power but on insulation. The warm homes plan and other plans that the Department will publish before the end of the year will address some of the issues he talks about in respect of historic buildings.
Victoria Collins
Carol from Harpenden is one of many constituents who are worried about energy costs. At 70, she stressed that she never imagined that she would have to scrimp and save in the way that she does just to get by. The warm home discount is a temporary lifeline, so will the Government commit to long-lasting solutions to end fuel poverty, including an emergency home upgrade programme that will include incentives to install heat pumps that cover real costs?
Martin McCluskey
We are currently consulting on extending the warm home discount beyond 2026. I would encourage the hon. Lady to look at that consultation and feed back her views. The warm homes plan is the route to some of the actions that she has outlined and we will be publishing it before the end of the year.
Anna Sabine
In my constituency of Frome and East Somerset, approximately 10% of households use oil central heating, compared with 5% nationally. Given the high volatility of oil prices, that places my constituents in a particularly difficult position as we approach the winter months. Will the Minister confirm what measures will be taken to ensure that homes that are reliant on oil heating can be heated more affordably, so that my constituents do not have to suffer unnecessarily?
Martin McCluskey
Since I became a Minister four weeks ago, I have received a lot of correspondence on this issue and I am looking at it closely. We have consulted on the issue and, hopefully, we will be publishing the results of that consultation before the end of the month.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Half the battle to reach net zero is using less energy, which is why work to insulate homes is so important. Calder Valley is famous for “Happy Valley” and now “Riot Women”, and has occasionally been called wet and windy. With 75,000 of our homes falling below energy performance certificate band C, that means many families live in homes that leak heat. Today’s National Audit Office report found that in 98% of homes that had insulation installed under the last Government, the work was faulty, risking damp and mould. What action will this Government take to ensure that future insulation efforts help families, rather than hinder them?
Martin McCluskey
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the findings in today’s National Audit Office report. Obviously, we inherited this situation from the previous Government and we are cleaning up their mess. It is important that we have robust protections in place for consumers so that they have confidence when installing these measures. The warm homes plan will address that, including through the consumer protections that we will outline as part of it.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The CBI says that one of the best routes to bringing down bills and delivering growth is investing in clean power jobs, including the 8,800 such jobs that we currently have in Tees Valley—a number that is scaling up every year. Does the Secretary of State agree that investing in these industries is one of the best ways to redevelop our region and to deliver jobs and growth years into the future?
Martin McCluskey
I agree with my hon. Friend. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will come as a result of our sprint to clean power by 2030, not just in his constituency but across the entire country. What will not take us to those hundreds of thousands of jobs is the Conservative party abandoning its commitment to the Climate Change Act 2008. From hug a husky to burning the Climate Change Act—that is not the transition that we expected.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I welcome the new Ministers to their place—I look forward to working with them—and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Energy on holding on to their posts, which we are glad to see.
One of the best ways to bring down household bills is to help homeowners and small businesses make their properties cheaper to warm and to power. The Liberal Democrats have put forward a plan to do that by introducing a windfall tax on the big banks, which have seen billions of pounds in unexpected profits as a result of the quantitative easing programme by the Bank of England more than a decade ago. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Liberal Democrats that we should instead use those excess profits to fund green affordable loans of up to £20,000 for households and up to £50,000 for businesses and community groups, and cut people’s power bills for good?
Martin McCluskey
Having been in this job for only four and half weeks, I am always in the market for good ideas, whichever part of the House they come from. The £13.2 billion warm homes plan will do exactly what the hon. Lady wants us to do—safely insulating homes and getting people to take the action we need them to take to achieve clean power 2030. Importantly, the plan will create homes, businesses and properties that are warm and affordable, powered by sustainable clean energy.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Since the last oral questions in July, we have reached a final investment decision for Sizewell C, creating 10,000 jobs, and surpassed the historic milestone of approving enough clean power for 7.5 million homes after just 15 months of this Government. From next month, nearly 6 million families will receive £150 off their energy bills through the warm home discount. That is what it means to deliver on our clean power mission.
Lorraine Beavers
The National Energy System Operator is currently assessing whether tidal range technology can help us meet our clean power mission. In Fleetwood, we have a huge opportunity for a tidal range project, which could bring desperately needed jobs and investment. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that opportunity and the outcome of the report, to ensure that Blackpool North and Fleetwood feels the benefits of the Government’s clean power energy mission?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of tidal energy. I am very aware of the assessment that NESO is conducting—obviously, our Department is working with it on that assessment. The Minister for Energy chairs the marine energy taskforce, and is happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The carbon tax on electricity pushes up the cost of gas, wind, solar and nuclear in this country. It does not need to be there—the Secretary of State could axe the carbon tax tomorrow to instantly cut bills for every single family in this country. Why will he not?
Ed Miliband
I am afraid that the right hon. Lady’s question is economically illiterate, and that is putting it politely. The EU emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism mean that exporters will pay the carbon price in any case. Quite extraordinarily, her policy means that they would pay it to the EU, not to the UK Government—I do not think that is a very good deal. That is why UK business welcomed the linking proposals that we made, including UK Steel, the CBI, Make UK and the Energy Intensive Users Group.
Claire Coutinho
The Secretary of State is trying to conflate two emissions trading schemes. He does not want to talk about the carbon tax on electricity, because he has increased it by 70% since the start of the year, pushing up everybody’s bills in the process. He is making electricity more expensive at the same time as taxing, banning and bribing people into electric cars and electric home heating—that is totally backwards. He is the worst enemy of a decarbonisation agenda in this country. Our cheap power plan would instantly cut electricity bills by 20%. The Secretary of State could do so tomorrow; what is he waiting for?
Ed Miliband
Dear, oh dear. I will be honest: I think it is sad what has happened to the right hon. Lady. When she was in government for a time, she was the great eco-champion. At COP26, she was telling people, “Follow Claire’s lead—be a great eco-champion.” Now, she has suddenly discovered that she is the anti-net zero warrior. All it does is show how desperate the Conservatives are, and the more desperate they become, the more irrelevant they become.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and not only about what the mayor has done and the effects it has had on the health of Londoners. There is a wider point here, which is too often overlooked, about what the shift to renewables and away from fossil fuels can do to help save lives and tackle air pollution.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Frighteningly, the Earth has already reached its first climate tipping point linked to global warming. We are now seeing warm water coral reefs going into irreversible decline, which is threatening nature and millions of people and their livelihoods. The climate crisis is a global emergency and needs leadership, and when Britain leads, others follow. Can the Secretary of State finally confirm that the Prime Minister will attend COP30 and lead from the front?
Ed Miliband
I will give the answer that was also given by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), which is that the Prime Minister’s diary is above my pay grade. We will be playing a very active part at COP30. The wider point that the hon. Lady makes about tipping points and the recent report is important. Anyone who looks at that report will see where the science is taking us, and any political party in this House that sees that as a reason to then abandon the Climate Change Act 2008, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, is anti-science and anti-young people. It is a betrayal of the future.
Mr Speaker
Come on, Secretary of State, do you not want your own Back Benchers to ask questions?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
I share my hon. Friend’s concern regarding those reports. This Government are focused on making transport greener, including by cutting air pollution to improve health and the environment. We also need to ensure that people are abiding by the rules. The responsible body, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, is pursuing the potential diesel emissions non-compliance using its procedures and the tools available. Officials at the DFT have assured me that the findings from these investigations will be published in a timely and appropriate manner; as an impatient politician, I can assure her that I will continue to press for a prompt and thorough interpretation of “timely”.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
Let me be absolutely clear: no family should ever have had to go through this. It happened because of the systematic failings of the system put in place by the previous Government, and we are cleaning up their mess. We will do that at no cost to consumers, and I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss any cases that he might have in his constituency.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
Yes, I will. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of trade unions in the renewable industry, too.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The hundreds of workers at Lindsey oil refinery will have noted that in response to an earlier question, the Minister did not attempt to respond on the future of the refinery. At least two investors are looking to take over the whole site. If they prove satisfactory, can the Minister assure me that the Government will back the project?
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I am happy to have further conversations with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the refinery is in his constituency and that he cares deeply about it. A process is under way—led by the official receiver, because it is an insolvency process. It is considering a number of bids to make sure they are viable, and will conclude in the coming weeks so that there is certainty for the workforce. We have said throughout that we want to support as much investment in that site as possible.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Martin McCluskey
As the Minister for Energy Consumers, I am totally focused on how we bring bills down. Ofgem has already released information about how it will be providing a low standing charge tariff from January. We will also publish the warm homes plan before the end of the year. The warm home discount, which I encourage my hon. Friend to encourage her constituents to apply for, is providing additional support to 2.7 million households.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This week a conservation charity has indicated that the creep of wind farms in Scotland—17 million trees have been cut down to provide for them—is destroying the highlands, while in England 5% of prime agricultural land is to be used for renewable energy projects at a time when we produce only 60% of our food. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that his policy is destroying tourist areas, will make us more dependent on foreign imports for food, and will put up electricity prices?
Ed Miliband
There is a two-decade disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and me on these issues. The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis. That is why this Government are tackling it.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: allocation round 6 delivered a record number of renewables projects, and the jobs and investments that go with them will deliver jobs in constituencies throughout the country, including hers. We have reformed the scheme to ensure that allocation round 7 is a success, at a good price for consumers, and also that it delivers not only value for money but the clarity and investment for renewables projects that are essential to our energy security and to future investment.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that there is now a timetable to ensure that everyone who has a radio teleswitch meter will have it replaced without losing their electricity, heating or hot water?
Martin McCluskey
Since taking up my post four weeks ago, I have been dealing with the issue of radio teleswitch. I am more than happy to meet the right hon. Member to discuss the plans, and will soon be organising a roundtable with Members on both sides of the House to discuss them further.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we start the statements, I want to say a few words about our former colleague Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—better known to us as Ming—who died during the conference recess.
Ming was universally liked and respected across the House, regardless of people’s party allegiance. Unflappable, kind, principled, incredibly active and held in great esteem by all parties, Ming achieved success as an Olympian, as a lawyer and as a formidable politician in both Houses of Parliament, as well as leadership of the Liberal Democrats. He was one of Westminster’s most authoritative voices on foreign affairs, particularly in articulating his party’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
On a personal level, Ming was a loyal friend to me and to my family. He served with my father on the Trade and Industry Committee, where they conducted many inquiries, most notably into the Iraq supergun affair. The two often vented their frustration about the thwarting of their efforts to get Ministers, officials or even fellow Members to appear before their Committee, but despite that, they pursued the inquiry fearlessly in order to get to the truth. Some things have never changed.
I know that Ming was hit especially hard by the death of his wife Elspeth; they were, of course, married for more than 50 years. Courage, wisdom and integrity were Ming’s hallmarks. We have lost a dear colleague and, for many of us, a wonderful friend. Our thoughts are with Ming’s family, his friends, and his allies across the political parties.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I first thank you for that generous tribute to our dear friend Ming?
I want to let the House into a secret about Ming Campbell: he was obsessed with sport—as one might expect from someone who was the captain of the Scottish men’s team at the Commonwealth games. I remember him talking about how he had been captivated by the 1948 London Olympics at the age of seven, listening to it on the radio with his mother, and how he had decided back then that he wanted to run at a future Olympic games. It is a dream of so many young boys and girls, but Ming—thanks to his determination, drive and work ethic—actually made it happen: he represented our country at the Tokyo games in 1964.
For a man once known as “the Flying Scotsman”, who set a new British 100-metre record at 10.2 seconds and who was probably the fastest person ever elected to this House, Ming was never one to brag about his sporting accomplishments. In fact, he was such a gentleman and so averse to boastfulness that it could be hard to get him to talk about them at all. I remember when Wayne Rooney broke a metatarsal in his foot ahead of the 2006 World cup. Ming had told us a story about how he had suffered an injury before the 1964 Olympic games and how hard he had worked to overcome it. We were all begging him to go on the radio, tell that story and encourage Wayne Rooney—a rare chance for the Liberal Democrat leader to break into the biggest sport story of the day—but Ming would not do it. I have to admit that it was frustrating at the time, but it was also a mark of why he was so respected and admired. That level of modesty is rare in anyone, especially in a politician, but those of us who knew Ming knew that it was simply the kind of man that he was.
It says a lot about Ming’s many and varied accomplishments that his extraordinary sporting achievements—being Britain’s fastest man and representing his country at the Olympics—will not be what he is most remembered for. Nor will he be most remembered for his law career, though he excelled at that too. He was even offered the chance to become a judge on Scotland’s High Court in 1996, but he turned it down because by then, as he put it, politics had got into his blood. And so, what Ming will be most remembered for is his enormous contribution to British politics—a parliamentary career spanning five decades, including 28 years representing North East Fife.
I got to know Ming early during his first Parliament, when I was the party’s economics adviser based in our Whips Office. Even then, he already had so much gravitas. He was so charming, so thoughtful and so respected. Ming was among those few MPs who were genuinely grandees from the first day they were elected, but his calmness, reasonableness and intense decency masked a radical politician: a man who never forgot his roots after growing up in a Glasgow tenement, and who was driven by a deep commitment to social justice. He said it was his role and the role of the Liberal Democrats to “rattle the cage” of British politics, and he did—especially, as you said, Mr Speaker, when it came to foreign affairs and defence, on which he led for our party for over 18 years, including, of course, in the lead-up to and after the Iraq war.
I remember how difficult a decision it was for us to oppose that war. It felt like we were not just going against the Government, but taking on the full might of the British state and the United States too. The way Ming tackled it, with his typically steady, forensic and lawyerly approach, gave us both the confidence and resolve to speak up strongly for what we believed. He made our position firmly rooted in respect for international law. At a time when the world was in turmoil following the horrific terrorist attacks of 11 September, Ming provided principled leadership with his trademark combination of morality, courage and wisdom, and he continued to do so, whether as leader of our party, as a respected member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, or in the other place.
I benefited greatly from Ming’s advice and guidance over more than 30 years, and turned to him often about foreign affairs in my own time as leader. I will miss his wise counsel, as I know many of us will. But, more than that, he was an incredibly warm and caring friend—a colleague with such generosity and humour. He called his late wife Elspeth his rock, and she was always by his side—mostly with a cigarette. They were such good fun and such great company.
It was once said of Ming that he
“runs the risk of giving politicians a good name.”
Well, he certainly did that. His passing is a moment for us to consider how we are all viewed as politicians and what changes we could make, both individually and collectively, to further the cause of good, decent, hopeful politics—something that Ming embodied entirely.
Ming Campbell was a dedicated public servant, a tireless champion for Fife, St Andrews and the United Kingdom, and a true Liberal giant. I know all of us in the Liberal Democrat family and across this House will miss him terribly.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Everyone in this House knows what an honour it is to represent our country, but for most of us that appreciation comes from the rather sedentary position on these Benches, not from the international running track where Lord Campbell of Pittenweem first represented Great Britain at the Olympic games in Tokyo in 1964. He remained quick on his feet as a barrister, before becoming an MP, where, I am told, he made the most of his talents by sprinting door to door while canvassing. Ultimately, of course, he became a respected voice on foreign and defence affairs, becoming leader of the Liberal Democrats. This was despite many overtures from one of my predecessors, his old Glasgow University friend John Smith, to join the Labour party as a young man. No, Ming, as many came to know him, was determined and he knew his own mind.
Ming Campbell was authoritative on the subjects that he was passionate about, so it was no wonder that he had the respect and admiration of colleagues across the House, who recognised his wisdom and unfailing kindness over 28 years of service as a Member of this Parliament. Today we remember his commitment to Scotland and in particular of course to Fife—championing its industries from fishing to, in his case, flying—as well as becoming chancellor of the University of St Andrews, where he spoke of his joy at meeting students and young people full of hope for the future—a future he had done so much to shape. It was a full life, well lived alongside Elspeth, his beloved wife of more than 50 years. We are all enriched by his sense of duty and commitment to this country. He stands in the finest traditions of this House, so it is a privilege, on behalf of the Labour Benches, to pay tribute to the “Flying Scotsman”. May he rest in peace.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Conservative party, I would like to add my voice to the tributes paid today to Lord Campbell. I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Ming Campbell, as he was then, just once—backstage before “Any Questions?”—and he was very courteous, very curious and very earnest. We all know how well respected he was across this House, not least because of the efforts he made to work cross-party, especially on international matters. He was a man with a clear sense of right and wrong, committed to doing the right thing even when it was difficult or unpopular, so I very much hope that his legacy of careful thought, integrity and public service endures. On behalf of myself and my party, I extend heartfelt condolences to Sir Ming’s family, his party and all those who knew him and loved him.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. For those of us on all sides who were here during the debate on the Iraq war, I want to thank Ming for the legal advice that he provided and the way that he addressed that debate, because he did so without seeking any party advantage. He simply set out the legal principles on which he was making his decision, and he did so with compassion and with the recognition of the moral duty that we all had. Many of us agreed with him and voted with him, and many did not, but everybody respected his judgment as a result. I believe he was a model MP, always speaking and voting on the basis of his conscience and the interests of his constituency and the country overall. He will be greatly missed, but I think his lesson will remain with many of us throughout our own parliamentary careers.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As a Conservative, I want to join our Liberal friends in paying tribute to such a gallant and charming gentleman. His least successful period in this House was probably as leader of his party—perhaps he was just too nice; perhaps he could see both sides of the question—but what a great man and what a great foreign affairs spokesman. Following on from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the whole episode of the Iraq war was so difficult for us in this House, particularly for those of us who broke with our party to oppose it. He gave us leadership and rigour, and he has been proved right. Of course, there are no prizes for being proved right, but history will prove him right.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I stand here as a friend of Ming’s, but also as the current representative of his seat. I know how much he felt the privilege of being elected to this House for 28 years as the representative for North East Fife. I also know the very high regard in which he was held in the constituency. All I have had—both myself and the MSP for the constituency, Willie Rennie, who was previously a Member of this place—are very kind thoughts from constituents and stories about Ming that we have taken to our hearts.
He first stood for Parliament in Greenock in 1974. Greenock is my hometown. I was quite reassured, when I was first engaging with Ming, that we at least had something in common. What the Prime Minister said was right: he had the opportunity to switch to other parties, but he chose not to. Although he first stood in 1974, it took until 1987 before he was elected in North East Fife. That shows the spirit and determination he had as an individual, but also the work he did to build the constituency and build the local party.
I have had lots of thoughts from the local party, too. One of them I thought would be worth sharing with the House. Shortly after his election, which was a close contest against the sitting Conservative MP, they decided to take a celebratory boat trip out to the Isle of May to see the puffins. Unfortunately, the boat broke down on the way. Ming and Elspeth kept everybody calm. It was interesting that even people who did not vote for him came out and rescued the boat. [Laughter.] That was the respect with which he was regarded.
In his tribute, my constituency colleague Willie Rennie said that Ming had had three careers: politics, law and, obviously, sport. He was a parliamentarian, he was a KC, he was an Olympian and he was a Companion of Honour. If any of us can aspire to the great heights that Ming reached, that is worth aspiring to. The Prime Minister also mentioned his chancellorship of the University of St Andrews, which he held for 19 years. I know that those at the university are very sad at his loss and passing. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I visited the university last week to meet them and discuss Ming.
I will finish with some personal memories. He was a great support to me, but I do remember, when I was running for the selection in 2018, that there was a constituency lunch in North East Fife. One of the members who was supportive of my candidacy made sure that I was sat at the same table as Elspeth, because I was assured that if I could get Elspeth onside, Ming would surely follow. Since I was elected, we would meet every so often. Every month, we would have a cup of tea and a scone in the Pugin Room, and he would tell me all the things that I needed to be doing. The Secretary of State for Defence is not here, but Ming would always ask me, right up until the last time I saw him, about Leuchars and what the strategic defence review meant, and talk about how important defence was for him and the constituency.
There is no doubt that the loss of Elspeth was devastating and he was never quite the same. I think everybody would accept that when we saw him here, but really up until those last weeks, he, although very frail, was absolutely still there and we had many great conversations. I saw him just the week before he died, and it did feel like a “goodbye” conversation. I know that he will be much missed across this House, and I am very grateful for all the tributes that have been paid to him.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Ming Campbell was a good friend of mine. There is a body called the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which has not been mentioned yet today. Ming Campbell was a member for over 30 years, only really pausing when he became leader of the Liberal Democrats. When I joined that body in 2015, the respect with which Ming Campbell was regarded across the entire alliance—indeed, by so many partner countries, almost across the world—became apparent almost immediately. It did not matter if we were meeting Presidents, Prime Ministers or even royal families. Ming would come into the room and greet, say, the King of Spain in the same way he would greet somebody in the Tea Room and the respect shone through.
I remember very clearly when he was the chairman of several of the Assembly’s committees. Sometimes allies in those committees maybe did not quite see eye to eye and got into some really heated arguments. Ming simply hit the table and said, “Enough!” and the silence fell. That was the level of respect he had. During the coalition years, he was able to be appointed as leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Assembly. When I had the honour of taking on that role, I do not think many weeks passed when I did not call Ming on his mobile phone and say, “Ming, I need some advice on this difficult situation.” That was especially true during the covid years, when we were trying to work out how we were going to make the annual and spring Assemblies work online. Ming was always there with sage advice on how to lead our delegations.
One thing that is true about serving on an international body is that we spend an awful lot of time in airports, especially when flights are delayed. Ming always had a story and they were genuinely fascinating. His legal career has been mentioned. There was one particular story that I liked, because it showed his quick wit and his ability to move swiftly on his feet, which was an important ability for a KC. He said he had been prosecuting a defendant charged with causing affray and drunken disorderly behaviour. He put the question, “How much had you drunk?” Apparently, the defendant said, “Oh, only eight or nine pints.” He paused and said, “Are you meaning to tell this court that you drank a gallon of beer and you don’t consider that to be very much?” He said that at that point, he knew he had him. He would tell so many stories. He was very proud of his time in San Francisco, where he trained to be a top sprinter. He said, “Academically, it didn’t go quite as well as it should have done. I think I just spent far too much time at the track.”
He was, as I have said, enormously respected across the world. He was a great friend to me and a great sage. His politics were clear, but his party allegiance did not matter when it came to important roles of state and the intellectual rigour that had to be brought to important issues. I will miss him, and I know a great number of people in this House will miss him. He truly was a giant of British politics.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I had the distinction of succeeding Ming Campbell in this place. He probably was not unhappy that I am not his current successor—he spoke so highly of his current successor—but I have to say how highly I thought of him. I have heard so many nice stories today about his role globally, but as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) reflected so beautifully, more important than that was that he was so highly regarded locally. When I took over from him, it was difficult to go to any one of the 99 communities in his constituency where there was not a story or somebody who had been helped. And at the University of St Andrews, he was an outstanding Chancellor and colleague. I want to pay tribute to somebody who I may not have agreed with, but when we have that precious relationship between a constituency and the Member of Parliament—nobody better replicated that in his day-to-day work. I want to pay tribute to a European and an internationalist, but more than that an outstanding local representative.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to add my words of tribute to my friend, Ming Campbell. He had an impact on me long before I met him. The first general election I was active in was 1987. No offence to any other Liberal MP at the time—none of them are present here—but I was very impressed with Ming Campbell. He struck me as not being like other Liberal MPs: he looked like he could actually run the country. [Laughter.] He had gravitas. I am pretty sure that is what I said to my mother in the early hours of, I think, 12 June 1987, when he gained North East Fife from the Conservatives: “You look the real deal. You look incredibly competent.” And of course, in the years that followed, he demonstrated that.
We have talked about the Iraq war. What Ming Campbell did—yes, applying his legal expertise and insight into international law as well as the law of this land—was to make the connection, in what is often thought of as the esoteric business of human rights, that human rights are about human duties. They are about making sure that nobody is above the law—no Prime Minister and no President. He made that clear and made it crossover into public consciousness in a way that was really very remarkable.
I then realised I had a connection with Ming. When I met my wife, Rosie, in the ’90s, it turned out that her now, sadly, late father, Mark Cantley, opened the bowling with Ming at Glasgow Hillhead. They had not spoken to each other for 30-odd years until Ming came to do a talk at the university at Ambleside shortly after I had been selected, and the two of them continued a friendship until Mark’s passing just two years ago.
In 2005, the year I was elected, the late, great Charles Kennedy was meant to be doing the constituency visit to Westmorland, but his son was born the night before. Ming got drafted in at the last minute and did two visits for me—when you win by 267 votes, every single thing counts, so I have him to thank for that.
When Ming became leader in 2006, I had the honour of serving as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. What insight did I get during that time? He was obsessed with sport and running, and, despite the fact that this was a man who could run 100 metres in 10 seconds, he was incredibly generous in hearing the stories of somebody who was a 10th-rate fell runner.
In my time as leader, Ming was a great source of advice and wisdom. After that time, he and his wife, Elspeth, who we have mentioned, would regularly go on holiday in Ullswater, and they would always make a point of doing a visit in Westmorland—whether we asked them or not. [Laughter.] My recollection is of Ming talking to the local newspaper or TV station and Elspeth with not simply a fag but a pink cigarette holder, looking every bit a real-life Lady Penelope from the “Thunderbirds”.
One of our predecessors, the late, great Jo Grimond, once said that the best Liberal candidate should dress to the right and talk to the left. Ming Campbell bore all the airs of an establishment figure and was a radical to his dying breath. He was kind, wise, decent, talented and loyal. He was my friend, and I miss him.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to state that Sir Ming Campbell, as he then was, was the perfect example of how it is possible to disagree with another parliamentarian on a key issue and yet work side by side on other issues without any rancour or reservation.
My dealings with Ming did not get off to the best start, as we were generally on opposite sides of a debate about the replacement of Trident submarines and the replacement of continuous at-sea deterrence by part-time patrols. Nevertheless, once we got to know each other better on the Intelligence and Security Committee, we found ourselves making common cause on such issues as the safeguarding of the vital BBC Monitoring service for the future, the need to enhance spending on defence with an improved defence budgeting priority and, above all, the folly that could have happened of Britain intervening militarily in the Syrian civil war.
In short, Ming brought courtesy, style, courage and grace to public life to the benefit of society as a whole.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would also like to pay tribute to Ming Campbell, whom I met personally in later years, but whose political influence has hung over my entire adult life.
As an 18-year-old student at the University of Glasgow, I heard about these three great figures of British politics who had studied together and been great friends: Donald Dewar, who became the first First Minister of Scotland; John Smith, whose legacy as leader of the Labour party is well respected; and, of course, Ming Campbell. I found that his persona, his influence, his attitude to politics and his integrity influenced me. It was one of the things that pulled me towards the Liberal party, as it then was.
The first time I came across Ming personally was years later, about a year after he had stepped down as leader. When I made my maiden speech to the Scottish conference, I discovered that I was speaking on a motion proposed by Ming Campbell, which was, of course—this will come as no surprise to many—about RAF Leuchars, its future and what we needed to do to defend it. That was a thread that ran through.
In 2017, when I was standing in Edinburgh West, Ming came to launch my campaign—in fact, he helped me up on to a chair so that everybody could see me. He was there to be supportive. I learned a lot about his kindness and thoughtfulness a few weeks later, when my husband died and Ming took the time to take me aside and make sure I was okay and that I had the support I needed to get through the campaign.
Most of all, though, I enjoyed my chats with Ming on a Monday in the departure lounge at Edinburgh airport. He always had a tale to tell, and he always had a kind word about my column in The Scotsman. My team in the office were endlessly amused by how pleased I was that Ming Campbell had even read my column, never mind agreed with it.
Ming was, in many ways, with the integrity, kindness and thoughtfulness that everyone has spoken about, an example that we should all aspire to and try to live up to. There is a certain restaurant in Pimlico, which I am sure my colleagues are aware of, that many of us were introduced to by Ming Campbell. I am sure we think of him every time we go there, as I think we will the next time we go. We may make a point of going there and raising a glass to someone who was an example not just of what we should be, but perhaps of what the world needs now more than ever among its politicians.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is appropriate that on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, and indeed on behalf of all Northern Ireland parliamentarians, I extend our condolences to the Liberal Democrats and to the colleagues who knew Mr Campbell better than I did. I first came across Sir Ming when I was at school, and he became leader of his party when I was at university. It was not his prowess, his intelligence or his ability to launch an argument that struck me, but his name: Ming. I knew of no other Mings than Ming the Merciless— [Laughter]—and yet we got to know Ming the Merciful. We got to know Ming the politician, who stood and achieved the respect of colleagues right across this House. He was a sincere Unionist, an avowed Scot and a true parliamentarian. I would like to take this moment to pass on our respects for his life and pay tribute to his legacy.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that Ming would have been delighted with the tributes paid to him today by the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and many others. Just as importantly, I think Elspeth would have been equally delighted. She would have been raising a glass of champagne in celebration.
Ming is remembered as a brilliant and successful athlete and an accomplished, distinguished advocate. He was a real fixture in this House, utterly authoritative on foreign policy and defence matters for more than two decades. Less well remembered is the fact that it took him three elections and a decade to be elected to represent Fife, a seat he then held for 28 years. He was, therefore, sympathetic and hugely supportive of my similarly numerous efforts to win in Wokingham. For all that patrician charm he deployed to win over judges in court, he was also a savvy street campaigner his opponents underestimated at their peril. On one of his many visits to Wokingham, a local journalist asked him why he visited so often. He replied, “I have invested so much in this young man”—it was only 10 years ago!—“that I am determined to see him succeed.” He was delighted when that investment paid off last July.
Ming was very generous with his time and his advice. He was a warm and generous friend to me and my family, to many colleagues and to the many, many friends he made in Wokingham along the way. He will be fondly remembered by everybody who knew him well and, by wide agreement, as being probably one of the nicest people to ever lead a political party in the UK.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is an honour to follow the tributes of so many across the House. Ming Campbell was an inspiration to me and to many others who admired his integrity, courtesy and tenacity. I am lucky to have known Ming all my life, and I know how much his death will be felt by his family and the many friends who loved him. I share their grief.
Ming’s athletic achievement showed a man determined to work hard and make sacrifices to push himself to the limits. His international success has already been mentioned, but I remember him—in his mid-40s at that point—saying with some feeling that the annual school sports day had become a major focus, since he was the one the other dads wanted to beat in the fathers’ race. Behind that gracious façade was a true competitor.
Ming was of that remarkable generation of Glasgow University debaters from all parties who strove for a better society. Across a lifetime in politics, he maintained close friendships with those of other parties, yet he was clear on his politics. Ming’s tenacity was shown in his dedication to Scottish liberalism, working hard to win the North East Fife seat at his fifth general election.
Ming served our party for many years as foreign affairs spokesperson. With his distinctive eloquent delivery and his disarming courtesy, Ming could easily be underestimated by some as an orator, not an actor, yet his principled approach to the Iraq war demonstrated his courage and steel. He did not shirk from doing the right thing. For Ming, international liberalism was not an abstract ideal but a set of practical moral obligations.
As we say goodbye to a much-loved parliamentarian, we also remember a private man. Ming’s marriage to Elspeth was the anchor of his life. The last time I saw Ming he spoke with love and feeling about Elspeth. He was continuing his life’s work in Parliament, but it was clear he felt acutely that he was continuing it without his life partner. Theirs was a truly devoted partnership.
Ming Campbell lived an incredible life as an athlete, advocate, political leader and loving husband. He was a lifelong liberal whose principles drove his choices. He is rightly remembered with admiration and affection today across the House. He will be sorely missed.
Middle East
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Before I update the House on the peace process in the middle east and my trade visit to India, I want to put on record my utter condemnation of the vile antisemitic terrorist attack at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester, which killed two Jewish men: Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz.
Antisemitism is not a new hatred. Here in Britain, Jews have had to deal with the shameful reality that their buildings, their way of life and their children need extra protection. We must also be crystal clear that while this was an attack on Jews because they were Jews, the Islamist extremism that motivated this sick individual is a threat to every citizen of this country. It is an attack on British values, British security and the British decency that holds our communities together.
Moreover, we can see clearly that antisemitism is on the rise in Britain once again. We will scale up the protection we provide for Jewish people. We will set out new measures to prevent hatred abusing the democratic right to protest. We will stop at nothing to root out antisemitism. The same applies to the arson attack on the Peacehaven mosque. An attack on British Muslims is also an attack on us all, so we condemn this despicable crime and the poison of anti-Muslim hatred. We will fight against hate in all its forms.
I now turn to the middle east, and to words I have longed to say in this House for a very long time: the surviving hostages are free, the bombardment of Gaza has stopped, and desperately needed aid is starting to enter. As a result of the peace plan led by President Trump, we have the chance—it is a chance—to bring a terrible chapter in history finally to a close. It is a moment of profound relief for the House, this nation, and indeed the whole world, but it is tempered, of course, by the knowledge that for the hostages and their families, the loved ones of those killed on 7 October and the innocent civilians in Gaza—the dead, the bereaved, the starving—this has been two years of living hell.
I think of Avinatan Or, who has family ties to the United Kingdom, returned at last to his family and his girlfriend Noa. Avinatan and Noa were taken from that music festival two years ago, the footage of their abduction filmed by Hamas—evil committed to camera. I have met Avinatan’s family, and heard for myself the agony that they suffered for two long years, waiting for him to come home. His frail condition is shocking evidence of the appalling treatment he must have endured. We await the release of the deceased hostages; their families need the chance to grieve, so we demand that they are returned to their families immediately.
My thoughts are also with the people of Gaza, almost all of whom will have lost family members—husbands, wives, brothers, sisters and, worst of all, sons and daughters. Over 20,000 children were killed. I think of people like Yara Yaghi, who I met a year ago. She was 17 years old and was studying at college in Hertfordshire. She had lost 44 members of her family—a pain that cannot be erased, even as we welcome the peace today.
Mercifully, the killing and destruction has now stopped, and aid is beginning to enter Gaza. To be clear, we urgently need to see more aid, and faster. All restrictions must now be lifted. The need for food, sanitation, healthcare and shelter are all still acute. While the signing yesterday was historic, what matters now is implementation and getting help in as quickly as possible.
The UK is providing £20 million in additional humanitarian support to get water, sanitation and hygiene products to tens of thousands of civilians across Gaza. That is in addition to the support we are already providing. Our two field hospitals in Gaza have already seen 600,000 patients, and earlier this month we evacuated the third group of sick and injured Palestinian children to the United Kingdom. They are now being treated by the NHS. We will work with the UN and our partners to go further and faster in providing the aid that is so desperately needed.
Let no one be in any doubt that none of this would have been possible without President Trump. This is his peace deal, delivered of course with President Sisi of Egypt, the Emir of Qatar and President Erdoğan of Türkiye. Alongside our partners, we offered the UK’s full support to these efforts. We have worked behind the scenes for months with the US and Arab and European nations to help deliver a ceasefire, get the hostages out, get aid in and secure a better future for Israel, Gaza and the west bank. I am proud of our contribution.
We are in a position to play this role precisely because of the approach this Government take. That includes our decision to recognise the state of Palestine. This move, taken alongside our allies—France, Canada, Australia and others—helped lead to the historic New York declaration, in which, for the first time, the entire Arab League condemned the atrocities of 7 October, urged Hamas to disarm and, crucially, demanded that it end its rule in Gaza.
But let me be clear that while we celebrate the relief of peace today, making that peace last will be no less difficult a task. Along with our allies, we will have absolute focus in the days and weeks ahead on the relentless implementation of the peace plan. That is no small challenge, so we stand ready to deploy our diplomacy and expertise in three key areas. The first is in supporting the reconstruction of Gaza, which is an immense task. The devastation defies description. This will require a truly international effort; we are ready to play our part, starting at a conference this week, here in the United Kingdom, hosted by the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). Secondly, to support transitional governance arrangements in Gaza, we will continue to work closely with the Palestinian Authority on the vital reforms that they need to make. Thirdly, we will help ensure security in Gaza through a ceasefire monitoring process and planning for the international stabilisation force. Drawing on our experience in Northern Ireland, we stand ready to play a full role in the decommissioning of Hamas weapons and capability, because, as the House knows, there can be no viable future for Gaza and no security for Israel if Hamas can still threaten bloodshed and terror, so we will work to put that threat out of action for good.
This is the first real chance we have had of a two-state solution since the Oslo accords over three decades ago, so we are fully committed to this, because a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state is the only way to secure lasting peace for the middle east. I have been clear all along that that must be our goal, so we will work now to follow through on the 20-point peace plan and deliver it in full, including by supporting a dialogue to agree on a political horizon for peaceful co-existence.
Finally, I want to update the House on my discussions with Prime Minister Modi last week in Mumbai. India is a growing force on the world stage, and is on track to have the third-largest economy by 2028. In addition to the bond that we already share—the living bridge of family and history—we are also united by the future and the incredible opportunities that we see before us. That is why, back in July, we signed a historic trade deal, opening up new opportunities for British businesses in India. That is why, last week, I led the biggest British trade delegation to India ever. We announced that more British universities are opening campuses in India, making us its leading international education provider. We are also deepening the UK-India technology security initiative to boost opportunities for our brilliant tech sector. We also announced new deals and investment, including in advanced manufacturing, defence, car production and Bollywood film making here in the United Kingdom. Those investments into the United Kingdom are worth £1.3 billion, and they will create 10,600 jobs. That is real change that people will see in their communities up and down the country.
I set that out because it speaks again to our approach on the world stage, as do our deals with the United States and the EU, and the approach that we bring to crises and conflicts as well. Instead of threatening to walk away or indulging in the cheap political theatre that comes from castigating our allies—allies we need to deliver peace and economic stability in a dangerous, volatile world—we stay in the room. We trust in diplomacy, and we back the reputation, talent and pride of this country to change the world to the benefit of the British people. This is a politics of national renewal, in which we work with our partners, rather than against them—a politics that solves problems, rather than exploiting them, and that believes that our openness to the world is what helps us take control of our future, rather than shutting the door and hoping for the best. That is how the Government deliver for Britain. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I remember almost two years ago meeting three mothers whose children had been stolen from them on 7 October and held captive in terror tunnels. They were living a nightmare unimaginable for any parent. Many of us on the Conservative Benches have met hostages and their families, and heard their stories and supported them. Yesterday, it was truly momentous to finally see the return of the 20 living hostages, who are now back home in Israel after over 730 days in terrorist captivity. The hostages released yesterday showed superhuman endurance in the face of evil. We send every best wish to them and their families as they begin the process of rebuilding their lives. We also mourn those hostages killed by Hamas, and continue to call for all their bodies to be returned to their families.
We must never forget what happened on 7 October 2023. The abduction of men, women and children was a calculated cruelty to break body, mind and soul after inflicting the mindless horror of rape and murder. There is no cause and no grievance that can ever justify what happened that day; I for one will never forget. The response from some in the west—the equivocation, the indulgence in whataboutery and the drawing of false equivalence—shows how far moral clarity has eroded. We have a job to do here at home to fix that.
On the Conservative Benches, we stand alongside Israel in our shared fight against Islamist terror. The conflict could have ended a long time ago if the hostages had been returned. So many Palestinian lives have been needlessly lost because of this war. Hamas are a genocidal terrorist organisation. A sustainable end to the suffering of civilians in Gaza means the complete eradication of Hamas and the dismantling of their terrorist infrastructure. Even now, we know that Hamas are still killing Palestinians in Gaza.
The initial phase of the US-backed peace plan represents a significant breakthrough. I thank the US Administration, President Trump and regional mediators for having secured this outcome. They put in the hard yards and found solutions, making clear that all progress would depend on the release of the hostages—a condition that some other Governments forgot.
With this peace deal, there is much to be hopeful for in the middle east. If the Abraham accords are expanded, a new age of peace will have arrived. We will see diplomatic normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab world—something that many of us have longed to see. It saddens me that the Prime Minister’s statement does not appear to show that the UK was at the heart of any of these efforts specifically. It is quite clear that UK relations with Israel have been strained by the Government’s actions. Israel’s view—it has been stated publicly—is that it looks like the Prime Minister, under pressure from his Back Benchers, has taken the wrong decisions time and again, diminishing our influence in the region. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] Labour Members can shout “shame” as much as they want. Within weeks of Labour coming into power, the Government decided to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have not forgotten that. [Interruption.] They say “yes”; that is an organisation whose members assisted in the kidnapping of the hostages whose release we are celebrating today.
Relations with Israel have been so damaged that when Israel launched strikes against Iran—a country that has been a direct threat to us for years—the UK was out of the loop. Labour Members may not like it, but that is the truth. Then, in a move praised by Hamas, Labour decided to recognise a state of Palestine, without imposing the condition that hostages still held in the tunnels of Gaza be released, rewarding terrorism. [Interruption.] They may chunter from a sedentary position; I remind them that the British-Israeli former hostage Emily Damari called that a “moral failure”.
I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that recognition contributed to the peace deal. We all know that the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, condemned that recognition, saying that it had made ceasefire negotiations harder. That is what the US said. The truth is that as historic events have unfolded in the middle east, Britain has been out of step with the US. The US ambassador to Israel even called the Government’s claim that they had played a key role in the ceasefire “delusional”, which Israeli Foreign Ministers agreed with.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s promise to scale up protection for Jewish people in our country. Britain has always been a sanctuary for British Jews, but after the tragic murder of two British Jews outside a synagogue in Manchester, the Government must now do everything they can do eradicate antisemitism. The anti-Israel protesters who have turned our streets into theatres of hate have been relatively silent about the good news of a ceasefire and hostage return, showing us their real motivation.
The Prime Minister mentioned in his statement the Palestinian Authority. Will he tell us whether the Government’s preference is for the Palestinian Authority to take the reins in Gaza if they have committed to ending the pay-for-slay policies that reward families of terrorists for killing Israelis? Will they deal with antisemitism in education and are they demonstrating any democratic progress?
There are also domestic implications. We need to strengthen our borders. Hamas are still running Gaza, and those allowed to leave can do so only with Hamas’s approval. We should not bring anyone to Britain with links to extremism, to antisemitism, or to Hamas and other terrorists. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm whether he intends to bring people from Gaza to study, for healthcare or for other purposes? What measures are in place to ensure that we do not import extremism, antisemitism or anyone linked to Hamas and other terrorists?
Britain is a great country and still a powerful one. We still have agency to shape the world around us. The Government must do better and show that they have the backbone to use Britain’s power to make a better world.
The Prime Minister
May I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her words about the hostages a moment ago? I know how heartfelt they are.
I was surprised and saddened that she spent more time attacking what we actually did to help the process than even mentioning the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, without setting out in terms the number of people who have been killed, who are starving and who have been subjected to denial of aid. When the immediate task for any serious Government is to work with allies to get that aid in at speed, I would have expected at least an acknowledgment of that terrible situation. It shows, yet again, just how far her party has slid from a serious statesperson’s approach to diplomacy.
This is not the time for a fight about what role any individual played. I am proud of what Steve Witkoff said about our National Security Adviser. He was negotiating this, he knows the role that we played, and this House should be proud of that. We were able to play that role only because of the relationship that this Government have with the Trump Administration: we are a trusted partner, working both before this peace deal and afterwards. And yes, I did discuss recognition of Palestine with President Trump when he was over here, because that is what grown-up, responsible partners do—unlike the discussion here. I stand by my words that in New York that was the first time that other countries in the region were clear in their condemnation of Hamas. That was a key aspect of what has now happened.
On her other questions, the Leader of the Opposition will know, from the reforms that have already been committed to, that the Palestinian Authority will not tolerate any election of individuals or parties that are not committed to a peaceful process. That is an absolute red line, it is part of the agreement and it is what we have been talking to other allies about for a very long time. On healthcare cases, as I reported, we have had such cases coming to the United Kingdom, as well as students. We are extremely careful in the checks that we carry out on everybody who comes to this country.
I return to the fact that this is a historic deal. It is important for the region and it is important for the world. It is to be celebrated across this House because of the relief it brings to the hostages and their families in particular, and to the many thousands of people in Gaza. As I said, I was surprised and saddened that the Leader of the Opposition has overlooked a really important part of the resolution of the conflict.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister, his Ministers and all the officials who I know have been working incredibly hard behind the scenes for the past two years to get to this historic point. He is right; it is a chance for peace. I am nervous about the next stages, but it is definitely a chance to get aid flooding into Gaza. Will he give us some more details about how that will happen in practice, with Israel controlling all the borders? Will he also speak about the role of UNRWA? I say to the Leader of the Opposition that UNRWA is a UN organisation that acts as the local authority, providing education, medical services, sewerage and desalination. It is an organisation that is central to supporting the Palestinians facing starvation and dealing with the consequences of genocide. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to rally the international community to put pressure on Israel to let that aid flood in and to ensure that the Palestinians are central in the future of their communities.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her hard work over many years on this issue and for raising the question of aid. The critical test of the next few days and weeks will be whether that aid gets in. Of course, there is the goal of a two-state outcome, but the immediate task over the next days and weeks is to get that aid in. It is beginning to go in, but not in sufficient quantity and not at sufficient speed. I spent a lot of yesterday, along with our teams that are working with others—particularly the King of Jordan—on what practical assistance the United Kingdom can give to ensure that aid gets in as quickly as is needed. It is probably one of the most central issues in the coming days and weeks, and I thank her for raising it.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I join him in condemning the evil, antisemitic terrorist attack that killed Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz at their synagogue in Manchester. Antisemitism must be stamped out and British Jews must be able to feel safe in our country.
After the horrific Hamas terror attacks of 7 October and two years of appalling death and destruction since, the ceasefire in Gaza comes as an enormous relief to us all. It finally offers a moment of hope, but it is only the beginning and there is a lot of work to do. Already today we can see how precarious the situation is, with Israeli forces killing Palestinians who they say crossed the yellow line and both sides accusing each other of violating the ceasefire. The immediate priority must be to ensure that the ceasefire holds, as well as ensuring that lifesaving food, water and medicine reach all those facing starvation and disease. Will the Prime Minister set out in more detail what the UK is doing to get aid into Gaza as quickly as possible, and will he keep the House updated on those vital efforts?
It was so moving to see the images yesterday of families weeping with joy as hostages were reunited with their loved ones. However, does the Prime Minister share my anger and the anger of bereaved families that Hamas have still not released the bodies of all deceased hostages? Those terrorists captured innocent people, held them hostage and killed them, and even now, they deny their families the chance to bury them and mourn them properly. Palestinian families are starting to return home too, but for many, their homes are now rubble and the process of rebuilding will be long and difficult.
A ceasefire is not the same as a lasting peace. Only a two-state solution can deliver that, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to finally recognise Palestine last month. What work is he doing with partners to help build a viable Palestinian state that can live peacefully alongside Israel? Has he spoken to President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu to make it clear that the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank must stop?
Israelis and Palestinians have suffered unimaginable trauma and much of it will never be healed, but today they can at least begin to hope that their children will grow up free of this appalling cycle of violence.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the content and tone of his response. On his questions, we are working with others on getting aid into Gaza. Until recently that had been mainly airdrops, but what we really need is trucks going in. That is what we focused on in the practical work we were doing yesterday in Egypt, and we will continue to do so. I will take up the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to update the House on that. Personally, I think that in these early days it is probably one of the single most important things that we need to absolutely focus on. Yes, it was an historic day, but implementing the plan is really important. Any misstep—any step backwards—would have the potential to undermine what happened yesterday.
I absolutely agree that the bodies must be released. Those poor families need to be able to grieve properly and they cannot do so. It is cruel that the bodies have been held for so long and they must be immediately released.
The two-state solution is necessarily and rightly the long-term objective. I do not believe there will be lasting peace without a two-state solution—a safe and secure Israel, which we do not have; and a viable Palestinian state, which we do not have—so that must be the end goal, and we are working with others to ensure that remains the goal. Along the way there has to be the work on the governance, security and reconstruction in Gaza. I have to say that once the media are fully into Gaza, I think we will be having quite some debate in this House, when the full horror of what has happened there and the devastation is finally seen.
On illegal settlements, yes, I absolutely have made it clear, in relation to the west bank, what must happen—or not happen, I should say—in relation to the illegal settlements. It is important that we ensure that this process leads to a lasting peace for Israel, for Gaza and, of course, for the west bank as well.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister mentioned his conversations with President Sisi, so may I take this opportunity to thank him for his conversations and interventions with President Sisi and his team to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah from an Egyptian prison?
We are all elated at the release of the hostages and the detainees and prisoners, but there is some confusion about whether two prominent Gazan Palestinian doctors have been released. Dr Hussam Abu Safiya and Dr Marwan al-Hams were both detained and unfortunately ill-treated in Israeli prisons. It would be really helpful if the Prime Minister could confirm whether they have been released and, if they have not been, make further representations to the Israeli authorities.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his words in relation to Alaa Abd el-Fattah and for his long campaign to raise that important issue. On the two doctors, what I can say is that the cases have been raised. I do not yet know what the status is, but I will do my best to find out and get a better answer to him as quickly as we can.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Beneath all the peace rhetoric, the brutal Hamas regime were openly executing people yesterday, and refused to give up their weapons. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that he is going to remove them by force if necessary, and he refuses to accept a state in the west bank. It may be naive, but cannot both sides of the House unite in saying that we are absolutely, completely committed to creating a Palestinian state in the west bank? That is their God-given right and it is the only way we are going to end the cycle of despair and violence.
The Prime Minister
That sounds like the old Tory party I used to know, and I am really pleased to hear it. In a sense, it is only by uniting across this House in the face of a conflict that has gone on for far too long, and by being clear-eyed about the only way there can be peace that is lasting, that we will be able to play a full part as a country in bringing that about. I welcome the old tone and the old content that I just heard.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The emotional scenes in recent days in Palestine and Israel are proof that only politics and never violence can bring security to the people of the region. Accountability for the heinous killing that has taken place must be part of the future, too. As someone who, as an aid worker, stood in a hospital in Gaza last year, I know that the UK can play a key role in rebuilding Gaza’s decimated health system. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss this? And will he convey the thanks of those on the Government Benches to the National Security Adviser, who has played a truly vital role in making the ceasefire happen? Not for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition has no idea what she is talking about—and her Back Benchers know it as well.
The Prime Minister
I do acknowledge the important role that the National Security Adviser played. It was a typical UK role: quiet, behind-the-scenes and diplomatic, but bringing about really helpful steps towards the desired end. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister on the other issues.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Was not yesterday an historic and much-longed-for day for which this Government and the last one worked tirelessly since the dreadful events of 7 October? Does the Prime Minister agree that, just as real progress at Oslo was made on the back of the intifada, so now we must use the exceptional connections and deep historical knowledge that Britain has throughout the region to help secure a definitive resolution for the middle east to problems that have disfigured the world and poisoned the well of international progress and opinion for so many generations?
The Prime Minister
First, I acknowledge the role that the right hon. Gentleman played in office just before the election, what he personally brought to the table in relation to this issue, and the cross-party way in which he worked to ensure that the House as a whole could bring to bear pressure to bring about change. He is right about the goal that we need to achieve and the way we want to achieve it, so I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that not every statement in this House is an opportunity for political knockabout? This is one of those occasions that required a statesperson.
There are reports that militia groups are seeking to gain control of certain areas in Gaza. What can be done to make sure that it is the people of Palestine who determine their future, and not the biggest gangs? What can we do about this situation?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. There are concerning reports of what gangs are getting up to. The immediate next steps need to be, on the one hand, getting aid into Gaza and, on the other, getting better security arrangements in Gaza. That has to come in two stages. The stabilisation force will take some time, but immediate steps are needed to stabilise the situation now.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I begin by expressing relief at the release of the hostages, but anger that so many have not lived to see this day, and relief that Palestinians are not sheltering from the skies today, but anger that so many are doing so without friends and family by their sides and without homes to return to. As we all embrace that collective relief, let us not forget that access to aid is essential. Access for the world’s media and investigators to document crimes against humanity is essential. A two-state solution is essential. Accountability is essential. With those words in mind, I say to the Prime Minister what I said to his predecessor two years ago: history will judge us by our response and by our actions. Up until now, on too many occasions we have failed. Let us not do so any more.
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that aid is the immediate issue, and I agree that the media absolutely need to be allowed in to document what has to be seen. On a two-state solution, of course there has to be accountability.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and warmly welcome the ceasefire, both for the beginning of the end of the suffering of the children of Gaza and for the release of the hostages, one of whom is Nimrod Cohen, whose brother I met in Jerusalem earlier this year and whose family are eternally grateful for everything that this country and the United States have done to secure their release. I also thank the Prime Minister for his emphasis today on the need to flood Gaza with aid, something we have not seen done at all adequately until now. Does he agree with the UN’s Tom Fletcher that more Governments need to urgently fund the UN’s flash appeal for the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree that flooding aid is the essential next step, and I took the opportunity to have a discussion with Tom Fletcher yesterday about what more we could do in that regard.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Setting aside the fact that we find ourselves in a situation where conditions have been placed upon the cessation of the annihilation of an entire people and the strange delineation between hostages on one side and prisoners held in administrative detention on the other, we should all of course, as the Prime Minister said, express profound relief at the end of the killing, not least of one child every 45 minutes for two years.
Is not the lesson of the last two years that when the UK finally moves on from empty rhetoric to take concrete action, there is movement in the parties to a conflict like this, and that therefore we should be thinking about what more concrete action we can take, in particular in three areas? First, can we please have concrete steps to deter Israeli territorial ambition in the west bank, including a ban on settlement goods, now that we have officially recognised that territory? Secondly, could we have a reassertion of UK support for international law and the institutions that support it? In particular, could the Prime Minister use his relationship with President Trump to have the sanctions on individuals at the UN and the International Criminal Court lifted? Finally, if we are to support or participate in an international stabilisation force, could we insist that it also covers areas B and C of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where the Israel Defence Forces too often act as cover for incidents of Israeli terrorism?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I will take each of the three parts in turn. Certainly, on the west bank, we have taken action, as he knows, and we will continue to look at what further action we can take where we can with other countries. It is important, as we focus on Gaza, that we do not forget the situation in the west bank, as he rightly knows.
On international law, yes of course we are committed to international law and proud to uphold it, and I am pleased to hear him say so. That was once the proud position of his party as well. Sadly, that is no longer the case. On the stabilisation force, the terms of reference are still being drawn up. There is a United Nations Security Council resolution on the establishment of the force, or I hope there will be, but the wider terms of reference are not yet agreed. I will bear in mind what he has said.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and add my congratulations to him, the National Security Adviser and all his Ministers on the months and months of work that they have done that has contributed to this—it was so generously acknowledged by the US envoy to the middle east, if not by the Leader of the Opposition. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as work towards a just peace continues apace, the principle of Gazans for Gaza, whether that is in the governance arrangements or in reconstruction, must apply?
The Prime Minister
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s championing work on this issue, and I agree with her that we must now all work towards a viable Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel as the only way in which we will have lasting peace.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I want to feel happy this week, but I find it impossible, because with so much destruction, so much devastation and so many lives lost, I look back over the last two years and ask the question, what on earth was it all for? But history teaches us that from the depths of such despair can often launch a positive future. There is only one way to achieve the everlasting peace that President Trump so rightly talks about: that is a two-state solution—Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in dignity and security.
I would like to thank this Government for recognising the state of Palestine. That was a promise made to my great-grandfather finally made good, but it is an empty promise unless it is followed by statehood, so my question to the Prime Minister is simply, will he make the Palestinian state a reality, and will he give it his personal attention over the course of his premiership, so that this is the last time we see this devastation? We do not want to see a repeat of that cycle of violence that we have always seen in the past.
The Prime Minister
I first acknowledge the impact that this has had on the hon. Member, her family and her extended family. That is evidence of the despair that she rightly describes, and we must, from the depths of that despair, build a better future. I do believe that that will be lasting only if we have a two-state outcome. We have seen too often in the past what appears to be a step forward and what is rightly seen as a point of relief, only for things to fall back. I give my personal commitment that we will work tirelessly to ensure that this time we build on the signing of the agreement yesterday, through all the work that is going to have to be done along the way, until we get to that final lasting solution, which will have to be a two-state solution.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for updating the House on the three points. I join him in his condemnation of the antisemitic terrorist attack in Manchester and the arson attack on the Peacehaven mosque, and I welcome his commitment to fight hatred in all its forms and the support provided for security at synagogues and mosques. I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that security at all our places of worship remains a priority.
On the approach taken by the Prime Minister on the middle east and the ongoing engagement with India, pragmatic engagement had been shown to be the correct approach. Does he agree that the British values of democracy, respect, internationalism and perseverance are going to be key to the ongoing work required to deliver a two-state solution, but also further economic progress and trade deals that will benefit the people of the UK?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. We must provide the security needed at all our places of worship. I know that across the House, people will be saddened and concerned to know that some of our places of worship require the sort of security that we are seeing today. That is something we must all work to alleviate. That is partly a question of putting in more resource, but it is much bigger than that in terms of the change that we need to bring about. I do believe that the approach that we are taking of diplomacy, sticking to our values and being in the room to argue is of benefit to this country in relation not only to the middle east but to India and the wider world.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
After the horrors of Manchester, there is a sense of joy and relief in synagogues in my constituency at the final release of the hostages, many of whom were sponsored by synagogues, but there is also a sense of trepidation when they see Hamas terrorists patrolling the streets of Gaza and carrying out summary executions, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment that Hamas can have no role in Gaza. While he is on the issue of Islamic extremism, does he agree that now is the time to review the UK Government’s approach to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been banned in many other countries, such as the United Arab Emirates?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in noting the feeling of trepidation, because I think that across the country we can all feel the trepidation and fear following the terrible impact that the Manchester attack had on all our communities, but the Jewish community in particular. I absolutely assert and am clear that Hamas must play no role whatsoever. That is why it is so important that we work with our international allies on the follow-through from what happened yesterday—aid, security and making sure that the steps are in place to move on at speed—and that is the biggest risk, frankly, to this agreement: that we are not able to move sufficiently quickly on those important issues. We do keep the Muslim Brotherhood question under constant review.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome this long-overdue ceasefire and phase one of this peace plan. The devastating number of Palestinians killed, including more than 18,400 children, is intolerable, and countless others have life-changing injuries. The devastation we have witnessed happened as a result of previous bombardments happening without any accountability; those atrocities were awful. What action will be taken to ensure that this time, justice and accountability—for the destruction of Gazan civilians’ infrastructure, for the man-made famine and for the mass killing of civilians—are made a reality?
The Prime Minister
The immediate focus is obviously on following through on the agreement, with the practical next steps; I do think that is of first importance. I reiterate again our commitment to international law and to accountability, including, of course, accountability for what happened on 7 October, which was the worst single attack on Jews since the Holocaust.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
We all welcome the release of the hostages, the ceasefire and the beginning of the end of the suffering in Gaza. I know the joy that the hostage families I met a couple of weeks ago in Israel will be feeling; they will be ecstatic. As we hope that the divisions start to reduce in the middle east, we must also hope that we can reduce the heat and division of this debate here in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has quite rightly referred to the rise of antisemitism. Does he join me in hoping that now is the time to bring to an end the protests we have seen on our streets, with antisemitic chants such as, “From the river to the sea,” as we try to unify, to bring people together and to move forwards?
The Prime Minister
I agree that we need to take this moment to work to bring all our communities together. I was genuinely saddened to see some of the protests taking place in Whitehall on the very day of the Manchester attack and then again at the weekend, notwithstanding the quite reasonable request, “Please exercise your right of freedom of expression on a different day, in a different way.” I genuinely thought that human decency would prevail there. I agree with the hon. Member that now is the time internationally to work on the agreement and, in the United Kingdom, to do everything we can across this House to bring our communities together.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which we all hope will bring an end to two years of awful bloodshed. I visited Israel and Palestine one month before 7 October and met civil society organisations working on a cross-community basis. It struck me how vital they will be in building a potential future long-term peace, but they lack funding and they lack legitimacy and support in Israel and in Palestine. What thought and consideration has the Prime Minister given to the UK’s role in an international peace fund, similar to the Northern Ireland peace fund, which could fund civil society organisations working cross-community to support leaders of the future, to build peacemakers and to start to heal the rifts?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for touching on this point. One of the great tragedies of what happened on 7 October was that that cross-community work—particularly involving the next generation in Israel and Palestine, trying to ensure that they would have a better future and could take things forward—fell away, as did some of the interfaith work in this country, which we all thought was stronger and more robust than it turned out to be. We must do all we can to restore that work and build on it, because it is essential as we go forward.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
We all welcome the peace in the middle east and I do not think there is a Member here who does not welcome a two-state solution, but there are concerns across this House about Hamas leading one of those states, when their fundamental goal is to drive the other state into the sea and have a total eradication of that race. That hatred has been translated to the streets of London and the UK. It is affecting our British Jews every single day, and they are afraid. What will the Prime Minister do to alleviate the level of antisemitism that is transferring to the streets of London and Manchester, and across the UK, because of a war that has happened in the middle east? Can we rise above this, and will the Prime Minister rise above this and find a way forward for British Jews here in the UK?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. There can be no way that Hamas can play any role in a Palestinian state. That is the absolute red line of all those that recognised Palestine earlier this year, and the red line of the New York declaration. It is a really important and fundamental red line that has to be kept to—for all the reasons that she has set out and that I think everybody across this House understands.
On the security and safety of Jews in this country, of course we must step up. That needs to be done in a number of ways, including through practical support and financial support. Sad though it is to say that we need to put even more security around our synagogues and schools, so that children can go safely to school in this country, we must do it. The Government have already been working on that for some considerable time. I took the time, on the day after the Manchester attack, to talk to the Community Security Trust and other leaders about what more we can do in that regard. I am more than happy to work across the House on this; we owe it to our Jewish community that we are seen to be working together on these important measures, and I thank the hon. Member for her support.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
May I first associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister regarding the heinous attack in Manchester and on Peacehaven mosque? An attack on any place of worship is an attack on our democracy and way of life.
I thank the Prime Minister, his team—in particular, his Ministers—and our National Security Adviser for all their efforts and for the recognition of Palestine. As was stated earlier, it is long overdue and, historically, puts right what we should have done a long time ago. That has no doubt contributed to where we are today, so I once again want to say a huge thank you.
Over 92% of homes in Gaza have been erased, with more than 730,000 people displaced, including 520,000 children, could the Prime Minister outline in detail what more is being done to rebuild Gaza in addition to aid and to our conversations?
The Prime Minister
Reconstruction is a really important task. It will be extremely difficult, given the levels of devastation. We are working with others on a plan—we are hosting a conference later this week in relation to that issue—and we will continue to do so, but we need to do so at pace, working with our allies. We have a huge task ahead of us.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The ceasefire, the release of the living hostages and the flooding of aid into Gaza is a moment of hope for us all. The Prime Minister has responded to a number of questions on accountability, and he will know the importance of this moment for starting to gather evidence about what has taken place in Gaza—both the atrocities committed by Hamas and the actions of the IDF and the mercenaries working for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation under direction of the Israeli Cabinet. Can the Prime Minister spell out in a little more detail what support the UK Government are giving to those agencies that will gather the evidence that will allow for full accountability in future?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for championing and raising these important issues. It is important that, as we move on from the agreement and rebuild, there is accountability. That is why it is important that the media and others are allowed access as soon as possible, and that those charged with holding others to account have what they need in order to do so.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I know I speak for my whole constituency when I welcome this long-overdue ceasefire. May I put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister and Foreign Office Ministers for the many opportunities to put my constituents’ views to them?
As we turn to the ceasefire, our thoughts turn to rebuilding, but that is not just physical. Children make up 50% of the population of Gaza. They are traumatised, and their educations and futures have been profoundly disrupted. Giving them a future is the best guarantor of future peace, so what can the British Government do to ensure that the children of Gaza have a real future?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Children in Gaza have not been to school for the best part of two years—that has had a huge impact. We are already working at pace with others to see how quickly that could be one of the first issues addressed in the rebuilding process, because it is so essential for those children to ensure that they have a better future.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Prime Minister has said again today that there can be no place for Hamas in governing the Gaza strip, but who can physically prevent Hamas from retaining their weapons and regaining control, as they did in 2006? When he talks about antisemitism in Britain, is there any other interpretation of the demand to internationalise the intifada than as a call to attack Jewish communities around the world?
The Prime Minister
There is no other interpretation. I am pleased that the right hon. Member raises, and gives me the opportunity to agree with him on, that important point. On his first point about decommissioning, of course that will be difficult, but it is vital. It was difficult in Northern Ireland in relation to the IRA, but it was vital. It is why we have said that we stand ready, based on our experience in Northern Ireland, to help with the decommissioning process. I will not pretend that it is easy, but it is extremely important.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I suspect that one reason our optimism is cautious is that many of us are acutely aware that the damage that has been done will last a generation—on all sides of the conflict. For some, the damage can never be repaired. I thought yesterday of my constituent Sharone Lifschitz, whose father, Oded, was brutally murdered by Hamas. He had spent his life driving ambulances across the border for Gazan children because he wanted a two-state solution.
The Prime Minister spoke of the evacuations. I am very proud to have worked with Project Pure Hope, which was the first organisation to get children out of Gaza and to the United Kingdom for medical treatment. Now we have a scheme, but many more people continue to need assistance—the sort that medical teams in the United Kingdom can provide. Will he update us on the commitment to that scheme, how long it will be, and how we in this House can make that Oded’s legacy?
The Prime Minister
We are evacuating and have plans to continue doing so. I am happy to update the House—either myself or through other Ministers—on what we are doing and how we are doing it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The DUP welcomes the release of the hostages and the prospect of long-term peace in that area of the middle east.
I know this will probably stick in the throat of many Labour Members, but we must thank President Trump for the role he has played in delivering this deal. He recognised that weakness will never move terrorists and that only strength will do so—a lesson that, unfortunately, our Government need to learn. Hamas were encouraged by our Government’s recognition of the Palestinian state. That lesson needs to be applied at the next step. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Hamas can have no role in the future of Gaza. What steps does he intend to take to ensure that Hamas do not have the guns that enable them to have control, that they relinquish that control, and that they can never again use Gaza as a launching pad for their terrorist attacks?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member will know that I have thanked President Trump a number of times. I am absolutely clear that but for President Trump, this peace agreement would not have been reached. I have had the opportunity to say that to him publicly as well as privately—as the House knows, he and I get along, and that is good for our relationship with the US and our ability to influence events.
Decommissioning is such a serious issue. It is very hard to see how there can be lasting peace unless Hamas are ridded of their weaponry and capability. That is where the decommissioning work will be hugely important. It is part of the 20-point plan. It now needs to be turned into real action, working with others. The United Kingdom has—sadly, in some senses—experience of the challenges of decommissioning, which we can bring to the table.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and, of course, the peace deal. I also welcome his crystal clear statement that there can be no lasting peace or viable Palestinian state in which Hamas is involved in any way. Similarly, there can be no lasting peace without the reconstruction that is now desperately needed. The Prime Minister has said on a couple of occasions today that the public will be surprised when they see the extent of the devastation that has taken place. Right now, 400,000 tonnes of rubble need to be removed before a single bit of reconstruction can take place. Will he reject the isolationist calls from some quarters and agree that this country will rightly play its full role in ensuring that reconstruction takes place?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I genuinely think that that is the position that most Members across the House would want the Government to take and that they would support it.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I very much welcome the release of the hostages and what the Prime Minister said about aid. However, flooding Gaza with aid is not an end in itself; this is about its distribution to those who need it most. What reassurances can he give the House that gangsters and criminal gangs will not play any part as intermediaries in the distribution of that aid?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that. First, let us be clear: aid is not flooding in today; it is beginning to go in today. It needs to flood in, but it is not flooding in yet. We need to get it in. He is absolutely right that distribution then becomes a critical next issue. That is why we are working with others on what security arrangements need to be in place as soon as possible in Gaza, to ensure that aid gets to where it needs to be. Volume, speed and effective distribution are absolutely key. We are working with others to ensure that we play our part in that.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
In September of last year, the Government announced that they had suspended 30 arms export licences for Israel, with around 350 licences remaining active. The Government have repeatedly said that they were blocking the sale of items for use in Israel’s military assault in Gaza, but a new Channel 4 report has found that Israel imported nearly £1 million of UK munitions in the first nine months of this year, with a total of 110,000 items categorised as bullets going from the UK to Israel in August alone. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether UK-made munitions were used in Israel’s military assault in Gaza, and does he agree that a world of justice and lasting peace must be one without those bullets and bombs?
The Prime Minister
The Government’s position in relation to banning arms has been set out on many occasions and has not been altered.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome the ceasefire and was deeply moved, as I am sure we all were, by the scenes of Israeli and Palestinian families being reunited yesterday. One Palestinian prisoner who has not been released is Mr Marwan Barghouti, a Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council who has been in prison since 2002. He did not have a fair trial and was subject to human rights abuses. What representations have the Government made in the past few days to secure the release of Mr Barghouti, given his widespread popularity as a unifying voice for Palestinian rights, dignity and freedom, and therefore his potential crucial role in securing a meaningful and lasting peace in the region?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that individual case. I offer to provide her with further information on it as soon as we can.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I deeply welcome this long-awaited ceasefire and the release of the hostages. I thank the Prime Minister and his Ministers for their tireless work and international leadership on this front, including in the upcoming Gaza recovery summit, which is to be held in the UK later this week. I am glad to hear of the Prime Minister’s commitment to reconstruction and aid. I note that recent report of the UN commission of inquiry described how the obstruction of aid getting into Gaza has led to what it calls the “destruction of Palestinians”. What is the current situation for UN agencies’ access to Gaza, and what can we do to ensure that aid flows freely?
The Prime Minister
Tom Fletcher is leading our work in relation to this, and we have been clear throughout that aid cannot get in at the scale and volume that is needed without the UN. That is why we have always championed and said that the UN should be part of that distribution.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
It is fitting that this statement is followed by one on Northern Ireland. The UK has world-leading experience in sustaining peace, whether it is security, intelligence or military, and whether it is decommissioning, policing or political institutions. Could I urge the Prime Minister to do an audit of the generations of civil servants and, dare I say, special advisers who have experience in this area and put them on offer, to sustain this peace deal?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for that suggestion. I also want to acknowledge his role in Northern Ireland. He was rightly held in high respect in Northern Ireland and across this House and continues to be, because of what he did and the way in which he went about it; that should be a model for so many more of us in this House. The idea of reaching into the expertise we have across different parties and different Governments is one that I will take up, so I thank him for that suggestion.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and we all achingly welcome the longed-for ceasefire in Gaza and the safe return of prisoners and hostages, but does the Prime Minister share my concern that the 20-point plan is without Palestinian input? Will he acknowledge the need for Palestinian self-determination and their consent for any governance or stabilisation arrangements? Will he ensure the continued pursuit of war criminals, and will he work to achieve an end to Israel’s illegal occupation of all Palestinian territories and the full engagement of a sovereign Palestinian state?
The Prime Minister
Can I just be clear on the 20-point plan? It was widely and warmly received by so many countries yesterday. My hon. Friend will have seen the representation at the summit in Egypt yesterday including the Palestinian Authority. It is really important that when we get an achievement like this, we now focus on implementing it rather than trying to unpick it. I think across this House, by and large, there is agreement that there will not be lasting peace without a two-state solution. We must therefore act to implement the 20-point plan, but we must also—as the plan itself envisages—work towards a two-state solution and not lose sight of that goal.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The images of ceasefire and families reunited are deeply heartening and a moment of relief and celebration amid such immense suffering, yet this fragile peace remains vulnerable, particularly to the corrosive effects of misinformation. True and lasting peace must be built on openness, transparency and the free flow of information. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to press Israel to grant journalists access to Gaza as part of a broader commitment to truth, accountability and a just peace?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Member that the situation is vulnerable, and that is why we must not lose sight of what has to happen next. We are pressing for media access, which is hugely important and needs to happen as soon as possible, in my view, so that the extent of the devastation can be properly assessed, which will help with the necessary next steps.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on Christianity in the holy land, I was fortunate enough to be on a delegation in Jerusalem and the west bank last week, and it was clear to our delegation from speaking to Palestinian Christians that they are delivering hospitals and schools for Palestinian communities. Given that education and healthcare are a key part of long-term peace, what conversations are the Government having with the Christian community in Israel and Palestine to ensure that they are part of the conversation as well?
The Prime Minister
We are having conversations with all, particularly on the question of education and healthcare—on many other issues as well, but education and healthcare are absolutely fundamental. We are having those discussions, and I will ensure that any further information my hon. Friend may have is fed into what we are doing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Hamas leadership are making it clear that their fighters, many of whom will have been involved on 7 October, will not disband but will merge into the nascent army of a Palestinian state—a state which the Prime Minister unwisely and prematurely recognised. Is he comfortable with that?
The Prime Minister
The 20-point plan is really clear on the steps that need to be taken. That is what has been hammered out with the support and approval of so many countries. That is not easy, but it is a step that many thought was unachievable. We now have to operate to that plan, ensuring, as is absolutely clear from the plan and from all our statements, that Hamas can have absolutely no role in the governance of Palestine. That is a clear red line. We need to operate to the 20-point plan now. The widespread agreement to it is something many people thought could not be achieved. It has been achieved, and now we must build on that.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the awful attack in Manchester and the attack in Peacehaven.
I want to highlight the issue of aid workers and the work of UNRWA with many British aid organisations including Oxfam, and Christian Aid and Islamic Relief, which are both based in my constituency. The UN has highlighted that to date, over 500 aid workers have lost their lives, including British aid workers. We must recognise the hard work that aid workers are doing. The Prime Minister has been very clear—and we are united in this House—that Hamas must not have any role in the rebuilding of Gaza. It has to be led by Palestinian civil society and the communities who have faced decades of siege, occupation and military violence. Does the Prime Minister agree that any initiative that bypasses the Palestinians in favour of externally imposed initiatives will fail?
The Prime Minister
First and foremost, I thank my hon. Friend for raising the specific issue of the aid workers who have lost their lives in this conflict. Very many lives have been lost. Almost all aid workers have lost colleagues, friends and family members; I have heard some of that testimony at first hand, and it is extremely powerful. This must now be a process that does involve Palestinians in their own future—of course it must. That is the only way to get to the two-state solution that we need.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Like everyone else in this House, I am sure, I feel enormous relief at the fact that a ceasefire has been achieved, but that can be nothing compared with the relief felt by those Israeli families who thought they would never see their loved ones again and those thousands of children in Gaza who were able to sleep last night without the fear of being bombed. But we have been here before, and for their sake we cannot let the hope of today disappear in the same way that the promise of the Oslo agreement did. Crucial to that will be confidence in the peace process. The Prime Minister has alluded to the lessons we can bring to that process from Northern Ireland. One of them is on decommissioning. Can he tell us what support the US Administration will offer to allow us to use that expertise and experience?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member. There is huge relief, but she is absolutely right: the relief for the hostages and their families and for civilians in Gaza is huge by comparison to ours. Yes, we have been here before, and therefore we must drive through with confidence. As to the specific way in which decommissioning might work, we are at the early stage of that discussion with the US and others. At this stage, we simply say we stand ready to play our full part. I think and hope we will be taken up on that, and then we can work actively with others.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today and also for this peace—may it be long lasting. Over 1,700 health workers have lost their lives in Gaza, and many more have been physically and psychologically traumatised by the conflict. There are not the health workers now to provide the healthcare that is urgently needed at this time. Will he ensure that the UK plays its part in providing healthcare to Gaza, and with the decimation of all the universities in Gaza, can we also play a part in training the healthcare workers of the future?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for making that important point. We are working with others: the Foreign Secretary attended a conference in Paris last week where on the agenda, among other things, was how we can support the restoration of healthcare, which is vital. As we do that, we will update the House on the measures that we are taking.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Over the past two years, as co-Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel, I have hosted innumerable meetings where the families of hostages have come before us pleading for our support and help. In addition, we have screened multiple films of the terror events on 7 October 2023 that use real-life footage captured from Hamas terrorists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said, the Jewish community in this country feels unsafe and that this is not a safe place to live any more. The Prime Minister rightly alluded to the growing rise in antisemitism in this country. What will he do on a concrete basis to eliminate that scourge, in particular at our places of education, including at universities, so that our Jewish students feel safe on campus, and at all our schools, so that young people growing up in this country are no longer exposed to antisemitism?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is important that we rise to that challenge and ensure that our Jewish communities feel safe, secure and part of who we are in this country. That requires concrete steps in relation to security and safety measures. We need to go further on education, particularly but not only in our universities. Although he did not mention it, I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that we need to ensure that we drive out any instances of antisemitism in the NHS. I look forward to working with Members from across the House on all those initiatives, because we also need to ensure that our Jewish communities see that this House is united in ensuring that they have the safety and security that they deserve.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. After two years of relentless genocide committed by Israel, killing many tens of thousands of innocent people, a ceasefire is an historic and hopeful moment, even though it took far too long to achieve. Watching released Palestinians and Israelis reunite with their families yesterday was deeply moving, but Palestinians are far from free. Their rights are still being denied, they are still living under occupation and they will continue to suffer. Does the Prime Minister agree that Palestinians must be able to exercise their right to self-determination and that Israel must face accountability for its crimes against them? What action will he take to make that a reality?
The Prime Minister
I agree that there will be no lasting peace without a two-state outcome, and that is why we must continue to strive towards it. Of course there must be accountability for all those who have committed atrocities, including those who were involved on 7 October.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Does the Prime Minister agree that real and lasting peace can only be achieved if there is accountability and justice? Overwhelming international consensus, both legal and scholarly, concludes that Israel’s actions in Gaza were genocidal. Does the Prime Minister agree that the perpetrators of genocide must face justice? What steps will this Government take to ensure that justice is achieved?
The Prime Minister
I agree that accountability and justice are important in the middle east. We are strong supporters of international law and the role that that needs to play in relation to justice in the region.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, and I welcome the ceasefire and the release of hostages as part of this historic but fragile peace deal. I also welcome the release of Palestinian women and children who were held in Israeli military prisons without trial. What steps will the Government take to ensure that justice and accountability is made a reality for all victims of international law violations in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is important that I am clear that this Government are committed to international law and to the accountability that that brings.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
There is a widely held belief that the catalyst for the pure evil that happened on 7 October was the fear among Iran and its terrorist proxies that Saudi Arabia was close to signing the Abraham accords. The good news is that the Abraham accords peace agreement, between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, has endured over the past difficult two years and is a model for regional economic co-operation and peaceful co-existence in the region. On the back of yesterday’s agreement, what concrete steps will the Prime Minister take to encourage and extend the Abraham accords as a key part of the emerging picture in the middle east, with particular reference to getting Saudi Arabia back to the table?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the wider picture. The settlement across the wider middle east forms an important backdrop and is part of the backbone of what has happened and what needs to happen in the future. We are talking to all parties about the immediate steps for the Abraham accords, and also about the wider settlement, if that is possible, because that will play an important part in stabilising the region, which is what most decent and reasonable people want.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The world held its breath over the past few days as a glimmer of hope was on the horizon. I thank the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Government and British officials for the progress that they have made with the United States to bring about this progress. Peace will be embedded and sustained only if it is built with ordinary people—Palestinians and Israelis—who yearn for peace, so what steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that that happens?
The Prime Minister
It is important to involve Israelis and Palestinians across the board, from all communities, in the physical rebuilding as well as the rebuilding of the relationships that were in place just over two years ago, which held at least the prospect of a better future for the next generation. We need to rebuild that on all fronts.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on getting us to this point. The Labour Government’s role in decommissioning in Northern Ireland is not as complete as portrayed. In a memo of 17 January 2003, an adviser to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said:
“The IRA will never be able to account for all their weapons or retrieve them. What we should perhaps aim for is a few more big symbolic acts of decommissioning, and then declare that the process is complete…”
That adviser was a certain Jonathan Powell, now the National Security Adviser. So will the Prime Minister give assurances that, should the Government be given such a role, they will not be as lax?
The Prime Minister
The work on decommissioning in Northern Ireland was really important, and that is the basis on which we have put forward our offer to stand ready with others to work on decommissioning in the middle east.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condemnations of the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack on the Heaton Park synagogue and the arson attack in Peacehaven. The Prime Minister emphasised the UK’s commitment to humanitarian support. While we all welcome the ceasefire, we know that the humanitarian crisis is still very much ongoing. Will the Prime Minister confirm what extra monitoring, new mechanisms and assurances he is seeking to ensure that parties on the ground are able to get essential aid to every single person who needs it within Gaza?
The Prime Minister
We are having conversations about the practical measures that can be taken on the ground with others, particularly the Jordanians, in terms of the physical arrangements that they think need to be in place to allow the aid in and for it then to be dissipated at pace. We are working tirelessly on that project at the moment.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I associate myself with comments on the warm and welcome news of the ceasefire, and I hope it leads to a lasting peace. What assurances has the Prime Minister received from neighbouring partners, particularly Egypt, and what specific actions will he take, first to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach Gaza and, secondly, that it is only humanitarian that reaches Gaza, and that weapons, personnel and matériel that could aid terrorists do not enter Gaza?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. The basis on which we are having our discussions is that it must be humanitarian aid—humanitarian in the sense that it is genuinely for that purpose, and that it is getting to the people who most need it. That comes down to the nuts and bolts of the practical arrangements on the ground with some of the neighbouring countries, and those are the discussions that we are having.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I do not think anybody could fail to be moved by yesterday’s scenes of hostages finally being reunited with their families and of Gazans being able to contemplate days and nights without hunger and bombardment. I would love to be able to celebrate and believe, as they are doing and as they should be given the space to do, but like many I am anxious, because we know that a ceasefire is not the same as a lasting peace. Can the Prime Minister assure my constituents that the UK Government will continue to pursue accountability for past crimes; that building and rebuilding will be done with survivors, not over the top of them; and that there will continue to be justice for those who face aggression in the west bank every day?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: in the rebuilding that must go on, there has to be the bringing together of communities and also the accountability and justice that is necessary for a full rebuilding towards a lasting settlement.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to flood Gaza with aid. The UN estimates that $4 billion is needed this year to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, of which just 28% has been pledged. The UK’s contribution to humanitarian relief this year will total only $116 million, so with the entire population of Gaza in need of some form of humanitarian assistance, does the Prime Minister believe that the UK’s contribution to Gaza’s relief is adequate?
The Prime Minister
We have made a significant contribution. As we go forward, we are looking at public and private commitments to the reconstruction project that needs to take place—not just the aid, but the rebuilding. That is a huge challenge that faces us all, and we will rise to that challenge with others.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and I hugely welcome the ceasefire and the initial Gaza peace plan, including the release of hostages and prisoners, the stopping of the bombardment of Gaza and the aid starting to trickle in. However, peace is fragile, so can the Prime Minister reassure the House of this Government’s long-term commitment to working with international partners to support the rebuilding of Gaza—physically and politically—to ensure a lasting peace and a pathway to Palestinian statehood?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that important assurance, and I thank her for her question.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
This ceasefire is tremendous news, and I sincerely congratulate everybody who was involved in bringing it about, whoever they were, including the British Government. I was in Israel last week, and on the day that the ceasefire was announced, I visited the Nova festival site and spoke to civilians and soldiers on the Gaza border. The Israelis I spoke to were deeply dismayed that the British Government had decided to recognise the state of Palestine before Hamas had released their hostages, let alone disarmed. Does the Prime Minister understand why Israel cannot tolerate the idea of a state on its border that poses a security risk to its citizens, and will he undertake not to move forward to support the establishment of a Palestinian state until there is more than a promise—there is actually the reality of security for Israel?
The Prime Minister
The terms on which we recognised Palestine, and those on which all the countries that recently recognised Palestine did so, expressly acknowledged that Hamas can play no part in its governance. That is at the heart of the New York declaration as well, and it is absolutely part of the 20-point plan. It is really important that we assert that and reassert it. That has been the constant position of this Government and my personal position, so I can give the hon. Member that reassurance.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly his commitment to seeking a lasting, long-term peace in the region, because Israel will not be secure and the Palestinian people will not be free until we break this endless cycle of violence. Turning to the immediate situation on the ground, the Gazans still face a man-made famine, so I really welcome the flooding-in of aid that the Prime Minister talked about in his statement. However, could he say a little more about the timescale for that, and how soon we can start to see that aid getting in and having an effect on the ground?
The Prime Minister
We need it to go in today, tomorrow and in the coming days—we cannot delay on that front. That is among the most essential tasks that lie ahead, particularly in relation to the man-made famine.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I add my support for yesterday’s ceasefire and the first tentative steps on the journey to peace. President Trump has spoken about a board of peace, and one of the names that has been floated for membership of that board is our former Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair. Could the Prime Minister confirm whether Sir Tony Blair, if he were to take a seat on the board, would do so as a private citizen or as a representative of His Majesty’s Government, and what role can this House play in scrutinising any future appointment and the progress of that board?
The Prime Minister
The board is an important part of the architecture. It is for others to decide what its membership will be, but I can give the commitment that we will report to the House on any developments in that regard.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is a huge relief to all of us that the hostages are sleeping at home with their families, where they belong, after two years of unimaginable horror. However, this plan and the recognition of Palestine must only be the start of peace and accountability. Children are dying from a man-made famine, so can the Prime Minister please assure us that we will flood Gaza with aid and continue to respect the judgments and decisions of international courts and tribunals?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend our assurance on both those issues.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I welcome the ceasefire and the release of the hostages, and I take solace in the knowledge—or at least in the hope—that unlike other debates of this nature, at the end of this one countless Palestinian children will not have been killed by the IDF. However, does the Prime Minister agree that the people of Gaza do not need a colonial viceroy, Tony Blair, anywhere near determining their future? The former Prime Minister, who has been in meetings with the Trump Administration, is proposing a US-administered Gaza, rebuilding Gaza as a resort on top of the mass graves of men, women and children. Will the Prime Minister condemn this plan and Tony Blair’s involvement in rebuilding?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to condemn a plan that I welcomed yesterday. I think it is a really important step forward—it is a step that almost everybody in this House has welcomed, including the hon. Member. What is important now is that we build on that plan. It will be for others to decide the particular representation, but of course there is the committee, which will be really important in relation to the day-to-day matters in Gaza and on which there must of course be proper Palestinian representation. These matters are still to be determined, but I really think it would be better if we did not try to unpick where we got to yesterday before we have even started to implement it and try to move forward. That would inevitably take us backwards.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
We know that humanitarian aid saves lives, rebuilds lives and plays a crucial stabilising role, so I thank the Prime Minister for his emphasis on getting aid into Gaza. It has been heartening to hear from the UN agencies that are now crossing the border for the first time since March, getting in vital supplies such as cooking gas and medicines. However, some non-governmental organisations, including British NGOs, are still struggling to get the permissions they need to operate, so what more will the Prime Minister do to ensure that these immediate humanitarian relief efforts become a sustained, scaled-up part of Gaza’s recovery, and that our British NGOs can also play their full part?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I can reassure her that we are raising that issue with partners, for all the reasons she has set out.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
As the Prime Minister and President Trump get along, does the Prime Minister think he can secure President Trump’s support for genuine progress towards securing a two-state solution, which is the only path to ensuring peace, security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians?
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree that is the only path, and we are of course talking to our allies about it, including our American allies, in the way that the hon. Member would expect: as trusted, respected partners trying to address one of the most intractable problems in recent history. We will continue to do so.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Like others, I welcome the ceasefire and the return of hostages to their families, but that is very much tempered by the loss of thousands of lives over these past two years—loved ones who will never return home. Elected representatives, humanitarian organisations and individuals across the world, including our constituents, have given voice to the plight of the people of Gaza these past two years. Can the Prime Minister tell me what efforts will be made to ensure that its people will be safe and free to shape the future of Gaza, and that their voices will be heard in the months and years to come?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that however welcome the news, it is tempered by the loss over the past two years in Gaza and in Israel. It is essential that the voices of those most affected by this are heard and are part of the rebuild that is now necessary.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I gladly join in the tributes of appreciation to all, including President Trump, who made the long-awaited release of the hostages a reality yesterday. May I press the Prime Minister on the disarming of Hamas? For the Prime Minister, is that wholly non-negotiable? How is it to be delivered? If it is not delivered in totality, where does that leave this nation? We would have recognised a Palestine that then would have a continuing presence of an armed and controlling Hamas.
The Prime Minister
Disarmament must be non-negotiable, and that is why it is written into the 20-point plan, and it is why we are now putting ourselves forward to play a part in the decommissioning. It is only by decommissioning that we can ensure that the threat from Hamas is removed. That is why it is in the plan, and it is why we want to play our full part. We will do everything we can with other allies to bring that about.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and I welcome an end to the killing in Gaza. What guarantees are in place to ensure that humanitarian aid can now reach Gaza without interruption? Will that aid be independent of the whim of the Israeli Government or any other actor on the ground?
The Prime Minister
We are doing all we can to ensure that is the case, because it is important, for all the reasons that she well understands. That now involves the practical measures, working with other countries to ensure the aid can get in at speed and at volume. It is beginning to go in, but it is by no means in the right volume or at the right speed even now, after the agreement. That is what we need to focus on.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I associate myself with the tributes paid to Lord Campbell across the House, and I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I also welcome the release of all hostages and several hundred Palestinian detainees, but we must remember that more than 10,000 captives—some prisoners, but many held without charge—are still held in Israeli prisons. I hope that the Government will work towards the release of the innocents being held. The rebuilding and the interim and final governance of Gaza must be Palestinian-led, not led by western actors. The Palestinians have suffered over two years of relentless genocide and decades of Israeli siege, occupation, military violence and oppression. I totally agree with the position that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine, and there is no excuse for what happened on 7 October, but one of the root causes that is preventing a two-state solution from becoming reality is the unlawful—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please get to his question?
Iqbal Mohamed
Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House when the Government will be in full compliance with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on not doing anything that helps perpetuate the unlawful occupation?
The Prime Minister
We will come back to the House on that. We proudly uphold international law.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s statement on the middle east included a celebration of our newly formed relationship and trade deal with India. Did his discussions with Prime Minister Modi last week also include raising the case of my West Dunbartonshire constituent Jagtar Singh Johal? If so, did the Prime Minister insist upon Jagtar’s immediate release and return home to his family in Dumbarton? He has been arbitrarily detained for eight years in India. Enough is enough. Prime Minister, it is time to bring him home.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his work on this case. Yes, I did raise it with Prime Minister Modi. UK officials regularly raise it, and the Foreign Secretary will be meeting Jagtar’s family in the coming weeks, and we will keep my hon. Friend updated.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We very much welcome the news that there is a ceasefire and that the hostages have finally been returned home after two long years in unimaginable conditions. The smiles on the faces of family members are a joy to behold. While President Trump deserves much credit for the peace deal, our Prime Minister and our United Kingdom Government also deserve some credit for the role they have played in trying to get to the peace. What discussions have been held with the United States of America to ensure that Hamas terrorists’ murderous intent is stopped? Hamas have been systematically murdering all those who have stood up against them since the ceasefire took place. There have been many examples of executions within the Gaza township. Hamas must be destroyed. What is being done to see Hamas’s weapons removed and their influence eradicated entirely?
The Prime Minister
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member on the spirit and intent behind his question. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that has inflicted violence and destruction on far too many individuals, and they can play absolutely no part in the future. Our recognition of Palestine was expressly on that basis. We will continue to work with other countries to ensure that that is the situation, because it is vital that that is part of a peaceful and lasting settlement in the region.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, and I thank him, his ministerial team and their advisers for all the work that has been done over many months to get us to this point, where there is some hope for peace in Gaza and also for peace for Israel. In this process, as we go forward and try to build peace, can he ensure that the voices of women, who are so often excluded from such processes, are heard, and that women are at the table when decisions are being made?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and we must ensure that women are part of the future build, and we will do so.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I welcome yesterday’s ceasefire agreement and the Prime Minister’s statement today, and I recognise the leadership that he and his Ministers have shown on this issue so tirelessly and for such a long time. We know that sustaining the peace is dependent on humanitarian services scaling up rapidly in Gaza, and many NGOs are struggling with Israel’s restrictive and politicised new registration measures, which are leaving many in limbo and unable to work alongside UN agencies to scale up those services. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that we address and tackle that and ensure that the needs of Palestinians are met as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue about some of the hurdles and barriers that are put in the way of those wanting to deliver aid, and we are working with others to scale up the volume and speed with which aid can get in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.
Northern Ireland Troubles
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the legacy of the troubles, which still hangs heavily over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
The Good Friday agreement—that extraordinary act of political courage—brought peace. Although its architects knew that legacy would have to be dealt with, they were not able to do so. This is therefore the unfinished business of that agreement, and it is why so many—too many—victims and survivors are still waiting for answers about what exactly happened to those whom they loved so much.
The previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed to win support in Northern Ireland, failed to comply with our international human rights obligations and was undeliverable. Whatever its intentions, it was no basis for trying to move forward. That is why the Government are today introducing new primary legislation and laying a draft remedial order under the Human Rights Act as we seek to fulfil our King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. This legislation will give effect to the framework that I announced with the Irish Government on 19 September, which reflects the principles of the Stormont House agreement and contains sovereign commitments by both the UK and Irish Governments.
The new troubles Bill will reform the independent commission, to be renamed the legacy commission, giving it statutory oversight to provide accountability and confidence, and—learning from Operation Kenova—a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. It will significantly strengthen the governance of the commission, with two co-directors of investigations, statutory conflict of interest duties, and appointments made only following independent advice. It will enhance the investigative powers of the commission and put in place a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has the powers that it needs to find answers for families and can make public the maximum possible information, consistent with the state’s responsibility to protect life and national security.
The Bill will fulfil the commitment that we have made to restore the small number of troubles-related inquests that were stopped in their tracks by the legacy Act, and refer the other inquests that had not yet commenced to the Solicitor General for independent consideration of whether, in each case, they are dealt with most appropriately by the reformed legacy commission or via the coronial system. It will enable the reformed commission to hold new proceedings in cases that are transferred to it from the coronial system. Consistent with the provisions in the Inquiries Act 2005, that will provide for public hearings, the consideration of sensitive information in closed hearings, and effective next-of-kin participation, including participation through legal representation.
We will also address in the Bill, rather than in the remedial order, the UK Supreme Court ruling in the Adams interim custody order case regarding the application of the Carltona principle. We must put beyond doubt Parliament’s intention by clarifying the fact that the relevant legislation allowed such orders to be made by junior Ministers as well as by the Secretary of State.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the 250,000 Northern Ireland veterans who served with honour and distinction to keep people safe, and who worked with the police and other emergency services in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Their service and their sacrifice will never be forgotten. That is why, having worked closely with the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, the Government are introducing strong safeguards for veterans that respond directly to the concerns that have been expressed to us. Those safeguards will also apply to other people, such as former police officers. They will mean that no witnesses will need to travel to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy mechanisms. They will have a right to do so remotely, because coroners and judges in the commission will be legally required to allow it, and support for veterans will be available to assist them in that regard. The commission will be under a duty not to duplicate aspects of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential. The welfare of veterans will be given proper consideration as part of any assessment of whether they are required to give evidence, and that will include the right of veterans to seek anonymity when doing so.
Our protections will not be limited to legislation. Any contact with veterans will be facilitated through the Ministry of Defence, protecting veterans from cold calling, and veterans will not be required to rehearse the historical context surrounding incidents when such information can be obtained from other sources, including the Ministry of Defence. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans’ commissioners have called for: not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.
The remedial order, which I am also laying today, will remove the last Government’s much-criticised immunity scheme, which offered false promises, was never introduced, and would have enabled those who had committed the most appalling terrorist crimes to be granted immunity from prosecution—the principal reason why the Act was so strongly opposed in Northern Ireland—and it will lift the current prohibition on troubles-related civil proceedings.
I am grateful to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and his team for their open and constructive approach in reaching the framework agreement, which recognises that helping families affected by the troubles is a shared responsibility. That is why the joint framework contains specific and unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government to facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with a reformed legacy commission, to establish a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to deal with troubles-related cases, which will include investigating all outstanding cases in Ireland, and to make a financial contribution of €25 million to help fund legacy mechanisms. That is, of course, in addition to the £250 million already committed by the UK Government. Where required, legislation will be introduced by the Irish Government to implement those commitments. We are also establishing with the Irish Government an independent commission on information retrieval—initially on a pilot basis—to give families an additional means of obtaining information.
Since my appointment last year, I have had many discussions with political parties, victims and survivors organisations, human rights groups, veterans and others affected by the troubles. Given the views held by so many people—often diametrically opposed—it was always going to be impossible to set out a plan that gives everyone everything that they want. There will be elements of our approach that some people will welcome and others will not. I also recognise that, because of what has gone before, there is a great lack of trust in all of us in the House on the part of victims and survivors. That is, unfortunately, the reality; but it is not, and it never has been, an argument for not trying to find a way forward. I hope that those who want to see a fair and effective approach to legacy that can command greater support in Northern Ireland will recognise that these measures represent fundamental reform, and that they will therefore be given a chance to succeed.
Time waits for no one, least of all for the many families who lost loved ones, and they, ultimately, will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long. I hope that we will together be able to grasp this opportunity, and so help the people of Northern Ireland to look to a future freer of the burden of the past. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
The last Government legislated to draw a line under troubles-era litigation. That litigation was inevitably weighted against those who sought to protect our country from terrorism. It was inevitably weighted against those who keep records, and whose servicemen are easy to locate and contact. Even today, vexatious claims are being made. Only last week a judicial review of a 1991 case was rightly thrown out by the High Court in Belfast. The judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from…reality”, but not before the former special forces soldier at the centre of it had had to endure four years of investigation. Mindful of cases such as this, the last Government sought to draw a line. Through their actions today this Government are erasing that line, and as they do so, many former servicemen will again feel, with profound unease, that the lawyers are coming. I hope the House will spare a thought for them this afternoon.
I know we will have a lot of time to debate the legislation that the Government are laying, but there are a number of specific questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. First, on the resumption of inquests, will he tell the House how many inquests will be restored and how many will be referred to the Solicitor General? Can he specifically tell the House whether that list will include the 1987 Loughgall case?
Secondly, civil cases are to reopen. It is thought that at the time of prohibition, many hundreds of such cases—affecting perhaps thousands of people—were before the Belfast courts. What is the Northern Ireland Office’s calculation of the number of civil cases that are now likely to proceed? I ask that because there are clear financial consequences to reopening legacy in this way. The Secretary of State referred to the £250 million already committed—indeed, it was committed by the last Government to deal with the legacy as we framed it—but it is now clear that the new legacy commission is to have a much bigger remit than the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. If so, will its budget be increased? If not, how will it be expected to function?
Similarly, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has raised very serious concerns about the amount of money that it will need to support reopened inquests and civil cases. Policy Exchange has placed the cost on the police at around £90 million, at a time when police numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low. There is a very real prospect that without additional funding from the Secretary of State, frontline policing in Northern Ireland will be further reduced. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that that will not happen?
Thirdly, the Government have today briefed journalists that legislation will ban Gerry Adams from receiving compensation for his detention in the 1970s, but the Secretary of State’s statement made no reference to that. Can he tell the House unequivocally that Mr Adams will not receive one penny of compensation?
Fourthly, the Secretary of State listed a number of protections for veterans in court, but it is already the case that anonymity, age-related considerations and remote hearings are available at the discretion of the court. That was apparent to the Tánaiste on 19 September, when he emphasised that no new protections would be available to veterans. Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr Harris? There has also been some confusion about whether these protections will extend to paramilitaries. On 25 September, the Prime Minister claimed that they will not. Can the Secretary of State be definitive for the House?
Lastly, there is the question of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in legacy. This has proved deeply controversial, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be asked questions about it this afternoon. However, I was interested to see that the Republic has made commitments to get the Garda to investigate unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction, and to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the legacy commission. If that is to happen, it is to be welcomed, because during the troubles the UK repeatedly sought extraditions from the Republic to bring terrorist charges. In the vast majority of cases, they were turned down.
Following 1998, the former Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, said that the Irish Government gave a de facto amnesty to the IRA. Indeed, there are many instances of possible collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, which have never received the attention they deserve: Kingsmill, the murder of Ian Sproule, Bloody Friday, Teebane, La Mon—the list goes on. I sincerely hope that the Republic will now engage sincerely, deeply and honestly, and I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that it does.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. He says that the last Government sought to draw a line, but it did not work. In the act of seeking to do that—this is the one question that the now Opposition have never been able to answer—they decided that they would give terrorists immunity from prosecution. [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, that is what the last Government did, and I have never heard a justification. [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, they did, and it did not work. It did not have support in Northern Ireland. How can Northern Ireland proceed to deal with the legacy of the troubles, when the legislation that the last Government passed had no support in Northern Ireland?
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, nine inquests will be restored and the remaining 24 will go into the sifting process. Those nine inquests will include Loughgall, because the Conservative Attorney General ordered a new inquest into Loughgall 10 years ago—a point never referred to by the Opposition. It was one of the cases that had begun, and it therefore falls within the group that will be restored. The rest will be considered by the Solicitor General in the sifting process. The number of civil cases will depend on those who choose to bring them or resume them.
On the PSNI, I say to the hon. Gentleman that prior to 1 May last year, the force had over 1,000 cases on its books, and that is no longer the case. The legacy commission, which the UK Government are funding, is now responsible for looking at all cases referred to it. That cost is borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. To the extent that cases are no longer inquests but will go to the commission, the cost will be borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
On the issue of interim custody orders, as I indicated to the House a moment ago, the legislation will make it clear that the signing of those orders by junior Ministers was always lawful, but we have also decided, in placing a draft remedial order before the House today, that sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act will now remain in place until the provisions of the Bill take effect. That will deal with the point that some people have made about avoiding a gap, but we all have to recognise that sections 46 and 47 proved to be an ineffective way of dealing with this issue—the hon. Gentleman smiles, but he knows that that is the case.
On the protections we have brought in for veterans, we have done so with the motivation of protecting veterans. On the involvement of the Republic of Ireland, I join the hon. Gentleman—a point of unity at the end—in welcoming the commitment of the Irish Government to this partnership. The history of Northern Ireland teaches us that a lot of progress is made when the two guarantors of the Good Friday agreement work together, and many people in Northern Ireland would like to get answers from the Garda and the Irish authorities. At the moment, the Irish Government are refusing to co-operate. Why? Because of the last Government’s legacy Act. I look forward to the Irish Government participating in the process in the months and years ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am pleased to see from the joint framework that the Government have listened to some of the key concerns voiced by stakeholders during my Committee’s inquiry into legacy. Those stakeholders will no doubt want to study the detail of the proposals that my right hon. Friend is publishing today. To that end, what consultation have the Government had with victims and survivors groups since the joint framework was announced, and in what ways has this informed the legislation laid today?
Hilary Benn
The legislation is about to be published, but in the 14 months since I took up this post, I have had many conversations with families, victims, and the other organisations and groups that I listed in my statement. The Bill that the House will see is the result of that process of discussion, listening, drafting and attempting to respond—not in a way that will please everyone—to the mess that this Government were left by the last Government, who passed a piece of legislation that did not work, did not have support and was found by the courts not to be compatible with our obligations in a number of respects. The question now for all those groups, having seen the framework agreement that we have reached with the Irish Government, is: do they feel that the legislation gives effect to that, and will it enable Northern Ireland to move forward in dealing with these really intractable problems?
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As this is my first statement as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Northern Ireland, I want to begin by recognising the deep scars left by the troubles on families and communities across the island of Ireland and these islands. The pain, loss and legacy of that conflict remain deeply felt to this day.
Although the Liberal Democrats welcome the recent agreement between the British and Irish Governments, the true test of this deal will lie in the detail of the legislation that follows. The Government’s stated intention—to promote an honest attempt at reconciliation and to draw a line under decades of division—is one that every Member of this House can understand. Victims’ families deserve truth, justice and closure. Equally, our veterans deserve and must be afforded fairness and protection from injustice. As the Secretary of State has said, the legacy Act, introduced by the Conservatives, failed to gain the support of any of the parties in Stormont, victims groups or the Irish Government. This lack of consensus speaks volumes but is not loud enough, it seems, for His Majesty’s official Opposition.
I look forward to examining the contents of the new Bill in detail and to tabling constructive amendments. My party will engage fully with the Government, as lasting reconciliation depends on transparency, fairness and independent oversight. That means an effective information retrieval body with statutory disclosure powers, meaningful participation for victims, and safeguards to uphold both justice and compassion for veterans and victims alike.
I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, how will this Bill ensure that reconciliation is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up? Secondly, based on the many meetings my party has had with veterans and their representatives, what specific safeguards will the Government include to ensure fairness, proportionality and proper protections for those who serve with integrity? Lastly, how will this Government ensure that prosecution under the law, or the possibility of it, can never be used to harm, oppress or discredit those who fought for our country, regardless of the final verdict?
Hilary Benn
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role, and I genuinely look forward to working with him on these and other matters, given his interest in Northern Ireland, which is shared right across the House.
Let me turn to his three specific questions. First, no legislation can enable people to feel reconciled in some way to what happened. In the end, reconciliation has to come from within. The title “reconciliation” will not be in the new name of the legacy commission, because it is a consequence of a process that we are trying to put in place, if families can find answers. I urge the House to concentrate on that, because that is what this is all about—trying to enable families to find answers. Secondly, I did draw attention to the safeguards in my statement, and when the Bill is published later, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see how they are given legal expression.
Lastly, on the hon. Gentleman’s point about prosecution, I would simply say that people have made one or two comments in these discussions about politically motivated prosecutions or vexatious prosecutions. I think it is very important that the House upholds the integrity and independence of the prosecutorial authorities. A fundamental bedrock of our legal system is that independent prosecutors make such decisions, and to suggest that they are in any way politically motivated is in my view profoundly mistaken.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for the Armed Forces for working so hard to achieve this new phase of the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. As we celebrate peace starting in the middle east, this statement is a reminder of how long it takes to build peace and how important justice is for peace. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that by shutting down investigations, including into the deaths of more than 200 Operation Banner soldiers, without an adequate alternative, the unlawful legacy Act failed so many families and victims of the troubles, and the mess had to be undone?
Hilary Benn
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but above all for her great service in the Northern Ireland Office. It was a real pleasure to work with her, and she did so much during her time in the Department.
I do agree with my hon. Friend, because those service families want to find answers. Some time ago, I met the family of Tony Harrison, who served and was murdered in Belfast. His mother and his brother told me how outraged they were by the legacy Act, because it proposed that those who had killed her son could get immunity from prosecution. It is so important that we put that misguided approach on one side, so that all families—service families and others—can find answers.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
It is worth remembering that most victims are not in a group, are not in the media and are not taking action; they just want to know what happened to their loved ones. As we debate the forthcoming legislation, I hope we can all collectively remember that, because investigations are key to delivering for those families.
I want to ask the Secretary of State two specific questions. First, there is some concern that there will be protection for combatants who may have been involved in rapes and other sexual activity. Could he look at that as the Bill proceeds to make sure that victims are able to talk and have protections, as those ex-combatants have? Secondly, what thought has he given to a change of Government in the south should Sinn Féin take power, and to the delivery of the Irish contribution and commitments in such a scenario?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman for his wise words, and I once again pay tribute to the distinguished role he played in trying to move forward some of these and many other Northern Ireland questions during his time as Secretary of State.
On the latter point, it is not for me to speculate on what is going to happen as a result of the decisions of the Irish electorate. The current coalition Government have given a commitment, and this partnership was two Governments coming together, each making sovereign commitments and promising to carry them out in their own jurisdictions. I think it is a hugely significant moment, because we have to go back 11 years to the last such time, when the last Government were able to reach agreement with the Irish Government in the form of the Stormont House agreement.
On the first question, when the right hon. Gentleman sees the Bill, he will see that we are making changes to allow some other matters to be investigated, because I am conscious of the point he has raised.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the progress made by both this Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, we on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have heard of the heartbreak of many of those who lost loved ones over the course of the troubles, and regardless of the background of those loved ones, they deserve answers.
The response we have consistently received is that Operation Kenova is an example of good practice—that many of those in the island of Ireland are too close to this matter, and bringing in suitably qualified individuals from other parts of the UK should be considered as part of any process. Can I ask the Secretary of State if that has been considered in the new Bill?
Hilary Benn
I would make two points. First, as I have alluded to, we have drawn on the experience of Operation Kenova, in that the Bill will create a statutory victims and survivors advisory group to ensure that, in the way it goes about its work, the commission takes account of victims and survivors, and that will include a representative of those who served the state during the troubles.
On the second point, we are putting together much tougher statutory provisions in place relating to conflicts of interest. That is why there will be two directors of investigation—one will have experience of investigating cases in Northern Ireland, the other will not—which will address the concerns some families have about who will be looking into their case. We should not forget that, despite the nearly 100 cases that the commission is currently investigating, which I welcome, far too many families in Northern Ireland have said that they will not be going anywhere near the commission. Part of the purpose of what we are seeking to do is to build confidence on the part of more families in Northern Ireland to go to the commission and get answers.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
First, I welcome the Minister to his place and to the Department, and I welcome the new shadow spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. I personally thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the role she played in her time in the Northern Ireland Office.
That the announcement with the Irish Government was made during a House of Commons recess, one could consider as cynical; that we stand here today during a statement on legislation that has yet to be introduced, and therefore we have no detail on, as disgraceful; and the suggestion that the Irish Government have committed to legislate at all as entirely fanciful—they have not. But the detail we do have is that the Secretary of State wishes for the Solicitor General to be the person to carry out the sifting process on whether cases should go to inquest through the coronial system or to the legacy commission.
In Northern Ireland, we have an Advocate General. The Advocate General is England and Wales’s Attorney General. I am clear in my mind that Richard Hermer would be wholly inappropriate to have his hands anywhere near cases touching on the legacy of the past, given how he has conflicted himself. Will the Secretary of State indicate: has the Attorney General of this country recused himself from this process? Has he, as Secretary of State, decided to exclude the Attorney General from this process? Is he legislating in a way that will exclude every Attorney General from this process, or is it just Richard Hermer?
Hilary Benn
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am sorry to have heard what he has just said in relation to very substantial proposals contained in the framework document. I grant him that the Bill will be published shortly, and he will have a chance to read it. I have been accused of many things in my time in public life but being cynical is not one of them, so that is a first. The truth about the announcement of the framework—[Interruption.] Well, it may be the beginning of a number of such accusations, but I will leave that to others who want to take the debate in that particular direction.
The framework was announced when it was because it is a joint framework between two Governments and that means there had to be a negotiation about when it came out, but I did undertake to Mr Speaker at the time that I would come to the House as quickly as possible to make a statement. I laid a written ministerial statement in the House yesterday, and I came today at the first available opportunity with Members here, bearing in mind the Whip we had yesterday, to subject what had agreed to scrutiny.
I have every confidence in the Solicitor General, and I am sure she will do an excellent job in sifting these cases against three criteria, which will be laid out in statute. The first will be about the impact that sensitive information will have on the ability of inquests to actually complete the case. The second will be speed—time waits for no one. The third will be the view of those who are involved in the cases, including families.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I welcome the Government’s focus on a protections package for veterans. Last week, I met David, Ishbel and Gary from Yateley and Hawley Royal British Legion, who do an excellent job supporting veterans in my community. We discussed the new veterans protection package announced by the Government, including the protections against repeated investigations. Many veterans from my constituency served courageously for our nation in very, very difficult conditions and they asked me to raise a number of questions on behalf of veterans who served in Northern Ireland. How will the Government ensure that the protections are absolutely watertight in practice, so that veterans are not subjected to repeated, distressing investigations in old age? What steps are being taken with the Irish Government and other partners to ensure that accountability and justice are applied consistently and fairly on all sides?
Hilary Benn
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is such a strong advocate for the many veterans she represents. I encourage her to look at the legislation to see the nature of the legislative commitments to give effect to the veterans’ protections. There will be a couple that will not be in legislation because they are entirely in our own hands, agreeing a protocol with the commission to ensure that there is no cold calling.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my new deputy, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) to the House. It is very remiss of me not to have done so. This is the first chance we have had to sit together on the Front Bench. I pay tribute to the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), from the Ministry of Defence, who has played a really important and significant role in putting the protections in place. I note that Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, has said that the Confederation
“welcomes the development of the safeguards that have been put in place to offer protection to those within the armed forces community who are affected by legacy issues.”
I, too, welcome that recognition of what we have done.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Obviously the devil lies in the detail in these things, and never more so than in Northern Ireland. Before the Bill comes eventually before us, we really cannot say for certain whether it is good, bad or indifferent, as is often the case.
I will raise two points. First, I will mention the agreement—I find it a little wishy-washy—over Ireland’s role in all this, which, as has been said by my hon. Friends, has a huge amount of history attached to it, given that Ireland has previously refused to hand over people who really were guilty of the most vexatious, disgusting attacks on civilians and soldiers. It does seem to me rather peculiar. We will wait and see what that actually means. Ireland says it is committed—I would love to see what that commitment actually means.
Secondly, I will mention vexatious prosecutions. The note we have here talks about protection from repeated investigations
“unless there are compelling reasons to do so”.
My concern with things like that is that they are little hooks that allow development through legislation, instead of being powerful tools to do what the Secretary of State says. I therefore urge him right now to be very clear when this legislation comes forward that this cannot be broken through and to tie down the definition of “compelling”.
Hilary Benn
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the past, and I am not going to dissent from what he said, but this is an attempt to move beyond the past and the history and to move forward to something that is better. In the end, people will judge the commitments that this Government and the Irish Government have made, but the deal has been signed in good faith, and we are committed to doing what we promised to do.
The commission was established by the previous Government, after all, and I took the decision not to abolish it, but to reform it. Many people criticised that—they wanted it scrapped completely and for us to start again, but I thought that would have been a mistake, because time waits for no one. We would have wasted all the money and stopped the investigations that are taking place, which are really important to the families. Every single investigation is important to every single family, because each is about the death of a loved one.
I am sure we will debate the specifics of the legislation at length in the House. The state has a duty, of course, to properly investigate cases where it has been involved in a death. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. It is a duty that all of us should uphold.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their work on this package, including the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who was so well regarded by everybody who came across her in Northern Ireland. I also thank the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin for their work, because that partnership is vital to moving forward.
The Social Democratic and Labour party acknowledges the progress in this package if it is faithfully captured in the legislation. When we push for more and better, please know that that comes from a sincere and long-held determination to get this right for families, survivors and our society as a whole. Despite some opinions to the contrary, including recently, I do not believe that most people believe that any murder in Northern Ireland was justified, inevitable, useful or worthy of cover-up, and perpetuating those narratives is an enormous challenge for the present and the future, too.
Does the Secretary of State agree that all the work invested by families, campaigners and his officials will be worth nothing if those who created victims—whether republican or loyalist paramilitaries or the state forces who assisted them—do not approach this with full transparency and disclosure and put honesty and the needs of victims over the needs of their own narratives?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my extraordinary officials, some of whom are present today. It has been the privilege of my life to work with them on this. I know that my hon. Friend will hold us to the highest standards, and I accept what she says in the spirit in which it is offered. As I indicated to the House earlier, I want there to be maximum provision of information to families, but we must also acknowledge that any and all Governments have responsibilities for the security of the state and to protect life, and this Government will uphold both.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I welcome the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) to his ministerial position, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) to his new place as spokesperson—frankly the best job anybody could have in opposition.
I have spent the summer speaking to veterans about the vital commitment they need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution. While many of those veterans recognise that they went to Northern Ireland in order to restore the rule of law and think that they should be subject to the laws of this land, they none the less remain incredibly anxious about the possibility that the process of prosecution becomes persecution. Has the Secretary of State had the official backing of any veterans group for the approach that he has taken? Separately, has he had any assurances from the Republic of Ireland Government that they will, as a result of the publication of this Bill, drop the inter-state case against the United Kingdom?
Hilary Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the role he played as Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Northern Ireland. The truth is that with the passage of time, the possibility of prosecution becomes increasingly remote. We all know that to be the case. Most of the families I have met—not all, but most—have said, “I know that no one is going to be held to account through the judicial process, but I just want to know what happened. That’s what I want.” It causes such pain and grief that that answer cannot be provided. It really is difficult.
As far as the Irish Government are concerned, I believe that they will honour the promises they have made. This partnership with the Irish Government is a significant moment, because moving from non-co-operation to co-operation will open up the possibility for more information to come to families. The inter-state case is a matter for the Irish Government, but I am very clear of one thing, which is that the last legacy Act created circumstances in which the law that was not compatible with our international obligations, and that is the basis of the inter-state case. The legislation I am bringing before the House will fix that and deal with it, and in those circumstances the inter-state case will no longer have a basis.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today, particularly his focus on answers, which are what people want. As someone who lost a friend, Tim Parry, when he was murdered by the IRA in 1993, I know exactly how important it is for families and everyone who knows victims to get the answers that they deserve. The agreement is vital in getting the process moving again so that victims and families can get those answers. How will the Secretary of State continue that work with families and victims both during the process of the legislation and afterwards to make sure that answers remain at the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I spoke yesterday to the victims’ commissioner in Northern Ireland. On 19 September when the framework was published, the Tánaiste and I met the victims and survivors forum in Northern Ireland and explained what the framework seeks to do. I made a commitment to the victims’ commissioner yesterday that I will come back to meet the victims and survivors forum once it has had a chance to look at the legislation to find out what it thinks.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In the interests of trying to solve this issue, I wish the Secretary of State well and hope that he will bring forward the Bill and deal with its progress in the spirit of compromise and co-operation between the parties to find the best landing spot possible. He mentioned good faith, which is a precious resource that is often in short supply when it comes to this issue. I think it would be helpful if he works vigorously with the Irish Government to get them to ascertain at speed and pace what, if any, legislative measures they require to make good on what they have committed to, and could he as best as possible work those two pieces of legislation in lockstep to give confidence to both sides, who have concerns when it comes to good faith—or rather the absence of it?
Hilary Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I hope he knows that I will do anything and everything I can to try to find a way forward, in partnership with as many Members of the House as possible. For a long period of time, this question has been subject to the bipartisanship which, in the main, has characterised relations between the parties in the House on matters to do with Northern Ireland. I recognise that there are disagreements in relation to one aspect of what we are putting forward; that does not mean that we cannot work together on the others.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of seeing the legislation required in Ireland to give effect to the proposals. I was standing next to the Tánaiste when he made it quite clear—to give an example—that he would ensure legislation was in place to deal with the commitment to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh public inquiry before the hearings resume in March. That seems to be an important example of good faith.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I suppose that the Secretary of State will forgive some of us for being cautious before we are ready to believe that the Government, the state and any paramilitary organisation will give over the information that is required. In fact, right now there are families across the road in the Supreme Court in legal dispute with the Government because the Government are withholding information from them. We know that there is a pattern.
When it comes to inquests, will the Secretary of State look again at the sifting process? Will he give family views primacy when it comes to deciding which cases will have an inquest? Will he drop his proposal to give himself the power to appoint judges in that inquisitorial mechanism? The important principle of the independence of the judiciary needs to be held up.
Hilary Benn
On inquests, there are three statutory tests that the Solicitor General will have to apply. In answer to an earlier question, I indicated what they are. Family views will be one of the considerations, but if inquests cannot proceed because of sensitive information, would it not be more sensible to put it into the commission, which can deal with sensitive information, because it has provision for closed hearings?
No doubt my hon. Friend will make the point about appointment processes when we come to discuss the Bill. However, on the agreement on the information-retrieval mechanism, I point out—this is also relevant to the point made by the Opposition—that that was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government and the Irish Government, and it formed part of the Stormont House agreement. What is the purpose of it? It is to enable those who have information to pass it to the body, which can then pass it to the families, and that information will be a protected disclosure, which is not the same as immunity.
That system has worked well through the independent commission for the location of victims’ remains in recovering quite a number of the remains of those who were abducted, tortured, murdered and buried by the IRA. I hope that it is a step forward in going back to what was agreed at Stormont House by the previous Government, the Irish Government and the political parties—well, not all of them—and will be welcomed on all sides.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
The Secretary of State referred to this as unfinished business. In the last statement, we heard about the successes of the peace process in Northern Ireland. I was 12 years old when the Good Friday agreement was signed; I now stand here 40 years of age as the MP for Lagan Valley, and my constituents deserve truth and justice as much as anybody else.
We have heard a lot today about veterans. My family were part of that cohort. They proudly served, along with many others. They do not want an amnesty. They do not want immunity. They do not want equivocation with terrorists, which was proposed by the outgoing Government.
We hear about people in Northern Ireland who were in the wrong place at the wrong time whenever they died. They were not; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place, doing the wrong work. We must send out a clear signal, no matter what our political opinion, that terrorism was wrong in the past and is wrong now. Will the Secretary of State give me his guarantee that he will discuss that with the Northern Ireland Executive and my ministerial colleagues to ensure that those families who so rightfully deserve truth and justice have the resource to be able to get that?
Hilary Benn
May I say to the hon. Member that I agree with every single word that she has expressed so powerfully and forcefully? I encourage those who have been chuntering from a sedentary position during the course of these exchanges to reflect on her point that there are many people who say they do not want immunity and they certainly object to it being given to those who committed the most appalling crimes.
Voices in Northern Ireland really need to be listened to. The failure to do that, including under the last legacy Act, is why I made the point that there has been a terrible lack of trust in politicians over a long period of time. I will not make a party point, but there is a terrible lack of trust in politicians because there have been attempts before and they have not worked. We have to try to make this work, and I have already begun the process of talking to the hon. Member’s colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Following the last question, I want to say that the Tory’s immunity system would have meant immunity for the perpetrators of terrorist crimes across the UK. Our domestic courts have determined that. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government have no choice but to rectify the situation?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point extremely forcefully. It did not work and it was never deliverable. There never was immunity; it was a false promise made to veterans who were badly let down and badly served by the last Government. Whoever won the election last year would have had to deal with the mess that we have inherited, and that is what we seek to do.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
In March of this year, it was widely reported that the Secretary of State gave his word to Mairead Kelly, the sister of IRA murderer Patrick Kelly, that there would be an inquest on the Loughgall incident. Is this remedial order a fulfilment of that promise? If so, it means that 30 years on, the Government are dragging veterans into court over an operation that stopped eight heavily armed IRA murderers—men who had already killed and who were on their way to kill again, with weapons that had been used in 40 previous murders.
Let us be clear: by stopping the attack, those soldiers prevented the murder of many more innocent Northern Ireland citizens. What justice is served by punishing those brave soldiers with a stressful and unnecessary process? The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) described it as a persecution, punishing them for doing nothing more than their duty. Is this really what the Secretary of State intends?
Hilary Benn
The fact is that this Government were elected on a commitment. There was a lot of opposition to the ending of inquests under the legacy Act—maybe not from the right hon. Gentleman but from a lot of people in Northern Ireland. The Government came in committed to restoring the inquests that had started and were stopped. The reason that I said what I said is because Loughgall, as I have already indicated to the shadow Secretary of State, is one of those nine cases.
It is for the independent coronial system to take a decision about that, but one of the factors that coroners have to take into account is how they will deal with any sensitive information that is provided. We know from other inquests that there have been a number of cases when the coroner has said that they accept that the information cannot see the light of day. They have examined the public interest immunity certificate and have reached the conclusion that they cannot take the case any further. In those circumstances, the sensible thing would be for cases to move into the commission, where sensitive information can be considered.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to new protections for veterans. Will he update the House on the discussions that he and Ministry of Defence Ministers have had with veterans and their representative groups about the measures?
Hilary Benn
The Minister for the Armed Forces, the Defence Secretary and I have had many such discussions. The measures that I have announced that will be contained in the Bill and the other non-legislative measures are the result of those discussions. We have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed by veterans and we have come forward with what we think is a fair, reasonable and balanced package of measures that will provide protection while also taking forward our responsibility to enable families, including forces families, to find answers.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I am against the repealing of the legacy Act, and I served in Northern Ireland. As I am now doing in opposition, I raised when we were in government the major concern and dishonour when none of those on the Labour Benches had the decency to come to this House and debate all the points the Minister is making now. They let the legislation go through, but it is recorded in Hansard that very few people bothered to come to the Chamber to debate it when we took it through the House.
I want to make two quick points on the support for veterans. First, you have spoken about the process they will have to go through; I want to know what support will be available, as you have mentioned. Secondly, given that the terrorists did not keep records but the British Army did, how will you ensure fairer disclosure throughout the process?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members not to refer to “you”, as that means me.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point. Support is available for veterans through the Ministry of Defence, and the Armed Forces Minister is very committed to making sure that veterans get all the support they need, which is in part reflected in the package we have announced.
On disclosure, we are making a number of changes, including amending the definition of “sensitive information” so that it is not designated by virtue of the body that held it. That is one of the reasons why the courts found that the disclosure arrangements were not compatible with our commitments. The Secretary of State will have to conduct a balancing exercise on what should be disclosed; the Secretary of State will be required to give reasons for any decision not to disclose, to the extent that that does not risk harm to national security; and, of course, any decision that the Secretary of State makes can be subject to judicial review.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the way he and the Minister for the Armed Forces have engaged on this matter in recent months. I have many constituent veterans in Sunderland Central who served with distinction in Operation Banner; the Secretary of State rightly praised the professionalism and service of our armed forces in that operation, and I welcome the protections he has set out today. May I press him a bit more on the need for continuing work with veterans groups, so that as the protections are being implemented there will be a process of ongoing review to ensure that they provide effective protection from vexatious lawfare?
Hilary Benn
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have made these commitments because we want them to work, and the Government are determined to ensure that that is the case.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
On that assurance from the Secretary of State about the protections for veterans, on 19 September he stood beside the Irish Government when he made this announcement, and later that evening the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, went on Irish media and clearly said that there were no added protections for veterans in the legacy deal. Will the Secretary of State give assurance to the House: are there protections for veterans in this legacy deal, or not?
Hilary Benn
When the hon. Gentleman sees the legislation, he will see that the protections that we have said will be backed by legislation are in the legislation. In addition to that, there are the provisions relating to cold calling and on not requiring veterans to rehearse the historical context when it is possible for someone from the Ministry of Defence, for example, to do that to assist both inquests and the commission.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have been very engaged in this issue, not least because of the ruling of our courts that the previous Government’s attempt to legislate on this issue was unlawful because it would potentially grant immunity to, among others, terrorists. That is no way to serve justice to families and victims, and it is no way to serve justice to our veterans. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the legislation we are bringing forward will not grant immunity to terrorists? That is a simple request and it is remarkable that I have to make it, but given the legislation that the previous Government attempted to pass, it is important to have it on the record.
Hilary Benn
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The legislation was passed; it was never commenced. It was struck down by the courts, and the remedial order will remove it from the statute book, because we do not agree with giving immunity to terrorists. We do not agree with the principle of immunity because we believe, as I hope the whole House believes, in the rule of law.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the letters of comfort that were given to the IRA and the question of whether or not they still hold water, but let me go back to what the Secretary of State said about the possibility of IRA bosses like Gerry Adams claiming compensation on technical grounds that the “wrong” Minister signed their internment papers. As I understand it from what the Secretary of State said earlier, the remedial order that he is laying before Parliament will open up the possibility of such people suing the Government for compensation, which the new legacy legislation that he is bringing in will nevertheless then rule out. He referred to a possible gap between the new legislation coming into force and the remedial order opening the gap. It has been suggested to me that the Government are briefing the press that the remedial order will not actually be voted on until the new legacy Bill has gone through Parliament. Is that his policy, and if not, what is his policy?
Hilary Benn
The aim of the remedial order is to remove from the statute book provisions in the previous legislation that have been found to be incompatible with our obligations. I would just say that the letters of comfort did not offer immunity. That has been quite clear from Lady Justice Hallett’s review and what the Chief Constable and others have said.
I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on the interim custody orders. The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020. The last Government did not know what to do about that: it was not a judgment that the Government expected, and they did not know how to deal with the question of potential compensation. In the end, two Members of the other House introduced what are now sections 46 and 47. They were voted on, but they were subsequently found to be ineffective in achieving the objective, when the court said that they were incompatible.
What I have just told the House is that the new draft remedial order will not remove them from the statute book. Sections 46 and 47 will remain in place until such time as the new legislation I am introducing takes effect. It is a flimsy defence, because it has already been found by the courts to be ineffective, but it will remain in place. It shows that I have listened to the representations that were made about sections 46 and 47, and it is placed in the remedial order. I am now going to deal with the problem by legislation in the way that I set out.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Scores, if not hundreds, of people in Northern Ireland lost their lives because of the safe base and the haven that the Republic of Ireland offered their IRA murderers. That was where they had their arms dumps, that was where they had their training camps and that was where they returned to for sanctuary, safe in the knowledge that extradition would invariably be refused. Yet it is with the Government of that territory that the Secretary of State has chosen to co-design these proposals. He did not co-design them with the innocent victims of terrorism; he chose to co-design them with the Government of the territory that facilitated the victim makers. Why, then, should any innocent victim have any confidence in these proposals, particularly as they still require nothing meaningful from the Republic of Ireland? There is a tentative promise that, if necessary, there will be co-operation, but there is no apology for the Republic’s role in facilitating terrorism for years. Did the Secretary of State even seek an apology publicly from the Republic of Ireland? That is the same Government who to this day continue with an inter-state action against this Government. How could any of this proposal command widespread support when that is its genealogy?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we can remain stuck in the past and think of a thousand reasons why, “This isn’t good enough,” and, “We shouldn’t do this,” or, “We shouldn’t do the other.” The responsibility on the House is to try to find a way of moving forward, because the fact that so many families do not have answers is a product of—if I may say so—people being stuck in the past, and we need to move beyond that.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken, if I may gently chide him, in saying that these proposals have been co-designed with the Irish Government. I have said already that I would have taken these steps regardless of whether we reached an agreement with the Irish Government, because the mess left to us by the last Government forces whoever is in office now to deal with the consequences of a piece of legislation that did not work. But I will agree with him on one thing: in the end, it will be the families who will decide whether this new approach allows them to find the answers. I cannot say too many times that that is what really matters in all this, because it is those families who have influenced me more than anyone else in the discussions I have had.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The young men sent out to do the state’s business during the troubles are now old men, often sick, often disabled. Some of them are my constituents. They will be listening carefully to the Secretary of State and will be hearing honeyed words. They will be reading those words in this framework document, even as the protections given by the legacy Act are stripped away from them and they listen for the metaphorical knock on the door as activist, left, liberal human rights lawyers construct, open and reopen cases that will do them in in their failing years. Is that what the Secretary of State wants? Is this not a beanfeast for lawyers? Is it any wonder that no veterans groups have come out to support the framework that he has announced today?
Hilary Benn
I have great respect for the right hon. Member and his service, both as a Minister and in our armed forces. I gently say to him that protections are not being stripped away because they never existed in the first place. It is important for the House to appreciate this: the provisions that were passed in the legacy Act were never commenced. They were then struck down by the courts. They do not exist; they never have existed. [Interruption.] That is just a fact. Nobody has been granted immunity because the provisions of that Act have never ever been applied. One cannot strip away something that never existed in the first place.
I am afraid what the last Government did was to offer a false promise to veterans. One of the consequences of the widespread failure of the legacy Act is court case after court case where people have said, “Well, we need to find another means of getting an answer to the question about what happened to our loved ones.” That involves expensive court cases. I am under an order to establish a public inquiry into one case. It is—I think the phrase has been used—a legal wild west that the legislation opened up, and we are trying to put things back together again.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State indicated that the Government are introducing what he described as “strong safeguards”, and he says that the legacy commission will be
“under a duty not to duplicate aspects of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential.”
What will he do when—not if, but when—the Republic of Ireland’s Government come under severe pressure from other sources to make compelling reasons to him that there has to be something investigated that the person who is the subject of that investigation believed they would be excluded from? What will he do then?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, asks what is, in fairness, a totally hypothetical question. [Interruption.] Well it is a hypothetical question. The fact is that it will be for the commission to interpret the legal obligation that will be placed upon it by the legislation, which refers to such reinvestigation being essential. Ultimately, the commission will judge, and if people do not like the way in which it has interpreted things, they have a remedy available to them in judicial review.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As a veteran, I am deeply concerned by the Government’s dogged pursuit of this legislation, which has the support neither of Northern Ireland veterans nor of veterans in my generation, who have concerns about their own service in Iraq and Afghanistan. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give the British public that this legislation will achieve justice and that terrorists guilty of the murders of British service personnel will now be held to account? How many cases does he believe will be reopened in order to pursue IRA terrorists in the way that British personnel are now vulnerable to being pursued?
Hilary Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. If he looks at the nearly 100 cases that the commission is currently investigating, he will find that they include the Guilford pub bombing, the M62 coach bombing and the Kingsmill massacre. The commission has the powers it needs—in this respect, I pay tribute to the previous Government—to get the information required to do the job of investigating. Having met the investigators, I can say that they are very committed to their task. The families who have chosen to refer the cases—which is what has governed the 100 cases that the commission is looking at—have said, “Please, can you look at this?” I want more families to do that, so that more of them get answers. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the number of cases, he will see that it reflects in reasonable measure who was actually responsible for the vast majority of deaths in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government’s continued hounding of our brave Northern Ireland veterans—many of whom should be enjoying well-earned retirement after their loyal service to the British Government, not living in fear of prosecution for simply following orders—is nothing short of shameful?
Hilary Benn
The Government do not wish to see anybody hounded. We have put these protections in place precisely because we have listened to the concerns that veterans have expressed to me, to the Defence Secretary and to the Minister for the Armed Forces. I gave one example of a veteran welcoming the fact that we were putting the protections in place. I would ask people to look at the protections when the legislation is presented, and to understand that what I say about the risk of prosecution diminishing rapidly over time is, looking back over recent years, reflected in what the facts tell us.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State set out how many of the proposed six protections for veterans will also be available to former paramilitaries?
Hilary Benn
When they introduced immunity, the previous Government said that it would apply not just to veterans but to others, including terrorists, and that is what the legislation did in those circumstances. There are provisions that apply to witnesses, but the reason for the package is the determination of the Government to protect veterans. The hon. Member will see that a number of those protections are laid out in the legislation. Others will be steps that the Ministry of Defence will take.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Like the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State should stop using the phrase, “The legislation was struck down by the courts.” The courts have no such power. As Jack Straw made clear from the Dispatch Box, a declaration of incompatibility is no more than a declaration; it places no obligation or expectation on Parliament. But may I thank the Secretary of State for at least listening to my representations in delaying the repeal of sections 46 and 47 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 until the new legislation is in place? Of course, he is doing so because they are effective. Otherwise, there would be no point in delaying their repeal, would there?
Hilary Benn
I suppose I should take that praise from the right hon. Gentleman at face value. The fact is that sections 46 and 47 were found to be incompatible, but I have listened, and I hope Members of the House will find me willing to listen. I must, however, correct him, because when it comes to the immunity provisions, they were found to be incompatible, and he is correct in what he describes, but they were also struck down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. That is why they are not operational.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is no secret that I have major concerns over the legacy Bill, not least that innocent victims were precluded from taking their path to justice. What seems to be before us now is carte blanche for political inquiries and yet no hope for the Kingsmill families. It instead highlights the role of the Irish Government in British matters after their continued refusal to engage and their collusion to protect IRA murderers across the border.
In the penultimate paragraph of his statement, the Secretary of State said that
“the many families who lost loved ones…will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long.”
Quite clearly, that will not be the case for many families, and the Secretary of State will know that a member of my family was murdered on 10 December 1971. It shows that the Government have no heart for the victims but have an ear instead for the victim maker. Does the Secretary of State not understand why these feelings exist? When will he put right thinking and good people of the Province above being seen to be politically correct by the enemies of peace and justice in Northern Ireland? My family seek justice, and I do not see it on the other side. For all the other families that I represent and that we all represent, we seek that justice, but not within this.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman has spoken before most powerfully and movingly about the impact that the death of family members has had upon him. He exemplifies, if I may say so, what so many people in Northern Ireland say when they meet us and talk to us: some will open up and some will weep, and some will not be able to open their mouths to describe what happened because the pain runs so deep after all these years. We are trying to create a mechanism and a means of enabling every single family who wants to come forward and say, “Can you please look at this case and see if we can find more information?” to do that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Kingsmill massacre. As I have already indicated to the House, that is one of the cases that the commission is currently looking into. There was the inquest verdict, and we know what it found. I will simply say to the House that probably the most difficult conversation I have had since I took up this post was to listen to the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, Alan Black, describe to me exactly what happened on that dark and dreadful night.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I personally do not have a great deal of faith in this Government or previous Governments on issues to do with legacy. Can the Secretary of State give assurances that in addressing the legacy of the Northern Ireland troubles, terrorists will not be allowed to rewrite history and that our history will be recorded truthfully, with the focus on innocent victims rather than on those who committed acts of terrorism? Can he further reassure me that veterans will not be chased for prosecutions vexatiously? Can he also reassure me—given that Irish Governments for 56 years of my life have failed to give information to our Government about acts of terrorism from their side of the country? Can he tell us what inquests will actually go ahead now? If he could name them all, I would really appreciate that.
Hilary Benn
I will write to the hon. Gentleman in response to his last question, if I may.
What the hon. Member describes is exactly what the commission is there to do. I am making a number of changes in the commission to create greater confidence on the part of families to come forward. I have great respect for Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, and for the work that they are doing. The fact that a hundred families have approached them is very significant, but as the hon. Gentleman will know very well, there are many families in Northern Ireland who will say, “Because of the circumstances of its creation, and the closing down of inquests and civil cases, we do not trust the commission to look independently and properly at our case.” I am trying to make it possible for more families to come forward so that more can find the answers they seek.
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about co-operation from Ireland. The reason why I was so keen to try to reach an agreement with the Irish Government is that we have got, as a result of our negotiations, a commitment to co-operate with the commission. At the moment, the Irish Government will not do so because of the legislation passed by the last Government. Once we have made these changes, they are committed to co-operating. In the end, we will all be judged on how this goes and how it proceeds, and whether the answers are found for families, but we will be in a much better position than we are with the total mess that the last Government left us.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
When we cut through the waffle of this statement and the Secretary of State’s answers this afternoon, one fact remains: soldiers who served in Northern Ireland who have already had cases tried will be able to be dragged back into the courts and will be subject to interrogation there. The Secretary of State talked about all these wonderful protections, so let us look at them: they will not have to travel to Northern Ireland—they can appear remotely; they will be given help to appear remotely—I assume that means that somebody will show them how to work an iPad; and they will not have a knock at the door from anybody other than the military police, so the PSNI will not be coming over from Northern Ireland and knocking at their door at 6 o’clock in the morning. That is hardly any reassurance to the people who served in Northern Ireland.
Then we are told that dealing with the families who were affected by the troubles is a joint responsibility with Irish Government. There is no obligation in this statement on the Irish Government, other than to throw 30 pieces of silver at the legacy mechanism to assuage their guilt for protecting terrorists over 30 years and for covering up for the collaboration of some within the Irish establishment who helped the IRA in their job.
Hilary Benn
I would say two things to right hon. Gentleman. First, I would not be quite so light with the importance of that commitment to allow our veterans to give evidence remotely. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I have both spoken to veterans for whom having to go back to Northern Ireland would bring back memories that they have been having to deal with ever since they served. That is actually a very important protection and one that the Government are committed to putting in place.
Secondly, how would the right hon. Gentleman propose that we move this question forward? For all the criticisms —no doubt, I will receive many, many more—the people I most wish to hear from are those who have practical proposals as to how we can create greater confidence on the part of the victims, survivors and the families so that they get the answers they are looking for. Anyone who comes forward with helpful suggestions will find a ready partner in me.
Points of Order
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, when we have a Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers the Budget and then the Red Book, with all the fine detail, the numbers and the graphs, is immediately made available to MPs, so that they can at least glance through it and ask the Chancellor questions. Conversely, this afternoon we just have spent nearly an hour and a half debating a statement about a Bill and a very important remedial order that we were quite deliberately not allowed to see. Surely it would have been better if hon. Members had been allowed to receive the Bill and the remedial order—at least to glance at it for a few minutes—so they could have asked much better informed questions of the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has organised this cynically to prevent that. Madam Deputy Speaker, how do we prevent that from happening again?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but as is usual practice, when the Bill is presented, it will be available in the Vote Office.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the summer, I was the subject of two online death threats, which the police are investigating. These were posted in response to a video published by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). The video accused me of not telling the truth on a very sensitive subject: the horrific abuse of children by grooming gangs. If the hon. Member had made those remarks in Parliament, they would have been deemed unparliamentary. As well as the death threats, that video elicited a torrent of misogynistic, racist and offensive comments, which remain online.
As Members of this House, it is incumbent on us to do all we can to prevent the escalation of abuse. The actions of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley were at best irresponsible, and at worst inflammatory. I call on him to apologise, to withdraw the video, and to commit to refrain from personal attacks against me and other elected officials in future. Online abuse has a psychological impact on all of us who are subject to it—on our staff, our families and our friends. It has a chilling effect on democracy, stifling debate, putting good people off standing for election and creating a climate of hate. Therefore, I also hope that the Committee on Standards will review the code of conduct, to ensure that the same standards expected of Members in this place are upheld in their words and behaviours outside this place, particularly online.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order, and I am aware that she has notified the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley in advance of raising this matter in the Chamber. Although it is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, Mr Speaker takes the security and safety of Members very seriously, and I would always encourage Members to treat each other with courtesy and respect.
Bills Presented
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Hilary Benn, supported by Secretary John Healey and Secretary David Lammy, presented a Bill to make new provision to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 310) with explanatory notes (Bill 310—EN).
Hospices and Palliative Care Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Alison Bennett, supported by Helen Morgan, Helen Maguire, Dr Danny Chambers, Ian Sollom, Pippa Heylings and Charlotte Cane, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure the availability of hospice services for all people at the end of life; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the adequacy of funding for children’s and adult hospice services, including an assessment of whether any funding increases are necessary to maintain such services; to require the Secretary of State to publish a five year plan for hospice funding; to make provision about the availability of specialist palliative care in emergency care services in hospitals; to make provision about supporting patients receiving palliative care in the community in certain circumstances; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a workforce plan for hospice services; to require palliative care advice to be available through non-emergency NHS advice services; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 311).
Young Carers (Educational and Employment Support) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Liz Jarvis, supported by Daisy Cooper, Alison Bennett, Rachael Maskell, Mr Will Forster, Sorcha Eastwood, Dr Ellie Chowns, Cameron Thomas, Alex Brewer, Sarah Dyke, Siân Berry and Tessa Munt, presented a Bill to require schools to maintain a record of pupils with caring responsibilities; to make provision about support in schools for pupils with caring responsibilities, including requiring schools to designate a member of staff as having responsibility for supporting young carers; to require schools to provide specified academic and other support to pupils with caring responsibilities, including support in relation to public examinations and provision of counselling; to make provision about support for future employment for pupils with caring responsibilities, including through mentoring and a programme of skills development; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 308).
Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Welsh Language Provision)
Tuesday 14th October 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRegistration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Welsh Language Provision) Bill 2024-26 View all Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Welsh Language Provision) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that any birth, death or marriage certificate issued in Wales be issued bilingually in English and Welsh; to make provision for the issuance in England of birth certificates bilingually in English and Welsh where either parent named on the certificate is a Welsh speaker; to make provision for the issuance in England of death certificates bilingually in English and Welsh where the deceased person lived in Wales or was a Welsh speaker; and for connected purposes.
I extend my thanks to the Clerks and the team in the Public Bill Office for their invaluable and diligent assistance, and to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), for his support and for being in the Chamber today.
There is an old saying in Cymraeg—in Welsh: “Mae’r tegell yn berwi a dwi’n barod.” It means, “The kettle is boiling and I am ready.” The kettle has been on the boil for a long time in Wales, and Welsh people have been ready for decades to ensure they receive birth, marriage and death certificates in the Welsh language.
This Bill aims to give Welsh people, after registration, the right to receive such certificates in Welsh only, English only or bilingually. It is not the first Bill on this subject to come before this House or the other place—politicians from both Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have presented Bills on this matter. The late Dafydd Elis-Thomas presented a Bill in the House of Lords as far back as 1999. As a proud Clwyd boy, I am pleased to say that next was a Bill by the then Clwyd West MP, Gareth Thomas, who presented the first Bill in the Commons. In 2009, he was followed by Hywel Williams, who presented another Bill to the Commons. While Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have led on this subject, there has also been notable support from politicians of other parties, including Lembit Öpik for the Liberal Democrats and Michael Fabricant for the Conservatives—the cheeky boys of the noughties.
This exceptionally broad support across the political spectrum shows that this is not a party political subject, nor should something as important and treasured as the Welsh language ever be party political. On that note, I acknowledge the work of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who has shared many discussions with me on this issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with her.
People who have lived in Wales may well have received their child’s birth certificate or a parent’s death certificate in both English and Welsh and be thinking, “What is the problem? What is the purpose of this Bill?” Sadly, there are many circumstances where people might not receive a Welsh or bilingual certificate and instead receive an English-only one. There are no rules or laws that say if someone lives in Wales, or is Welsh and lives in England, they can or must receive such a certificate in Welsh or bilingually.
That is what happened to a constituent of mine, Afryl Davies. I am delighted that Afryl is in the Gallery today, and I pay tribute to her and her family for their fortitude in the light of the tragedy they faced. Sadly, Afryl’s husband, Aled, passed away. Aled was a proud Welshman and a proud Welsh speaker, but his family did not receive a copy of his death certificate bilingually. They received only an English-language version. They wrote many letters, including to the coroner, the registrar and the General Register Office, requesting that his death certificate be reissued bilingually, but sadly they were turned down at every opportunity because of how the law currently operates.
Worse still, my constituent was told that their only option was to turn to the courts to attempt to secure a reissued certificate in Welsh. Afryl came to one of my regular advice surgeries to see if I could help, and I have got to admit that I was dumbfounded that this situation was somehow still possible in 2025. The Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 were put in place to ensure that the Welsh language has parity and equal legal status with English and must not be treated less favourably, yet here we are, with a proud Welsh person who lived and sadly died in our capital city, and his family are as yet unable to receive his death certificate bilingually.
I think we can all agree that people living in Wales and Welsh people living in England should be able to receive their birth, death and marriage certificates in Cymraeg—in Welsh—or in English or bilingually, if they so choose. The previous Labour Government agreed with that and were in the process of making that law. That started in 2002, when there was a UK Government White Paper and a consultation exercise on the future of civil registrations. The “Birth, Marriage and Death Registration in the 21st Century” White Paper stated:
“The Government will extend the facility for bilingual (English/Welsh) birth registration to include events occurring in England to Welsh speaking parents. Presently, only births that occur in Wales can be registered bi-lingually in English and Welsh. This can cause a problem, for example, if a Welsh mother gives birth in a hospital over the border in England and cannot then obtain a birth registration in bi-lingual format. After the registration it will be possible for documents to be issued in Welsh only, English only or both languages…In line with birth registration, the Government will extend the facility to register a death in English and Welsh to include deaths which take place in England. After the registration it will be possible for documents to be issued in Welsh only, English only or both languages.”
Following the subsequent consultation period, the General Register Office was instructed by the then UK Labour Government to start looking into plans to make that provision possible. In 2009, the then Wales Office Minister Wayne David, stated that
“the Government remain firmly committed to producing Welsh language certificates, and the General Register Office is exploring the best way to do that.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 283.]
Unfortunately, the UK Labour Government of the day were not able to get that through the House of Commons before the 2010 general election, and the succeeding Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government would go on to abandon the plans, despite support from some of their own MPs, as I have already mentioned.
My constituents were told that they could not receive their beloved family member’s death certificate bilingually, because following the inquest the certificate was first sent to the registrar in English only, before then being sent bilingually. However, because the certificate had first been received in English, the death was accordingly registered in English only.
As I have said, because of the way in which the law currently works, my constituent has been left with no option other than to turn to the courts to attempt to secure a reissued death certificate. Afryl should have been afforded the dignity of receiving Aled’s death certificate bilingually, but she is instead faced with the indignity of having to consider recourse to the courts to try and secure it. That cannot be right. It is inhumane and it is unfair, and in 2025 it should not stand. If the last Labour Government’s proposals had become law, my constituents would have received that death certificate bilingually, because death certificates would be translated after the registration of death. This a key part of my Bill. The 2002 White Paper states:
“After the registration it will be possible for documents to be issued in Welsh only, English only or both languages.”
That, in a nutshell, is what my Bill is about: giving people living in Wales, and Welsh people in England, the right to have their or a family member’s birth or death certificate issued in Welsh, English or bilingually after registration. If no preference is given, such birth or death certificates should be issued bilingually by default. As for marriage certificates issued in Wales, those too should be issued bilingually by default. All of that was a policy aim under the last Labour Government, and it is a policy that still has cross-party support.
This is a long-overdue process, and I am determined to make it happen. We know that the last Labour Government asked the General Register Office to look into making it happen. A feasibility study must have taken place, so we know that a lot of work has already been done. We also know that with the law as it currently stands, there appear to be shortcomings in the procedural guidance for registrars, specifically in circumstances in which they are not Welsh speakers and a bilingual certificate has been requested. These issues raise broader questions about equity of service for Welsh-speaking citizens. I urge the General Register Office and others to look at them now and while, hopefully, my Bill is making progress. After all, the Bill does not need to begin from the starting line; we are picking up the baton in a race that we have already begun, so let’s get it to the finishing line.
I was born in Llanelwy—St Asaph, the “city of music”. I will not give my age away, but my parents wanted their children’s birth certificates to be in English and Welsh. Today, my constituents want their relative’s death certificate to be in Welsh or bilingual, but they have not been given that option by default. Instead, they are left to fight for it. This cannot be right in a modern Wales—a Wales proud of its language, a population proud of its country. I ask the Government to consider my Bill, and let us in Wales be proud of our country and proud of our language. “Cenedl heb iaith, cenedl heb galon”—a nation without a language is a nation without a heart.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Tonia Antoniazzi, Gill German, Andrew Ranger, Carolyn Harris, Dame Nia Griffith, Liz Saville Roberts, Ben Lake, Ann Davies and Henry Tufnell present the Bill.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 309).
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 14th October 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberMental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Mental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 October 2025 - (14 Oct 2025)
17:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 339 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 333 - Question accordingly negatived.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Impact assessment: children and young people in temporary foster care—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament an impact assessment on the impact of this Act on children and young people who are in temporary foster care.
(2) The impact assessment under this section must consider—
(a) whether the ordinary residence provisions result in delays or inequities in accessing treatment or after-care under this Act;
(b) the effect of transitions between placements on continuity of treatment under this Act; and
(c) any unintended consequences for children and young people in temporary foster care arising from the application of subsections (3) to (5) of section 125G of the Mental Health Act 1983.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish an impact assessment on the impact of this Act on children and young people in temporary foster care.
New clause 4—Adequacy of accommodation: review—
“(1) The Mental Health Bill 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 131A (Accommodation etc. for children) insert—
‘131B Adequacy of accommodation
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, publish a review of the quality of accommodation for any patient who is—
(a) liable to be detained in a hospital under this Act;
(b) admitted to, or remains in, a hospital in pursuance of such arrangements as are mentioned in section 131(1) above.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the publication of the review under subsection (1), publish a strategy to implement the recommendations of that review.’”
This new clause would require a review of the quality of accommodation for people detained or admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 and require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to implement the recommendations of this review.
New clause 5—Review of impact of this Act on detention—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, commission an independent review into the impact of relevant provisions on reducing the number of people detained under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
(2) In subsection (1), ‘relevant provisions’ include—
(a) sections 4, 5 and 6,
(b) section 8,
(c) section 21, and
(d) sections 46 and 47.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the publication of the review in subsection (1), publish a strategy to implement the recommendations of that review.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a review into the impact of relevant provisions in the Act in reducing the number of people detained, in particular the provisions relating to people with autism or a learning disability, on grounds for detention and for community treatment orders, medical treatment, care and treatment plans, and on after-care, and to implement any recommendations within 12 months of the publication of the review.
New clause 6—Transfer of patients: out of area placements—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 19 (transfer of patients), insert—
‘19A Transfer of patients: out of area placements
(1) The Secretary of State must reduce to zero, within five years of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, the number of patients transferred to a hospital outside of the area in which the patient is ordinarily resident.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish, within six months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, a report to outline how the duty under this section will be met, including how provision for treatment under this Act will be increased.’”
This new clause would require the transfer of patients to hospitals outside of their area to be reduced to zero within 5 years, and for the Secretary of State to produce a report on how this will be achieved.
New clause 7—Children detained on adult wards—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 131A (Accommodation, etc. for children), insert—
‘131B Children detained on adult wards
(1) The Secretary of State must reduce to zero, within five years of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, the number of children detained on adult wards.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish, within six months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, a report to outline how the duty under this section will be met, including how provision for treatment under this Act will be increased.’”
This new clause would require the number of children detained on adult wards to be reduced to zero within 5 years, and for the Secretary of State to produce a report on how this will be achieved.
New clause 8—Report on the impact of this Act on patients with eating disorders—
“(1) Within a period of 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of relevant provisions in this Act on patients with eating disorders.
(2) In subsection (1), ‘relevant provisions’ include—
(a) section 5 (Grounds for detention),
(b) section 11 (Making treatment decisions),
(c) section 17 (Urgent treatment to alleviate serious suffering),
(d) section 21 (Care and treatment plans), and
(e) section 47 (After-care services).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of this Bill on patients with eating disorders within 12 months of the passage of this Bill.
New clause 9—Report and Guidance: Improving Outcomes for LGBT Patients—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the mental health outcomes of patients who are treated under the Mental Health Act 1983 and who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) any differences between non-LGBT patients and LGBT patients in—
(i) the extent of the use of detention measures under the Mental Health Act 1983; and
(ii) treatment outcomes following detention, and
(b) the availability and accessibility of ‘culturally competent’ mental health treatment under the 1983 Act for LGBT patients.
(3) Following publication of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish guidance for responsible bodies and individuals working with patients under the Mental Health Act 1983, including but not limited to those working in—
(a) mental health hospitals;
(b) places of safety;
(c) crisis accommodation; and
(d) relevant community mental health services.
(4) The guidance under subsection (3) must include—
(a) provisions about updated training standards for staff regarding the specific mental health needs and experiences of LGBT individuals, including training on non-discriminatory practice and inclusive communication approaches;
(b) steps to improve safety for LGBT patients in relevant mental health settings, with particular regard to addressing discrimination and harassment; and
(c) a definition of ‘cultural competent mental health treatment’ for the purposes of subsection (2).
(5) Responsible bodies and individuals working with patients under the Mental Health Act 1983 must have regard to guidance published under subsection (3).
(6) In preparing the report under subsection (1) and the guidance under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) patients with a mental disorder who identify as LGBT;
(b) the families or carers of patients with a mental disorder who identify as LGBT;
(c) relevant professional bodies;
(d) integrated care boards;
(e) local authorities;
(f) providers of mental health treatment; and
(g) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(7) The Secretary of State must update the guidance under subsection (3) at regular intervals, and no less frequently than every three years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on mental health outcomes and disparities for LGBT patients in treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 and publish guidance covering training and safety for this specific group.
New clause 10—Report and Guidance: Transition to Adult Mental Health Treatment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on improving provision for patients transitioning from treatment in a hospital environment for children and young people to one for adults when they attain the age of 18.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the current pathways and outcomes for young people transitioning between hospital environments for children and for adults;
(b) any gaps in care or support experienced by patients during this transition;
(c) best practices for ensuring safe and effective transitions.
(3) Following the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish guidance for integrated care boards, local authorities, and providers of mental health treatment on improving outcomes and ensuring continuity of care for patients transitioning to a hospital environment for adults.
(4) The guidance under subsection (3) must include—
(a) specific steps to guarantee continuity of care for patients transitioning between treatment in a hospital environment for children and young people and one for adults;
(b) measures to identify young people requiring transition support at an appropriate stage;
(c) provisions for joint working and information sharing between providers of treatment for children and young people and for adults;
(d) requirements for the review and updating of care and treatment plans to reflect the needs of patients transitioning to a hospital environment for adults.
(5) Integrated care boards, local authorities, and providers of mental health treatment must have regard to guidance published under subsection (3).
(6) In preparing the report under subsection (1) and the guidance under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) young people with experience of transitioning between children and young people’s and adult mental health services, and their carers and guardians;
(b) relevant professional bodies;
(c) integrated care boards;
(d) local authorities;
(e) providers of mental health treatment;
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(7) The Secretary of State must update the guidance under subsection (3) at regular intervals, and no less frequently than every three years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the transition of patients from children's to adult mental health settings for treatment at age 18 and publish guidance for relevant bodies on improving provision and ensuring continuity of care during this transition.
New clause 11—Reporting: racial disparities relating to community treatment orders—
“(1) Within a period of 12 months following the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of racial disparities which relate to the use and administering of community treatment orders.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—
(a) an assessment of whether certain racial or ethnic groups are disproportionately represented among individuals subject to community treatment orders compared to their representation in the general population;
(b) a review of the outcomes and effectiveness of community treatment orders across different racial groups, including health outcomes, and patient experiences.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the findings of the review before Parliament within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause seeks to gauge the Government’s view on prevalent racial disparities as they relate to the use of community treatment orders under the Act.
New clause 12—Mental Health Crisis Breathing Space—
“(1) Any person detained under sections 3, 37, 41 or 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 must be offered support from the mental health crisis breathing space debt respite scheme.”
This new clause ensures that MHCBS, a debt respite scheme, is offered and available to patients detained under sections 3, 37, 41 and 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
New clause 13—Addressing and reporting on racial disparities and other inequalities in the use of the Mental Health Act 1983—
“After section 120D of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—
‘120E Mental health units and services to have a responsible person
(1) A relevant health organisation that operates a mental health unit or community mental health service for qualifying patients must appoint a responsible person for that unit or service for the purposes of addressing racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics related to functions discharged under the Mental Health Act 1983.
(2) The responsible person must—
(a) be employed by the relevant health organisation, and
(b) be of an appropriate level of seniority.
(3) Where a relevant health organisation operates more than one mental health unit or service, that organisation must appoint a single responsible person in relation to all of the mental health units or services operated by that organisation.
(4) A patient is a qualifying patient if they are—
(a) liable to be detained under this Act, otherwise than by virtue of section 4 or 5(2) or (4) or section 135 or 136;
(b) subject to guardianship under this Act;
(c) a community patient.
120F Policy on racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics
(1) The responsible person must publish a policy on how the unit plans to reduce racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics in that unit or service.
(2) The policy published under subsection (1) must cover the following topics—
(a) the application of the guiding principles to all aspects of operation of this Act;
(b) staff knowledge and competence in connection with promoting equality and anti-discriminatory practice in relation to this Act;
(c) workforce demographics, recruitment, retention and progression;
(d) implementation of the patient and carer race equality framework (England only) and any other requirements of relevant national policies;
(e) care planning and decision-making in the use of this Act including section 56A (making treatment decisions);
(f) the availability of alternatives to detention and involuntary treatment;
(g) take-up of independent mental health advocacy;
(h) the cultural appropriateness of independent mental health advocacy;
(i) access to and use of advance choice documents;
(j) what steps will be taken to reduce racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics in that unit or service.
(3) Where a responsible person is appointed in relation to all of the mental health units operated by a relevant health organisation, the responsible person must publish a single policy under subsection (1) in relation to those units or services.
(4) Before publishing a policy under subsection (1), the responsible person must—
(a) consult any persons that the responsible person considers appropriate;
(b) have regard to the following matters—
(i) the views, wishes and feelings of people from ethnic minority communities who have been detained;
(ii) the views, wishes and feelings of people with other protected characteristics who have been detained.
(5) The responsible person must keep under review any policy published under this section.
(6) The responsible person may from time to time revise any policy published under this section and, if this is done, must publish the policy as revised.
(7) If the responsible person considers that any revisions would amount to a substantial change in the policy, the responsible person must consult any persons that the responsible person considers appropriate before publishing the revised policy.
120G Training in racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics
(1) The responsible person for each mental health unit or service must provide training for staff that relates to addressing racial disparities and other disparities based on protected characteristics in that unit or service.
(2) The training provided under subsection (1) must include training on the topics covered in section 120F(2).
(3) Subject to subsection (4), training must be provided—
(a) in the case of a person who is a member of staff when this section comes into force, as soon as reasonably practicable after this section comes into force, or
(b) in the case of a person who becomes a member of staff after this section comes into force, as soon as reasonably practicable after they become a member of staff.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the responsible person considers that any training provided to the person before this section came into force or before the person became a member of staff—
(a) was given sufficiently recently, and
(b) is of an equivalent standard to the training provided under this section.
(5) Refresher training must be provided at regular intervals whilst a person is a member of staff.
(6) In subsection (5) “refresher training” means training that updates or supplements the training provided under subsection (1).
120H Annual report by the Secretary of State
(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year, the Secretary of State must conduct a review in consultation with relevant bodies with commissioning functions on the use of treatment and detention measures contained in the Mental Health Act 1983 broken down by race and other demographic information.
(2) Having conducted a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on the progress made in reducing inequalities in treatment outcomes and the use of detention measures in the use of this Act on people who have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.’”
This new clause requires mental health units and services to appoint a responsible person tasked with addressing racial disparities related to functions discharged under the Mental Health Act 1983.
New clause 14—General duty to secure sufficient resources for services in the community—
“(1) It is the general duty of integrated care boards to ensure, insofar as is reasonably practical, that services in the community responsible for delivering care, treatment, or detention provisions under the Mental Health Act 1983 and this Act have the necessary resources, including financial support, to meet service demands.
(2) Additional forms of resource may be determined by integrated care boards in consultation with relevant local authorities or health care service providers and may include—
(a) sufficient numbers of trained medical professionals;
(b) purpose-built facilities for patient care;
(c) community services responsible for out-patient care.
(3) Each Integrated Care Board must conduct an assessment of its resources every two years to evaluate its ability to deliver services in the community effectively.
(4) Each Integrated Care Board must publish a report outlining its findings upon completing the assessment in subsection (3). The first reports must be published within one year of the passage of this Act.”
This new clause places a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community have the necessary level of resource to meet demand on services to ensure that the provisions of the Bill function as intended and to assess and report on this every 2 years.
New clause 15—Report: statutory competency test for under-16s—
“Within 12 months of day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of whether a statutory competency test for under-16s in determining their ability to make a relevant decision would be expedient for the purposes of this Act or the Mental Health Act 1983.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of whether a statutory competency test for under-16s would be expedient for the purposes of this Bill and the Mental Health Act 1983.
New clause 16—Duty to promote mental health wellbeing—
“After section 142B of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—
‘Duty to promote mental health wellbeing
(1) It is a general duty of local authorities and anybody in carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to promote mental health wellbeing.
(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), local authorities and commissioning bodies must have regard to—
(a) the prevention of mental illness,
(b) the promotion of positive mental health,
(c) the reduction of stigma and discrimination associated with mental health conditions, and
(d) the provision of accessible and appropriate support services to individuals experiencing mental health challenges.
(3) Local authorities and commissioning bodies must publish an annual report outlining the steps taken to discharge their duty under subsection (1), including an assessment of—
(a) progress in improving mental health wellbeing in their area for persons affected by the provisions of this Act, and
(b) any barriers to promoting mental health wellbeing for such persons and proposed actions to address them.
(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1), and local authorities and commissioning bodies must have regard to such guidance.’”
This new clause would require local authorities and commissioning bodies to promote and report annually on mental health wellbeing, with regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State.
New clause 17—Funding and reporting—
“(1) For each financial year until all sections of this Act have come into force, of the total health service expenditure by the bodies (taken together) in subsection (2), the proportion which relates to mental health spending—
(a) under the Mental Health Act 1983, and
(b) under this Act or which, in future, would be made under provision inserted into the Mental Health Act 1983 by this Act,
(taken together) must not decrease.
(2) The bodies are the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and integrated care boards.”
This new clause would require that mental health spending as a proportion of health service expenditure must not decrease in the implementation period of the Act.
New clause 18—Mental Health Commissioner—
“After section 142B of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—
‘Mental Health Commissioner
142C Independent Mental Health Commissioner: establishment
(1) There is to be an office known as the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner.
(2) The Office in subsection (1) must be established by the Secretary of State three months after the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed.
(3) The Office of the Mental Health Commissioner will be led by an individual appointed by the Secretary of State titled the “Independent Mental Health Commissioner”.
(4) The role in subsection (3) is referred to as the “Mental Health Commissioner”.
(5) The Mental Health Commissioner may appoint staff to the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner they consider necessary for assisting in the exercise of their functions in section 142D.
142D Functions of the Commissioner
(1) The Mental Health Commissioner is responsible for overseeing the implementation and operability of functions discharged by relevant bodies and persons under the provisions of this Act, the Mental Health Act 1983, and the Mental Capacity Act 2025 particularly regarding the provision of treatment, care, and detention of people with a mental disorder.
(2) The Mental Health Commissioner must publish an annual report on the use of functions discharged under this Act, which must assess—
(a) the quality of mental health care treatment provided by relevant services;
(b) the accessibility of mental health care treatment services;
(c) the relationship between mental health and the criminal justice system;
(d) inequalities of mental health care provision regarding protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010;
(e) the use and effectiveness of detention measures under this Act, including but not limited to Community Treatment Orders, for the purposes of therapeutic benefit outlined in section 1(2B);
(f) challenges surrounding stigma of mental health conditions;
(g) the accessibility of advice and support to mental health service users, their families and carers on their legal rights;
(h) other issues deemed appropriate by the Mental Health Commissioner.
(3) In fulfilling their duties under subsection (1), the Mental Health Commissioner may review, and monitor the operation of, arrangements falling within subsection (1), (2) and (3) for the purpose of ascertaining whether, and to what extent, the arrangements are effective in promoting the principles in section 118(2B) of this Act.
(4) Subject to any directions from the Secretary of State, the Commissioner may take action necessary or expedient in connection for the purposes of their functions.
(5) This may include—
(a) collaborating with health services, public authorities, charitable organisations, and other relevant entities, including NHS bodies, the Care Quality Commission, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman;
(b) ensuring enforcement authorities and public bodies under the Mental Health Act 1983 have the necessary capacity and resources to adequately discharge duties under the Mental Health Act 1983 and this Act.
142E Appointment, Tenure, and Remuneration of the Mental Health Commissioner
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision for the appointment, tenure, removal, and general terms of appointment of the Mental Health Commissioner.
(2) The Secretary of State may also by regulation determine the Commissioner’s remuneration, allowances, and pension entitlements.
142F Examination of cases
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for the examination by the Mental Health Commissioner of the cases of those who are detained under this Act receiving treatment by authorised mental health care providers.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner to access and examine relevant data on mental health treatment provision held by NHS England and any other authorities the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
142G Regulations
A statutory instrument containing regulations under sections 142E and 142F may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’”
This new clause establishes the office of the Mental Health Commissioner and makes provisions for relevant duties and responsibilities.
New clause 19—Duty to provide advice and support to families and carers—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 117B insert—
‘117C After-care: provision of support and advice to families and carers
(1) The responsible integrated care board must ensure that, as part of the provision of after-care services under section 117 of this Act, advice and support is offered to the family or carers of the person discharged where the person consents.
(2) This support must include—
(a) information about the person’s condition and recovery;
(b) guidance on how to support their recovery at home and avoid relapse;
(c) access to financial, housing, and social care advice services relevant to the situation of the person’s family; and
(d) procedures for family members or nominated persons to notify the integrated care board of concerns that the person is at future risk of detention under Part 2 of this Act.
(3) Where a concern is raised under subsection (2)(d), the integrated care board must—
(a) consider whether the individual meets criteria to be included on the register of persons at risk under section 125D of this Act; and
(b) take reasonable steps to involve the family or nominated person in planning of subsequent support, subject to—
(i) the person’s consent; or
(ii) if they lack capacity, the person’s best interests.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish guidance under section 125B of this Act on the format and provision of support under subsection (3)(b).’”
This new clause would require the integrated care board, as part of the aftercare services offered under the Mental Health Act 1982, to offer support and advice to the family or carers of the person being discharged from treatment.
New clause 21—Assessment for admission: clinicians with outstanding complaints—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part II (Compulsory Admission to Hospital and Guardianship), after section 6 insert—
‘6a Assessment for admission: clinicians under investigation
(1) For the purposes of the written recommendations required under sections 2(3) or and 3(3) of this Act, a recommendation may not be made by a medical practitioner who is, at the time of the assessment or written statement—
(a) under investigation by the General Medical Council or the hospital due to concerns relating to the medical practitioner’s care of the patient being assessed; or
(b) subject to a complaint to the General Medical Council or the hospital by the patient or the patient’s close associates.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”
This new clause would prevent a patient from being assessed to be detained by a doctor under investigation by the GMC or hospital trust, or subject to a complaint, in relation to their care of that patient.
New clause 22—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—
“After section 142B of the Mental Health Act 1983 insert—
‘Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer
142C Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer: establishment
(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer ("the Officer") to oversee the treatment and care of veterans under this Act.
(2) The Officer shall—
(a) oversee the cases of veterans who are—
(i) at risk of detention under this Act;
(ii) currently detained under this Act; or
(iii) following detention under this Act, subject to community or outpatient treatment or other post-discharge mental health provisions;
(b) advocate for mental health assessments and care tailored to veterans' service-related experiences;
(c) collaborate with mental health professionals, veterans' services, legal representatives, and third-sector organisations to safeguard veterans' rights and well-being within relevant treatment settings;
(d) promote diversion from detention where clinically appropriate, including the use of veteran-specific support services; and
(e) submit an annual report to Parliament detailing—
(i) detention rates of veterans under this Act;
(ii) outcomes and recidivism rates for veterans detained under this Act;
(iii) recommendations for service improvement.
(3) In this section—
“veteran” refers to a person who has served or currently serves in the armed forces of the United Kingdom or a Commonwealth nation;
“relevant health authority” includes NHS England, regional NHS boards, or their successors.’”
This new clause introduces a dedicated oversight role for veterans within the framework of the Mental Health Bill, recognising that service personnel have unique needs and experiences that need to be considered in mental health care and detention decisions.
New clause 23—Mental Health Act: interim support for a child or adolescent at risk of detention—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 33, insert—
‘33A Interim support for child and adolescent patients
(1) Where a child or young person (“P”) is referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and—
(a) P has not yet attended their first appointment, and
(b) P is at risk of detention under this Part, in the opinion of a family member or close associate,
the responsible authority must ensure that interim support is available.
(2) Interim support under this section must include at least one of—
(a) regular contact with a family support worker;
(b) access to GP appointments;
(c) regular contact with a school nurse or equivalent healthcare professional; or
(d) access to a peer support group, youth group, or youth club offering appropriate emotional support.’”
This new clause would ensure adequate interim support for children at risk of detention under Part II the Mental Health Act while awaiting an appointment with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).
New clause 24—Report: Mental health services for children and young people—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of passing this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the provision of specialist mental health services for patients aged under 18.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the number of patients aged under 18 receiving specialist mental health services;
(b) the availability of specialist mental health services based outside of hospital settings;
(c) any gaps in care and support experienced by patients aged under 18;
(d) the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether there are sufficient resources to deliver mental health services for patients aged under 18;
(e) the views of children, young people and families with experience of receiving specialist mental health services.
(3) For the purpose of this section—
(a) “specialist mental health services for patients aged under 18” means—
(i) inpatient mental health services specifically designed for individuals aged under 18 years, including specialist eating disorder services;
(ii) community-based mental health services specifically designed for individuals aged under 18 years as an alternative to inpatient care.
(b) “resources to deliver mental health services” include—
(i) finances;
(ii) appropriate trained medical professionals;
(iii) appropriate facilities for patient care.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the availability of specialist mental health services for patients under 18.
New clause 25—Determination of competency for persons under 16—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person aged under 16 (referred to in this section as a child) is able to make a relevant decision if they can—
(a) understand the information relevant to the decision;
(b) retain that information;
(c) use or weigh that information as part of the process of making a decision; and
(d) communicate their decisions (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).
(2) Where a child is able to make a relevant decision in accordance with paragraph (1) above, that child will be competent for the purposes of this Act.
(3) A child is not to be regarded as unable to understand the information relevant to a decision if he is able to understand an explanation of it given to him in a way that is appropriate to his circumstances (using simple language, visual aids or any other means).
(4) A person determining a child’s ability to make a relevant decision under this section must—
(a) have due regard to Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(b) be able to show reasonable grounds for their belief that the child is or is not able to make a relevant decision.”
This new clause inserts a competency test for determining a child’s ability to make a relevant decision.
New clause 26—Duty to establish carer liaison service—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part X (Miscellaneous and Supplementary), after section 133 insert—
‘133A Duty to establish carer liaison service
(1) The managers of every hospital providing services under this Act must establish and maintain a dedicated carer liaison service.
(2) A service established under this section must provide—
(a) support to unpaid carers when a patient for whom they provide care is—
(i) awaiting admission to hospital for treatment under the Act;
(ii) receiving treatment in hospital under the Act;
(iii) set to be discharged from a hospital where they had been receiving treatment under this Act;
(b) timely and accessible information regarding the discharge of the patient they care for, including details of—
(i) the patient's discharge plan; and
(ii) aftercare arrangements under section 117 of this Act;
(c) support for unpaid carers to identify their own needs and connect to relevant local services for post-discharge support, including local authority adult social care services, general practitioners, and local carers' centres;
(d) facilitation of effective communication and collaboration between unpaid carers and the patient's multi-disciplinary clinical team regarding the discharge process;
(e) assistance to unpaid carers in developing or updating a carer's support plan in the context of the patient's discharge, including guidance on—
(i) their rights to assessment and support as carers
(ii) their participation in education or employment;
(iii) available counselling services;
(iv) support in planning for emergencies in relation to the patient;
(v) benefits for the carer and patient; and
(vi) other forms of local support; and
(f) services to ensure that the perspective of the unpaid carer, as a key provider of support, is considered during discharge planning, where appropriate and with due regard to patient confidentiality and consent.’”
This new clause would require hospitals to establish a dedicated liaison service for the carers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act.
New clause 27—Duty to identify children of patients receiving treatment—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part X (Miscellaneous and Supplementary), after section 133 insert—
‘133B Duty of managers of hospitals to identify children of patients
(1) Where a patient liable to be detained under this Act is in a hospital or registered establishment, the managers of the hospital or registered establishment shall take such steps as are practicable to identify children of the patient.
(2) The managers must ensure, where children of patients are identified, that—
(a) information is provided to the family about support available for the child;
(b) the appropriate practitioner consider whether the child might be a young carer and whether they might benefit from additional support including—
(i) a Young Carers’ Needs Assessment under section 17ZA of the Children Act 1989, or
(ii) additional support from their local authority or local young carers service.’”
This new clause would require hospitals to identify children of patients and provide support or provide guidance on available support to them, particularly if they are a young carer.
New clause 28—Duty to mitigate adverse effect of compulsory measures on parental relations—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 131A, insert—
‘131B Duty to mitigate adverse effect of compulsory measures on parental relations
(1) Subsection (2) below applies—
(a) where—
(i) a child is subject to any measures authorised by virtue of this Act; and
(ii) the measures will or will be likely to impair the personal relations or diminish direct contact between the child and any person with parental responsibilities in relation to the child; or
(b) where—
(i) a person with parental responsibilities in relation to a child is subject to any measures authorised by virtue of this Act; and
(ii) the measures will or will be likely to impair the personal relations or diminish direct contact between that person and the child.
(2) Every person having functions by virtue of this Act shall take such steps as are practicable and appropriate to mitigate the impairment or diminution referred to in this section or, as the case may be, the likelihood of that impairment or diminution.
(3) In this section—
“child” has the meaning given by section 105 of the Children Act 1989; and
“parental responsibilities” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Children Act 1989.’”
This new clause would create a duty to mitigate the adverse effect of compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 on relations between parents and their children, mirroring provisions in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.
New clause 29—Age-appropriate treatment for children—
“(1) Section 131A of the Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1), insert—
‘(1A) A patient to whom this section applies must not be detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward unless the managers of the hospital consider that—
(a) there are exceptional circumstances which justify the patient’s detention in, or admission to, an adult ward; and
(b) the decision is in accordance with the best interests of the child.’
(3) After subsection (3), insert—
‘(3A) Where a patient to whom this section applies has been detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward, the managers of the hospital must record in writing the reasons for the admission, including—
(a) the reason, or reasons, why other options for accommodation were not available or suitable for the patient;
(b) details of the measures to be taken by the hospital to ensure that, while the patient is detained or otherwise accommodated in the adult ward, the patient is provided with care in a safe environment; and
(c) unless it has been determined that an adult ward is the most appropriate environment for the patient in accordance with subsection (1A), the steps being taken by the hospital to transfer the patient to more appropriate accommodation.
(3B) Where a patient to whom this section applies is—
(a) detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward or in a local authority other than the local authority in which the patient was ordinarily resident; and
(b) the detention or admission is of more than 24 consecutive hours' duration, the managers of the hospital must notify the regulatory authority immediately, setting out why they consider that the requirements under subsection (1A) above are met and providing the information set out in subsection (3A).
(3C) Subsection (3D) applies when—
(a) the managers of a hospital accommodate a patient to whom this section applies in an adult ward for a consecutive period of at least 28 days; or
(b) detain or admit a patient to whom this section applies who—
(i) was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted in the area of a local authority other than the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated, or
(ii) was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority.
(3D) Where this subsection applies, the managers of the hospital must immediately inform the appropriate officer of the responsible local authority—
(a) of the patient's detention or admission, and
(b) when the patient's detention or admission ceases.’
(4) Leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) In this section—
(a) “adult ward” means a ward in a hospital to which persons aged 18 or over are detained in or admitted to;
(b) “the appropriate officer” means—
(i) in relation to a local authority in England, their director of children's services, and
(ii) in relation to a local authority in Wales, their director of social services;
(c) “hospital” includes a registered establishment; and
(d) “the responsible authority” means—
(i) the local authority appearing to the managers of the hospital to be the authority within whose area the child was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted, or
(ii) where it appears to the managers of the hospital that the patient was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority, the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that children are only placed on adult wards where there are exceptional circumstances, and it is in their best interests. It includes procedural safeguards for determining the reasons behind (and suitability of) admitting a child to a hospital environment in which adults are simultaneously accommodated or in an out of area placement, along with notification requirements.
New clause 30—Application in respect of patient already on hospital grounds—
“(1) Section 5 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Application in respect of patient already in hospital) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after ‘or,’ insert ‘that the patient has attended a hospital or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient or,’.
(3) After subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) If, in the case of a patient who—
(a) is an outpatient in hospital; or
(b) has attended hospital to seek treatment as an outpatient; or
(c) has attended hospital to seek admission as an inpatient,
it appears to the registered medical practitioner assessing the patient that an application ought to be made under this Part of this Act for the admission of the patient to hospital, the registered medical practitioner may furnish to the managers a report in writing to that effect; and in any such case the patient may be detained in the hospital for a period of 72 hours from the time when the report is so furnished.’
(4) In subsection (3), after ‘(2)’ insert ‘or (2A)’.”
This new clause would allow people who have attended or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to be detained for assessment under the Mental Health Act.
New clause 31—Costed plan to ensure community provision for individuals with learning disabilities and autism who are at risk of detention—
“(1) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a fully costed plan for how Integrated Care Boards and local authorities will ensure provision of adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people who are at risk of detention under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
(2) As part of the development of that plan, a formal consultation process must take place to determine how the decision to enact the relevant parts of this Act will be made.
(3) The consultation must include input from relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people;
(b) carers for people with learning disabilities and autistic people;
(c) healthcare professionals; and
(d) advocacy groups.”
This new clause would require a costed plan to ensure that ICBs and local authorities are able to provide adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people at risk of detention under Part 2 of the 1983 Act, informed by a consultation with a range of stakeholders.
New clause 32—Mandatory Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews for patients detained in long-term segregation—
“In the Mental Health Act 1983, after section 142D (inserted by section 52 of this Act) insert—
‘142E Mandatory Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews for patients detained in long-term segregation
(1) A notification of any use of long-term segregation for a patient detained under this Act must be issued to the Care Quality Commission, the hospital’s Board of Directors and the relevant NHS Commissioner within 72 hours of the person being placed in long-term segregation.
(2) Upon receipt of a notification under subsection (1), the Care Quality Commission must appoint a qualified professional to conduct an Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Review.
(3) The independent reviewer must—
(a) conduct a face-to-face assessment of the patient,
(b) consult with the patient’s family or carers, where appropriate,
(c) review the patient’s care and treatment plan, including the rationale for continued segregation, and
(d) assess whether alternatives, including ward or community-based alternatives, were considered prior to the implementation of long-term segregation.
(3) Where the assessment under subsection (3)(d) reveals that alternatives were not adequately considered, the independent reviewer may require the detaining organisation to—
(a) provide justification for this omission, and
(b) outline steps to ensure that alternative options are considered in future cases.
(4) The independent reviewer has authority equivalent to a second opinion appointed doctor to—
(a) confirm the appropriateness of the long-term segregation,
(b) recommend amendments to the treatment plan, and
(c) require alternative interventions if long-term segregation is deemed inappropriate.’”
This new clause requires independently chaired reviews for any person detained in long-term segregation, in line with the recommendations of Baroness Hollins’ report on solitary confinement for people with autism and learning disabilities.
New clause 33—Mandatory Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews for patients with autism or learning disability detained for more than 5 years—
“In the Mental Health Act 1983, after section 142D (inserted by section 52 of this Act) insert—
‘142E Mandatory Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews for patients with autism or learning disability detained for more than 5 years
(1) Where a person with autism or a learning disability has been subject to compulsory detention under this Act, including by virtue of a community treatment order, for a continuous period of 5 years or more, the Care Quality Commission must appoint a qualified professional to conduct an Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Review (ICETR) of that person’s care and treatment.
(2) The independent reviewer must—
(a) conduct a face-to-face assessment of the patient,
(b) consult with the patient’s family or carers, where appropriate,
(c) review the patient’s care, education (where applicable), and treatment plan, including the rationale for continued detention or the continuation of a community treatment order, and
(d) assess whether alternatives to continued compulsory detention, including community-based or less restrictive options, have been adequately considered.
(3) The Care Quality Commission must ensure that a further ICETR is conducted at intervals of not more than 12 months for so long as the person remains subject to compulsory detention under this Act or to a community treatment order.
(4) Where the assessment under subsection (2)(d) reveals that alternatives to continued detention or community treatment were not adequately considered, the independent reviewer may require the detaining organisation or responsible commissioner to—
(a) provide justification for this omission, and
(b) outline steps to ensure that alternative options are fully considered in future reviews.’”
This new clause provides for a new process with independently chaired reviews for any patient with autism or a learning disability subject to detention or community treatment orders for long periods of time.
New clause 34—Grounds for detention—
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2 (admission for assessment), in subsection (2)—
(a) omit the ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (a);
(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—
‘(b) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person; and
(c) given the nature or degree of the harm, the patient ought to be so detained.’
(3) In section 3 (admission for treatment)—
(a) in subsection (2), for paragraphs (c) and (d) substitute—
‘(b) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient is so detained,
(c) it is necessary, given the nature or degree of the harm, for the patient to receive medical treatment,
(d) the necessary treatment cannot be provided unless the patient is detained under this Act, and
(e) appropriate medical treatment is available for the patient.’
(b) in subsection (3)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘(d)’ substitute ‘(e)’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘(c)’ substitute ‘(b) to (d)’
(4) In section 5(4) (detention for six hours pending application for admission), for paragraph (a) (but not the ‘and’ at the end) substitute—
‘(a) that there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient is immediately restrained from leaving the hospital;’
(5) In section 20 (renewal of authority for detention of patient detained in pursuance of application for admission for treatment etc), in subsection (4), for paragraphs (c) and (d) substitute—
‘(b) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment,
(c) it is necessary, given the nature or degree of the harm, for the patient to receive medical treatment,
(d) the necessary treatment cannot be provided unless the patient continues to be liable to be detained, and
(e) appropriate medical treatment is available for the patient.’
(6) The amendment made by subsection (5), so far as relating to persons who are liable to be detained by virtue of Part 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, applies in relation to such a person whether the person became so liable before or after the coming into force of this section.”
This new clause is intended to replace Clause 5 (see Amendment 43). It would remove from the criteria for detention any reference to ‘likelihood’ or ‘may be caused’, replacing those words with language related to an individual’s risk, in order to simplify a psychiatrist’s assessment of a patient’s levels of risk.
New clause 35—Community treatment order: conditions—
“(1) Section 17B of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Conditions) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(8) The responsible clinician must ensure that a community treatment order complies with the code of practice as set out in section 118(2B) of this Act.
(9) A community treatment order has a maximum duration of 12 months, unless the conditions set out in subsection (10) apply.
(10) The responsible clinician may extend the duration of a community treatment order beyond 12 months only after the responsible clinician has—
(a) consulted the patient, the patient’s nominated persons, and any relevant mental healthcare professional involved in the patient’s treatment or care planning;
(b) undertaken a review to evaluate the ongoing necessity and therapeutic benefit of the community treatment order; and
(c) consulted a General Medical Council registered psychiatrist regarding the conditions of the community treatment order and obtaining their written agreement that an extension is necessary and in accordance with the principles set out in section118(2B).
(11) A tribunal may recommend that the responsible clinician consider whether to extend, vary, or terminate the duration and conditions of a community treatment order.
(12) A community treatment order with a duration of less than 12 months is not subject to the conditions set out in subsection (10).
(13) Where a community treatment order is extended beyond a period of 12 months, the order must be reviewed at intervals not exceeding six months from the date of the extension, in accordance with the requirements set out in subsection (10).
(14) At the conclusion of the initial 12 month period or of any extended period, the responsible clinician must undertake a review to assess the effectiveness of the community treatment order at complying with the code of practice set out in section 118(2B) of this Act.’”
This new clause would set out conditions for the extension of a community treatment order beyond 12 months, and would require such an order to comply with the Mental Health Act’s code of practice.
New clause 36—Age appropriate treatment for children—
“(1) Section 131A of the Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1), insert—
‘(1A) A patient to whom this section applies must not be detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward unless the managers of the hospital consider that—
(a) there are exceptional circumstances which justify the patient’s detention in, or admission to, an adult ward, and
(b) the decision is in accordance with the best interests of the child.’
(3) For subsection (3), substitute—
‘(3) For the purpose of deciding how to fulfil the duty under subsection (2) above, the managers must consult—
(a) someone with parental responsibility for the child, unless it is not deemed in the best interests of the patient for someone with parental responsibility to be consulted; and
(b) a person who appears to them to have knowledge or experience of cases involving patients who have not attained the age of 18 years which makes the person suitable to be consulted.’
(4) After subsection (3), insert—
‘(3A) Where a patient to whom this section applies has been detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward, the managers of the hospital must record in writing the reasons for the admission, including—
(a) the reason, or reasons, why other options for accommodation were not available or suitable for the patient;
(b) details of the measures to be taken by the hospital to ensure that, while the patient is detained or otherwise accommodated in the adult ward, the patient is provided with care in a safe environment; and
(c) unless it has been determined that an adult ward is the most appropriate environment for the patient in accordance with subsection (1A), the steps being taken by the hospital to transfer the patient to more appropriate accommodation.
(3B) Where a patient to whom this section applies is detained in, or admitted to, an adult ward, and the detention or admission is of more than 24 consecutive hours’ duration, the managers of the hospital must notify the regulatory authority and the responsible authority within 48 hours of the patient’s admission, setting out why the managers of the hospital consider that the requirements under subsection (1A) above are met and providing the information set out in subsection (3A).
(3C) Subsection (3E) applies when the managers of a hospital accommodate a patient to whom this section applies on an adult ward for a consecutive period of at least 28 days.
(3D) Subsection (3E) also applies where the managers of a hospital detain or admit a patient to whom this section applies who—
(a) was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted in the area of a local authority other than the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated, unless the hospital is less than 20 kilometres from the patient’s ordinary residence; or
(b) was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority.
(3E) Where this subsection applies, the managers of the hospital must inform the appropriate officer of the responsible local authority without delay—
(a) of the patient's detention or admission, and
(b) when the patient's detention or admission ceases.’
(5) Leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) In this section—
“adult ward” means a ward in a hospital to which persons aged 18 or over are detained in or admitted to
“the appropriate officer” means—
(a) in relation to a local authority in England, their director of children’s services, and
(b) in relation to a local authority in Wales, their director of social services;
“hospital” includes a registered establishment; and
“the responsible authority” means—
(a) the local authority appearing to the managers of the hospital to be the authority within whose area the child was ordinarily resident immediately before being detained or admitted, or
(b) where it appears to the managers of the hospital that the patient was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority, the local authority within whose area the hospital is situated.’”
This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which a child can be admitted to or detained on an adult ward for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983, require the hospital to notify the local authority when they have done so, or when they have placed a child in a ward outside their local authority, and require that the parents or legal guardians of the child have access to their child and are consulted about their admission to an adult ward.
New clause 37—Roadmap for the provision of sufficient services for autistic people and people with a learning disability—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a roadmap to outline the Government’s plans for ensuring sufficient community services for autistic people and people with a learning disability to facilitate the operability of section 3 of this Act.
(2) When developing the roadmap under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must engage with relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) autistic people and people with a learning disability;
(b) carers for autistic people and people with a learning disability;
(c) health and care professionals; and
(d) advocacy groups.
(3) Within twelve months of the publication of a roadmap under subsection (1) above and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a monitoring statement on progress made towards implementing the roadmap, including its targets and milestones.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a roadmap outlining its plans for ensuring sufficient community services to enable the implementation of the Act’s provisions on ending the detention of autistic people and people with a learning disability.
Amendment 33, clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
“(2BA) The Secretary of State shall ensure that each of the following matters is addressed—
(a) the provision of access to advocacy services for patients who have not attained the age of 18, including patients admitted to, or who remain in, hospital in pursuance of such arrangements as are mentioned in section 131(1);
(b) the assessment of ‘competence’ in relation to patients who have not attained the age of 16;
(c) the preparation of care and treatment plans for patients who have not attained the age of 18, including patients admitted to, or who remain in, hospital in pursuance of such arrangements as are mentioned in section 131(1);
(d) matters to be taken into account by an approved mental health professional when deciding who to appoint as a nominated person in circumstances in which the patient has not attained the age of 18 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 of this Act applies;
(e) steps to be taken by managers of the hospital when section 131A of this Act applies including—
(i) matters to be taken into account when determining whether the patient’s environment in hospital is suitable having regard to the patient’s age (including article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (‘the best interests of the child’));
(ii) measures to be taken in cases where a patient who has not attained the age of 18 has been admitted to an environment that provides care and treatment to patients who have attained the age of 18, including—
(A) safeguards to ensure that the patient is provided with care in a safe environment; and
(B) action to be taken to ensure that the patient is transferred to a more age-appropriate environment as soon as reasonably practicable;
(f) matters to be taken into account when determining whether a patient who has not attained the age of 18 should be admitted to a hospital for the purpose of treatment (or assessment, or assessment followed by treatment) of mental disorder which is located in an area falling outside the local authority in which the patient was ordinarily resident, or otherwise living in, prior to such detention or admission and the safeguards to be followed if the patient is so admitted;
(g) an explanation of the arrangements for the commissioning and provision of community and inpatient mental health services for those who have not attained the age of 18.”
This amendment inserts commitments related to children and young people which the Government made in the House of Lords into the section on principles to inform decisions on the Code of Practice.
Amendment 2, clause 4, page 4, line 41, at end insert—
“(iv) accommodation and relocation, and”.
This amendment ensures the impact of accommodation and relocation is considered in care and treatment reviews for patients with autism or learning disabilities.
Amendment 6, page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“(v) the patient,
(vi) the patient’s nominated person, and
(vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.”
This amendment would ensure that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive copy of a care, education, and treatment review meeting report for children and young people with autism or a learning disability.
Amendment 7, page 5, line 31, for “12” substitute “six”.
This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months.
Amendment 8, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(iii) housing, and”.
This amendment ensures that housing needs are considered as part of care and treatment review meetings.
Amendment 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(v) the patient,
(vi) the patient’s nominated person, and
(vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.”
This amendment ensures that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive a copy of a care and treatment review meeting report.
Amendment 10, page 7, line 40, for “12” substitute “six”.
This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months.
Amendment 11, page 8, line 12, leave out “must have regard to” and insert
“have a duty to carry out”.
This amendment ensures that integrated care boards and local authorities responsible for a patient's treatment and care have a duty to implement recommendations arising from a care and treatment review.
Amendment 12, page 8, line 27, at end insert—
“(ba) the person is under 18 years old and satisfies the conditions in (b)(ii).”
This amendment inserts a new subsection that extends the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register for those at risk of detention to all children and young people under the age of 18.
Amendment 3, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
“(6) The risk factors specified in regulations under subsection (5) must include—
(a) homelessness;
(b) addiction;
(c) domestic abuse;
(d) miscarriage and traumatic birth;
(e) experience of armed conflict; and
(f) bereavement.”
This amendment would specify risk factors for detention for people on the register of people at risk of detention under Clause 4.
Amendment 36, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
“125DA Registers: reviews
(1) Each integrated care board must make arrangements for ensuring that care and treatment review meetings take place in relation to a person included in that board’s register under section 125D if either—
(a) the person consents to meetings taking place and to the disclosure of information in accordance with the arrangements, and to the use of the information in accordance with this Act, or
(b) the person lacks capacity to give that consent but the board considers that it is nonetheless in the person’s best interests for the meetings to take place, and information to be disclosed and used, as mentioned in subsection (a).
(2) In this section ‘care and treatment review meeting’ means a meeting, convened by the integrated care board, for the purpose of reviewing a person’s case in order to—
(a) identify any needs of the person for—
(i) social care provision,
(ii) medical treatment, or
(iii) financial support, and
(b) make recommendations about—
(i) whether and how any such needs can be met,
(ii) how the person’s safety can be ensured while they are at risk of detention, and
(iii) how to reduce any risk of the person being detained in a hospital or registered establishment.
(3) The arrangements under subsection (1) must include arrangements for—
(a) the preparation of a report (whether by the board or another person) setting out the needs identified, and recommendations made, at each meeting, and
(b) the provision of a copy of the report, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which a meeting takes place, to each of the following persons (other than any who prepared the report)—
(i) the responsible commissioner,
(ii) the person’s responsible clinician,
(iii) the integrated care board, and
(iv) the local authority in whose area the person is ordinarily resident.
(The arrangements may also include provision authorising or requiring a copy of the report to be given to other persons.)
(4) The integrated care board shall arrange appropriate provision within 28 days of receipt of a report under subsection (3) to address any needs identified and recommendations made.
(5) The arrangements under subsection (1) must include arrangements for ensuring that—
(a) the first meeting in relation to the person takes place within the period of 28 days from their inclusion in the register under section 125D, and
(b) a further meeting takes place at least once in each successive period of 24 months for which the person remains on the register, beginning with the day on which the first meeting takes place.
(6) A person may withdraw consent to the taking place of meetings and to the disclosure of information in accordance with arrangements under subsection (1).
(7) The arrangements under subsection (1) must include provision about—
(a) how consent to the taking place of meetings or the disclosure of information may be withdrawn;
(b) what is to happen when consent is withdrawn (which may include provision about who is to be informed).”
This amendment replicates the provisions for care and treatment reviews for patients under sections 125A and 125B but for people with autism and learning disabilities who are at risk of detention, in order to identify needs and ensure that those needs can be met without detaining them.
Amendment 37, page 9, line 26, after “125D(3)(c)” insert “and 125DA(3)”.
Amendment 13, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) seek to ensure that the needs of children and young people can be met without detaining them under Part 2 of this Act.”
This amendment extends the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.
Amendment 38, page 9, line 32, after “125D(3)(d)” insert “and 125DA(3)”.
Amendments 37 and 38 are consequential on amendment 36 and would ensure that integrated care boards and local authorities have regard to reports from care and treatment review meetings with people on their registers when commissioning services.
Amendment 24, page 9, line 38, at end insert—
“125ZF Crisis accommodation: duty to assess and provide
(1) In exercising its functions under section 125E, an integrated care board must assess the need for appropriate crisis accommodation for autistic people and people with a learning disability within its area.
(2) Where such need is identified under subsection (1), the integrated care board must ensure appropriate crisis accommodation is available, either—
(a) within its area, or
(b) through arrangements with other integrated care boards for regional provision.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘appropriate crisis accommodation’ means accommodation which—
(a) is designed to meet the specific needs of autistic people and people with learning disability during periods of acute mental health crisis;
(b) is staffed by persons with specialist training in supporting autistic people and people with learning disability;
(c) provides a safe alternative to detention under section 136 of this Act;
(d) is developed through co-production with autistic people and people with learning disability.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the assessment of need and provision of crisis accommodation under this section.”
This amendment requires ICBs to assess need and ensure provision of appropriate crisis accommodation, either locally or regionally, designed specifically for autistic people and people with learning disability in crisis.
Amendment 14, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“125FA Report: sufficient commissioning services for people with autism or learning disability
(1) Within four months of the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a plan to allocate sufficient resources for commissioning services regarding the treatment and detention of autistic people and people with learning disabilities to ensure operability of provisions in this Act.
(2) The plan must include—
(a) revised assumptions of the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities who may require detention under this Act;
(b) the actions that the Secretary of State will take to ensure community services are available to meet demand after the 28-day detention period;
(c) plans for data collection to support commissioning sufficient services;
(d) plans to allocate appropriate resource to ensure operability of services, including, but not limited to, financial resource;
(e) plans to ensure that responsible bodies and individuals receive the necessary training to carry out support, diagnostic, and treatment plans.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a plan within four months to ensure sufficient services, resources, data, and training are in place to support autistic people and those with learning disabilities under the Act.
Amendment 25, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“125FA Assessment: provision of services for autistic people and people with a learning disability
(1) Each financial year, an integrated care board must—
(a) conduct an assessment of the availability and adequacy of services within its area for autistic people and people with a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act;
(b) publish the results of the assessment; and
(c) publish an action plan to address any gaps in provision identified.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of—
(a) the availability of appropriate crisis accommodation;
(b) the availability of appropriate community support services;
(c) the adequacy of training for responsible bodies and individuals to carry out support, diagnostic and treatment plans; and
(d) the experiences of autistic people and people with a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers.
(3) The integrated care board must consult the following in conducting the assessment—
(a) autistic people and people with a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers;
(b) the relevant local authority or authorities;
(c) providers of relevant services; and
(d) such other persons as the integrated care board considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the conduct of assessments under this section, and integrated care boards must have regard to this guidance.”
This amendment would require integrated care boards to conduct and publish annual assessments of the provision available for autistic people and people with learning disability at risk of detention and to prepare action plans to address any identified gaps.
Amendment 26, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“125FA Report: services for autistic people and people with a learning disability
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this section coming into force and annually thereafter, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the availability of appropriate accommodation for autistic people and people with a learning disability detained under this Act;
(b) the number of instances where appropriate accommodation could not be found within statutory timeframes;
(c) the progress towards implementation of sections 3 and 4 of the Mental Health Act 2025 and the impact of any delays to implementation on autistic people and people with a learning disability; and
(d) progress made towards meeting the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability without detaining them under Part 2 of this Act.
(2) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) autistic people and people with a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers;
(b) integrated care boards;
(c) local authorities; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the availability of appropriate placements for autistic people and people with learning disability and on progress implementing the relevant provisions of the Act.
Amendment 28, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“125FA Training standards
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about training standards for responsible bodies and individuals working with autistic people and people with a learning disability in—
(a) mental health hospitals;
(b) places of safety designated under sections 135 or 136 of this Act;
(c) crisis accommodation; and
(d) such other settings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—
(a) specify minimum training requirements;
(b) require training to be co-produced with autistic people and people with learning disability and their families or carers;
(c) require regular refresher training; and
(d) include training on de-escalation techniques and alternatives to restraint.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish guidance about the standards set out in regulations under subsection (1).
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on minimum training standards for staff working with autistic people and people with learning disability in mental health settings and require that training be co-produced with people with lived experience and their families.
Amendment 43, page 11, line 15, leave out clause 5.
Amendment 44, clause 6, page 12, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert—
“(b) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment,”.
This amendment is linked to NC34
Amendment 45, page 12, line 29, for “degree and likelihood” substitute “or degree”.
This amendment is linked to NC34
Amendment 15, page 12, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) Any person subject to a community treatment order must be informed orally and in writing at the time of the making of the order of their right to an independent mental health advocate under section 130A of this Act.’”
The amendment would ensure that people who are to be subject to a community treatment order would receive information about their right to advocacy.
Amendment 16, clause 8, page 14, line 13, after “treatment” insert
“including the setting in which treatment takes place,”.
This amendment ensures that the definition of appropriate medical treatment includes the setting in which treatment takes place.
Amendment 17, clause 18, page 26, line 22, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may only be made to provide for circumstances where—
(a) the treatment is immediately necessary to save the patient’s life,
(b) obtaining a second opinion would cause a delay that places the patient at a significant and imminent risk of death or serious physical harm, and
(c) the treatment is reversible.”
The amendment limits the power to dispense with a second medical opinion for urgent electro-convulsive therapy to exceptional, life-threatening cases, introduces periodic reviews of its use, and ensures transparency by prohibiting retrospective application.
Amendment 4, clause 21, page 29, line 28, at end insert—
“(ab) containing steps to alleviate social and financial stressors contributing to the patient’s risk of requiring detention in future; and”.
This amendment would require social and financial stressors be addressed in care and treatment plans.
Amendment 40, page 29, line 30, at end insert—
“(c) containing an assessment of the levels of risk to public safety posed by the patient in the community.”
This amendment would require consideration to be given to public safety in care and treatment plans.
Amendment 18, page 29, line 39, at end insert—
“(iii) the discussion of the person’s finances and financial situation.”
This amendment ensures that the care and treatment plan includes matters relating to the patient’s financial circumstances.
Amendment 1, page 29, line 41, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of preparing a plan under this section, a discharge planning meeting must be held.
(4B) A meeting under subsection (4A) must include—
(a) the patient;
(b) the patient’s nominated person;
(c) any independent mental health advocate acting for the patient;
(d) a representative of the integrated care board;
(e) a local housing officer;
(f) a local authority social worker;
(g) a representative from the Department for Work and Pensions; and
(h) any other person or agency involved in the patient’s care or likely to support recovery in the community.
(4C) A care and treatment plan under this section must include—
(a) actions agreed by relevant agencies to support the patient’s recovery;
(b) provisions to address clinical, financial, housing, and social needs;
(c) steps to reduce the likelihood of readmission or further detention under this Act; and
(d) a record of any points of disagreement and how they are to be resolved.
(4D) Where an agency listed under subsection (4B) fails to attend a discharge planning meeting, the responsible clinician must take reasonable steps to obtain their input in writing and record it in the plan.
(4E) For the purposes of subsections (4A) to (4D), the Secretary of State must issue guidance on best practice for discharge planning meetings and multi-agency collaboration.”
This amendment would require the clinician preparing a care and treatment plan to hold a multi-agency planning meeting to inform it, and specifies what must be included within the plan.
Amendment 19, page 29, line 41, at end insert—
“(4A) The information authorised or required to be included in, or attached to, a care and treatment plan by virtue of regulations under subsection (3) must include provision to protect the patient's housing and accommodation during and immediately after they are subject to a care and treatment plan.”
This amendment ensures that protection of housing and accommodation are considered as part of care and treatment plans.
Amendment 20, page 30, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) following the patient turning 18 years of age during the course of a care and treatment plan.”
This amendment ensures that individuals turning 18 during a care and treatment plan have their plans reviewed to maintain continuity of care while transitioning from child to adult services.
Amendment 39, page 30, line 26, at end insert—
“(vii) for a relevant patient who has not yet reached the age of 18, the parents or legal guardians of the relevant patient, unless that is not deemed in the best interests of the patient.
(5A) Any care plan prepared under this section, if prepared for a relevant patient who has not yet reached the age of 18, must include provision for the parents or legal guardians of the patient to be directly involved in the care and treatment of the relevant patient, unless such involvement is not in the best interests of the patient.
(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), the parents or legal guardians must be given regular access to the relevant patient through attendance on the hospital ward.”
This amendment would require a practitioner to consult the parents or legal guardians of a child patient when preparing the patient’s care and treatment plan, require parental involvement in patient care through the plan, and enable those parents (or guardians) regular access to the patient on the hospital ward.
Amendment 27, page 29, line 41, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a patient has autism or a learning disability, the care and treatment plan must—
(a) identify specific crisis prevention strategies appropriate to the patient's individual needs;
(b) identify suitable crisis accommodation options in the event that the patient's current placement becomes unable to meet their needs;
(c) specify how the patient's sensory needs will be met;
(d) specify communication approaches appropriate to the patient's needs; and
(e) record the views of the patient’s family members or carers, where appropriate and with the patient's consent.”
This amendment would ensure that care and treatment plans for patients with autism or learning disabilities include specific components addressing their particular needs, including crisis prevention strategies and identification of suitable crisis accommodation options.
Amendment 22, clause 45, page 56, line 37, at end insert—
“(5A) An ‘advance choice document’ under subsection (5) should include consideration of the person’s financial circumstances.”
This amendment ensures that the advance choice document includes matters relating to the patient’s financial circumstances.
Amendment 32, page 58, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) After subsection (3), insert—
‘(3ZA) After-care provision under subsection (3) above may include, for patients who have not yet reached the age of 16, appropriate Early Help services in the community.’”
This amendment would ensure that, when a tribunal is discharging a child who has experienced a mental health crisis, the tribunal may recommend that they are referred to appropriate Early Help services as part of their after-care planning.
Amendment 29, clause 46, page 59, line 10, at end insert—
“(4) After subsection (6), insert—
‘(6A) After-care services under this section may include provision for authorised community pharmacies to dispense emergency and ongoing medication in line with after-care plans.
(6B) Community pharmacies providing services under subsection (6A) must be—
(a) given access to suitable training and resources;
(b) integrated into the local primary care team, with appropriate access to prescribing professionals and multidisciplinary support; and
(c) given appropriate remuneration and reimbursement for providing after-care services.
(6C) Responsible bodies must carry out due diligence of any pharmacy operator before authorising them to provide after-care services under this section.
(6D) Due diligence checks under subsection (6C) must include ensuring that—
(a) the operator is not in significant arrears in respect of staff wages, supplier payments or other financial obligations;
(b) the operator can demonstrate the financial capacity to sustain additional locations without compromising existing services; and
(c) the operator has an established record of compliance with relevant regulatory and contractual requirements.
(6E) Where due diligence checks under subsections (6C) and (6D) determine that a pharmacy operator is failing in its existing financial obligations, the pharmacy operator must not be authorised to take on new after-care service locations.’”
This amendment would allow community pharmacies to be reimbursed for dispensing medication under the aftercare provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, and would ensure that they have access to relevant training, that they are integrated into the primary care team, and that the responsible body carries out due diligence checks on their financial health.
Amendment 30, page 59, line 10, at end insert—
“(4) After subsection (6), insert—
‘(6A) After-care services provided under this section must include the availability of family support workers.’”
This amendment would require the provision of family support workers as part of the after-care provisions under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Amendment 31, page 59, line 10, at end insert—
“(4) After subsection (6), insert—
‘(6A) When determining the adequacy of after-care services for a specific patient, responsible bodies must take into account—
(a) whether the patient lives in a rural or urban area;
(b) associated travel times between the patient’s residence and after-care services;
(c) the patient’s levels of contact with others in their community; and
(d) the views of local transport authorities and operators and relevant community transport or volunteer groups on levels of accessibility to after-care services.
(6B) The responsible body must ensure the provision of outreach or visiting services to isolated individuals eligible for after-care under this section, including to those in remote or agricultural areas.’”
This amendment would ensure that the needs of individuals living in rural areas are accounted for when providing after-care services under the Mental Health Act 1983, and that local transport operators are consulted on how easy it is to access these services.
Government amendments 34 and 35.
Amendment 41, schedule 2, page 77, line 21, at end insert—
“(3) Where the patient has not yet reached the age of 16 (the ‘child patient’), the nominated person must be a person with parental responsibility for the child patient, unless the factors set out in sub-paragraph (4) below apply.
(4) A person who has parental responsibility for a patient under the age of 16 (‘the parent’) must not be the nominated person if—
(a) the parent is subject to a prohibited steps order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989;
(b) a local authority is taking action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard the child patient or otherwise protect the child patient’s welfare due to concerns about the parent; or
(c) the local authority has made enquiries under section 47(1) of the Children Act 1989 and concluded that the child patient is suffering, or is likely to suffer, harm at the hands of the parent (within the meaning of section 31(9) and (10) of that Act).”
This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under the age of 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient, unless there are safeguarding concerns.
Amendment 42, page 80, line 13, after “2(2))” insert
“, has parental responsibility for the patient, subject to conditions (see paragraphs 2(3) and 2(4)),”.
This amendment is connected to Amendment 41; it would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient, unless there are safeguarding concerns about that parent.
Amendment 5, page 86, line 38, at end insert—
“18A In section 130B (arrangements in relation to independent mental advocates: England), after subsection (3)(d), insert—
‘(e) support the patient’s carer and family members to prepare for the patient’s discharge from hospital treatment, and
(f) support the patient to access help with social and financial stressors that might otherwise increase their likelihood of future detention.’”
This amendment extends the support offered by Mental Health advocates to cover social and financial stressors and support for family carers and other members of the household when the patient is discharged.
Amendment 23, schedule 3, page 90, line 32, after “patient” insert
“or English qualifying informal patient under 18”.
This amendment extends the provision of opt-out advocacy services in England to informal in-patients under 18.
Zöe Franklin
I am honoured to open today’s debate on Report and to have served in Committee, where it was clear that Members on both sides of the House shared a commitment to high-quality mental health care for those in crisis. I thank my colleagues who also served in Committee; it was an informative and moving discussion. It is that commitment to high-quality mental health care that underpins new clause 2. It addresses a critical issue: the inconsistency and inadequacy of care in mental health units across England.
I am sure we have all heard distressing accounts of vulnerable individuals being placed in units that are understaffed, unsafe and ill equipped for recovery. Families entrust the system with their loved ones during moments of crisis, only to find that trust undermined—not by a lack of compassion, but by a lack of national direction. New clause 2 seeks to change that by establishing a national strategy and annual reporting to ensure that every mental health unit is safe, well-staffed and fit for purpose.
In my Guildford constituency, a family recently shared with me their experience of a loved one’s stay in a mental health facility. The unit was understaffed from the outset and wards were mixed in age and illness, with little therapeutic structure. There was no clear advocate or caseworker, and the family did not know whom to contact. They described a system that, in their words,
“dishes out drugs without improving mental health or wellbeing.”
The setting was so short-staffed that their loved one was able to self-harm—an unacceptable failure in any care setting. New clause 2 aims to prevent such failures from recurring.
The Care Quality Commission has repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of mental health wards, citing staff shortages, poor infrastructure and environments that are unfit for therapeutic care. In 2023, the King’s Fund reported that 40% of NHS mental health providers were rated “requires improvement” or “inadequate” on safety—figures that would be intolerable elsewhere in the health system. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body has identified systematic risks in in-patient mental health care, including delayed responses to distress, inappropriate use of restraint and a lack of therapeutic staffing models. Perhaps most starkly, the British Medical Journal reported over 17,000 serious incidents in mental health services between April 2022 and March 2023. Each one was a moment when care went seriously wrong. These are not just statistics; they represent real people who deserve better.
New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish a national strategy within 12 months to ensure that all mental health units meet or exceed “good” safety standards under the CQC framework, and to report annually to Parliament. It focuses on three key areas: recruitment, retention and training of staff; safe staffing levels and patient-to-staff ratios, especially during nights and peak times; and ongoing accountability through public reporting. The new clause would make patient safety a national obligation, not a postcode lottery. It is about responsibility and transparency.
Although the Bill modernises detention criteria and patients’ rights, it does not explicitly require the Secretary of State to guarantee basic safety and staffing standards, and new clause 2 would fill that gap. Some may worry that it would be too prescriptive or add bureaucracy, but it would not replace local management; it would support it. It would build on the CQC’s role by ensuring that action is taken when failings persist, and it would turn inspection findings into a driver of national improvement.
On cost, unsafe care is already expensive. It leads to readmissions, litigation, staff burnout and the loss of public trust. A national strategy would allow for smarter investment, preventing failures rather than paying for them later. We have had decades of guidance and reviews, but what we have not had is statutory accountability. My new clause would deliver that.
New clause 2 is focused, deliverable and urgently needed. It complements the Bill by ensuring that the rights it enshrines are backed by safe, well-staffed and properly regulated environments. Without it, we risk legislating for rights in theory while leaving patients unsafe in practice. By supporting it, we affirm that mental health care deserves the same national standards as any other branch of healthcare. I urge Members to support new clause 2 and make safety, dignity and accountability a permanent part of our mental health law, and I look forward to the debate in this House today.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Many Sunderland families, including mine, share stories of Cherry Knowle, the Sunderland borough asylum in my constituency, which opened in 1895. Severe mental illness has always been a feature of society. Thankfully, the legislative framework and services have developed somewhat since 1895, but arguably they have not developed fast enough, particularly over the 42 years since the Mental Health Act 1983 was passed. At the start of my NHS career, I spent time shadowing staff on the wards of the then Cherry Knowle, which in 2014 was replaced by a much better facility in Hopewood Park in Ryhope in my constituency. To this day, 2,825 adults are detained under the Mental Health Act in Sunderland Central as a result of that facility.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Similarly, a community service called Mental Health Together has been introduced in my area. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole mental health system is so complex, with different practices in different parts of the country, and that not having continuity and a standard across the country is a big issue for mental health?
Lewis Atkinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his intervention. Part of the issue around poorly reported waiting times is that it is less easy to see that differential access than it would perhaps be in physical health services. Indeed, over the years when specialist teams have been set up—for example the early intervention and psychosis teams and assertive outreach teams, which I know my hon. Friend knows well given his professional background—they have been introduced with very good intentions and to target specific needs, but they sometimes make it more difficult for patients to get overall care rather than very specialist care for individual conditions.
I will not take any more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will just say that the mantra of investment and reform applies to mental health services, as it should apply to all our health services. For us to make further progress in pursuing parity of esteem between mental health and physical health, we not only need to consider these amendments today and pass the Bill to modernise the legislation, but ensure the Government have sufficient political priority on producing and improving mental health services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will have noticed that many people are standing to speak and there is not a significant amount of time for the debate, so with the exception of Front-Bench contributions, there will be an immediate four-minute time limit. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
When we last debated the Bill on Second Reading, I said that protecting someone’s freedom for their own safety is not a licence to own their life, but a duty to help them find it again. That principle still guides us today, because good intentions alone do not mend a troubled system. Compassion without competence is not care; it is sentiment without substance.
On Second Reading, I spoke of bridges and rough roads, and of how resilience and recovery depend on the strength of the structures that carry people through their hardest times. Tonight, we return to that bridge. The question before us is not whether we believe in reform—after all, there is cross-party agreement on that—but whether the Government have built the foundations to make it stand. Warm words are plentiful, but the reality is that too many people are still falling through the gaps: detentions are still present, community services are stretched, and families are left navigating a maze of bureaucracy while waiting for help that may never come.
We all know that reform cannot be delivered on aspiration alone. It requires a delivery plan, a workforce and a system capable of learning from its own mistakes. We know the chapter on delivery is missing from the 10-year NHS plan and there is further risk tonight that we miss another opportunity. After all, the principles in the Bill are the right ones. They are even on the face of the Bill—choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and treating the person as an individual—but those principles need power behind them and that power lies in delivery.
This Report stage is our chance to turn those words into commitments. New clause 31 requires the Government to publish a fully costed delivery plan within 18 months of the Act passing into law, setting out how integrated care boards and local authorities will deliver adequate community services. Crucially, the plan must be developed through consultation with those who know best. That is vital, because although we support the many aims of the Bill, the Government already have a pretty dismal record of announcing reforms without any credible plan to deliver them.
Let us take the ongoing NHS reorganisation. In March, Ministers made a surprise announcement of the abolition of NHS England and its absorption into the Department of Health and Social Care, yet six months on they cannot say what it will cost, how many staff will be lost or how it will be paid for. The Health Service Journal reports growing confusion inside the system and warnings from NHS leaders that the lack of clarity risks paralysing decision making. Written questions to the Government simply receive the answer
“some upfront cost in the millions”
yet independent estimates say the cost is over £1 billion. Even the chief executive, Sir Jim Mackey, points out that the Treasury must agree funding for integrated care board redundancies within weeks or the NHS will have to turn to a plan B.
The same chaos is playing out across integrated care boards, with local leaders warning that there is already destabilisation due to the 50% reductions. If Ministers cannot manage their own top-down reorganisation, why should anyone believe they can deliver a more ambitious overhaul of mental health services without a clear costed plan, especially when waiting lists have risen in the last three consecutive months?
This Labour Government have already cut the proportion of spending on mental health. As Dr Lade Smith CBE, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said at the time:
“It is illogical that the share of NHS funding for mental health services is being reduced at a time of soaring need and significant staff shortages.”
Going on, she said that:
“The proportion of NHS funding allocated to mental health services will decrease”,
which will
“equate to these vital services missing out on an estimated £300 million or more that they would have received if their share…had been maintained.”
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a decrease in the proportion of the mental health investment standard for the first time in, I believe, nine years. It is incredibly concerning. It was hard-won, cross-party support that made that proportion go up over time. It was incremental, but it was starting to make a difference to the system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Government clarified whether that will continue in 2025-26? When Baroness Merron came to our Committee, she could not confirm that. If there is not going to be a continuation, the system needs to know by now, frankly, so that it can prepare adequately for it.
Dr Evans
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee is absolutely right. A simple answer from the Minister today, on Report, would go a long way to alleviating those fears from the mental health sector. I look forward to his response on that.
Amendment 40 would add a simple but important requirement that each care and treatment plan must include an assessment of the levels of risk to public safety posed by the patient in the community. The purpose of the Bill is right; the Government want to make the system more compassionate, therapeutic, patient-centred and modernised, and we strongly agree with that ambition. However, modernisation must go hand in hand with public confidence, and the public and patients themselves must know that every plan for treatment and discharge is rooted not only in care, but in safety.
In Committee, I argued that the framework still omits one dimension, which is public safety. As far as I can see, there is still no explicit requirement in the Bill for clinicians to assess and record the level of risk posed to the public.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Constituents have come to me about patients with schizophrenia, for example, who had been released before their psychosis had fully passed, with one such instance tragically ending in the death of another resident. All of these situations could have been prevented if the patient had been kept safely in a bed until they were at a proper level of medication and the psychosis had passed. Does the shadow Minister agree that that is something we need to take forward in this Bill? It is a win-win for all parties.
Dr Evans
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic case. Those are the kind of cases that this amendment seeks to deal with. We have only to look at the tragic cases of Nicola Edgington and Valdo Calocane to see how escalating risk happens, with huge consequences for the families, patients and victims.
When I raised this matter in Committee, the Minister gave a very thoughtful answer. He said that:
“if any risk at all to public safety is perceived, that must be documented… It is a basic expectation of the professional management of a particular patient that any risk identified to public safety and protection must be in there.”
I welcome that.
With amendment 40, I am simply asking, if that is indeed the Government’s position, why not make it clear in the Bill? The Minister conceded in Committee that
“I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on whether or not it should be in the Bill. I will come back to him on that, because I would be rather surprised if it were not made very clear somewhere that that is a basic expectation; if it were not, that would obviously need to be looked at, but I am reasonably confident that it is.” ––[Official Report, Mental Health Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2025; c. 171.]
Unfortunately, expected in practice is not the same as required in law. We know from past reviews that there is a gap in the risk assessment and that communication can be too inconsistent. Putting such a requirement in statute would not be bureaucracy; it would simply clarify that. The Minister may argue that it already exists in professional codes, in the Mental Health Act code of practice or even in risk management frameworks, but the statutory duty does not. Our amendment would put that duty squarely in the Bill.
Talking of safety, I will turn to new clause 29, which would ensure that no child is placed on an adult mental health ward except in truly exceptional circumstances, and only when it is demonstrably in their best interests. The Government argue that guidance already covers that, but this guidance has no teeth; it can be ignored or inconsistently applied. Again, guidance without legal backing is too easily ignored. That was why the Joint Committee on Human Rights argued in its letter that this part of the Bill needs strengthening. The Minister also said that placing these safeguards in legislation would remove flexibility for clinicians in emergencies, but new clause 29 does allow for exceptional circumstances; it simply requires that they are justified, recorded and subject to oversight.
Research from University College London found that there has been a 65% increase in the number of children and young people admitted to adult wards for mental health disorders, and this increase is sharpest among teenage girls with eating disorders. They are the most vulnerable, and they are the ones who bear the brunt of this.
Joy Morrissey
That is another reason why I am shocked that the mental health budget is decreasing. I am seeing an increase across my constituency—and I am sure it is the same in many others—of girls in secondary school presenting with severe mental health issues, suicidal tendencies and eating disorders, and they are desperately crying out for additional mental health support.
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that support needs to be there. Fortunately, it is not the budget that is reducing but the proportion of funding, and it shows the priorities of this Government when it comes to mental health.
I am concerned that without new clause 29, a child may be harmed or traumatised and placed in an adult ward without proper justification—and it will be little comfort for the family to hear that guidance was breached.
Amendment 41 stands up for the simple but vital principle that when a child is detained under the Mental Health Act, the person legally recognised to act for them—their nominated person—should hold parental responsibility. Only where there are legitimate safeguarding concerns should that be set aside. At first glance, this may seem technical, but it speaks to something profound about how the law views childhood, family and the balance between protection and autonomy.
The Government are right to use the Bill to modernise the old “nearest relative” system, which was too rigid, too bound by bloodline and at times blind to the complexities of family life. Under the Bill, however, a child under 16 deemed competent could nominate any adult—that could be a 19-year-old boyfriend or peer or someone exercising control—and once nominated, that person gets full control. It is a legal authority. We need to ensure that protection is there for the person if there is a breakdown on the family side. [Interruption.] I see that Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to wind up, so I will solidify my comments into a more erudite approach.
The point is that in law this principle is already clear in the Children Act 1989, which defined it as the foundation stone of what families should look like. With this amendment, I believe we have solved the concerns the Minister had at Committee stage about the state of a family in the modern era. In any other walk of life the legal framework exists, so why would we weaken it when it comes to mental health?
We discussed the issues with A&E and the grey area there in Committee, and I was grateful to the Minister for meeting beforehand to discuss them. I know that he took on my comments about solving the practicalities, and I hope he will look at them seriously.
For this House, there is no greater moral burden than deciding for someone who cannot decide for themselves—where care ends and where control begins. That is exactly what the House is addressing with this Bill: how to protect without diminishing, how to act with compassion without surrendering precision, and how to empower without imposing. Involuntary care must never be the reflex of a system, be it under pressure or out of principle. The House agrees on this position; the challenge is delivery. Compassion demands more than good intentions. It demands delivery, discipline and detail. With this Bill, the Opposition lays the challenge of delivery. It must be not just a pledge but a plan. The public will judge us all not just on how kindly this House speaks, but on how faithfully it serves those who depend on us most.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I will speak to new clauses 28 and 36 and amendment 39, which I tabled not just as an MP but as a father. After what my family have been through, I believe that any parent would do the same.
Yesterday, alongside the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I had the privilege of hearing Dr Kate Szymankiewicz speak about her daughter Ruth. She shared not only the tragic circumstances of Ruth’s death but the type of person Ruth was: her dream of becoming a vet, her kindness, and how friends described her as a character straight out of an Enid Blyton novel. That is the Ruth her family remember and cherish. As parents, we became part of a world we never wanted to know. I am privileged to have met Kate, but we agreed that we wished our paths had never crossed because of what that meant.
Ruth was admitted to an in-patient facility for treatment of an eating disorder, but instead of receiving the care she needed, her family were shut out and allowed only two two-hour visits per week. They spent more time travelling than they did with their daughter. Ruth was just 14 years old when she fatally self-harmed, just five months into her stay.
Three months from that date, my family were faced with the same hospital, Huntercombe, as the only choice of a bed for our daughter. At that same hospital, when a child asked if they could have an extra type of jam for breakfast in the morning, they were told it did not have the budget, and when asked why Minstrels were no longer part of snack time, they were told that they were eating too many. That is the problem with NHS-funded private provision: even at £900 a night, the operators plead poverty.
My wife and I have two vivid memories of our youngest being prised from us without any warning. We thought that was normal. Six months of nasogastric tube feeding—we thought that was normal. Illegal restraint so bad that it caused post-traumatic stress disorder—we thought that was normal. Forgetting to feed our daughter 11 times—we started to realise that that was normal, but not acceptable. Instead of wishing to improve its practice, the hospital has accused me of making this up.
If a child is facing any other physical illness such as cancer, or even something more short-term that requires a hospital stay, parental visits and involvement are quite rightly seen as a means of enhancing care. I genuinely struggle to understand why our clinical consensus around mental health continues to support a model where already vulnerable children are isolated from their parents—the very people who know and love them most. Children on these wards are treated as wilful—they are not; they are children—and without empathy or sympathy. Many consultants we encountered opted not to apply the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Staff were poorly trained and in fear of psychiatrists, who ruled the roost and prevented people from speaking up. The private equity firms are focused not on long-term treatment but just on turning mental health into money.
My amendments do not seek to undermine the Bill’s strengths, nor the important work undertaken by the Department. In fact, the cross-party support I have received, including from the right hon. Member for Salisbury, reflects how uncontroversial they are.
The Minister and I have had robust and constructive discussions on the matter, but I ask him to confirm that he will do everything in his power to ensure the following. Parents must not be shut out of their child’s care, as evidence shows that regular parental contact enhances care outcomes. The placement of children on adult mental health wards under the Mental Health Act must be limited strictly to exceptional circumstances, and practitioners must be actively compelled where appropriate to involve themselves in the development and delivery of a child’s care and treatment plan.
We have a duty to ensure that the tragic circumstances surrounding Ruth’s death are never repeated. The Government were elected with a phenomenal majority, winning places we never thought possible—including my own constituency of Isle of Wight West—on a platform of meaningful change. If we do not use this moment to do the right thing and acknowledge that children in mental health services need their parents more often than not, I fear that we may never get another chance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I begin by thanking colleagues across the House who have worked so constructively on this long-awaited Bill. There has been a shared recognition that the current mental health system is failing too many people and that reform is urgently needed. I thank the Minister for engaging with us so constructively throughout the process, including as recently as yesterday; it is much appreciated.
When I speak to people in Winchester—I know that hon. Members have very similar stories—mental health is one of the issues that comes up the most. We have families waiting months or even years for treatment, we have parents watching their children deteriorate, and we have people languishing on waiting lists when they would rather be working or studying.
The Bill represents the biggest reform of mental health care in over 40 years. It strengthens patient autonomy, modernises detention procedures and rightly removes police stations from the definition of places of safety. These are vital and much needed steps forward and I know that Members on all sides welcome them.
I will speak briefly to several new clauses tabled in my name, each aimed at strengthening the Bill’s impact for some of the most vulnerable people it seeks to protect. New clause 26 would ensure that every hospital has a dedicated liaison service for the carers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act. This is a vital step to support carers during what can be an unimaginably difficult time and to close blind spots that too often exist when someone is caring for a loved one with serious mental illness.
We know that parental mental health concerns are now the most common factor in children’s social care assessments, and that those children are at much higher risk of developing mental ill health themselves. Yet only about a third of mental health professionals in in-patient settings ask whether a patient is a parent. These children and the carers who support them are too often invisible. By identifying and supporting carers properly, new clause 26 would help close those gaps and ensure that no family has to struggle in silence.
Dr Luke Evans
We did not discuss this specifically in Committee, but I would be interested to know about the interaction between the independent mental health advocates, which are being expanded and which we all agreed with in Committee, and a new liaison service. I worry about the duplication. Will the hon. Member explain how that crossover would work in practice?
Dr Chambers
That is a prescient point. At the moment, there is no responsibility to ensure that children in particular, and other carers too, are identified. Even if they are put in advance choice documents, if the person making those decisions does not identify them, that will not come about. We would have to be careful that there is not unnecessary duplication; however, the initiative the hon. Gentleman puts forward is not a belt-and-braces approach to identifying young carers and other carers who are struggling.
New clause 7 seeks to end the detention of children on adult wards, requiring the number to be reduced to zero within five years—other Members have discussed that today—and the Secretary of State to set out how that will be achieved. It simply cannot be right that children are still being treated on adult wards. It is unacceptable and can seriously hinder recovery and effective care.
Although the Bill rightly focuses on hospital-based treatment, the process has also laid bare how fragile our wider mental health services have become, with the lack of early support in primary and community care and the shortage of initiatives that help people long before they reach crisis point. That is why new clause 14 would place a duty on integrated care boards to ensure that community services have the resources they need to meet the demand and report on that regularly. Keeping people well in their communities must be at the heart of any modern mental health strategy, because if we get the community care right, we prevent crises, reduce pressure on hospitals and help people live healthier, more independent lives.
Finally, new clause 22 would establish a veterans’ mental health oversight officer. That dedicated role would ensure that those who have served our country receive the understanding and tailored care they deserve when they come into contact with mental health services. Too often, veterans experience mental ill health, sometimes linked to their service, and they find themselves in systems that do not fully recognise their unique experiences. The proposal would help change that by providing proper oversight; encouraging joined-up working across the NHS, veterans’ services and the third sector; and ensuring that compassion and accountability sit at the heart of how the Mental Health Act is applied to veterans.
Taken together, the proposals are about making our mental health system even more humane, more joined up, and more focused on prevention and recovery. I hope the Government will take them in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to strengthen this important Bill, which we very much support, and deliver a system that truly supports those who need it most.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will speak on new clause 35, which sets out the conditions under which community treatment orders can be extended beyond 12 months. Like many across my constituency of Sheffield Central, I know personally how overstretched our mental health services are. My brother lives with complex mental health needs and our family has seen at first hand the impact of a churning workforce, long waiting lists and a lack of community support services, brought about by an unrelenting crisis in funding.
Our system has not been properly expanded or adapted to meet the challenges. Instead, far too many people are detained and restricted, rather than supported to recover. We see this nowhere more acutely than in the overuse of community treatment orders, which were supposed to be a bridge from hospital to home for those who are constantly readmitted to hospital. People have described them as
“a tag that nobody can see, but you know it’s around your mind.”
The evidence shows that they have not met their intended purposes, with three major studies having found no reduction in readmissions or hospital time through their use. Yet despite the previous Government having promised reform, community treatment orders have continued. Reform has been too slow and too narrow in scope.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I rise to support new clauses 29, 28 and 39. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), who mentioned my constituents and the tragic case of the loss of their daughter, Ruth. My experience of listening to her story has made me support the new clauses.
I want to finish my remarks with what Kate asked me to say in this House. Kate Szymankiewicz is a GP in Salisbury and her husband is a surgeon. Their daughter, Ruth, took her own life aged 14. She was unlawfully killed while in a child mental health facility—that is what actually happened. That is what was exposed in the court case this summer. What happened to Ruth was a tragedy. The system did not work as it was supposed to work. I am anxious today that the Minister should not rely on the advice and understandings of officials, or on the guidance that is in place. I ask that he is really assured in his own mind that the legislation he is going to take forward will mean that this will not happen again.
I will not go into the whole story but, essentially, Ruth was placed in a facility that was a two-hour drive from her home. She was not technically placed out of area, but the family would spend more time driving to see her than they would be allowed to actually spend with her. These are wonderful, loving parents who did everything they could—everything in their power—to support their daughter through a condition that she could and should have recovered from. But because she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act to allow her to be force fed, her parents technically lost many of their rights to involvement in their daughter’s care. They had a wonderful, loving relationship with their daughter. She was a happy child who was determined to get better, and her family were keen to see that that happened. She was sectioned only to allow her to be fed, but the knock-on consequence was that the dynamic between the parents and their daughter, who was a patient, changed as adult protocols were put in place.
When Kate visited Parliament yesterday, I asked her, “What would you like me to say on your behalf?” And she said this:
“If your child is unwell and must go into hospital, whether that is because of a physical illness such as cancer, or a mental health illness like an eating disorder, they need to know that their mum, or dad, or caregiver, can be there with them, whenever they need, to help them through a scary and vulnerable time.
Children cannot be treated in isolation. They need the support of those who love and know them best—their family. Families need to be at the heart of our health system in order for children to heal and for their families to heal with them.
When the next child is in crisis, which is right now, I ask you all not to turn away, but to grasp this opportunity to make the Mental Health Act a champion for their wellbeing. Please include all these…amendments to safeguard this generation of young people”.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Bill addresses fundamental flaws in our current mental health legislation in relation to the rights of people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I will focus my comments on new clauses 32 and 33, which I have tabled. They are also about vital rights within our mental health legislation and relate closely to the powerful comments made by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley).
New clause 32 would provide for mandatory independent care, education and treatment reviews for patients detained in long-term segregation. In her report, “My heart breaks”, Baroness Hollins highlighted the harms and sufferings that are so often associated with long-term segregation, and assessed how introducing care, education and treatment reviews can reduce the incidence and use of segregation. I very much welcome the provisions on reviews of care and treatment that Ministers have already included in the Bill, but it has now been demonstrated that independently-chaired reviews are making a real difference and lead to inappropriate long-term segregation being challenged and addressed. The human impacts are substantial. New clause 32 would make such reviews a requirement when someone has been placed in segregation for 72 hours.
New clause 33 seeks to introduce a new level of scrutiny in cases where patients with autism or learning disability have been detained for more than five years. I believe there is a very strong case for an additional check and balance when people have been under detention and compulsory measures for so many years. I understand that the latest data for England shows that 350 people with a learning disability or autism who are currently in in-patient units have been detained there for more than 10 years.
In a previous role, I provided advocacy for the family of a young man, Kyle, who has a learning disability. He is a patient in the State hospital in Carstairs in Scotland, but his family live in the north-east of Scotland. His mother and grandmother have to make a round trip of nearly seven hours to see Kyle for visits which have in the past been restricted to a single hour. Kyle was convicted of no crime when he was admitted to Carstairs in 2009. He has been there for 16 years. The toll that this has taken on his family has been horrendous. The situation is devastating for them, and there is no end in sight. Although it is a case for the Scottish mental health system, it has provided me with an insight into what many people with learning disabilities and their families will be experiencing in England today, and the limitations of mental health tribunals in dealing with these issues.
People with learning disabilities have been losing their liberty for years because of their disability; this is a human rights emergency. It is clear that we have to do far more to prevent these situations from happening. The Bill will help to do that with its welcome measures on prevention, but where these cases are happening now, I believe there should be an additional level of scrutiny—an extra check and balance so that after so long, someone with the right level of authority and expertise can challenge providers to do better and to ask the question, “How can it be that someone has lost their liberty and their right to a family life, because we cannot make their care and treatment work in a community setting?” Although I very much welcome the introduction of the care, education and treatment reviews, I believe we should go further in these circumstances. That is why new clause 33 would make provision for notification to the Care Quality Commission when someone has been detained for more than five years.
This is an excellent Bill. It will do so much for the rights of people with learning disabilities and autism, but there are several areas where I hope the Minister can outline what further ambitions the Government have to ensure that our mental health system is fit for purpose and based on human rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To squeeze in a few more Back Benchers, the speaking limit is now three minutes.
Layla Moran
This is a long-overdue and very welcome Bill, but frankly it will not even touch the sides of what most of our constituents and communities need when it comes to the wider mental health landscape. I support many of the amendments to improve it, not least those laid by my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I need to make a couple of quick points, because we want the Bill to succeed.
The Minister will know that since December the Health and Social Care Committee has been conducting an inquiry into community mental health services, because we recognise that unless we start tackling these matters upstream, we will not achieve the Bill’s aims. For so many, it feels like they are walking through an NHS desert: they simply cannot get the appointments they need; they do not feel supported; and no one can navigate this complex system.
Just a few weeks ago, while still on maternity leave, I decided to have a keeping-in-touch day and the Committee decided to visit an oasis in this desert—the incredible Barnsley Street neighbourhood mental health centre in Tower Hamlets. Unfortunately, the centre is one of only six pilots set up to this level across the country, but we heard some amazing stories of how people had been diverted away from in-patient mental health units by an approach that truly puts the patient at its centre. It was inspiring. However, we heard from the centre that its funding will not continue beyond April. It is only just starting to gather the data it needs; system change is desperately needed in this space, but the concern is that the system will change without robust data behind it. My question to the Minister is, will the centres be funded beyond April? If not, how can the Department make decisions about the system based on data that does not represent a full calendar year?
I also want to speak in support of amendment 9. I pay tribute to Cyril and Dianne whose son Leon suffered from schizophrenia for many years and sadly completed suicide in January 2019. He was let down by community mental health services. Leon’s mother, Dianne, saw the illness get worse and worse, and when she tried to re-refer him into the system after he had been detained, she was told, “Computer says no.” This Bill will improve the lives of families like Dianne and Leon’s, because Dianne’s pleas would have been heard under the new nominated persons provisions. Amendment 9 would be an extra step, ensuring that the plan is shared with parents and carers—with the nominated person. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned so doggedly for the inclusion of nominated persons in the Bill.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I am no expert on mental health law, but I do have decades of experience in the health and care sector, and my sister is a psychiatrist. I know that the decision to detain someone with severe mental illness is never taken lightly, and that psychiatrists must weigh up a range of factors and information to come to a final decision. I tabled amendments 43, 44 and 45 and new clause 34 after a number of conversations with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has expressed concern about the wording used in the detention criteria.
Taken together, the purpose of my amendments is to ensure that the detention criteria are aligned with good clinical practice. It is important that they are reflected in the primary legislation, rather than simply relying on a code of practice. They would remove from the detention criteria mention of the terms “likelihood” or “may be caused” to allow psychiatrists to make a straightforward, holistic assessment of individual risk in the context of significant mental disorder. The risk is that “likelihood” suggests that it is possible for clinicians to predict serious harms such as violence or suicide when it is not possible to do so, while the idea of causation neglects the fact that complex background conditions can be the genesis of a harm. There is a risk, too, that the language may lead to preventive detention—more detention, not less. It is always easier with hindsight, when unexpected harms have happened, to oversimplify causation and ask, “Why was this person not detained?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
As a member of the Bill Committee, I had the opportunity to closely examine the development and scrutiny of this Bill alongside my Opposition colleagues. We sought to strengthen the legislation, particularly in relation to safeguarding children and ensuring robust protections for those admitted under the Mental Health Act framework.
Given the shortness of time, I will speak only about amendments 41 and 42. They make the vital clarification that the nominated person for any patient under the age of 16 must have parental or guardian responsibility unless there are clear and established safeguarding concerns. In essence, that would ensure that the parents remain the lawful decision-makers and the first and most natural safeguards for their child’s welfare.
Let us consider, for a moment, what is at stake. Imagine a vulnerable 14-year-old girl, frightened and confused during a psychiatric admission. In that moment of distress, a well-meaning adult—or, worse, someone with a hidden agenda—could persuade the child to nominate them as their representative. That individual would then gain legal powers to object to treatment or discharge decisions, while the parents—the very people who know the child best and have both a moral and legal duty to protect them—could be sidelined.
Once such a nomination is witnessed, it carries legal force. The rights and responsibilities of parents could, in effect, be overridden. Although that may sound hypothetical, it is not. Family courts have seen precisely how manipulative individuals exploit vulnerable young people. Groomers, traffickers and abusers thrive in the legal grey zones. If we are not crystal clear that only a court may displace parental responsibility, we risk leaving the door ajar for such exploitation. I ask the Minister to assure the House in winding up that no child under 16 will be permitted to override parental authority simply by nominating someone else, without a full and proper judicial process.
The Bill does have fallback provisions, which are of course welcome, but they are not watertight unless the law explicitly confirms that only a court can transfer or restrict parental rights.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The only protections that I can see in schedule 2 are an age requirement, a stipulation not to be disqualified by a previous court order, and the presence of a witness. There is therefore no pre-emptive way of protecting people, which is why amendment 41 is so important.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both he and I made those points in Committee. I am surprised that the Minister does not see the risks here. The safeguard that my hon. Friend talks about must be beyond any doubt. The amendment in his name provides exactly that clarity. It would prevent unrelated or loosely connected individuals from stepping into a role that rightfully belongs to those with both a legal duty and an emotional bond—the parents or guardians—and it would preserve the fundamental principle that parents should not find their role diminished by accident or administrative oversight.
As I was saying, this is not an abstract risk; it is a very real and foreseeable consequence of the unclear drafting. These amendments do not weaken the rights of patients. They strengthen the protections around them. They ensure that in modernising this law, quite rightly, we do not inadvertently undermine the oldest and most important protection of all: a parent’s duty to safeguard their child. We must ensure that the state can only curtail that right under the strictest judicial scrutiny, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. In doing so, we will make this legislation not only legally sound but, in my view, morally right.
New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), would require local authorities and ICBs to supply a fully costed plan to ensure they are able to provide adequate community services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I support that entirely. As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and from speaking to groups in my constituency such as Last Wednesday and Growing Hope, I know that the process around SEND is complicated and not fit for purpose. Fortunately, we have a chance to help it slightly with this Bill, so I ask the Minister to support new clause 31.
Sojan Joseph
I would like to speak in support of new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). On Second Reading, I warmly welcomed the changes that this legislation will introduce regarding autistic people or those who have a learning disability. As a result, it will no longer be possible for someone to be detained in a mental health hospital indefinitely simply because they have autism or a learning disability. In the current system, autistic people and those with a learning disability have experienced inappropriate care, over-medication and extended periods of detention because of a lack of facilities in the NHS and social care, so this change is welcome and long overdue.
The Government have confirmed that the changes will be implemented once the necessary community provision is in place. Establishing strong support in the community is essential for not only enabling safe discharge from hospital settings but preventing unnecessary admissions in the first place. I recognise that the Government are working on setting out what strong community services look like and what resources they require to implement them. From serving with the Minister in Committee, I have no doubt about his commitment to ensuring that this community provision is introduced in a timely manner, but I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that there should be a road map in the legislation that will provide a clear framework outlining how those services will be introduced. After all, ending inappropriate detention requires robust community-based alternatives to ensure that people with autism or a learning disability who would have previously been detained do not fall through gaps in the system.
Having a road map developed in conjunction with autistic people, people with learning disabilities, their carers and healthcare professionals will help to identify and address any gaps in service provision and workforce capacity. I also believe that it will help to reduce the risk of people with autism or a learning disability needing police intervention or emergency hospital care because the support is inadequate. By putting in place a road map, new clause 37 would help to ensure that we end all the sooner the injustice of people with autism or a learning disability being detained.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I will speak to amendments 24 to 28 and 36 to 38 in my name, which address gaps in crisis provision and accountability for autistic people and people with learning disabilities.
On Second Reading, I told this House about Declan Morrison, my constituent who died aged just 26 after spending 10 days in a section 136 suite that was wholly inappropriate for his complex needs. I remind the House that section 136 suites are designed for 24-hour stays, or a maximum of 36 hours in extreme cases. The coroner who investigated Declan’s death found that
“there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken.”
The timeline of what happened in the run-up to Declan’s death shows a cascade of systemic failures. Declan’s family, Graeme, Sam and Kaitlyn, have asked me to ensure that Parliament learns from what happened. These amendments in my name reflect those lessons and the coroner’s recommendations.
In Committee, the Minister made several points about earlier versions of these amendments, which I have tried to address in these revised versions. In particular, on crisis accommodation, the Minister argued that existing duties on ICBs already cover crisis provision and that the amendment was too prescriptive, potentially restricting ICBs in designing provision, emphasising the importance of flexibility for ICBs to meet local needs. I understand the desire not to be overly prescriptive, but in Declan’s case, over 100 places were contacted and no suitable accommodation could be found anywhere in the country. Flexibility failed Declan.
The revised version of the amendment allows for regional solutions beyond the ICB, but I suspect that the Minister will still find it too prescriptive. However, the fundamental question remains: should there not be a duty to ensure that provision exists somewhere? The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB established a crisis service after Declan’s death that operated at 98% capacity, demonstrating both need and viability, but it closed when funding was withdrawn, highlighting the challenge with voluntary provision.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
On funding, the Devon partnership NHS trust looks after people with mental health challenges in the Torbay community, where levels of depths of despair are particularly high. The trust is facing a £21 million cut, so does my hon. Friend agree that changes will be irrelevant if we do not have adequate funding?
Ian Sollom
I agree that resources need to be put in place to support the many good measures in the Bill and in many of the proposed amendments. In Declan’s case, services were created in the wake of tragedy and funding was found, but too often such services disappear when attention moves elsewhere.
I recognise that the implementation challenges are real, and I appreciate that the Minister has committed to providing annual written statements on progress, but I believe the principles in the amendments around crisis provision, proactive intervention, accountability and co-production with autistic people merit consideration. As much as I would like him to, I do not expect that the Minister will have a late change of heart on the amendments today. However, I hope he will be willing to meet me after the Bill receives Royal Assent to discuss how we can work together to ensure the systemic failures that led to Declan’s death are properly addressed during implementation of the measures in the Bill. In stopping those systemic failures, we would honour the memory of Declan.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
In the interest of time, I will turn straight to new clause 25, tabled in my name.
The Bill sets out a range of situations where the competence of a patient aged under 16 will be relevant, but it does not set out a framework for how it should be determined. That puts patients under 16 years old at a huge disadvantage. Unlike those aged 16 and over, there is no clear mechanism for determining whether a child under 16 can make decisions and the law assumes that under-16s cannot make decisions for themselves, unless they demonstrate they are able to do so. That means that under-16s may not benefit fully from the rights and safeguards set out in the Bill because they are assumed to lack competence to make the relevant decision. For example, they may not be able to exercise their right to choose a nominated person or to access enhanced safeguards around treatment.
There is currently no statutory test for determining a child’s ability to make decisions. While some may refer to Gillick competence, the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill noted that Gillick competence is “broad”, “ambiguous” and that there were significant inconsistencies in its application. A similar observation was made by the Court of Appeal in a decision earlier this year, which also indicated the Court’s approval of a functional test to determine a child’s competence.
New clause 25 addresses this disparity by introducing a “functional test” to determine an under-16’s ability to decide. This reflects the suggested approach in the current code of practice, adopted by some judges. The Law Commission has recommended a similar test as part of its proposed legal reform concerning disabled children’s social care. This test fills a significant gap in the Bill, providing important clarity for professionals when a child’s competence needs to be determined. Crucially, the test set out in new clause 25 is explicitly limited to decisions made under the reformed Mental Health Act. It does not cover decisions falling outside of the Act, so does not affect the existing decision-making powers of the courts or those with parental responsibility. A clear and consistent approach to assessing a child’s competence can only be achieved by including a test on the face of the Bill, as the code of practice can only reflect the law—it cannot prescribe a test for competence. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point at the end of this debate, and if he would consider meeting me to discuss my amendment in more detail. This Bill has many strengths that will deliver for people and modernise mental health care, and it is crucial that we ensure children and young people can benefit from those strengths in the same way adults can benefit.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
This Bill gives us a real opportunity to modernise mental health care and make sure that patient choice and fairness are at the heart of mental health services, but to achieve that, we must first confront the deep inequalities that still shape people’s experience of mental health care, particularly among ethnic minority communities, those facing economic hardship and young people. Like so many issues, the intersectionality between those factors means that some groups face particular challenges in navigating and accessing the help they need.
In Dewsbury and Batley, we see the human reality of that inequality. Rates of depression stand at 15.4%, higher than the national average, and schizophrenia is also more common locally, compared with other constituencies in the UK. Across Yorkshire and the north, mental ill health is consistently higher than elsewhere in England. NHS data and mental health organisations are clear that both ethnic background and wealth disparity play a major role in that gap. People in my constituency are more likely to experience a mental health condition, yet the funding for research and specialised services in the north remains lower. That means less support, fewer beds, and fewer opportunities to provide specialist care.
That is why I strongly support new clause 13, which requires every hospital to have a named person responsible for overseeing race equality in how the Mental Health Act is applied. Black people are still four times more likely to be detained under the Act and eight times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. Without accountability, those injustices will continue. I also support new clause 35, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), which seeks to put limits on CTOs.
We must also do far more for young people. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) powerfully argues for giving under-16s a clearer say in their own treatment decisions. A mother told me how both of her daughters needed mental health support, yet she had to seek private care because local services were overstretched and not up to standard. She pointed me to the Good Childhood Report, which shows that the wellbeing of children in the UK is among the lowest in Europe. I also support new clause 28, which aims urgently to address the need to stop children being placed in adult wards or sent miles away from home for treatment. I welcome the work that West Yorkshire ICB has done recently to expand mental health services for older people, but we must match that ambition for children and young people. If those commitments cannot all be secured through this Bill, they must be delivered in the forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Jen Craft to make the final contribution. All those who have contributed to the debate should make their way back to the Chamber.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will be as brief as possible. I will speak to new clause 37, which stands in my name and which seeks to support the Government in ending the scandal of the inappropriate detention of people with a learning disability and/or autism. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability.
Currently, a learning disability or autism, in and of itself, can be grounds for detention under the Mental Health Act. As we all know, this is an absolute scandal—something from a previous age that should be a source of moral shame to everyone in our community. The Bill seeks to address this by removing autism or a learning disability, in and of themselves, as criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act. That offers a lifeline—a light in the tunnel of darkness that a number of people who are detained under the current Act face.
However, the impact assessment for the Bill states that the proposed changes to the detention criteria in clauses 3 and 4
“will only be switched on when systems are able to demonstrate sufficient level of community support”.
The families and carers of those have a learning disability or autism and who are detained under the Mental Health Act, and the organisations that support them and people who advocate for them, know that too often this vulnerable group of people are pushed to the bottom of a list of competing priorities, and very often slide off it.
We know that this Government and the Department of Health and Social Care have a number of competing priorities to deliver on, and the concern for people who fall into this bracket under the legislation is that their concerns just will not be addressed and that this absolute scandal will continue in perpetuity. People who have a learning disability or autism will be detained because our community services just are not up to snuff; we have so categorically failed them that the only thing we can think to do is to lock them away from society.
Jen Craft
I will not, because I am aware that I am almost out of time.
My new clause would ensure that the Government have to set out, within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, a road map that engages in a co-productive way with people with learning disabilities or autism, their advocates and organisations that champion their rights. The road map will design what they need to support them to lead independent dignified lives in the community, and there will be a report every year to say how we are getting community services to a sufficient place so that these much-needed clauses in the Bill can be switched on.
This Bill updates mental health legislation and brings it into the 21st century. It is only right that it does so for everyone in our society, including the most vulnerable.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank everyone in the Chamber for their contributions to today’s debate. I will start by talking about the deeply moving contributions regarding the tragic death of Ruth Szymankiewicz. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Ruth’s family, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for so powerfully advocating on behalf of Ruth and her family. The circumstances around Ruth’s death were unacceptable and should never have happened. We acknowledge multiple failings in her care.
Turning to the amendments, while we are not accepting any changes to the Bill, I hope that I can assure the House, in the short time remaining, that we are taking action to address the concerns that have rightly been raised. In relation to new clauses 6, 7, 29 and 36, we absolutely do not want young people placed in adult wards, and we are clear that patients should get treatment close to home. However, further legislative restrictions on placements risks leaving clinicians without options in emergencies or preventing treatment that is in the patient’s best interests. NHS England has worked with hundreds of children and families to develop a new service specification for children and young people’s mental health services. The specification is for commissioners and providers to follow, defining the care expected from organisations funded by NHS England to provide specialised care.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Stephen Kinnock
I will, but I have got little time and a lot of amendments to address, so I will not take any further interventions.
Mr Alaba
I had the privilege of meeting Helena and Christina, who shared with me the challenges they faced when their mother was sectioned when they were young girls. For two weeks, the responsibility for care was left entirely in their hands while local services struggled to find a suitable bed. Can the Minister confirm that through the Mental Health Bill, in conjunction with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, young carers will be properly identified and that the additional boost in Government investment directly into mental health services will ensure that young carers receive the support they need?
Stephen Kinnock
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the core purposes of this Bill is to ensure that we catch such issues, particularly around the identification of children in cases where parents are required to be detained. We will reaffirm that children should be treated in the least restrictive, most age-appropriate environment and close to home and family, and that all services would work towards alternatives to admission, such as day care and intensive home treatment, with better support for visits, including with dedicated family areas and overnight stays. We have committed £75 million for systems to invest in reducing out-of-area placements, and I am pleased to report that the number of children placed on adult wards is now decreasing, and that trend must continue.
We have also committed in the Bill to reviewing the existing CQC notification requirements, including whether notification should be extended to other incidents and whether the time period remains appropriate. We will work with families, clinicians and MPs as part of that review. Indeed, following recent conversations with my hon. Friends the Member for Isle of Wight West and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), I have asked officials to host a roundtable next month with Members and experts on how we can provide greater clarity in the code. The focus will also be on NHS England’s service specifications and regulations on the placement of children and young people in adult wards, including determining if a placement is suitable.
The revised code, on which we will engage extensively with—among others—children and their families and carers, will provide further opportunities to address concerns raised in amendments 33 and 39 and new clause 28. The code will also address the issue of competency. We believe that that is more appropriate than a test for competency in the Act, as proposed in new clauses 15 and 25.
Stephen Kinnock
I will, but can the right hon. Gentleman please make his intervention very short?
John Glen
I am grateful to the Minister, and I am also grateful to him for what he said about my constituent. There are so many codes of best practice, and so many guidelines. Can he say a little more about what force the code would have, so that we can have some reassurance that the risks that were so tragic in the case of my constituent will be eliminated?
Stephen Kinnock
The code of practice will be statutory. It is better to have these provisions in the code, because clinical practice evolves, and it is much easier to revise a code of practice than to go through primary legislation.
We understand the concerns expressed about young carers in new clauses 26 and 27, and recognise that despite existing duties, the right questions are not always being asked to identify children when someone is detained. While we do not agree that additional legal duties are needed, especially as multi-agency working is already being strengthened through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we do agree that we need to make the requirements more explicit. The revised code of practice will therefore specify that when someone is detained, steps must be taken to identify the children of the patient. Information about support that is available must be shared, and if a young carer’s needs assessment is required, the appropriate referral must be made.
Stephen Kinnock
I am really struggling for time. I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions, because it is not fair to Members who have tabled amendments.
Amendments 41 and 42 would prevent children with competence from choosing a step-parent or kinship carer as their nominated person if that is the most appropriate person for them. A nominated person can be overruled or displaced if acting against the child’s best interests. Parents will always maintain their rights under the parental responsibility.
Many amendments concern statutory care and treatment reviews designed to help to ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people receive the right care and treatment while detained and barriers to discharge are overcome. Reviews will happen within 28 days of detention, and at least once a year during detention. This can be more frequent, depending on needs. Patients’ families and advocates can request a review meeting at any point. In respect of new clause 32, we have consulted on making some restrictive practices, including long-term segregation, notifiable to the Care Quality Commission within 72 hours.
Let me now deal with amendments 14 and 26 and new clauses 31 and 37. I acknowledge the importance of having a clear plan to resource community provision for people with a learning disability and autistic people to implement these reforms. We have committed ourselves to an annual written ministerial statement on implementation of the Bill post Royal Assent. Following conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), we will work with stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to shape our road map for commencing changes to clause 3. The written ministerial statements will give updates on progress, as well as setting out future plans. It is not possible at this stage for us to commit ourselves to the specifics of implementation and community support, which depend on the final legislation passed, future spending reviews, and engagement with stakeholders to get implementation planning right.
As for the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) about the detention criteria in the Bill, it is vital that the work “likelihood” is included in those criteria to set clear expectations of what clinicians need to consider. However, we are clear about the fact that our intention is not to set a threshold for detention. Under the new criteria, a harm does not have to be likely to justify detention. The criteria require likelihood to be considered holistically, alongside the change, nature and degree of the harm.
I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is keen for me to deal with the question of public safety. The key point is that there are detention criteria in clause 5, which makes a clear reference to harm either to the patient or to other persons. That is clearly a consideration of public safety, and we therefore believe that amendment 40 is surplus to requirements.
I trust that, on the basis of the assurances I have given, Members will be content not to press their amendments and new clauses.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Zöe Franklin, is it your pleasure that new clause 2 be withdrawn?
Zöe Franklin
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 26
Duty to establish carer liaison service
“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part X (Miscellaneous and Supplementary), after section 133 insert—
“133A Duty to establish carer liaison service
(1) The managers of every hospital providing services under this Act must establish and maintain a dedicated carer liaison service.
(2) A service established under this section must provide—
(a) support to unpaid carers when a patient for whom they provide care is—
(i) awaiting admission to hospital for treatment under the Act;
(ii) receiving treatment in hospital under the Act;
(iii) set to be discharged from a hospital where they had been receiving treatment under this Act;
(b) timely and accessible information regarding the discharge of the patient they care for, including details of—
(i) the patient's discharge plan; and
(ii) aftercare arrangements under section 117 of this Act;
(c) support for unpaid carers to identify their own needs and connect to relevant local services for post-discharge support, including local authority adult social care services, general practitioners, and local carers' centres;
(d) facilitation of effective communication and collaboration between unpaid carers and the patient's multidisciplinary clinical team regarding the discharge process;
(e) assistance to unpaid carers in developing or updating a carer's support plan in the context of the patient's discharge, including guidance on—
(i) their rights to assessment and support as carers
(ii) their participation in education or employment;
(iii) available counselling services;
(iv) support in planning for emergencies in relation to the patient;
(v) benefits for the carer and patient; and
(vi) other forms of local support; and
(f) services to ensure that the perspective of the unpaid carer, as a key provider of support, is considered during discharge planning, where appropriate and with due regard to patient confidentiality and consent.””—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause would require hospitals to establish a dedicated liaison service for the carers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before I ask for the next decision, I remind colleagues in the Chamber that once the doors are locked, Members should not be forcing themselves through the doors to either Lobby.
Stephen Kinnock
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Since the Mental Health Act 1983 was passed, and since it was updated in 2007, attitudes towards mental health have shifted dramatically, and our understanding has grown, but the law has been neglected. That is why this Government were proud to announce this Bill in our first King’s Speech, fulfilling our manifesto commitment and taking the first steps towards ensuring patients are consistently treated with dignity and respect—promise made, and promise delivered.
It is clear that adults and young people with mental health issues have been let down for years, which is why we are transforming the current mental health system through our 10-year health plan, including through recruiting more than 8,500 additional mental health workers, delivering more NHS talking therapy appointments than ever before, increasing the number of mental health crisis centres, and providing access to a specialist mental health professional for every school in England.
Today, we are another step closer to delivering the reforms to dealing with people with severe and acute mental health disorders, a step closer to strengthening and clarifying the criteria for detention, and a step closer to better supporting clinicians to make the right decisions around appropriate care and treatment, including community treatment orders. We want to make sure that patient choice and patient needs are at the heart of decision making. That is why we are introducing these reforms to enshrine in law measures such as the clinical checklist, the use of advance choice documents, the role of nominated persons and the expansion of advocacy services.
We are increasing the scrutiny and oversight of compulsory detention. We are making sure that those patients who are detained have a clear path to recovery and to discharge. We are introducing statutory care and treatment plans for all patients, so that their needs are met both during and after their hospital stay. To reduce reliance on in-patient care and ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people get the right support, we are limiting the scope for detention. We are also introducing a package of measures to improve community support, including statutory care, education and treatment reviews and dynamic support registers. We are introducing stronger safeguards for people who lack capacity or competence to consent to treatment—a potentially highly vulnerable group. Those patients will receive a second opinion-appointed doctor at an earlier stage in their treatment.
This Bill has been the product of years of work predating this Government, and it is right that we thank hon. Members and peers for their scrutiny and support over many years. We should particularly note the work of the former Prime Minister Baroness May for launching the independent review that paved the way for this legislation, along with the review chair, Sir Simon Wessely, and his vice-chairs, Steven Gilbert, Sir Mark Hedley and Baroness Neuberger.
I thank Members who served on our Public Bill Committee, including the Chairs, and the clerks and all the parliamentary staff who have worked hard to ensure that the Bill was subject to the proper scrutiny while ensuring smooth and quick passage. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and particularly Lord Alton for its report and recommendations. I am grateful to the devolved Governments for their support during the Bill’s passage and to the Welsh Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly for granting legislative consent. I thank the Bill team, my private office and all the officials and stakeholders over numerous years who have worked hard to get this legislation to where it is today.
Above all, thanks go to those with lived experience who have bravely shared their personal experiences with us through the independent review, through our consultation with stakeholder groups and through Members across both Houses. The Bill is the product of sustained effort over a number of years. That work will continue following the Bill’s Royal Assent, but none the less it is an important moment to acknowledge and pay tribute to those who have got the Bill to where it is now.
The work continues as we look to implement the legislation. The first priority once the Bill gets Royal Assent will be to draft and consult on the code of practice. We will engage closely with people with lived experience and their families and carers and with commissioners, providers, clinicians and others to do that. Much has been done, but there is much more to do. This Government are delivering on our commitment to modernise the Mental Health Act, and the work begins now to deliver that change on the ground. The Bill will of course now go to the other place, and I thank peers for their previous extensive consideration. I hope the noble Lords will be able to agree to the changes made in this House, so that the Bill can make swift progress to Royal Assent. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I want first to recognise and thank everyone for the constructive debates we have heard here and in the other place throughout the Bill’s passage. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for everything he has done on the Bill, especially in Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his expertise, whose involvement with the Bill began before he was elected to this place. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for their thoughtful contributions.
This is clearly an important and emotive issue, and the respect and sensitivity that have been shown by all sides is a testament to this House. Since the election, we have said that we would not oppose for the sake of opposition. While we have rightly asked tough questions of the Government, we have done so with the best interests of patients at heart, because everybody here wants to help and support vulnerable people better—those patients with the most severe and complex mental health needs. This Bill, which started under the previous Government—I pay tribute to former Prime Minister Baroness May for that—and continued under this Government, will achieve that. We welcome efforts to improve the patient’s voice and involvement in their own care, to ensure that patients receive effective and appropriate treatments, to minimise restrictions on liberty so far as is consistent with patient and public safety, and to treat patients with dignity and respect.
Although we are disappointed that opportunities to strengthen the Bill further have been missed, especially in public safety and the protection of vulnerable children, we listened closely to what the Minister said and to his assurances on action, for which we thank him. We will of course continue to push on these matters, not on party political grounds, but because doing so is the right thing for patients.
We are very disappointed that the proportion of health spending on mental health has been reduced. We welcome the Government’s continuation of our work looking again at how we treat and protect people with the most severe mental health illnesses, so that we can improve the safety, treatment and dignity of patients and the wider public, and ensure that our laws remain relevant and proportionate in the modern world. The Government must now turn their words into action and deliver on the commitments that they have made.
I thank everybody again for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill. We are pleased to support its Third Reading. We hope that it will bring improvements for those we all care about: the patients.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Chambers
The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, which makes mental health law much fairer and more compassionate. However, reforming detention law is only half the job, because without investment in prevention and community care, the Bill risks becoming an improved way of managing failure rather than preventing it. Without proper early intervention, people deteriorate until crisis is the only door open to them.
Melbury Lodge in my Winchester constituency shows what a good partnership can look like: NHS teams working with citizens advice to help patients sort out debts, bills and benefits before discharge—recovery is impossible if patients return home to a pile of threatening letters and bills. Yet schemes like that are the exception, not the rule. Debt, insecure housing, domestic abuse and bereavement are not side issues—they are often root causes—and care plans that ignore them are not truly caring.
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I pay tribute to the extraordinary people working at the frontline of mental health care—nurses, doctors, counsellors, therapists, support workers, carers and charities—who hold up a system that too often feels as if it is collapsing around them. Their compassion and professionalism are the reason so many people make it through their darkest moments. They deserve much more than just thanks; they deserve a system that supports them as much as they support others.
In my years of campaigning for better mental health, including as a trustee of a mental charity and, in the past year, as the Liberal Democrat mental health spokesperson, I have become more convinced that mental health cannot be seen as the responsibility of NHS services alone. It must be embedded across society, in education, healthcare, housing, farming and even in the way we support small businesses.
I thank the Minister and his team for all their work on the Bill and their cross-party engagement, as well as everyone who served on the Bill Committee and the Members who have turned up repeatedly to these debates. One thing that does unite the House is improving mental health care.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Business without Debate
Safety of the A500 Audley slip road
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbours and near-neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Congleton (Sarah Russell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) for joining me in the Chamber this evening.
I rise to present this petition concerning the safety of the A500 Audley slip road, which has, along with a corresponding digital petition, received a total of over 260 signatures from residents in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme—the centre of our political universe.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that the A500 Audley slip road, where it crosses Alsagers Road, is not currently fit for purpose and is not safe for local residents, drivers or pedestrians; further, recognises that if action was taken by Staffordshire County Council and National Highways to make it safe, there would be fewer accidents and near-misses and less confusion; declares that there are many ways through which safety could be improved, such as by improving signage, such as including a STOP sign, implementing more pedestrian safety measures, introducing traffic lights, reducing speed limits, improving the road layout design, introducing restrictions on re-joining the A500, reducing surrounding vegetation to allow for greater visibility, placing rumble strips on the slip road, improving visibility by redesigning the crash barriers, introducing cameras or other deterrents for dangerous driving, improving road markings, introducing changes to Junction 16 so lorries are not led onto that section of the A500, and introducing yellow lines as a warning for drivers to slow down as they approach the slip road; and further notes that a corresponding online petition on this issue has received a separate 260 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Staffordshire County Council and National Highways to take immediate action to ensure that the A500 Audley slip road is made safer for local residents, drivers and pedestrians.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
The people of Newcastle-under-Lyme deserve no less.
[P003118]
Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I secured this debate because what is happening in north-east Scotland simply cannot go on. Hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs are being lost on a regular basis across our region from the world-class energy sector that we are so proud of, not least because of the energy profits levy. These are geologists, engineers, technicians and project managers—highly skilled workers who are nothing but of value to the UK—but they are also people with mortgages, people with families and people who have given decades to an industry that this Government are now destroying through deliberately punitive policies.
Offshore Energies UK warns that, largely because of the EPL and other Government policies on the North sea, almost 1,000 direct and indirect jobs will be lost every month. That is 1,000 livelihoods, 1,000 mortgages and 1,000 families facing uncertainty every single month. OEUK also projects that 42,000 jobs are at risk between now and 2030. Energy workers in north-east Scotland feel like they are on borrowed time. No one really celebrates when they manage to survive a round of job cuts, because they know it is likely just to be short-term relief, with more cuts coming soon.
The energy profits levy was introduced in 2022, at a time when oil and gas prices were spiking after Russia invaded Ukraine. At that time, Brent crude peaked at over $130 a barrel and averaged $99 a barrel in 2022. Similarly, in 2022, gas peaked at 640p a therm and averaged 165p a therm that year. Let us compare that with this year. In August 2025, Brent averaged $71 a barrel and gas 81p a therm. That is a 28% and a 51% drop on the 2022 averages, and oil this week is at a six-month low. The energy profits levy has ceased to be a windfall tax. The windfall has gone, and the prices have returned to normal levels. The Competition and Markets Authority found that in 2025, oil markets are now relatively stable, and exceptional circumstances seem to have receded.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Shannon on the north-east of Scotland.
Jim Shannon
Madam Deputy Speaker, I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand to ensure that I was here to support her in what she is trying to achieve in north-east Scotland. It is very important that we add our support to her.
Does the hon. Lady agree that while investment in tidal energy has not produced the desired result of sustainable, reliable energy, the levy on energy profits has achieved a result that is absolutely undesirable and is seeing investment in our countries being moved to the USA and other regions with a more favourable approach? Does she also agree that the economic black hole cannot be filled by more levies but must be filled by investment in our businesses and creating future job security? I commend her.
Harriet Cross
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to talk about the drain of investment and other things from north-east Scotland because of the levy. It feels as if it is a particularly punitive tax on north-east Scotland, given that our region is the energy hub of the UK.
Even though the windfall no longer exists, at the Budget last year the Chancellor still decided that she would increase the EPL from 35% to 38%, giving a headline tax of 78%.
Harriet Cross
The Chancellor also extended the levy until March 2030. Just to ensure that the industry was hit from all angles, she abolished the investment allowance, removing the very mechanism that keeps companies investing.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I share her passion for her constituents and their work in the North sea, because my constituents, over three generations, have done the same work, and I want to see people working in the North sea for another three generations. Does she accept that some 77,000 jobs in the North sea went on the watch of the last Government, and that the move from fossil fuels to renewables is inevitable and must be managed by things like passporting people into jobs?
We must be honest about the fact that offshore jobs are dangerous. I pay tribute to the people who have gone out there for the past 50 years to earn our energy security. The danger that they put themselves in is simply not the same in the renewables sector. Does she accept that we must balance the move from gas and oil in the North sea to renewables in the wild Atlantic, probably, with a managed transition that looks after our communities? However, that does not make it an either/or question of having either carbon from oil and gas in the North sea or onshore and offshore renewables. We can and will do both, and this Government should be committed to both for another 40 years.
Harriet Cross
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. At no point have I ever said that we should be persisting with oil and gas at the expense of renewables. We 100% need both, but both means both sides: we do not need to tax the oil and gas industry out of existence in the North sea in order to scale up renewables, because that will do the exact opposite, as he knows. I appreciate his point that jobs have been lost in the past—I know that because I live in the north-east of Scotland—but what happened to oil and gas prices during that time? Were they at a peak or in a trough? They were in a trough but they are now not, yet we are still seeing jobs cut and production decreasing faster than it needs to because of decisions made by this Government.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend on her speech and on securing the debate. As she knows, this issue is also felt incredibly keenly in the neighbouring constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, which I represent. While the debate about whether it is renewables or oil and gas is a false one, the fact is that skilled workers, whose jobs are being lost in the North sea right now, are the exact workers who we will need in the future to deliver cleaner energy and a more sustainable future. Those jobs do not exist in the UK right now, and they are being lost to the United Arab Emirates, Riyadh, Australia, Mexico and Canada. We need to do what we can to maintain those jobs in north-east Scotland by supporting our oil and gas industry and removing the punitive energy profits levy, which is driving people away from the country and driving companies to make redundancies.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Mr Bowie that Front Benchers do not intervene from the Front Bench in Adjournment debates.
Harriet Cross
I agree that we want to keep the workers that we have, and the skills and expertise that they have developed, in north-east Scotland because they are of huge value to north-east Scotland. They will not stay in north-east Scotland out of virtue but only if the jobs are there for them and it makes economic sense for the companies to keep them there. That is not what is happening at the moment, and we are losing a crucial asset to our energy transition at an extraordinary rate.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The loss of skills impacts investor confidence in the North sea. That investor confidence is directly linked to investor confidence in renewables, given the lack of availability of skills that will result. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to give an end date for this so-called temporary measure as soon as possible, and that that needs to be implemented as soon as practicably possible?
Harriet Cross
Exactly—I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. On that point, I will skip forward a little bit to my first question to the Minister, which is when the Treasury will publish its consultation outcome on the future fiscal regime for the North sea, and whether the Government will wait until 2030 to implement that new regime, or whether they will implement it straightaway. Investment decisions worth billions are being put on hold waiting for that answer. They need to know a month, or ideally a week—not just a vague “in due course”.
Capital investment forecasts for the North sea have fallen by 84%, from over £14 billion to £2.3 billion for the period 2025 to 2029, and Offshore Energies UK calculates that £26 billion of economic value will be lost under Labour’s EPL extension. Some 90% of OEUK’s member companies are now seeking opportunities overseas, and Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce agrees, warning that the EPL is
“eroding investor confidence and driving capital to rival overseas regions.”
Shell’s finance chief has called for certainty and a “stable environment”, noting that the UK’s 78% tax rate is “larger than most” other countries and makes it difficult to have confidence in long-term investments.
Although Norway, which the Government love to use as a comparison, has a similar tax rate, the Government know that this is a false comparison, because Norway also offers full capital cost deductions. It refunds almost 72% of losses to companies and gives a 24% uplift on investment over four years. The result is that Norway attracts 3.8 times more investment than the UK into the same mature North sea basin. Norway’s North sea will see around £35 billion in exploration and production investment through to 2030; ours will see just £10 billion.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I am from the south-west of Scotland, which is as far from the north-east as one can get in Scotland. None the less, this is a huge issue for the whole country. My hon. Friend is making a point about the North sea basin being mature. We always hear that—it is mature, it is declining—but the Norwegian investment is exploiting areas of gas and oil that previously would not have been accessible. New techniques such as horizontal drilling are delivering huge benefits for the Norwegian economy; we are denying ourselves those benefits. Is that not the case?
Harriet Cross
It is absolutely the case—my hon. Friend is completely correct. We are forgoing so many opportunities in the North sea to secure energy for our country and safeguard the skills and jobs that we will need for the transition. There are endless opportunities that, for some reason, we are willing to leave under the North sea.
That brings me to my second question for the Minister. Does the Treasury recognise the damage that the EPL is doing to the North sea? We know that the decline in the North sea did not start with the EPL—it is a mature basin—but the EPL is accelerating that decline. Its ripple effects go far beyond the energy producers themselves. The supply chain is haemorrhaging jobs. Hunting in Aberdeenshire laid off 143 employees; Wood Group cut 200 jobs last year; Belmar Engineering entered liquidation this year, with 48 redundancies; Beam in Westhill collapsed, with 100 jobs lost; Well-Safe Solutions cut about 45 jobs; and Harbour Energy has cut 250 jobs, which is 25% of its onshore workforce. I keep coming back to the words that the Chancellor said when Harbour Energy announced its job cuts earlier this year and cited the EPL as a principal factor. She said that this was just
“a commercial decision by one company”,
but the list I have given—which is not exhaustive—is evidence that that is not the case. It shows that the Chancellor either does not understand, or does not want to understand, the impact the EPL is having.
As I am sure other Members do, I regularly visit companies in the north-east of Scotland whose order books for offshore work have completely dried up, forcing them to adapt their business models to other sectors just to keep afloat. Many of those companies do not know whether they will be here in 12 months’ time. They are not hiring, they are struggling to justify investments, and in many cases, they can do nothing more than hope for a change in Government policy. These companies are owned, grown and run by some of the most innovative and entrepreneurial people I have ever met. They are not afraid of branching out or trying new things—they have done so for their whole business careers—but they are being backed into a corner and are running out of options.
The irony is that this policy is failing on its own terms, in shrinking the very economic activity that it seeks to tax. The Office for Budget Responsibility originally forecast that the energy profits levy would raise more than £65 billion between 2023 and 2028, but the revised forecast is £21.1 billion. We are on track to miss the target by £44 billion, and revenue from the EPL fell from £4.2 billion to £2.7 billion between 2022-23 and 2024-25. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures show that revenues from oil and gas production were down 27% last year.
When did the Treasury last carry out an impact assessment of the EPL’s impacts on production, jobs, economic activity and tax receipts? Have those assessments been revisited following those recent HMRC figures showing the downgraded forecast? Forecasts show that the policy could ultimately cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue by 2050. We have reached the point where the level of taxation means less money. The Government are taxing the North sea so heavily that tax revenues are being lost. We cannot tax jobs that no longer exist, we cannot tax production that no longer exists and we cannot tax businesses that no longer operate in the UK.
There is something else that the Government are ignoring. From the early 2030s, the Treasury will face a £2 billion to £3 billion cost each year in decommissioning rebates, a decade earlier than expected. The premature shutdown of fields, driven by the EPL making them too unviable to continue, makes that liability ever more imminent.
The policy is also undermining our energy security at a time of global instability, suppressing domestic oil and gas production and increasing our dependence on foreign imports. We are now 42% dependent on energy imports. By 2030, it is projected that our reliance on imported gas will increase to 80%, and our liquefied natural gas imports have increased by 40% in the past year alone. Those changes are partly down to geology, but the decline is accentuated by the punitive tax regime for companies operating out of the North sea.
Estimates suggest that there could be 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent remaining in the North sea that could be recovered with the right investment. We could cover half our energy needs to 2050 with North sea reserves. If we drive investment away, we will leave that resource untapped, only for imports from elsewhere to cover them. That is a huge loss of economic opportunity for the north-east of Scotland and the UK as a whole.
That brings me to my final question, and I will soon conclude. Will the Treasury please commit to de-linking oil and gas pricing in the energy security investment mechanism so that both commodities are assessed on their individual market conditions? Time is running out, and that is not an exaggeration. Every month of inaction means another thousand jobs gone. Every delayed investment decision means less energy security for Britain. Every skilled worker who leaves to go overseas is one we will struggle to get back when we need them for the energy transition.
I and, more importantly, the oil and gas sector have four questions for the Minister. First, when will the consultation outcome be published? Secondly, does the Treasury recognise the damage it is inflicting? Thirdly, when was the last impact assessment carried out by the Government? Fourthly, will the Government de-link oil and gas in the energy security investment mechanism? The north-east of Scotland has powered Britain for 50 years. We have contributed hundreds of billions in tax revenues. We developed expertise that is renowned around the world. We have so much more to offer to meet the UK’s current and future energy needs, but only if we are given the chance. Scrapping the EPL is a vital part of that chance.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this debate. I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions so far; I am sure there will be more interventions in the coming 15 minutes. I say to the hon. Member that it is clear how strongly and firmly she seeks to represent her constituents and those of her neighbour, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), as a resident in north-east Scotland. That comes across clearly in the House.
The UK oil and gas industry plays a significant role in our country, just as it has for more than half a century. Alongside its contribution to our energy supply, it has provided more than £400 billion in production taxes since the late 1960s and created thousands of jobs in the hon. Lady’s constituency and in many constituencies in that part of Scotland and across the country.
As we head towards a net zero future, the industry and the region will continue to play a vital role in the energy transition, with which I know the sector is keenly engaged. Between 2018 and 2024, the sector has acted to reduce its emissions by 34%, and we are seeing oil and gas companies make record investments in carbon capture, usage and storage on land and in offshore wind at sea. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan that it is not an either/or; we must have a managed transition in which we do all that we can to protect jobs and industry, and to grow new jobs and industry too. We are all pulling in the same direction; Government and industry are committed to a fair, orderly and prosperous transition for the region, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about that today.
The aim of our tax regime for the exploration and production of oil and gas in the North sea is to support investment in this vital resource, while ensuring that the country obtains a fair return in exchange for the use of an important national asset. I am sure the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan will be very familiar with the tax regime, and I am sure that everyone else in the Chamber is, but let me set it out for the benefit of those who may not be. The regime today includes a ring fence corporation tax that is charged at 30%, the supplementary charge at 10% and, yes, the temporary energy profits levy at 38%. As the hon. Member mentioned, that was introduced amid near-record-high prices following the recovery from covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
While we pursue our net zero targets, we must ensure that we meet the country’s energy needs. That involves energy from overseas alongside our own new nuclear, wind and solar, and, of course, domestic oil and gas. With domestic gas production, net of imports, accounting for the equivalent of about a third of UK gas demand, our oil and gas industry supports more than 100,000 jobs, and will continue to play a significant role in our energy mix for decades to come. In supporting those jobs and the important contribution of the sector, our approach to taxation is, in my view, both responsible and proportionate. We believe in the ongoing contribution of the oil and gas industry and its skilled workforce, and the sector continues to benefit from £84.25 in tax relief for every £100 of private investment, with more relief available for decarbonisation-based investments.
The oil and gas sector is expected to contribute about £16 billion in tax receipts between this financial year and 2029-30, which is roughly equivalent to the entire year’s NHS Scotland budget. The energy profits levy alone has already raised more than £11 billion since its introduction. Yes, that is less than was forecast at the time, but in a way that should be welcome news for the hon. Member, because it means lower energy bills for people up and down the country who are affected by the cost of living—families in her constituency, and in mine.
Harriet Cross
What lower revenues from the EPL mean is that oil and gas companies are not investing in the North sea, that production is falling in the North sea, and that, for example, revenues from income tax—which the Scottish Government might quite like—are falling as well. There is nothing welcome about the Government not meeting their forecast. It is complete madness even to believe that.
Dan Tomlinson
If the hon. Member would have preferred energy prices to stay at their pandemic levels, and money to continue to flow in from the EPL rather than more people throughout the country receiving lower energy bills, that is, of course, a view that she is welcome to hold.
As I was saying, the levy has raised more than £11 billion since its introduction, and is forecast to raise a further £11 billion by 2030. That revenue provides vital funding for our public services, creating sustainable jobs, strengthening our energy security and independence, and supporting the energy transition.
The Government are committed to giving the oil and gas industry long-term certainty and confidence in the fiscal regime. The energy security investment mechanism is the price floor within the EPL, and that gives the sector certainty that if oil and gas prices fall for a sustained period, the EPL will cease. That remains Government policy. The hon. Member asked whether the Government intended to de-link, but the Government policy is to stick with ESIM as it stands.
I know that Members have expressed concern about the approach to tax and how it affects investment in the oil and gas sector, but we have seen capital expenditure in the sector rise from around £4 billion in 2022 to around £6 billion last year. That is why we introduced pragmatic reforms to the levy at the autumn Budget 2024 and refrained from going further than abolishing the levy’s investment allowance, helping to support the sector’s competitiveness. I want to restate to the House today that the EPL will end no later than 31 March 2030.
Working with the sector and stakeholders, the Government published the oil and gas price mechanism consultation on 5 March to give long-term certainty on the future fiscal regime, developing an approach for how we respond to unusually high prices once the EPL ends. As the hon. Member knows, the consultation closed earlier this year. The Government are now hard at work analysing submissions and suggestions, and we will publish our response—I will not say “in due course”; I will say “shortly”. I know that the sector wants certainty from the Government as to what will follow on from the EPL. I hear that, and I am meeting members of the sector this week to hear it directly from businesses. I want this to happen as soon as it can, but I hope the hon. Member will understand that it is not quite in my gift unilaterally to announce the dates and the precise timetable on the Floor of the House.
I understand that there is a need for certainty, and the Government understand just how important that is for businesses and workers in the sector. I reassure the House that it is definitely not our intention to wait until the EPL is about to cease before bringing in new legislation to provide that certainty. I want us to bring forward the necessary legislation for the new mechanism as quickly as we reasonably can, to ensure a smooth and orderly transition for the sector. That is hugely important, and for as long as I am in this post I will do all I can to make sure that we can do that; I hear the points made by Members on both sides of the House.
The Government are already delivering a fair and orderly transition in the North sea. Across the country, we are driving growth and securing skilled jobs for future generations, and that is just as true in the North sea, where we have seen unprecedented levels of investment in offshore wind and where this Government have signed contracts for two first-of-a-kind carbon capture and storage clusters. This endeavour also includes Great British Energy, which, from its headquarters in Aberdeen, will create thousands of jobs across the country, invest up to £1 billion in clean energy supply chains and, as a publicly owned energy company, ensure that the clean energy revolution is built in Britain. Alongside that, the Office for Clean Energy Jobs will work to ensure that we have the skilled clean energy workforce to deliver those goals, so that this investment unlocks thousands of new jobs, kick-starts growth in communities and industrial towns, and secures a cleaner and more independent energy future for the UK.
Graham Leadbitter
A number of skilled jobs are going out of the North sea, and many of these workers will go to other countries—that was the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). That is not sustainable for the skills transfer into the offshore renewables sector, and it is denting investor confidence. There is a serious risk that the build-out of offshore renewables will not go fast enough if investor confidence disappears because of skills loss. It is hugely important that the EPL is addressed as quickly as possible to prevent that from continuing.
Dan Tomlinson
As I said just a few moments ago, 100,000 jobs are directly or indirectly linked to the work and activities in this sector, and it is vital that we support people with that transition. In the long-term, carbon capture and storage alone is expected to support 50,000 skilled jobs by 2050 as we move towards a clean energy transition. I am acutely aware—I have heard it from Opposition Members, and I am sure that I will hear it from my hon. Friends in a second—that we must get the balance right between the timing of phasing out and winding down production in the North sea, and ramping up the clean energy and good jobs that we need for the future. We have to do all we can to protect the sector.
Dan Tomlinson
I will first take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur).
Dr Arthur
I thank the Minister for giving way, but I note that he took my intervention second rather than first—I am not offended!
On the position in Scotland, it is worthing remembering that Scotland’s Deputy First Minister said at the SNP party conference at the weekend that the Scottish Government want to scrap the EPL—sorry, I meant they want to replace it with something else. But, of course, she did not say what that something else was; it is slightly cowardly not to define that detail.
The Minister was talking about the strength of the renewables sector in the UK and how it is growing under this Government, and we all appreciate and welcome that, but that sector also needs continuity and a stable framework to work within. Does he therefore share my concern about the Opposition taking the decision to ditch the Climate Change Act, which has really unsettled the whole industry?
Dan Tomlinson
I believe the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was slightly quicker in standing up than my hon. Friend.
I do understand my hon. Friend’s points. It is very important not to be cowardly in politics, which is why I will make sure that we come forward as fast as we can to set out the approach after the EPL is set to end. This Government, under the leadership of a whole range of Cabinet Ministers, is making sure that we can provide that long-term certainty, not chopping and changing when it comes to our policies on net zero.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan mentioned energy security, which links to the challenge we have with energy bills. It is worth recognising the truth that, even if we extracted every single drop of oil and gas in the North sea, that would not make any material difference to people’s energy bills or the prices that people pay at the pump. Oil and gas are traded on international markets, and given the declining basin on the UK continental shelf, domestically produced oil and gas do not do anything to reduce prices. In fact, it is our reliance on oil and gas that leaves British consumers exposed to unstable fossil fuel markets.
In closing, this Government are determined to provide a balance—
Dan Tomlinson
Does the hon. Member really wish to intervene? [Interruption.] Go on.
John Cooper
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point: this is about balance. We need to find a balance in the transition of people coming out of oil and gas and moving into renewables. The difficulty is that we cannot say to these highly-skilled people that there is a great job for them in renewables but it is going to be 10 years down the line. That is no use to them at all: they have bills to pay and families to feed. The balance is out of kilter, and I am afraid that the Government are getting this wrong.
Dan Tomlinson
I disagree that the Government are getting this wrong. We are doing our best to try to find the right balance to support people, industry and jobs.
We will continue to provide a balanced, responsible and predictable regime for the UK oil and gas industry, which I hope will continue to drive growth, support workers and communities, protect our energy security and ensure a prosperous future for the North sea as we make our way towards net zero. Our commitment, and my commitment as a Minister, to the future of the North sea is clear, and I will continue to engage closely with the industry, workers and Members across the House on this important issue.
I again thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan for securing this important discussion, and I thank Members from across the House for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I take this opportunity to register my solidarity and that of my colleagues with you and your community for what you have been through in recent days. An attack on your community is an attack on all of us, and we stand with you.
Alex Norris
In an increasingly interconnected world, where crime knows no borders, international co-operation that promotes justice and helps keep the British public safe has never been more important. The statutory instrument before the Committee today will enhance our extradition arrangements and bring compatibility between our domestic and international legal frameworks governing extradition co-operation. I shall start by explaining in a little more detail why these changes are being brought at this time and the effect that they will have on our extradition arrangements.
The draft order amends the designation under the Extradition Act 2003 of three states: Chile, Hong Kong and Zimbabwe. Taking those in turn, Chile’s designation is required as it has recently acceded to the 1957 European convention on extradition, of which the UK has been a long-standing supporter. In the light of that change, it is both appropriate and necessary that Chile’s designation be amended from a part 2, category B territory to a part 2, category A territory. The change will mean that Chilean extradition requests will no longer require the provision of prima facie evidence, streamlining co-operation to reflect the underlying international legal framework now in place. It is worth reflecting that this designation is not simply a matter of administrative convenience, but a recognition of Chile’s commitment to international legal standards and a reaffirmation of our own dedication to maintaining robust and principled extradition arrangements. It will enhance the efficiency of our judicial co-operation, reduce unnecessary delays and ensure that justice can be pursued swiftly and fairly.
Turning to the de-designation of Hong Kong, as Members will be aware, the UK suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in July 2020. The move was taken in response to the imposition of national security legislation by the Chinese authorities—legislation that was and remains wholly incompatible with the principles underpinning our extradition framework and the rule of law. Since the suspension, there has been no formal treaty framework in place to underpin extradition co-operation with Hong Kong. The draft order before the Committee today formalises that reality, removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Extradition Act, thereby aligning its status with other non-treaty jurisdictions. I want to be crystal clear about the impact of this legislation. For the avoidance of any doubt, it does not reinstate extradition co-operation between the UK and Hong Kong. It also does not create any new powers for the Government and does not change any powers of UK courts to consider extradition requests.
I am aware of concerns raised by Members across the House, particularly regarding the safety of pro-democracy activists and critics of the Chinese Government who have sought refuge in the UK. I assure the Committee that we take our responsibility towards those potentially at risk of persecution extremely seriously, and that our courts remain independent and vigilant in upholding the rights and freedoms of all individuals. This de-designation is a necessary step to reflect accurately the international legal position in our domestic law. It protects the integrity of our extradition process and safeguards the rights of those Hongkongers in the UK who have fled political repression.
Finally, the draft order de-designates Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was originally designated as a part 2, category B territory on the basis of its participation in the London scheme for extradition within the Commonwealth, a multilateral treaty arrangement that underpinned co-operation among Commonwealth nations. Zimbabwe, however, formally withdrew from the Commonwealth in 2003, and as such the legal foundation for its designation under the Act has since ceased to exist. De-designation now is therefore not a reflection of any change in our diplomatic posture, but rather a necessary legal correction, given that the current designation is incompatible with the UK’s domestic legal framework and international obligations. Zimbabwe’s continued designation was an oversight spanning many years and multiple Governments, which we seek to put right today.
More broadly, this issue highlights the potential for a country to remain listed under part 2 despite the underlying treaty or arrangement no longer being in force. I can therefore confirm, because I know there will be interest in this, that measures have now been put in place to strengthen co-ordination between policy, legal and operational teams across Government to ensure that designation status accurately reflects the relevant frameworks in a timely manner.
To conclude, extradition is a vital tool in our fight against cross-border crime. Offenders should not be able to escape justice by crossing borders. This order ensures that our system remains principled, effective and fit for purpose. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I echo the Minister’s thoughts and sympathies with regard to the horrendous incident inflicted on your community.
For the reasons the Minister has outlined, I can state clearly our support for this order. We all recognise the need to maintain our international agreements and to ensure that our extradition laws remain in line with our current realities. On the more positive side of the ledger, it is always welcome to see the enhanced agreement with Chile; the UK’s first extradition treaty with the country dates back to the 19th century.
Although this piece of secondary legislation encompasses multiple countries, it would be improper not to reflect on the terrible situation faced by those who have had to leave Hong Kong, and by those who have remained and suffered abominable infringements of their rights. Those rights, once so firmly instilled, have withered away under intolerable changes in the law. Jimmy Lai’s recent trial is a timely reminder of how people’s freedoms continue to be undermined.
Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom itself, we see complete disregard for individual freedoms. Pro-democracy protester Bob Chan—a Hongkonger—was injured after being dragged on to consulate grounds and beaten by assailants in 2022. More recently, the use of bounties by Hong Kong’s police force, encouraging the targeting of opposition voices, is heinous. That underscores why it was paramount that the last Government took steps to suspend the treaty, and it is right that the Government recognise that concern by continuing legal steps to sever extradition powers. I hope that the Minister and his former colleagues, many now outside the Home Office, recognise the need to be robust with representatives of Hong Kong and China when dangers present themselves.
On the order itself, I thank the Minister for providing written assurance to my colleagues about these proposals, as it is right that we make sure that any changes the UK makes do not undermine the security of people living in this country, and that extradition is not a tool that can be misused. I particularly welcome his commitment that the Government will never allow a situation where Hongkongers or people of any other nationality are extradited for politically motivated purposes. I hope that the Security Minister continues to take steps to ensure that, including by making certain that no diplomatic building can be used for malign purposes.
It is right that our extradition system is fit for purpose, so I am pleased to be able to support these proposals.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will be brief. I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks to you and your constituents with respect to recent events.
It is a pleasure to make a brief speech in a Delegated Legislation Committee opposite the Minister. When he shadowed me, and sat on this side of the Committee Room, we spent many a happy hour on the Committee Corridor. However, he should rest assured that I do not intend to use this opportunity to get my own back on him for what he did back then, because I regard him not only as a friend, but as an extremely diligent Minister.
In that vein, regarding the largely technical measure before us, I seek only one real assurance from him. It reflects the penultimate two paragraphs of the letter sent yesterday by the Security Minister to members of the Committee. He has reassured the Committee that he has put in place ongoing co-ordination processes to ensure that, on an ongoing basis, any issues that arise are dealt with in a timely fashion.
I seek the Minister’s reassurance that he and his officials are now confident that they have taken this opportunity—with this piece of delegated legislation—to remedy any other errors that might have been identified, or at least checked that there were no other anomalies in the existing legislation.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for those constructive and thoughtful comments from colleagues opposite. I share the positivity that the Opposition spokesperson feels around the progress made with Chile. It just shows that these partnerships, built over time, can build an international rules-based order that creates freedoms around the world. That is something we should be very proud of.
I would also like to make it very clear that I strongly share the shadow Minister’s views on Hong Kong, and I hope colleagues will take comfort from what the Security Minister said yesterday about the Government’s resolution to stand with members of the Hong Kong community, who have really catered to our country. They are making a huge impact in Nottingham, as they are across the country, and we are committed to supporting them. We are proud to stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong, and we will continue to monitor developments closely.
The shadow Minister asked for assurance on our robust engagement with China and Hong Kong, and I can absolutely give him that commitment. As he said so importantly, I also restate the shared view across multiple Governments, and across the House, that extradition must never be used for political purposes. I think we can have a significant degree of assurance that the systems underpinning extradition in this country will endure whatever the changes of Government or political mood or sentiment. The 2003 Act, which we are amending today, and the European convention provide a sound underpinning that gives an independent judiciary the ability to ensure that individuals have that protection. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister and colleagues.
I had a degree of trepidation when I saw the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston—I also cannot get used to saying that name, as I said Oadby and Wigston so many times.
Alex Norris
Charnwood—gosh, it does seem like a thousand years ago. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston was an excellent and helpful Minister when I shadowed him during the pandemic, which was an exceptionally important period for our country. I gave him a tricky ride at times, but I did so in good humour, as he always was too. I am grateful that he is yet to repay that debt, although I am sure that is inbound.
It is worth noting the timeliness of the correction on Zimbabwe, which is 22 years out of date. Thinking back to 2003, I had terrible highlights and was dancing to Busted on the campus of the University of Nottingham, and I was not generally thinking that I would be here 22 years later. When we find something like this, it behoves us to scrub to ensure that there is nothing else. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have done that scrub, and there are no other such anomalies to be tidied up in the future.
To conclude, I want to reiterate that this order does not reflect a change in Government policy towards the countries named, or the extradition system more generally. It seeks to ensure that changes to the international framework are reflected in our domestic law. On that basis, I hope the Committee can support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 14th October 2025
(1 day, 15 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 14 October 2025 - (14 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
As we begin consideration in Committee of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, I have a few housekeeping points to make.
Phones should be switched off. I have just switched mine off, as I do not want to set a bad example. I do not really like gentlemen to remove their jackets; I never remove mine, unless I am in my home or garden, or on holiday. I notice someone getting their tie on quickly.
We will power through this, but we will also give the Bill full consideration. I have made it clear to the Government Whip, as I now make it clear to others, that we are not going to delay unduly; equally, we will not hurry through without proper scrutiny. Getting that balance right will be my job.
Everyone is entitled to speak, and they should let me know that they wish to do so in the normal way. Anyone who wants to press an amendment to a vote needs to notify me, or make it clear in their speech that they will press for a vote—unless, of course, the Minister satisfies them, possibly by conceding the amendment, in which case a vote will not be needed. We will see about that as we go. Let us have a good Committee, with everyone enjoying it and participating, so that we have good scrutiny of legislation.
We are sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. I emphasise, no tea and coffee—it states that in my script, by the way, but I guess you knew it anyway—but you may refresh yourselves with water.
We now begin line-by-line consideration. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. There has been a bit of a change, because a Member withdrew their amendments late on, so we will be getting an up-to-date version of that.
The Member who has put their name to a lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak by bobbing. If we have had a full debate on a clause through discussion of the amendments, I will probably not allow a separate stand part debate. If we have not had full consideration, we will have a stand part debate on that clause. I will gauge that as we go, mindful that we need to make progress, but have proper scrutiny, as I said.
At the end of a group of amendments and new clauses, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment, which includes grouped new clauses, that is at the Chair’s discretion. The Member must inform the Chair in advance if they wish to press an amendment. My fellow Chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates. I hope that is helpful.
Clause 1
Strategic authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 35—Standardisation of definitions—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations standardise the definition in legislation of—
(a) ‘national’,
(b) ‘strategic’,
(c) ‘local’ and
(d) ‘community’
for the purposes of ensuring each refers consistently to the appropriate level of local government across all legislation.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(3) In exercising this power, the Secretary of State must have due regard to the need to ensure consistent use of the words listed in subsection (1), to facilitate public understanding of devolution.
(4) Within six months of a statutory instrument under subsection (2) being made, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out how the power under this section has been used this power, including any reasons for failure to exercise it where there is inconsistent usage of the words listed in subsection (1).”
This new clause would ensure that words like “strategic” and “local”, where they relate to a level of government, have consistent meaning across statute.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. Before I speak to the first group of amendments, I put on the record my thanks to the witnesses who gave up their time in September to give evidence to the Committee. Their comments were insightful and will inform our scrutiny over the remainder of Committee stage.
The English devolution White Paper committed to introduce in law the concept of strategic authorities, which sits at the heart of our new devolution architecture for England. The clause makes good on that commitment and establishes a more consistent and simple model of devolution. The clause sets out the three levels of strategic authority: the single foundational strategic authority, the combined foundational strategic authority and the mayoral strategic authority. Each category will have access to a consistent set of devolved powers and functions.
Mayoral strategic authorities that meet specified eligibility criteria may be designated by secondary legislation as established mayoral strategic authorities, unlocking further devolution. We believe that that will deliver a permanent shift in power from Whitehall to all parts of the country, with consistent powers at the right level across all of England, so that empowered mayors can drive growth, unlock house building and infrastructure, and deliver the change that our communities want.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s welcome, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.
We will refer to a good deal of evidence on all parts of the Bill, but it is important to set out briefly—in terms equivalent to those used by the Minister—the concerns that the Opposition continue to have about the significant democratic deficit that arises from the measures in the Bill; the risk of losing the efficiency and local insight that come from many of our local government structures; and, in the context of a country that already has fewer elected representatives per voter than any other developed democracy in the world, the impact of stripping out, by some estimates, up to 90% of elected representation. I therefore echo your comments, Sir John, on the importance of scrutiny of the Bill. Local authorities are the means by which our voters, our residents, exercise control over what happens in their neighbourhoods and communities. It is critical that the legislation gets that right.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We absolutely recognise the hon. Member’s point about democracy. Directly elected mayors can play a powerful strategic role. They are a key new part of the devolution architecture that we have seen work well across the country. I point to Greater Manchester, which has delivered the fastest growth of any local economy. They sit alongside strong democratic structures that we will have in local government. The Bill is complementary to that and does not cut across or undermine those structures.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I have had the whole summer to forget how these things work, so I look forward to being firmly guided by you if I stray from good practice.
I will speak to new clause 35. In that context, I emphasise how friendly, constructive and helpful the new clause is intended to be as a way of getting the Committee started on a good note. I ask Ministers to take the need for it on board, although I will not press it to a vote. I tabled the new clause to ensure that, more broadly, words such as “strategic” and “local”, where they relate to a level of government or a level of area of policy, have a consistent meaning for strategic authorities, constituent authorities and community-level groups.
I will give some examples of possible confusion growing in the areas cited in new clause 35. We have a strategic road network, which is in fact a national network managed by National Highways. We have new strategic authorities, which will have to manage a key route network, analogous to the Transport for London route network. We also have local roads managed by local authorities. In the Bill, however, we have strategic authorities being asked to make a local transport plan. That could be more helpfully named a strategic transport plan.
Another area of policy I am very familiar with is the community infrastructure levy. In later clauses, we will discuss new applications of the mayoral community infrastructure levies. I have experience of how, more locally, spending on what most local councils call strategic community infrastructure levies is done by local authorities. Decisions on local CIL spending, which is what councils normally call is, are made closer to the community, often by ward councillors or neighbourhood forums.
We are slightly better off in planning, where there is a national basis for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure, and where strategic planning applications may be called in by regional strategic level mayors under current or new structures. However I do think that we lack rigour, sometimes logic, and often clarity in all these terms now. More thought about making things more standardised and easier to understand would be very welcome. I am not proposing a vote on this new clause, but what I would like to hear from the Minister today is that she will take this away, ask for at least a report on the current range of terminology we have ended up with in different areas of policy, and consider potential further amendments and the fuller review the new clause calls for.
The Chair
As a point of advice, if people want to contribute after I have called the Minister to sum up then just let me know in advance and I will call the Minister at the end, so she can respond to a variety of points that have been made. I do not want the Minister to have to keep getting up and responding to every speech. I know people are new to Committee, but it helps the Minister be able to sum up her consideration of all the points that have been made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the new clause, and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion makes a good point regarding the tapestry of terms that we have in a very complicated local government structure; however, the Bill already includes defined terms relevant to interpreting local government structures. For example, clause 1 defines exactly what strategic authorities are. My concern is that taking a one-size-fits-all approach might have unintended consequences by altering existing definitions that have been deliberately tailored to work in specific legislative contexts. My view is that as we go through this process of standardising the new structure, with strategic authorities now established in legislation working alongside local government and community structures, the roles and the definitions of different structures of government will become much clearer. I hope the hon. Member will not press the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Functions of Strategic Authorities and Mayors
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 261, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “economic development”, insert “, poverty and socio-economic inequality,”
This amendment would make poverty and socio-economic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas.
Siân Berry
The amendment relates to the fact that the new strategic authorities simply must be tasked with reducing inequality as well as creating growth. We know that growth for growth’s sake does not trickle down or help everyone equally. The strategic authorities must be tasked with understanding, measuring and reducing socioeconomic inequality. The socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010 is not yet commenced for England, but if it were the amendment would have to be made.
The amendment would make poverty and socioeconomic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality, this is an issue close to my heart. In July, the officers and I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Women and Equalities to ask about the urgency of commencing the socioeconomic duty. We said,
“The urgent need for the duty could not be clearer. Rising child destitution, increasing reliance on foodbanks and untimely excess deaths attributable to austerity policies all highlight the imperative for a legal tool to reduce socio-economic inequalities”.
We also said,
“Activation of the Socio-Economic Duty marks an important shift from piecemeal responses to rising poverty and widening inequalities, to a proactive systemic approach, embedded across all policy areas”.
The Bill is an opportunity to embed those principles.
I do not believe that these two actions—the commencement of the duty and the writing of this Bill—are mutually exclusive in achieving these goals. I cannot see why, given the Government’s promise to enact the duty, the new bodies should not be set up with it in place and in mind. I know that organisations including many local authorities are already preparing to comply with it in England. Towards the end of last year, one of my Green party colleagues on the London Assembly questioned the Mayor of London with some urgency about the work that he is doing with local authorities and agencies across London to prepare for this. We are now approaching the end of this year and it is still not in place. I believe that the Bill is the right place to start putting this into legislation.
I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote, but I would like to hear more from the Minister about when the Labour Government plan to bring the duty into force, and what plans Ministers have to use a statutory instrument to apply it to strategic authorities and mayors. Even if they will not accept the amendment, I would appreciate anything on the record asking those bodies to get ready for the duty, so that when they are set up, they can hit the ground running on addressing poverty and inequality in their areas.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have some sympathy with the amendment, but we spent time reflecting on its implications and appropriateness for the Bill. I suspect that, to a degree, the Minister and I agree on this point. If we reflect on the legislative framework around our local authorities from their earliest origins, the relief of poverty and addressing inequalities—the duties that the amendment refers to—have been enshrined. It goes back as far as the Poor Laws, but in more recent years the National Assistance Act 1948 compelled all local authorities to support those destitute in their areas, and the Localism Act 2011 gives scope for local authorities to use their economic powers through activities such as procurement in ways that specifically benefit the local area.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was much debated and broadly had cross-party support, is reflected in a lot of this Bill. It was specifically about local authorities using their powers to support the economy of their local area. Just a short time ago, some of the members of the Committee were in this room debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, in which the Government set out a vision—contested to some extent—about how those measures affecting local authorities will address persistent issues of inequality. We recognise that sometimes that is about legislation, but sometimes it is about Government action.
Mention has been made of food banks, which were rolled out under the last Labour Government as a means of addressing persistent issues of poverty. I remember them being opened during my time as a local authority councillor, and Gordon Brown visiting and saying, “This is an example of how we expect local authorities to address some of these persistent issues.” Local authorities already have these duties at both the strategic and the micro level. I question whether it is necessary to add an amendment that, in essence, reflects existing duties throughout all the different tiers of local government in England.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I shall start by setting out the purpose of clause 2, then turn to amendment 261. The clause provides some broad thematic policy areas under which functions and powers of strategic authorities are arranged in the Bill. Defining those areas on the face of the Bill will bring clarity and purpose to the role of strategic authorities, which all parties agree we need to do. We want to empower mayors, who know who their areas best, to respond to local needs, so they can be the ones driving change and improvements in economic prospects and living standards and poverty. These thematic policy areas are deliberately broad, to allow for a wide range of activities.
I have a lot of sympathy with the intention behind amendment 261. Alleviation of poverty and tackling socioeconomic inequality should be a core part of what we do and a core metric of economic success. However, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner set out, those duties are already baked into the very function and purpose of local authorities and, critically, they cut across all the thematic areas that we have set out.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Single foundation strategic authorities
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) A unitary district council or a county council may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as a single foundation strategic authority.
(2) A proposal under subsection (1) must be prepared in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a unitary district council as a single foundation strategic authority if—
(a) a proposal has been submitted in accordance with subsection (1), and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the designation is appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence.”
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power to designate a single foundation Strategic Authority. Instead, a local authority would initiate the request by submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 87, leave out lines 1 to 29.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor for the area of an existing combined authority.
Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 95, leave out paragraph 33 and 34.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA without a public consultation.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 4, 28 and 29 seek to ensure that this is a genuinely community-led devolution—I am sure that we will repeat that many times throughout the morning. Fundamentally, the Bill seeks to move decision making closer to home, which we welcome. However, closer to home needs to start at home, and we want it to be councils that take the initiative to establish a single foundation authority, not the Secretary of State. We also believe that the public should play a role, and therefore this process should involve consultation, which we believe these amendments will provide.
This is a really important issue for us; we think it is fundamental to the whole concept of devolution. As a result, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will speak to these amendments in more detail, and we will push amendment 4 to a vote.
David Simmonds
We know there will be quite a degree of debate on this in due course. We sympathise with the objectives of the amendment, and we all share the concern that local people should be the ones who initiate change in the structures that govern their local areas, not the Secretary of State or the man in Whitehall who knows best. Therefore we have sympathy with the objective, and we shall return to that debate later on with some of the amendments around the structures.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Amendments 4, 28 and 29 would make English devolution genuinely local by ensuring that local consent and public consultation come first. Amendment 4 would change clause 3 so that local authorities must apply to the Secretary of State themselves to become a single foundation strategic authority, rather than Whitehall imposing devolution on local councils. Amendments 28 and 29 would remove the parts of schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor in an existing combined authority area, and for the establishment of a combined county authority, without public consultation.
One of the greatest criticisms of the Bill is that it proposes a top-down, Whitehall-led devolution, which is not really devolution at all. In my county of Warwickshire, the choice of which strategic authority we create, form or join must come from local elected representatives who are closer to their communities and understand better the needs of our constituents. Such an important shaping of future governance must have grassroots support and should not end up being imposed by central Government, especially if we want to decentralise powers to tackle socioeconomic inequalities, address regional disparities and promote real autonomy.
Without the amendment, local people will lose the right to decide their own governance arrangements. Whitehall will be able to impose devolved powers, force mayoral models on to areas that have not asked for them, and redraw local governance boundaries behind closed doors. Community involvement and local consent are essential to ensure transparency and accountability in devolution decision making.
Amendment 4 reaches the heart of the issue at hand. It would ensure that devolution is locally led, not imposed. It would ensure that a council that wishes to become a single foundation strategic authority must initiate the process itself, rather than wait for the Secretary of State to decree it. If devolution is to have legitimacy, it must be built on local consent, local ambition and local accountability. Without that, we risk the Bill becoming an exercise in central control and a top-down approach dressed up as devolution. We would like to push amendment 4 to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Both the policy intent and the practice with places going through the devolution process are locally led. The impetus is coming from local leaders and local authorities that are working with their communities to drive the process.
On amendment 4, the Government have been clear that we will consider non-mayoral devolution arrangements for single local authorities on an exceptional basis where certain criteria are met. Designation is not intended as the end point; it is a stepping stone towards deeper devolution, which is what we hope will be the journey for all parts of the country. It is therefore most appropriate for the process to be initiated by the Secretary of State rather than the local authority. However, to be clear, the Secretary of State will not be able to designate a council as a foundation strategic authority unless the council itself consents to that designation. That is a robust safeguard that will protect the interests of the single local authority concerned. I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government. I am pleased that those criteria are already embedded in the Bill when conferring functions on a single foundation strategic authority.
Amendment 28 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s proposed power to direct for there to be a mayor for an existing combined authority without local consent. The Government have been clear about the benefits of mayoral devolution; we are seeing it across the country. For example, South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority brought the Supertram network back into public control after 27 years, and there are already drops in fare evasion, increases in usage, ticketing apps and improved clearing. Greater Manchester authority has taken control of its bus service, resulting in increased punctuality and ridership and cheaper fares. The North East combined authority has secured a £450 million development for one of the largest film studios in Europe, with the potential to create over 8,000 jobs.
We know the impact of this devolution model. We are seeing it across the country and we want to see it in more areas. We are clear that mayors with skin in the game are best placed to drive forward growth, reform public services and deliver the change that their communities want. Every resident in England should be able to benefit from deeper mayoral devolution in their area.
David Simmonds
There is, perhaps, a risk of the Committee being inadvertently misled, in that all these points are being described as locally led. The Committee needs to be clear: local authorities were told that they needed to submit the proposals or the Government would take powers to direct them to do it. It was a gun to their heads. It was not the case that local authorities came forward proactively. During the 14-year era under the previous Government, it was clear that proposals that did come forward for reorganisation would be entertained by Government, and a number of those were taken forward, but compulsion was not the case. It is only since the Government told local authorities that they either had to come forward or would be directed to do so that we have seen the proposals, so it is not the case that they are locally led. The Committee needs to be clear on that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely disagree. I have been having conversations, for example, with our strategic combined authorities that are going through the process. The difference between this Government and the last is that we have created a clear sense of the powers and the economic opportunities that areas can take forward. Take, for example, our current devolution priority area. I am the new Minister, and I am having the first set of conversations with them. Every single one is excited and enthusiastic about the prospect. At the moment, the demand for devolution deals is outstripping our ability to respond, because we have attached to them clear powers, access to funding and the ability to drive the change that we want to see in those areas. So I completely reject the premise that places are being driven to do this.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
There is a risk here that we are conflating what is actually happening on the ground. The Minister is absolutely right, and no one can argue that this Government have not been clear about the structures that they want to put forward. However, to say that there is a demand from local authorities requesting devolution is stretching it a bit, because it is quite clear out there—particularly in my area, in Hampshire and the Solent—that this Government have said to them, “You have to do this; otherwise we are going to force it on you.” That is not locally led, is it?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I spoke to the leaders of Hampshire and the Solent just last week, and they were unanimously enthusiastic about what was being proposed, because they could see the opportunity. I am pleased that it is being voted on, and ultimately it is for places to come forward. What we have said to them is, “If you go through this journey, there are powers that you can draw down that will allow you to drive change in your areas.” The strategic authorities, combined authorities and constituent authorities can see the economic prospect. They see what is happening in Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region and the west midlands, and they want that for their residents. That is absolutely right, and what we are doing is enabling and supporting that.
Let me talk about the backstop power provided here. We do not expect to use it, which is why it does not come into force at Royal Assent; it is there if we need to draw on it. The only reason it is there—because we think the demand and the momentum created by devolution will do the job for us—is in the instance where there are blockages. That means when constituent authorities that want to move forward are being resisted by a particular authority, we give ourselves the ability to intervene. The reason we are doing that is because we do not want any residents to be left out. We do not want areas to be devolution deserts, not being able to benefit from the economic opportunities and prospects provided.
Vikki Slade
The reality is that the only reason they are queuing at the Minister’s door to access devolution is that they are being denied access to funding if they do not. Let me give the example of Wessex: Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire have all been unitarised over the past 10 years. They should have been in the ideal position, but they were overlooked for the first wave of devolution. They were apparently not ready, and I accept that fact, but they have missed out this financial year on more than £300 million—£159.29 for every single household in that area—compared with other areas. They have no real choice but to devolve to a single authority, because why would their residents think it is acceptable for them to miss out on £300 million? So it is not fair, or it is disingenuous, to suggest that this is not compulsion. The other point I want to make—
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is absolutely right that we say that, in order to drive economic success in particular areas, there are powers that relate to economic drivers and levers that we want, and there is an investment fund that can be deployed at that functional level. I will not resile from that; it is absolutely the right thing to do. We are clear with places that we think a strategic authority operating at a functional geography is the way to unlock their economic potential, and we are building powers alongside that. Places that want to take it up absolutely can. At the moment they are queuing up to do so, and I am incredibly happy about that.
I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for Hamble Valley for not getting on in support of his area, which is enthusiastic for this and moving forward. Ultimately, there is momentum around devolution because the benefits of it are being seen already. It is not theoretical; it is not on paper. We are seeing it in our areas, and I want it for every part of the country, not just the ones that have gone through the journey.
Paul Holmes
The Minister should be very careful about attributing motives to myself that are not there. I am very supportive of the fact that Hampshire and the Solent and will have a mayor. Hopefully, it will be a Conservative mayor, as that will drive the economy going forward. I want to press the point that we can see how divisive this is in the fact that three different versions of local government reform are being proposed. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight were told, in this Government policy, that if they did not go ahead and embrace devolution, it would be forced on them in a way they may not like. That is not locally led; it is compulsion, is it not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will not press this point. All I can say is that I sat down with the leaders last week as a new Minister—the newbie—and I asked them how it was going. They told me, “we are enthusiastic and there is momentum around this because we can see the value that it will provide for our communities, so we are driving forward. What we need is for Government to get out of the way and for the Government to support and enable us.” I take that as a ringing endorsement of what we are trying to do. I can only go by the conversations I have had with local leaders. At the moment, I am seeing momentum and support for this, and rightly so because we are seeing the impacts of this on the ground and the Bill will extend that across the country.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) Before making a designation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the area of the proposed single foundation strategic authority.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to the unitary district council or county council within which they are situated being designated as a single foundation strategic authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 266, in schedule 1, page 79, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 267 to 273, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved.
Amendment 267, in schedule 1, page 79, line 33, leave out subparagraph (b).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 268, in schedule 1, page 80, line 18, leave out “subsections (3) to (5)” and insert “subsection (3)”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 269, in schedule 1, page 80, line 20, leave out paragraph 6.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 270, in schedule 1, page 80, line 21, leave out paragraph 7.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 271, in schedule 1, page 82, line 11, leave out paragraph 14.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 31, in schedule 1, page 83, line 3, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the proposed new combined authority area.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to proposing a new combined authority in the area in which they are situated.
Amendment 272, in schedule 1, page 85, line 31, leave out paragraph 17
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 85, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has obtained consent for the proposal from any affected local government area.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from all affected areas in preparing a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined county authority.
Amendment 32, in schedule 1, page 86, line 20, after “to” insert “and thereafter consult with”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with any of the relevant councils and persons given notice that an area is being proposed to be added to an existing combined authority.
Amendment 33, in schedule 1, page 86, line 27, at end insert—
“(da) any town and parish councils whose area would be added to the area of the combined authority, and.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority.
Amendment 273, in schedule 1, page 87, line 30, leave out paragraph 18.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 274, in schedule 1, page 92, line 12, leave out subparagraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 275 to 280, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Amendment 275, in schedule 1, page 92, line 35, leave out subparagraph (b).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 276, in schedule 1, page 93, line 40, leave out paragraph 29.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 277, in schedule 1, page 94, line 1, leave out paragraph 30.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 278, in schedule 1, page 95, line 23, leave out paragraph 34.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 279, in schedule 1, page 99, line 5, leave out paragraph 37.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 280, in schedule 1, page 101, line 1, leave out paragraph 38.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
New clause 23—Consent for local government restructuring—
(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all the constituent councils.
(2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.”
Vikki Slade
We rehearsed the conversation about the level of consultation, but this is really about the role of town and parish councils. We have seen, since the devolution announcements were made, areas around the country rush to form town and parish councils where they do not already exist, and to protect services through town and parish councils where they already do.
However, we have heard that town and parish councillors have been completely ignored throughout the entire process. There has been no formal consultation with them and they have barely been mentioned. In fact, in the whole of the Bill, the title “parish councillor” is mentioned just four times, and in relation only to community assets. They are the true local councils; they are the people who know what is going on in their communities. The suggestion that there is no formal role for them to play in something as important as the creation of a huge council that will move things further away from them is hugely problematic.
We had local reorganisation in the Dorset area back in 2019. I have visited a number of the parish councils, and they have said to me that, since they lost their district council, the unitary council that they now have to work with is distant; things do not get done. In some of the areas being proposed, the new unitary authorities might be 50 or 60 miles away—they are going to be dealing with half a million people. Their main role is going to be in those really statutory, strategic functions. Yet our town and parish councils will be the ones that have to pick up the pieces, so their voices have to be heard. Of course, they will not be the ones making the decision—we know that—but they are simply invisible. We feel strongly that they should be part of that conversation; they should be consultees in this. Things should not be able to happen without their voices being heard.
Paul Holmes
I have great sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady is making. Would she agree that town and parish councils are already being asked to take on more services? We are seeing potential districts being abolished, handing down—or essentially getting rid of—assets to town and parish councils. Meanwhile, the town and parish councils are not being consulted on the wider reorganisation going forward. I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Lady’s view that parish and town councils need to be consulted. Could she elaborate on why she thinks the Government are so reluctant to do so?
Vikki Slade
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am not in the mind of the Government; I cannot understand why they would not want to embrace the incredible hard work of these volunteers in our communities who are already doing so much. But we are seeing, in every community, services handed down or at risk of closure, which are then only saved by the incredible work of the parish councils. It just strikes me as odd that we would not embrace the role of those parish councils.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I would just point out—I will say this multiple times in this Bill Committee—that, as someone in an area that has become unitary, no one is ever saying, “We want more district, borough and county councils, rather than fewer.” We have to be careful not to suggest that there will be less engagement with the council because we are going to unitaries.
Could the hon. Lady set out what legal change to parish councils she is concerned about? What powers are they losing? I cannot see any change in a parish councils’ powers under the Bill.
Vikki Slade
No power is being lost, because parish councils have few powers in the first place. What we are suggesting—what we feel should be at the heart of devolution—is about consent: actually consulting those local organisations that have a role. They are tax-raising and grant-giving organisations. They are, in reality, taking on a lot of those services yet their voice is silent. We are not asking for their powers to be changed; we are asking for their voices to be heard. That is all that the amendment requires.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I was a town councillor for a good decade and a half before I became an MP. We went through unitarisation in Cheshire in 2008, so I recognise a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying about town and parish councils being asked to take on more services—I saw it under the last Conservative Government as funding was taken away from Cheshire West and Chester council.
The reason why I am mystified is that my experience of town and parish councils is that they are not shy about expressing themselves. I am not sure what the hon. Lady is looking to achieve with the amendment, because town and parish councils are perfectly free to express their view in the consultations that already happen when these authorities are set up. Is she suggesting that town and parish councils should have a veto? From the way her amendment is worded, that seems like an entirely different proposition. Could she clarify that?
Vikki Slade
Nobody is suggesting a veto; we are suggesting a voice. There is a big difference. We have already heard that district councils felt that they were pushed around by the county councils, and the experiences of town and parish councils are simply an acceleration of that; when these proposals were being put forward by the Minister earlier this year, there was absolutely no role for those councils. We are simply saying that there are layers of local accountability that we believe should be on the list of people who are consulted.
This is a simple amendment that says, “You are already consulting other organisations in the chain of command. You should also include the town parish councils in that chain.” That is why we believe that amendment 33 is critical, as it
“would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority”,
and why we will push it to a vote.
David Simmonds
I shall speak to the amendments standing in my name. There is a degree of overlap between the points made so far and the subject matter of my amendments: all of them revolve around the issue of localism and consent. As has been clearly expressed, I have a degree of sympathy for the points that have just been made, particularly those about the role of parish and district councils in agreeing to and steering this devolution process.
When we had our witness session just a few weeks ago, we heard from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen of the District Councils’ Network and from Justin Griggs, the head of policy and communications at the National Association of Local Councils, which represents the parish councils and parish meetings of England. Both of them emphasised in their evidence the need for and the importance of that local voice. I reflect on legislation passed recently—particularly the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which strengthened the powers that our communities sought for local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments. One of the things we missed was the opportunity to enable parish councils and parish meetings to use those powers. That is a really concrete example of where our constituents would have benefited.
We know there are both sins of omission and sins of commission. I suspect it is a sin of omission that the Government have failed to use the opportunity of this legislation to complete the devolution work that they talk about, and to ask, “What role will those elected bodies at the town and parish level be able to play in the context of this new devolved world?” It speaks to something that I know the Opposition have real concern about: a form of institutionalised disrespect for local leaders that is built into this process. There is wholesale abolition of the local voice at scale, and proposals that the Secretary of State will direct, rather than consent.
Sir John, you will perhaps call to mind Lord Porter, formerly Gary Porter of South Holland, as one of those many local leaders whose approach and insight really shaped the nature of that local community. Reflecting on my time in local government, I had the opportunity to serve with people with very senior public and private sector leadership experience who steered the strategy of the local authority to deliver for local residents. To be told that the Government’s view is that they are to be mere community convenors, and they are not to have a role in that strategic leadership, is frankly insulting to the work that so many of our local leaders do.
The value of that was spelled out very clearly in our evidence session. I was particularly struck by Councillor Bev Craig, the Labour group lead and LGA vice-chair at the Local Government Association, who talked about how the Greater Manchester model worked because of that local leadership and the power of those individuals to come to the table and drive forward devolution, efficiency and service quality.
The amendments broadly fall into two categories that I have made today. The bulk of them are entirely about removing the ability of the Secretary of State to dictate to local areas—as was threatened by the Government when this devolution process started—what that devolution arrangement would look like, without the consent of those local areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has spelled out, of the many proposals that have come forward, we have not seen a single one embracing what the Government have set out, but a number of rival proposals for that reorganisation.
It is very clear that there is not any significant degree of local consent. There is a threat, and there is some money on the table to bail local authorities out, but they can have it only if they do what the Government want. If local authorities do not do it now, the Government will take powers to make them do it to their own agenda later on. That is the very opposite of localism. When we put the Localism Act 2011 through Parliament, it was broadly supported by all local leaders and Members of Parliament, and that was because we recognised the value it added at all levels. This process, however—the centralising element of the Bill—says that it will be a man or woman in Whitehall who decides: they will tell us what is in the interest of our community.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The hon. Member is talking about localism and the importance of things being done with communities, not to them. I was a Cherwell district councillor when we were involved in joint working with South Northamptonshire. I remember clearly that the leaders of South Northants district council were distinctly unimpressed by the level of consent that they were given when the Conservative Government told them that Northamptonshire county council, which the Conservatives bankrupted, was being disbanded and that joint unitary authorities were to be created in Northamptonshire. Was he so exercised about local consent at that point?
David Simmonds
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. I have spent a good deal of my time in local government. One of the key issues that we learned from the process, and one of the reasons why former Secretary of State Eric Pickles said that he had a pearl-handled revolver in his desk—for anyone who came to him to suggest forcing local government reorganisation on England—was the need to get things right with local consent.
There are times, which I think we can all see in the local government landscape at the moment, when, because of geography or failure of leadership, we know it is necessary for Government to intervene, and Governments of all parties have done so. Northamptonshire was an example of such a place. Individual local authorities within it had not failed, but there had been a collective failure of the public service in that area. The Government therefore felt compelled to intervene to remedy that, as opposed to imposing an alternative vision for how they thought the local area should be governed.
New clause 23 stands in my name. It seeks to enshrine in the legislation the principle of consent. We have the very opposite of what we have been told as a Committee, that this is all locally led. Clearly, the Government are already using the levers in their power to compel local authorities down a certain route. Under the force of such compulsion, local authorities feel that that is what they have to do, because it is the only way to address some of their reasonable and justifiable concerns. The timetable, the process and all those things come at the same time as a wholesale reorganisation of planning and infrastructure, which is stripping away the local powers and voices that are so critical to ensuring that the infrastructure and new housing that we all want are delivered.
The view of the Opposition, therefore, is that we need to enshrine in this legislation not powers for Whitehall but powers for people—powers for people to shape through their local leaders the community structures of service that deliver for them and the taxes that they pay. People are represented to exercise such powers. Enshrining the consent of local authorities is a small step in that direction.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to amendments 30, 31 and 33 first, and then amendments to 266 to 280. I appreciate the intention of the Liberal Democrat amendments, and I reiterate that I think we are completely aligned in this Committee in our desire not just to push power down, but do so in a locally driven way. On the specifics of the lead amendment, the principal body affected by the designation that we are seeking will be the unitary council or the county council. The Bill already provides that no designation can be made without the consent of the relevant councils.
On amendment 31, the Secretary of State must already notify the proposed constituent councils, and any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, about a proposal to direct the establishment of a combined authority. The Secretary of State must consider the representations of that body. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire said, there is no shortage of representation and voice from individual town and parish councils. We think that the process of engagement is already there and that to impose additional requirements to consult every town and parish council in the proposed areas would be disproportionate and also risks conflating the distinct roles of town and parish councils, which, as I said at the evidence stage, we absolutely see having a role to play in the new architecture of strategic authorities.
Strategic authorities have been created to tackle regional issues and to capitalise on the opportunities that exist over a significant economic geography, such as pursuing, for example, integrated transport. Town and parish councils, meanwhile, will continue to represent their local communities, managing neighbourhood services and supporting initiatives that improve the day-to-day lives of their residents. Each tier of local government will be accountable to their local communities and should continue to represent their interests and to work in alignment.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
When areas go through this process—and they are being made to go through it—will the Minister consider making it easier for areas that are unparished to create town and parish councils? Otherwise she will create large unitary authorities and some areas will have town and parish councils and others will not. Will she make it easier to set up town and parish councils where there are not any?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will discuss neighbourhood governance and neighbourhood boards later in the Bill. When it comes to areas that do not have town and parish councils, we recognise there is an opportunity for us to create structures so that there is stronger community representation and a stronger community voice. There is an opportunity for us to design something that works in areas where town and parish councils do not exist or may not be appropriate. We want to create flexibility so that local areas can find the right structures for them, so that neighbourhoods and communities have the voice and representation that we want to see across the country.
I turn to amendments 266 to 280. As I have said before, we have been accused of compulsion, and all I can do as a new Minister is point to the feedback that I get from the local areas that we speak to. Our engagement to date suggests there is genuine enthusiasm and momentum, because areas can see the economic opportunity and what a strong Mayor can do for their area. The Government have been clear in our aims: we want to get universal coverage of strategic authorities across England, because we can see the benefits that places like Greater Manchester and Liverpool are experiencing. We want that for every single resident across the area.
David Simmonds
During the evidence sessions, we heard senior local government leaders describe “inconsistent and…unhelpful messaging” on the building blocks of the new authorities—I quote what I wrote down. When we heard from those who are intended to be part of the investment agenda, they described no “meaningful consultation” from the Government on the proposals. How does the Minister square that with the idea that this is strategic and locally led?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is not the feedback that I heard in that evidence session. At the moment the places in our devolution priority areas are going through a process of consultation. They are talking to their constituent councils, voting it through the council chamber and taking it to their residents to make the case.
What we are seeing is positivity and momentum. Our job as a Government is to build on that and support and enable that. I come back to the point that there is a backstop power that we do not expect to use. But in the instances where we have got a blockage, we want to be able to help create a strategic authority so that we do not have devolution deserts and parts of the country left behind. We are very clear that the powers will commence only at the point that they are needed, rather than on Royal Assent.
Finally, new clause 23 would impose disproportionate consent requirements for these processes, requiring strategic authorities to seek the consent of all district, parish and town councils in their area. As I have said, there are already provisions in place to ensure a level of consultation. A primary aim for us in this Bill is to make the process simpler, more streamlined, more effective and less expensive. That is the feedback that we have had from places that have gone through the process and the feedback that we are getting from places going through the process.
My worry is that the proposed amendments would undermine the principle of having a process of devolution that is far more streamlined and far easier for places. Again, the feedback we are getting from conversations is that there is enthusiasm, appetite and commitment to do this. We want to make it as easy as possible for places, which is why I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receives adequate funding to facilitate their transition.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive funding to facilitate their transition.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 39, in schedule 1, page 84, line 13, at end insert—
“(9A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure the combined authority receives adequate funding to facilitate its establishment.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment.
Amendment 361, in clause 19, page 22, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) funding which has been allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.”
This amendment would require the annual report on devolution to include an account of funding provided to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.
Vikki Slade
Our councils are struggling to make ends meet. With so many on the edge of a precipice, I can see why they would be queuing up to create a strategic authority, which come with millions of pounds. There is, however, huge concern in councils that the cost to set up and run these organisations is oblique, and that there is a risk that the cost of running them will be passed to local people through additional precepting. I can tell the Committee from experience that the tens of millions of pounds that it is said will be saved by creating strategic authorities generally are not saved, and that if they are saved, they are replaced with other costs and take 10 years to materialise. Many councils do not have 10 years before they will go bust.
I am acutely aware that some funding was put aside for those organisations in the devolution priority phase, but when I asked the previous Minister what was happening with funding for future phases, I was met by stony silence. He explained to me that in order to progress there would need to be money in the settlement, but at the same time he talked about having already made a three-year settlement. That suggested to me that those organisations that are not already funded perhaps will not be funded within a three-year period, because there is no money. Given that those organisations are already telling us that they are £300 million short this year because they are not in the programme, but the Minister has no money set aside for next year to continue the programme, where is the money coming from?
Our amendments 38, 39 and 361 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that authorities receive adequate funding at least to facilitate their establishment, if not their continuation. It is crucial that local leaders—and local people, when they vote to make this progress—do not tie themselves down to additional costs that they cannot afford. That is why we feel it is important to press amendment 39 to a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will elaborate further.
David Simmonds
I had the privilege of spending 24 years in local government, divided equally across the previous Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments. I do not think that local government felt at any point in those 24 years that it was well funded and there was plenty of money to go around. In every single one of those years, irrespective of who was in government, our starting point when setting council tax was, “How are we going to meet a very substantial savings target?”
Manuela Perteghella
It is pointless to establish a strategic authority without appropriate financial support. Without support to build structurally, hire staff, co-ordinate partners and begin delivering on their devolved powers, new combined and strategic authorities risk becoming bodies with responsibilities but no real capacity to act. As the Minister will know, local authorities have been starved of funding by consecutive Governments. We need to ensure that these new unitaries—these new beginnings—have the best start in life, and that begins with fair funding so that devolution can be effective.
Amendment 39 is complemented by amendment 361, which would require the Government’s annual devolution report to include details of funding given to support new strategic authorities. Each year, when the Government report to Parliament on devolution, they would be required to explain how and why money has been spent to help to establish new devolved authorities.
As it stands, the Bill risks becoming a Trojan horse for centralisation, concentrating power in Whitehall rather than genuinely devolving it to local communities as promised. Amendment 361 would support true, locally led devolution by ensuring financial transparency and holding Ministers accountable for supporting local government reform. That is why we intend to divide the Committee on amendment 39, which is essential to ensure that new combined authorities and new strategic unitaries can operate effectively from the outset and deliver the powers and services they are intended to provide. Without adequate funding, the whole exercise of devolving powers and establishing new authorities will be meaningless.
For too long, my constituents, like so many across the country, have faced the consequences of under-resourced local authorities, with promises to their families and communities left unfulfilled. Our amendments would provide the vital financial support that this new era of local government requires, enabling us to deliver on the ambitions of devolution and achieve real, tangible results.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for highlighting the deep cuts that were imposed on local authorities during a decade and a half of Conservative government, which fundamentally weakened our civic infrastructure. We should never forget that. We absolutely appreciate that, as a result, local government is operating in a difficult context. I welcome the intent behind the amendments: it will be important for strategic authorities to ensure that they have the capacity funding so that they are established.
Amendment 38 concerns single foundation authorities. We do not anticipate that there will be transition costs for such authorities. When a unitary or county council is designated as a single foundation strategic authority, it will retain its existing voting and governance arrangements. The designation will sit alongside its status as a local authority. In other words, there will be no transition involved, so transitional funding is unnecessary.
We recognise that the mayoral strategic authorities that we are creating will need funding to support the transition and build capacity. All Members across the House want to see strong, capable authorities in their area, with the tools and capacity to deliver for their local communities. That is why in the English devolution White Paper we committed to provide new strategic authorities with capacity funding to kick-start their organisation. I am pleased to confirm that all areas on our devolution priority programme will receive £1 million in mayoral capacity funding this year to help establish new institutions, once the legislation has been laid before Parliament. They will also receive capacity funding in future years, so that they are ready and prepared to deliver the benefits that we believe devolution will unlock. As the Government are committed to providing funding for establishment expenses through the mechanism of mayoral capacity funding, we do not believe that amendment 39 is necessary, but we recognise the intent behind it, which is why are we are taking action.
Amendment 361 would require the Government to report on funding allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities. I am pleased to say that that is already established practice. Clause 19 amends the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 to ensure that all funding devolved to strategic authorities is reported. That will include any funds to support their establishment. Again, therefore, we agree with the intent behind the amendment but we do not believe that it is required.
Vikki Slade
Will funding be made available for areas that are not yet in a programme on the same footing as the areas that are already in one? It would be completely inappropriate if that funding was not committed to. I want to get that on record.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have established a principle that there should be mayoral capacity funding. We have established a principle that for places that are going through the transition, to ensure that any mayor that is created is able to hit the ground running, capacity building needs to be a core part of that. That applies to the places that are going through the devolution priority programme at the moment, but the same principle invariably will apply across the piece.
Vikki Slade
We were seeking to divide only on amendment 39, but given that we have had that assurance, I am happy not to do so. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Combined authorities and CCAs: establishment, expansion and functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 4 introduces schedule 1, which will streamline and simplify existing processes for establishing new combined authorities and combined county authorities, and for changing the arrangements of existing authorities. The Government have been clear that their goal is to achieve universal coverage of strategic authorities. We are therefore confident that clear and tangible benefits of devolution will be experienced across the country. We have also been clear that we want to create mechanisms that will ensure that the process is streamlined—that it is fast, and effective and efficient locally—and allows representation, but fundamentally allow us to move through the process that we see appetite and demand for across the country.
The powers introduced by the clause will be used as a backstop. They will be deployed only where we have devolution deserts and we want to work with areas to remove blockages, to the benefit of residents.
David Simmonds
We return to the theme that areas can have devolution provided it is in the form that Whitehall dictates. It remains a significant concern to the Opposition that we are proceeding in this manner, but that point is made and I suggest that we move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities and CCAs
Amendment proposed: 266, in schedule 1, page 79, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).—(David Simmonds.)
This amendment, and Amendments 267 to 273, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 62, in schedule 1, page 80, line 19, at end insert—
“5A After section 105B insert—
‘105C Non-mayoral combined authority: consent to budget
(1) A non-mayoral combined authority may only exercise the following functions with the consent of each constituent council—
(a) adopt or amend the authority’s budget;
(b) where it is not part of the budget, approve the total sum of the transport levy.
(2) In this section a reference to the “transport levy” is a reference to any levy issued by the combined authority relating to the exercise of its functions relating to transport in accordance with any regulations made from time to time under section 74(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.”’
This requires that a non-mayoral combined authority must have consent from its constituent councils to the approval and amendment of the budget and to the approval of the transport levy (if separate).
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will begin by talking to Government amendments 63 and 65. The Government recognise that the creation of a combined authority or combined county authority can cause some concern in prospective constituent councils. One of the main worries is that the new institution could create new financial burdens on existing councils.
Many existing combined authorities and combined county authorities already include provisions in their constitutions that enable constituent councils to veto decisions that could create a financial liability on them. We recognise that those provisions have helped to soothe concerns about establishing new combined authorities and combined county authorities. That is why the amendments will create a standardised requirement for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to obtain the consent of affected constituent councils before exercising their functions in a way that could create a financial liability on these councils. That will ensure that any future non-mayoral combined authorities or non-mayoral combined county authorities will need to comply with this requirement without the constituent councils needing to secure agreement to its inclusion in the individual authority’s constitution.
I turn to Government amendments 62 and 64. In the English devolution White Paper, the Government set out that in combined authorities and combined county authorities without a mayor, most decisions would require a simple majority vote. That is provided for in clause 6. However, in the White Paper, we also said that key strategic decisions would require unanimity in non-mayoral authorities. The budget for the authority is one of those decisions.
Similarly to amendments 63 and 65, amendments 62 and 64 introduce a standardised requirement for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to obtain the consent of all their constituent councils when adopting or amending their budget. That includes the direct contribution of those councils to transport expenditure.
Government amendments 66 and 67 are minor, technical amendments. They amend the terminology used in schedule 1 so that references to secondary legislation within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 use the term “regulations” rather than “orders”.
David Simmonds
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It feels as though these amendments are intended to bring some welcome consistency and clarity.
The Committee will know that local government finance is largely regulated by the Local Government Finance Act 1992, but that older legislation on council tax fixing and budget setting all essentially states that a local authority’s budget must balance in-year. A local authority is not the same as central Government—it cannot borrow to fund its day-to-day expenditure.
However, one implication of the Secretary of State’s allocation of all these new powers to mayors or combined authorities is that they may choose to incur expenditure that imposes a liability on an individual local authority without seeking that authority’s consent. For example, there would be a legislative conflict if the mayoral combined authority decided to increase spending, or to increase rights to services for social care, which a local authority has to pay for, without giving the local authority the opportunity to include that in its budget.
Will the Minister give us clarity, first, on accounting standards? The legislation mentions that local authorities should refer to guidance from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. CIPFA is not the only accepted accounting standard in the public sector, although it is generally a reliable one. Given our previous discussions and the evidence we have heard about access to local audit and financial advice, can the Minister confirm that accounting standards other than CIPFA will be accepted, if a local authority relies on them? Or will they have to be reframed within CIPFA? That will let the Committee and member authorities know exactly where they stand.
Secondly, while this is a fairly catch-all provision, there will be areas—we have seen this in Greater Manchester most recently—where central Government fund the investment and set-up of a new transport network but the ongoing running costs must be met by trading that service to local residents, and a large deficit emerges; essentially, the service runs at a significant loss. Especially if the underlying authority is a transport authority that issues freedom passes, that can have a significant financial impact. Essentially, council tax payers of one authority subsidise the costs of service delivery by a mayor.
We see significant elements of that in London under Mayor Khan. I think that was one reason why the Labour leader of Manchester city council spoke about how Manchester works and London does not. It would be helpful to have clarity—if necessary, in writing to the Committee—about how those trade-offs will be managed effectively, so that the capital costs of mayoral projects are not subsidised by the revenue or capital budgets of individual local authorities. Particularly with larger projects, mayoral authorities do not always have to meet the same tight financial requirements, especially in respect of things like education. It would be useful to know how that will be managed so that local authorities do not suddenly go bust because something emerges from the financial accounting arrangements between the new structures.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his detailed, complicated questions. We will write in response, particularly on the public accounting standards.
We have set what we think is a good baseline. There will obviously be some flexibility for constituent authorities. The hon. Member will remember from the evidence session that the accountability and financial framework across local government is a current challenge, so we are looking to drive improved standards across the piece. That will apply to strategic authorities as much as to local authorities, but we will write fully in response.
On the wider question about the balance and the trade-off, our judgment is that for non-mayoral combined authorities, where constituent authorities operate together, we should put in those safeguards. In essence, constituent authorities act in concert, collectively, to make decisions. Whether it is a question of financial liabilities or transport budgets, it is right that all the constituent authorities provide consent. In the case of the mayor, however, our view is that because the mayor has his or her own democratic mandate and the ability to direct, that is separate from what we see in non-mayoral combined authorities.
Inevitably, there will be safeguards. In the evidence session, we heard really powerful evidence that the mayoral model works well when the mayor works in lockstep with constituent authorities and the two are aligned, with a strategy that they work around. We have seen examples of where the model does not work well, and we have had to go in and support and remediate the process when the mayor works without their individual local authorities. The model drives that. However, we think that there is something specific in the mayor’s democratic mandate; we have a model where there is a majority vote, with the mayor on the side of the majority, in order to drive through big strategic decisions.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to provide that clarity in writing. She said that there are differences between a mayoral authority and a combined authority without a mayor. We have seen a good case study in the Mayor of London’s decision that he wished to be seen to fund free school meals in primary schools, but the budget that is provided is less than the cost. School budgets, which are determined by the Department for Education, are subsidising the shortfall in the money provided by the mayor. We see posters on the tube saying that the mayor is funding this, but in fact the amount he provides is less than the cost. Probably all London MPs have had representations from schools that have said, “We are having to make staff redundant because of this shortfall. It’s a significant burden. It is causing a real cost.”
That is an example of where accounting and legal decision making sit across several different authorities. Although it is not the only ringfenced local authority grant, it would be helpful to have clarity about how the dedicated schools grant will be managed in a mayoral combined authority, so that we do not see a repeat of what happened in London with school budgets being raided to cover up a shortfall in a mayoral policy proposal.
The Chair
The Minister has courteously and helpfully said that she will write regarding those specific questions. May I ask that that is done within the period in which we are considering the Bill, and made available to all Committee members?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes.
Amendment 62 agreed to.
Amendment made: 63, in schedule 1, page 80, line 19, at end insert—
“5A After section 105B insert—
‘105C Non-mayoral combined authority: functions imposing financial liability
(1) This section applies where a non-mayoral combined authority considers that the exercise of a function by the authority may result in a financial liability being incurred by one or more constituent council (each such council being a “relevant constituent council”).
(2) The function may only be exercised with the consent of each relevant constituent council.
(3) When deciding whether subsection (1) applies, the authority must have regard to the “Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom” published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, as amended or reissued from time to time.’”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This restricts a non-mayoral combined authority from exercising a function that might impose a financial liability on any of its constituent councils unless those councils have given their consent.
Amendment proposed: 269, in schedule 1, page 80, line 20, leave out paragraph 6.—(David Simmonds.)
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 83, line 3, at end insert—
“(6A) After preparing a proposal the Secretary of State must publish a statement demonstrating how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public services in the area would be affected by the proposal.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement about how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public service structures in the area would be affected by the proposal for a new combined authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 305, in schedule 1, page 83, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section that has the effect of placing Cornwall in a combined authority with any other authority.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order establishing a combined authority which would include Cornwall and any other area east of the Tamar in the same combined authority.
Amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 84, line 13, at end insert—
“(9A) If the order establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”
Amendment 306, in schedule 1, page 86, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) Neither the added local government area nor the existing area of a combined authority in the order includes Cornwall.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from adding a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if either area includes Cornwall.
Amendment 44, in schedule 1, page 86, line 32, at end insert—
“(7A) If the proposal establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”
Manuela Perteghella
This Government’s plans for devolution involve folding existing local government structures into larger combined authorities. From a central Government perspective, the benefits are clear. Each region has a single point of contact, accountability and new structures through which to work. However, devolution should deliver benefits in both directions and be truly community-led.
If proposals are prepared by the Secretary of State and the Department rather than being locally-led, we believe that a basic requirement should be that each new authority is appropriately sized, and that physical geography and cultural identities within the authority—especially community identities—are looked at. We need to look at the boundaries of other public service structures in the area that could be affected by the new combined authority, such as fire and rescue services, police forces and integrated care boards. In my area, we have local government reorganisation and the ICBs are being reorganised as part of NHS England reform or abolition, so both are changing at the same time. In geographical local areas, we have not just NHS commissioners but other NHS services, such as local NHS trusts.
Looking beyond size—I hope that the Government are flexible about size, because of all the other important considerations with any new authority—authorities should be shaped carefully to reflect economic zones, as well as physical geography. Crucially, there must be careful thought about how the proposals will align with public services. I have already talked about the organisation of ICBs, but there are also, for example, existing transport hubs and established boundaries for fire and rescue services.
A less tangible but no less important requirement is respect for distinct community identities. For example, my area is in the county of Warwickshire. South Warwickshire is very rural, with hundreds of parish and town councils, while north Warwickshire has different economic areas and is more populous and urban. Proximal areas may not be well-suited partners in new combined authorities, so what kind of flexibility will there be to think about services and the shared history of local communities so that such areas do not have a false cohesion?
We would like regional and sub-regional cultures to be taken into consideration, because those are what brings communities together. This goes back to the role of parish and town councils as the first tier of government: they know their communities best, which is why they should have a say in any consultation. They know their boundaries; they know which bus services should be improved so that residents can go to hospital and so on.
Practically, we are asking the Government to consider all these areas, boundaries and services, because if combined authorities backfire, governance structures could fail and might not deliver at all for areas that are already struggling. Requiring the Secretary of State to make a statement accompanying each proposal for a new combined authority, covering its impact on the shared areas that I have mentioned, would improve the quality of combined authority proposals.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have listened attentively to the points made by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley may speak later to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, but they both relate to the need to recognise in local government structures the heritage of the parts of England that are affected.
From all the evidence that we have heard, and from many Members’ contributions, we know just how important it is that people feel that the name of their local authority area—that most basic of things—has a connection to them. On top of that are layers of geographical and economic considerations, as well as the trouble of learning it, all of which have an impact. That is why we and others are so keen to support measures to ensure that historical names are not lost in any of the Government’s proposed devolution measures, and that that heritage is fully recognised in any structures that follow.
Paul Holmes
I will briefly elaborate on what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has said about amendments 43 and 44. I do so on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, who has been a tireless and fierce campaigner for his constituents, and not only at Prime Minister’s questions.
I represent a Hampshire constituency whose southern parishes look out on the Isle of Wight. If I take a walk down Hill Head beach or somewhere in Hamble, I always see it. In Hampshire, the Isle of Wight is a constant. It is a constant presence on the coast of southern England, but it is also a vital part of our county. It has a proud set of people who have a booming economy that contributes so much to the county of Hampshire, and which is a major part of the county’s identity.
The Minister has talked about wanting local views and localism to be at the heart of the devolution agenda. I believe her. We had a brief interaction earlier, and although we can disagree about whether that devolution has been forced or voluntary, I absolutely believe that the Minister intends to make sure that if devolution happens, the regions involved have an identity and the right to an economic injection that delivers for people locally.
It would be very easy for the Government to accept amendments 43 and 44, because they would do nothing to change the mechanics or principles of the Bill. They would merely ensure that a region of very proud people is included within the description of the mayoralty that is proposed for Hampshire.
Vikki Slade
I used to live on the Isle of Wight. I got married there and my parents met there, so I have a fond connection to it. Does the hon. Member agree that if “Isle of Wight” is not included within the authority name of “Hampshire and the Isle of Wight”, it might disappear from all the other organisations in which it features, such as fire authorities or health authorities? Suddenly, the Isle of Wight’s unique identity would be completely subsumed into an amorphous Hampshire.
Paul Holmes
As the hon. Lady knows from when we were on the BBC’s “Politics South” programme some weeks ago, I rarely agree with Liberal Democrats, but I suspect that she and I agree on this point. I know that she stands for her area and, as a former council leader, for the wider area, and that she knows a lot about the Isle of Wight. I did not know that she got married there, but I am sure it was a lovely wedding, because the Isle of Wight is a beautiful place steeped in history. She is absolutely right that while Hampshire and the Isle of Wight have been together geographically, they have also been together in the way organisations have worked, over hundreds of years. I see the Solent as the water motorway connecting the mainland to the Isle of Wight. We could not interact without having it there. “Hampshire and the Solent” is the wrong name for the proposed mayoralty, because it leaves out the distinct identity of a proud people on the Isle of Wight.
Siân Berry
I want to express my sympathy with the amendments related to the Isle of Wight. It is not miles away from the area that I represent, Brighton Pavilion. I know many people there who are similarly proud of their distinct identity. I note that the name for the new combined authority that will envelop Brighton is “Sussex and Brighton”. If it is good enough for us, it is good enough for the Isle of Wight.
Paul Holmes
I agree. I have had many a night out in Brighton, and I know that it is a very vibrant city. If it is good enough for Brighton to be named within that county, I do not see why the population of an island in this United Kingdom should not be named as part of its mayoral authority.
I say to the Minister, in the same spirit of co-operation in which I know she will respond, that if there is no movement in the decision on the name, that risks wider implications for the Bill. Many other areas will then start to think about why we went through the parliamentary boundary commissions’ changes to the names of our seats. That was a very difficult thing; people were not recognised.
The Isle of Wight has a precedent for being treated differently. It has always received special dispensation in the boundary discussions that we have had before. It would therefore be perfectly sensible for the proud and great people of the Isle of Wight to be recognised and have their name in a proud county name, if this devolution goes forward.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras—thank you, Sir John. The Bill places me in an invidious situation. For thousands of years, the people of Cornwall have been considered different from the rest of the country. Indeed, the word Cornwall means “land of foreigners”. We call it Kernow—the people of the promontory.
David Simmonds
I know that the hon. Gentleman is not the only person with an interest, and that there are other amendments on the same topic. He mentions that he is satisfied with the Government’s assurances. We have not directly sought those assurances; would he be willing to set out for the Committee the nature of them, so that we can all understand what has been committed to and can be well informed when we come to make voting decisions later on?
Perran Moon
I have had no commitments; I have had discussions with Ministers. We have had discussions about the difficulties with the proposals made here, with the potential for the Bill to become a hybrid Bill and the complications that that would bring. I am happy to keep talking to the Government in a spirit of openness, reflecting the views of every political party in Cornwall bar one. On that basis, I am content to keep talking. I cannot support the amendments because of the negative change that I think they would make to the nature of the Bill, so I will be voting against them.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I put on record my thanks to hon. Members who are championing specific areas that have a unique identity, which the Government completely recognise. On amendments 43 and 44, I pay tribute to the hon. Members who have been championing the Isle of Wight and its proud history. The Government understand and support the intent behind the amendments, but we will not be taking them forward. Let me explain why.
Earlier this year, Isle of Wight council, Hampshire county council, Portsmouth city council and Southampton city council submitted a joint expression of interest in the Government’s devolution priority programme. They went through a consultation process, based on the proposed name of Hampshire and the Solent. This was not imposed by the Government; it came as a proposal from the local area, and on that basis a public consultation was conducted.
It is worth saying that of the 6,000 responses we received, only a small minority commented specifically on the name of the proposed combined authority area. The Government’s response to that consultation is online, if hon. Members want to look at it. It is important to say that once it is established, it is completely open to any combined authority or combined county authority to change its name by resolution, with the consent of its members and using existing powers. That is already in the Bill. The Liverpool city region combined authority and the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority have both changed their names in the same way. There was no constraint from Government; the powers are there. It is within the gift of local areas to go ahead and do that.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister mentions that 6,000 people replied to the consultation on Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but that only a small number of respondents actually mentioned the name. How many people from the Isle of Wight responded to that consultation, and how many of them mentioned the name?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I do not have those figures, but we can write to the hon. Member with them. However, the principle remains that the power is there. It is within the gift of constituent authorities; it is not being imposed by Government. If there is a name change that the combined authority wants to take forward, it can take it forward. We have seen that in Liverpool and South Yorkshire. There is no constraint from us. It is a determination for, and with the consent of, the constituent authorities. It is within the gift of Hampshire and the Solent to make that change.
Paul Holmes
The Minister says that it is not the Government who are making sure that it happens. I accept that. However, having been in her position for only a short time—that is not her fault, as the fickle finger of fate has rested it on her shoulders—she may not know that the negotiation process that has taken place among the local authorities in Hampshire has not been smooth. There has been an overarching view that the county council, which has rushed towards accepting this devolution notwithstanding the impacts of the Government’s decision to push it forward, has not worked collaboratively. There is a wish for devolution, but in the minutiae it has been a very county council-dominated process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne says, the reason that there has not been a huge uptake in response to the consultation is the flawed nature of the decision-making process. I ask the Minister not to rest on the consultation responses, because as my hon. Friend says, a number of people on the Isle of Wight simply did not bother to respond. It is not about the make-up of a geographical devolution settlement; it is about a name. I ask her to listen to the elected representatives on the Isle of Wight who serve in this House, who have asked for it, and to consider it again.
Mike Reader
I declare that I am Hampshire born and bred, being from Romsey. I just ask: why are we so disrespectful of a place like Brownsea island? If it is called “Hampshire and the Isle of Wight”, what about the great Brownsea island, the home of our native red squirrels? Surely “Solent” is more inclusive for all the other islanders who live in the area beyond the Isle of Wight.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I say gently to hon. Members that we absolutely recognise the desire. I have had multiple conversations with the leader of Isle of Wight council, who was enthusiastic about this devolution deal. It is within the gift of constituent authorities to change their name; it is not for Government to impose. I hope that there is now a constructive conversation and relationship among the leaders of all the different parties. The leader is an independent politician, and I hope that in that spirit they will move forward.
I recognise the uniqueness of the name, but what really matters is what devolution will deliver for residents and constituent authorities. I hope that as much energy and time will be put into the nuts and bolts, the bread and butter, and the impact of what we are trying to do through devolution as will be put into the name. However, I recognise the particular sensitivities in relation to the Isle of Wight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth spoke about the issue of Cornwall. He has been a long-standing champion of Cornwall and its distinct identity. He has prosecuted the case incredibly effectively, not just in the context of this debate but across the piece. He is a proud Cornishman and I know that he wants the best for his constituents. I have put it on record in Committee, and I do so again, that we recognise the uniqueness of Cornwall. We are keen to continue engaging not just with my hon. Friend, but with other Cornish MPs, to ensure that we recognise that uniqueness and status and, critically, that we are doing a set of things that can enable local leaders to respond to the challenges—
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 14th October 2025
(1 day, 15 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 14 October 2025 - (14 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before I ask the Minister to continue her wind-up for the debate on amendment 25 to schedule 1—I say that for those who have had a long lunch and lost their place; I had to be reminded—I want to let the Committee know that I asked for heaters to be brought in. I have one here, and there is one over there. I thought it was intolerable this morning. In many places of work, industrial action would have followed, were we in a private business. I speak as a strong trade unionist, by the way. I hope the heaters will warm the room up during the course of our proceedings.
Schedule 1
Establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities and CCAs
Amendment proposed (this day): 25, in schedule 1, page 83, line 3, at end insert—
“(6A) After preparing a proposal the Secretary of State must publish a statement demonstrating how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public services in the area would be affected by the proposal.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement about how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public service structures in the area would be affected by the proposal for a new combined authority.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 305, in schedule 1, page 83, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section that has the effect of placing Cornwall in a combined authority with any other authority.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order establishing a combined authority which would include Cornwall and any other area east of the Tamar in the same combined authority.
Amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 84, line 13, at end insert—
“(9A) If the order establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”
Amendment 306, in schedule 1, page 86, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) Neither the added local government area nor the existing area of a combined authority in the order includes Cornwall.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from adding a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if either area includes Cornwall.
Amendment 44, in schedule 1, page 86, line 32, at end insert—
“(7A) If the proposal establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement when directing the establishment of a new combined authority, setting out how the proposed combined authority would affect the physical geography, community identity and boundaries of other public services in the local area. I have no doubt that the intention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is absolutely right and that such matters are important; as I have said, the examples of the Isle of Wight and Cornwall highlight that. In practice, however, such matters will already have been considered through the process set out in the Bill.
In deciding whether to establish a new combined authority, the Secretary of State will already be required to have regard to the likely effect on the exercise of functions in neighbouring local government areas. In addition, the Secretary of State is already subject to the statutory tests requiring them to have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to areas of competence. The proposal itself can be expected to cover those issues. There is therefore no need for a separate statement, and so I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
In our consideration of the issue, the Minister is asking the Committee to give a great deal of weight to the meetings she has described having had with various local leaders and Members with particular concerns about the impact on their local areas in terms of national identity, heritage and geography. Will she share with the Committee a little more detail on the substance of those discussions, so that before we vote we can understand what exact assurances may have been given to local leaders and what their understanding of them is, so that we are all completely clear?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
On Hampshire and Solent, for example, our conversation was very candid. The leaders were clear about some of the debates that they had had within the council; as the Minister, I said what opportunities would be open to them, and I expressed the fact that in the context of the Isle of Wight, the name was completely down to the constituent authorities. We support constituent authorities working together collaboratively to ensure that all the constituent parts are happy with the deal and the proposal.
On Cornwall, I believe that the Secretary of State, my boss, had those conversations, but I have also had some with MPs. We absolutely recognise the uniqueness of Cornwall and its identity. There are clear things that we know Cornish MPs and the council want, such as protection for the Cornish language, which we are in discussion about. There are clearly opportunities to build on the existing devolution deal. The previous Government provided a devolution deal for Cornwall in recognition of that exception. Another issue might be housing, which is big in Cornwall, for example, and the area is especially exercised about that, in particular in the context of the impact of tourism. We are happy to have a conversation about continuing to support the local authority to make inroads on some of those issues.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir John. Can we ask the Clerk to speak a little louder? We are struggling to hear at the back.
The Chair
That is a perfectly reasonable point of order. Speak louder! When you think you are bellowing, you are getting it right. Thanks very much; I am very grateful. But I need my Clerk. Don’t upset him; I cannot operate without my Clerk.
Amendment proposed: 277, in schedule 1, page 94, line 1, leave out paragraph 30. —(David Simmonds.)
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Once the Bill comes into force, there will be various ways in which functions can be conferred on a combined authority or combined county authority that will be operating as strategic authorities. The clause makes the necessary amendment to existing legislation to clarify these wider options. It is a small but important clause that will ensure our new devolution framework can operate effectively.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I thank the Minister for that introduction. It is the implementation of this that is the subject of political contention, but a great deal has been said, and a vote has been taken. There is nothing further we can do on those issues at this stage, but I expect they will be the subject of great debate in the remaining stages of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Combined authorities and CCAs: decision-making and validity of proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2 stand part.
New clause 48—Greater London Authority: decision-making—
“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b), leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”.
(3) In schedule 4A (Confirmation hearings etc)—
(a) in paragraph 10(5) leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”;
(b) in paragraph 11(5) leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”.
(4) In schedule 6 (Procedure for determining the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement)—
(a) in paragraph 8(4) leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”;
(b) In paragraph 8C(4) leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”.
(5) In schedule 7 (Procedure for making of substitute calculations by the authority), in paragraph 7(4), leave out “at least two thirds and insert “a simple majority”.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Moving from devolution by deal to devolution by default is at the heart of the Bill. Clause 6 and schedule 2 are essential to achieving that. The Bill ensures that strategic authorities have a consistent set of functions, and these provisions standardise how they exercise those functions. Many existing strategic authorities have complex and varied arrangements for agreeing fundamentals such as budgets and transport plans. That makes it hard for the public to understand how decisions are made and, therefore, to hold the strategic authority to account.
The provisions in clause 6 and schedule 2 would create a transparent and consistent default voting arrangement—a simple majority. It would unblock decision making to ensure that the right decision, even if it is difficult, can be made. In mayoral strategic authorities, the mayor must be in the majority for a vote to pass. Mayors are directly accountable to all voters in their area, so it is right that decisions cannot be made if they disagree. The Government expect mayors and other strategic authority members to continue to work together to build consensus. We heard time and time again in the evidence sessions that the model works well when the mayor works in partnership with its constituent authorities, but it is important that one member cannot get in the way of the right decisions being made for the entire area. It is therefore imperative that clause 6 and schedule 2 remain within the Bill to ensure that mayoral strategic authorities can operate effectively, and to provide the public with clarity on how decisions are made, so they can hold these institutions to account.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I rise to speak to new clause 48, tabled in my name. I also want to raise another issue for consideration by the Minister at a future stage.
In clause 6, the new rules for mayoral combined authorities give simple majority voting for relevant decisions by bodies to adopt budgets or policies, such as spatial development strategies, local transport plans and other strategies set out elsewhere in the Bill. For example, schedule 2 outlines that
“a resolution to adopt the strategy is to be made by a simple majority of the constituent members present and voting”.
There are other rules to do with a tied vote.
I think that the Bill should also amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to give simple majority voting for decisions by the London Assembly on the budget and mayoral strategies of the Mayor of London. That is for consistency of decision making across the different authorities and bodies, and for fairness to London’s democracy. Along with many Opposition Members, this is something that I have wanted for some time now, as I was a member of the London Assembly in my previous job. In these Committee debates I will frequently bring up examples from my long experience of being part of an effective scrutiny body in a devolved authority at the strategic level—I feel that I have a good handle on how it works.
Using “a simple majority” is the right way to go about this. The Minister has talked about building consensus and working in partnership. I really value it when cross-party working can result in genuine dialogue, with mayors that will listen and make changes, and bodies scrutinising or working with them to put forward their own ideas and have them taken up. Those are all really healthy things for our democracy. New clause 48 would simply amend the parts of the 1999 Act that outline how the Assembly votes. Currently, the Act requires at least a two-thirds majority for any changes to be made, and the new clause would instead insert the words “a simple majority”. It is a very simple change, which the Minister should consider.
The second issue I want to raise relates to forward plans, which are incredibly useful for the general public, or anyone who wants to influence mayoral decisions and the decisions of combined authorities or local authorities. At the moment, only local authorities have this particular requirement written into law, under the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, which clearly set out how key decisions are to be included in forward plans. I am not talking about planning decisions but key decisions, as set out in the schemes of delegation. Those forward plans are required to be published in advance, so that people who want to influence or scrutinise those decisions can bid to change them, or for things to be taken into account at the appropriate time.
Again, this certainly comes out of my experience in the London Assembly. It unanimously passed a motion in 2022 that was put forward by one of the Liberal Democrat members and me, which said that the Mayor of London should publish a forward plan. However, he did not agree to do that, as he said that he was complying with everything in legislation; so the answer seems to be for legislation to require both the Mayor of London and these new combined authority mayors to publish a forward plan along the same lines. Looking at the 2012 regulations, it would be very simple to change the current wording, “local authorities”, to “strategic and local authorities”, if the Minister wanted.
I also point the Committee to the excellent report published last month by the GLA oversight committee, a cross-party committee currently chaired by a Labour member of the London Assembly. It makes exactly the same request: for a forward plan of key mayoral decisions to be put into the 1999 Act. Because of the complexities of the different regulations, I have not tabled an amendment for such a change, but I hope the Minister would consider the question of effective scrutiny of these new bodies and the ability to influence them. I hope she could potentially come forward with a new clause at a later stage for us.
David Simmonds
The Opposition support the amendment; the principle of having a simple majority is sound. In oral evidence, we heard about why Manchester works and London does not, and there is a logic to implementing those measures consistently across the country. We support introducing that consistency.
There is a broader question, however. I understand what the Minister and the Government are trying to achieve; it would clearly be frustrating if one authority was effectively acting as a blocker. However, I asked the Minister earlier to give us some assurances about the treatment applied when financial impacts occur that affect one or more of the constituent authorities in a combined authority area. There will be cases—we have seen them in planning, for example—where an authority argues that to deliver its housing target, a site in another local authority’s area must be developed, because it does not have sufficient developable land to hit the target that it has been given; legally, it is not that authority’s decision. There will be other examples.
I am mindful of some of the Government’s amendments that introduce a lot more scope into this Bill for mayors and combined authorities to undertake their housing responsibilities. One of the main routes for funding is through borrowing against the housing revenue account, which is ringfenced. Each individual local authority has a legal duty to balance that account and the power to borrow against it; it also holds all of the legal housing duties and responsibilities. The purpose of the measures is to make mayors the vehicle for the delivery of asylum accommodation, as opposed to asylum hotels, as is the case now to some degree. Yesterday, on the Floor of the House, another Minister in the Department alluded to this in his response to a question about asylum accommodation.
Those decisions will have a significant impact on the legal obligations of the authorities that sit beneath the mayoral authority. There is a risk that being outvoted in a decision made at combined authority level would put an individual constituent authority in breach of its legal obligations to balance its dedicated schools grant, its housing revenue account or some other element of its council tax account. Will the Minister, either now or in writing, set out what arrangements will apply in the likely situation of a conflict between the legal obligations on a constituent authority to balance the budget and the strategic decisions put forward by the combined authority? How will the conflict be resolved without undue detriment to the constituent authority in particular, which is the one that will find itself in court?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to the amendment to clause 48, and then I will pick up the specific questions from the hon. Member. The GLA has a different and long-established governance model. In London, the mayor is elected by the people of London to make decisions; the Assembly’s role is to scrutinise those decisions. As a London MP, I think that model has worked well for London for well over 25 years. It is tested and it strikes the right balance between the executive authority of the mayor and the scrutiny of the Assembly.
Siân Berry
It is notable that recently the London Assembly has, on a number of occasions, made constructive changes to the mayor’s budget at stage one of budget setting, which have simply been overturned at the second stage. This tendency, I think, is part of the growing need for a change in the threshold.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We think that the model works well. We have heard representations from constituents, local authorities, Assembly members, and the mayor himself. Any model needs to evolve; as we think about how we expand the powers of the mayor, which we want to, we will also be thinking about reforming the GLA to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century. We will take into consideration some of the points that have been made in this Committee.
On the specific question about decisions at the strategic authority level putting an individual local authority in breach of its legal obligations or jeopardising its financial viability, all our experience of combined authorities is that they always operate within the legal duties of constituent authorities. I struggle to think of an example where constituent authorities have been put in such a position by their mayor and the decisions of the collective. There are sufficient safeguards in place to mitigate that risk.
I hope that majority working will benefit the collective area. This Government will make sure that clear legal obligations on constituent authorities are not breached. I am happy to write to the hon. Member to provide further reassurance on that point. I think we agree that we want clear and effective decision making with a democratic mandate, that will not jeopardise individual authorities by forcing them to breach their legal requirements and/or putting them in financial distress.
David Simmonds
Let me give a concrete example: the long-standing proposal for Heathrow expansion airport. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out her absolute determination to ensure that happens, because it is part of her Government’s growth agenda. It is likely to be directed under these powers and in the purview of the Mayor of London, who will ultimately have some planning role in the decision making. However, as well as being the planning authority, the London borough of Hillingdon, within which Heathrow sits entirely, has legal duties in respect of air quality. It is already breaching those duties, which it has no means of fulfilling, simply because of that external factor.
If the Treasury and the Mayor of London were say to the combined authority, “In pursuit of the growth agenda with which we have been tasked, we are determined to see this expansion take place,” immediately that local authority would be put in significant legal jeopardy. To give an indication of the scale, when the Localism Act 2011 was debated and there was also interaction with European Union standards, it equated to an annual fine of £150 million to be paid by the legally responsible local authority. That is a significant jeopardy, and it is by no means the only one—in the case of special educational needs and disabilities obligations, for example, there are significant duties to pay compensation in the event of failure.
We can all envisage situations where a mayor decides that, for the good of everybody, they want an individual place to take a hit, but through the judicial review process that places that individual local authority at significant moral and financial risk. If the Minister sets out how those very significant and real risks will be addressed, I will be grateful.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for that very detailed and specific example. The concerns he raised have been heard and noted. Both in practice and principle, ensuring that no constituent authority is put in either financial or legal jeopardy underwrites all of this. I will take the hon. Member’s points away and write to provide the relevant reassurances.
The Chair
As I said this morning, Minister, if you are going to write to the Member, I would be grateful if you did so in a timely fashion and made that correspondence available to all members of the Committee for consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 7
Combined authorities and CCAs: powers not limited by other provision or
powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 7 is a small but important clause that supports the wiring of our new devolution framework. As hon. Members will know, the Bill introduces a systemic approach, ending one-off deals and creating a standardised devolution framework in which strategic authorities and mayors are given a clear and coherent set of functions. However, the Government recognise that it may, on very rare occasions, be necessary to tailor the exercise of specific functions to reflect local circumstances and to preserve the smooth running of public services. Clause 7 provides that existing powers that allow Ministers to modify how a function is exercised by an individual combined authority or county combined authority can continue. Exceptions will be rare, but this flexibility, where appropriate and necessary and where it reflects local circumstances, will be essential to ensure the smooth running of public services.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Combined authorities and CCAs: designation as established mayoral strategic authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The devolution White Paper set out our commitment to introduce a new category of established mayoral strategic authority, representing the highest level of devolution in England. The clause delivers on that commitment. It enables a mayoral strategic authority that meets the eligibility criteria set out in the English devolution White Paper to submit a written proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as an established mayoral strategic authority. Designation will provide a strategic authority with access to the highest level of powers and functions in the devolution framework, as well as the right to request additional devolved functions and eligibility to receive an integrated funding settlement.
In the event that a Secretary of State decided not to designate an authority as an established mayoral strategic authority, they would be required to notify the authority in writing of the reasons for their decision. It would remain open to the authority to submit a fresh request at some future point. Importantly, once an authority has been designated as an established mayoral strategic authority, it will not be possible for Ministers to remove its status through secondary legislation. In that way, we will hardwire the powers and functions of established mayoral strategic authorities into our system of government, future-proofing arrangements against unnecessary change and ensuring permanent and enduring devolution.
David Simmonds
I draw the Committee’s attention to a topic to which we will return throughout our proceedings: the extent to which the devolution legislation is about the powers of the Secretary of State to designate this or direct that. Ironically, we are embarked on a course of action that started with us hearing about how it was going to be locally led, despite all evidence to the contrary, yet as we proceed, we have clause after clause and paragraph after paragraph referring to new powers for the Government to make local authorities do this or to direct them to do that. It is clearly not in the spirit of devolution.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause does two things. The proposal to become an established mayoral strategic authority will come up from the locality. The power is about the ability of the Secretary of State to designate it as such at its request; it is not about the Secretary of State imposing the status on any area. Critically, it will lock in the established mayoral authority for good, and will, in fact, contain and curtail the power of future Secretaries of State to decide that they will change the status of an established mayoral authority, therefore locking in devolution for the long term.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Appointment of commissioners by mayors
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 9, page 11, line 19, leave out from “function” to “, or” in line 20.
This would omit this wording is because of its replacement by the new section 30A(2) of LURA 2023 (see Amendment 220).
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Government amendments 68 and 69 are consequential to Government amendment 220, which we will discuss later. Government amendment 220 will ensure that responsibility for fire and rescue functions sits directly with the elected mayor, who can delegate them only to a public safety commissioner and not to deputies or officers, thereby strengthening accountability. Government amendments 68 and 69 simply remove wording that will be superseded should Government amendment 220 be accepted.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Amendment made: 69, in clause 9, page 12, line 7, leave out from “function” to “, or” in line 8.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would omit this wording is because of its replacement by the new section 107DZA(2) of LDEDCA 2009 (see Amendment 220).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Policy delivery in areas of competence—
“(1) Any function of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority which—
(a) relates to an area of competence, and
(b) is not a mayoral function exercisable solely by the mayor
must be exercised by or under the direct authority of the constituent members of that authority.
(2) No person may be appointed to exercise any function that relates to making or delivering policy relating to an area of competence unless that person is an elected member of—
(a) the relevant strategic authority, or
(b) a constituent council within the relevant strategic authority.
(3) Nothing in this section is to be taking as preventing the appointment of staff by the strategic authority or its elected members for the purposes of administrative, advisory or technical support for the exercise of its functions.
(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘constituent members’ means any elected representative who is—
(a) appointed by a constituent council to be a member of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority;
(b) any person acting in the place of a person appointed under paragraph (a).”
This new clause provides that any policy delivery or development relating to an area of competence in a strategic authority is carried out by an elected representative.
New clause 21—Power to provide for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor—
“(1) The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (section 107C) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), leave out ‘one of the members of the authority to be the mayor’s deputy’ and substitute ‘a deputy mayor’.
(3) In subsection (3)(c), leave out ‘the person ceases to be a member of the combined authority’ and insert ‘the person ceases to be a councillor of a constituent council of the authority’
(4) In subsection (4), leave out ‘another member of the combined authority’ and substitute ‘another councillor of a constituent council’.”
This new clause would amend section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority members of the Combined Authority.
New clause 22—Mayoral special advisers—
“(1) The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (section 15) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 15 (Definition of ‘special adviser’ insert—
‘15A Mayoral special advisers
(1) A mayor may appoint one mayoral special adviser.
(2) A mayoral special adviser is a person who holds a position within a mayoral strategic authority and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements in subsection (3).
(3) The requirements are—
(a) the mayoral special adviser is appointed to assist the Mayor after being selected by the Mayor personally;
(b) the appointment will end not later than—
(i) the day on which the Mayor ceases to hold office, or
(ii) if earlier, the end of the day after the day of the poll at the election following the appointment.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish a code of conduct for mayoral special advisers (“the code”).
(5) Before publishing the code (or any revision of it) the Secretary of State must consult the Council of Nations and Regions.
(6) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may not—
(a) authorise the expenditure of public funds; or
(b) exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the mayoral or strategic authority.
(7) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may—
(a) engage in political activity; and
(b) provide party-political advice to the Mayor.
(8) The code must form part of the terms and conditions of service of any mayoral special adviser.
(9) A person appointed under this section is not to be regarded, for the purposes of Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political restriction of officers and staff), as holding a politically restricted post under a local authority.’”
This new clause would insert a new section into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to establish a statutory framework for the appointment of “mayoral special advisers”. It makes provision about appointment, function, code of conduct, and exemption from political restrictions.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The public rightly expect that mayoral strategic authorities will have access to the expertise they need, that they will work with businesses and other stakeholders, and that mayors will work full time to deliver for their communities. Mayoral strategic authorities will undertake critical new functions, including a stronger set of planning, transport and skills powers and, increasingly, police, fire and public health duties. The authorities will also represent their region in engagement with national bodies, and undertake joint working with partners. It is simply not realistic to expect a single mayor to do all that on their own.
The appointment of commissioners will be a local decision and no additional funding will be provided. I will gladly take Members’ questions now, but when we discuss schedule 3 in four groups’ time, I will expand on some of the checks and balances we are introducing to ensure that commissioners add real value to local decision making. I commend clause 9 to the Committee.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The name of the Bill promises devolution and community empowerment, yet a number of its clauses cause the Liberal Democrats some concern, and this is one. A key principle of democracy, local or national, is to have elected people—Ministers, Members of Parliament or councillors—delivering for the people who elect them. It makes little sense that a mayor of a combined county authority or combined authority, with dozens or scores of skilled constituent councillors and council leaders beneath them, might instead choose to appoint a commissioner to such an important role.
We heard in oral evidence from Councillor Bev Craig about the model used in Manchester, where the leaders of the constituent councils perform one of the portfolios. That strikes me as much more appropriate in a large strategic authority, where each of those individuals has skin in the game. There is no reason why a mayoral authority should not operate in the same way as large unitary authorities do. Mine represents more than 400,000 people and does not require a commissioner to look at planning, although it does have a head of planning—a paid member of staff. Policy decisions have in the English system traditionally been made by politicians, so I struggle to see why creating a new layer of authorities, further away from people, should take away the principle that such decisions should be made by elected people.
Some have suggested that there are not enough constituent council leaders in some areas—perhaps areas that have only three or four council leaders. There are some incredible deputy leaders and portfolio holders. There may be a case for drawing from a broader pool, but suggesting that those people are not sufficiently qualified in understanding their area or area of expertise could damage the respect that council leaders have in their area, as well as the connection between a constituent council and the strategic authority that sits above it. If we want constituent councils to drive better strategic decisions and better strategic outcomes for all residents, it would be much more sensible to give those individuals a real role in the authority. Given the way that additional responsibility allowances are scheduled, that can be a lot cheaper, because the Bill does not provide for people to have the double allowances that we already have in other parts of the system.
If we bring in external individuals as commissioners, there will be few checks and balances; they are not democratically accountable. The mayor may well be able to remove them, as is detailed in the Bill, but the public cannot remove them. Fundamentally, the people who are making policy decisions should be able to be removed by the public. They should also be held to the standards regime, as well as the other elements of conflicts of interest and financial declarations that councillors must follow.
I think that is all I want to say, but I feel really strongly that a model is there, such as the one in Manchester. We have heard about London evolving over time, but we have some great models running in the country. To me, it seems a sensible way forward to look at what they are doing in Greater Manchester, which is already incredibly successful.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
As the hon. Lady refers to Greater Manchester, I am minded of the role that Chris Boardman has played in Greater Manchester in rolling out active travel. He is unelected, and I think it would be a shame if we could not take advantage of such a person’s expertise. Does she accept that is a risk with what she proposes?
Vikki Slade
There is a role for experts, but the role of the commissioners, as they are seen through this lens or this organisation, is far better suited to people who are elected. Councils around the country, including Manchester, can appoint individuals to do specific roles for a specific period of time, but the role of commissioner lies in those strategic decision-making pieces that are integral to their shape, and they ensure that an individual cannot independently run a fiefdom. I think it is really important that there are local people who are accountable. There is nothing to stop an organisation from appointing an individual expert, as they do all over the country, but they do not need to be called “commissioners”.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
With your permission, Sir John, I will make some references to schedule 3 as well as clause 9, just to do it all in the same place. I will start by responding to some of the hon. Lady’s points. She raises some valid concerns. I will just give the perspective of someone who lives in quite a fractious combined authority area. I think my combined authority board currently has two Conservatives, two Lib Dems and two Labour—that is not enough people, so it must be 3:3:2, but I cannot remember which way around.
We also have the Manchester system at the moment, whereby different people hold different portfolios, which has led to a lot of politicisation. We have a Conservative mayor now, and we previously had a Labour mayor, but under both there was a lot of game-playing going on and a lot of difficulty, so I think it would be helpful for the mayor to be able to appoint commissioners just to get on with delivering their strategy. They are directly elected, and although I disagree with my mayor on a lot of things, I accept his mandate. It may well be helpful for mayors across the country to be able to deliver the strategy that they have stood on.
My concern relates to the relative sizes of combined authorities in a uniform approach to commissioners, and whether we can look at how to deal with that. To give an example, Greater Manchester has 3 million residents; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has around 1 million. Similarly, the Greater Manchester combined authority has 3,500 staff—or 4,600 if you include Transport for Greater Manchester—while Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority has 139 employees, according to a freedom of information request from March 2024. The difference in scale is significant, and obviously the amount of work for commissioners to oversee is therefore significant.
I do not want to put the Minister on the spot now, but could she write to me at some point to give context on whether the Government have considered modifying the number of commissioners that a combined authority mayor can appoint with respect to that variance in size, or perhaps the allowance payable to those commissioners, so they would be more part time in smaller authorities? I note that amendment 293, which we will discuss later, relates to allowances, and I can imagine that the Government want to allow flexibility so that local areas can do what is best for them, which makes perfect sense.
Within my area, if commissioners were paid at director level, that could cost well over £1 million. Senior officers can earn in excess of £100,000, which is a significant sum, and it is more than mayors themselves or many Government Ministers earn. That may well be appropriate in London, where it works and seems to be doing a great job, but London is a lot bigger than some other authorities. I thank the Committee for listening to those thoughts, and if the Minister could give some clarity on how we can deal with some of those issues, I would be really grateful.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have some sympathy with the points that have been made in the debate. It is an area in which there is scope to move towards a degree of consensus. I think that we all recognise that part of the underlying thinking behind the mayoral combined authority is that it brings a new element of leadership, and from those models where they are established, such as in London, we can identify some of the issues. As we heard at the start of the Committee, there is clear evidence about accountability.
One of the issues that persists in London is that there are a number of advisers—whether they are commissioners or not is a moot point—who undertake sometimes quite highly paid roles on behalf of the mayor, but they are not visibly accountable to the GLA, the boroughs or anybody else. That begins to undermine public confidence, and it clearly creates a sense of distance between those who are elected and those who they are there to serve.
While I agree that there is no reason why somebody who is elected should not occupy those roles, one of the issues with the proposed amendment is that there is clearly a risk of constraining them—in particular, in relation to the wording of the proposed amendment. When we consider some of the statutory roles that might be occupied—directors of children’s services, statutory directors of social care, monitoring officers, section 151 officers and others who have legal duties—there is a risk that by defining it as narrowly as the amendment does, we create some concerns about the interaction between those who are part of the professional officer corps that serves local government and those who are political appointees. I do not think that that is intentional; it is simply a risk that arises from the way in which it is drafted.
We will not be supporting the amendment, but I am mindful of the comments that have been made by those on the Government Benches about the need to ensure that those who occupy the roles are fit to do so, and that they are publicly accountable, because they will be public servants and they need to be answerable to effective scrutiny measures for the work that they do.
Siân Berry
I want to participate in this debate, despite having not tabled any amendments. I am grateful to the Members who have done so. The issue of commissioners is interesting. It is also interesting that the Government have chosen this model to codify in the Bill. From my experience, I believe that the London model of how this is done is far ahead of other combined or strategic authorities that already exist, and of the Government’s imagination in terms of the Bill. London Assembly members are used to having the equivalent of commissioners—deputy mayors—to scrutinise. The Assembly members do that effectively, not only by asking the deputy mayors questions and making them accountable, but also by providing them with evidence and new ideas, and by highlighting problems across the strategic area. Many effective changes have been brought through in that way.
However, to have those kinds of commissioners without that level of scrutiny is a mistake. In that respect, I am not in favour, and I am not convinced by the argument from my Liberal Democrat colleagues that people who are separately responsible for running services—many of them statutory services—and who have a lot of other responsibilities and duties in the constituent part of the strategic area are the right people to be given those kinds of roles. It is a really interesting question.
I have also found that, aside from a very short period when a Green deputy mayor was appointed to serve under an independent mayor in London, most mayors seem to be allergic to appointing anyone from an opposition party to any of those roles. There are examples of independently minded, effective, delivery-focused people. Chris Boardman, in Manchester, was mentioned. However, there does seem to be a party political element to the appointment of the roles, if the Minister and the Chair were to look at the record.
In conclusion on this clause—and it will come up in relation to other parts of the Bill—we collectively need a wider discussion about scrutiny and governance of the new roles. Some of the comments earlier from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner suggested that if we all got together in a room, we might be able to come up with a better idea than what is being proposed. I very much agree with that. There are things that we should be discussing.
It was pointed out to us in evidence that we will lose something like 90% of our elected representation in certain areas. In certain parts of the country, people will end up with somewhat of a deficit of overall elected representatives—people to come to with casework. More should be looked at on whether or not a model more like the London Assembly could be adopted, where people are separately elected with strategic responsibilities. In London, there are constituency Assembly members, and Assembly members who are London-wide and take a more strategic view. Those are good models that have worked, and the Government and others should look at that. It is not up for debate today, but my new clause 15 proposes a review of scrutiny, which I will argue for later. When the Government come to look at this in review, which inevitably they will have to do, I hope they will look again at potentially having more directly elected—
David Simmonds
I am listening attentively to what the hon. Lady described. We heard in evidence from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen of the District Councils’ Network that under these proposals, shire England stands to lose 90% of its elected representation, which the hon. Lady referred to. There is not anything really concrete in the Bill that sets out what scrutiny should look like—what those minimum standards should be. There are elements about conduct and things like that, but that is very basic. Does the hon. Lady have a view about what a good model should look like, so that local residents can exercise their control over what happens in their neighbourhood effectively?
Siân Berry
I am attempting in my speech not to be too biased towards what I am used to, because that is a failing as well. We should discuss this in a very open way. Other new clauses I have tabled contain proposals for things such as a citizens assembly. We should look at international examples as well. When there are proposals to spend a significant amount of money on the commissioners, there is value in spending an appropriate amount on decent scrutiny and elected representatives. Again, I am biased—I am an elected representative. I think we are good value, but that is a case to be made.
Finally, I cannot find any mention in schedule 3 about guidance that the Secretary of State may issue to commissioners about conduct, standards and transparency. I would like some reassurance from the Minister about guidance on those aspects of the job. Even if they are not elected, they are accountable to the public and must be given a process and regime of standards, and potentially be brought into existing standards systems. Without scrutiny, standards and regulations to govern their behaviour, I worry about this in the same way as several other Members today have.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Commissioners can and will support mayors in getting the job done for their communities. They are not compulsory. There is no obligation on a mayor to appoint commissioners, but it gives the mayor the option of increasing capacity and expertise to do that. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about the example of Greater Manchester, where they have council leaders who are portfolio leads. It is worth pointing out that Manchester also uses commissioners—for example, on active travel—so it can be complementary or can supplement. It is just giving them an additional set of levers in order to respond.
It is also worth pointing out that there will be some roles that the mayor has accountability for that they simply cannot delegate to councillors—for example, strategic planning powers, where direct delegation to a commissioner might expand the mayor’s capacity to dispense with that responsibility. However, to the point about checks and balances, which has been made time and again, it is important to be clear that we completely agree on the need for accountability for commissioners. They will be accountable to the mayor for their performance, who has the power to terminate their appointment, and the combined authority or combined county authority must also agree before any non-mayoral functions are delegated to the commissioner. Critically, the combined authority or combined county authority overview and scrutiny committee will also have the power to recommend the termination of commissioners if they think the commissioner is not performing or delivering. A two-thirds majority of members of the authority is required to accept that recommendation.
Siân Berry
Does the Minister believe that the people who are able to recommend that the commissioner be terminated have sufficient ways to discover whether or not they should be?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member made the point about the scrutiny of commissioners, which is a fair and valid point, and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire made the point about flexibility in different contexts, particularly for smaller strategic authorities. We have come at this in such a way as to allow local areas as much flexibility as possible, but these are valid points about making sure that the model is flexible enough to respond to specific contexts. We will provide further detail in statutory guidance on the selection and appointment of commissioners, as well as other operational matters that the combined authority or combined county authority will need to consider, and we will take some of the points that have been raised as we do that in due course.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Minister talks about our scrutiny committees being able to recommend the termination of commissioners. Has she given any thought to their involvement in the appointment of commissioners? For example, currently, those appointed as deputy police and crime commissioners have to appear before the police and crime panel, which makes a recommendation to the police and crime commissioner about their suitability for the role. Has the Minister given any thought to how scrutiny committees can get involved before someone takes on the commissioner role, rather than waiting to see if they are good or not and then making a recommendation to the mayor?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have done this through the constituent members of the combined authority, so that before an appointment can be made, the full combined authority will need to agree to that appointment. We think that provides sufficient safeguards and the ability to scrutinise; however, the point about how we ensure ongoing scrutiny of the work being done and the performance by more than the mayor and the combined authority is a fair point, and we will take it away.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The commissioners are not accountable to the public; they are accountable to the mayor, who will of course be elected. The Minister talks about scrutiny, but what about holding them to account on public standards? What kind of framework is there to ensure trust in these commissioners?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
All holders of public office have to adhere to public standards; that is as true for national Government as it is for regional and local government. We expect those standards to apply, and the safeguards we are putting in place by enabling the mayor to terminate based on performance or poor conduct will ensure that they are upheld.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Commissioners
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 70, in schedule 3, page 111, line 33, at end insert—
“(d) excepted fire and rescue functions.”
This would prevent a commissioner appointed by the mayor of a CCA from exercising “excepted fire and rescue functions” (defined in Amendment 71).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 71, 73 and 74.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The amendments will prevent a commissioner from exercising certain fire and rescue functions that should be reserved as functions of the mayor, as head of the fire and rescue authority in the area. The effective delegation of fire and rescue functions to a commissioner can ease capacity constraints on the mayor, by ensuring that there is a dedicated individual with the time and expertise to focus on executing those functions. Fire and rescue functions are already delegated successfully to deputy mayors for policing and crime in Greater Manchester and in York and North Yorkshire. The ability to delegate to a commissioner, without the need for secondary legislation, simplifies that process. If they wish, mayors will be able to make an existing deputy mayor for policing and crime the public safety commissioner, meaning that individual could lead on both policing and fire.
However, certain functions should be the sole responsibility of an elected mayor, as head of the fire and rescue authority. The retained functions are those with the most significant bearing on the strategic direction of the fire service, such as its budget, its risk plan, and the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer. It is important that these decisions are taken right at the top, and that the person taking them is accountable at the ballot box.
These amendments provide for the effective delegation of fire and rescue functions. They ensure that decisions are taken at the right level and support the Government’s commitment to ensure that our communities are safe.
Amendment 70 agreed to.
Amendment made: 71, in schedule 3, page 112, line 3, at end insert—
“(6) In this paragraph “excepted fire and rescue functions” means—
(a) functions under the following provisions of the FRSA 2004—
(i) section 13 (reinforcement schemes);
(ii) section 15 (arrangements with other employers of fire-fighters);
(iii) section 16 (arrangements for discharge of functions by others);
(b) the functions of—
(i) appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;
(ii) approving the terms of appointment of the chief fire officer;
(iii) holding the chief fire officer to account for managing the fire and rescue service;
(c) approving—
(i) the community risk management plan;
(ii) the fire and rescue declaration;
(d) approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—
(i) as far as reasonably practicable, the CCA is able to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs, and
(ii) the CCA is able to perform its functions so far as is necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;
(e) approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other Category 1 responders and Category 2 responders in respect of—
(i) the performance of the CCA’s duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (duty to assess, plan and advise);
(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act.
(7) In sub-paragraph (6) and this sub-paragraph—
“Category 1 responder” and “Category 2 responder” have the meanings given in section 3 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (section 2: supplemental);
“chief fire officer” means the person with responsibility for managing the fire and rescue service;
“community risk management plan” means a plan which—
(a) is prepared and published by the combined authority in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and
(b) sets out for the period covered by the document in accordance with the requirements of the Framework—
(i) the combined authority’s priorities and objectives, and
(ii) an assessment of all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks that could affect its community, in accordance with the discharge of the combined authority’s fire and rescue functions;
“emergency” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (meaning of “emergency”);
“fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the FRSA 2004;
“fire and rescue declaration” means a document which—
(a) is prepared and published by the combined authority in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and
(b) contains a statement of the way in which the combined authority has had regard, in the period covered by the document, to the Framework and to any community risk management plan prepared by the combined authority for that period;
“fire and rescue functions” means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the combined authority has by virtue of an order under section 105A, or
(b) functions which the combined authority has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the FRSA 2004;
“Fire and Rescue National Framework” means the document prepared by the Secretary of State under section 21 of the FRSA 2004;
“fire and rescue service” means the personnel, services and equipment secured for the purposes of carrying out the functions of a fire and rescue authority under—
(a) section 6 of the FRSA 2004 (fire safety);
(b) section 7 of the FRSA 2004 (fire-fighting);
(c) section 8 of the FRSA 2004 (road traffic accidents);
(d) any applicable order under section 9 of the FRSA 2004 Act (emergencies);
(e) section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (duty to assess, plan and advise) and any applicable subordinate legislation made under that Act;
(f) any other provision of, or made under, an enactment which confers functions on a fire and rescue authority;
“FRSA 2004” means the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would define the “excepted fire and rescue functions” which a commissioner appointed by the mayor of a CCA would be prevented from exercising by Amendment 70.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 293, in schedule 3, page 112, line 16, at end insert—
“(2A) The relevant remuneration panel may not recommend allowances which exceed the amount paid in salary to a person employed at director level within the relevant authority.”.
This amendment ensures that Commissioners cannot be paid more than Directors working for the authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 292, in schedule 3, page 112, line 22, at end insert—
“(5) The relevant remuneration panel must consider, and make recommendations about, whether commissioners appointed by the mayor, and councillors in the constituent areas, should be eligible for the local government pension scheme.
(6) Recommendations of the relevant remuneration panel relating to the local government pension scheme must have the aim of achieving value for money.”.
This amendment requires remuneration panels to consider whether mayoral commissioners should be eligible for the LGPS and justify those findings.
David Simmonds
These amendments concern the remuneration of commissioners and have two purposes.
There is a long-established principle within the arrangements for the remuneration of elected officials in local government that an independent panel, which is able to take evidence from the public and other good sources in the local area, will make a recommendation to the local authority about what the scheme of allowances payable should be. That brings a degree of transparency. Councils are currently required to consider the recommendations and to update their scheme from time to time, including voting to renew it each year. That has certain elements. One is whether commissioners—in this case, those who are appointed and are part of a mayoral combined authority—should be eligible for the local government pension scheme.
We heard an announcement from the Secretary of State on this issue, and it is the view of the shadow team that it is a sensible step. Changing the local government pension scheme from a final salary scheme to an average salary scheme was led by councillors, and it was instrumental in convincing a very large body of appointed officials to move over to that scheme, saving the taxpayer millions of pounds. However, it is also important that those appointed as commissioners are considered for eligibility and that each mayor is transparent about the recommendations and advice they have undertaken around that.
The second point to consider is around remuneration. We often hear it cited that there are people in the civil service, the NHS and local government who are paid more than the Prime Minister, which is used as a benchmark for excessive pay. Whether or not we agree with that—personally, I do not, as I recognise that there is a professional salary structure for these roles, in which those people will participate for the whole of their careers, that is very different from the context for politicians—it is none the less important to recognise that those who are appointed into mayoral roles should be subject to some degree of constraint.
As is the case with local government, it seems reasonable that we do not see elected officials appointed on a very significantly higher salary than senior professionals who are advising in the same field. The amendments aim to bring a degree of transparency and rigour to that, and to ensure that, in the potential circumstance where a mayor chooses to stretch the limits of their powers of appointment, shall we say, there is some degree of constraint so that the public can see that the taxpayer pound is being carefully husbanded.
Sam Carling
We have just heard the Minister speak about having statutory guidance on this issue. Does the hon. Member agree that one way of making this change, rather than through these amendments, would be for the guidance to include some clear indications to the remuneration panels about what roles they should consider comparable for mayoral commissioners. That might be council leaders or cabinet members rather than senior officers; or it may be senior officers, where appropriate.
David Simmonds
I understand the issue that the hon. Member is highlighting. One thing that emerged from the debate about councillor pensions was that they were essentially taken away by a decision of Parliament, without the process of legislation. One of the risks here is that statutory guidance, robust as it can be and coming with a duty to “have regard”, can be changed quite quickly. Therefore, if this is not clearly set out on the face of the Bill, the ability of this Parliament and of local communities, as we are observing, to exercise the degree of accountability and scrutiny that they might wish is undermined. That is why we have proposed these amendments.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his thoughtful contribution on this critical question of how to ensure value for money in the remuneration of commissioners. It is important that allowances paid to commissioners accurately reflect the work they do but also represent value for money. We completely agree with that principle. That is why the Bill, as drafted, has a clear process for setting the allowances of commissioners. The relevant authority must consider a report by a relevant remuneration panel, and payments cannot exceed the amount specified in that report.
Ultimately, what commissioners are paid is a local decision, and we have crafted the measures for that, but it is a decision that needs to be made in alignment with recommendations, as is the practice across local government. Adding a further requirement that commissioners cannot be paid more than directors would reduce local autonomy in decision making and would pre-emptively undermine the relevant remuneration panel. The Bill is about empowering places, but what we can and will consider is how we set up statutory guidance to provide clarity about what is possible and to deal with some of the potential pitfalls that the hon. Member has raised.
Amendment 292 seeks to place a duty on remuneration panels to consider and make recommendations about the local government pension scheme. Again, I understand the intent behind the amendment and the importance of ensuring that public officials in local government are properly remunerated and incentivised. However, I do not believe the amendment necessarily advances that.
We value the work that remuneration panels do to make considered recommendations about allowances that should be paid locally. However, overall access and eligibility to the local government pension scheme is dealt with at national level. It is therefore not clear what value the amendment would add, which is why I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
David Simmonds
I have listened intently to what the Minister has said. I think the risk is that, if things are delegated to statutory guidance, what emerges later on will not meet the expectations set out in the debate. I will therefore push for a vote on these amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 72, in schedule 3, page 112, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert—
“Ending of appointment
8A The appointment of a person as a commissioner ends if—
(a) the appointment ceases to have effect in accordance with paragraph 2(2), 4(3) or 5,
(b) the appointment ends—
(i) in accordance with the terms and conditions included by virtue of paragraph 6(1), or
(ii) in accordance with paragraph 6(2),
(c) the appointment is terminated in accordance with its terms and conditions—
(i) by the mayor for the area of the CCA (whether that is the person who made the appointment or a successor), or
(ii) by the commissioner,
(d) the appointment ceases to have effect in accordance with paragraph 10(4), or
(e) the commissioner dies.”
This would state the ways in which the appointment of a commissioner can end.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Simply, these amendments set out the ways in which a commissioner’s appointment can end. Specifically, it can end if the appointment is invalid, if the person becomes ineligible, if the term of the appointment ends, if the appointment is terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions, if a recommendation to terminate the commissioner’s appointment is accepted, or if the commissioner passes away.
We have talked about the accountability mechanisms that we are putting in place to ensure that commissioners play the role they should play, but they are accountable to the mayor. We have also talked about the role of the scrutiny committee in providing oversight and recommendations about termination.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendments made: 73, in schedule 3, page 116, line 40, at end insert—
“(d) excepted fire and rescue functions.”
This would prevent a commissioner appointed by the mayor of a combined authority from exercising “excepted fire and rescue functions” (defined in Amendment 74).
Amendment 74, in schedule 3, page 117, line 10, at end insert—
“(6) In this paragraph ‘excepted fire and rescue functions’ means—
(a) functions under the following provisions of the FRSA 2004—
(i) section 13 (reinforcement schemes);
(ii) section 15 (arrangements with other employers of fire-fighters);
(iii) section 16 (arrangements for discharge of functions by others);
(b) the functions of—
(i) appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;
(ii) approving the terms of appointment of the chief fire officer;
(iii) holding the chief fire officer to account for managing the fire and rescue service;
(c) approving—
(i) the community risk management plan;
(ii) the fire and rescue declaration;
(d) approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—
(i) as far as reasonably practicable, the CCA is able to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs, and
(ii) the CCA is able to perform its functions so far as is necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;
(e) approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other Category 1 responders and Category 2 responders in respect of—
(i) the performance of the CCA’s duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (duty to assess, plan and advise);
(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act.
(7) In sub-paragraph (6) and this sub-paragraph—
‘Category 1 responder’ and ‘Category 2 responder’ have the meanings given in section 3 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (section 2: supplemental);
‘chief fire officer’ means the person with responsibility for managing the fire and rescue service;
‘community risk management plan’ means a plan which—
(a) is prepared and published by the combined authority in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and
(b) sets out for the period covered by the document in accordance with the requirements of the Framework—
(i) the CCA’s priorities and objectives, and
(ii) an assessment of all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks that could affect its community, in accordance with the discharge of the CCA’s fire and rescue functions;
‘emergency’ has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (meaning of ‘emergency’);
‘fire and rescue authority’ means a fire and rescue authority under the FRSA 2004;
‘fire and rescue declaration’ means a document which—
(a) is prepared and published by the CCA in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and
(b) contains a statement of the way in which the CCA has had regard, in the period covered by the document, to the Framework and to any community risk management plan prepared by the CCA for that period;
‘fire and rescue functions’ means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the CCA has by virtue of regulations under section 19, or
(b) functions which the CCA has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the FRSA 2004;
‘Fire and Rescue National Framework’ means the document prepared by the Secretary of State under section 21 of the FRSA 2004;
‘fire and rescue service’ means the personnel, services and equipment secured for the purposes of carrying out the functions of a fire and rescue authority under—
(a) section 6 of the FRSA 2004 (fire safety);
(b) section 7 of the FRSA 2004 (fire-fighting);
(c) section 8 of the FRSA 2004 (road traffic accidents);
(d) any applicable order under section 9 of the FRSA 2004 Act (emergencies);
(e) section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (duty to assess, plan and advise) and any applicable subordinate legislation made under that Act;
(f) any other provision of, or made under, an enactment which confers functions on a fire and rescue authority;
‘FRSA 2004’ means the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.”
This would define the “excepted fire and rescue functions” which a commissioner appointed by the mayor of a combined authority would be prevented from exercising by Amendment 73.
Amendment 75, in schedule 3, page 117, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert—
“Ending of appointment
8A The appointment of a person as a commissioner ends if—
(a) the appointment ceases to have effect in accordance with paragraph 2(2), 4(3) or 5,
(b) the appointment ends—
(i) in accordance with the terms and conditions included by virtue of paragraph 6(1), or
(ii) in accordance with paragraph 6(2),
(c) the appointment is terminated in accordance with its terms and conditions—
(i) by the mayor for the area of the combined authority (whether that is the person who made the appointment or a successor), or
(ii) by the commissioner,
(d) the appointment ceases to have effect in accordance with paragraph 10(4), or
(e) the commissioner dies.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would state the ways in which the appointment of a commissioner can end.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10
Combined authorities and CCAs: allowances for members with special responsibilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause will ensure that all combined authorities and combined county authorities can pay their members an allowance where they take on special responsibility for the combined authority or the combined county authority. Constituent council members regularly take on important additional responsibilities, particularly leading on policy portfolios such as housing or transport. We heard from the leader of Manchester city council about the important role she plays for that combined authority. They are crucial in driving forward local policy, ensuring that it meets the needs and aspirations of our communities. Indeed, their role will grow in importance as we increase the powers and functions available to combined authorities and combined county authorities.
However, currently, constituent council members can be paid for such special responsibilities only by their council, not the combined authority or combined county authority. This simply is not right; members should not be expected to do important work for free, and constituent councils should not foot the bill for work done in service of another body. Ensuring that the combined authority or combined county authority can pay its members creates a fairer system, allowing areas to recognise and reward hard work that delivers for communities. To ensure transparency and accountability, pay will be determined following a report by an independent remuneration panel.
David Simmonds
I draw the Minister’s attention to the existing arrangements for independent remuneration panels. She has referenced the proposals for how this kind of situation will be handled. However, we can envisage circumstances such as those that we heard about in Greater Manchester, where the mayoral commissioners are effectively drawn from the leadership of those local authorities.
There is a degree of ambiguity in proposed new sections 52A(6) and 113E(6), which refer to allowances paid
“in respect of the same special responsibilities”.
For example, I think of a situation where someone is a cabinet member with responsibility for transport in a constituent authority and also undertakes a strategic transport role as part of the combined authority. We as politicians would recognise that those are two different things, in the same way that a Minister undertaking duties in the Government is paid separately from their role as a Member of Parliament because those two things are distinct.
Transparency and clarity are important to retaining public confidence. Clearly, we do not want to create a situation where there is a degree of dispute, such as where a mayoral combined authority expects the constituent council to pay, or vice versa, and where an individual who wishes to take up those duties is inhibited from doing so. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out how the statutory guidance will address that issue so the Committee can be confident that we will not see this act as a barrier to participation in the governance of these new authorities.
Sam Carling
I have some more thrilling financial commentary, so I hope the Committee will forgive me. First, I welcome what the Minister has just said. Exactly this situation happened in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, where our mayor went on medical leave for some time. His deputy, Councillor Anna Smith, who is a good friend of mine, ended up taking on the deputy mayoral role, so she had to drop hours at work and faced a significant loss of income. Our council took the decision to pay her as essentially a cabinet member, but it was not ideal. Clause 10 will resolve so many issues.
I want to highlight a discrepancy in that, at present, there is usually no allowance for members who sit on the combined authority board. A lot of the time, it is the leader of the council who does so, and it is often considered to be part of their portfolio, but it is not always leaders who sit on the board. That can lead to people taking on a very significant commitment without any financial support, despite potentially having to reduce hours at work and the like, if the councillor in question has a job, as many do. That is not conducive to having a diverse range of elected representatives to do these jobs.
Following local government reorganisation, if we have fewer leaders on boards and more holders of other portfolios and councillors, we may see this problem increase. I encourage the Minister to consider either altering the clause or making other provisions as the Bill progresses to allow combined authorities, if they wish, to pay an allowance to their board members for that role.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and the context in which that could arise. Our judgment is that if the independent remuneration committee does its job, we can mitigate around that. There is always a balance. We are trying to live the spirit of the Bill and to create as much autonomy, space and power for the mayor and constituent authorities to make such decisions, rather than us specifying nationally. As we get representations from strategic authorities going through the process, we will reflect that in statutory guidance, but we think we have the right balance. The important role that the remuneration committee will play will help to mitigate some of the risks the hon. Member mentioned.
On the specific example raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, we are not prohibiting elected members from sitting on the combined authority. It is within the gift of the combined authority. Again, we are giving as much flexibility as possible for an authority to come up with measures that work for a particular local area.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: precepts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 11, page 14, leave out from line 35 to line 13 on page 15 and insert—
“(a) omit subsection (11)(a);
(b) in subsection (11)(b), for ‘that section’ substitute ‘section 107G of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009’;
(c) omit subsection (12)(a);
(d) in subection 12(b), for ‘that section’ substitute ‘section 41 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023’.”
This removes the restriction on mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs only being able to issue a precept in connection with mayoral functions.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The amendment updates the clause to ensure that mayors have the power to precept across all their functions. It replaces the provisions added to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 by the Bill, which needed clarification. The amendment will mean that, by virtue of being major precepting authorities, combined authorities and combined county authorities will have the power to precept across all their functions. It repeals provisions that previously restricted that precepting power to specific functions. The amendment more effectively meets the policy intention to allow mayors to precept for everything that they are required to do. That will give mayors more flexibility in how to fund mayoral priorities to create growth and improve local services.
Government amendments 76 and 79 provide that the issuing of precepts under the Local Government Finance Act is a function exercisable only by the mayor, and that that is the case for mayoral and non-mayoral functions. By removing restrictions from the existing legislation, the amendments will establish that precepting is a function of the mayor for expenditure relating to mayoral and non-mayoral functions, meeting the original policy intention. It has always been the intention of the Government that issuing a mayoral council tax precept should be a function of the mayor alone. The amendments will ensure that that will be the case and will ensure that mayors can precept across all their functions.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have significant concerns about the import of amendments 82, 76 and 79. We have made a number of references to some interactions with different elements of local government finance, but clearly the measures will open the door to very substantial tax rises through the vehicle of the mayoral precept. Worse than that, they open it up to being used for any purpose, in effect.
In the sometimes tense relationship between central and local government, there are disputes about who should pick up the tab—for example, the ongoing debate about asylum costs. That is very much having an effect in my local authority, which has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any in the country. Such individuals are only a cost to the local authority, as a result of central Government policy. The Bill opens up the scope for mayors to directly tax people for the purposes of environmental legislation, or social care, which consumes around 70% of the budgets of local authorities, or any other function that authorities may choose to undertake—making Manchester a nuclear-free zone, or whatever it may be—despite the fact that those are not functions that mayors undertake by statute. I am sure we all agree that there should be an opportunity for politicians to speak up, but there needs to be some limit on it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I would just point out to the hon. Gentleman that the mayoral precept was introduced in 2017 by a Conservative Government, and that mayors are directly elected. Like Members of Parliament, mayors are not immune to political pressures around tax rises, and examples across the country show that mayors are as thoughtful about the right balance between investing in their services and managing tax increases as national politicians—in fact, when we think about the record of the last Government, perhaps more so.
David Simmonds
That was a fairly shameless political pitch, but we should just reflect on the debates that took place across the Dispatch Boxes yesterday during Housing, Communities and Local Government questions, when it was highlighted that we have a Mayor of London who is quite happy to issue precepts to indulge his personal political priorities but is an abject failure in discharging his mayoral functions around housing. Thousands of people are unable to find homes in the capital because the mayor is failing to build out more than 300,000 planning permissions that have already been granted by the local authorities. That is an injustice that is being inflicted on the citizens of our capital, and this provision, as envisaged by this Labour Government, potentially inflicts the same, or an even greater, injustice on other areas of the country. For those reasons, we remain deeply concerned about it.
Particularly in an environment where, as we heard earlier, local authorities were left £1.5 billion worse off—net—by the Government’s decision to introduce additional taxes on their employees, the temptation will be for the mayoral precept to be seen as the catch-all or safety valve through which additional taxes can be extracted to meet whatever demand central Government choose to impose, without central Government being accountable for it. That is why we oppose the measures.
Siân Berry
I had not previously heard the Conservatives’ argument on this issue, and I have to say that I disagree. The Minister said that the original intention of the policy was to allow for a wide range of precepting, and if there is one thing that directly elected mayors are really accountable for, it is the level of precept that they set.
I am in favour of creativity in conversations with the electorate about what initiatives, appropriate to the local area, might be funded by precept on a short-term basis or just in the local area. The way that the provision is set up allows mayors to be properly accountable for that. I worry less about it resulting in huge tax rises without consent, because consent is built in at election time.
I appreciate the concerns about austerity continuing in councils that are underneath and part of the combined authority if mayors are taking up available taxpaying powers. In every debate in this Committee, I would love to bring up the fact that all this reorganisation is happening in the absence of an end to austerity. The Government need to provide more funding to local councils so that this is not all being taken in council tax, which is a very unfair tax.
Vikki Slade
I have no principled objection to the mayor setting a precept. I found it confusing when I heard Mayor Houchen explain how he had a zero precept. How does anything get done? Where does the money come from? [Interruption.] I am sure he has a salary, and I am sure he has an extensive office that is paid for by someone. I accept that the principle of a precept is, in some respects, self-limiting, but what bothers me is that the combined authority mayors have no referendum cap, unlike upper-tier, lower-tier, police and crime or fire authorities.
It is fire authorities I particularly want to speak to, because although some Government amendments have been tabled on the role of the mayor in terms of fire and rescue, there is almost silence in the Bill about the role of the fire and rescue service, while embracing it completely and almost making the whole service disappear. I am really concerned that fire authorities are already desperately under-resourced. Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service gets £1.76 a week per household. It has desperately been trying to get a 20p per week increase, but has been told, “No, you can’t have that.” There is nothing in the Bill that protects and ringfences any money for fire services, whereas there is more talk about police services. I am looking for some reassurance and commitment about how fire services funding will be properly resourced and ringfenced to make sure that no area suffers as when we had those horrendous wildfires, where fire services had to beg, borrow and steal equipment.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are all hugely sympathetic to the funding of fire and rescue—as we see climate change, the imperative of fire and rescue services is key—but it is outside the scope of the Bill. We believe that we have the balance right between allowing precepting powers for mayors and allowing democratic accountability by which the electorate can hold any mayor and politician to account.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 11, page 15, line 15, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (4)(a), for the words from “consists” to the end of that paragraph substitute “includes a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.”
This provides for flexibility where the mayor of a mayoral combined authority has PCC functions as to how the components of the authority’s council tax calculation which relate to the authority’s other functions (both mayoral and non-mayoral) are to be set out.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 78, 80 and 81.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The amendment relates to where a mayor has police and crime commissioner functions: secondary legislation about the arrangements for setting the precept must provide that the police and crime commissioner component is ringfenced. Where a mayor has police and crime functions for more than one police and crime commissioner area, secondary legislation must provide that there is a separate police and crime component for each area. The legislation currently provides that there must be separate components for police and crime administrative functions and for mayoral general functions.
The amendments mean that Ministers have the flexibility to provide for either one component for non-police and crime functions, or multiple separate components for different types of non-police and crime functions. I hope Members are following. This gives Ministers the option to direct how precept spending on non-police and crime functions is accounted for, by setting this out clearly in secondary legislation. In doing so, they will be able to ensure that the precept is accounted for in ways that best reflect how the precept should be spent—whether that means allowing for full flexibility across the non-police and crime component, or ringfencing money to be used for certain functions.
Amendments 78 and 81 will give the Secretary of State the ability to make an order about the preparation of budgets for all an authority’s functions. The provision in the Bill currently only provides that power in relation to the mayor’s general functions. This needs to be updated to align with the expanded mayoral precepting powers introduced by the Bill. This allows Ministers to set out the procedures that should be followed in the preparation and calculation of a budget.
By enabling Ministers to set clear direction on the preparation of budgets and the calculation of precepts, these amendments allow for consistent processes to be set across the sector, to give full effect to the expanded precepting powers.
David Simmonds
I have two questions for the Minister. First, given that these budgets, and the precepts that the amendments relate to, will sit within that bit of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, will the requirement for budgets to be balanced in-year apply to all the accounts that the Secretary of State will be giving direction to?
The second question—the Minister may wish to write to the Committee on this—is, will the consistency that she referred to be introduced by giving the Secretary of State individual, and in effect case-by-case, power to issue these directions for different authorities? Clearly, our concern is that if the door has been opened to, in effect, unlimited precept rises, and these were to be used by the Secretary of State to bail out a significant amount of debt in one of these reorganised local authorities—which I know is a significant concern of many of the local authorities that are proposing reorganisation—that would not apply everywhere.
There are certain parts of the country where there are very high levels of debt, and others where those levels of debt do not exist at all. It would be, in effect, a condition of those constituent authorities’ doing the devolution at all that they were not asked to bear that cost. Yet this Bill introduces a back-door power for the Secretary of State to direct that they would go down that route. How do the Government propose to ensure that that is forestalled, so that they can have the assurances that they would need as a necessary minimum?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are two processes that I, as the Minister for devolution, as opposed to the Minister for local government reorganisation, am constantly keen to emphasise. There is a devolution process and there is a local government reorganisation process, which my colleague the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), is taking forward. We know that some authorities are in a difficult financial position as part of that, and we are having a conversation with those authorities in the context of the proposals they are putting forward. That is still very distinct from what we are trying to do through the devolution process, and it is important that colleagues do not conflate the two.
What I would say on the wider questions that the hon. Gentleman raised is that there is nothing that we are proposing to do through the Bill that denudes or undermines the standards for financial prudence and financial accountability that sit across the local government landscape.
David Simmonds
Turning to the question of how a mayoral precept will be used under this group of amendments that the Government have tabled, if we think of the reorganisation in Thurrock or Surrey, both those local authority areas contain a single authority that has a very high level of capital borrowing, or a high level of debt. Those authorities have been assured that there will be three years’ worth of revenue support; in effect, there will be a Government grant to cover the revenue cost of the borrowing for three years. However, the borrowing cost is extended over 40 or 50 years, so there will be a very long period of time where, as things currently stand, that local authority will be expected to meet that cost, when it comes into being.
Clearly, one way of doing that is for the Secretary to State to say, “You will raise your precept, and that is how we will deal with the debt,” but that runs contrary to the proposals for devolution where those authorities have said, “We will do this, but it is simply not fair or ethical for us to accept those debts on to our books.” I am just seeking an assurance from the Minister that either the existing provisions that require the in-year balancing will apply, in which case the Government will deal with this prior to the devolution arrangement coming into existence, or the provisions will not apply, in which case those authorities need to be mindful that the likely consequence of devolution will be a massive increase in the precept levy purely for the purpose of paying off someone else’s debt.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
To answer the specific question, yes, in-year balancing will apply. The purpose of the precepting function is to allow the mayor to invest in key things that will drive the economic prosperity of the area and the core functions that we have set out in the Bill. It would be a very brave mayor who chose to raise the precept not to deliver on that. In the end, they are democratically elected, and it will be for their residents and constituents to show them the consequences of that at the ballot box.
Amendment 77 agreed to.
Amendments made: 78, in clause 11, page 15, line 15, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (5)(b), after ‘functions,’ insert ‘or the other functions of the authority (other than any PCC functions that are exercisable by the mayor), or both’.”
This enables the Secretary of State to require the mayor of a combined authority to prepare an annual budget in relation to the authority’s functions, excluding any mayoral PCC functions, either separately to or in combination with the budget relating to the mayor’s general functions.
Amendment 79, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (2), omit ‘in respect of mayoral functions’.”
This provides that the issuing of precepts under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in respect of expenditure relating to the functions of a mayoral CCA is a function exercisable by the mayor acting on behalf of the CCA.
Amendment 80, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (4)(a), for the words from ‘consists’ to the end of that paragraph substitute ‘includes a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,’.”
This provides for flexibility where the mayor of a mayoral CCA has PCC functions as to how the components of the CCA’s council tax calculation which relate to the CCA’s other functions (both mayoral and non-mayoral) are to be set out.
Amendment 81, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (5)(b), after ‘functions,’ insert ‘or the other functions of the CCA (other than any PCC functions that are exercisable by the mayor), or both’.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This enables the Secretary of State to require the mayor of a CCA to prepare an annual budget in relation to the CCA functions, excluding any mayoral PCC functions, either separately to or in combination with the budget relating to the mayor’s general functions.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Power to borrow
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 12, page 16, line 24, at end insert—
“(9AA) A combined authority or CCA must provide a report to the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing the reasons for which they are seeking consent to exercise the power conferred by section 1.”
This amendment would require the combined authority or CCA to lay a report before Parliament detailing the reasons for which they are seeking the Secretary of State’s consent for exercise of the powers conferred by section 1 on mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 83
Clause stand part.
Manuela Perteghella
The amendment would require any combined authority seeking new devolved powers to lay a formal report before Parliament, explaining why it is seeking those powers and how it intends to use them. It is of absolute importance that any devolution of powers is set within a framework of transparency and visibility on the reasoning, evidence base or expected outcomes for local people. The amendment would bring the process out of the shadows and make it open, transparent and accountable to the people whom local authorities are meant to serve.
The powers devolved under the Bill are significant. They constitute major transfers of authority over transport, housing, strategic planning, education and skills, health and more. Such decisions must be backed by clear reasoning and, above all, a public mandate. The devolution of powers should be clearly justified and democratically accountable, and must not be imposed on communities or done for political convenience. Local residents must understand why an authority is seeking certain powers and what benefits they can expect them to deliver. MPs and peers—our Parliament—must be given the opportunity to assess whether devolution requests are handled consistently and fairly across regions. I therefore urge the Minister to consider our amendment.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way at what I think was the end of her speech. I just wondered whether she or her party had done any analysis of the extra cost that her amendment would put on mayoral authorities. I feel that the Liberal Democrats in Committee are having their cake and eating it—they have said that they want absolute devolution to local people, but now they want accountability to this Parliament on how the devolved mayor spends their money. We have no extra or special democratic right to do that, rather than the mayors who are being proposed. Has she looked at the cost that her proposal might put on the mayors?
Manuela Perteghella
We have not looked at the costs, but we need to understand that the Bill devolves significant powers, possibly to one person. My local authority is a three-tier one at the moment, and we are very happy with that, but now the district councils will be abolished and possibly the county council, and we will have to be part of a unitary authority and then a strategic authority. It is important that we as MPs are here to stand up for our communities and residents. We need to ensure that anyone who gains more powers comes to them through Parliament.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The hon. Lady and her party seem to be proposing that every single potential devolution should come before this House for scrutiny. That would take up a considerable amount of the time of the House, as well as incur the costs picked up on by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. Is her amendment just about kicking devolution into the long grass, rather than being serious?
Manuela Perteghella
No, the amendment is not kicking anything into the long grass. We have to get the Bill—this devolution—right. It is all about accountability, as I said when we were discussing the commissioners. This is a big change. Some of the Committee will already have unitary authorities and I will talk later about devolved Administrations, but for my constituency, that will be new. We need to get it right. Going back to the cost, that will be smaller compared with the cost of what could go wrong.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to clause stand part and amendment 83 before responding directly to amendment 20. On the clause, all existing mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities have powers to borrow for all their functions. That allows them to invest in economically productive infrastructure. Unlike for local authorities, the existing process for confirming the power to borrow money on mayoral combined and mayoral combined county authorities is by making a bespoke statutory instrument after an institution has been established. To confirm such powers by bespoke statutory instrument is highly inefficient and slow. The clause streamlines the process by giving the power to borrow to mayoral combined authorities and county authorities for purposes relevant to all their functions. It preserves existing safeguards by requiring them to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before they exercise the power for the first time in respect of functions other than transport, policing, and fire and rescue. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Government amendment 83 is minor and technical. It simply clarifies that the reference to section 12 coming into force relates to clause 12 of the Bill. Amendment 20 would require a combined authority or combined county authority to produce a report, to be laid before the House by the Secretary of State, detailing the reasons for which they are seeking consent to exercise borrowing powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and Opposition Members have pointed out, this would be an onerous, costly and time-consuming process. The amendment is well-intentioned, but we do not think it necessary.
Like the rest of local government, combined authorities and combined county authorities must operate within the prudential framework, which comprises statutory duties and codes that are intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. The framework already provides robust mechanisms of oversight and accountability. In addition, the exercise of borrowing powers by mayoral combined authorities and county authorities to date has not raised issues. Amendment 20 also contradicts the Bill’s aim of furthering devolution and increasing financial autonomy for these authorities. For this reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will withdraw it.
David Simmonds
I want to make sure that I can reconcile the Minister’s observations and the import of the amendments with her reply to me earlier, when she said that the requirement to balance in-year will apply. Clearly, the provisions essentially state that the Secretary of State can give consent for a substantial degree of borrowing, but it is not at all clear in the clause or the amendments what the purpose of the borrowing would be.
Manchester’s improvements to its transport system are fantastic, but they were funded by central Government as part of the devolution deal, and they are now creating a significant ongoing deficit in the mayoral budget, which has to be covered, essentially, through precepting—by levying those in the local area to cover the cost. There is clearly a concern with that. If the borrowing is for capital purposes there is a clear strategy for its repayment, and it must be for the purposes of capital investment. However, if borrowing is undertaken to cover shortfalls between revenue and the mayor’s expenditure on day-to-day costs, this House would have significant concerns about it in relation to our national accounts. Can the Minister tell the Committee how that decision making will sufficiently constrain a mayor or combined authority from undertaking borrowing that is for the purposes of day-to-day revenue expenditure, so that we do not find a large debt bubble growing underneath these new bodies?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes, I will answer that question. There is a contradiction in the hon. Member’s position. He has spent much of today talking about the need for us to take a more local approach and to give local leaders and communities control, yet he is talking about restricting that very power. Everything that the strategic authority and mayoral combined authority will do will have to operate within the prudential framework. There are robust mechanisms to ensure that all their financial mechanisms adhere to the standards that we expect across local government and national Government.
The shadow Minister gave the example of Greater Manchester. That was a combination of a grant—a lot of devolved areas have an investment fund—borrowing and precepting. That is what we would expect for big capital projects. My experience suggests that mayors across the country have the aptitude and ability to make the right economic decisions on how they balance investment in things that will unlock the economic potential of their areas. We should trust them to do so, as the hon. Member has been saying all day.
Manuela Perteghella
As I said, the amendment would give Parliament the opportunity to assess whether devolution requests are handled with consistency and fairness across the regions, because at the moment they are not. I therefore wish to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We have a number of clauses on which I feel we can make some progress. My proposal is that we get to either the end of clause 19 or 5 pm, whichever comes first. I will not sit here in the cold for much longer than that.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As the local transport authority, combined authorities and combined county authorities deliver a range of local transport functions across their area. Each combined authority or combined county authority agrees its own transport budget for the year and, in many cases, constituent councils contribute to this through a transport levy. This is because constituent councils receive funding for some transport functions directly from Government.
The clause standardises the power for combined authorities and combined county authorities to levy such funding from their constituent councils to cover the cost of their transport functions, where they are not otherwise met. This power has proved effective in supporting transport delivery in local areas. For example, each of the seven councils of the West Midlands combined authority pays a levy based on its population figures, which goes on to fund a range of functions from subsidised bus services to the English national concessionary travel scheme, which provides free bus travel for eligible older and disabled people.
This power complements clause 39, which provides combined authorities and combined county authorities with the power to pay grants to constituent councils. Together, these powers support partnership working between combined authorities and combined county authorities and their constituent members.
David Simmonds
Again, I seek a point of clarification from the Minister. I understand the purpose of the clause, but clearly there is a distinction between a levy, where it is the constituent authority that is required to pay, and a precept, where it is the taxpayer who is paying for it through their council tax bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, if necessary in writing, how it will work where there is a dispute about the payment.
If we take London as an example, we have a London-wide concessionary travel scheme, but it is has very different application in different boroughs. It is easy to foresee a situation where, particularly if the purpose of the overall transport levy does not benefit the whole of the mayoral combined authority area, there will be a dispute about whether that is an appropriate way forward. Particularly if the levy is large, it would have a significant impact on the budget of the constituent local authority. Can the Minister set out how that type of process will be addressed in practice?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have agreed that I will write on the specifics; I think this question comes back to the same theme of how we mitigate collective decision making and agreement across constituent authorities that put at risk their financial viability, or cut across the legal obligation of a particular constituent authority, and I will capture that in writing. However, I would say that we cannot legislate for every eventuality. Indeed, I do not think that is the purpose of legislation. What we can draw on is the practice that we see across the country. Broadly, it is not in the interests of a mayor, who has been democratically elected by the residents and constituents of any of their constituent authorities, to make decisions that will be fundamentally detrimental to those constituents.
The Chair
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will include that in her correspondence, which we look forward to with enthusiasm.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Combined authorities and CCAs: minor amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Committee members will recall that clause 1 introduced the established mayoral strategic authority as a specific type of strategic authority. It drew a distinction between combined authorities and combined county authorities led by a mayor, and those operating without one. Clause 14 inserts the formal definitions of an established mayoral strategic authority, a non-mayoral combined authority and a non-mayoral combined county authority into the relevant existing legislation. These are minor but necessary provisions intended to give clear meaning to the existing legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Additional functions of the GLA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is vital that the devolution framework works for the unique circumstances of London’s governance, which we have talked about in this Committee. That is why the Bill will enable Government to confer functions on the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies. Previously, the Government could change the powers of the Greater London Authority only via primary legislation. This clause brings London into line with other strategic authorities by enabling the Government to change its powers via secondary legislation. This will ensure that the Greater London Authority benefits from the devolution framework and can deepen its powers over time.
David Simmonds
Again, I have a question of clarification; can the Minister tell the Committee whether these powers apply to a transfer of functions, as opposed to the conferral of functions? We know there have been situations, and we can certainly envisage some within the overall package of the Bill, where the statutory duties of the constituent authorities could be transferred over to the mayor, either en bloc or in part. Indeed, there might be times when it might be a sensible approach; if there is an example of a significant failure in one authority, that could be looked after by the mayoral office while the situation is turned around—that goes to the point raised about South Northamptonshire. However, can the Minister clarify whether this refers solely to new powers that are conferred, or opens up the door to the transfer of functions that are currently statutory duties of constituent authorities?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This clause relates to functions and powers that sit underneath the devolution framework that we have talked about and are putting on the face of the Bill, and the seven areas of competencies that this measure applies to.
We currently have a situation where, for example, certain powers will go to Greater Manchester that currently would not necessarily go to the Mayor of London and the GLA, and that does not feel right. Clause 15 allows a mechanism and a process to make sure that there is consistency across the piece, and that we can achieve that without having to go through primary legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 16 will prevent individuals from being a Member of Parliament, or of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and a mayor of a strategic authority at the same time.
The Government are clear that mayors are central to delivering the growth, economic prosperity and change that local communities want. Already, the impact of our mayors, from West Yorkshire to the North East, from Greater London to the West Midlands, is being felt clearly. However, their responsibilities will only increase once this Bill is in law.
It is right that the role of mayor receives the officeholder’s full time and attention. Both MPs and mayors have a duty to represent the constituents that elected them. Fulfilling two different democratic roles could lead to conflicts of interest, given the differences in public expectations for each role and the differing responsibilities of a mayor and an MP. Clause 16 prevents that conflict and will ensure that regions benefit from their mayor’s full time and attention.
Siân Berry
I agree with the principle of not having too many people able to do double-hatting, but it is a fact that there have been overlapping periods when mayors of different combined authorities and London have also been MPs, either at the beginning or end of their term. That has been dealt with in a pragmatic way, with nobody overextending those kinds of double-hatted jobs.
As I understand it, and I would like the Minister to clarify this, writing this rule into statute would mean that, while nobody would be prevented from campaigning to be a mayor or an MP while in either of these jobs, at the moment they are elected, the situation then becomes illegal. An instant resignation takes place on that day. There would be immense disruption across a wide area—perhaps not so much for one constituency, as we have got used to having by-elections for various reasons, but in holding a mayoral by-election.
I wanted to check whether the Government’s intentions here, in making that resignation statutory and instant, are not a bit too much, when these issues have been previously worked out. Does there need to be more detail in the clause to allow for a transition period?
David Simmonds
The Opposition have a high degree of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. It is very striking when we compare our local and regional democracy with those of other countries: in our nearest neighbour, France, with the cumul des mandats, there is almost an expectation enshrined in their politics that, for someone to become Member of the national Parliament, they will have represented their area as a mayor. Indeed, when President Chirac cast around to find someone who was eminently qualified to become Prime Minister of that country, he took the view that there was nobody within the National Assembly who could possibly meet that standard; it needed to be somebody from local or regional government. He lighted on Alain Juppé, the well-reputed mayor of Bordeaux, who served with great distinction as Prime Minister. If we begin to introduce restrictions of this nature, it will significantly constrain the ability of our politics to rise to the challenges that our communities and our areas face.
Paul Holmes
I am not sure that I can beat the excellent oratory of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, but I want to add some context in my own style on why this clause is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion has adequately and expertly addressed why there may be need for overlap in different local situations. She is absolutely correct to say that there have been instances where that overlap has been dealt with in an orderly manner and has been sorted within the usual confines of the democratic mechanisms we currently have.
All the way through the Bill, which I think has admirable aims, the Minister and the Government have said, “Let local people decide.” Now, local people presumably have elected those mayors or those MPs who now might want to be a mayor; I declare an interest here, as this clause will stop me running for the Hampshire and the Solent mayoralty. I will not cry in front of the Minister, but it will mean that my hon. Friends here would have to listen to some of my more mundane speeches for the next three or four years.
Local people have elected their MPs and they should have the right to determine whether those MPs are the people they want to be the mayors. The hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), served as a mayor from 2018 to 2022. At no point did anybody on the Labour side of the House say that he was not good enough to do both jobs at the same time. Ken Livingstone was a mayor and a Member of Parliament from 2000 to 2001. I do not think anybody who was on the Labour side of the House at the time—I grant that many of the Members on that side of the Committee Room were not in the House at the time—was saying that he could not do two jobs at the same time.
This clause just seems very restrictive. If an election is going ahead and a city or region says, “Actually, we do not want you to be our mayor—we want you to remain an MP”, that person will not win the election. The Minister has said many times today that, on elections and democracy, local people should have their say. I find it strange that we seem to be taking quite a restrictive measure on who can and cannot stand in a democratic event, decided democratically by local people, for candidates who, presumably, are local too. I have some concern that this is overreach.
I also think that MPs are generally sensible—I do not want to create breaking news here, but they are generally sensible and, as the Minister said in the context of mayors setting council tax precepts, they are also not immune to the moods and feelings of the local people that they serve. If a local MP wants to stand for election as mayor, they have the right to say that to their constituents. If they get a massive kickback from their constituents, they either will not win the mayoralty or they will not stand.
Local MPs should have the right to make that decision. Local people in that constituency or that region should have the right to say that they do not want that person; or that they might want that person, and allow that person to stand down from Parliament at a time of their choosing, if they are allowed to stand for the mayoralty, and resist the cost of a sudden burst of by-elections to this House. Let local people decide. Let local politicians be local. If they are not wanted, they will not be voted in.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their comments, and I have some sympathy with the arguments made. However, in a world where we are giving greater powers to mayors, which is the process we are going through with this devolution Bill, the idea that someone can exercise those functions to the best of their ability alongside the very important role we all do as MPs is a stretch. It is right for residents and constituents that we say, “If you are elected as a mayor, you ought to be doing that job full time.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Miatta Fahnbulleh
If I may finish, I will give way to hon. Members. The point about transition is a fair one. To clarify, we are setting out in legislation that, at the point someone is elected as a mayor, they resign as an MP, and vice versa. It is at the point of gaining office that this comes into effect. In response to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion’s example of the transition period when campaigning, there are flexibilities within that.
Siân Berry
I appreciate that, but these are two things in different directions. A sitting mayor who becomes an MP would need to resign as mayor that day, given what the Minister has just outlined for us. A mayoral by-election across a large area is a much bigger thing than a parliamentary by-election, and I am not sure that making it instantly statutorily illegal has been properly thought through.
David Simmonds
I ask the Minister to reflect that it used to be the practice of this House that any MP appointed as a Minister had to resign and fight a by-election, because they were undertaking a function different from that for which their constituents had originally elected them. That practice was abandoned because of the extent of the disruption it caused to the work of government and of the House, as well as the cost of those by-elections, so I ask the Government to reflect. We have learned from experience, cross-party, that having these types of requirements is not conducive to good democracy. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to reflect on that.
Paul Holmes
Yes. I thank the Minister for involuntarily giving way to me—Sir John, your rule as Chair is a very happy time for me. The Minister may now think I am being facetious, but I assure her that I am not; I have genuine agreements with her vision for devolution. On her response, however, to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about someone not being able to fulfil two jobs to the best of their ability, can the same argument not be made for Members of this House who are elected while councillors? I am speaking particularly of the Liberal Democrats, but also of some within the Conservative party, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who is sitting behind me. Does the Minister stand by her view that someone cannot do those two roles at the same time? Why is it acceptable for that role, or even for her role as a Minister while she is an MP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned, but the roles of the mayoralty and the MP seem to be different?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are trying to create empowered mayors with huge responsibility over transport, housing, infrastructure and skills. That is a full-time job—bigger even, candidly, than that of an individual Minister. It is absolutely right that they should, if elected to do that job, be doing that job. Hon. Members have made important points about how we get the transition right in order not to have disruption. I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his encyclopaedic knowledge of the history of local and national government and the precedent that Ministers used to resign their seats. We will reflect on that and think about how we get the transition right.
Paul Holmes
My intervention will be very brief. I am slightly burnt by my experience on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, where the Minister constantly said that they would reflect, and we never heard back from them until after the Committee had finished. May I seek assurance from the Minister—she does not need to give an answer today—that, on the point of the immediacy of the vacation of the office, she will come back to us in writing to give us the steer of her reflections and what actions she will take in regard to these concerns, if any? Will she commit to doing that before the Committee rises?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am happy to make that commitment.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clauses 17 and 18 make technical but necessary changes to existing legislation. As hon. Members will know, some functions conferred on combined authorities or combined county authorities are exercisable only by a mayor acting on behalf of the authority.
Clause 17 clarifies that, where a function is conferred on a mayor, it should be taken to be a function of the underlying authority that is exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined authority or combined county authority. This is because mayors of strategic authorities are not corporate entities in themselves; therefore, all functions must be conferred on the underlying authority.
Clause 18 clarifies the meaning and extent of the “general functions” of mayors in combined authorities and combined county authorities. The term “general functions” here refers to non-police and crime functions. It is appropriate for the mayor alone to be able to exercise their judgment in certain cases, and to be held fully accountable for those decisions and ultimately to the public. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Report under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016
The Chair
We now come to amendment 361 in the name of Manuela Perteghella. Do you wish to press this to a vote?
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Sir John. Forgive me, I may be ignorant on this, but on the selection list I do not see amendment 361 in the running order. If you could give me some clarification, I would be very grateful.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 363, in clause 19, page 22, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) progress with the implementation of the strategy provided for in section [Duty to publish and implement a Forward Devolution Strategy].”.
This amendment is consequential on NC46.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 46—Duty to publish and implement a Forward Devolution Strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a forward devolution strategy (“the strategy”).
(2) The purpose of the strategy is to set out the proposed timeline for the establishment of new strategic authorities, or the expansion of existing strategic authorities, in areas of England that are not currently within the area of an established mayoral strategic authority.
(3) The timeline set out in the strategy must include a period within which the Secretary of State intends to issue invitations or directions for proposals for the establishment or expansion of such new strategic authorities for those identified areas.
(4) Any annual report required under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) must include a statement on the progress made in implementing the strategy, including information on any revision of or replacement for the strategy.
(5) Before preparing, publishing, or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the mayors for the areas of established mayoral strategic authorities; and
(b) the constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities.”
This new clause would introduce a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution.
Manuela Perteghella
The amendment and new clause 46 are about giving devolution in England a clear direction and fair footing, and replacing uncertainty with a proper plan and accountability. It will create a clear road map for devolution.
The Bill already includes a requirement for an annual devolution report to be published, but there are currently no plans to include any forward-looking strategy. Why is a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution important and necessary? The local authorities that were left out of the devolution priority programme are facing a cliff edge in terms of funding streams that are now being redirected to mayoral strategic authorities.
Right now, devolution is happening, but unevenly. Cumbria, Cheshire, Warrington, Greater Essex, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Sussex and Brighton are all in the devolution priority programme, putting them on a fast track towards improved transport opportunities, housing and economic growth. Regions such as Kent and Wessex, which were left out of the devolution priority programme, are left not only without the benefits of funding and the regional voice of an elected mayor, should they want one, but without the knowledge of when they can expect those things. The amendment would require the Government to report annually to Parliament on progress made. This transparency will prevent future Ministers from delaying or cherry-picking which regions get devolution next.
The amendments, which require a forward devolution strategy to be published, are therefore important to give councils like those in my area, which are at the beginning of their devolution journey, reassurance that plans are being progressed for devolution in their areas if they are not in tier 1. It is important that councils know not only their current financial situation, but how and when finance and governance are likely to change. The amendment would give local authorities certainty as councils could plan ahead, invest and prepare for new responsibilities. As I said earlier in the debate, devolution must be equitable and consistent, not a patchwork of deals and negotiations.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have sympathy with the points the hon. Member made. We can rarely have too much transparency, but we are conscious that these new bodies and devolution arrangements will be subject to a degree of political oversight. There will be manifestos, on which the public will have a vote. There will be the element of scrutiny, which we have not heard enough about yet but which we would like to think will be built into the new arrangements for these authorities. There will also be a regular process of elections, which will determine who provides the necessary level of leadership. Layered over that, there will be both the political priorities of the devolved authority and those things that are more part of the administrative function. Local authorities have historically had council plans and forward plans that set out decision making, all of which are part of this arrangement. Although the points have been well made, the Opposition are therefore not convinced that what the amendment would add is sufficient to justify its inclusion in the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to amendment 363 and new clause 46 before discussing clause 19.
In the English devolution White Paper, the Government set out clearly our ambition to have universal coverage of strategic authorities in England. That direction of travel is clear. It is also important that the process is led locally, and that areas can submit proposals for devolution that reflect their unique circumstances at a time that makes sense for them. A centrally mandated strategy would cut across that principle, requiring areas to work to a timeline set by Government. That would not only be challenging, but go against the grain of what we are trying to do. The new clause is therefore not necessary. We have set the ambition, and we will work with areas to enable them to come forward with proposals at the appropriate time.
Clause 19 amends existing requirements for the annual report on devolution to ensure that it reflects the introduction of strategic authorities as a category in law. To indicate how the report will look should the Bill receive Royal Assent in its current form, this year’s report was laid before this House and the other place earlier today, so Members can spend their evening reading the report with a glass of wine if they wish. It covers strategic authorities that were established and details of the new devolution framework as set out in the English devolution White Paper.
I commend the clause to the Committee, and ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the amendment and not to press the new clause.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deidre 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 Rail Services: Ashford
(1 day, 15 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
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of returning international rail services to Ashford.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. When the channel tunnel first opened in 1994, it was rightly celebrated as a triumph of engineering and ambition. It showed that Britain was open for business, and our communities in Sussex and Kent continued their centuries-old role as gateways to Europe in a new modern form. When the international rail terminal was built two years later, Ashford became a hub of opportunity, with trains running directly to Paris—including to Disneyland—Brussels and beyond. One of my earliest memories when I was about five years old is boarding the Eurostar to France from Ashford International. I loved going on what I then called the “yellow-nosed train” and having a whole continent on our doorstep.
Today, however, Ashford International is a ghost station. During the pandemic, Eurostar decided that its trains would no longer stop at Ashford between London and Paris—or anywhere else for that matter—making the service much less accessible for those of us halfway along the track, like my constituents down on the south coast and the constituents of many other Members who are here with us today. The terminal at Ashford has been completely abandoned. The announcements and signs when people go through the station may still say “international”, but the two international platforms stand completely unused and empty. It was strange to be back in the terminal this summer, with the abandoned check-in desks and the seats wrapped in plastic, but what struck me was that everything is still there—ready to go. It is an absolute no-brainer to get Ashford back into use.
Earlier this year, I, along with many Members in this room from both sides of the House, met the chief executive of Eurostar to stress the importance of her company returning international services to Ashford. I reminded her that Ashford International terminal was opened with significant taxpayer investment, and that Eurostar has not only a business case to return these services, but a moral responsibility to the areas that it promises to serve. Her answers were lacking, and the truth is that Eurostar used covid as an excuse, having run down the service at Ashford International for years before the pandemic, with fewer trains stopping there.
It was clear from our conversation that Eurostar has failed to do any kind of serious business assessment of Ashford’s potential, and it instead prefers to pile passengers into an already-packed St Pancras terminal. Anyone who has taken the train from St Pancras recently can tell us how chaotic the check-in is. Why add more passengers to a terminal that is already stretched to its limits, as Eurostar says it plans to do?
For our constituents in Sussex and Kent, using the Eurostar now takes much longer than it used to, and it costs more. My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages have to travel up to St Pancras from Ashford, only to come back down the same line. It is particularly depressing to pass through the deserted terminal just before entering the channel tunnel—sometimes people even see their car that they parked there earlier. A one hour 50 minute journey from Ashford to Paris now takes upwards of four hours for my constituents, and even longer if they are coming from Hastings or Rye. The cost of the journey has doubled, and for some it has tripled or quadrupled, because they have to factor in the cost of an overnight stay in London for an early morning train. It is expensive, it takes longer, and it does not make any sense.
Local residents and businesses also understand that international services from Ashford were more than just a transport link; those services meant a huge amount to our local economy, our connectivity and our identity as a region. Many local businesses in my constituency of Hastings and Rye have raised with me the lost link at Ashford International. One local hotel owner said she has seen fewer guests coming from Europe since losing the link. Another business that trades extensively with Europe finds it harder to do those deals without the clear connection from Ashford. It has a real impact on our local economy. As another local company said to me,
“when the trains stopped, so did a lot of our business.”
The now abandoned terminal was once a gateway between Britain and Europe, full of promise for investment, tourism and stronger ties with our closest European neighbours. It is now a symbol of decline and neglect, leaving tens of millions of taxpayers’ pounds sitting idle. It is communities such as the ones I represent in Hastings, Rye and the villages that have suffered the consequence of that decision. The visitor economy has been slower to recover from the pandemic than in other areas, and the indefinite cut-off from international rail has hit tourism.
We do not have to accept that decline. A recent report by leading think-tank, the Good Growth Foundation, found that reopening the station could bring in an extra half a million visitors a year to Sussex and Kent. That would bring in more than £2.5 billion to our local regional economy over the next five years. It would cut hours off a trip from Hastings to Paris or Paris to Hastings, and provide a massive boost to our region.
The Labour Government are serious about delivering for our area. We are building prosperity in towns and cities that have been starved of investment for too long. The Labour Government will not allow our communities in Sussex and Kent to fall behind any longer. Eurostar should not have a monopoly on this track, which is why I have urged the rail regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, to allow rival operators to run on the line. The Government have been clear with potential new operators that this neglect cannot continue, and their willingness to restore services at Ashford will weigh heavily on how the regulator views the decision.
Just this weekend, Italian train operator FS—Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane—publicly affirmed its commitment to reopening Ashford International station, a ringing endorsement of our area and of Britain as a place to invest. Other operators have left the door open to bringing back trains to Ashford International. I urge them to make the same firm public commitment as FS in their plans.
In response to the prospect of competition, Eurostar has argued to the Office of Rail and Road that there is no space in the depot to accommodate other operators. It is clear those objections are less about capacity and more about protecting an unfair monopoly. I urge the regulator to grasp this opportunity for growth; its decision will be a key test of whether regulators can live up to our Labour Government’s call for a pro-growth regulatory regime.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate and I wish her well in her campaign. Although this issue obviously does not affect my constituents in Strangford, I am here to offer my support to ensure that she achieves her goals, and I am sure the Minister is standing by to give her the green light. Does she agree that the soaring cost of air travel is a factor precluding many from visiting other cities and towns? Does she also agree it is imperative to have strong rail services to allow people to visit our constituencies and see the historical, retail and environmental beauties they have to offer? That cannot happen without a decent service to all areas, in particular to the hon. Lady’s constituency of Hastings and Rye.
Helena Dollimore
I totally agree that having good, international rail travel is important, not just because it is often cheaper and easier, but because it is better for the environment. At a time when we need to consider climate change, we must have more options for people to travel to our closest European neighbours. Since Eurostar stopped the service at Ashford International, many people in our constituencies are not making the journey to St Pancras because it takes too long and costs too much. They are instead driving and taking the channel tunnel, or parking at Gatwick and taking a flight. We know it will be better for the environment to have services restored at Ashford International.
There is also an important point about resilience. The hon. Member said that the issue under discussion might not affect his constituents too much, but actually we are in a time when air travel could be disrupted—we saw the ash cloud interruption a decade ago, which caused huge disruption—and we do need back-up options for travelling internationally. We have recently seen a number of incidents in the channel tunnel in which unexploded world war two bombs have caused massive disruption, and the fact that we have only two places on the line—the Gare du Nord and St Pancras—where passengers can be decanted during major interruptions is a significant risk to the line’s resilience. Opening up Ashford and providing more resilience on the European line would also improve services and resilience for our country.
As I said, I urge the regulator to grasp the opportunity to support ending Eurostar’s monopoly when it makes its decision. That is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. In Hastings, Rye and the villages, we know how much our area has to offer and how much we could gain from the restoration of international service. Thousands of my constituents have signed my petition calling for that vital link to be opened again, and I will keep working with the Labour Government and train operators to push for that to happen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I suggest a time limit of six minutes.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate and the work that she has done to bring us all together in Parliament to campaign on this issue. I am of course pleased to speak in favour of the return of international rail services to Ashford International. Many of my constituents have made it clear to me just how much they would like to see the station resume international services. I pay particular tribute to the local organisation, Bexhill Rail Action Group, which has done great work over the past few years to ensure that that remains on the agenda in my constituency.
Ashford International station was a fundamental part of international rail services from the UK mainland to the European continent from 1996 to 2020. Before services were halted in 2020, Ashford International’s typical service was three trains a day to Paris, one train to Brussels, a service to Disneyland Paris four to five days a week and seasonal services to the French Alps and the south of France. Sadly, as the hon. Member outlined, Eurostar announced in 2020 the suspension of services, citing low passenger numbers; and with the additional impact from a reduction in passenger numbers due to covid-19 and the later cited covid-related debt, Eurostar has annually rejected calls for resumption of the services. Yet the present situation is improved. In 2024, Eurostar successfully refinanced its existing €963 million bank debt, and by the end of that year it had reduced its total bank debt to €650 million. Eurostar stated that the successful refinancing was thanks to “strong cash generation” as the business recovered from covid-19, and several new loans and credit lines.
There has also been talk of massive expansion in London. Recently, Eurostar and London St Pancras Highspeed signed a letter of intent to expand services from St Pancras station, with the aim of delivering an uplift of 2,700 passengers per hour in the next three to four years. The long-term aims of that expansion include plans to launch a direct service from London to Germany and Switzerland, adding 50 new trains at a cost of well over £1 billion. That is great news for the UK, but given that scale of investment, why is Ashford International not also playing a role in the network’s expansion?
For my constituents and those living in south-east England more broadly, the resumption of international services to Ashford would mean significantly less money and time spent getting to St Pancras. Bexhill Rail Action Group has provided a great overview of the cost differentials. If international services from Ashford were accessed using Bexhill train station, people would need to pay only £18 for a peak return ticket on Southern railway. In one hour, they would be at the station, exactly where they needed to be to catch the train to Paris or Europe more widely.
In contrast, the current situation means that train tickets to St Pancras can cost £60 to £100 for a return, depending on the time of day. Furthermore, the quickest route to St Pancras means that passengers have to change trains at Ashford on to the High Speed 1 service. That takes them to St Pancras, where they have to double back on themselves, passing through Ashford once again. Hon. Members will understand the frustration for those living in the south-east when the reality of using Eurostar for a day trip to Paris has become so additionally expensive and inconvenient compared with the original options.
Making Sussex and Kent more accessible to Europe would also bring other benefits. My constituency and the surrounding area are home to several important tourist destinations, including Battle abbey, which is as much a part of the history of Europe as of the UK. We have a growing wine and vineyard tourist economy, which again, if it were made more accessible, would benefit local jobs. Currently, a family arriving in the UK from the continent have no choice but to arrive in London. Once there, it is much more difficult for them to travel back out to the tourist economy of the south-east. If there were a service available from Ashford accessing everything the south-east has to offer, including our beaches, towns, vineyards, historical sites and so on, it would be much more convenient for European tourists to travel straight there and would bring great economic benefits to the region.
In 2022, international visitors to the south-east spent £2.3 billion, averaging £639 per visitor. The Good Growth Foundation has provided estimates on the additional income that would come to the south-east should international services be restored. The conservative estimate is that it would bring an additional £126 million in annual visitor spending, but it could be as high as £350 million, depending on the level of services introduced.
The Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, has made it clear that the Government support the expansion of international services to more stations, including Ashford. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye did a great job of pitching the challenge to the Government to make good on their pledges to increase competition, increase investment in our railways and deliver economic growth. If Eurostar is not willing to expand its network of international stations in the UK, we should encourage and support other operators on that line to do just that.
Whichever way international services are resumed at Ashford, it is clear to me that the benefits would be substantial for the south-east and therefore for the country as a whole. Greater accessibility for local residents to international services through location and costs can only increase the use of those services. Meanwhile, easier access from the continent to all that the south-east has to offer will promote local investment, encourage job creation and boost the regional economy and overall growth. My message is: let us get back on track.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. She is an excellent campaigner on behalf of her constituents. I know this issue is important to them and she feels passionately about it. In her excellent speech, she ably demonstrated that the benefits of returning international rail to Ashford International would be shared far beyond my constituency.
Nearly £80 million of taxpayers’ money was spent transforming Ashford International to accommodate international services. As well as developing services to accommodate international travellers, the infrastructure of the station was upgraded, and that included the addition of two new platforms. When international services started calling at Ashford for the first time in January 1996, Ashford became one of the UK’s first true international stations. From there, passengers could travel directly to cities in continental Europe, including Paris, Brussels and Lille. For nearly a quarter of a century, Ashford International saw dozens of daily Eurostar services, making it a vital link for residents and businesses in Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east to get to mainland Europe. Ashford was developed as an international hub and its connectivity was a key factor in attracting businesses.
Substantial investment came to the town and the surrounding area precisely because we had international services, making it easily accessible from mainland Europe. It was also highly convenient for residents, with the regular service from Ashford meaning they could get on a train in the morning, have lunch in Paris and be back home in time for bed.
In early 2020, during the covid pandemic, Eurostar suspended services to Ashford. Since then, people making the same journey have had to travel into London, which not only adds between two and three hours each way to their journey time, but costs considerably more. That decision was taken when travel restrictions were in place and Eurostar faced financial pressures, but more than five years on, those services have not returned. Part of the responsibility for that lies with the decision by the then Conservative and Lib Dem coalition to sell the UK Government’s 40% stake and preference share in Eurostar. That decision, which was driven by austerity, was short-sighted in the extreme and has been hugely detrimental to my constituency and the wider region.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Given what the hon. Gentleman says about the decision to sell off the stake in Eurostar, does he feel that his own party—now very much in government—should reverse it and directly invest in international rail services?
Sojan Joseph
I absolutely agree with that, and that is what we are working on. The Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary support the return of international travel to Ashford. We will continue the work, and I hope that this debate will help the Government to support that decision.
For more than five years, the previous Government’s decision has meant that Eurostar’s monopoly on running international services has prevented any movement on restarting services from Ashford. We now have four potential bidders looking to break that monopoly, giving fresh hope that services could return to Ashford. That is why the decision that the Office of Rail and Road will soon make on whether any of those bidders will be able to access the international depot at Temple Mills in east London is so important.
When it comes to a decision, the ORR has a number of duties to consider, including acting to protect railway service users’ interests, acting to promote the use and development of the railway network, and acting to promote competition for the benefit of those who travel on the railway. I am aware that in their letter to the ORR, the Government indicated that they believe that allowing competition will benefit the users of international rail services. I therefore ask the Minister if the Government will give a clear indication that they favour operators that will offer new services on the line, including to and from Ashford International. Will the Department for Transport ensure that the ORR considers the potential for economic growth, and that one of the central criteria is how proposals would serve the economic interests of Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east?
A clear signal that Ashford International will once again welcome international travellers would give a huge economic boost to my constituency and region. It would be warmly welcomed by local businesses, which recognise the opportunity that international services would bring. International services calling once again at Ashford would be key to driving economic growth locally. More businesses would likely locate to the area because they could easily do business with France, Belgium and elsewhere in continental Europe. As they did before, international services would help to attract businesses from mainland Europe that are looking to expand into the UK.
International services stopping at Ashford is much more than a transport issue; it is essential to maximising our region’s economic potential. The absence of services at Ashford has significantly undermined our region’s capacity to attract investment, skilled professionals and tourists. The Rail Minister, my noble friend Lord Hendy, has been in Ashford twice in recent months to visit the station, and I welcome his support for our campaign to see international services return. The Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary and local councils and businesses want those services to return. There is also overwhelming public support.
Four new operators are looking to launch services between the UK and mainland Europe. They include FS Italiane, which confirmed at the weekend that if its bid is successful, it will invest £1 billion in the UK economy—including an innovation hub in Ashford—and will have services calling at the station. We need to seize this excellent opportunity and ensure that Ashford International becomes an international station once again.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I can see France from my constituency on a clear day, and yet my constituents cannot get there easily or affordably for work or pleasure. Last week, I was speaking with one of my friends about her plans to go to Paris for the Christmas markets. A quick overnight stay for shopping and fun with a couple of friends was the kind of thing that less than a decade ago people from across Kent and Sussex did easily and affordably. Now it is practically impossible.
That might sound like what is known as a high-quality problem. After all, across the country people are struggling with the cost of living, and holidays, even short ones, are out of reach. But what is particularly galling about the situation in east Kent is that we are close to Europe and yet more cut off than ever. Although we have infrastructure specifically designed to connect us to France, Belgium and beyond, it lies unused and empty—paid for by the taxpayer and left abandoned.
A single ticket from Margate to St Pancras International station early enough in the morning to change to the Eurostar to Paris is £60, and the journey takes almost two hours. That is too expensive and inconvenient, so it stops people being able to do what they would like to. Because Ashford International station remains closed to European services, my constituents are forced to travel into central London, with the high costs that come with that. They do not have the unfortunate experience of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who must literally pass through Ashford—back and forth. However, that drive, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned, is counterproductive for the environment and bad for the capital, as well as for my constituents.
In its expansion plans, Eurostar still refuses to consider reopening international services at Ashford, and £80 million of public infrastructure remains unused and wasted, despite its potential. That means people in Kent and Sussex will continue to miss out on fast, convenient and cheaper connections to Europe, and on the tourism boost they would bring to our coastal towns. Reopening international services at Ashford is about more than just making it easier to go on holiday; it is about driving economic and social revival in deprived parts of the south-east.
Members across Parliament, although not in this Chamber, perhaps think of the south-east as leafy, wealthy places such as Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells. However, there are pockets of acute deprivation across the south-east and, for the most part, they are on the coast. We have so much to offer and so much potential. Margate, for example, is home to a globally recognised art gallery, the Turner Contemporary; Broadstairs has the history of being home to a world-famous author, Charles Dickens; and Ramsgate has the heritage to tell the story of our links to the rest of the world—from the arrival of the Vikings to the Romans and St Augustine, some of the most important and exciting changes to our country have started in Thanet. That has left a rich and vibrant history and a legacy of creativity and ideas that the rest of the world could benefit from, if only they could get there.
Helena Dollimore
My hon. Friend, like me, represents a constituency that the Sutton Trust has ranked one of the lowest for social mobility and opportunity. Does she agree that reopening the link would provide a massive boost to young people and opportunities for them in our area?
Ms Billington
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Despite significant investment under a Labour Government in High Speed 1, which benefits my community, it often feels as though many people are still cut off from those opportunities. We need to break down barriers to opportunity, and the restoration of international services at Ashford would do precisely that.
The recent report from the Good Growth Foundation, which hon. Members from both sides of the House have referred to, highlighted the potential economic benefits of reopening those services. It found that doing so would lead to a £2.5 billion boost to the visitor economy over five years. Making it easier for constituents in East Thanet to visit Europe works both ways; it would also make it much easier for Europeans to visit our wonderful cultural sites, such as the Turner Contemporary gallery or our beautiful beaches.
I recently met VisitBritain, which told me that one of its target markets is France because of the potential tourism we can bring in via Eurostar. The Good Growth Foundation report found that reopening international services at Ashford would cut two hours from the trip from Paris to Thanet. That might not sound like a huge amount of time, but two hours is a big difference when it comes to making sure that people enjoy their holiday. Anything that makes it easier for tourists to visit will help to drive our local economies and revitalise our towns.
This debate is not just about exhorting Eurostar to restore those services; it has clearly made a business decision not to. Instead, it is about using the levers of Government, particularly the Office of Rail and Road, to ensure that future operators must make some commitment. Making sure that regulation drives growth, and particularly that it benefits people who have been left out of economic prosperity by previous decisions, is the role of the active state. Reopening international services is about showing people who feel ignored or let down by politics that Government can improve things—that a Labour Government can improve things—and that the Government recognise the importance of coastal towns and are committed to tackling the issues that blight us. It is time to make Ashford international again.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this debate. I praise the ambition she has for her region, just as I have for mine. It is great to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place. He is a good Yorkshire colleague, who I know will absolutely be interested in the ideas I have for our region.
There is growing interest in international rail in this country, with Eurostar exploring direct services to Geneva and Frankfurt and other operators looking to expand in the UK. I welcome recent research from the Good Growth Foundation on the potential of reopening Ashford’s international terminal for unlocking economic opportunity in the south-east, but you will not be surprised to hear, Sir Desmond, that as a proud Yorkshireman I would like my county in this conversation too.
I believe it is time to reimagine the future of rail, where we connect Yorkshire directly with the continent, and York and Leeds act as central hubs in a new European rail corridor. As part of that vision, I propose transformation of the disused High Speed 2 land near Leeds station. That site could one day become a dedicated European train terminal. York, with its rich rail heritage and scalable infrastructure, would then serve as a vital secondary node. This is not just about faster journeys; it is about unlocking economic potential—maybe even 10 years from now. I wrote to Eurostar about that, and I am very disappointed that they were not up for it. There was no foresight about the future spec of their rolling stock—more Eurostasis than Eurostar.
This week I am engaging with other rail operators and writing to them: Virgin Group, Uber-Gemini trains and Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane, which I am sure Members will acknowledge is bellissimo in my Yorkshire accent. I have asked them to consider what I call the Leeds to Lille route, because if Eurostar do not do it, maybe another operator will step up to the plate. I am sick of people writing things off as unfeasible or impossible. People said the channel tunnel could never be built. They called it an engineering fantasy, yet 30 years on it is a vital link that has transformed trade and travel. Are we to embrace ambition or defeatism for our country?
Under the Tories, Britain lost its imagination—14 years of incompetence; broken promises; failed infrastructure. We saw Network North’s non-delivery and HS2’s eye-watering costs—and Reform wants to scrap the lot. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has talked of an exciting ambition to link us up with Germany, which is brilliant—that is the leadership we get with a Labour Government. However, it would be great to see rail operators considering the push to parts of the country other than London, whether that is Kent or Yorkshire.
Labour Together and JP Spencer have been talking about mass transit networks across the UK and Europe. Leeds is one of the few cities without one, but that is soon to change thanks to Mayor Tracy Brabin’s trams. That would be an anchor for my humble but bold idea: in 10 or 20 years to have a Leeds to Lille service taking just three and a half hours. York would offer additional capacity to support connections, meaning that villages like Poppleton in my constituency could be five hours from Paris by rail. I want my new-born son Louis—just a few months old now—to grow up in a country that dares to dream big again. A country where, in 20 years, I could take him to Leeds station, stand on a new international platform and wave him off as he sets off for Europe—maybe to study, maybe to chase a dream, but carrying with him the confidence of a nation that believes in building again.
For too long, the north has been forgotten. These plans could act as a bold bridge to continental prosperity. As the MP for York Outer, I know that by running 50 services a week from Leeds to Europe we could bring in 2 million passenger journeys annually. That would supercharge the tourism economy in the north. While Reform would cut Britain off from Europe, the ideas we are talking about today could offer our regions a connected path to renewed prosperity and a gateway to new jobs and thriving towns.
Never forget that Labour developed High Speed 1, Crossrail and Heathrow terminal 5—projects that transformed Britain. Today, it is Labour MPs who are proposing similar ideas again. It is over to the rail operators to engage with all of us, which I hope they can. Together, we can set the wheels turning on a new chapter of British connectivity and transport innovation. Let us lay new international tracks as a nation that refuses to stop moving forward.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this important debate, and I agree with every word she said while opening it.
It is also a pleasure to speak on an issue on which there is broad political agreement, with MPs across Kent and the south-east united in saying that after five years, we need international rail services back in our county. It was wonderful to hear Members from other parts of the country also recognising the importance of international rail links. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) who, since we were both elected last year, has done so much to shine a light on the issue, which is vital for the county’s economy and for the wider south-east region.
As has been said, it was more than five years ago, in the midst of the covid pandemic, that Eurostar services halted stops at Ashford and Ebbsfleet, which is in my constituency. Anyone who regularly uses Ebbsfleet International, as I do, will recognise the eerie feeling of a station designed for many more passengers than currently use it, with its substantial car parks largely empty. Ebbsfleet International was purpose-built to serve international trains and, along with Ashford International, it offers easy access to Europe for those living throughout Kent and the Thames estuary. It will also sit at the heart of a brand-new town of 15,000 homes when Ebbsfleet Garden City is completed.
Since the covid pandemic put a stop to the services, there has been an inexplicable reluctance from Eurostar to bring them back. It is welcome that other operators are now interested in running services on the line, which is currently running at only 50% capacity, and they will offer competition to Eurostar. Much will hinge on the Office of Rail and Road as to whether the Temple Mills international depot, currently used by Eurostar, can be opened up to multiple operators. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and a number of other colleagues who are present today, I visited the offices of the ORR to deliver a letter, urging them to open up Temple Mills, bring real competition to that line and accelerate a return of international rail to Kent.
Let us be clear: the return of international rail represents a transformative opportunity for Kent and the wider region. The services running through Ebbsfleet—with perhaps the innovative inclusion of Stratford International as a new departure point, attracting additional ridership from the northern part of the Thames estuary—will significantly enhance connectivity for residents, businesses and visitors. It will also relieve pressure on central London terminals and offer a further, more sustainable alternative to short-haul air travel. Resumption of the service helps support key infrastructure developments, including Ebbsfleet Garden City, the Elizabeth line and Bluewater shopping centre, which is also in my constituency.
We need the delivery of high-quality, competitively priced and frequent services, using newly designed rolling stock. Bringing that together with the new digital platform for seamless ticketing and journey planning, which is currently under development for Dartford and Gravesham, provides a huge opportunity for interconnectivity of these services with local transport options.
The economic, environmental and social case for restoring and expanding international rail links from Kent and east London is substantial and, in my view, unanswerable. The people of Kent, the south-east and the Thames estuary want it; London St Pancras Highspeed, the track operator, supports it; businesses and local government have argued strongly for it; and all the MPs in this room and across the region are desperate to see it.
I look forward to the ORR decision on depot capacity, which I hope will come this month, and following that, to further concrete plans from the interested parties. I also hope that the Minister, when he sums up, will take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s support for international rail returning to Kent, and the importance for the regional economy of the stops at Ebbsfleet and Ashford.
When I travel next month to Strasbourg on the Eurostar to see Crystal Palace play only their second-ever competitive away fixture in Europe, I should be getting on the train at Ebbsfleet, not St Pancras. Please, Government, ORR and train operators: make it happen for my fellow Crystal Palace fans and me in the future.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this debate, which is of huge importance to Kent, Sussex and the country as a whole, and I agree with everything that she has said today.
For years, the departure gate at Ashford International has sat abandoned. Coastal communities such as mine, of Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, have been left wondering why such huge potential has been left gathering dust. As my hon. Friend said, businesses want it open. Businesses in my constituency have told me that tourists from Europe used to come, and that footfall in Folkestone and Hythe has massively reduced since then and not recovered. However, we are a coastal destination, crowned the best place to live in the south-east of England. We host an internationally renowned art festival, the Triennial, which ran for three months this summer. We have miles of beautiful coastline. We are a destination that people want to visit—if only we could create the avenues for them to do so.
The station in the 1990s saw 30 international trips a day, dropping to 12 by 2019, and now sees zero. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) said, the UK did have a 40% stake in Eurostar, which was sold in 2015. The UK thereby lost its seat on the Eurostar board and the ability to influence decisions such as where trains stop. Surprise, surprise: following that, the numbers decreased. It was 12 trips by 2019, so it was not a case of covid being the problem.
At the moment, hundreds of millions of pounds a year could be brought back into the local economy by bringing Ashford International and Ebbsfleet back into service. Journeys that once took under two hours from my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe now take at least double that. Kent’s connection to our European neighbours has been dealt a hammer blow from which we have not recovered.
Ashford International has the potential no longer to be a relic of decline. It can become a symbol of national renewal—a tangible example of new and improved relationships with Europe, driving greater productivity and connectivity for the south-east. Earlier this year, the Labour Government rightly announced their desire to pioneer a new era of European rail connectivity, with the determination to put Britain at the heart of a better-connected continent. That includes the Government’s exciting plans to establish a direct rail link between London and Berlin, and between the UK and Switzerland. Reopening Ashford is the first step towards that vision of a Britain with world-leading infrastructure and improved connections to our largest trading partner.
The report from the Good Growth Foundation clearly explains the enormous economic benefits that reopening international rail services at Ashford would bring to the wider area. The case for doing so is quite clearly, as this debate has shown, unanswerable. The issue is how we get there, which is the matter to which I will now turn.
International trains need to be maintained, and the only place they can currently be maintained is the Temple Mills depot in London. Currently, Eurostar is the only operator allowed to use that depot, but this month the Office of Rail and Road will decide whether to require Eurostar to allow other providers to use it. As others have said, just this week the Italian state-owned Ferrovie dello Stato confirmed its intent to invest £1 billion in our international rail services and to reopen Ashford International if it gets the green light to rival Eurostar. We also know that Virgin Trains is interested in running international rail services to compete with Eurostar. While the decision on Temple Mills is yet to be made, an independent report commissioned by the ORR this year found that the depot would be able to accommodate additional trains for alternative providers, so we have both the space and the providers who want to use Temple Mills.
The next challenge is who will be the provider with a fleet of trains compatible with the systems used on HS1 and the channel tunnel. Just yesterday, FS announced its intention to use its fleet of Frecciarossa 1000 trains if given the green light to operate there. Those trains are compliant with the signalling systems used on HS1 and the channel tunnel, which trainspotters here may note is called the TVM-430 system. Similarly, FS already holds the necessary accreditations for operating on the European continent. Its appetite to serve Ashford is matched by its ability to deliver.
The debate about Ashford International also raises the wider issue of how we can maximise the benefits of high-speed international rail beyond passenger travel. With the channel tunnel operating well below capacity, I am convinced that there must be an increased role for freight alongside increased passenger services. Residents of Folkestone, Hythe, Dover, Ashford and beyond will be acutely aware of the frustrations caused by Operation Brock—a traffic management scheme that too often converts the M20 motorway into a slow-moving, heavy-goods-vehicle lorry park—which increases delays and journey times.
Logistics UK has estimated that Brock costs the UK up to “£250 million a day”. A single freight train on HS1 could replace 70 of those HGVs, greatly reducing air pollution and the amount of traffic on the M20. Let us imagine the tangible effect scaling that up could have on the experiences of road users in east Kent. I will continue to press to shift international freight from road to rail, which is another no-brainer that industry and Government should grasp.
As a country, we must prove to ourselves that we are once more able to deliver large-scale infrastructure projects efficiently and effectively. Recently, rail projects in particular have come to symbolise a state that struggles to deliver bold, radical infrastructure. However, what we are calling for today is neither bold nor radical; the infrastructure already exists and the providers are willing and able to start running international rail services from Ashford.
Local public opinion is clear that Ashford International must be international, and there is strong political support from local MPs and Government. I pay tribute to Lord Hendy, the Minister for Rail, for his steadfast support for restoring international rail services to Ashford and his constant engagement with me and fellow Labour MPs in Kent and Sussex.
Finally, I urge the Office of Rail and Road to make the right decision for the people of Kent and the country, so that we can start to maximise the benefits of this incredible infrastructure, which is just waiting for the political will to bring it back to life.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. She, along with nearly everybody in the room, rightly made clear the pride they take in Kent and East Sussex. She rightly highlighted the channel tunnel as an incredible civil engineering achievement—it has been deemed one of the great engineering wonders of the world—and she cited her childhood memories of the formerly direct trains to Disneyland.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) provided some useful detail—which, I must admit, I was not aware of—on Eurostar’s debt refinancing and the progress it has made there. That is very important context, and may be a useful argument for questioning some of Eurostar’s current decisions.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) rightly pointed out that it was previously possible to make day trips to Paris from both Kent and London; it is still possible from London, but from Kent it is much harder. It is interesting to hear that he would support direct Government intervention in international rail, which is something that I hope the Minister will elaborate on further.
The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) rightly said that Kent is so close and yet so far from continental Europe. She reminded us, helpfully, that while the south east of England is prosperous on average, it has great pockets of deprivation.
The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made an attempt, perhaps, to rival the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in terms of interpreting the meaning of Kent. More seriously, he was right to point out that there is enormous potential for directly connecting other parts of the United Kingdom to France and beyond.
Indeed, there were proposals to do exactly that in the 1990s and regional Eurostar trains were even built. Factors such as the rise of budget airlines and the ongoing challenge of needing to have border infrastructure at every station that such trains call at are some of the reasons why that did not happen. However, the hon. Member is right to say that the idea is still pertinent. Perhaps, had HS2 continued towards the north-west and the north-east, it might have been easier.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) rightly reminded us that Ebbsfleet has also been affected by this, with the lack of service at Ebbsfleet International. He reminded us that one of the ideas behind the channel tunnel rail link, HS1 or, as it is now called, London St Pancras Highspeed—who knows what it will be called next?—was not just to reduce journey times between London and Paris and Brussels and reduce congestion on the existing Kent network, but to provide significant economic benefits to the south-east, which are now compromised by the ongoing failure to call there.
The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) was right to highlight the unrealised potential of the channel tunnel and the fact that freight is also being neglected in terms of the original design intentions for the tunnel. The introduction of direct passenger rail services between the UK and France and Belgium, and now the Netherlands too, has brought many benefits. It has made rail dominant in those markets for modal share compared with air, reduced carbon emissions as a result, and brought the three capitals of London, Paris and Brussels closer together. It is a convenient option for many people.
Helena Dollimore
I thank the hon. Member for making the case for international rail. Does he therefore agree with me that it is a great shame that the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government sold this country’s 40% stake in Eurostar in 2015, during their time in Government? As a result of that sale, we lost our seat at the table when Eurostar makes decisions about where it will stop. Looking back—I know it was a Government that he was not part of—does he also accept that his party made a mistake and will he apologise to our constituents for selling our country’s shares in Eurostar?
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That was a time of very straitened Government finances, which is something the current Government, of her own party, also have to grapple with, and make unexpected and regrettable decisions—for example, significant national insurance contribution increases for employers.
Both Ebbsfleet International and Ashford International brought benefits to Kent for many years, until 2020. The service was stopped by Eurostar for a range of reasons. Some are to do with Eurostar’s financial difficulties, as has been discussed, but there was also a lack of UK Conservative Government support for Eurostar, which was a choice, as well as Brexit. Both those things were major contributing factors.
It is a matter of regret that, five years on, Eurostar still does not serve Kent. This is unhelpful for tourism and cultural links for Kent, and is a waste of the considerable station infrastructure on the London to the channel high-speed line, which was provided for that specific purpose. More than 81,000 people have signed a petition calling for restoration of the Kent station calls, and a report by the Good Growth Foundation, which has been cited by many hon. Members today, estimates that up to £534 million of benefits per year would result from the restoration of those station calls.
This issue is not just about Ashford, as we have already discussed today. For the vast majority of people in Kent and indeed in East Sussex, it is easier to travel to Ebbsfleet or Ashford to change trains than it is to trek all the way into London, which often requires paying expensive peak fares, as some Members have already mentioned.
Indeed, disquiet about this issue is widespread in the county of Kent. For many decades, we have been familiar with the phenomenon of “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”. My friend, who lives in Tunbridge Wells and who pretty much exclusively travels to Europe by train, is very much a modern-day manifestation of that phenomenon, because of this issue.
As well as applying further pressure on Eurostar, I hope that the Minister will explore other ideas to realise the potential of the London Saint Pancras high-speed route to boost Kent’s economy. Those ideas could include a regular passenger train service not just to Lille, Brussels or Paris, but serving Calais-Fréthun, which would realise the potential of more closely linking the economies of Kent and northern France.
In France, the high-speed line to Paris transformed Lille’s economy. Ashford and Kent are yet to benefit in the same way, not least because of some of the border challenges that exist and Eurostar’s decisions not to stop in Kent. However, this transformation can still happen. The Minister can help to restore an international rail service to Ashford by resolving the conundrum around depot capacity for international operators. Although we expect a ruling from the Office of Rail and Road towards the end of this month about who will be granted access to the Temple Mills depot in Stratford, modest state support or investment in a new and larger rolling stock depot somewhere else along the line, and there are plenty of brownfield sites along the line, would help to facilitate private sector investment and competition to Eurostar, which Eurostar’s decision not to service Ebbsfleet and Ashford shows is needed.
I appreciate that the Minister may be somewhat disinclined to listen to me on the case for direct state investment. Perhaps, however, he will listen to the hon. Member for Ashford, which would also reflect the Government’s wider enthusiasm for state ownership of and investment in railways.
The issue that we have been debating this morning is part of a wider story of under-utilisation of the channel tunnel and the accompanying high-speed line. The Liberal Democrats believe that more international rail services would have wider benefits, potentially including a reduction in the number of short-haul flights from Heathrow, which might even reduce the need for a third runway at Heathrow. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Thank you very much, Sir Desmond, for chairing us today; you are the serial winner of the best dressed Chair competition.
As a Kentish man—I was brought up as a Kentish man—I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. I am glad that I was not part of the negotiations with the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), who probably put forward serial applications for a similar debate.
It is important to have this debate, building on the legacy of the former Member of Parliament for Ashford, Damian Green. My former colleague understood the significance of the impact on international services at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. He had an Adjournment debate back in October 2023, and, having read that debate in Hansard, it is remarkable how many of the arguments have been rehearsed in this very Chamber before. I suspect the speech of the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, will have more than a passing resemblance to that of the current occupant.
It is clear from the contributions that we heard way back in 2023 and today from all Members that reintroducing services at Ashford International would be welcomed by residents across Kent and the whole south-east—and it turns out, also those in Strangford and York Outer. The economic case has been set out most recently by the Good Growth Foundation, which has argued that reintroducing services would deliver significant benefits to the region. I intended to go through all the various data it put forward to support its case in its report, but various Members have already done that job for me, so I will avoid the temptation to repeat all those numbers.
It is so far, so good, as we are all furiously agreeing with each other. We agree, as did the last Government, that Eurostar—with a private business and ambitions to grow from 19 million passengers to 30 million passengers across Europe—should reopen its services to Ashford International and/or to Ebbsfleet. If it is looking to grow, why ignore a profitable potential market? Its business plan is obviously up to it as a private business, but it currently appears that Eurostar is content to focus on a more profitable route direct to London. It can do that because, without any direct rail competition, some have suggested that it has become complacent. That is what happens in the absence of competition: the same is good enough, there is no incentive for dynamic development, nor the creation of new products, the defence of one’s markets or the pushing of the boundaries. There is no drive either to cut costs to maximise efficiency.
I speak with personal experience of this; before coming into Parliament, I was the managing director of a decent-sized business. I hated competition, because competition in a market forced us to sharpen our pencil, both financially and in the services that we provided. I recognised that it was good for our business in the abstract, but in the day-to-day, people want to avoid it. I am therefore pleased that four challenger brands have seen additional opportunities for the tunnel and HS1, which we should now call—I learned to call it—London St Pancras Highspeed, since February this year. Eurostar uses just 50% of its capacity of the tunnel, and the ORR is currently considering the availability of depot space at Temple Mills.
Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, appears to agree. In his letter to the ORR, he argues that
“the arrival of competition will benefit users of international rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”
How right he is. Competition leads to improved services, increased efficiency and the development of new markets, so why will the Government not apply the same logic when it comes to domestic rail? If Lord Hendy believes what he said to the ORR, why are his Government doggedly pursing their nationalisation agenda, designing competition out of the UK railways? This is important, and it was referred to positively by Labour Members: why is he planning to remove the crucial role of the independent economic regulator from the ORR, making Great British Railways both the player and the referee in the new version of the railways? Surely, that is like giving Eurostar the job of deciding if there is room for more competition on HS1.
Ms Billington
The case the hon. Member is making may have some valid points, but is he prepared to take responsibility for the fact that the British Government do not have a say in what Eurostar does because a previous Administration—run by the Conservatives with their then allies, the Liberal Democrats—ended up without the British Government having a say in how Eurostar runs itself? That was a failed opportunity to be an enabling state.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Lady and I come from different perspectives. I think competition drives good economic behaviour, not the state directing individual companies on what they can do, whether profitable or unprofitable. That is a genuine difference of approach. In this instance, I agree with Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, that it is competition in this market that will drive benefits to consumers and the taxpayer. We have to remember that Labour left office in 2010 when there was “no money left” and Governments have to take difficult decisions, as the current Government are learning to their cost.
Tony Vaughan
On competition, why did it take a Labour Government to press the Office of Rail and Road to revisit the question of access to Temple Mills, which is key to unlocking competition? Unless other operators use Temple Mills, there is no competition. Why did it take this Government to do that? The hon. Member referred to a debate some years ago after which nothing seemed to happen.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. and learned Member will be aware that the ORR is looking at Temple Mills because applications have been received under open access agreements. That is not a response to the Government; it is a response to applications from the private sector.
We can already see the direction of travel with domestic railways. The Government have argued against every single new open access application since coming to power. It seems they can support competition only when the competition is not against them. Who loses out? Just as at Ashford International, it is the passengers, with fewer routes, fewer services and fewer efficiencies leading to higher costs.
The Conservatives support any approach that encourages competition and grows the rail sector, whether domestically or internationally. We welcome the four applications requesting access to Temple Mills, at least one of which anticipates the use of Ebbsfleet and Ashford International. We welcome the Government’s conversion to the benefits of competition, at least on High Speed 1. We look forward to seeing that new-found belief in the private sector in their approach to rail nationalisation more widely. If not, I fear it will be passengers who pay the price.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. I commend her for her thoughtful remarks and continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents and the south-east more widely. She argued powerfully that the return of international services goes far beyond the borders of Kent. The East Sussex residents she represents will be grateful for her championing their cause.
The Rail Minister recently had the opportunity to speak at an event at Ashford International, organised by Kent county council and other local stakeholders, and heard clearly the powerful local case for making Ashford and Ebbsfleet gateways to Europe once again. I am glad that we have been able to continue the debate today in a mostly collegiate fashion.
Ashford International and Ebbsfleet International stations, along with the HS1 line, form a vital piece of infrastructure. They connect communities, support tourism and offer a low-carbon route to the continent. The potential of those two stations is clear for all to see, and the Government recognise the importance of capturing it. International rail services bring significant benefits. The recent report from the Good Growth Foundation, alluded to by many hon. Members, estimates that restoring those services to Kent could unlock up to £500 million annually for the south-east’s visitor economy. That is a substantial figure, underlining why the issue deserves serious attention.
Passenger demand for international rail has rebounded strongly since the pandemic. Last year, more than 11 million people travelled via international rail, which was an all-time high. This year, once again, record numbers are travelling internationally by rail, with the summer period being the busiest on record, reflecting growing demand for sustainable connections to Europe.
Yet, although demand has continued to rise, we have seen those services contract since the pandemic. The Government are committed to supporting the international rail sector to reach its full potential. Our approach is focused on enabling competition, which the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), will be pleased to hear, and on working with industry to unlock growth. Several operators have expressed interest in serving Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford International. That is encouraging, and my colleague the Rail Minister has invited them to engage with Kent stakeholders to explore viable solutions.
We welcome that new entrants are looking to challenge the status quo. Officials in the Department continue to engage regularly with those prospective new operators, and we believe that competition offers the best prospect for restoring services. It brings innovation, improves passenger experience and has the potential to drive down costs. The Department has made written representations to the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, as part of its access application consultation for depot capacity, to express our support for competition and the benefits it could bring.
We have recently secured agreements with European partners, including Germany and Switzerland, to work together to explore new international routes between our countries, and to address barriers for operators launching those routes. The conversations are promising, and they reflect a shared commitment to sustainable cross-border travel.
However, to deliver on that ambition, we must also address the practical barriers, and multiple hon. Members have recognised that chief among those is depot capacity. Temple Mills depot in London is currently the only facility that is used for international passenger rail maintenance. The independent report commissioned by the regulator found that there is very limited spare capacity, which is a significant constraint on competition. Officials are working closely with industry partners to explore long-term solutions. It will take time, but it is a priority for the Government.
There are also challenges on border safety, and we recognise that they are unique to operating cross-channel rail services. Juxtaposed border and security controls are essential for safety and compliance, but they introduce complexity and cost. The Government stand ready to work with operators and stakeholders to explore pragmatic solutions to re-establishing border controls at Kent stations, balancing affordability for operators while maintaining border security. Officials are also continuing to work closely on the matter with colleagues in the Home Office and Border Force, and my officials stand ready to engage with Kent representatives, potentially as part of a working group, to explore it in further detail.
I now turn to some of the points raised in the debate, beginning with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and the villages, who raised the challenges and the opportunities. Those include the challenge of capacity at St Pancras station, but also Eurotunnel’s free capacity. Increased capacity from international stations could help to realise the benefits of that free capacity.
My hon. Friend also spoke powerfully of the exasperation faced by her constituents due to the increased travel time and the lost opportunities for business development, investment and better connections to attract international investment from northern Europe and the rest of the continent. She also spoke powerfully of the more intangible benefits of international rail services, including her personal experience of feeling a connection with the continent and our European partners due to those all-important rail links.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) spoke powerfully about not just his constituents’ ability to access Europe but Europe’s ability to access his constituency, and about the enormous cultural and historical assets it can offer people across the continent. That was a point well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) asked me to consider how to encourage the ORR to welcome competition. I am pleased to confirm that the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, has already undertaken that, and he has strongly outlined to the ORR that the DFT believes that increased competition is fundamental to accessing extra capacity for those services, to unlocking more economic opportunity for Kent, and to our connections into northern Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said that rail services into northern Europe may be a “high-quality problem”, but she ably argued the counterpoint that the existing system, as it stands, holds back access for people who deserve to have affordable access to the European continent for work opportunities, business, tourism and leisure, and to be connected culturally to an area that she can see from her constituency. Having economic equity through our rail services, so that more people can access the benefits they provide, is incredibly important to the Department.
I was pleased to hear the contribution of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who spoke of the possibilities that greater international rail access could achieve for our entire country. It made me think of, back when I were a lad, when I got one of the first ever train services from my home city of Hull to London, and about the effect that had on my feeling of connection to the rest of the country. The possibility of giving those same opportunities, albeit enhanced, to young people from Yorkshire is very exciting.
My hon. Friend referenced Leeds to Lille. What about Harrogate to Hamburg or York to Ypres? The possibilities are endless. I am glad to see his ambition in fighting for God’s own county in these debates. Although there are significant operational challenges to realising some of his ambitions, I would encourage him to continue liaising with the Rail Minister.
Sojan Joseph
Does this debate show that it is not just an Ashford or Ebbsfleet issue? That was the presumption in the past, but it is much wider. The whole region benefits from international services returning to Ashford, at the same time as the rest of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to address this important matter and grab the opportunity as soon as possible?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend’s point is very well made. What has struck me throughout this debate is the access opportunities for the constituents of every Member in the room. Members have also pointed to the importance of modal shift and the impact on freight and our decarbonisation ambitions. We have also heard about the impact on our international resilience and our ability to respond to the challenges in the channel with nimbleness and agility. These can all be enhanced by the prospect of increasing our international rail capacity, and those points have been very well made.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) gave us the welcome perspective of the case for Ebbsfleet, and he pointed ably to the unity of advocacy from Members of Parliament, businesses and local people. It would be remiss of us to forget Ebbsfleet’s role in this important debate.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) usefully outlined how, in this country, international rail thrived in the 1990s, and he provided a reasonable and ambitious perspective on how Ashford could facilitate its ability to thrive again.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encouraged me to explore different opportunities to revitalise Kent’s economic connections to the economies of northern France. I would suggest that encouraging competitiveness between different potential providers in this space is exactly what will allow us to explore those opportunities, and to push and work constructively with them. That is why the DFT has been working hard to convene Kent county council, private providers and local residents to explore where those opportunities lie.
I am pleased to hear that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has a personal stake in this debate as a proud Kent man—
Keir Mather
Please forgive me. I learn something new every day in this role.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention how many debates have landed on some of these themes over the years as we have wrangled with these questions. It is earnestly hoped, from the Government’s perspective, that facilitating competition and greater access in this space will allow us to solve what have formerly been incredibly knotty and intangible problems.
Keir Mather
Well, I think it is important to note that this Government are not fixated on ideological dogmatism in this space. Where competition works and can offer tangible benefits to local people in Kent and across the United Kingdom, we will of course proceed with it.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very grateful and encouraged to hear that point made from the Dispatch Box. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the Government have written to the ORR advocating against every single open access application since coming into power? After all, open access is bringing additional competition to the wider network.
Keir Mather
Of course there is open access ability through these international rail links, which is an important thing to point to. What I find challenging about the assertions that the hon. Member made in his winding-up speech is the notion that some sort of perfect free market competition existed in our rail system prior to the Labour Government taking office. There was enormous dysfunction, which arose from an overly deregulated system.
Ms Billington
On competition and the former Conservative Government, I remind Members that they were the ones who brought Southeastern, which serves my constituency, into public ownership, because of the failures of the commercial process.
Keir Mather
I think the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, was right to say that competitive practices, where they work, should be encouraged, and that has been the focus of this debate. But the broader perspective, which came out in the debate around the Government in 2015 selling their stake in the operation of Eurostar, is that we lack the nimbleness to direct rail operations in a way that benefits passengers and local economies and ensures resilience. That is what the Government are striving to do in creating balance throughout our rail system.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and other colleagues for their continued and tireless campaigning on this matter. Their hard work has genuinely been instrumental in keeping the case for reinstatement firmly on the agenda, and their constituents benefit enormously from having MPs who are so determined to bring economic and travel opportunities to their part of the United Kingdom.
The Government support the reinstatement of international rail services at Kent stations as soon as it is practical for operators to do so. We support the growth of international rail, and we will continue to work constructively with all partners, be they local, national or international, to make that vision a reality. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for raising this important matter, and commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this important debate.
Helena Dollimore
Today we have heard huge support from across the House for restoring international rail services to Ashford. I thank the Minister for the Labour Government’s firm commitment to restoring international trains to Ashford International, which is music to the ears of the constituents we represent. I also congratulate him on speaking from the Dispatch Box in a Westminster Hall debate for the first time, and on doing it so ably.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), with whom I have worked closely on this campaign, about the huge impact that the loss of international trains has had on his constituents and local businesses, as well as the huge impact of bringing those trains back. His area has felt it perhaps most acutely, and we know its importance to his constituents.
We also heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) about how, when we discuss the issue and look at Eurostar’s decision, we must not forget that Eurostar ran down the service at Ashford International before the pandemic. He cited some helpful data on the number of trains stopping at Ashford International before the pandemic, and how it had gone down year on year.
If, like me, Members are fans of the TV series “Race Across the World”, they will know that in the first season one of the teams goes to Ashford—I think in 2019—and find, having got there at 5 pm, that the last service has already left. Again, that re-emphasises the point that while Eurostar cites covid as an excuse, if we look at the evidence and data, it does not stack up. It is just an excuse to continue a monopoly.
We heard some helpful remarks from my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who pointed out that Eurostar is recovering financially and has massive expansion plans in London. Why does it want to put all its eggs in the London basket, particularly when St Pancras is unsustainably overcrowded at the moment? Again, Eurostar’s excuses simply do not add up; they are all about defending a monopoly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) made a powerful case about the role of the regulator. Together, a group of us went to the regulator to physically hand in the letter from our constituents urging them to pull their finger out and end this monopoly. I join my hon. Friend in calling for that. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) is really ambitious for the potential of international rail. Why stop at Ashford; why not go further? That was welcome to hear, as was his emphasis on how this could open up opportunities for his child and for young people in his constituency.
The point about opening up opportunities for young people and broadening horizons, increasing the relationship with our closest European neighbours, is absolutely key. It is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) also made. As we hear our Labour Government talking ambitiously—rightly so —about a youth mobility scheme with the EU, what better time is there to restore this international rail link? My hon. Friend also talked strongly about our arts and creative industries on the south coast. Her constituency, like mine, has a thriving creative industry, which is one of the fastest-growing parts of our economy. Improving those links with Europe would really open that up, as well as the opportunities for tourism.
My constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle also mentioned the huge tourism opportunity. He and I share the home of 1066, and we have a massive opportunity coming up next year to increase tourism with the return of the Bayeux tapestry to our region. With all the attention that that will grab, why not use it as an opportunity to encourage more tourists from Europe and France to come and visit the home of the Bayeux tapestry and the home of 1066, and hear about that history and that heritage? There is a massive tourism opportunity here more broadly.
I thank the Government for their firm commitment to restoring international trains to Ashford International. It is a great shame that the Conservative and Lib Dem Government sold our 40% stake in Eurostar, losing our constituents a seat at the table in making decisions. With the work we are doing, I hope that we can continue to keep the pressure up. It is great that we have had cross-party support today for restoring services to Ashford. We have even had support from across the country, as far as Northern Ireland and York. It is really welcome to see that, although I am disappointed that we have seen no Members from Reform or the Green party taking part in today’s debate on a cross-party basis and adding their voices to this call. We know that the issue has huge support from our constituents.
Thousands of my constituents have backed my own campaign; my constituency neighbours have run similar campaigns as well. People really miss that close link with our European neighbours, and we need to see it back. We know it will boost jobs, tourism and opportunities for young people. International rail travel is greener, cheaper and faster. Restoring the service is a complete no-brainer. All the infrastructure is sitting there ready to go at Ashford International. Let us not let it gather more dust; let us bring back international trains. I urge the train operators and the rail regulator to make it happen and bring back international trains to Ashford.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of returning international rail services to Ashford.
Postural Tachycardia Syndrome
(1 day, 15 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
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of support for people with postural tachycardia syndrome.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for this opportunity to look at a health issue that is often overlooked, misunderstood and under-resourced within our national health service: postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or PoTS for short. It is not a rare disease, yet for too long people living with PoTS have fallen through the cracks of a system that was never designed to recognise or support them. My notes are based on the heartbreaking reality faced by my constituents and the tens of thousands of people across the UK who have PoTS. I must declare, Sir Desmond, that I have had a diagnosis of PoTS since 2012, so some of what I will say is taken from my own experience as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand, and she said that whenever I ask for an intervention, she will take it, so I thought I would get it done early. I commend her for her dedication and commitment, which I always admire, and I wish her well in this campaign. Does she agree that the nature of PoTS means that it can be difficult to diagnose, which leaves the sufferer feeling unheard and not believed? Does she believe that enhanced research into diagnostic tools would ensure that people get the support they need to live with PoTS, rather than surviving life with it?
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I recognise that a lot of hon. Members are here for this debate, more than I have ever seen for a 30-minute debate before. Hopefully, next time I make an application, I might be granted a bit more time. I am happy to take early interventions from colleagues, if anyone wants to make them.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My constituent has contacted me about his daughter, who lives with PoTS and faces exhausting weekly travel for costly private IV treatment due to the lack of local NHS provision. They have now found support in York, but it is still far from home. Does my hon. Friend agree that the absence of national clinical guidelines and clear care pathways leaves too many families in that position, and that the Government should do more to ensure consistent and accessible care for people with PoTS, wherever they live?
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Health is obviously devolved to Scotland, but this is a UK-wide issue. My constituents Ewan, Robert and Louise are among a group living with PoTS and they too advise of unacceptably lengthy waiting times for a diagnosis—causing many years of untold suffering. Does my hon. Friend agree that greater support for this syndrome is needed right across the UK?
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
You are looking as suave as ever, Sir Desmond. On behalf of many of my Gloucestershire residents, I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. She will know that PoTS UK reports that it takes an average of seven years to get a diagnosis, and that half of those people are initially misdiagnosed with a mental health condition. Considering this additional strain on sufferers and families, will she agree that the Government should focus on improving diagnoses as a priority?
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Like others in this room, I have had many constituents ask me to represent them today. One such constituent, Sophie Evans-Carey, has spent the last six months in hospital and just wants to get her life back. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to increase support and services available for PoTS sufferers? The average time for diagnosis is seven years. We need faster diagnoses and proper funding for treatment to enable people such as Sophie to go back to work, and help the economy in the process.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I am much obliged to the hon. Lady. On the theme of this being a nationwide problem, in Northern Ireland not only does it take seven years for diagnosis, but we do not, it appears, have a single PoTS specialist, which is aggravating the situation. If the Government are to address this issue, they need to address it on a nationwide basis and they need to give it the urgency and funding that it obviously deserves and that to date has been neglected.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
A decade ago my constituent Laura Cordell, who has lived with PoTS for 10 years, was rushed to A&E with a dangerously high heart rate. She was later told by a doctor that she had PoTS symptoms, but she was just told to go away and take more salt, with no follow-up or referral. Over the next 10 years she sought help on a number of occasions but was not diagnosed; in the end she had to go private for a diagnosis, which is obviously not an option available to most people. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a lot more research and greater awareness of PoTS, particularly among frontline medical professionals such as GPs, who are often the first port of call for our constituents?
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising awareness of this very important condition. It is, as always, an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am here because, like everyone else, I have had several of my constituents raise the problem of diagnosis taking far too long, the crippling impact that this condition can have on their lives and the difficulty that they face in accessing healthcare. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for sport and physical activity, I particularly want to raise the impact that PoTS has on people’s ability to continue to play the sport that they love. It may be that, because they are not being diagnosed, they think it is something that will impact their ability to continue their ordinary, everyday life. It is not right that diagnosis takes on average seven years. We must put more effort into and more emphasis on diagnosis and treatment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
I am really grateful for this debate. Dr Gupta is a leading specialist in PoTS but, although he knows the physiological changes that take place and he knows how to treat it, he has been stopped in his practice because we do not have the clinical guidelines in place. The Government must now ensure that that happens, so that he can continue his practice, which he knows has an impact on patients—indeed, they recover well.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I share my constituents’ concerns about the average time for diagnosis of PoTS; seven years is simply too long, and it is unacceptable—and that is in Scotland too. Given the limited awareness of postural tachycardia syndrome among healthcare professionals, does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of one dedicated care pathway across all health boards, including the devolved nations, would help to improve early recognition, streamline referrals and ensure that patients receive timely and appropriate care?
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. One of my Aylesbury constituents has become a full-time carer for her 25-year-old son, who is affected by PoTS; he developed it at university, had to drop out and now is unable to work. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that we know that PoTS is most likely to develop in young adulthood, we need a particular focus on that age group as we think about increasing recognition, diagnosis and treatment of PoTS?
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her knee exercises this morning in giving way to us all. May I give voice to my constituent Eva from Newcastle-under-Lyme? She has been in touch with me after I met her at a coffee morning recently. Her concerns are on early diagnosis, access to services and the fact that she is stuck on a waiting list down here in London and has been for a very long time indeed. The situation simply is not good enough, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what action we will see—and sooner rather than later.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with her time in giving way. As we can see from today’s debate, this is not a rare condition. Maybe some people think that it is rare, but it affects many people, including Helen, who lives in Roberttown in my constituency. She was repeatedly misdiagnosed and has faced years of delays and fragmented care. I echo the calls from colleagues for clear NHS pathways, joined-up care and access to specialist support in every region, and that we should not underestimate the impact that PoTS can have on people’s mental health.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Some reports suggest that 50% of PoTS cases have been misdiagnosed as mental health conditions, adding pressure on the individuals themselves and on mental health services. Does she agree that there needs to be more support for people with PoTS?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. My constituent Julie told me about her adult daughter, who has myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME, and believes she also has PoTS. After struggling to find a specialist, Julie’s daughter finally got a GP referral to a consultant in Bristol, who said that PoTS was “a TikTok fashion” and refused her any testing. She had spent ages travelling and had a long wait, it was quite an effort to get around the building, and she was bed-bound for weeks as a result of the experience. That terribly dismissive approach left her unable to believe that she could try to get any other help, and I understand that that is not uncommon. What steps might be taken to ensure that people with complex, debilitating conditions can access informed and supportive specialist assessments?
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; I will address those points in my speech if there are no further interventions. One of the most difficult things for someone with PoTS is to have to sit and stand up repeatedly, so hopefully I will get to the end of my speech.
Colleagues have been really helpful in highlighting that the average time taken for diagnosis is seven years. Indeed, the fight for a diagnosis is one of the first and the longest fights that a sufferer of PoTS will have to go through in order to begin to consider accessing services, although that is a different matter altogether.
During that devastating period, where sufferers have huge uncertainty about whether or not everything is all in their head or they really are fainting and feeling dizzy, they struggle to access any support and are often disbelieved. That leads to many sufferers of PoTS having to drop out of education, losing employment and withdrawing from social settings, which also has an impact on mental health, as hon. Friends have mentioned.
I do not believe that that is because doctors do not care; I think it is because awareness of PoTS remains astonishingly low within the medical profession. Most GPs will never have encountered the term in their training, and even among cardiologists and neurologists expertise in autonomic disorders is scarce. As a result, patients often find themselves being referred to different specialists, bouncing from cardiology through neurology to endocrinology and psychiatry, without there being any one clinician to join up the dots and provide the diagnosis.
The crisis in accessing specialist services has been brutally highlighted this week: we have learned that in London a major teaching hospital clinic has closed its doors to new PoTS patients and a second has reduced its capacity, so that it will see only local patients. All the rejected referrals are now being forwarded to a third London clinic, which is already totally overwhelmed and has a two-year waiting list. Those referrals will put extra pressure on that clinic and leave patients in the south-east without any access whatsoever to healthcare pathways.
This is blatantly a postcode lottery, whereby someone’s access to diagnosis and care depends entirely on where they live. This situation is summed up in an email that I received from a woman last week:
“I would like to note that I got involved with this as I am still unable to get a formal diagnosis of PoTS while suffering the symptoms, as the only specialist we had in Plymouth retired and my GP said they were currently unaware of where to send me for help. Please. I am begging. Please help.”
That is the desperation that many people experience: they can recognise their symptoms, they can use the internet and are quite confident that their symptoms match those of PoTS, but they have no way to get a diagnosis and then to access support.
The crisis has been made even more urgent by a recent surge in PoTS cases associated with long covid. Clinics that were already stretched thin are now being overwhelmed by more referrals, which is adding further pressure to a system that was already struggling to cope pre-covid.
Ultimately, these challenges point to a systemic gap, which is a lack of clinical understanding of the autonomic system. That system sits awkwardly between medical disciplines and is often overlooked in medical education. Until that changes, thousands of people with PoTS will continue to fall through the cracks—dismissed, misdiagnosed and left without the support they need to live well with a complex and chronic condition. The challenges I have described are not simply matters of medical complexity; they are also matters of policy and system design. People with PoTS are not falling through the cracks by accident. They are falling through because the system was never built to recognise or support them.
PoTS predominantly affects women, which contributes significantly to the fact that it takes seven years to be diagnosed. The delay in diagnosis of PoTS is a stark example of a concerning gender health gap in the UK, where many women receive poorer healthcare than men. I welcome the Government’s 10-year plan, but have serious questions for the Minister about its ability to help the PoTS community. It focuses heavily on prevention rather than diagnosis, yet that is not a coherent strategy for chronic multi-system conditions, such as PoTS, which often have genetic or variable causes. The NHS cannot focus just on prevention; there also needs to be adequate access to diagnosis and ongoing aftercare for chronically ill patients, such as those with PoTS, when there is currently no cure. We need an explicit commitment on the Government’s plan to overhaul education and training curricula to create 1,000 new speciality training posts. Although those changes are welcome, will they include dedicated education and training on PoTS for frontline clinicians, and will the new posts include specialists in autonomic disorders?
Finally, with the plan’s commitment to health data research service investment and making wearables standard in chronic care, I ask the Minister whether that investment will include dedicated research into PoTS. Will PoTS patients be explicitly included in the initiative to provide wearables, which are vital for monitoring a heart-rate driven condition? It is clear we need change and a clear co-ordinated strategy that brings together awareness, research, clinical care and social care.
My ask of the Government is clear, but it is fivefold. First, we need national guidelines, ideally from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, to provide the evidence-based framework that clinicians, including our overstretched GPs, need to diagnose and treat the condition. Secondly, the Government must require and ensure that commissioning bodies and integrated care boards execute their statutory duties to understand the prevalence of PoTS in their communities and provide for the needs of those patients. Thirdly, we need to ensure that every ICB has a clinical pathway and that all patients requiring secondary care have access to a high-quality service regionally and not just in central London—ultimately, the postcode lottery must end.
Fourthly, we must fully support existing specialist services, which are currently overwhelmed and under threat from closure by hospital management. That includes immediately intervening in the London crisis and protecting every single specialist across the country. Health is devolved in some countries of the United Kingdom, so that is more challenging, but this is a UK-wide issue—although I recognise that the Minister is responsible only for England. Finally, I ask the Government to make PoTS and related disorders a health and social care priority to ensure that affected people have equitable access to the NHS healthcare and social support that they deserve.
We have an opportunity to fix a long-standing wrong. We must not allow the thousands suffering with PoTS to remain invisible any longer. I thank hon. Members for coming out in numbers that I did not expect to support this 30-minute Westminster Hall debate; I hope that demonstrates to the Minister the strength of feeling across the country. All our constituencies have many people suffering from PoTS who are struggling to get diagnoses or to access services, and ICBs are letting down people with PoTS right across these islands. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to take decisive action and set out how the Government are going to take people with PoTS seriously and ensure that they are no longer invisible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for bringing forward this important issue.
This place is vastly enriched by our experiences, and it is nothing short of inspiring how my hon. Friend’s diagnosis has led her to become a passionate advocate for the PoTS community, raising awareness and holding the Government to account. I thank her for sharing her story and Elise’s case with me. I assure my hon. Friend and Elise that tackling health inequalities is my No. 1 priority as the Minister for Public Health and Prevention.
I also thank many hon. Members for their interventions and for sharing their constituents’ stories. Given this short debate, there is not time to respond to each intervention—I will not even attempt to do so—but I assure hon. Members that their points have been noted and that their presence today is testament to the importance of the issue for hon. Members on both sides of the House. I recognise that people with PoTS wake up and confront every day through sheer willpower, and that showering, cooking and walking to the corner shop each become small expeditions that need endless rest and planning. We are determined to help improve their lives.
Postural tachycardia syndrome, more commonly known as PoTS, is not a rare condition. It affects around 120,000 people in the UK. It is a debilitating, multi-system disorder that can significantly impact someone’s quality of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre points out, the path to a PoTS diagnosis is often a long and arduous one, filled with frustration and misdiagnosis as patients fight to be heard. Even after a diagnosis is made, patients may struggle to access the services that they need due to a lack of specialist care and limited understanding among health professionals. That results in long delays in treatment, often leaving those affected unable to work or live their lives.
I turn to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, starting with guidance. For too long, patients have faced systemic barriers to care and an unacceptable postcode lottery for support. It cannot be right that in modern Britain, where someone happens to be born determines the care that they receive. She rightly points out that that inequality is rooted in the lack of clear national guidance for healthcare professionals. Without guidance from bodies such as NICE, clinicians often lack the confidence and know-how to identify and manage this complex condition effectively.
There are some reasons for the difficulty in providing such guidance, including the amount of available evidence, the fact that PoTS is often managed with lifestyle changes, and the overlap with other conditions such as long covid and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, which can bring similar debilitating symptoms. All those issues can make the development of clearcut guidelines challenging. However, in its clinical knowledge summary on blackouts and syncope, NICE sets out in black and white a clear definition of PoTS with the right tests to diagnose it, and symptom-based management. NICE has also published guidance that mentions PoTS in relation to other conditions, such as its guideline on ME/CFS, which acknowledges the overlap between these syndromes. Several other organisations, including PoTS UK and the international Heart Rhythm Society, provide information too.
Services for long-term conditions such as PoTS are commissioned locally through integrated care boards. That approach gives local clinicians the flexibility that they need to tailor services to the specific needs of their communities. Providing a PoTS specialist service is a fundamental part of the ICBs’ statutory role in planning and delivering health to the people they serve, and when an ICB fails to meet its statutory functions, NHS England has a range of proportionate enforcement powers. Let me be clear: we expect NHS England to hold ICBs to account by demanding that they provide clear assurance on how they are meeting their responsibilities, and where they are failing people with PoTS—let me say this very clearly, publicly, now—we expect them to rectify it.
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. As we know, guidelines are only as strong as the evidence and research that they are based on. We need systematic, robust data to determine which treatments and interventions are most effective.
While we are backing our life sciences sector to come up with tomorrow’s treatments for long-term conditions, we are also directly funding research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The NIHR is currently backing a study, known as the LOCOMOTION study, with more than £3 million to examine the connection between long covid and autonomic nervous system disorders, especially PoTS. The NIHR funds research proposals through open competition, based on their scientific quality, value for money and impact on patients. The NIHR welcomes research proposals, and I appeal to any researchers to apply with proposals for PoTS-related research that this Government could fund. We want to see proposals and fund those that can be brought forward. Those researchers’ work could be life-changing for thousands of people across our country.
Locally developed care pathways are clearly important for supporting people with PoTS, because they help to address the condition’s unique challenges.
Rachael Maskell
There are very few PoTS specialists across the country. Will the Minister meet those specialists to hear why they are facing barriers, and work with them to ensure that they can practise the medicine they know works?
Ashley Dalton
The hon. Member pre-empts the end of my speech, where I was going to say that I would be more than happy to meet specialists in this area to discuss how we can move forward. It is important that today’s debate is the beginning of our conversation, not the end of it.
The Government are focused on standardising and co-ordinating care across different settings so that local pathways can address systemic challenges, especially the inconsistent referrals that many people with PoTS face, as has been raised today.
Cameron Thomas
Between young people unable to finish education and adults unable to cope with the strains of the workplace, the economic impact of PoTS is undeniable. The Minister speaks clearly about the pressure her Department will put on NHS England, but will she also put pressure on the Treasury with regards to its economic obligations?
Ashley Dalton
As the hon. Member is probably aware, the Government are working hard to develop policies to support people, particularly people with health conditions, into work. These issues are being raised through the “Get Britain Working” plan, which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Work and Pensions are bringing forward. Working to support people with any long-term health condition, including PoTS, is a crucial part of the Government’s effort to improve the economy and get Britain working. The hon. Member’s comments are noted.
We are determined to improve patient outcomes and ensure more tailored and efficient care that acknowledges the complexity of PoTS, beyond just a single specialty. The Government’s 10-year plan for health not only deals with prevention, but offers potential for people with PoTS through the increased focus on community-based rather than hospital care, through the better integration of services, and through our analogue to digital shift and improvement of digital tools. Given that PoTS is frequently co-morbid with ME/CFS, the final delivery plan for ME/CFS, which the Government published this summer, will have a positive impact for many PoTS patients too.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre for securing the debate. As I said, I hope that this is the beginning of our conversation, and that we can continue to discuss how we can ensure we are delivering for people with PoTS as we work towards building an NHS that is fit for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Despite the title of this debate—which I will immediately concede is less than exciting—it focuses on a serious problem with significant consequences. The criminal courts of England and Wales are under very significant strain. That is translating to very long delays from early hearings in criminal cases to the hearing of trials. I was at my local Crown court a couple of weeks ago and the delay there was at least 18 months. It is as bad or worse elsewhere.
That delay is not just an administrative problem; it has real, human consequences. It means a longer wait before a victim of crime or a witness in criminal proceedings can see the case resolved and move on with their lives. Of course, the longer it takes to get to trial, the harder it is to remember detail and to give the best evidence possible. For a defendant—and it is worth recalling that not every defendant is found guilty—the case continues to hang over their head along with, in some cases, the threat of potentially losing their liberty. A defendant in custody awaiting trial adds to the pressure on the prison population for longer than they should if the eventual outcome of their trial is acquittal or a non-custodial sentence. We can see that in the statistics: remand prisoners made up 11% of the prison population in 2018 but that figure was up to 20% in 2024.
There are other consequences of long periods on remand. Remand prisoners are not convicted so no work is done on their rehabilitation in prison. Time spent on remand counts towards an eventual prison sentence but spending longer on remand means a greater proportion of the eventual sentence—in some cases, the majority of the sentence that is ultimately handed down—is served without any rehabilitative work being done to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Substantial periods on remand also mean that there are more cases where a custodial sentence is imposed at the end of it but the whole sentence has already been served on remand, so the offender is released immediately after the trial. That can be hard to understand and accept for victims and the public, who have to watch that offender walk free from court despite their conviction.
Long delays in the criminal courts should worry us all. They certainly worry the Government, who have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, a very senior and experienced judge, to review the operation of the criminal courts and recommend improvements. Part 1 of his review was published on 18 June and deals with the policy changes that he believes may improve the situation. I have no doubt that Ministers will have been considering those recommendations carefully and will take up some or all of them, but we in Parliament should consider them carefully too. That is why I sought this debate.
I have worked with Sir Brian in a variety of roles and have huge respect for his insight and judgment. The report that he published is 378 pages long; I cannot do justice to all of it in this debate—you will be grateful to hear, Mr Efford—but I do want to say something about his analysis of the problem and some of his solutions.
First, I will discuss the problem and the reasons for it. Those interested only in political attack lines will always be able to find them, but this issue deserves deeper analysis. Of course more resources will be important, and Sir Brian makes that clear, but previous reductions in funding can be at least partly explained by periods of reduced demand. The number of cases received by the Crown courts fell, for example, during the nine years I was in government from 150,000 in 2010 to 102,000 in 2019. The open caseload, which is the number of cases begun in the Crown court but not yet completed, fell from 55,000 in 2014 to 33,000 in 2018, but it has increased significantly since, standing at a historical high of 75,000 in 2024. As Sir Brian set out in his review, there are many reasons for that.
It is true that the system has not yet entirely recovered from the covid pandemic, but the other reasons are more structural. Central among them is that the type of cases being heard matters as much as the overall number of cases. The criminal courts are now hearing a greater proportion of cases involving sexual offences or fraud, which are more complex and take longer to resolve, so the length of the average Crown court trial has doubled between 2001 and 2024. The complexity of trials has also been increased by the greater volume of digital evidence, including from mobile phones.
All of that leads Sir Brian to conclude that we cannot go on as we are, and I think he is right. We all know how difficult it will be for the Government to find significant extra resource for the criminal court system. Even if they could, it would not be enough to address the very different workload and ways of working that the system now deals with so, as Sir Brian urges us, we should look at structural change. As I said at the outset, his review makes many recommendations that I do not have time to discuss, but I hope that the Government and the Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place, will look carefully at his proposals to end release under investigation instead of bail, which I think is sensible, and the increased standardisation of out-of-court disposals.
I want to focus on Sir Brian’s recommendations in three areas. The first is how we can encourage guilty pleas, where they are appropriate, to be entered earlier. If a guilty plea is how a criminal case should and will be resolved, the earlier it is given the more quickly victims and witnesses can be reassured that they will not need to relive their experiences by giving evidence, and the more quickly valuable and scarce court time can be allocated to other cases, so that is a change worth pursuing.
Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts know that there is only so much we can do to persuade a guilty defendant to plead guilty—some will always hold out until the day of the trial in the hope that the witnesses against them fail to turn up; I am afraid that delays in hearing the trial make that more likely—but Sir Brian makes three recommendations in particular that might help. Those recommendations are that the discount on sentence for an early guilty plea should be increased from one third to 40%; judges should give defendants more information on what their sentence may be if a guilty plea is forthcoming; and the plea hearing should be delayed to allow defendants to receive fuller advice before entering a plea. I suspect that the first two will receive the most attention, but I believe the third may have the most effect.
Making sure that defendants know how much shorter their sentence may be if they plead guilty rather than are found guilty, and increasing that difference with bigger discounts for early guilty pleas, may well change some minds, but must not and is not intended to constitute inappropriate pressure to plead guilty when not guilty. Defence advocates, of course, have a clear professional duty to advise their clients not to plead guilty if they do not accept their guilt, but discussions between defendants and their advocates about the evidence and the law are very often constrained because they happen only at court on the morning of the trial. It is often that that truly restricts the prospects of realistic pleas at an earlier stage, so allowing more time for that advice to be given is vital.
Such advice has to be accompanied, though, by changes that will make it more likely for that extra time to be productively used. If, as I hope they will be, the Government are attracted to the idea of delaying plea hearings for that purpose, it will also be important to ensure that advocates are properly incentivised, including through fee structures, to conduct conferences with their clients in advance of the plea hearing. Where the client is in custody, allowing access to the client—preferably in person, but via video link if not—must also be made easier than it is now, or appropriate advice will not be delivered early so that appropriate pleas can be delivered early.
It is also worth saying again—these points have been made many times by many people, as the Minister knows—that early advice on the prosecution case and the available defences cannot be given if the prosecution evidence has not been served on the defence in time to allow it to be properly considered. Late disclosure by the prosecution remains a fundamental problem, as does the timely production of defendants in custody at court.
The second area of Sir Brian’s review I want to focus on is the proposed rebalancing of work between the Crown court and the magistrates court. It is important to recognise that, as Sir Brian points out, the bulk of criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates already—around 90%, in fact, with only 1% of criminal cases being resolved by jury trial. Nevertheless, because a magistrates court trial is both quicker and cheaper than a jury trial in the Crown court, it makes sense in resource terms to shift the balance further in the direction of magistrates where there would be no injustice in doing so.
Sir Brian suggests that that can be done in a number of ways. Some are fairly straightforward: for example, we could increase the financial threshold for trials of criminal damage cases in the magistrates court from £5,000 to £10,000. Of perhaps more significance from a policy perspective is the suggestion of removing the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown court and replacing it with a permission to appeal process, and that of removing the right to choose a jury trial altogether for offences with a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment or less. In the circumstances, I have no substantive objection to any of those proposals, but in relation to the last of them, I invite Ministers to consider the discrepancy it would create between, on the one hand, trials of offences for which sentences of up to two years’ imprisonment could be imposed taking place in magistrates courts and, on the other, sentencing powers for magistrates remaining limited to 12 months’ imprisonment, which Sir Brian does not seek to change.
I am sure that Ministers will also want to factor in the capacity of magistrates courts to do the extra work, as there is a backlog there too, and consider whether a neater way of rebalancing the caseload towards magistrates courts would be the reclassification of some offences as summary only. They will also want to factor in, of course, the need to ensure that lay magistrates have access to good-quality legal advice when hearing cases.
On changing access to jury trial, the important point is an obvious one, but one that is worth making for context. As things stand, not every criminal charge entitles a defendant to a jury trial. We already restrict the right to jury trial, so this debate is about moving the threshold for eligibility for jury trial, not about abandoning a principle of jury trials for all.
I should say that I have great faith in the jury system. I have sought to persuade juries for the prosecution and for the defence in Crown court trials, and I have heard many jury verdicts, and I have retained throughout my confidence that, in general terms, this is a good system for determining guilt or innocence. However, that does not mean that we should refuse to contemplate any change or to recognise the pressure on jury trials for some of the offences that occupy large amounts of court time.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I just wondered whether I might pose the fact that the backlog has been created and exacerbated by problems in the criminal justice system, and that it is certainly nothing to do with the time a jury trial takes to be completed. Jury trial has been statistically proven to be fairer to ethnic minorities and people who are more vulnerable. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not therefore agree that jury trial is definitely the way we should go in some cases? I accept his point that not every case has the right to go to jury trial.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, and to be fair to Sir Brian, he is not suggesting that we remove jury trial in all cases; he is very much talking about a subset of cases in which he thinks it is worth restricting that right. However, she is right that we must balance the clear advantages of jury trials, in terms of the interests of justice, with some of the structural and organisational challenge the system undoubtedly faces. To go back to the first point I made, Sir Brian is clear that the current situation cannot persist for much longer without significant change. All the changes we might consider will have downsides as well as upsides, but we must be prepared to contemplate change of some sort.
The hon. Lady is also right that people have come to see jury trials as considerably advantageous in the delivery of justice, particularly for some of our fellow citizens. However, it is also right to recognise that although we cannot blame jury trial for all the mess we are in, jury trials do take longer than other trials. I am afraid that we will exacerbate the pressure on the criminal court system if we do not at least look carefully at the prospects for restricting those sorts of trials, in addition to other changes.
Tessa Munt
The point I would make, of course, is that a jury is free, and paid judges are not. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any observation to make about that? The cost is a problem, is it not?
Sir Jeremy Wright
The hon. Lady is right, and juries are cheap—that is undoubtedly the case—but they do not sit without a judge, and I am afraid that we pay the judge for a jury trial, just as we would for a judge-only trial. I do not think that the financial saving, in that sense, can be left out of account, and there is not much difference, in terms of what the judge is paid, whether they are hearing the case on their own or with a jury. The only difference may be that we will make better use of that judge, because the trial will complete more quickly, and they will be able to get on to other business more quickly. However, I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Sir Brian’s proposals to change access to jury trials represent a distinct restriction of freedom for citizens facing trial, yet he does not offer convincing evidence that that will save an enormous amount of time or speed up the trial process, and that that lack of evidence causes concern to many practitioners?
Sir Jeremy Wright
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Again, to be fair to Sir Brian, it is not within his capacity to do all the analysis necessary to follow through his recommendations and to understand quite what the effect on the system will be. However, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. As I was about to say, we have to balance the advantages that Sir Brian sets out with the disadvantages that would undoubtedly arise from his proposals. It is hard to do that in an informed way if we do not know exactly what the resource benefits will be of implementing these proposals.
Let me come on to the third area of recommendations that I want to discuss, regarding the removal of a right to jury trial, particularly in complex fraud cases, where trials can take months and where, apart from anything else, the impact on the lives and jobs of jurors can be immense. As I have suggested, this is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not yet certain that it would be right to conduct all such trials without a jury.
Many who practise in this area, and some judges, continue to believe that juries can consider these cases thoroughly and fairly and reach appropriate verdicts, even when the evidence is complex; indeed, I have seen that for myself. The argument is made that these cases are really about dishonesty, and that it is the job of counsel and of the judge to make the issues and the evidence clear to a jury. All of those are reasonable arguments, and those of us who believe in the jury system instinctively baulk at the idea of restricting it. However, I go back to the central premise of this report: the system is under intolerable pressure, and something must be done about it.
If it can be established—this goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox)—that complex fraud trials are indeed the cause of much of that pressure and, crucially, that judge-only trials would help substantially to relieve it, then given the relatively even balance of arguments for and against this change, which have been made for decades, it is perhaps a least worst option worth considering.
Sir Brian’s proposal to allow most defendants to opt for a judge-only trial if they wish is of course much less controversial and well worth pursuing, as it does not inhibit the right to a jury trial if a defendant still wishes to have one. The only caveat is that we must avoid the complexity of allowing different defendants in the same case to have different types of trial. If all defendants in one trial cannot agree on a judge-only trial, I am afraid that all must be tried by a jury. Any other approach would lead to multiple trials, which could and should have been avoided because of their impact on witnesses, who would have to give evidence repeatedly, and because they would reduce or eliminate the benefit of judge-only trials in using up less court time.
As I said, there is too much in this review of the criminal courts for me to be able to talk about everything, and there are some important recommendations that I have not been able to mention—perhaps others will. I want to finish where I started, with the reason this review was commissioned and the inescapable context of it: our criminal courts are under incredible pressure, and there must be a policy response to relieve it. Otherwise, we may see the expectation of fair and swift justice, which underpins our society, erode or even fail. That is not something that we—Government or Parliament—can allow to happen. If Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals are not to be adopted, others must be. On that crucial question, I look forward to hearing what colleagues and the Minister have to say.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee, Andy Slaughter.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As he says, the changes being proposed to the way in which the criminal courts operate are very significant, and it is right that we have the opportunity to debate them here. My contribution was to move the time of the Justice Committee to allow its members to take part today, and we therefore see a well-attended debate.
The latest figures show that the current open caseload for criminal cases in the Crown courts now stands at 78,329—more than double the 38,070 cases recorded in December 2019. If no action is taken, that number is projected to increase to between 99,000 and 114,000 by the end of March 2029. In response, the previous Lord Chancellor, on 12 December 2024, announced that she had asked Sir Brian Leveson to review the criminal courts to consider how to accelerate the hearing of cases. The “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I”, the subject of this debate, was published on 9 July 2025. The second part of the review will focus on the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and is due to be published later this year. The first part of the review proposes 45 recommendations. Sir Brian stresses that the package needs to be looked at as a whole and
“should not be approached as providing a ‘pick-n-mix’ series of options.”
In the interests of time, I will mention only the most radical and controversial of those proposals.
First, the review recommends an expansion in the use of out-of-court resolutions, noting that their use has fallen by 35% since 2015, from 328,000 to 212,000. Secondly, the review recommends removing the right to elect a Crown court trial for offences with a maximum sentence length of two years. It states that those offences form an obvious grouping, as they have been categorised by Parliament as the least serious of the either-way offences. The review identifies a pool of additional offences for removal of the right to elect, based on the average custodial sentence length they typically involve. It also recommends reclassifying some offences as summary only—in effect, removing the defendant’s right to elect and ensuring that such offences could be tried only in the magistrates court. The review proposes to select offences for reclassification based on whether the average custodial sentence length falls well within the magistrates’ sentencing power limit of 12 months. That requires—this picks up a point the right hon. and learned Gentleman made—reducing the maximum sentence for these offences to 12 months to align with the new maximum sentencing power for the magistrates court.
Thirdly, the review proposes the introduction of a dedicated Crown court bench division, comprising a Crown court judge and two magistrates, ensuring the retention of community participation, in the absence of a jury. Magistrates would have equal decision-making authority on evidence and sentencing, with matters of law reserved to the judge. The Crown court bench division would encompass the same sentencing powers as the Crown court, negating the need to commit cases for sentence. For either-way offences, allocation to the CCBD would be determined at the plea and trial preparation hearing, with cases likely to attract sentences of three years or less anticipated to be heard in this division. Responding to the review, Mark Beattie, chair of the Magistrates’ Association, noted that an extra 6,000 magistrates would be required to ensure that the CCBD runs successfully alongside maintaining capacity in the magistrates court.
Fourthly, the review provides recommendations to incentivise early resolutions in the Crown court: increasing the maximum reduction for early guilty pleas from 33% to 40%; making it mandatory for judges to offer advance sentence indications, allowing defendants greater clarity and confidence in entering a plea early; and establishing a pilot scheme to test whether delaying the pre-trial hearing allows better-informed plea decisions. Appearing before the Justice Committee in December 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that 70% of cases going through the Crown court eventually end up with guilty pleas, but in only 36% of cases are guilty pleas entered at the first substantive hearing. Fifthly and finally of the points that I want to address, the review recommends that serious and complex fraud cases should be tried by a judge alone, with eligible cases defined by hidden dishonesty or complexity outside the understanding of the general public.
The combined effect of the reforms would be to curtail a defendant’s right to trial by jury, and that has generated adverse comments from the legal profession and some commentators. These are very significant changes to the way the criminal courts operate. As to whether the review’s proposals would achieve their aim of speeding the trial process, it models three recommendations: the introduction of the Crown court bench division, the reclassification of some offences and the removal of the right to elect. Other recommendations made by the review in part 1 were not modelled, and any impact of those would be in addition to those savings. In combination, and with savings measured in Crown court sitting days, the modelled proposals suggest savings of 9,000 Crown court sitting days per annum through the diversion of cases to the magistrates court or the Crown court bench division.
Given that the Leveson review is the Ministry of Justice’s main play to reduce the Crown court backlog, it seems inevitable that it will go forward, and go forward as a package, as Sir Brian requests. Whether it will achieve its targets, and whether it will have the adverse effects on the administration of criminal justice predicted by the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association in their briefings for this debate, we will find out. What is certain is that, by expressing the need to apply to the criminal justice system many of the innovations that have been proposed and rejected over the past several decades, it draws into sharp focus the parlous state of our criminal courts in 2025. Many of the proposals in Sir Brian’s report are not new; they have been debated and, on the whole, rejected over several decades. The question really—for the Government, but also for all of us—is whether, given the lamentable failure of the Crown courts at present to deal with cases in a timely manner and to see justice delivered, those are sacrifices worth making now.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
If we are going to get everyone in, we will have to stick to about four minutes each. I am not going to put a hard time limit on at this stage, but please bear that in mind.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This independent review comes at a time when our criminal justice system is at breaking point. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As a member of the criminal Bar, I know the importance that many barristers out there place on this debate.
We now know that Crown court trials could have a potential backlog of more than 100,000 cases by 2029. The review’s recognition of the need for significant reform is welcome, but restoring the criminal justice system cannot come at the expense of fairness, due process or the right to be tried by jury.
I understand, as it is currently set out, that the proposal to create a new Crown court bench division would allow select cases that carry a sentence of up to three years in prison to be heard without a jury. Under the proposals, it would be the judges, not the defendant, who decide where a case is handled, and who therefore hold the power to potentially change the entire trajectory of a criminal case. Unless there is forthcoming evidence to show that this change creates additional capacity without distorting judicial outcomes, we surely cannot consider such an idea.
The right to jury trial is, and should remain, a cornerstone of our justice system. For centuries it has served as a guarantee of public confidence and accountability. Any attempts to restrict or infringe upon that right should be approached with the utmost caution.
Before we consider surrendering our core principles of jurisprudence, we should first seek out efficiency reforms in part 2 of Leveson’s review and postpone any changes to jury trial until such changes have been fully implemented. At the very least, we need the Government to make reassurances that such changes would be reversed as soon as the backlogs are cleared, and to confirm their belief that trial by jury remains the best way of administering justice in this country.
In my view, removing trial by jury, even in complex or lengthy cases, risks undermining public trust, particularly among communities that already feel marginalised by the justice system. Non-jury trials should remain a measure of last resort rather than some administrative convenience.
I clearly believe that this is not the right path to follow. I fear that we are being made to consider watering down our justice system because the Government fail to understand that, even with reform, we will not be able to change the reality on the ground without proper investment. Creating a new court division will not in itself solve the backlog; it will merely shift the pressure from one part of the system to another.
Rather than sacrificing jury trials, we should be looking to solve things like the criminal legal aid system, which has been withering away thanks to years of chronic underfunding. Even with the Government’s recent £92 million commitment, more is required, especially if investment in one area comes at the expense of another.
Another key priority must be to reduce demand on the courts themselves—for example, introducing a rebuttable presumption that certain groups of offenders, such as first-time offenders or those suffering from mental ill health or substance misuse, should in appropriate cases be diverted from the criminal justice system at the outset. In those instances, out-of-court disposals could deliver justice more swiftly, more proportionately and without mounting pressures on an already overstretched system.
Finally, we cannot ignore the physical state of our buildings. Years of neglect have left our courts crumbling and have contributed directly to lost sitting days up and down the country.
The House will always support positive reforms that make key improvements to our justice, but reform must be principled, evidence-based and properly funded. That is the only way to clear our backlogs, and the only way to restore the criminal justice system to the essential and reliable public service that it ought to be.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. Sir Brian Leveson’s report—I have it as being 388 pages—begins with historical quotes, all of which roughly translate to the same thing: justice delayed is justice denied, as we have already heard in this debate. I want to speak specifically to a case in my constituency because I found it quite traumatic, and it speaks to the human impact of this issue.
A mother in my constituency wrote to me about her daughter’s case. Her daughter was a child sexual abuse survivor aged 11. She waited five years while her case was put back and back, five times, until it coincided with her GCSE exams. It was a cloud over her life for such a long time, not allowing her to move on, not letting her get on with her life. She was just waiting, and it impacted her during one of the most pivotal moments in a young person’s life. The perpetrator was found guilty, was given 10 months in prison and will serve nine months, but only after five years of that case hanging over that young woman’s head. It is indefensible, and I am so angry that our justice system could fail a young person—a young woman, a child—so completely. Her case is not isolated; it is one of many that can be replicated nationally.
The review makes it clear that the system is under intolerable strain. The number of publicly funded criminal barristers—those who handle serious cases like the one I described—fell by 11% between 2017 and 2021. Four out of five such barristers work over 50 hours a week, and one in three are actively seeking to leave the Bar. The problem could get worse. It is clear that serious mistakes were made by the previous Government. The victims of those mistakes have been members of the public and those who are most innocent in our communities. It is nowhere near good enough.
The report states that one cause of the crisis is the long-term funding constraints over many years. In positive news, I welcome our Government’s recent announcement that there will be more sitting days, with funding for an extra 1,000 legal days this year. That means we will get closer to clearing some of the backlog and getting victims justice. I am also pleased that the Government have stated that there is much more to do, recognising the generational shift that is needed and cannot wait. I look forward to the Government’s response to the review because I know that our Justice Secretary is passionately focused on getting that response right. In this debate, I wanted to stand up and say that my constituent’s daughter deserved better. Although we cannot change what has happened for the last number of years, we can fix the system that is failing people right now.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. Increasing delays in Crown court trials are a very real problem. They pose a problem for victims, witnesses and those defendants who are eventually acquitted. We have heard that remand prisoners now make up 20% of the prison population—a population that is at capacity and needs reducing. If we could speed up the rate at which Crown courts, and indeed magistrates courts, deal with cases, that would lead to a partial solution for our crowded prisons. I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his report; he makes interesting and important recommendations, but in the time available I will focus on one of Sir Brian’s proposals with which I disagree: curtailing access to jury trials.
I support the proposal to allow defendants to elect for trial by judge alone. I do not see any diminution in the rights of a citizen in that proposal. I am concerned at Sir Brian’s other proposals, which would reduce the defendant’s right to trial by jury. I regard that right as a fundamental freedom of our country. As parliamentarians, we should be very slow to limit it.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the jury trial system has evolved over time—it has been with us for centuries—and has changed intermittently over time: it looks very different now than it did in the 13th century. In the 19th century, civil adjudications were taken out of the jury trial system and our civil justice system is still extremely robust.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Lady makes a good point, but before curtailing that restriction further I would want to be persuaded that there are very real benefits. I am afraid that I see none, or at least I see no evidence of any. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, each of the trials under the new court that Sir Brian proposes would require a sitting judge and a sitting day. There is little evidence that removing the jury from that process will make a great deal of difference to the time it takes. In my view, therefore, the focus of the Ministry of Justice should be increasing the productivity and efficiency of our Courts Service.
The House of Commons Library produced a useful document, on page 17 of which we can see the Crown court caseload in England and Wales. The receipts and the disposals have risen only marginally since the pandemic, and yet the outstanding caseload continues to rise. I put it to the Minister that the reason for those delays is not the jury system—that is simply a misunderstanding. The problem is that the Courts Service is not working as efficiently as it should be. That might be partly due to failing buildings or computer systems, but I fear that in Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation, we have a solution in search of a problem. There have always been certain judges and barristers who have never liked jury trials, and I am reluctant to accept this proposal by Sir Brian.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this important debate. As he said, we have serious and fundamental challenges in our criminal court system, and it is clear that only bold, radical action will overcome them.
There are lots of areas of the public realm on which the last 14 years of austerity had devastating impacts—the NHS, the police, our schools, and our asylum system—but I saw the impact of austerity on our court system most tangibly. As a barrister for 18 years before being elected last July, I saw the bruises inflicted by the wholesale neglect of our court system: leaking roofs, crumbling buildings and demoralised staff. I know many criminal barristers and solicitors who have walked away from criminal law because the failing and poorly resourced system was making them feel they could no longer deliver justice, which was what they went into the profession to do.
The Government inherited a record Crown court backlog. As of June 2025, the outstanding caseload stood at 78,329, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has said. That is 78,329 individual injustices caused by the failure of the state to ensure that justice is done. I know that the Government are taking real practical steps to deal with that, and I strongly welcome the improved resourcing of criminal legal aid, with £92 million more per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and the funding of a record-high allocation of 111,250 Crown court judicial sitting days this financial year.
It is obvious, however, that the demand in our criminal courts is still so high that the steps already taken by the Government will not be enough to address the outstanding backlog. That is why it is important that the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose reforms to ensure that our court system can be fair, timely and efficient. This Government should not tolerate a situation—nor should any of us—where justice is delayed and denied to thousands of people every year.
I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal to restrict jury trials for certain either-way offences. Some have worried that removing a defendant’s right to elect trial by jury appears to diminish fundamental constitutional protections. I have sympathy for the point, raised by a colleague, that there is a need to maintain public trust in the judicial system, which could be undermined in the eyes of certain marginalised groups if this is not done correctly. But at present we have thousands of people who are being denied justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) just told us in tragic detail, there are people who are being completely failed by our system, and we cannot stand by and let that happen.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, this is about changing the threshold for jury trial, not removing it. I agree with his analysis that the availability of jury trial, given the situation we find ourselves in, must be balanced against the challenges that the system is facing as a whole. The proposed Crown court bench division represents reform that appears to preserve the fundamental standards of justice that we expect, while addressing the crisis threatening to collapse our entire court system.
Cases will still be tried by the same professional judges who currently oversee jury trials, sitting with two experienced magistrates. That maintains judicial independence and legal expertise, while the magistrates add lay participation. Importantly, the new division remains within the Crown court structure, ensuring that defendants retain access to the same qualified advocates, fee structures and procedural protections they would receive in a jury trial.
It is important that we maintain the standards of fairness that our judicial system has long guaranteed. I can see the time, and will end there.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Intervention to fix the Crown court backlog is needed now. Without radical reform, things will only get worse; but in my submission this situation presents an opportunity to present the positive case for modernising our system.
The changing nature of crime is recognised by all agencies in the criminal justice system. This is an opportunity to change the criminal justice system so that it is fit for the modern day. The system has been modernised many times over many years. That is why we have the Crown court system in operation and no longer the courts of assize or quarter sessions, which made way in 1972. Later, we got rid of old-style committals for trial, so that witnesses did not have to give evidence twice. Those are the sorts of modernisation efforts that can improve the criminal justice system for the modern world. At this time, we have a key opportunity to both deal with this crisis and modernise the system.
I am conscious of time, so I will make a few brief observations from Sir Brian Leveson’s very thorough report. First, I ask the Minister to be cautious about what sorts of cases can be expanded into the domain of out-of-court resolutions and, in particular, the deferred prosecution scheme. It would not, for example, be suitable for domestic abuse cases, particularly as there is no requirement for the defendant to have an admission of guilt. We have to think about faith in the criminal justice system and the manipulative nature of domestic abusers, who often promise time and again to change before going back to their old ways. Furthermore, the use of bad character evidence often underpins a prosecution for domestic violence, and we would need to consider how a deferred prosecution might impact that.
We have heard about the removal of the right to elect for offences with a maximum sentence of two years. It would be imperative that the magistrates retained their power of committal for sentencing if they felt, having heard all of the evidence, that a sentence in excess of 12 months would be required.
The reclassification of offences is less attractive and more troublesome, because dropping some offences to summary-only would mean a maximum sentence of 12 months. The Sentencing Council is careful to ensure public and statutory consultations, so that the wider public and criminal justice professionals are consulted when it looks at sentencing guidelines, but this would effectively reduce maximum sentences for a number of offences. Careful consideration must be given to that.
Again, it would not be suitable for domestic violence or abuse cases to fall within that reclassification. Breaching a non-molestation order, which is one of the offences listed as potentially forming part of the reclassification, has a maximum sentence of five years. We would be reducing that down to 12 months, which would lead to a lot of concern from practitioners.
I will leave it there, but there is a lot more to be said and I look forward to future debates.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate.
It is right that this House examines Sir Brian Leveson’s review with care before any legislation is brought forward. I spent many years at the Bar, as a prosecutor as well as a criminal defence lawyer, before becoming an MP. While an MP, I have served on the Justice Committee and for a number of years was shadow Minister for justice, prisons, probation and courts. During that time, I challenged Ministers at the Dispatch Box many times about the record delays to cases in the Crown court.
When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently asked the public which rights should be protected in a Bill of Rights, two things topped the list: the right to NHS care and the right to trial by jury—a constitutional safeguard rooted in public trust. Sir Brian’s report exposes the scale of the crisis: record delays, cases listed years into the future and justice slipping beyond reach. Yet in Bolton South and Walkden, as a result of the current Government’s expansion of court sitting days, we have been able to reduce some of the backlog.
Capacity is not just about buildings, however—it is about people. Not only juniors, but senior barristers are leaving criminal practice because the fee structure cannot sustain a career. Judicial shortages mean that we lack the judges, recorders and district judges we need to run additional courts. That has not happened by accident. It is the result of 14 years of Conservative Government political decisions on court closures, cuts to sitting days and erosion of legal aid.
Before contemplating such constitutional changes as limiting jury trials, we should act on the most basic recommendations in the review—for example, increasing sitting days now and using courts to their full capacity. If we want earlier guilty pleas, the defendant must have access to timely legal advice, which also means that the fee structure for payment must be re-examined.
There are many sensible proposals in the review, including support for criminal pupillages and improved case preparation, but they honestly cannot justify removing the right to a jury trial or curtailing the right to appeal, particularly when more than 40% of appeals from magistrates courts to the Crown court currently succeed. We cannot resolve delay by reducing scrutiny or by getting rid of jury trial, one of the foundations of our civilised society. I know that some changes have already been made, but jury trial is fundamental to our system. We need reform, but it must be to strengthen trust, not to weaken it. When justice fails, not only do individuals suffer, but confidence in our entire system is lost.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for this debate. He will be aware that there have been a number of debates on this salient issue here and in the other place. Nationally, the court backlog across England and Wales now exceeds 78,000. It is a problem that has been inherited, but we need to acknowledge it and face up to the challenge.
In my local area, Maidstone Crown court has 2,500 cases outstanding, while Canterbury has 1,000. I have met victims as well as those working on the frontline of the criminal justice system, and I acknowledge some operational challenges that I intend to raise today. Every single case we have heard from colleagues represents real people—real victims and defendants who are not getting their time in court. Defendants are suffering the concurrent mental health conditions of waiting for a sentence and victims are not getting redress.
As my colleague from the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), rightly said, if we do not tackle this issue, it is predicted to get worse, with 100,000 cases by 2030 if no changes are made. I welcome the Government’s announcements of an extra £92 million for legal aid so far this year and an additional 4,000 court sitting days, taking us to 111,000. That is a necessary step, but it is also right that we have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts, and it is in an independent spirit that he has come forward with these guidelines.
There are 45 recommendations. I think it is eminently sensible that we look at out-of-court resolutions to a number of cases where the sentencing is below a certain threshold. The two-year threshold is sensible; it could be higher, but the Government will need to take a balanced approach on that when they respond to part 1 of the report.
I also think that the reclassification to summary-only offences, so that magistrates get more responsibility, is eminently sensible, because at the moment the number of referrals going into Crown courts is simply too high. The creation of a dedicated Crown court bench commission is a sensible next step; I look forward to seeing how that will work in practice, given that we have logistical and staff constraints within this sector at present. I understand that the recruitment of 6,000 extra staff might be required, which will be a challenge. The incentivising of early resolution through sentence reductions is also sensible—it is a practice we are already employing, but it can be expanded. Of course, all these suggestions will only reduce cases by 9,000 court sittings per annum on average, so it is right that we are speaking to the public about these issues and I look forward to the Government response.
I have one minute left. I have spoken to the Minister in previous Westminster Hall debates about my local courts in Kent. There are some operational issues as well, and I acknowledge some of the concerns raised by colleagues, including the increasing use of digital technologies in courts and the improvement in capital finance to improve court premises, some of which are falling apart, and to fix leaking roofs. I have also raised independently the movement of cases across artificial geographical boundaries, so that we can spread caseloads across other parts of the county and other regions. There must also be greater support, including greater human resources support, for justice offices and casework officers working in our court systems, so that we can get the cases through.
I will continue partnership work with the Government, but I welcome part 1 of Leveson’s report and I encourage Members to support it.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
The Front Benchers have 10 minutes each and I intend to call the mover of the motion with a couple of minutes to sum up the debate.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this vital debate, on his knowledge and expertise of this subject, and on taking the time to read 378 pages of what was a gripping read.
Justice is a key pillar of our society, yet it rarely cuts through the noise or gets splashed on the front pages of the papers in the same way that our NHS does. Nevertheless, it is so important to have a functioning justice system when we need it, either as a victim or a defendant. I am also delighted to respond to this debate as the new spokesperson for justice for the Liberal Democrats and I look forward to working closely with the Government and His Majesty’s official Opposition on something that affects us all.
Sir Brian Leveson’s report into the criminal courts has proven insightful and a concerning necessity. Some 45 recommendations were made, with a goal of clearing the court backlog and enabling cases to be dealt with more quickly, which is a desire felt across the House.
As outlined by many hon. Members in the debate, our criminal courts are at a physical and operational breaking point. They are overburdened by an ever-expanding backlog of cases to hear and undermined by the deteriorating condition of our court estate. We also risk our criminal justice system becoming just a criminal system, because justice is being denied to victims up and down the country.
The average wait for a verdict in a Crown court now stands at 22 months, while the number of cases facing a delay of more than two years increased tenfold over the course of the last Parliament. We are hearing of cases being booked as far in advance as 2029. As of June this year, there was a backlog of over 78,000 cases awaiting hearing in the Crown courts. Given that the Ministry of Justice’s own public target is to reduce that figure to 53,000 by March next year, the current position is nothing short of abysmal.
Particularly concerning in this situation is the impact that delays are having on the delivery of justice. As my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has noted in the other place,
“evidence becomes less accurate with the passage of time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 1427.]
Delays reduce the willingness of witnesses to give evidence, or their ability to accurately recall the events that led to the trial, or even to relive harrowing events when they are keen just to move on with their lives.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) reminded us of the human toll by sharing the story of a constituent’s waiting five years for their day in court. That is totally unacceptable for that young woman and for the family supporting her. It can also be a huge strain on the mental health of all involved, and ultimately delays erode confidence in the justice system. It has been rightly said that justice delayed is justice denied. Both victims and defendants have a fundamental right to have their cases heard in a timely and fair manner—a right that, under the present circumstances, is simply not being upheld.
At the same time, the physical infrastructure of our court system continues to falter. A recent Law Society report revealed that two thirds of solicitors have experienced delayed court hearings due to the poor state of court buildings, as was highlighted by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). The problems range from crumbling structures to outdated technology. Both contribute to the already unsustainable backlog of cases. Those cases of professionals walking away from the judicial system tell a really sorry tale, when we need them more than ever.
Tessa Munt
To accentuate that point in particular, as I understand it we are waiting still for the independent body to make recommendations on barristers’ fees. That was a key commitment to ending the strike which has yet to be implemented. Would my hon. Friend agree that needs to be sorted out as well as the fees for expert witnesses, who will not work to legal aid rates? Both of those contribute to delays and to the fraying of the legal structure when people walk away, as she says.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is really important to put that on record as something that also needs to be addressed, and all of those elements that contribute to exacerbating backlogs and professionals walking away from their service.
Types of and methods for presenting evidence have developed massively with new technology, but our courts have somehow served as time capsules and not kept up with innovation. The growing backlog in our criminal courts is also directly exacerbating the crisis of prison overcrowding. Remand populations continue to rise, now accounting for over one fifth of the entire prison population. That is not sustainable and nor is it just. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam made a very valid point that while people on remand are in prison awaiting trial, they are not having the rehabilitative programmes that could prevent them from reoffending.
We need to be clear where the fault for this lies. Years of poor governance have led to chronic under-investment in and neglect of our nation’s courts and justice infrastructure. The fact that one of the Labour Government’s first actions last year was to implement an emergency early release scheme to create space in our prisons is something that those on the Conservative Benches should apologise for. They ignored the crisis for far too long and left it for the incoming Government to clear up. It was under them that the backlog ballooned, that busy Crown courts such as the one in my constituency of Chichester were closed, and that staff shortages persisted.
The hole that our justice system is in is a deep and worrying one. It is therefore right that an independent, innovative and external review into the system by the well-respected Brian Leveson was commissioned. The first half of the report has provided some interesting ideas to address many of the issues outlined, and it will certainly create debate on what can be done. Responding to the headline suggestions—I am not going to cover all 45—about the Crown court bench division and reductions in trial by jury, the Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by any impingement on the right of individuals to face trial by jury in a Crown court. That right is a cornerstone of the judicial process which, as has been set out in a number of reports, has been proven to be non-discriminatory and multiracial. That diversity cannot be guaranteed if trials are increasingly presided over by judges alone.
The Government’s efforts to implement the necessary reforms to the courts system to address the untenable backlog should be centred on the principle of ensuring that justice is delivered fairly and without discrimination. The removal of the right of individuals to trial by jury would undermine that aim, reducing the likelihood of both victims and defendants receiving a fair hearing, and therefore should be firmly opposed. As many Members acknowledged, including the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), there is no robust argument that the removal of trial by jury would make a significant difference to the backlog. I wait to be convinced, if the Government decide to take that recommendation on board. That is not to say that the issues surrounding the processes of trial by jury should not be addressed.
As outlined in the Leveson report, the increasing length and complexity of trials is having a serious financial and mental impact on jurors. However, that must not be utilised as an argument to undermine the right to a fair trial. Instead, jurors must receive financial support and appropriate wellbeing services throughout proceedings. I have been contacted by many constituents who were keen to play their part in the justice system and do their jury service, but the financial burden, especially for those who were self-employed, had a huge impact on their livelihoods.
Liberal Democrats are also concerned about the potential impact of the proposed Crown court bench division on the workload of magistrates who would be drawn in to operate those courts. Attempts to mitigate the severe backlog in the Crown courts that exacerbate the backlog in the magistrates courts are clearly an undesirable outcome. The Magistrates Association states that implementing the recommendations would require an increase in the number of magistrates required. The creation of an intermediate court would therefore jeopardise magistrates’ current ability to deliver swift justice. That is particularly concerning for survivors of domestic abuse who already face distressing delays.
Tony Vaughan
As the hon. Lady seems to oppose a lot of the meat of the reforms, is there one that she can support to reduce the pressures on the system? That is a fundamental task that we all agree needs to be addressed.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I have picked out the main recommendations in the report that I cannot agree with. There are 45 recommendations in the Leveson report and some of them could go some way, but removing the key pillar of our justice system by removing the right to trial by jury is something that I cannot support.
Ayoub Khan
The Sentencing Council was headed by the late Lord Justice William Davis, who was a recorder at my local court in Birmingham. He made reference to the sentencing guidelines and the disparity in sentences highlighted in the probation report. We know that sentences were passed by judges. Given that judges have passed sentences that were disproportionate for certain communities, does the hon. Member agree that that is one of the reasons we must ensure jury trials remain?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I will bring my remarks to a close. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to ask the Minister my questions, but I will get back to her on a suitable occasion.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I begin by warmly congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this important debate. He set out with characteristic thoughtfulness the context for today’s discussion: the pressures facing our criminal courts and the enormous impact on victims, as a number of Members pointed out, and the far-reaching recommendations in Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that the House should have a meaningful opportunity to examine the principles at stake and the implications of the reforms.
Turning to the Leveson review, I acknowledge the serious intent with which Sir Brian approached the task. His report contains thoughtful proposals: consistency in the use of out-of-court disposals; updating legal aid to better recognise work done at plea and trial preparation hearings, as has been pointed out; and changes to permission to appeal, giving more options for defendants to elect to have a judge-led trial. But several recommendations raised profound constitutional and practical concerns. Sir Brian proposes removing the right to elect to have a jury trial for some 220 offences and allowing more judge-only trials in the Crown court. He also recommends raising the sentence discount for an early guilty plea from one third to 40%. At the heart of this debate is a simple but serious problem. The approach to the problem is being tackled the wrong way round.
Sir Brian Leveson’s part 1 report focuses on radical reform proposals, as I have discussed, to do with jury trials, discounts for guilty pleas and creating a new Crown court bench division. Yet the efficiency review, part 2 of Sir Brian’s work, which will look at technology, workforce capacity, case progression and the better use of the court estate, has not even been published. We are being asked to consider endorsing fundamental structural change, including the curtailing of a centuries-old constitutional right, without seeing the full picture. The Government will struggle to build support for changes that should only be considered as a last resort, when they have not even set out the full range of options before us, and we cannot consider such a Bill in isolation. The proposals for early discounts for guilty pleas would sit alongside plans to let offenders serve only one third of their custodial sentences. What a mockery of justice that would make. In fact, the vast majority of what Sir Brian himself identifies as necessary to address the backlog can be achieved without altering the constitutional foundations of our courts. He is clear that we should focus on maximising sitting days, using the existing judiciary and estate to their full potential, and improving case management.
Those who have experience of Government—such as the sponsoring Member of this debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam—will recognise that there is a real risk that, in setting out to create a whole new Crown court bench division, as proposed in part 1, we would divert both ministerial and judicial energy away from the urgent task of improving and expanding the capacity that we already have. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has highlighted that it will require some 6,000 more magistrates, a point also echoed by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne).
Establishing new structures consumes time, money and management focus that should instead be directed towards using every courtroom and sitting day available to reduce the backlog that is paralysing the system. The backlog in the Crown court is now up 10% from when this Government took office just over a year ago. It has increased by 2% since March alone, when it first passed 75,000. Since Labour entered office in July 2024, the backlog has grown by more than 7,400 cases.
The former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), claimed that she had taken every possible measure to tackle the backlog, but the facts tell a very different story. In August 2024, the judiciary confirmed that they could sit for up to 113,000 days in 2024-25, yet the then Justice Secretary chose not to fund that capacity. Instead, she initially supported only an additional 500 sitting days in September and then a further 2,000 in December—a drip by drip increase in capacity.
The Government deliberately decided not to fund the courts to sit at full capacity, leaving 4,500 potential sitting days on the table. The Lady Chief Justice took the extraordinary step of telling the Justice Committee that the initial decision to limit Crown court sitting days had,
“frankly had a drastic effect across the board”
causing the “most distressing time” for victims and staff alike.
Even after facing this public criticism, the former Justice Secretary’s response was inadequate. In March 2025, the Ministry of Justice announced that the total would rise to 110,000 sitting days, still below the full 113,000 available. So much for every possible measure.
Sir Brian’s report is clear: the most important step is to add 20,000 extra sitting days per year, reaching 130,000. That would mean tens of thousands more victims finally receiving justice in a timely manner. It requires commitment across the system, but above all, leadership from Government. Instead of focusing on efficiency and capacity, Ministers risk being sidetracked by structural reform.
Part 2 of the review will show how to achieve efficiencies through technology, leadership and better use of the estate. Yet the Government seem intent on pressing ahead with reforms that water down key rights before those recommendations are even known. Whatever the Government might say, the Conservatives in office had to tackle the single biggest barrier to the delivery of justice when the pandemic hit. Labour Members would be taking the public for fools if they think they can convince them—given their record in government so far—that it would all have been different under them. Prior to the pandemic, we actually got the backlog down lower than the level it had been during Labour’s previous period in office.
We inherited a backlog of 47,000 cases and got that down to 39,000 before the pandemic hit. During the pandemic we kept jury trials running, a decision that the Labour Opposition supported at the time. We opened and extended 20 Nightingale courts, appointed 1,000 additional judges and raised the judicial retirement age. We also allocated £220 million for the modernisation and repair of court buildings and, crucially, removed the cap on Crown court sitting days—something Labour has still not done in its period in office.
In just 15 months under Labour, we have seen drift and indecision. Despite inheriting a recovery plan, Ministers have allowed the backlog to worsen, as I have outlined. Even Sir Brian acknowledges that curtailing jury trials would only at best have a limited effect on the backlog, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and other Members, and in fact represents just 0.2% of the Department’s budget. That is a negligible return for an erosion of centuries of civic participation in justice.
The better course is clear: make full use of existing court capacity, build greater capacity, employ modern case management tools and strengthen the legal profession’s ability to progress cases swiftly, not rewrite our constitutional settlement. We will continue to make that case as any legislation is brought before this House.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing a debate on this crucial subject, and for the typical expertise and measured, analytical tone that he brings to it. I thought, until the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), that something of a consensus had broken out among us. To quote the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, “something must be done about it”—I think we can all agree on that.
In the opening words of part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, he tells us that
“Criminal justice is in crisis.”
Indeed, it is. This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. As of June 2025, the open Crown court caseload stood at over 79,000 cases and it is rising. Other hon. Members have spoken to the human impact of that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for raising her constituent’s case. It is a graphic illustration of the impact of the Crown court backlog bequeathed to us by the previous Government, and particularly the impact of the appalling delays on victims.
The backlog not only places a psychological strain on victims, disrupting their ability to function, work and maintain relationships; it corrodes justice, because many of those victims—and indeed witnesses—pull out of the process, meaning that trials become ineffective. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it also has an impact on defendants—those who are accused of a crime—as well as on our prisons, and on all those who serve within the system. It creates increasingly perverse incentives to exploit the delays and ultimately undermines the public’s confidence in justice. As many hon. Members have said, justice delayed is justice denied.
I reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that this Government have sat idly by. Far from it. We inherited a crisis, in both our prisons and our courts, and we have gripped that crisis. It is a fact that, as of today, the Government have added record, historic numbers of sitting days for our courts: 5,000 sitting days more than the number allocated by the previous Government. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we have invested in the workforce crucial to running our criminal courts, and in our solicitors, with an additional £92 million in legal aid on top of a £24 million investment in our duty solicitors. We also, of course, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our greatest jurists, to undertake his review. If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had bothered to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs of the 388-page report—
Sarah Sackman
I will conclude my point, then give way.
Sir Brian tells us that “greater financial investment”—which by the way, the Government have already begun to make—
“on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”
That is a premise that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam set out in his remarks, and it is absolutely right. We cannot sit our way out of this crisis. Of course, additional sitting days are part of the solution but, as Sir Brian Leveson and his team have told us, greater financial investment—namely sitting days on their own, without systemic reform—cannot solve the crisis. The Government will heed that lesson.
Dr Mullan
Just for information, I have read the whole report and it does not do the Minister justice, given her usual, sensible approach, to suggest that the fact I and many other hon. Members, including some in her own party, do not agree with her means that we have not read the report.
Sarah Sackman
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member has read the report. I was not seeking to politicise the discussion. It sounded like, in many respects—other than the issue of jury trials, to which I will turn in due course—there had been an outbreak of consensus that something needed to be done. I want to draw attention to the central premise of Sir Brian Leveson’s report: that, in and of itself, greater financial investment—which of course is a necessary ingredient—will be insufficient to dig our way out of this crisis.
Grip is needed, and it is grip that the Government are showing. Three strands are required. One is investment. That is a question of the number of sitting days. As I said, we are setting record numbers of sitting days. That requires investment in our workforce and, as other hon. Members have pointed out, investment in the infrastructure of justice—investment in the court estate.
Sarah Sackman
I will give way in a moment; allow me to finish this point.
The second strand is modernisation. While we await part 2 of Brian Leveson’s report, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is undertaking modernisation and efficiency measures. The adoption of technology and the increased use of video hearings, which I witnessed on a visit to Kingston Crown court last week, are enabling us to realise some of those productivity benefits, but we need to go further and faster. I look forward to seeing what Sir Brian recommends in the second part of his review. We need investment and modernisation, but also, as I said, fundamental, once-in-a-generation structural reform to ensure that we progress cases quickly and more proportionately.
A number of hon. Members have outlined the variety of ways in Sir Brian’s holistic package in which we may reduce delays in the Crown court, retaining more cases in lower courts—where 90% of criminal cases are now heard without a jury—and also looking at how we might divert demand away from the system in the first place through making greater use of out-of-court disposals. There is also a proposal for a new bench division in the Crown court jurisdiction.
I understand and take heed of the contributions of a number of hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Bexhill and Battle and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). All of them rightly expressed an admiration for jury trials and a concern that they remain a cornerstone of our legal culture and British justice. I can reassure hon. Members that the jury trial will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes.
The essay question, as it were, that we have set ourselves and Sir Brian is: how do we deal with more cases more quickly and proportionately, so that we can squarely look the victim my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to in the eye and say, “We did everything within our gift to reduce the delays”? Timeliness is an essential ingredient of justice. We can all agree that the state’s obligation is to deliver a fair trial. It is not a right to a jury trial; it is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient in that.
Sir Ashley Fox
Has the Minister’s Department done any analysis of how much time would be saved by adopting Sir Brian’s proposals on jury trials, and if so, what was the result?
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Before the Minister answers, please bear in mind that I will be looking to bring in Jeremy Wright at 5.58 pm.
Sarah Sackman
I certainly will, Mr Efford.
Sir Brian Leveson proposed the Crown court bench division idea based on consultation with experts, members of the profession and the judiciary. He makes the point that the deliberation of 12 members of a jury is less efficient than the deliberation of an individual judge who has heard the evidence, because it involves dealing with one person. As I understand it, the modelling analysis undertaken to support Sir Brian’s report suggests a time saving in the region of 20% to 30%. Before such a proposal could be adopted, we would need to test that and understand whether that finding is robust, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it stands to reason. In comparative criminal jurisdictions that have either one judge or a bench of three, cases are processed and progressed faster than under the current, jury trial system.
Ultimately, what we are looking to achieve is to ensure a fair trial for every person who comes into the criminal process. That is what we must guarantee, and we support Sir Brian’s overarching principles for reform. Plainly, we have to carefully consider each and every one of those proposals and all 388 pages before we provide our response in due course.
Sir Jeremy Wright
As the Minister says, she will have to consider each of Sir Brian’s proposals, although she will know that he says that they are to be taken as a “package” and not with a “pick-n-mix” approach. Is that something that the Government accept? Will they take the view that it is either all of Sir Brian’s recommendations or none of them, or not?
Sarah Sackman
As the right hon. and learned Member laid out, and as Sir Brian laid out, it is a highly complex system with lots of moving parts. The overall objective is to bear down on the backlog and reduce these delays. We must consider the totality of Sir Brian’s recommendations in careful detail and establish whether they do enough to achieve that overall objective. If we think they do not achieve that objective, it will be necessary to consider other ways to reduce the backlog.
We will put forward a holistic package, but I will not comment at this stage on whether it will include the entirety of these recommendations. That is something we will have to consider very carefully. Ultimately, as I said, our objective is to deliver swifter justice for victims and bear down on the backlog. How we achieve that has to be led by the evidence, and this is an important component of that, which is why I answered the hon. Member for Bridgwater in the way that I did.
Ayoub Khan
The Minister rightly points out that we need investment, modernisation and structural reform, but one of the biggest elephants in the room is prosecution and defence barristers. We have seen a very low take-up of that profession because graduates do not feel that the income, which can be below the national minimum wage, is sufficient. We have also seen a lot of people leave the profession, so although we can have all these sitting days, we simply do not have enough counsel in Crown court to deal with trials. What does the Minister have to say about that?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I said, the workforce is key—they are delivering a vital, frontline public service. We need to invest not just in the barristers, but in the rest of the staff who run our courts every single day, and that is why we have made a record investment in criminal legal aid.
The hon. Member is right: when others speak about empty courtrooms and sitting days, we have to look at the capacity of the whole system. It is not simply a question of adding judicial time; it is about making sure that the system has enough capacity—enough court staff, solicitors, prosecutors and defence lawyers—to meet the demand coming in. We must make it an investment that ensures that this is an attractive profession and one that can meet the public’s needs.
Sarah Sackman
I am content to give way, but I am conscious of time, so this may have to be the last intervention.
Tessa Munt
I want the Minister to respond to the point about experts who will not or cannot work to legal aid rates and the legal funding that is not granted in time, which causes such a long delay when defence solicitors cannot get the access they need to experts.
Sarah Sackman
I am happy to follow up with the hon. Member on that.
In short, this Government believe that once-in-a-generation reform is necessary to address the crisis in our courts. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done, and we will do what it takes, but we also know that we need to get it right. That is why we are taking the time to carefully consider Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and why I welcome today’s debate. I welcome the views and insights of hon. Members across the House, as we consider necessary reforms to save our justice system.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. In particular, I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for rearranging his Committee’s diaries so that its members could do so. This has, I hope, been a constructive debate, not least for the Minister to add to her considerations. I hope she will forgive the damage I do to her career prospects by saying that I am glad she is in a position to do it, and I know that she will approach it with the requisite seriousness that the process demands.
The Minister is right to say that there is a degree of consensus—we all agree there is a problem. As she knows, the curse of this place is that we tend to identify a problem and ask an expert to help us find a solution, but when they do so, we do not always have the courage to implement the solutions that are put to us.
I hope that we find that courage, because it may be that some of these solutions are controversial and have significant downsides, but the burning platform that Sir Brian has described is undoubtedly there. Therefore, we must act and must find a way of doing so with as much consensus as possible, and I know that is the approach that the Government will seek to take over the coming weeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.
Child Risk Disclosure Scheme
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I will call the hon. Member to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a child risk disclosure scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The focus of this debate, a child risk disclosure scheme, might sound a bit complicated and dry. In some ways, it is. It is about how our laws, policies and institutions come together to protect some of the most vulnerable children in this country, and about how we close gaps in a complex web involving our police, the NHS, local authorities, our education system and families. Ultimately, however, it is about the children at the heart of those cases and the lives that have been altered forever by the most horrifying abuse. Some we may never know the names of, but their lives were still important, still cherished and still worth protecting.
My constituent Gemma Chappell and her sister Rachael know that pain all too well. Their great-niece, Maya Chappell, was cruelly murdered by her mother’s new partner in September 2022, aged just two and a half. The case shocked the community of Consett in my constituency, as well as communities in Shotton Colliery, County Durham and across the north-east.
Before I talk more about the case, I want to talk about Maya. If one thing was clear from my conversations with Gemma and her family, it is that Maya was a treasured little girl. She had family, friends and an entire community who loved her and who looked after her. Despite her tender age, she touched the hearts of everyone she met with her huge smile, infectious laugh and friendly nature. She was full of life, mischief and personality. She loved cake, playtime and “Peppa Pig”. Although it is a privilege to remember Maya here in Parliament, it is with a deep sadness that we are here today because this much-loved little girl was failed so terribly by those who were supposed to protect her.
Maya was born on 7 March 2020, just before the start of the pandemic. Being born at that time meant that she was not seen by others. Although her mother was not known to statutory services, Maya’s family say there were early red flags, including missed health visits, concerns about drugs being in and around the house, and her parents being involved in controlling or concerning relationships.
In summer 2022, Maya’s mother began a relationship with Michael Daymond, and they quickly moved in together. A judge would later conclude that from that moment, Daymond began hurting Maya regularly. She soon began to sustain bruises that were noticed by other people. Relatives flagged these injuries to Maya’s mother, but she did not act. Instead, Maya was kept away from her father, James, and from the staff at her nursery so that they could not see the impact of Daymond’s abuse. In fact, following Maya’s move to Peterlee, members of her family did not even know where she lived.
On 28 September, Michael Daymond was being chased for drug debts and was told that his universal credit had been cut off. On that day, he subjected Maya to the most appalling physical violence, leaving her with injuries that were not survivable. She died in hospital two days later, on 30 September 2022.
It has now been more than three years since that tragic day, but Maya’s family and the community of Consett have ensured that her name has not been forgotten. I doubt that there is a single person in Consett and active on social media who has not seen Maya’s beaming smile, which is exactly how her family want her to be remembered. They have held local events, reached out to everyone they can think of and grabbed the attention of local and national media. It is thanks to their tenacity that I am here today and it is a tribute to the entire community, who have got behind the campaign in memory of Maya’s life.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on making such a powerful and moving speech. I also want to pay a personal tribute to Gemma Chappell and her family for launching the Maya’s law campaign. We have already accepted that the right to know can prevent abuse and murder in domestic and sexual violence cases—that is, for adults. Surely it is now time for Parliament to extend the same protection and safeguards to children who cannot speak for themselves. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key aims of the Maya’s law campaign—a child risk disclosure scheme, mandatory multi-agency safeguarding protocols, and new powers for professionals to raise alerts and trigger family court interventions—would represent a vital step towards a genuinely progressive safeguarding approach?
Liz Twist
I know that people in my hon. Friend’s community were also affected by the case. I certainly agree that the law would make a real difference to people and children in future. That is what we want to do—protect other children.
I have been particularly moved by Gemma and Rachael’s determination to work with other families who have had their lives changed irrevocably by child abuse, including the families of Star Hobson and Tony Hudgell, who is thankfully still alive. This campaign is not only about remembering Maya; it is about preventing other children from enduring the unimaginable pain that Maya did on that day and in the weeks preceding her death.
Although the family were not known to statutory services, the child safeguarding practice review highlighted instances in which professionals could have stepped in—for example, when Maya’s mother contacted a health visitor asking for support or when Maya’s father, James, approached Durham’s First Contact service with concerns about Michael Daymond. James was told to contact the police, where the matter was progressed under Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but when an officer followed that up, Maya’s mother told them that she was no longer with Daymond and the matter was closed. Clearly, there was a need for more professional curiosity on the part of the First Contact service and the police, but the incident highlighted the fact that neither of those laws is designed to protect children from known risks of non-sexual abuse.
Sarah’s law and Clare’s law operate on a right to ask and right to know basis. Relevant third parties can request information and the police can make disclosures of their own accord if they become aware that a person may be at risk. Clare’s law, which focuses on intimate partner violence, covers children only when they are linked to a primary adult who is at risk of domestic abuse. Although children are the focus of Sarah’s law, its primary concern is sexual offending. Sarah’s law does permit the disclosure of wider safeguarding concerns, but that is discretionary, and there is a presumption to disclose information about an individual only where they have convictions for child sex offences. However, children are killed and harmed in households where non-sexual abuse is taking place and where family members have raised concerns but had no legal standing to insist on intervention.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. Like all people around Durham, I have been deeply touched by Maya’s case. When I first heard about it, I have to admit that I asked myself whether the guidelines had been incorrectly followed or whether we needed a new law. My hon. Friend is making that point excellently, and I put on record my support for what she is doing and for the family. This place is about being a voice for people like Maya.
Liz Twist
I am glad to have my hon. Friend’s support in this campaign. As a police officer in Durham constabulary, Maya’s auntie Gemma is well acquainted with these laws and their pitfalls. That is why she and the family are campaigning for Maya’s law, a child risk disclosure scheme modelled on the existing frameworks of Sarah’s law and Clare’s law, and designed to bridge the gaps between them. The scheme should enable proactive information sharing where a child is deemed at risk owing to a parent or caregiver’s known history, even where current laws do not trigger disclosure.
It has long been recognised that information sharing is a serious issue when it comes to child safeguarding. Over 50% of serious case reviews cite communication failure as a primary cause. The independent review of children’s social care in 2022 put it plainly:
“Poor multi-agency working...is a perennial issue that has been raised in every recent review that has considered child protection”.
Existing legislation has attempted to solve this problem. The Children Act 2004 outlines the statutory safeguarding duties of local authorities and how they must work with the NHS and police in multi-agency safeguarding hubs to protect children in their areas. In practice, however, we know that multi-agency working has been more fractured than it should be. Furthermore, the thresholds for intervention are perceived as extremely high, and with a rising number of section 47 inquiries, existing services have been stretched. The result is that, 25 years on from the Victoria Climbié inquiry, we are still seeing children being harmed where opportunities to intervene have been missed.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon, Lady on bringing forward this important debate and on speaking powerfully on behalf of her constituents. My heart goes out to Gemma, Rachael and the entire family.
My constituent, 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, was just 41 days old when his birth parents abused him so badly that he had both of his legs amputated. Tony will have to live with the consequences of that abuse for the rest of his life. His birth parents have served eight years of a 10-year sentence and have now been released. They will be managed and monitored by police and probation for the remaining two years of their sentence, but after that there will be absolutely nothing—no supervision, monitoring, managing, or reporting of changes in circumstances. The case details will be archived. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is another terrible gap in the system, and that we urgently need a child cruelty register, so that those who remain a risk to children—vulnerable little innocent children and babies—will continue to be monitored and managed?
Liz Twist
I know that Gemma, Rachael and the family have been working together with other families who have been affected, including Tony’s family. What happened to him is absolutely tragic. We need to take a number of steps along the way, and today we are arguing for this disclosure arrangement. I am very happy to talk to the hon. Member further about Tony’s case and how it can be improved.
The Government have taken vital steps forward with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by placing a duty on certain agencies to disclose information to other agencies where they consider it to be relevant to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of children. That is a recognition of the regulatory barriers perceived by practitioners when sharing information, and of the culture change that is required. I am in no doubt that those measures, including the establishment of multi-agency child protection teams and the introduction of a single unique identifier for children, will help to save lives.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Maya’s tragic story has touched many people across the north-east. I am pleased to support the family’s campaign. As my hon. Friend mentioned, one key ask from the family is the disclosure of information about wider caregivers. The recurring theme of serious case reviews into child deaths is that agencies have not worked together as they should. Does she agree that, for this law to be effective, there needs to be a laser focus on ensuring that statutory agencies genuinely work together?
Liz Twist
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is really important that we keep the focus on protecting our children and taking the steps we have outlined today.
Although it is vital that we improve safeguarding mechanisms among professionals, there is still more to do to ensure that families like the Chappell family are empowered to escalate their concerns, and that their concerns are taken seriously. We need greater awareness among the public and professionals of safeguarding risks that fall outside a narrow view of sexual abuse and intimate partner violence, we need to support safeguarding agencies to fulfil their obligations and hold them to account when those obligations are not fulfilled, and we need to close gaps to protect vulnerable children from slipping through the cracks of a fragmented system.
What steps is the Minister taking, alongside colleagues in the Department for Education, to ensure that our legislation is watertight? Will he commit to working across Departments to ensure that safeguarding partners work alongside each other to uphold their responsibilities? Will the Department for Education, working alongside the Home Office and others, consider the role of the police in protecting children from a broad range of potential risks? Finally, will the Minister meet me and Maya’s family, who are here today, to hear about their concerns and the changes we believe are necessary to prevent future tragedies?
Every loss of this nature causes unbearable pain for loved ones and carers. Maya’s family have worked so hard to get the campaign to this point. Sadly, her death is not the first high-profile case in which more could have been done. Had this debate been longer, I am sure we would have heard testimonies about many more children whose deaths could have been prevented. To put it simply, in each of these cases, reports are produced, and they almost invariably cite lessons learned, as was the case with Maya. The family and I are calling for those lessons to be put into action. As Gemma Chappell says:
“Let’s make that phrase mean what it should. Not the end of a case, but the beginning of change.”
We should not be here today. Today Maya should be five and a half years old. She should be enjoying her time at school, making friends and going to birthday parties. Her family will not have the opportunity to watch her grow up and see where life would have taken her, but they want to take every opportunity they can to ensure that no family has to endure the pain that they have. I pay tribute to them and hope the Minister can work with me and Maya’s family on that mission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing a debate on this important subject, and for her powerful and heartfelt speech.
We are here today because of Maya Chappell, a two-year-old girl whose life was cruelly taken far too soon. Maya’s death was a tragedy. No child should suffer at the hands of someone entrusted to love them, and no family should endure such a loss. I begin by paying tribute to Maya’s great-aunts Gemma and Rachael, who I believe are here today. Their tireless campaigning has brought us together for this debate. Their petition, now signed by more than 6,000 people, calls for Maya’s law. It is a call born out of unimaginable pain but also a deep commitment to protect other children from harm. In Gemma’s words,
“it is a call for prevention, accountability and a united commitment to child safety”.
This is my first parliamentary duty as a Minister, so it is fitting that I am here to talk about keeping children safe, which is a top priority for this Government and, unquestionably, the top priority for me in my role as the new children and families Minister. Every child should feel safe and loved. Sadly, Maya’s family are not alone in calling for change; the stories of Star Hobson and Tony Hudgell have also been mentioned, and their families echo that call.
When I led the independent review of children’s social care, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett referred to, I heard from families, professionals, frontline practitioners and many others who shared exactly those concerns. The child safeguarding practice review panel’s most recent annual report found that 81% of serious incidents involved poor co-ordination or handover between services. That theme has been repeated over many decades; to date, we have failed to grasp it.
That tells us one thing clearly: we need fundamental change. I believe that we are now delivering that through the most significant overhaul of children’s social care in a generation, backed by legislative change, which I will speak more about in a moment, and over £2 billion of investment in this spending review period. Through those reforms, we are laying the foundation for much better information sharing, introducing a responsive family help system, and significantly sharpening up our child protection arrangements. I think that is a comprehensive response to the lessons we have learned from Maya’s murder.
My hon. Friend set out that a principle of the child risk disclosure scheme is to enable proactive information sharing where a child is deemed at risk. With the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are ending misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. The new information-sharing duty places a legal obligation on relevant organisations to share information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That replaces a duty only to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children, which is a significant shift.
[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]
The duty responds directly to feedback from my independent review, and it will blow away the fog of confusion between agencies about when it is and is not appropriate to share information. Crucially, and linked specifically to Maya’s story, the duty also states that information about other individuals, if relevant, must be shared. That will allow practitioners to act. In the coming months, we will be consulting on and publishing statutory guidance to support practitioners in implementing the duty, and I welcome contributions from Maya’s family—from Rachael and Gemma—to the process.
I agree with those campaigning for Maya’s law that we need to change the law, and that is what we are doing right now. Given the progress of the current reforms—particularly the information-sharing duty, and the passage of the Bill through Parliament, which is at an advanced stage—I do not believe that now is the time to introduce a child risk disclosure scheme specifically. However, many of the proposals are reflected in what we are taking forward as a Government with the wider children’s social care reforms, and there are other aspects, which I will also mention.
Alongside the introduction of a duty to share information, we are exploring how to support frictionless sharing of information between agencies through technological improvements. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces a single unique identifier for children—in my first week in this role, I went to Wigan to see the pilot for that being successfully rolled out—to meet our manifesto commitment to stop children falling through the cracks of services. We are working closely with NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care and local authorities to pilot the implementation of that programme, using the NHS number as the identifier.
A single unique identifier will not solve the whole problem on its own, but we believe that it will allow much freer sharing of information between agencies to enable them to spot links and make sure that children do not fall through the gaps. Once needs are identified—this leads to the second major plank of change that we have under way—our reforms will ensure that children and families receive support when they need it, through much more extensive family help services.
That will be delivered through the families first partnership programme, a new model for supporting families earlier to prevent problems from escalating. It has been tested in a number of areas across the country, but we are committed to rolling it out nationally. We want local areas, children’s social care, police, health, education and other partners to deliver the programme as highly skilled, multidisciplinary teams that get around families early in order to provide support when it is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett urged me to commit to cross-departmental collaboration to ensure that safeguarding partners work together effectively to uphold their responsibilities. We published the “Families First Partnership Programme Guide” in March—we are updating it for next March—and we are working closely with the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to deliver this work. I will chair a new keeping children safe board, which will involve Ministers across Government, to ensure that we deliver these changes effectively.
It is not enough just to share information and provide intensive support to families; we also need a much more responsive and decisive child protection system where there is significant harm. Building on more proactive and intensive family help, we will be making major changes to child protection in England—some of the most dramatic in years. We are introducing new multi-agency child protection teams, which will bring together safeguarding partners so that, where there are concerns about significant harm, we are not waiting for agencies to refer to one another or come together for a meeting. Instead, they will be nested together permanently in a shared multi-agency arrangement.
My hon. Friend rightly outlined the need for the police to protect children from a wide range of harms, not just those traditionally associated with criminal activity. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces a duty on each of those multi-agency child protection teams to include police representatives nominated by the chief officer for the area. There will be, in statute, a requirement on the police to be part of those teams. These reforms will ensure that strong multi-agency protocols are in place locally to better protect children from significant harm.
Liz Twist
Clearly, there is a whole lot of activity going on to improve child protection, but we think there are some significant gaps. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me and the family so that we can explain where we think the gaps are and how we could improve the legislation?
Josh MacAlister
Of course I will.
All of us in this room agree that keeping children safe is a top priority. To quote my hon. Friend, the lives of the children we have been talking about were still important, still cherished and still worth protecting. To do that effectively, we need to share data, provide intensive help to families when they need it and sharpen up our children’s social care system.
My hon. Friend made a number of asks of me. We are firmly committed to working across Departments to improve how safeguarding partners work together and ensure that police are fulfilling their obligations for children, and yes, I will meet her and Maya’s family to hear their concerns and the changes they wish to see. I would also welcome their views and experiences being heard as these changes are progressed through the roll-out—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
COP30: Food System Transformation
(1 day, 15 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
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered COP30 and global food system transformation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I appreciate the chance to have this debate, which is of critical importance, both globally and in our country, where the hottest summer since records began is pushing our farmers to the brink. The harvest of 2025 was the second worst harvest on record, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That comes on the back of over £1 billion of lost income for our farmers, following the extremely wet winter last year. All of that threatens our food security and pushes up food prices.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. She is absolutely right that we must support our farmers on food security and farm sustainability, but poor returns are threatening their viability right now. The dairy industry has contracted by 6% in the past year, and prices have dropped significantly; it was announced that they would go down by almost 20% in November. Some farms are going to be closing their gates for the very last time. Does my hon. Friend agree that to secure a fair deal for our farmers, the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and the Groceries Code Adjudicator must be combined and given real teeth to enforce properly?
Pippa Heylings
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I applaud her constant advocacy in Parliament on behalf of farmers.
The second part of the debate is about the conference of the parties and how we can bring about legally binding obligations that translate into exactly the kind of measures my hon. Friend talked about. In just a few weeks, world leaders will come together at the global climate summit, COP30, which will be held in Belém, Brazil, in close proximity to the Amazon rainforest. It is being held there deliberately to symbolise the Amazon rainforest’s critical role in global climate stability.
In the lead-up to COP30, I hope this debate today will allow us to consider why this summit is expected to finally be billed as the nature, food and climate COP, putting food systems at the heart of the climate agenda for the first time, and rightly so, because the way we grow, produce and consume food is one of the biggest drivers of the climate and nature crises and one of the most powerful levers we have to solve them. At the same time, climate change is one of the most significant threats to our food production and national security.
Why does COP matter? We have come a long way since the Kyoto negotiations in 1997. That was the first time that countries around the world agreed global governance arrangements to address the shared challenge of global warming. At the time, we were hurtling towards a catastrophic 4°C or even 5°C world, so what a feat it was, unknown in any other sector or on any other issue, to create a framework agreement between 198 parties—197 countries or states and the European Union—to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that could help to prevent dangerous human-induced disruption of the climate system. Through dialogue, negotiation and finance, the COP process has brought about legally binding agreements—the Kyoto protocol and then the Paris agreement in 2015—where we all agreed that we have a common and interdependent future, and that we need to do everything possible to keep global warming below 1.5°C.
The Amazon rainforest has been called the lungs of the planet for its ability to capture and store carbon. Yet, right now, the rainforest is gasping for breath as we perilously approach the tipping point where the Brazilian rainforest switches from being a huge sponge, store and carbon sink to being a source of carbon emissions, due to massive deforestation and degradation through land use change. That is why, now more than ever, we need to ratchet up our collective ambition.
I know that rainforest well, and I know what it means to the many indigenous and local communities that depend on it, having worked professionally on climate and nature negotiations for more than a decade in South America, in the countries that share the Amazon: Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil. I was part of the UK’s largest international climate policy programme in the region, and latterly I worked as the global team lead for the UK’s international £100 million climate and nature programme, the biodiverse landscapes fund. Since 2010, I have seen at first hand the internal workings, impacts, successes and failures of three relevant UN COP processes—the climate COP, the nature COP and the avoiding desertification COP—working alongside Governments and non-state actors such as businesses, scientists, local communities and local governments.
I know how long people have argued for food systems to be a central pillar of the climate framework. Our own independent Climate Change Committee, in its seventh carbon budget, highlighted the importance of agriculture and land use change in meeting our climate targets. I therefore want to make three points today. First, the transformation of food systems is essential for climate action, food security and nature restoration. Secondly, this transition must be just, supporting our farmers and animal welfare as we change how food is produced. Thirdly, the UK must show renewed leadership at COP30 by leading from the front, with the Prime Minister, and by committing to sign a new global declaration on food systems.
Why does food system transformation matter? The EAT-Lancet Commission announced that even if fossil fuels are phased out, the world will breach 1.5 °C because of emissions from food systems alone. Unsustainable food systems are driving deforestation, soil degradation, water pollution and marine biodiversity loss. Globally, agriculture and land use are responsible for almost 60% of biodiversity loss.
Exeter University research revealed this week that we have now reached the first catastrophic tipping point, with warm water coral reefs facing irreversible decline, threatening nature, food security and the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people—a moment many of us hoped we would not reach. Closer to home, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit recently found that wheat lost to storms and drought over the past five years could have produced more than 4 billion loaves of bread—the equivalent of an entire year’s supply for the UK.
There has been a strong build-up to COP30 in Belém, which is expected to produce a declaration on food systems, building on discussions at the Bonn climate conference and the COP28 declaration on sustainable agriculture, resilient food systems and climate action, which the UK signed.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
COP30, as with past COPs, requires us to be more sustainable, and that includes food production, as the hon. Member said. In Caerfyrddin, we have a public farm producing vegetables for schools and residential homes, so public land is being used for public benefit. Why can all local authorities not follow suit, supported as we were by shared prosperity fund funding, and use public funds and public land for the public plate?
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that interventions need to be short, not a speech.
Ann Davies
No, it is not a speech. Thank you, Mrs Harris; I appreciate your guidance. Does the hon. Member agree with that sustainable and seasonal way of reducing food miles by using public land?
Pippa Heylings
I will perhaps come back to that a little later, but I agree completely about the importance of the SPF, as well as the sustainable farming incentive. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, we have public land—council land—working on regenerative agriculture with farmers, to provide the food we need. We need the stability and certainty of the SFI for our farmers.
The priorities it is anticipated will be negotiated at COP30 include deforestation-free supply chains, nature-positive farming, support for family farms and sustainable fisheries. This transformation has to be just, and that is as important here at home as it is globally. Farmers have always been on the frontline of climate change, as stewards of our countryside and producers of our food, and because they are struggling with the unavoidable impacts we now face. They must be at the heart of our solution.
The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the transition to sustainable farming cannot be done to farmers; it must be done with them. However, progress has been slow, and the uncertainty surrounding the sustainable farming incentive risks undermining the confidence and stability that farmers need if they are to continue to invest in regenerative agriculture, local food networks and diversified protein crops, as proposed by the National Farmers Union. Improving soil health, supporting pollinators and keeping farm businesses viable makes business sense too. As Martin Lines—the chief executive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who farms in Cambridgeshire—says, nature-friendly farming plays a “vital role” in building resilience to weather extremes. He says:
“Practices like improving soil health, using cover crops, and integrating habitats into fields are helping farmers stay productive while cutting back on inputs.”
We also call for a just transition in food and farming, as does World Animal Protection. At home, we must match words with action. The Liberal Democrats would accelerate the delivery of the long-promised land use framework, aligning food, farming and biodiversity policy. We would protect and strengthen the sustainable farming incentive and deliver it now. We would support a just transition for farmers and animals, reduce food waste across the supply chain and champion local, sustainable food production to boost rural economies and resilience.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Those points are all very welcome. Does my hon. Friend accept that global food systems already produce more than enough food to feed the world, but the problem is distribution and fair trade? As my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said earlier, the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be beefed up. We need to make sure that the supermarkets and the large retailers do not bully our primary producers to such an extent that they are wasteful in trade systems.
Pippa Heylings
Absolutely, and that is where the just transition must come in. We must make sure that this works at home. In fact, when we look at the amount of food being produced, we need to talk about nutritional security rather than food security.
Finally, the UK must lead at COP30. Belém will be a turning point. Negotiations are already under way for a new COP declaration on food systems.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I praise the hon. Lady for getting this really important debate going today. She is absolutely right, and I am confident that Britain will be among the most ambitious nations at COP30. However, will she, as I do, take a second to reflect on the fact that, thank God, we have a Government going there who believe in climate change and recognise that we need to get the rest of the world to be more ambitious, rather than a Conservative Government who would be going there to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008, or Reform turning up to say that climate change is entirely bogus?
Pippa Heylings
I could not agree more. I have worked internationally for 20 years, and I have seen that when Britain leads, other countries follow. Our Climate Change Act was the first in the world, and 60 countries immediately followed it. Other countries followed the independent Climate Change Committee. I have seen emerging economies work with their Governments, looking at how they do economic development and leapfrogging by learning from us. When Britain leads, others follow, and that is why I ask the Minister to make sure we confirm that the Prime Minister will be at COP30, to show that we continue to lead from the front.
I also ask the Minister to ensure that we sign up to the COP30 declaration on food systems and support all the work that has been done up until now to make sure that food systems are central to the climate change negotiations at Belém. I cannot emphasise more the impact, both here and across the world, of the U-turn—the turning of their back—of the Conservative Government, and Reform right now, on climate issues. I have worked alongside countries and communities ravaged by climate impacts that are waiting to see us take that leadership once again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that this is an hour-long debate. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has already been very generous in allowing interventions, which has limited the time that Back Benchers have left to speak. We will start the Front-Bench speeches at 5.08 pm, so Back-Bench speeches are now limited to two and a half minutes. The Opposition party Front Benchers will have five minutes each and the Minister will have 10 minutes. Anyone who takes interventions is likely to upset colleagues.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech, which calls on us to be ambitious at COP30 and to ensure that Britain reaffirms its commitment to leading multilateral climate processes. It is also a moment to renew domestic efforts to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to the changing climate. We know that the green transition will lower energy bills, as well as ensuring that our food processes are nature-based and take on board the challenges that the hon. Member set out. As has rightly been highlighted, more action is needed to ensure that food systems are fit for purpose in future, both globally and in the UK.
Agriculture is the second highest-emitting sector—the highest after energy. Intensive agriculture is also one of the leading drivers of biodiversity loss, alongside a warming climate. Pollution from agriculture impacts 40% of the UK’s inland water bodies. In Brazil, agriculture has driven large-scale and devastating deforestation of tropical rainforests, which are one of the biggest levers for mitigating climate change, so the hosting of COP30 in Belém could not be more important.
Food systems have vast potential to make a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions, adapting our landscapes to a changing climate, providing healthy and nutritious food for people, restoring our natural environment and supporting thriving rural communities and economies. Here in the UK, we have a farming and food sector to be proud of. I absolutely echo the hon. Member’s call to do all we can to rebuild the relationship with the farming community. In its advice to the Government on the seventh carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee has identified some of the policies and measures needed to support the transition to sustainable agriculture and reduce land-based emissions by 64% by 2050. As we head towards this important conference, I join the hon. Member, as I know colleagues do across the House, in calling on the Government to be as ambitious as they possibly can and carry on in that leadership role.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her excellent speech leading the debate.
When we talk about transforming global food systems, what we are really talking about is resilience: the resilience of people, of ecosystems and of economies. Right now, that resilience is dangerously thin. Our food systems are failing on every front. Globally, agriculture and land use drive 30% of emissions and 60% of biodiversity loss. Every 1°C of warming means 120 fewer calories per person per day. This is not abstract. It is hunger, instability and conflict.
The scientific consensus is clear: industrial farming is nearing its physical and environmental limits. Climate change, soil degradation and water scarcity threaten supply, while global demand for food is set to rise by up to 56% by 2050. Without urgent change, we risk cascading food shocks that will drive inflation and deepen inequality.
We know that degraded soil releases carbon, but healthy soil becomes an effective carbon sink. Farmers everywhere, including in my South Cotswolds constituency, want to be part of that change, but they need support and certainty. They need the Government to lead with them, not leave them guessing.
Resilience is about not just production, but education. Last night, I hosted a roundtable in Parliament that brought together campaign leaders, education experts, teachers and parliamentary champions to shape a future-facing curriculum to make sure that our young people are food and agriculture-literate. National action must also connect to global leadership. Later this week, the House will consider the global ocean treaty. Oceans are potentially great allies in the fight against climate change. If COP28 was the promise, COP30 must be the proof that the UK can move from words to integration, from fragmentation to resilience and from short-term fixes to long-term stewardship of the planet that feeds us all.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Ahead of COP30, I want to make a brief contribution to the discussion, my first since leaving the Government.
In my 14 months as Minister for Food Security, I became increasingly convinced that transforming the food system is one of the biggest challenges, and indeed opportunities, that we face. I note that the third of the six thematic axes set out for COP30 by the Brazilian Government is transforming agriculture and food systems. I had the privilege of representing the UK at the G20, which was hosted by Brazil in Cuiabá just over a year ago. I was very impressed by the seriousness with which the Brazilian Government take the interaction between their food system and global environmental challenges, particularly their emphasis on land restoration, so I have no doubt that they will seek to make substantial progress at COP30. We should support them in that endeavour.
There is growing understanding that food system transformation is vital to tackling both climate and nature challenges, as we saw with initiatives at COP28 and COP29. What I noted at every international event I attended, and in key bilaterals, was the interest in what we are doing here in the UK.
In July, I set out the Government’s food strategy with the ambition to establish the good food cycle, including an annual assessment of our food security. It also builds on the substantial changes to agricultural support systems as we move from the old common agricultural policy-style payments to purchasing environmental benefits, providing a key income stream for farmers but also ensuring environmental and nature benefits. That has not been without controversy, of course; I noticed yet another poorly informed and inaccurate piece in The Sunday Times only this weekend. Sadly, Opposition Members voted against speeding up the process, although to be generous, perhaps they did not fully appreciate that they were voting against the very things that many of them claim to champion—not a unique occurrence in this place, sadly.
The wider world watches with interest the course that we have chosen, which was embarked upon by the previous Government, as I have always acknowledged, and was accelerated by this one. I urge the Minister and his colleagues at COP30 to speak proudly about what we are doing. We have a brilliant food system in this country, from farmers and fishers to the primary producers and through to manufacture and sale, but we need to make it work better for our health and our environment. It will be a key discussion at COP30. I wish the ministerial team well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank and commend the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for setting out the debate so very well. This year’s COP30 will highlight the role of sustainable food systems in addressing environmental prosperity and climate change. That is something to which each nation can contribute, especially within the United Kingdom, so it is very important that all our nations pave the way.
I understand the importance of this year’s conference of the parties being held in Brazil, but there is a role for us to play on our own farms and in the rural countryside that we represent. I will refer to family farms in Northern Ireland, because they are crucial to Northern Ireland’s agriculture sector, managing approximately all of our region’s land area. I am aware of the work of the farmers in my constituency, whose efforts are second to none. In Northern Ireland, we have the soil nutrient health scheme, a comprehensive soil-testing initiative launched by the Department of Agriculture with a £37 million investment. It aims to enhance the sustainability and efficiency of farming practices across Northern Ireland.
Food waste cannot be ignored. There is a role not just for farmers, but for every one of us. Some 9.5 million tonnes of food is wasted in the UK: on average, 50% is wasted in each household. Everyone here discards about 22% of their weekly food purchases. Food expiration dates and best-before dates have led to confusion around food; evidence suggests that applying labels consistently could reduce food waste. There are roles that we can play here to help those in Brazil and elsewhere across the world.
I look forward to hearing the outcomes of COP30. I hope that the Minister will come to the House to update us. Collectively, across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can play an important role and be real role models to others, especially in our food production and our food security.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Systems rely on diversity. Imagine a piano with 88 keys all tuned to middle C: Mozart would not have got very far. Yet what is happening to our global food system is a destruction of the very diversity on which our survival depends. Since 1900, the world’s crops have lost 75% of their genetic diversity. Four companies—Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Louis Dreyfus—control 90% of the global grain trade. Just four plants—wheat, rice, maize and soy beans—account for almost 60% of the calories grown by farmers. Just three countries grow 86% of the world’s soy beans, which in turn supply three quarters of the world’s feed for farm animals. The convergence to a global standard diet, dependent on and controlled by a small number of companies and countries, threatens the resilience of the global food system and the food security of every nation.
COP30 is the COP at which the ratcheted-up nationally determined contributions must take account of every sector of the economy. Countries have been struggling to do so: by the fall of the third extended deadline last month, only 60 of the 190 countries had submitted their revised NDCs. It is vital that food systems be integrated into NDCs submitted to COP30, focusing on sustainable agricultural practices and climate-resilient farming. We need to support countries in prioritising food security, sustainable livelihoods and environmental resilience.
It is not just about the food we eat that comes from Brazil, or the Brazilian soy beans that UK imports. It is also about the financial flows facilitated through the City of London. HSBC has provided credit lines amounting to £1.9 billion to forest risk commodities such as JBS, the world’s largest meat company, which has a record of corruption and forest destruction in Brazil: JBS even admitted to paying Brazilian officials $180 million in bribes. That flies in the face of HSBC’s 2017 commitment not to provide services to customers either directly or indirectly involved in deforestation. That is why we need to implement schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021, which still has not been implemented, in order to ensure that we are not financing deforestation.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
That was a brilliant speech. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
I agree that the Prime Minister should go to COP. It was such an important moment last year in Baku when he announced an ambitious 81% NDC and demonstrated to the world that the UK was back in the business of global climate leadership. I know from the past year just how much that has resonated, not least with climate-vulnerable countries. That leadership is needed now more than ever.
It was 16 years ago that I secured a debate in this Chamber on the livestock industry and climate change, inspired by the seminal United Nations report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”. I spoke about the impact of intensive industrialised animal agriculture on our planet. It has to be said that what I said back then was treated with a degree of derision in some quarters, especially when I got on to the subject of what I will delicately refer to as emissions from cows. That argument, I believe, has now been won—I could cite many more expert reports on it if I held a similar debate now—but what remains to be seen is whether Governments have the political will to act.
I know that the Brazilians are keen to make super-pollutants, including methane, a major theme at COP. The UK is due to publish its own methane action plan by the end of this month, along with the carbon budget growth delivery plan. I hope that we put down a marker in it about what global leadership on methane looks like, especially on agriculture and food systems.
Food systems account for roughly 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and drive about 90% of tropical deforestation. I was proud to co-chair the forest and climate leaders’ partnership with Guyana. I know that the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), was passionate about this, not least because of his Guyanese heritage. I hope that the new Foreign Secretary will step into his shoes at COP with similar commitment and passion.
We cannot show global leadership on forests unless we lead by domestic example by stamping out deforestation in our supply chains. The EU is acting on forest risk commodities by focusing on sustainability; under the previous Government, the UK focused on legislation based on illegality. There are arguments for and against both approaches, but what it is not acceptable is not to act at all. I hope that by the time we get to Belém in the heart of the Amazon, the UK will have made its own intentions clear.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
With COP30 just one month away, the UK could consider utilising article 6 of the Paris agreement to support global food system transformation. Article 6 was agreed at COP29 last year, and now is an opportunity to move. Article 6 of the Paris agreement enables international co-operation to tackle climate change and to unlock financial support for at-risk countries. Article 6.2 enables host countries to sell units to a buyer country, in exchange for investments, support for capacity building and access to technologies not available through domestic resources. The buyer country purchases these units to address any gaps in meeting its own climate goals.
The UK needs to do more to support countries to establish domestic systems and address technical implementation issues. The UK is well placed to support countries to build infrastructure including carbon accounting, safeguarding and governance to implement article 6.2. No trades have yet occurred, but investment is there for countries that desperately need it. Such opportunities can be used to address many issues in countries on the frontline of the climate crisis, including soil degradation, deforestation, drought and ocean acidification. Addressing those issues is essential for retaining food systems and for the food system transition.
I wish to turn my attention to Ukraine, which is the breadbasket not only of Europe but of the world, with the richest soil on the planet. The UK should begin to consider an article 6.2 co-operation agreement with Ukraine. War has damaged its industrial systems. Keeping the lights on and costs down is a daily priority, not a distant goal. Every month without investment locks in higher costs and lost output. Through article 6 we have the opportunity to support not just Ukraine’s agricultural system, but its whole system. The pipeline is practical and measurable: solar and storage on rooftops and other sites, grid loss reduction, industrial efficiency, afforestation and methane cuts to support all the systems in Ukraine, not just the food system. Those actions would be verified simply, reported publicly and financed at scale. Ukraine is ready. Article 6.2 is an opportunity not only for the evolution of carbon markets, but for us to support countries in which the food system is failing and there are opportunities to re-nature and restore, utilising global finance.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. We live in a world where climate change is leading to rising prices and to more hunger. World food prices are up by 30%. The number of undernourished people is rising across the world. Here in the UK, food prices have increased by almost 40%, and one in eight people are skipping meals. That is because a warming planet is leading to drought and to failed harvests.
We can stop that by sorting out and investing in our global food system. That is about investing in sustainable agriculture, irrigation, digging wells, ecosystem management and stopping emissions so that we have a planet where all of us can cohere and work together. We must also ensure that there is emergency food and income support when our food systems fail and people go hungry, as is happening here and across the globe.
When I speak about hunger and drought, I do not speak merely about what I have read; I speak about things that I have seen and experienced. For two years, between 2016 and 2018, I worked in the Somaliland Ministry of Finance. I was, I think, the only economist there, and I did its budgets, its economic policy and its national development plan. I was there during Somaliland’s worst drought in living memory, and a widespread hunger that led to almost a famine. I can tell hon. Members across the Chamber that one does not forget what hunger looks like when it is etched into a child’s face. It was incredibly difficult. Climate change had led to droughts, which had led to failed harvests, to insufficient produce for herds and to dying animals. In the immediate moment, there was not a huge amount we could do, but we could sort out the budget system to enable us to invest in greater food production, wells and irrigation, with a bit of money left on the side to ensure emergency food and income support. I was pleased to see that those measures are still in place.
Unfortunately, as I speak here today, Somaliland is going through another drought and even more hunger, because of rising temperatures, a burning planet and failed harvests once again. It is for all of us in this place, and for nations across the globe, to stop emitting carbon so that every single person across our planet can afford to eat.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for securing this debate. I prepared a much longer speech, but I will keep it brief. We know the destabilising forces that scarcity of food can unleash, and what that can mean to communities around the globe, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher).
We are living in the Anthropocene, which means that humans are the dominant force in shaping the Earth’s environment. That could make us all terrified, thinking that there is nothing we can do, but actually it tells the opposite story. It shows us that we can influence the environment, whether that is by signing up to the declaration on food systems at the next COP, or through the great work of local groups that improve access to waste food, such as Food Works Sheffield or Regather, which produces food locally in Sheffield. There are great examples of people taking control of sustainable food issues, and that should be celebrated in this place.
However, if we cannot get away from the elephant in the room—the fact that we do not do enough at COP, not just on food and sustainability, but around nature and climate change, and especially around oil, gas and coal—we are going to be in trouble. I make a heartfelt plea that the Government continue to stand firm with our manifesto commitments not to renew or grant any more licences. We must make it clear that no new oil and gas licences will take a single penny off bills or make us more energy secure; they will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.
I therefore call on the Government to reject the Rosebank proposals, because we cannot have a planet, food or community without adequate resources in our communities for people to survive and thrive. We will see massive global upheaval if people cannot access their basic needs. Food is fundamental to that, which is why I have also supported colleagues’ calls for a right to food. That is something we should talk about globally, not just in the UK.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This is an important and timely debate, coming on the back of one of the worst harvests on record in this country. We must discuss how the Government prioritise the transformation of food systems in this country and globally, as well as how they seek to address climate change, enhance food security and protect and safeguard animal welfare. Animal welfare and the climate crisis are intertwined.
Food systems account for 33% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with animal agriculture contributing up to 20%. Each and every year, more than 83 billion animals are slaughtered for food across the world. The majority are kept in intensive farming conditions that confine them to overcrowded spaces. Not only does industrial animal agriculture drive greenhouse gas emissions through the use of fossil fuels, but the growth of crops to feed industrially farmed animals drives widespread disruption of forests, grasslands and other wild animal habitats.
We have a proud farming heritage in my South West Norfolk constituency, and it is important that we recognise in this debate the need for a just transition for farmers. In my experience, farmers are often the best conservationists. They have a deep connection to the land they farm, and they care greatly for their animals. We must do more to support such farmers, with a greater focus on fairness and rewarding those who play by the rules, upholding high environmental and animal welfare standards.
The inhumane treatment of animals is playing roulette with public health. Only this year, the first ever globally agreed World Health Organisation-led pandemic treaty was signed by the UK alongside the other 193 member states. The treaty recognised that people’s health is interconnected with animal health and the environment. Fundamentally, protecting animal welfare must be a core part of our food system and our transformation, alongside reducing emissions and restoring ecosystems.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for bringing this critical debate to the House. Next month, the eyes of the world will turn to the Amazon and Brazil for the COP30 climate conference. The choices made there will define the world that our children and grandchildren inhabit. That is why it is imperative that the conference delivers real, sustainable progress.
Achieving that, however, requires much more ambition from the UK. It requires proper climate financing, a faster roll-out of clean energy and greater leadership on the world stage. So I ask the Minister: will the Prime Minister attend COP in Brazil? Just a few years ago, the Prime Minister rightly accused his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), of a failure of leadership for not attending the COP summit—so will the Prime Minister attend?
As Liberal Democrats, we have long championed international climate diplomacy. We have championed the Paris agreement, a landmark and historic agreement that remains the central framework for global climate co-operation. It is deeply disappointing that the United States is once again withdrawing from it under President Trump, joining the likes of Iran, Libya and Yemen. Climate change is not some distant, far-off risk. We already feel its effects here, with the hottest summer and the second-worst harvest on record, higher food prices, soaring insurance premiums and increasing water bills.
The effects are being acutely felt throughout the world. Zero hunger is the second of the sustainable development goals—the world’s blueprint for a better world. However, the SDGs have been casualties of the Trump Administration. According to the latest UN development reports, we are nowhere near that target. Over the last five years, climate change has contributed to driving 150 million more people into malnutrition, a reminder that this crisis strikes hardest at the world’s poorest. That is why the Liberal Democrats would champion reform of the international finance system, easing the debt burden and unlocking green investment in low-income countries. We would back the UN loss and damage fund to ensure a just transition for those who are suffering the consequences of a crisis they did not cause.
Climate change is not just an environmental challenge; it is a threat multiplier, fuelling displacement, conflict, hunger and disease from the Sahel to the Pacific. As an example, following the 2022 floods in Pakistan, the country’s malaria burden quadrupled. This Government have cut international development spending to 0.3% of GNI, the lowest level this century. But they have none the less claimed that international climate finance will remain a priority. Can the Minister confirm not only that the target of spending £11.6 billion on international climate finance between 2021 and 2025 will be met, but that the Government will make a bold new commitment to lead on climate finance and use development finance institutions to accelerate decarbonisation in low-income countries?
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady will recollect that, of that £11.6 billion, £3 billion was ringfenced for conservation. Does she agree that it is important that we do not lose that element of ICF?
Monica Harding
The hon. Member is absolutely right, and I ask the Minister to guarantee that that is ringfenced. What we do in Britain sends signals to the world about whether we are serious or simply posturing. Renewables are the greatest economic growth opportunity of our time, bringing jobs, investment and lower bills to the nation. However, in a crass, short-sighted attempt to imitate President Trump, the Conservatives and Reform have turned against renewables. Their attacks on green energy will scare off investors, destroy jobs and relegate Britain to the sidelines of the industries that will define our future. Both parties have abandoned our net zero target, a reckless move that will shatter our credibility on the world stage.
The Liberal Democrats believe that there is no trade-off between climate sustainability and food security. They can both be achieved if the right framework is put in place. The UK food security report warns that climate change, water insecurity and nature loss threaten global food supplies. Liberal Democrats would champion investment in sustainable agriculture, helping farmers in low-income countries build resilience to droughts, floods and changing weather. We would work through international institutions to build a fair and resilient global food system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire laid out, will the Minister commit to signing the COP30 declaration on food systems, when it comes, and to adopting the priorities of deforestation-free supply chains, nature-positive farming and support for family farms?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) on securing this important debate.
For any of us with a farming constituency, there is no doubt what a difficult year this has been. Drought has led to lower yields, especially in arable farming—I have a mix of arable and animal farming in my constituency. When we talk about lower yields, we are not just talking about grain or the size of potatoes; we are talking about things like straw. The stalks have been much shorter this year, which will have a knock-on effect. And that is on the back of a very wet year last year, which created its own problems. There is no doubt that the farming industry is under enormous pressure. Sustainable farming is an important process that has been supported by many Governments across many countries in many different ways.
I will discuss climate change and what we need to do on renewables, but we must also recognise that, although there are appropriate places to put solar farms, it is not appropriate to put them on good-quality farming land. I am constantly fighting solar farms on farming land in the Vale of York in my constituency that is very productive but is now being sold off for solar farms. There has to be a balance between what we are trying to achieve in moving to renewable energy and what we have to achieve in sustainable farming.
The Liberal Democrats are quick to attack the Conservatives, but I remind them that it was Nick Clegg who stood at the Dispatch Box and cancelled a nuclear power station project, saying: “I am not willing to spend money on things that will not happen until 2022.”
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I think the hon. Lady might be rather upset if—[Interruption.]
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Would you not speak from a sedentary position? I call the shadow Minister.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Thank you, Mrs Harris. It is interesting that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) mentions the leader of her party, who was of course an Energy Minister at that time, but the process took place under the party’s then leader.
Saying that net zero is hard to achieve is very different from saying that we are chucking out all ideas about climate change. It is a false target, but it needs to be worked towards. I participated in every aspect of the Energy Bill, so I am not just saying all this off the back of my hand. One thing I mentioned throughout that process is that it is important to take people with us, because this has to be a joint effort if we are to achieve the objectives that we want to achieve.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I will not give way, because time is very limited.
I remind the Chamber that we removed coal from electricity generation; we increased renewables to 47.3% of energy production; we secured £300 billion of investment in energy projects since 2010; we oversaw the world’s first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest offshore wind farms; and we increased the number of energy-efficient properties by 133%. I am not embarrassed about standing on that record, and nor should I be.
The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) sensibly talked about the effect that the war in Ukraine has had. Indeed, it has had a huge knock-on effect, including on the supply of fertilisers we need, which has caused inflationary pressures. Ukraine is also one of the breadbaskets of Europe—indeed, one of the breadbaskets of the world—with some of the highest-quality agricultural land in the world, as the hon. Gentleman said. We must therefore recognise that the war in Ukraine is having a devastating effect.
In the time I have left, I will ask the Minister a few questions. First, the Deputy Prime Minister made no reference to food systems or food security when he was at the UN Security Council on 29 September, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government have a specific agenda on this point at COP30? If so, are we partnering with other countries in that endeavour?
Returning to the situation in Ukraine, has the Minister raised concerns with Brazil, the host of COP30, about the fact that it is still buying significant quantities of Russian oil? Has the UK officially asked Brazil to wean itself off Russian oil? Has it offered alternative solutions? If not, will he do so ahead of COP30? Finally, Brazil is purchasing millions of tonnes of fertilisers from Russia. Will the Minister equally be raising those points?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her work on climate and food systems, not just in this place but throughout her career, and I acknowledge her huge experience of these issues.
In response to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), this is absolutely a priority for the Government at COP30, and more broadly, because how we grow, trade and consume food will shape whether the future is secure, sustainable and fair for farmers, communities and the planet.
When I speak of farmers and communities, I am speaking of farmers and communities here in the UK and abroad. We are engaged in a global endeavour. In my past career in the international development and humanitarian sector, I saw the impact of climate change and food insecurity on communities. I remember being in Malawi during the middle of a very serious food crisis and period of insecurity, where I saw the steps farmers were taking to make agriculture more resilient and the devastating impacts on people there.
In recent weeks I have met some of our leading climate scientists who are about to travel down to Antarctica with the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough. They will look at the sustainability of fishing and marine resources in the Southern ocean and the changing impacts of climate change in that part of the world, and the impact that has on global supply chains and weather patterns.
I again thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for her contribution, and I agree with much of what she had to say. She spoke on two issues about which I am passionate. I have met young people in our overseas territories—part of our British family—who talked about the bleaching of corals.
The hon. Lady also mentioned wheat, and through our investment, alongside others, in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, climate-resilient wheat varieties can now be found on about 50% of global wheat-growing areas, particularly in developing countries, and the work we have been doing on this over a number of years has been crucial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, made some very important points. I know how passionate he is about these issues. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the extraordinary retrograde position that the Conservative party has taken in recent weeks. It is shocking. I do not even want to get into Reform.
Stephen Doughty
I will respond to some points, but I will take interventions if we have time.
The position that the shadow Minister set out would lead not only to economic disaster but to a complete betrayal of future generations. I will not even get on to Reform, which shares similarly outdated and unrealistic views. I note that one other party is absent that people would expect to be here, which is somewhat surprising.
Our investment in renewable energy, sustainable farming and global sustainability is generating jobs. It is generating opportunities for people in this country, but it is also addressing a global concern. That is why the former Prime Minister, Baroness May, was absolutely right to describe the Conservative position as a “catastrophic mistake.”
I agree with what the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said about the importance of resilience and the role of our oceans, and it is why we are investing in the blue belt programme and other global schemes. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on these issues over many years. I welcome that his experience and passion will not be missing from these debates in future.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always makes important points, particularly about the importance of Northern Ireland agriculture and farming. It was a delight to enjoy produce from Northern Ireland at the Hillsborough summit on the western Balkans last week. He made important points about food waste.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who always speaks passionately on these issues, rightly spoke about diversity and its importance to our global ecosystems. I also thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her work over many years. It is a pleasure to work with her as a Minister and in many other capacities. She made incredibly powerful points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) is also a long-term campaigner and advocate on these issues. I am glad that he raised Ukraine, and I thank him for his work engaging across all these issues as our trade envoy. I had not been aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) had worked in Somaliland, where I have also previously engaged with communities that have experienced food insecurity and drought. That has been a particular challenge across the whole horn of Africa, and my hon. Friend made some very important points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who is also a passionate advocate on these issues, rightly asked about the Government’s commitments on the wider agenda. I have given her our assurance that it will be a crucial part of our agenda for what we will set out at COP.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke about food systems and their impact on global emissions, and he is absolutely right. Food systems already drive one third of global emissions and they will become the biggest source by 2050. I totally agree with his view that farmers as the crucial custodians not only of sustainability but of animal welfare, which is a crucial issue.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), asked about attendance at COP. I will not get ahead of announcements about ministerial travel or otherwise, but I can confirm that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will be attending, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. I am sure we will announce other ministerial attendance in due course.
The hon. Lady asked about finance, and obviously we are committed to delivering on our pledge of £11.6 billion of international climate finance by the end of 2025-26. We are already looking at the results of what that investment has done so far. Since 2011, an estimated 137 million people have been better supported to adapt, and an estimated 145 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced or avoided.
The hon. Lady asked about private finance, which is also a crucial part of this picture, and we are working through a range of mechanisms as part of our modernised approach to development. For example, I point to British International Investment, which had a $652 million food and agriculture portfolio in 2022. It supports sustainable and other forms of agriculture, which obviously contribute to growth, development and opportunities in those sectors. I also point to the work we are doing through the FASA fund in financing agricultural small and medium-sized enterprises in Africa.
A number of specific points were made about the sustainable farming incentive, the Groceries Code Adjudicator and animal welfare. If Members do not mind, I will come back to those in due course, but I want to cover a few key points in the limited time remaining.
It is absolutely clear that, by 2050, the world will need 50% more food, but land and natural resources are already under strain, and agriculture that produces food is already one of the sectors most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. When that is coupled with nature loss, conflict and global instability, the impacts on production are pushing up prices and exposing weak spots in our supply chains that affect people here in Britain and our partners. The pressure always falls the hardest on vulnerable people, whether in our own constituencies or in places ranging from the Sahel to the horn of Africa and Afghanistan. Of course, our own food security relies on resilient supply chains and stable global markets.
Food must be part of the solution. We need to produce it more sustainably—on less land, with less deforestation, less waste, fewer emissions and less pollution. Sustainable systems can, of course, improve nutrition, strengthen food security, support livelihoods, restore ecosystems and build resilience. I mentioned our partnership with the CGIAR. We also work with the Gates Foundation, the World Bank and the UK-Brazil-Africa research partnership, which scales solutions. We are committed to science-led transformation in our role as a trusted partner. Whether it is our work with the World Bank to support Indonesia and the Philippines to reform inefficient and harmful fertiliser subsidies, or our work on livestock vaccines for foot and mouth in east Africa and on climate-resilient seeds, our work and investment is having tangible results. For example, we are working on drought-resistant maize through our CGIAR funding, and I have already mentioned our work on wheat.
We need to do more in this area. Our research shows that food systems receive just 7% of total climate finance, and less than 1% of that reaches smallholder farmers. We need to do much more on that, and it will be a crucial part of the COP30 agenda we will be advancing.
We welcome the work that Brazil has already been doing as host, including its resilient agriculture investment for net zero land degradation initiative and its efforts to draw attention to climate, hunger and poverty, and the links between them. We have shown leadership in past conferences by supporting landmark declarations such as the Emirates declaration and the Glasgow leaders’ declaration.
I do not want to get ahead of the conversations we will have at COP30, but I hope I have demonstrated our absolute commitment in this area, which is of course reflected in what we are doing here at home. We are backing British farming with more than £2.7 billion a year for sustainable agriculture and nature recovery; and through our environmental land management schemes, we are rewarding farmers for environmental benefits, improving productivity and maintaining food production.
We are committed to clear action at COP. This Government are committed to showing leadership, and we are conscious that we face this challenge both here at home and abroad. I thank all Members for their comments. The prize is clear: a future in which food systems are resilient, fair and sustainable, in which farmers are supported, in which ecosystems are protected and in which everyone has access to healthy and affordable food.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered COP30 and global food system transformation.
British Steel
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. To that end, Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support to continue steel production, ensure that health and safety issues are being remedied, stabilise operations and improve the steady state of the business.
Work continues to develop an impact assessment, which will be published in due course following Regulatory Policy Committee scrutiny. We are also continuing work on regulations under section 7 of the Act, to introduce a compensation scheme for steel undertakings that have received a notice under the Act.
On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at spring statement 2025. To date, we have provided approximately £235 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials, salaries, and addressing unpaid bills, including for SMEs in the supply chain. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.
As we have stated previously, our long-term aspiration for British Steel will require co-investment with the private sector to enable modernisation and decarbonisation, support jobs, safeguard taxpayers’ money and retain steelmaking in Scunthorpe. However, this will not be without challenges. Jingye acquired a troubled business in 2020 and it has faced challenging market conditions and circumstances in the years since. The company has not been able to overcome these difficulties and achieve profitability at British Steel. But this Government remain committed to restoring the long-term viability of steelmaking at Scunthorpe, and the UK steel sector as a whole, and we continue to see tangible benefits resulting from the wide-ranging actions we have taken, such as tackling high electricity prices via the uplift to the British industry supercharger and changing Government procurement rules.
International trade
Last month, the United States confirmed that the UK will not face an increase in metals tariffs to 50% and will remain the only country in the world to benefit from a preferential 25% rate on steel, aluminium and derivative exports to the US. This provides the certainty that UK industry has long been calling for. The UK is uniquely positioned as the only country to have secured this commitment, giving our companies a 25% competitive advantage over global competitors. It further strengthens the UK’s reputation as a trusted supplier of high-quality steel and aluminium. We continue to work closely with our US counterparts to reduce tariffs further and secure the best possible outcomes for UK manufacturers.
On 10 October, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister for Digital Economy (Liz Lloyd CBE), joined Ministers from partner countries at the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity ministerial in Gqeberha, South Africa. At the meeting, Ministers agreed to develop a comprehensive framework for joint action to address global steel excess capacity by June 2026.
On 7 October, the EU announced a new steel trade measure, which will replace its existing steel safeguard, which includes significantly reduced quota sizes and a higher out of tariff rate replacing its current safeguard. This decision is not targeted at the UK but will be highly concerning for many of our steel producers and their workers.
We will always defend our critical steel industry and have already engaged the EU at ministerial and official level to understand the details of this proposal. It is vital that we protect trade flows between the UK and EU, and we hope there is a way to work with our closest allies to address global challenges rather than adding to our industries’ woes. We reserve the right to take any action in response to any changes to our trading relationships.
In addition, we will ensure we have robust protections in place for our sector. We amended the steel safeguard to make it more effective in June and we continue to explore stronger trade measures to protect UK steel producers.
Steel procurement
We have now published the steel pipeline of UK public infrastructure projects taking place over the next few years and have announced targeted action to provide relief on electricity network charges via the British industry supercharger. We remain committed to publishing the steel strategy, which will articulate what is needed to create a competitive business environment in the UK with the aim of attracting new private investment to secure and expand UK steelmaking capability.
Liberty Steel
As Members will be aware, Liberty Speciality Steel UK entered compulsory liquidation on 21 August. On 2 September, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), delivered an oral statement to the House, providing reassurance that there would be no immediate changes to the company’s operations or the status of employees’ jobs.
I recognise that this continues to be an unsettling time for the SSUK staff, their families and the local community. Responsibility for the day-to-day management of the process, including ensuring employees continue to be paid, now lies with the independent official receiver and the appointed special managers. Following the official receiver’s recommendation, the Government have agreed to initiate a sales process. This offers the potential to safeguard jobs and preserve steelmaking capability. To facilitate this, the Government have provided funding to the official receiver to enable him to carry out his duties effectively.
The Government are committed to securing a positive outcome for the SSUK sites, one that delivers a sustainable, commercially viable future for steel production. More broadly, we remain committed to supporting a sustainable and prosperous future for the whole of the UK steel industry. We are taking decisive steps to revitalise the sector after years of neglect, working to secure good jobs in Scunthorpe and other proud steelmaking communities for the long term.
[HCWS957]
Jaguar Land Rover: Government Support
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
On 28 September the Secretary of State for Business and Trade announced that the Government are supporting Jaguar Land Rover through a guarantee provided by UK Export Finance for a commercial loan.
JLR is a major exporter and employer, supporting around 34,000 UK jobs directly, and a further 120,000 in its supply chain, but over the summer it was the victim of a prolonged cyber-attack, causing it to suspend much of its business operation.
Ministers recognised that the risk to JLR’s supply chain was far reaching, and that it is in the national interest for UKEF to issue this guarantee. The loan, which will be repaid over five years, will help ensure that JLR has liquidity to maintain operations, as well as to direct to suppliers as appropriate. UKEF will receive a premium, ensuring that the Government are appropriately compensated for the risk taken, and to cover administrative costs.
Providing a guarantee for a commercial loan to JLR is an expedient route to relieve the pressure being experienced by the supply chain. JLR already has an established relationship with its various suppliers, with whom it will work in a constructive and informed manner as production restarts. The Government moved to protect thousands of jobs and potentially billions of pounds in export earnings.
Cyber-security of the UK is a key priority for this Government, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the National Cyber Security Centre have been taking significant action to help protect businesses against cyber-attacks. This includes providing businesses with the tools, advice and support to protect themselves from cyber-threats, including free training for boards and staff. We have also put in place:
The cyber governance code of practice, which shows boards and directors how to effectively manage the digital risks to their organisation.
The highly effective cyber essentials scheme to prevent common attacks, reducing the likelihood of a cyber insurance claim by 92%. The certification scheme includes automatic cyber liability insurance for any UK organisation who certifies their whole organisation and has less than £20 million annual turnover.
As the decision was made over recess, I am notifying Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Notification has been sent separately to the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Business and Trade Select Committee.
[HCWS962]
UK Export Finance: Contingencies Fund
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The Export Credits Guarantee Department—operating as UK Export Finance—is seeking a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund, following budget changes to an IT project to improve its transaction record systems. This is essential to meet the operational needs of the Department and its work supporting exporters.
Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £2,728,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2,728,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The cash advance will be repaid following Royal Assent to the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.
[HCWS958]
Flood and Coastal Erosion Resilience and Investment
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I wish to update the House on actions we are taking to strengthen resilience to flood and coastal risks in England, including investment and reforms to the Government’s flood investment policy.
Over the last year, this Government have made significant progress by committing record investment in flood and coastal erosion defences; introducing the most significant change in flood and coastal erosion funding policy for nearly 15 years; and building partnerships to improve flood preparedness and resilience.
The Environment Agency’s annual Flood Action Week is running this week (13 to 19 October 2025). The objective is to build public awareness of all sources of flood risk and promote action to increase community and property flood resilience. I ask all parliamentarians to actively promote flood preparedness and encourage their constituents to join the 1.6 million users who have already signed up to receive Environment Agency flood warnings via gov.uk. This will ensure that they receive timely alerts to help them decide how to act. Taking action to prepare and knowing what to do in a flood can significantly reduce the short-term and long-term impacts.
There will be a range of events during Flood Action Week. Yesterday the Environmental Audit Committee published its report focusing on how flood resilience can be strengthened in response to increasing risks. The Government will consider its report and recommendations and will reply in due course. Also yesterday, the Secretary of State attended the Flood Re reception launching the new FloodMobile, ahead of its tour across the country this week to help communities understand their flood risk and how to prepare. Today I am attending the Environment Agency’s reception, where parliamentarians can discuss the new flood awareness toolkit. This sets out who to contact in a flood and the actions to take to support communities before, during and after a flood. Parliamentarians will also be able to meet with their Environment Agency area director to learn about work being undertaken in their constituency to manage flood risk.
Economic growth is the No. 1 mission in the Government’s plan for change. Increasing resilience to flooding and coastal erosion plays an important role in delivering this by protecting communities and farmland from billions of pounds of damages.
Despite a challenging fiscal context, we are making a record £10.5 billion investment, and delivering the largest flood and coastal investment programme in history. Communities across every region of England are benefiting from greater resilience. This includes:
investing £2.65 billion between 2024-25 and 2025-26, to build and maintain flood and coastal defences;
as part of that, redirecting £108 million into urgent flood and coastal defence maintenance to halt the decline of flood asset condition following years of under investment;
and committing a record £7.9 billion in capital funding between 2026 and 2036 to build and maintain flood and coastal defences, as part of the Government’s 10-year infrastructure strategy.
This investment is making a difference now, ahead of the winter. Since July last year, the Environment Agency has delivered 151 flood defence schemes, better protecting over 24,000 homes and businesses. It is poised to deliver more, across all of England, benefiting thousands of homes, supporting economic growth and unlocking new land for development.
We need to use our record investment programme as effectively and efficiently as possible. Today, the Government are therefore announcing major reforms to the flood funding policy, following a public consultation over the summer. The reforms will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right defences in the right places by simplifying flood funding rules. The new approach is more agile, allowing the Environment Agency to respond to both current and future flood risk through its investment.
The new rules will apply from the start of the new flood and coastal investment programme in April 2026. The new rules provide more assurance on the level of funding flood and coastal schemes will receive, increasing investor confidence, closing funding gaps and reducing the administrative burden on local communities. New flood and coastal defence schemes will be eligible for the first £3 million of costs, and 90% of costs above this amount. We will encourage public, private, and charitable contributions, making every pound of Government investment go further.
We need to address the condition of flood and coast defence assets, reversing their declining condition. The funding rules will optimise funding between new flood projects and maintaining existing defence assets. An integrated set of outcome metrics will support allocation of funding towards the most beneficial interventions. Furthermore, we will make capital refurbishment of existing flood defences eligible for full funding. We will put the Environment Agency and other risk management authorities on an equal footing for accessing funding.
The funding rules will ensure best value for taxpayers’ money. All flood and coastal defences, new, improved, and refurbished, will be prioritised based on value for money and delivery of the Government’s new strategic flood and coastal erosion investment objectives. These include guaranteeing that deprived communities receive investment, unlocking additional partnership contributions, and increasing the use of natural flood management. This includes a commitment to invest over £300 million in natural flood management between 2026 and ’36.
Alongside this, we are supporting increased use of property flood resilience, equipping property owners with the knowledge to take practical action that can help reduce damage from flooding. This week sees the launch of Professor Peter Bonfield’s property flood resilience review, Flood Ready, an action plan to build the resilience of people and properties. The actions partners have committed to taking will increase confidence in property flood resilience measures and help to grow the market. The Government welcome this important review and its recommendations.
Internal drainage boards deliver essential work to manage water levels, reduce flood risk and enhance biodiversity, predominantly in rural areas. The Government are supporting them, including through their internal drainage board fund. In the past year, we provided an additional £16 million, bringing total funding to £91 million, the largest ever one-off funding for internal drainage boards. This investment is helping to modernise and upgrade assets, providing benefits to over 400,000 hectares of farmland and over 200,000 properties to date, while reducing annual charges for farmers and local authorities.
It is only through partnership that we can tackle challenges such as flood and coastal risk, which are on the frontline of experiencing the impacts of climate change. As set out in the manifesto, the Government set up their floods resilience taskforce to provide oversight of national and local flood resilience and improve preparedness, especially ahead of the autumn and winter flood season. The taskforce brings together experts and decision makers from across national Government, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Cabinet Office, the Environment Agency, the Met Office and the Flood Forecasting Centre. Other taskforce members include representatives from local and regional government, including lead local flood authorities, local resilience forums, and English regional mayors. The National Fire Chiefs Council and National Police Chiefs Council, and representatives from industry, civil society, and the devolved Governments are also members.
In the last year, taskforce members assessed the national and local response to autumn and winter flooding, following 2024 being one of the wettest years on record and including five named winter storms. They also improved national flood modelling, simplified the system of weather and flood related warnings, exercised national coordination arrangements, and raised awareness of flood recovery schemes.
The Flood Forecasting Centre helped deliver significant improvements to the flood forecasting service, including by giving rapid updates on flood risks from surface water, which helped first responders in their decision-making to protect lives. My thanks to the Met Office and Environment Agency for their excellent work.
I am grateful to the Cabinet Office, which developed the risk vulnerability tool in partnership with the Office for National Statistics, as well as national guidance for local resilience forums on identifying and supporting persons who are vulnerable in an emergency. These will both help to improve flood resilience.
Taskforce members established three member-led action groups, on flood warnings, flood recovery, and flood insurance, building long-term momentum on these critical issues. They assisted partners in understanding the changing risk picture in the new national flood risk assessment, and made corresponding improvements to flood forecasting capabilities, making us all safer.
The personal impact of flooding is immeasurable. Insurance plays a key role in enabling recovery. Flood Re has provided cover for over 340,000 household policies over the past year, meaning 650,000 properties have benefited since the scheme’s launch, and 99% of householders at high risk of flooding can obtain quotes from 10 or more insurers because of the scheme. This week, I met industry partners for a second flood insurance roundtable. We focused on how the sector can better support households at flood risk, examining access to affordable insurance, future challenges, and practical steps to promote property resilience while maintaining mortgage availability.
[HCWS956]
Afghanistan
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Today I am updating the House on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, and the UK Government’s continued support for those most in need. Instability in Afghanistan continues to matter to the UK, creating risks of terrorism, a resurgence in illegal narcotic production and irregular migration.
The humanitarian situation remains of grave concern, and the people of Afghanistan have endured yet another tragedy following a major earthquake that struck Kunar province on 31 August, devastating fragile communities, killing 2,200 people and injuring over 3,600. The aftermath will have a disproportionate and lasting impact on women and girls. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has released £4 million in emergency funding to deliver critical healthcare and emergency supplies to those affected. This includes support for clean water and emergency shelter, essential hygiene items for women, maternal care and psychological support to address the most acute needs of women and girls. These funds are channelled directly through the United Nations, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations with a track record of delivery in the affected area.
This disaster is compounding an already dire humanitarian situation. In 2025, nearly 23 million people require humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. This includes over 12 million people facing acute food insecurity, 14 million people with limited access to healthcare, and nearly 8 million women and children requiring nutrition assistance. The convergence of prolonged drought and mass returns from neighbouring countries risks triggering even further deterioration. Between January and September, over 2 million Afghans have returned from Iran and Pakistan. On 29 September Afghanistan faced a nationwide shutdown of internet services. While connectivity has been mostly restored, any future disruption would pose a serious threat to the delivery of lifesaving assistance and would further isolate marginalised communities.
As needs are rising, we are facing a global decline in humanitarian funding, leaving critical gaps. Between January and August 2025, more than 400 health facilities have closed or suspended services. The United Nations population fund reports that about 30% of its facilities offering sexual and reproductive health services have also closed, affecting an estimated 4 million Afghan women and girls with limited or no access to services. Needs continue to outstrip resources, and we are particularly concerned about the impact of winter on remote communities, where there is a growing risk that increasing malnutrition will result in the preventable deaths of vulnerable children. Recognising this, the UK Government are committing £7 million to pre-position essential food and nutrition supplies, to provide a lifeline for targeted communities, and have called on other donors to step up their support. This funding will potentially reach hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Afghans over the winter period. No UK Government funding goes directly to or through the Taliban. All funding is provided directly to implementing partners who are highly experienced at delivering in difficult circumstances and ensuring that aid is only used to help those most in need. We have robust third-party monitoring for all our official development assistance funded programmes, to provide additional assurance that money is used for the intended purposes.
The UK Government continue to play a leading role in responding to this crisis. In the 2024-25 financial year, UK aid provided humanitarian assistance to at least 2.7 million people, including over 1.7 million women and girls. As part of the UK’s humanitarian assistance, at least 1.2 million people were reached with essential health services, at least 324,000 people with food assistance and at least 513,000 lactating women and children under five with nutrition-related interventions. Afghanistan remains one of the FCDO’s largest bilateral aid programmes, with £151 million allocated for this financial year. Our new climate resilience and livelihoods programme will help around half a million Afghans to become more self-sufficient in their food needs and to adapt to water stress and flood risk over the next year.
We are using our influence to press for a more sustainable global response. On 17 July, Baroness Chapman co-launched the joint flagship initiative, First Foods Afghanistan, with UNICEF in London. We have committed £8 million to this project to tackle the drivers of malnutrition. In November we will host a dedicated conference to galvanise broader international support for this critical issue. On 29 and 30 September, the UK’s special representative for Afghanistan hosted G7 and other senior counterparts in London to discuss the security, humanitarian, economic and political challenges in Afghanistan, emphasising the importance of co-ordinated international engagement and advocating for the global aid response is to be as efficient as possible in the context of reduced funding and rising needs. We are bringing together donors and operational partners to forge lasting solutions to malnutrition.
We have been working closely with the international community to press the Taliban to adhere to their international commitments on human rights. We continue to engage with the Taliban to urge them to provide humanitarian access and to call out their abhorrent policies towards women and girls. The UK’s resolve to support the Afghan people for the long term remains unwavering. We continue to work with international partners to hold the Taliban to account, to ensure that Afghanistan’s crisis remains high on the global agenda and that our assistance reaches those who need it most, particularly women and girls.
[HCWS959]
Primary Care Clinicians: Jess’s Rule
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
On 23 September, this Government announced the introduction of Jess’s rule—“three strikes and we rethink”—in England. Under this new rule, we are asking GPs and other clinical staff working in primary care to reflect, review and rethink when a patient comes in for the third time with the same symptom or concern.
Re-evaluation may be particularly important if the condition remains unexpectedly unresolved, the symptoms are worsening, or there is still no confirmed diagnosis. Listening carefully to the patient’s symptoms and concerns, and recognising that they are an expert in their own body, remains crucial.
This call for change follows the tragic death of Jess Brady in December 2020. Jess was just 27 when she died of stage 4 adenocarcinoma. In the five months leading up to her death, she had 20 appointments with her GP practice. Tragically, her cancer remained undiagnosed until she was admitted to hospital, by which time it was too late. Her story, and the tireless efforts of her parents Andrea and Simon Brady, prompted an important and necessary reflection on how we can better support clinical teams in identifying serious conditions earlier, especially in younger adults, whose symptoms may not always align with typical diagnostic expectations. Her story should never be forgotten.
This initiative is jointly led by the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England, and is supported by the Royal College of General Practitioners, reflecting a united commitment to improving early diagnosis and patient safety across the healthcare system.
At its heart, Jess’s rule provides clear, structured guidance that sharpens and reinforces the intuition which so often saves lives. It is there to back those instincts with a prompt for timely, proactive action when something does not feel right. By reviewing patient records and questioning initial assumptions, we hope to ensure that fewer serious conditions are missed, especially among young adults who may not fit typical diagnostic patterns.
We know that the practice of “three strikes and rethink” is commonplace. Every day, clinicians across the country are doing an extraordinary job, making complex decisions under immense pressure, often with limited time and information. Jess’s rule is designed to support them in this challenging work, offering a prompt for reflection and reinforcing the instincts they already rely on every day.
I want to pay tribute to Jess’s parents, Andrea and Simon. They have shown extraordinary courage and determination in the face of unimaginable loss. They have worked tirelessly to raise awareness of Jess’s story, and to ensure that what happened to Jess drives lasting change in how we think, how we listen, and how we act in primary care.
I would like to recognise the work of Dr Claire Fuller, Dr Kiren Collison and the entire team at NHS England. Jess’s story is included in the “Primary Care Patient Safety Strategy”, published in 2024, which highlight the importance of re-evaluation when a diagnosis remains unclear. Dr Fuller’s leadership has been instrumental in developing and embedding Jess’s rule.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of the Royal College of General Practitioners in taking this work forward. Under the leadership of Professor Kamila Hawthorne, the RCGP has partnered with Jess’s family’s charity, the CEDAR Trust, to develop an online resource to support GPs in earlier cancer detection. This resource is available to all healthcare professionals registered on the RCGP’s learning platform.
Jess’s rule is more than a clinical process, It is a vital step toward ensuring that patient concerns are taken seriously, that patterns are reviewed carefully, and that every opportunity is used to identify serious conditions as early as possible. We owe that to Jess. And we owe it to every patient who places their trust in our health system when they seek help.
[HCWS961]
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
The Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
Introduction of a visit visa requirement for nationals of Botswana
We are today introducing a visa requirement on all visitors from Botswana. This will come into force at 15:00 British Summer Time today. Nationals of Botswana will also be required to obtain a direct airside transit visa if they intend to transit via the UK, having booked travel to another country.
Nationals of Botswana will no longer be eligible to apply for an electronic travel authorisation for travel to the UK.
There will be a six-week, visa-free transition period for those who already hold an ETA and have a confirmed booking to the UK obtained on or before 15:00 BST 14 October 2025, where arrival in the UK is no later than 15:00 GMT 25 November 2025.
Arrangements are in place so that nationals of Botswana can apply for visas. We are publicising the changes so travellers are aware and can plan accordingly.
We are taking this action due to an increase in the number of nationals of Botswana travelling to the UK for purposes other than those permitted under visitor rules. This has included a significant number of asylum claims since 2022. This adds to operational pressures at the border and on the asylum system, and results in frontline resource being diverted from other operational priorities.
The decision to introduce a visa requirement has been taken solely for migration and border security reasons. Our relationship with Botswana, as a Commonwealth partner, remains a strong one. Any decision to change a visa requirement status is not taken lightly. We keep the border and immigration system under regular review to ensure it continues to work in the UK national interest.
High potential individual—targeted and capped expansion
As the immigration White Paper also set out, we are going further in ensuring that the very highly skilled have opportunities to come to the UK and access our targeted routes for the brightest and best international talent. That is why today we are introducing changes, doubling the number of universities whose graduates can use the route and capping the number of places that are available in this route at 8,000 per year.
Students transitioning to the innovator founder route
The immigration White Paper also set out that we would make changes to further support entrepreneurial talents currently studying at UK universities, so that they can build their business and career in the UK after completing their course. We are therefore amending the conditions given to students to enable them to start work on their business while they are transitioning to the innovator founder route.
Change to reduce the duration of stay under the graduate route to 18 months
The Government announced in the immigration White Paper that it will reduce the period of leave granted under the graduate route from two years to 18 months for most applicants. PhD graduates will continue to be eligible for three years of permission. This change is informed by data showing that too many graduates are not progressing into graduate-level employment, which is what the graduate route was created to facilitate access to. It is intended to ensure that those who remain in the UK transition into graduate-level jobs and properly contribute to the UK economy.
Changes to English language requirements for economic migration routes
As the immigration White Paper, published in May 2025, set out, we are increasing the English language requirement to level B2 for those work routes—specifically the skilled worker, high potential individual and scale up routes—where a level B1 requirement currently applies. This change will come into force on 8 January and will apply to those applying for an initial permission in the affected routes from that date. The change will help to ensure that those who wish to build their life in the UK are better able to integrate into life in the UK. Other changes to English language requirements set out in the White Paper, including the introduction of such requirements for dependants in work and study routes, will be included in future changes to the immigration rules.
These changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 14 October 2025. For the changes that introduce a visit visa requirement for nationals of Botswana, due to the need to safeguard the operation of the UK’s immigration system, those changes will come into effect at 15:00 on 14 October 2025. All other changes will come into effect on various dates from 4 November, as detailed in the statement of changes.
[HCWS960]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
National Policy Statement for Ports
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee takes note of the initial proposal for an amended National Policy Statement for Ports.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate. National policy statements set out the primary legal framework for planning decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, with the Planning Inspectorate providing the examining authority. In the case of ports, they will normally also incorporate a deemed marine licence, on advice from the Marine Management Organisation.
In July 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a review of relevant national policy statements to provide greater clarity for applicants and decision-makers. In the case of ports, a review had already been announced under the previous Administration, and this Government agreed that the review was indeed justified according to the criteria in Section 6 of the Planning Act 2008. The extant National Policy Statement for Ports was designated in 2012, and a great deal has happened institutionally, empirically and policy-wise since then.
The National Policy Statement for Ports initially applied to the whole of England and Wales, but following the Wales Act 2017 it now applies only to England—plus Milford Haven, which is a reserved trust port as defined in the Act. Nevertheless, we have sought to make sure that the national policy statement will continue to take full account of institutional and regulatory differences in Wales, where relevant.
The initial proposed revised national policy statement for ports was laid in Parliament on 4 June 2025 and published for public consultation, alongside an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulations assessment. When I refer to the national policy statement for ports from now on, I will mean this initial proposed revised version unless the context indicates otherwise.
In parallel with this publication, the department issued revised port freight demand forecasts for the whole of the United Kingdom, and these forecasts are quoted in the revised national policy statement for ports. The forecasts, very briefly, predict substantial demand-driven growth in unit load traffic—in roll-on roll-off and containers primarily—alongside a continuing decline in liquid bulks, particularly reflecting the changing energy generation mix. The consultation closed on 29 July 2025, and 38 responses were received—not a great number, but including numerous seriously considered suggestions for detailed amendments from respondents closely engaged with the sector. We are considering these and will issue a formal response in due course and revise the draft national policy statement for ports as necessary.
One message that has come through from many respondents, aside from the drafting of the NPSP, is the need for promoting wider familiarity with it, especially among local authorities, in view of its relevance to other consenting regimes, as well as for development consent orders under the Planning Act, for which it sets the statutory framework.
In another place, the Transport Select Committee is currently scrutinising the proposed national policy statement for ports and will publish its report by 14 November, the end of the relevant period that has been stipulated. The committee took written submissions up to 1 August and held oral hearings on 10 and 16 September. After the committee has reported, the Secretary of State will formally respond to its report, as prescribed by the Planning Act. The Government then aim to lay the national policy statement for ports in its final form for its statutory 21 sitting-day consideration period. I look forward to hearing all the contributions to today’s debate. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and the initiative the Government have offered us in extending, in many respects, the public consultation that ended in July this year, on which your Lordships’ views, as we have heard from the Minister, will be taken into account. In the absence of a single ports Bill, a revised national policy statement for ports, while welcome, is a good first step but needs to be turbocharged with a business strategy to encourage investment, create jobs and encourage a competitive response to bring shipping to our ports. All the people working in those ports demand first-class facilities, excellent operations and competitive pricing.
I intend to focus on one aspect of the consultation. One of the implications of the regulations that we increasingly have to follow is the need for fast charging facilities, which do not figure sufficiently in the proposal we are considering today. EU rules, which require major ports to provide shoreside electricity for large passenger and container ships by 2030, aim to cut emissions and support maritime decarbonisation goals. The move towards battery-driven container shipping is accelerating but remains concentrated in certain vessel types and regions, with full-scale adoption for large ocean-going container ships still in its early stage. As of 2025, more than 1,000 vessels worldwide use large battery systems for propulsion, either fully electric or hybrid, with about 550 more on order, representing a dramatic increase from just a few dozen ships a decade ago.
However, most of those are ferries, offshore supply vessels and smaller cargo ships. Container ships are just beginning to see commercial-scale battery adoption. In a long-term strategy document of this type, it is vital that the Government are ahead of the game and creating economic growth in this sector. Today, fast charging infrastructure at UK ports is in its early infancy, with significant pilot projects and investments under way but not yet widespread or universally available. I urge the Government to give this subject greater consideration.
The UK’s first major shore-power cold ironing and electric ship charging project is under way at Heysham Port. Cold ironing is the process of supplying a docked ship with electricity from an onshore power grid, which allows the ship to shut down its auxiliary engines and reduce emissions, noise and vibrations. The work at Heysham is part of a broader plan to create green shipping corridors across the Irish Sea, supporting shore power for conventional ships and fast charging for future fully electric vehicles. This includes the eight-port network. Peel Ports Group and NatPower Marine are investing some £100 million to equip eight key UK and Ireland ports with charging infrastructure by 2030, with Heysham leading as the first net-zero port in the UK. These ports will support vessel charging and electric vehicle charging for landside operations. Then there are the south coast demonstrators. The Electric Seaway project has installed eight fast charging sites along the south coast, primarily supporting leisure and small commercial vessels under 24 metres. This is a robust regional network but is not yet designed for the largest container or deep sea ships. However, that must come.
The major problem that the Government, the Minister and his department need to address is limited grid capacity to our ports. As of now, only eight of the 32 major UK ports are expected to have sufficient electrical capacity by 2050 without significant upgrades, indicating that the fast charging rollout is still in its infancy and faces infrastructure challenges. The Minister’s comments on that major hurdle to growth would be greatly appreciated. However, let me try to help the Government with some suggestions.
Thought needs to be given to increasing the number of pilot and funding schemes, such as the Government’s clean maritime demonstration competition, to accelerate infrastructure upgrades. We need to assess port electricity capacity and plans for phased upgrades to handle high-power ship charging. We need to collaborate with technology providers and shipping lines to prioritise routes and vessel types for electrification. We need to monitor lessons from early projects at Heysham and the Electric Seaway for best practices and pitfalls.
The Minister himself has been a pioneer of similar work in the rail sector. Here, I argue, there is an opportunity at an early stage for the Government to position themselves as leaders by investing early in scalable future-proofed charging networks that can be expanded as more electric vessels enter service. This is really important because the global electric shipping market is projected to grow rapidly from about $4.85 billion in 2025 to $18 billion by 2032, with compound annual growth rates ranging from 10% to 20% depending on the vessel segment.
Environmental regulations also apply to shipping. Stricter emission laws are pushing ship operators to adopt cleaner technologies, including batteries, especially on short sea and regional routes where charging infrastructure is more viable. There are technology advances to be supported. Improvements in lithium-ion battery energy density, lifespan and safety, along with falling battery costs, make electrification increasingly feasible for larger vessels and longer routes.
The geographic leaders such as Norway and China are at the forefront. Norway leads in battery ferries. China is launching fully electric coastal container ships and has certified more than 30 battery makers for marine use. There is hybridisation: many new car and truck carriers and some container ships use hybrid battery-LNG systems for port manoeuvring and emission reduction, with pure battery power still limited by current battery energy density.
The UK Government have the opportunity to build on this important document and outline a clear road map with specific objectives and milestones for the deployment of charging facilities. This strategic plan should include short-term goals, such as the number of ports equipped with basic facilities, and long-term targets for full-scale electrification.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it is back to the world of cold ironing. The UK Government have the opportunity to outline a clear road map with specific objectives and milestones for the deployment of charging facilities. A strategic plan should build on what we have been considering in this document to include short-term goals, such as the number of ports equipped with basic facilities, and long-term targets for full-scale electrification.
All the good intentions in this plan are meaningless unless we invest in grid upgrades. That means that the UK Government should collaborate with distribution network operators to upgrade grid connections now and ensure robust energy supplies. This may involve investing in new substations, transformers and high-voltage connections to handle the increased demand. Given the constraints on the public sector investment plans, this calls for a new PFI approach, one that balances risk between government and the private sector, learns the lessons from the past—not least over complex and bureaucratic contracts—and accelerates investment. In some ways, given its size and stand-alone features, it can be a test case for government, working with the Treasury and the private sector, as has been successfully done with the Thames Tideway project.
Finally, in all the work that we are doing, it is vital that we make our ports safe for employees, crews, passengers and the public.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, although I do not want to disagree with a word he said about electricity, does he agree that any policy must keep an open mind as to all new forms of energy, in particular methanol-powered ships using clean-burning methanol, which is increasingly becoming a viable alternative to heavy crude oil? The policy needs to keep its mind open.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely do have an open mind to that. We must not only be open-minded towards the challenges that are faced by battery technology and reducing the weight of batteries, for example, but look at all forms of clean energy that can benefit our international maritime trade. The point that my noble friend has made is absolutely accurate in that sense.
In my comments today, I wished to concentrate very much on the current direction of travel that is occurring in the industry because it is vital when it comes to designing a policy for ports and making sure that we are ready to take on the challenges that we already see embedded in European Union legislation. That is important for ports in Wales and on the west coast of the United Kingdom, for example, when it comes to ferries going to Ireland.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, let me just clarify that there should be only points of clarification in Grand Committee, not the reopening of an issue.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
After that innovative departure from our normal process, it is a pleasure to speak—an unusual pleasure because, despite the centrality of ports and shipping to this country, we rarely debate such things in the House.
I have no current interests in the maritime sector but I do, as they say, have form. I was on the board of the Lloyd’s Register, which was founded in 1760, and I was the first woman to be appointed to the board of the Harwich Haven Authority. That authority was founded in 1863 and serves the massive Port of Felixstowe; Ipswich, which has been a port since Anglo-Saxon times; the ferry service from Harwich; cruise ships that call occasionally; support vessels for offshore wind; and a green energy hub at Bathside Bay. I mention all that because it exemplifies the diversity and complexity of the modern maritime sector.
The Harwich Haven Authority is a trust port. Not only does it ensure the safe navigation of some of the largest ships in the world accessing the Port of Felixstowe; it is also the custodian of the estuary in terms of both safe and efficient access and the health of its environment. My first ask of the Minister is that the national policy statement more explicitly reference the distinct legal and operational responsibilities of trust ports such as Harwich Haven.
As we have already heard in a single speech, so much has changed since this document was last published in 2012. I want to begin by reflecting on whether it would not have been better to have had a more fundamental revision of the document, because this feels rather like tweaking. The complexity of the modern port sector might be better served if the document were a little more up to date and far reaching.
It is not just me saying that: in its submission, Portsmouth International Port commented that the document should reflect the entire breadth of the ports industry as it is now, not as it was in 2012. Various evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee reflected the fact that the document does not identify the import of sustainable aviation fuels, alternative maritime fuels, and carbon capture and storage.
It has also been pointed out that there are no government forecasts for offshore energy or passengers in the way that there are for freight. Evidence from Associated British Ports suggests that more emphasis should be put on non-tonnage routes, and Portsmouth has highlighted the increasing development of passenger-related activities and their ever-changing needs. Harwich Haven talked to me about how bulk cargo patterns are changing due to global trade realignments—the less said about that, the better—and climate change requirements, which are leading to a need for more flexible storage and modernised handling structures.
It is particularly important that we get the basis of this document right now because, once the Planning and Infrastructure Bill takes effect, these documents will be reviewed every five years. It is important to have a solid baseline for that five-yearly review to take place. The Government have set out a number of objectives, including growth, efficiency and support for their own clean energy ambitions. They rightly frame the approach as market-led. Indeed, they see competition in the sector as key to driving up efficiencies and improving innovation. I think we could all agree with that, but a market-led approach leaves us with a particular challenge when it comes to the major infra- structure required to support the port sector. Road and rail improvements are provided long after the development has taken place. Political indecision, funding challenges and lengthy and complex planning processes mean that significant problems build up before any serious attention is given to dealing with them.
For example, the Orwell Bridge near Ipswich is the only HGV-suitable route out of the Port of Felixstowe. It is an ageing asset and requires regular maintenance; it was closed for a long period over the summer, when all the vehicles, including HGVs, were rerouted through the centre of Ipswich, which has narrow roads and subsequently suffered very serious congestion right through the summer. The A120 between the A12 and the ports is one lane in each direction for much of the route and is increasingly inadequate.
Given the Minister’s background, and given that the Government have a rail freight target of 75% growth by 2050, I was particularly interested to see that this document is entirely non-rail. Rail gets no specific mention, although there is a mention of HGV parking. As an example, the huge volume of freight movement between the Port of Felixstowe and the Midlands would benefit enormously from a series of measures to improve rail links between the hub of Nuneaton and Felixstowe. The branch line between Felixstowe and Ipswich is single track and is already operating at capacity. Improvements at Ely and Haughley junction are desperately needed. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just referred to how grid connections are increasingly essential.
My final set of points relates to the highly complex and changing nature of the planning and consent regimes that face ports undertaking development of any kind. This is a recurring theme throughout the consultation responses and in the oral evidence given to the Select Committee. The Government’s intention is to save ports time and money on planning, and everyone would welcome that, but this threshold does not suit all the types of work that are needed to sustain, for example, offshore energy. My noble friend Lady Pidgeon will talk about that. Portsmouth International Port talked to me about how it wants to be sure that the NPSP offers support and context to all its throughput activities, development projects and improvements that it promotes.
I have observed the increasing physical distance between port activity and the physical port itself. Logistics or even security can be quite some distance from the port, which is important in the context of local planning. Stakeholders have suggested that deemed consent orders should include activities such as berth deepening, access roads, security and grid connections, and that this should be explicit in the NPSP. RenewableUK highlighted that, with multiple consenting routes for renewable energy projects, a clear overall framework is essential.
Many ports have developed master plans, which have been encouraged by the DfT since 2008. This document, interestingly, is silent on the role of port master plans and their status, which is a pity, because they can act as a very useful tool for working with local planning authorities. What exactly is the status of this document with regard to local plans? Will it be a material consideration for local authorities and the MMO, for example? Will the Government consider discussing with stakeholders the potential for port master plans to be explicitly recognised?
This is particularly important when it comes to protecting potentially valuable port-related land from other developments such as housing. It is a real issue in ports such as Portsmouth and London Gateway, which are located in urban areas. Witnesses are suggesting that the read-across to the current planning Bill is not clear, which is unfortunate; we should not be in that position.
I have three quick points to conclude. Statutory decision-makers are all subject to reductions in funding, people shortages and backlogs in decision-making. Speeding up the planning process will not happen unless we look at the resourcing of it. During the oral evidence session, witnesses spoke about the potential for a one-stop shop approach to help applicants through the maze of legal and regulatory permissions required. Finally, will the Minister assure the Grand Committee that his Government will look at the representations carefully to see whether improvements can be made to the clarity, hierarchy and status of this important document?
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the proposal for a revised national policy statement for ports. We know that ports matter; they are a key element of sea-borne trade and national resilience. As we saw so clearly during Covid, they deliver, they perform and they make negligible demands of the state for their funding. I have worked in the maritime industries, primarily shipping, for all my adult life. Initially, I was a shipbroker with the world’s largest shipping services provider, a British company, and in recent years I have held senior positions in major maritime trade associations and bodies.
When talking of the port sector as a key element of British maritime in speeches in the 2010s, I used to note that they were investing around £600 million of their own money in their facilities annually. But the figure has been growing. Since the pandemic alone, something between £4.4 billion and £6 billion of port investment has been made. In the coming five years, they are planning to invest £1 billion annually, and there is an expectation that this could go higher.
There are some 130 commercial ports handling imports and exports, with over 80% of trade conducted through the 20 leading ports. Investment in the coming years will be spread widely. The biggest scheme at present is DP World’s expansion of London Gateway, which is more than £1 billion of investment on its own. This is focused on container berths and rail freight facilities. Another notable investment is the new £400 million port development in the highlands to recreate the dormant Port of Ardersier, which will target the offshore wind market as a major hub for the North Sea.
Ports matter not only because they are the gateway for the UK’s international trade, and are broadly self-financed, but because they are key employers in our often-disadvantaged coastal communities.
I particularly welcome the fact that the statement fundamentally recognises the value of the sector as structured, with a number of different ownership models, but essentially private and very competitive. I believe the continued presumption in favour of port development and the support for a market-led approach is the right course, backing our successful ports and their managements. Overcapacity in each market segment now appears to be an explicit policy aim, rather than a welcome side-effect of a market-led approach. New capacity can stimulate increased demand. This will all drive growth, the Government’s key objective.
But this continued presumption in favour of port development and a market-led approach has very important implications for security, defence and national resilience. The UK, like so much of western Europe, faces increasing threats and grey zone activity. We all recall that in March this year the container vessel “Solong” collided with the tanker “Stena Immaculate”, which was at anchor off the Humber. The tanker was on charter to the US Military Sealift Command, carrying jet fuel for the US Air Force. The collision caused a fire and the release of aviation fuel, which then ignited. I am sure I was not alone in immediately thinking that this was no accident. However, my understanding subsequently is that it was a most unfortunate accident. The fact that the emergency services performed superbly should not blind us to the realisation of what might have happened.
I chair the Maritime Security Advisory Group, a small group whose aim is to increase awareness of the vulnerability of the UK in key areas such as international cables; undersea oil and gas pipelines and infrastructure; electricity interconnectors; offshore wind turbines and their shore connections; and, of course, ports themselves. Just imagine for a moment if the “Stena Immaculate” had, as a result of the collision, shifted position and moved in the direction of one of the communities or numerous installations that line the Humber. Or imagine if the vessel had sunk in one of the channels. There could have been major economic disruption, and even loss of life.
Of course, as an island the UK has a very long coastline. The scope for a hostile state or actor to inflict profound regional or national damage is enormous. The UK is very vulnerable given the very extended coastline, the subsea infrastructure and the ports. The more our ports expand and compete under the new strategy, with growing capacity giving wider options, the better.
The NPSfP is to be warmly welcomed not only for boosting growth but, importantly, for directionally boosting national resilience, but the policy could do more. Ports are not merely gateways for international freight. The policy could seek more actively to support port developments that address wider non-volume, non-traditional cargo activities. For example, there is enormous potential provided by renewable energy, the cruise trade—3 million passengers per year are passing through—and logistics development. Offshore wind remains a huge opportunity for the UK and will require significant expansion of port infrastructure, much of it highly specialised.
Meeting the requirements of the offshore wind industry should be accorded a higher priority by Government. A legitimate concern is that this opportunity has not been grasped more strongly earlier. Ports are designated as a foundational industry in the Government’s industrial strategy; it is of the upmost importance that they support growth and competitiveness, ensuring that the UK remains an attractive destination for global shipping businesses.
I know the industry feels that a higher important should be accorded to port investment. There are a number of actions that could help in the area of planning. First, the policy could be made more effective if planning policymakers were required to take account of it as a material consideration when drafting development plans, marine plans or other plan-making documents. Secondly, it should identify port operators and statutory harbour authorities as formal statutory consultees in the plan-making process. Thirdly, it could better protect the role of ports and their paths to future development through including or strengthening in the policy the status of the NPSfP against other national policy statements, giving ports mandatory consultee status in relevant development proposal assessments and ensuring that ports are better recognised within strategic spatial planning. Finally, the NPSfP— this acronym is worse than the one for the Caribbean trade agreement—should place greater emphasis on the importance of port connectivity, as road and rail development projects that are particularly significant for the movement of goods to and from ports can clearly reference the NPSfP in their proposals.
I also draw attention to the lack of measures to support alternative fuels, along with necessary shore power for vessels as well as the essential grid upgrades that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. In a week when the IMO will be debating and voting on its net-zero proposals for shipping, I ask the Minister if there should not be a stronger alignment proposed with international frameworks such as the IMO net-zero framework and the FuelEU maritime regulation.
My final point is that the industry feels that greater recognition should be given to the scope for UK ports to act as trans-shipment hubs for Europe and more distant locations. In conclusion, the call made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for a more fundamental review has much merit.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I want to lay out my involvement in global ship-borne trade, terminal operations and the associated professions. My private business trades from two terminals—the Port of Sunderland, a council-owned deep-water port, and Great Yarmouth, which is a trust port. Both are on the east coast. Through a joint venture I bring tankers of liquid nitrogen fertiliser up to 50,000 tonnes deadweight to Sunderland. A YouTube video of one of our most recent shipments has had over 50,000 views, which I am very pleased with. I received the draft bill of lading for my latest shipment last night, so I know what the global shipping trade is all about.
The draft policy starts from the premise that developments in trade should be underpinned by commercial principles and should be market led. That is absolutely right, but if only it were that simple. Not all ports operate on the same statutory or capital structure, so the purity of that market-led approach is not quite what the policy would have you believe—mainly because it fails to recognise that particularly the trust ports, the largest cohort, are constrained in their ability to borrow, which constrains their ability to expand. I was with the chief executive of the Port of Dover last week and he made that point very powerfully; his credit card is maxed out. The policy needs to have regard to the particular needs of trust ports as opposed to the other operators.
That should not be a problem but the capital and structural differences between the ports have led to an oligopolist situation. It was just referred to by my noble friend who said that the top 20 operators have 80% of the market. That is resulting in a lack of competition where, by any measure, UK ports are uncompetitive against our near continental neighbours. This is important to the point about trans-shipments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.
I asked a colleague in my industry trade body to provide me with some figures for the landed cost of bulk commodities onto the quayside for two commonly used ship types, based on the rack rate. First, for a 4,000-tonne deadweight dry bulker, compared to ARAG —Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp or Ghent—UK ports are between 88% and 189% more expensive on the east coast and 213% more expensive on the south coast. For a much larger deep-water 35,000-tonne deadweight handysize bulk vessel, it is between 123% and 200% more expensive on the UK east coast, 250% more expensive on the south coast and a whopping 502% more expensive on the west coast. In cash terms, it is £62,000 for Amsterdam and £311,000 for Liverpool.
That is a problem—a £0.25 million problem—for the UK economy, but this competitive disadvantage is not referred to in the policy at all. It should be, because it is damaging our ability to trade with and earn our place in the world, especially as we are now able to operate our own independent trade policy with, for many commodities, a tariff advantage of 6.5% over the EU default on some goods. It is in everyone’s interest that we leverage this comparative advantage, but we cannot do so because we are under-ported and the policy does not mention it anyway. At this rate, we will never get to the expected 62.5% increase in dry bulks. I am doing my best to arrest the decline in liquid bulk traffics—a number that does not intuitively sound right to me given the huge volumes of LNG coming through Milford Haven, but I shall put that point to one side.
The case for new ports and port infrastructure is made. We cannot carry on without a dramatic increase in capacity and other break-bulk opportunities. We have a fleeting moment of comparative advantage to seize, so we must do it. However, we are here today because the 2012 policy has not worked. I am grateful for the short briefing from the British Ports Association, which told me that, since the existing policy was published in 2012, only four consequential consents have been issued. I take that at face value. The policy highlights a number of pre-2012 extant consents that have not been built. The UK’s ports infrastructure is sort of beached, so we have to ask why. With all the obvious demand, have we made it just too difficult to expand existing ports or build new ones? Will the draft policy make it easier or harder to expand the ports that our country needs?
Moving on, I am very surprised—here, I support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that the policy makes no reference to the astonishing ecosystem multiplier that supports the ports in terms of, for the most part, privately operated businesses, stevedores, cargo surveyors, ships’ agents, hauliers, warehouses, freight forwarders and customs agents, to name but a few. It is a massive sector, but the port policy is silent on this. I cannot understand that.
Also, in my view, the policy fails in its analysis to make the distinction between the ports; the harbour authorities, which maintain the navigations and provide pilotage, dredging and so on; and the terminal operators, which occupy land and quaysides within a port from which they ply their private trade. The preamble is completely incomplete in this regard, and the order of battle is misunderstood. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in calling for a more fundamental redesign and recasting of this policy in order to reflect the richness and texture of the industry, rather than just copying and pasting a policy that has not, sadly, yielded fruit since 2012.
I consider myself a terminal operator. My experience tells me why the UK does not have the dynamic ports and logistics infrastructure that we might have. Back in 2019, I wanted to build a terminal in the north-east to handle liquid fertilisers. There was a significant upfront capital cost for tanks and a new local market to build from scratch. It was a risky operation. I could not go to the big five ports—this is a problem—because they will lease you land for only 15 or 20 years. Investing millions up front, only to hand the asset back to the landlord after 180 months so that he can punt the opportunity on to someone else using infrastructure that you built and paid for—as well as the market that you built—was not a good business strategy. The fact is that the terms offered by most UK ports do not make it easy for private operators to make long-term, generational investment decisions to build businesses and trades. There is not enough choice or competition.
We went to the Port of Sunderland, a council-owned port where we were able to enter into a much more long-term partnership that made it easy for my business to develop a patient plan to build a market and be rewarded for it. You might say that this is a case of the market-based approach working, and you would be right. However, for every Port of Sunderland—I cannot praise it highly enough for its can-do attitude and customer focus—there are dozens of less accommodating take-it-or-leave-it ports, unconcerned about competition because there is such a structural shortage of supply. That is a problem that this policy should grip; we have a market failure in that terminal operators are unable to secure premises on a long leasehold or freehold basis in the UK to grow our trade.
Just as an aside—I am looking at the clock— I welcome the points about freeports, but I express surprise that the opportunity for customs warehouses has not been appropriately recognised. A customs warehouse is like a freeport but just for a single warehouse or individual terminal located within a port estate. I have one of these, and I want to give credit to HMRC and thank it for putting its shoulder to the wheel to drive my trade forward. It is invidious to name names, but the trade taxes team in Manchester know who I am talking about. There is a part of the state that understands the need for trade and works collaboratively and positively. That opportunity for customs warehouses should be publicised more. I am astonished that it is not at all in the policy.
I support the broad thrust of the first 16 pages of the policy. I would suggest the re-emphasis of some points, but I think we can all agree that ports are important, that we are under-ported and that we need more competition. We are missing out on global trade, and we need to have a wider variety of types of tenures in a market-led approach. This is the lens through which I approach the 66 pages that follow that essential preamble. Oh dear. Very briefly, we have nine pages talking about how an applicant might confidently demonstrate the commercial, wealth-creation, tax-generating economic and socioeconomic benefits of a proposal, then we have 57 pages on the need for various appraisals, surveys and analysis, attempting to prove the unproveable. It is all very worthy and well meaning, but wholly counterproductive and at odds with the overarching imperative to get the trade flowing and the economy moving.
I read it again, and I suppose that I should have taken comfort from paragraph 2.4.2, where it says that
“the Secretary of State should start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications”,
which is good,
“unless other policies in this NPS provide a clear reason for refusal”,
which is bad. After the nine positive pages, the trouble is that on every one of those 57 pages that follow is a clear reason to refuse an application for reasons that can be confected. The cumulative effects of any of them are enough to topple any proposal into the drink.
We have been sitting through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and a lot of the well-meaning but counterproductive proposals in Part 3 will slow down development, not speed it up. I would like noble Lords to listen to my following remarks through the lens of the Chancellor—I cannot believe that I am saying this —quoted today in the Times on the day the Government have apparently consigned much of the nature-based bureaucracy to the deep. She says:
“The outdated planning system has been gummed up by burdensome bureaucracy and held to ransom by blockers for too long. Our pro-growth planning bill shows we are serious about cutting red tape to get Britain building again”.
At last! I take her comments at face value, but we need to do the same with this policy.
I read the Hutchison Ports response to the consultation. Not only are so many of the outside-the-port requirements unproveable but required, even once a consent might be granted the costs of the conditions still are not known. Even if you have spent all your money on the surveys, traffic analysis and hydraulic predictions and got your consent, you still have no idea what it might cost. It is only at that point the bills start coming in.
You have to question the value of some of these surveys. In Gorleston-on-Sea, from where I take my territorial designation, they built an outer harbour in the early 2000s. I remember that there were dire predictions from the world’s leading hydrological practice that Gorleston beach would be scoured away, and that warning held up the proposal for many years. The harbour has been built, and the beach is as wide as it has ever been—it is the beach at Hopton just down the coast that has copped it. The crime is that so many people believed the expensive report in the first place. Here lies the problem—an expensive report based on arbitrary precision and dodgy modelling misdirected the whole investment process. Is it any wonder that we have not had a significant new port development delivered in the last 15 years? Will this policy make it any easier?
The whole tone of the policy presupposes that ports are, by their very nature, bad things for the environment. That is a false premise. Keeping shipping channels open with dredging speeds the flow of water out to sea and removes sedimentary contaminants. The wildlife habituates. That is not an argument for no regulation, but we need to return to a sense of proportion and the £1.2 billion spent on environmental reports for the lower Thames crossing proves we have gone too far. We just cannot afford it.
Biodiversity net gain sounds so nice, and it is good on land, but it is totally unproven and unprovable in the tidal marine context. While we try and work it all out, the key deals for wind turbine installation and oil rig decommissioning are all being sorted out over the water by 2028. We are at risk of missing the boat— absolutely. Then I read that there are restrictions on port development in flood zones. Guess what? Show me a port that is not in a flood zone. That is not well meaning; that is wholly counterproductive.
The NSIP process, although welcome, is not going to help that much because it is not going to whittle down those 57 pages into a more sensible number. It is less wading through mud, more like stuck in the mud. It is like the whole policy was written by the Dutch—that other great seafaring nation; a competitor nation that is not known for its ambivalence towards the environment or environmental protections, and much of which is beneath sea level.
We have a document that pays lip service to economic development but strangles it in red tape. It is a statutory charter for the objectors and blockers. As the Chancellor said this morning, we need to show investors that we are a country that gets spades in the ground and our economy moving. What to do? We need to think hard about this policy and how serious we are about growing the economy, driving global trade and earning our place in the world. The policy proposal places so many risk factors and hurdles that only those with the deepest pockets can contemplate expanding their port. That wipes out the trust ports and the smaller private ports.
Consultees broadly welcome the draft presumption in favour of port development, and so do I, but it must be bolstered with a sequential test that starts with the overwhelming weight of port development that our island nation requires—a clear presumption in favour of trust ports obviously, with weight given to safety and security. While you need to sacrifice some small areas to grow the economy insofar as the environment is concerned, there should be an overriding recognition that sea freight is the most environmentally benign form of transport and the leveraging of existing infrastructure, such as a more intensive use of existing channels. This is clearly a mitigation to which nature has habituated.
Lord Fuller (Con)
If we are really serious about growth in the UK ports sector, I ask the Minister to take a knife to the now-discarded copy-and-paste parts from Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. A significant rewrite is indicated, and I think there is a consensus on that among noble Lords in this debate. Otherwise, we will have another lost decade in ports, with trade drag-anchored 20 years back. We should be the seagull soaring. Unless there is a rewrite, this policy will be an albatross around our neck.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, we are a maritime nation. I first understood the importance of this in my role as Transport Minister in the previous Government, when I was given one of those responsibilities that nobody else really wanted—to look after the EU exit preparedness work.
In that role, I also got another dodgy promotion; I was promoted to be the Minister for Kent, despite representing beautiful Redditch in Worcestershire. My brief was to keep cross-channel traffic moving via Dover Port and to support hauliers. In that capacity, I brought forward the heavy commercial vehicles in Kent orders underpinning Operation Brock and the Kent access permit to protect communities and keep trade flowing. When France closed its border a day or so before Christmas that year, the “Keep Dover Clear” plan helped to restore movement and clear thousands of HGVs. Little did I know that, in that role, I would suddenly become an expert in ordering Portaloos for lorry drivers to be situated at the side of all the dual carriageways. I hope they will thank me now. I will end this digression, but I hope it illustrated why I know how important not only Dover but our other ports are. As many noble Lords have said, these vital arteries handle around £122 billion worth of trade in a normal year. A delay at one port can impact the movement of people and freight across the UK.
This debate is not a political hot potato; we all want to give our ports the certainty to invest. Their success means supply chain resilience, lower costs for British consumers and, of course, growth and jobs. This statement brings a much-needed update to the planning framework for our ports. I know that it has been widely welcomed by the port sector, which I commend for its pragmatism and flexibility over the years. I also add my support for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, with his detailed, front-line commercial business experience and his industry background. I really look forward to the Minister’s response to the gaps in this policy that the noble Lord highlighted. I will broadly base my comments in this debate on the evidence given by the sector, Ministers and officials in the hearings before the Transport Select Committee, which highlighted a few gaps and missed opportunities.
We all know that in any planning policy the overriding objective should be to balance planning acceleration, clarity and certainty with community consultation and any adverse impacts on coastal ecosystems and residents. I very much agree with some of the points made about the lack of linkage and read-across to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will shortly return to this House for Report. In my opinion, and as noted by the committee, there is no interaction in this policy statement with the proposed new environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levies proposed in that Bill. For example, it is not clear whether EDPs would provide a model for or supersede the ideas around the proposal for maritime net gain. Investors want certainty and clarity on this point, so would paying into an EDP interact with the ports-specific marine licensing and the habitats regulations assessment?
The draft policy statement could also do more to guide applicants and decision-makers through the interplay among the myriad environmental plans and designations that are now in place, which give the marine context such extraordinary complexity. To name just some, we have: marine protected areas, highly protected marine areas, the water framework directive regulations and the associated EA guidance Clearing the Waters for All, the Marine Strategy Regulations, the Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2022 and the environmental improvement plan 2023 targets for designated features in MPAs. Can the Minister explain whether an explicit map will be created or whether this will be simplified in guidance, regulations or legislation?
Next, I address the issue of demand and capacity. The draft statement states that, if all the already consented development schemes were built out, aggregate container capacity would be broadly in line with the “pre-recession forecast for demand”. This reference is to the recession of 2008-09, which intervened between the demand forecasts for the previous NPS and its subsequent adoption in 2012. In the view of some witnesses, this is an unnecessary historical hangover and should be removed or updated given major trade events since then and the availability of DfT forecasts from 2025. The draft recognises that additional and alternative developments might be beneficial for competition and flexibility. Of course, this is important in order not to close the door on a supportive needs case for new container development. We know the Government believe that, to encourage the total port capacity in any sector, it must exceed forecast overall demand if the sector is to remain competitive and resilient. Will the Minister look again at those capacity forecasts?
On the environment, we have been told by witnesses that there are air quality tests, BNG and the maritime net gain that I referred to earlier. Industry wants a single playbook across the many designations to cut duplication and delay. Noble Lords have also spoken about the multitude of pages and reports that are necessary for planning applications.
There is something referred to as the FLOW gap in this document. While offshore wind, in the NPS EN-3, often treats energy infrastructure with a high priority, the ports needed to supply it are not afforded the same elevated designation in this ports NPS. Floating offshore wind loading requires heavy lift cranes, large quays with wide access channels, wet storage and high-load berths. Many ports do not have these, so the upgrade demands are intensive. Will the Minister review the supporting policy statements and the support for this critical opportunity?
This policy statement also says that we should update the national policy statements every five years and streamline consultation. Witnesses said that the ports NPS should say that explicitly and set concise theme-based consultation expectations for applicants, so they can truly benefit from the time savings that Parliament intended.
I have one final point. There is a suggestion, with which I agree, that the NPSP should apply fully to Section 35 directed projects. This was heard by the committee, where witnesses highlighted the ambivalent treatment of Section 35 cases and urged a clear line: if a ports project is brought into the Planning Act regime by direction, the ports NPS should apply in full.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments on all of those points and thank noble Lords for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in the gap. Unlike many noble Lords, I very much welcome this document. The Government have done pretty well in getting this far, because it is incredibly complicated, but I have a few questions, which I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to answer.
The first issue—it is pretty obvious, I suppose—is how far this policy applies to Scotland and Wales. My noble friend the Minister mentioned Scotland briefly but, as we all know, there are some very big ports in Scotland. Wales has a large number of ports as well; some of them are pretty large and some of them think that they will get even bigger when the new offshore wind farms are built somewhere in the Celtic Sea. It would be nice to know about the scope of this document in those two countries.
Along with that, I would be interested to know who will be in charge. This week, I was a bit surprised to see a press release saying that the lower Thames tideway tunnel is going to be built not by the Department for Transport, because it is not capable, but by the Government. I thought that the Department for Transport was government. It is a good department, but this is an odd way of saying who will be in charge of the budget, or who will be in charge when things do or do not go well.
On my other worry, most of the discussion in this debate has been about energy; the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, started it. Energy is a terribly important element of input/output, et cetera. I am involved in a hydro scheme—or whatever it is—for passenger services between the Isles of Scilly and the mainland, which is entirely electric. It is charged at each end, and it has enough power to get across the 25 miles of rough sea in the middle. There are many other ones that could continue like this, and I hope that the Government will continue to encourage them.
My worry is that the document does not appear to include many energy projects; as I understand it, those have been left to the energy NPS. For ports, they cover everything, as noble Lords have said. However, it is difficult to get things through the so-called planning approval process for ports. You have all kinds of people saying, “You can’t do this because of that, and you cannot do that because of the other”. We had this off the coast of Penzance last year, when somebody said that you could not run a ferry over the sea because there was eel grass underneath it. It was 10 metres down—how serious can the grass get? Years ago, the Environment Agency told me that one could not run new services into the Isles of Scilly because they were entirely covered by a local environmental protection order. I asked, “Are people going to starve, then?” The agency said, “No, it’s just difficult”. I said, “Well, it works on the continent. It is in European legislation”. We really have to sort all this out.
My last point is on forecasts, because the Government say that they would like to take keep control of all the forecasts themselves, but that is wrong. The ports should be given a major role to play in telling everyone what their forecast is, and if the Government do not like it, there can be a debate. But it is important that that is done by the private sector, which is, after all, in charge of all the different cargoes that go in and out of ports. I wish this project well and congratulate the Government on producing it.
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, for domestic reasons, I was unable to put my name down to speak today. I should like to make just a couple of quick observations. Much has been talked about electricity, both for powering ships and transport within ports. I agree entirely with the noble Lord who spoke about this. The grid is the problem; there simply is not the capacity in it. Remember that if we are going to get ships to turn off their generators in port to stop pollution, they will have to plug into the normal electricity supply. How many other people are going to be adding to that supply? We have electric cars, electric this and electric that. AI, of course, is going to use more electricity than anybody has even thought of. It is not going to be easy.
Southampton, our largest cruise port, has been looking at shore supply of electricity for it for some time. It probably has one provision operating now, but if five large cruise ships were in port, as they are today, with 150,000 tonne ships all plugging in, Southampton would lose its electricity. It is as simple as that. So we have a long way to go there.
My other observation is slightly tongue in cheek. We have a robust ports industry. We are an island. In general, the ports do a good job. I remind the Committee that it was largely due to two Members of this House that the ports are in that position today. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who was Secretary of State in the Commons at the time, and Lord Brabazon, who was Shipping Minister, were two of the only six people who knew that the iniquitous dock labour scheme was going to be abolished. The unions were caught on the hop; they called a token strike, which lasted two or three weeks then fizzled out. It is largely due to those two Members of this House that our ports are in the pretty good position that they are in today.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this debate on the amended national policy statement for ports, the continuation of the presumption in favour of port development and the market-led approach based on demand. Some important points have been raised by noble Lords in this debate. I particularly support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about grid capacity for ports. It is an important issue.
A lot has happened since the previous statement was produced back in 2012 and designated under the Planning Act 2008. It is absolutely right that the Government are amending it at this time. Perhaps they should go further, as my colleague, my noble friend Lady Scott, mentioned. Overall, the amended national policy statement for ports is welcome. However, there are some clear opportunities to properly address short- comings in a number of areas.
Many in the sector feel strongly that the revised statement should reflect the industrial strategy underlining the role of ports as foundational to the UK economy and, crucially, affording ports critical national priority designation. If low-carbon energy projects and the energy NPS are granted critical national priority status, why not ports or port projects that directly support strategic national priority energy schemes? Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s thinking.
One concern that has been expressed to me is that ports are far more than just gateways through which freight volumes travel and that the statement could better support tonnage-light development, which still supports economic growth and jobs, such as renewable energy, cruise and logistics development, as other noble Lords mentioned.
A major concern is around port connectivity, which needs to be strengthened in the statement. Rail and, in some cases, road projects are needed to help move goods to and from ports. A stronger emphasis on transport connectivity would help support such developments, particularly in the link to rail freight, modal shift and the development of Great British Railways. The statement recognises that much of the tonnage is concentrated in a small number of ports, with the top 15 ports accounting for around 80% of the UK’s total traffic. This makes rail highly relevant, yet it does not feature strongly enough, as has already been highlighted by my noble friend Lady Scott.
The statement feels like a missed opportunity to advance decarbonisation and modal shift. Ports seem to be considered in isolation from the rest of the supply chain activity, yet they are among the largest generators of freight traffic. Ports should be used to drive change in the economy and the environment—therefore, I would have liked to have seen a greater focus on transport connectivity and onward rail transport links. Will this area be further reviewed by the Government?
The revised draft restates the position that there is a compelling need for additional port capacity over the next 30 years to respond to forecast growth in volumes for all commodity types, to support offshore energy and ensure competition and indeed resilience—something on which I am sure we all agree.
I must thank a number of organisations, which have briefed me on the key issues in the sector, including Midlands Connect, Associated British Ports and RenewableUK. One issue that came up time and time again is that the amended statement does not provide the greater certainty needed by the sector to meet the demand for floating offshore wind—FLOW. Ports are expected to play a pivotal role in transitioning to net zero and FLOW will need bespoke port facilities, as we have heard from other speakers. More focus is therefore needed on the future of FLOW development, as the UK does not currently have the required port infrastructure to develop industrial-scale FLOW development. The finalised statement should provide clarity to decision-makers in this area.
Can the Minister also update the Committee on what actions are being taken via the Crown Estate’s supply chain accelerator programme? As I have already mentioned, one key anomaly is that the nationally significant infrastructure project threshold for ports does not suit port infrastructure upgrades critical for offshore wind development. I ask the Government again to consider this type of infrastructure as a critical national priority, which would mirror the approach to offshore infrastructure and associated cabling.
I welcome that impact assessments need to be updated to reflect environmental legislation, as well as to introduce the concept of marine net gain. Given this ambition, what support will the Government provide to guide applicants through the range of plans that now exist for marine areas? Although it is outside the direct scope of the document, this policy has a crucial role in supporting regional and local port schemes that fall beneath the thresholds. To that end, and following points raised at the Commons Transport Committee, what will the Government do to ensure that the document is given due consideration by all planning authorities when considering future port schemes?
What consideration has been given to strengthening the monitoring measures, with a requirement for either annual parliamentary reporting or monitoring conducted by an independent body such as the OEP? One final question that remains is how this reads across to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently making its way through Parliament, in particular in areas such as environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy. Will this statement need updating again shortly? I await the Minister’s response to my questions with interest.
Lord Moylan (Con)
We have had a pretty devastating critique of all sides of this document in this debate. The revisions were initiated by the previous Government with a view to promoting a thriving, modern port sector, but it has emerged under this Government as something of a damp squib. Even the Minister does not seem to think that it has much content. I listened to his speech carefully, and he delivered the preamble very well, telling us all about the procedural history of the document—including even the dates on which the Select Committee in the other place had taken evidence. I expected him to go on to tell us about what the document actually said, the main changes that it was going to make and how it was going to achieve the Government’s growth agenda—but he just sat down at that point. That is because the document is wholly inadequate to the challenges and opportunities.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan spoke about the grid connections and the need to increase them, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, spoke about rail and road connectivity and other matters of that sort. I am not summarising the whole debate—but my noble friends Lord Mountevans and Lord Fuller added devastatingly to her critique, on the basis of very considerable knowledge. My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch pointed out that the NPSP lives in a sort of parallel universe, with no connection to the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which we are debating in a different forum at this very moment—from day to day, in the course of this week. It does not seem to do the job.
Ports are central to the economy of this country; they handle the overwhelming majority of our trade and act as gateways for energy and manufacturing, providing employment and opportunities in coastal communities. They are strategic national infrastructure without which growth, resilience and security cannot be delivered. What marks out the United Kingdom port sector is the environment in which it operates. It is unsubsidised, competitive and dynamic—well, reasonably dynamic if one believes what my noble friend Lord Fuller said; perhaps some parts of it need a little shaking up.
When a port expands, develops a new terminal or invests in green technology, it does so with private capital and at its own risk, which means that the framework set by the Government must not disincentivise investment. We support that approach to the provision of ports in this country; we do not want to go back to the disaster of nationalised ports—and the mention of the dock labour scheme by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, reminds one of the horrors that existed on those occasions. But to be successful and invest, the ports need some sort of certainty.
The current planning system is, frankly, far too complex. Ports have to navigate local planning authorities, marine licensing regimes, environmental regulators and in some cases the national infrastructure planning process; the result is fragmentation, duplication and delay. We could look to a document like this to start removing those problems, but it does nothing—it changes nothing of any real significance at all. Time and again, applicants face the uncertainty of competing judgments from different authorities.
This is no small matter—every delay in planning ties up capital, weakens competitiveness and deters future proposals. In a sector where operators already carry full commercial risk, that uncertainty is corrosive. If an operator is prepared to risk its own capital within the bounds of environmental and safety law, that willingness should be taken as compelling evidence of need. That principle is acknowledged in the draft statement, but it must be made stronger and clearer. Forecasts have a role in setting context, but they must never be allowed to become shackled or allow the planning system to be used to constrain investment.
The draft statement includes national freight forecasts. As background, they are useful, but they are no more useful than if anybody else commissioned a national freight forecast from a reputable body. There is nothing particularly insightful about them simply because they are published by the Government, but they must not be allowed to become constraints. To treat them as in some ways binding would be to undermine the very responsiveness that has been a defining feature of the port sector in this country.
Somebody a moment ago—forgive me if I forget which noble Lord—said that to have competition you need some surplus capacity. Tying the system to forecasts would be fatal in that regard. Ports operate in fast-moving competitive markets; they must be able to respond to emerging opportunities, such as hydrogen, carbon shipping and storage, offshore renewables and international redistribution. But they must continue simply to feed us and provide us with the goods that we depend on day to day. All these wonderful, environmental, green things are very important, but we fundamentally depend on this: 40% of our food is imported into this country and a lot of it comes on ships. A lot of other heavy goods also come here. This cannot be captured adequately on backward-looking models by this sort of forecast. If every scheme is required to prove its case against centrally produced forecasts, we will miss opportunities that are vital to the future of the economy.
The draft statement acknowledges that it is for each port to take its own commercial view of demand and to bear its own risks. That is the correct principle, and it must be reinforced clearly throughout the final document. Building capacity and resilience ahead of demand is not speculative extravagance; it is a strategic necessity if the UK is to withstand shocks to supply chains and maintain competitiveness. I was horrified by the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Fuller on the costs of landing goods at different ports in this country compared with a serious network of major ports facing us across the North Sea.
We come then to energy. Ports stand ready to enable cleaner growth from shore power, electrification and new fuels, but cannot do this while electricity prices in the United Kingdom remain among the highest in Europe. They are not among the highest actually; they are the highest—driven in part by layers of environmental regulations. Nor can they deliver if grid connections are delayed year after year. The outcome is perverse: a policy environment that speaks of net zero with urgency but in practice deters the very investment needed to achieve it.
I put three questions to the Minister. First, will he confirm that the forecasts in the final statement will be contextual only and not determinative nor taken by the planning system as being determinative, and that promoters will be free to take their own view of need? Secondly, what steps will the Government take to bring down electricity costs and accelerate grid connections so that ports can invest in green infrastructure rather than being held back by policy-driven costs? Thirdly, how does this document fit in with the Chancellor’s ambition, which she stated in a Written Statement on 17 March this year? I quote:
“To reset the UK’s regulatory landscape and achieve this vision, the government will implement a package of reforms over the Parliament that focus on … tackling complexity and reducing the burden of regulation, including that the government will commit to reducing the administrative costs of regulation for businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament”.
Is the port sector going to benefit from that pledge and why does it not appear in this document as a driving consideration?
The port sector needs a framework that provides clarity, consistency and proportion. If the national policy statement delivers these qualities, ports will invest boldly, they will innovate and they will support the growth and resilience that this country needs. But if the statement leaves ambiguity, lacks ambition, constrains investments or piles systemic obligations onto individual schemes, we will deter the very capital on which future prosperity depends.
Looked at as a narrow planning document, this might just work—but as a vision of the ports system that we want to see in this country, it fails systematically and comprehensively. I do not think I am going too far in saying that the tenor of this debate is that the Government should take this away, start again and come back with something that sets a real vision for ports that will serve us well into the future.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is fitting that, in calling the debate, the House has recognised the importance of the port sector in England and the UK as a whole. Our ports are essential to our trade and our economy, and it is important that they should have a stable, clear planning framework that respects commercial judgment and the competitive setting that has successfully nurtured investment over the years, while at the same time providing for not only environmental protection but environmental enhancement.
Noble Lords will recognise the consultative nature of the draft policy and of this Grand Committee debate, and the range of representations made across the consultation and in the hearings of the Transport Select Committee in the other place. All of those will be considered by the Secretary of State. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I was not going to take the time of this Committee or test the patience of those attending it, some of whom are very well versed in ports, by going through the document in detail. I will attempt to deal with many of the points that have been raised, but, for any that I fail to deal with, I will write.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others raised important points about energy supply, power supply and new technologies. I listened carefully to what he said, because it was very well argued. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Greenway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also raised those points. We will go away and further consider this. There are energy national policy statements that will deal with the supply of energy, and the Government are working with the energy supply companies, but I very much take on board the rapidly changing nature of energy supply and, therefore, the need for this policy to recognise those opportunities and for us as a nation and the Government to take advantage of what ports can propose to do. The answer to the question of whether we are open-minded to all forms of new energy is that we are; some are immature and therefore need to evolve, but it would be daft, frankly, not to have regard to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, and others about taking this in hand.
I recognise the extensive experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, at Harwich. We must do this national strategy now because it has not been done since 2012. There is an opportunity to do something more fundamental in the future, but, having not had one for 13 years, the Government intend to get it more up to date to enable port development to be more easily examined through the planning processes and hence go forward more quickly than it otherwise might have done. I take the point, also made by others, that it could be more fundamentally reworked, but the Government are committed to doing something now because, although I hear criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and others, the previous Government do not seem to have had regard to this strongly. They started the process but did not finish it, and our job is to finish this sooner rather than later and then do it regularly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and other noble Lords raised the matter of connectivity to ports. As in other boundary areas between this and the national policy statements, we must take a view on what is covered in which area. I absolutely recognise the proposition that ports need good road and rail connections. As she and other noble Lords will know, we were challenged in the rail enhancements programme simply by the current state of the economy. Proposals that would improve freight routes to ports were not taken forward, but they have not been removed from the plans for ever; they will be considered further. In the meantime, there is consideration of further rail connections at London Gateway—I spoke to DP World about them the other day—so we are thinking about those areas and recognise the importance of those connections. The use of port master plans is primarily for early engagement with communities and planning authorities. We will think further about how much more useful they might be. I recognise what the noble Baroness said.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to important issues around security. We fully agree that, with the current state of international relations and modern technology, we should be very mindful of security. Indeed, this policy is designed fully to include security considerations. He referred to the recent ship collision in the North Sea; it was an unfortunate collision but it was not motivated by security considerations, although we obviously recognise that it could have been. We are mindful of that.
We are also mindful of the need for local authorities to recognise the importance of ports. Indeed, one of the strengths in renewing this document is our renewed commitment to draw this issue to the attention of appropriate local authorities so that they are fully engaged with the development and importance of ports —including the critical nature of ports for all communities in Britain, particularly in the communities where they are placed.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, clearly has intimate knowledge of this sector; I recognise and respect what he says. He is, as many people who are close to these subjects might be, more critical of how this works in practice and how it might work. The best thing I can do is take away his detailed comments and consider them carefully, bearing in mind his long and current experience. I would say that there is no legal impediment to long leases—take, for example, the recent development in Southampton—but I am not going to challenge anything he says, other than to say that the Government are anxious to make the best of this. We will listen carefully to what he has to say. The intention of this policy is to make port development easier and better. We will reflect carefully on what the noble Lord has to say and see what we can do about the points that he raises.
I welcome the general support given by a number of noble Lords in this discussion. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, raised the relationship with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The answer to this is that the Government intend to make things easier to do. This is very complicated; it is not a subject that has been tackled by previous Governments, but this Government are determined to do it. The relationship between these proposals and elements of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill needs to be considered carefully. The final ports strategy will relate to, and be relevant to, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which noble Lords will recognise is going through this House as we speak.
There is a point about the use of forecasts, which is that the forecasts in here are those from Government, but they are not constraints—a point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Applicants are welcome to make their own forecasts. The Government should have some forecasts about port usage, but there is no universal knowledge, so applicants are welcome to make their own. We are going to think about doing more with floating offshore wind farms. The point about FLOW from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and others is well taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about Scotland, which has its own policies so this document does not and should not refer to it. He too referred to the interaction with other policies. We must draw a line somewhere about which national policy statements deal with which issues, and we are expecting the energy national policy statement.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to grid capacity, which I mentioned before. The Government are working with power suppliers. It is clearly an important part of the Government’s energy policy to have enough capacity on the grid and the connections into places that need it in order to supply the power that is so obviously needed, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked me to reflect on the connection between this national policy statement for ports and the industrial strategy, and I will do so. She raised several other matters that I have already dealt with in terms of onward transport and the capacity of road and, in particular, rail. She raised the matter of the Crown Estate; the department works closely with it. She also raised offshore wind, on which I have already commented. I recognise that she also raised some points about the connection between this policy statement and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will go away and make sure that the statement is consistent with the outcome of that Bill’s consideration in the House.
The intention of the national policy statement is to make it easier for applicants who want to expand ports to do so. That has to be considered at the point of revising the statement. It is not the intention—other noble Lords suggested that it might be—to make this more complex. The outcomes of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and of this national policy statement are clearly designed to enable those who own and operate ports to more easily expand them in order to deal with the commercial development of port traffic.
Finally, the glass of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is definitely half empty this afternoon. I do not recognise some of the things that he is talking about. In any event, I should say to him very quietly but probably persistently, that if the previous Government thought that this was so bad and that the fragmentation of the planning system prevented the commercial development of ports, they could have done something rather more about it in their term of office than they did. Starting this process off, which is obviously the right thing to do after not having an updated statement for 13 years, is designed to make development easier and improve the commerce of this country, and hence its economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked me three direct questions at the end, the first of which was: are the forecasts contestable? Yes, they are, and applicants are welcome to use their own forecasts. Secondly, he asked: will the Government take steps on electricity costs and grid connections? They will and I have said that the Government are working with power suppliers. Thirdly, he made a comparison of this with the Chancellor’s Statement in March. The answer is that there is no inconsistency at all. The intention of revising this policy statement is to produce a clearer playing field for port expansion and development. That is exactly what the Chancellor was talking about in terms of developing trade in this country. It has not been done for 13 years. It should have been done; it is being done now, and this is the right thing to do.
West Papua: Deforestation
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to limit deforestation internationally, in particular in West Papua.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK has long been at the forefront of efforts to protect forests and halt and reverse deforestation, and we look forward to a strong focus on forests at the upcoming COP 30 in Brazil. Through our diplomacy partnerships and development programmes, we focus on forest governance, sustainable trade and investment, and mobilising finance to protect and restore forest biomes. We work across the tropics, including in the Indonesian region of Papua. We work closely with the Government of Indonesia to support sustainable development and Indonesia’s green transition.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. West Papua has some of the greatest forests in the world. Unfortunately, they are rapidly being cleared to produce coconut oil and for other agri purposes. The other dimension is, of course, that West Papua is occupied by Indonesia and there is a heavy military presence. As a result of this, sometimes the local indigenous population are pushed off their ground to make way for these plantations. Will His Majesty’s Government make representations to the Government of Indonesia—the Minister just said they work closely with them—to protect the rights of the local people? As one placard of a protest group put it, West Papua is not an empty land.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question on this important issue. The UK respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Indonesia, including the region of Papua. We support the efforts of the Indonesian authorities and civil society to address the needs and aspirations of the Papuan people. All Papuans need to benefit from the development of the region. Where we have human rights concerns, we raise them, as we have done at both ministerial and senior official level. We continue to support a visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the region. Our UK mission in Geneva raised this with the high commissioner’s office in April 2025, and we have encouraged both parties to agree dates.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, over the last two decades, we have seen the development of large-scale palm oil plantations in West Papua, and that has led to the clearance of vast swathes of primary rainforests, which are some of the most biodiverse in the world. What assessment have the Government made of the environmental and human rights impact of palm oil production in West Papua, and what steps are they taking to ensure that UK imports of palm oil are not linked to deforestation or associated abuses?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The UK is supportive of the implementation of the Indonesian sustainable palm oil standard to support Indonesia’s sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives. Agricultural expansion for a small number of commodities, as the noble Baroness rightly notes, is the biggest driver of forest loss. We need to improve the productivity of existing land to reduce pressure on the forest frontier. We need to realise more economic benefits for forest countries from preserving forests than from deforestation. The UK is supporting small farmers and the Government of Indonesia in their commitment to greater food security, and working to improve supply-chain transparency internationally. This includes supporting international partnerships and initiatives such as the Tropical Forest Alliance. The UK ODA programme promotes sustainable farming in countries such as Indonesia by working with national Governments.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, due to be launched at COP 30, is the Brazilian Government’s proposed blended finance mechanism to ensure that Governments and businesses around the world are able to provide the much-needed finance to stop the devastation deforestation causes, while making a return on their investment. This is crucial. We are not talking about loans or grants. Will the Government commit to making an investment in the TFFF when the World Bank facility opens? If not, why not?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising the Tropical Forest Forever Facility; it is a very important part of the direction of travel on this subject and we welcome Brazil’s leadership on global forest finance, climate and nature, particularly in the lead-up to COP 30. We do need to find new ways to leverage private sector investment, as I think we all agree, into forest protection, and bold new ideas such as the Tropical Forest Forever Facility are really exciting and show great promise in the eyes of the Government and others. We are working with Brazil and other partners on the design and feasibility of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility ahead of COP 30 and we are keen to make as much progress as possible. We are hoping to see prioritisation of forests as an essential part of the solution to the climate and nature crisis. The Tropical Forest Forever Facility is developing at pace, and it is testament to President Lula’s leadership that he has committed to a $1 billion investment. The UK has provided over £1 million in technical assistance.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, last week I read with concern a piece in the Times saying that No. 10 is apparently blocking a report by the Joint Intelligence Committee, which it saw as “too negative”, as it was apparently warning that we are approaching serious tipping points in the Amazon rainforest that would create food shortages as well as huge national security threats. Can the Minister tell me whether this is true, whether the report exists and whether it is going to be published?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am afraid that we do not comment on speculation. This Government are taking robust action to boost UK food security and turn the tide of nature’s decline, as well as prepare for the impacts of a changing climate and nature loss. This includes treating biodiversity loss as a security risk, investing in nature protection and restoration at home and abroad, and delivering £11.6 billion in international climate finance.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, will Ministers make clear in their discussions with Indonesia about this important issue that we absolutely recognise the territorial integrity of Indonesia, especially given its rapidly growing importance, not only in the region but internationally, as the country with the fourth-largest population in the world and as a growing economic force?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I have already said, the UK respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Indonesia, including the region of Papua. The UK is working to agree a strategic partnership with Indonesia, and we hope to make progress on that soon.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, by coincidence, this morning I had a meeting facilitated by ActionAid UK with babassu coconut-breaking women from the Cerrado in Brazil. Will the Minister acknowledge what they told me: that deforestation is associated not just with climate change and collapsing nature but, in West Papua, Brazil and elsewhere, with human rights abuses, the displacement of indigenous people, and violence against women and girls?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I have already commented on the UK’s stance on human rights in Papua, but I also recognise that, as she said, deforestation is not only associated with the climate. In fact, the biggest contributor to the growth of deforestation in recent times has been wildfires.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, under the previous Government, the UK played a key role in a number of international agreements that included measures to halt deforestation, and we passed the landmark Environment Act 2021. That demonstrates how important we think this issue is. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will seek to work with businesses in a constructive way to reduce our global impact on deforestation?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am very happy to confirm, as I have said, that the UK continues to build on the work of the previous Government at the forefront of international efforts to champion forests and tackle deforestation. I stress that mobilising finance and business for the protection of forests and the ecosystem services they provide is an essential, and perhaps the most important, part of that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that someone such as me, who has visited West Papua frequently in recent years, can have no doubt whatever about the scale of the deforestation and the fact that it is being done to plant oil palms? Can he set out what precise steps we are taking to ensure that palm oil produced in that way and as a result of deforestation does not enter the United Kingdom?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I have already commented on palm oil, but I will comment specifically on palm oil products and other forest products entering the UK. We recognise the urgency of taking action to ensure that UK consumption of forest-risk commodities is not driving deforestation, and we will set out our approach to addressing UK consumption of forest-risk commodities in due course.
Refugee Family Reunion Scheme
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the temporary suspension of new applications to a refugee family reunion scheme, what is the timeline for introducing a new route.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
This suspension is temporary while the Government undertake a review and reform of the current family reunion rules to ensure we have a fair and properly balanced system. We anticipate that any changes will come into effect from spring 2026.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for his response, but I will press him further. Recent research from Oxfam and the Refugee Council has found clear evidence of people turning to cross-channel smugglers to reach family members because they could not access a safe and legal family reunion pathway. Therefore, what dedicated family reunion pathways are being considered by the Government that will offer safe, legal and accessible alternatives to asylum seekers, and which will thereby disrupt smuggling operations?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. Anybody in the system as of 4 September will still have the same approach to asylum and family reunion claims that applied prior to the announcement by my right honourable friend. This is a pause while we review the system. Anybody can apply through any other safe and legal route, and that will be considered appropriately. In the last 12 months, there was a 368% increase in family reunion grants compared with 2022. That is not sustainable, and we need to examine the reasons for that. That is why the pause has been put in place.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, safe and legal routes have always included working with the United Nations on its various programmes. I had the honour of organising the Bosnian one in the 1990s. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the Government are still actively in touch with the United Nations to make sure that that safe and legal route is exploited where appropriate to give sanctuary to those that need it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I can say yes. The Government are always in discussion with the United Nations and will continue to be so.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the suspension of the refugee scheme until next spring presents a particular problem for unaccompanied children whose refugee parents in the United Kingdom will be making an application for them to come to the United Kingdom. What special consideration have the Minister and the Government given to those children in that regard, in this period between now and next spring?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government uphold the principle of family unity and want to ensure that we maintain that. We have to examine the reason for the significant drive in family reunion applications over the last two to three years. It is a significant increase, and therefore the pause has been applied so that we can assess the situation, look at those areas and make some recommendations for, as I said to the right reverend Prelate, spring of next year. Family reunion and safeguarding children will remain key factors. Individuals can still apply through existing safe and legal routes, but the automatic assumption, which we have now closed on a pause basis, is not going to continue until we have reviewed it.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, if I had a very suspicious mind, I would be inclined to ask the Minister whether this is an excuse for stopping family reunion altogether. I do not have such a suspicious mind all the time; I just wonder whether he can give us an assurance that this is not just a way of blocking the whole process. He will know that last night, we debated the whole thing of child and family reunion, and it will be coming up again on Report.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to my noble friend, who I very much respect on these issues, that, as he knows, between January 2015 and June 2025, 83,179 family reunion visas were granted. In 2024, nearly 20,000 individuals arrived under this route. There has been and will continue to be a massive increase in the numbers arriving. It is responsible of the Government to examine this issue, to look at the reasons why this is happening and to potentially take some steps to regularise that situation. That does not mean that we have stopped the scheme; it simply means that we have to look at why there has been a 368% increase over the previous two years in the numbers arriving.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, if refugees living in the UK can demonstrate that they are in stable employment and contributing to society, and that their families would not be dependent on public funds, will their families be allowed to join them in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As my noble friend will guess from the questions I have had to date, we paused the family reunion scheme on 4 September pending a review, and we expect to bring forward proposals by April of next year. I am not in a position to give my noble friend a foretaste of what those proposals will be, because the purpose of us pausing the scheme is to examine the reasons why the increase has happened; to look at the pressures that have brought, potentially, 18% of reunion visas from Syria, 17% from Iran and 12% from Afghanistan; to look at what the drivers of that are and at how we can provide an appropriate level of family reunion—but in a context whereby we put some more strictures on what family reunion means.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Government have rightly suspended the refugee family reunion route while they draft new rules for the scheme. The Prime Minister has said that this was because he wanted to end the
“golden ticket to settling in the UK”.
Surely, the Minister must accept that the Government’s inability to implement any meaningful policies to stop illegal migration and their failure to deter the recent small boat crossings is indeed a golden ticket?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord and I have had much discussion on this issue in the last weeks and months. He knows that we have an honest disagreement about how we control some of those issues. He is conflating family reunion and asylum claims with individuals who are potentially coming here through irregular migration by small boats, funded by criminal gangs. He knows we are putting a border command in place to tackle those gangs. He knows we are putting in place measures to criminalise that activity. He knows we are putting in measures to try to stop that, including a scheme with France and scrapping the failed Rwanda scheme. There is an honest disagreement between us, but I hope he will recognise that the Government are acting responsibly in looking at the drivers of family reunion to see if we can make an honest assessment, rather than letting the figures rise uncontrollably, as happened under the last year of the previous Government.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The definition of a family is very clear in the regulations. What kind of relative would the Government deem inappropriate, based on the evidence they have before them in the review that is taking place?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have had a lot of discussion over the last couple of days on the immigration Bill about the question of what forms a relative. Amendments have been proposed to the Bill that would allow grandparents, siblings, cousins and others to come to the United Kingdom as part of the family reunion policy. The Government have resisted those. Part of this review is to look at those very issues: who is coming, why they are coming, what their family relationship is, and why the growth has taken place. It is perfectly responsible for any Government to look at that and to say, “We’ve had an enormous increase in the last three to four years in the numbers who are coming under this route; is that appropriate?” That is what the Government are doing.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, is not the answer to why there is a surge at the moment a simple one? They see UK migration policy tightening and tightening, perhaps as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested, and that the only way they can reconcile themselves with their families is by getting in as soon as possible. Is not that the reason for the surge?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I do not wish to pre-empt the review that is taking place. We are looking at what the reasons are. The growth has occurred over the last three to four years. That might well be to do with the situation of instability in places such as Syria and Afghanistan, but use of that route has increased. It is important for any responsible Government to look at what the reasons are, the numbers involved and what the steps are to manage and assess that, and to review the criteria. That is what this Government are doing. We have paused that scheme, and nobody before that pause is affected. The applications in the system will still be considered, but post 4 September to the end of our review, there is a pause. In the meantime, as I have said to other noble Lords, individuals can apply through normal family routes to undertake a transfer to the UK should they wish and, if they meet the criteria, they will be accepted.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Given the suspension, sine die, of the refugee family reunion scheme, what advice would the Minister give to the bona fide refugee here, granted asylum status, who discovers that their son or daughter is stuck in a camp in Libya, Syria or Turkey? Their child would like to join them; they would like to have their child here. What advice would the Minister give?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The advice I would give is that there are a number of routes that individuals can apply to in order to exercise their right to join their family. Those routes are available and can be exercised, but the family reunion automatic route we have now has been paused—not, in answer to my noble friend Lord Dubs, ended—pending review, to look at the very issues that have caused the need for the review in the first place.
Prisoners: Reoffending
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to ask the Question standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
Reducing reoffending is my top priority. To break the cycle of crime, we are strengthening the rehabilitation offer in prison and the community, including increasing probation funding by 45%. We are recruiting more staff, expanding community housing and ramping up electronic monitoring—and that includes alcohol tags. Supporting prisoners into work is also something I care deeply about. Within six months of being in office, I launched regional employment councils, bringing together for the first time businesses, prisons, probation and the DWP to support offenders into work.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that very positive Answer. I do not think anyone in the House underestimates the personal and professional concern the Minister has with reducing reoffending, which is why he is probably as concerned as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I that four out of every 10 prisoners still reoffend. Can he comment on that incidence? It seems that one of the problems is that universal credit is a digital benefit, and prison restrictions on computers mean that prisoners cannot easily access computers to make benefit claims for housing or jobs, for example, until they are released. In addition, they have to provide a verifiable address, an email address and a bank account. Is it not possible for the DWP and prison staff to get together to sort out these details well in advance so that when prisoners are released they can access the benefits to which they are entitled and get help with housing and jobs? It seems to me that otherwise we are in a situation where this is going to go on indefinitely because they are bound to drift back, at great cost to themselves and to us, into reoffending.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right. We inherited a very difficult situation. Having been around prisons for 25 years, I know that we need to get to a point where it is sustainable, and that includes when people leave prison and find a job, housing and support. Since I came into the role, I have rolled out the DWP work coaches who engage with prisoners up to 12 weeks before they are released so that they get on to the system, but the other problem is whether they have a digital identity. When I was setting up the employment advisory boards, this was a clear problem, so we set up the banking and identity administrators. It is a mouthful of a job title, but they do a really important job. They get people bank accounts and driving licences, and get them on to the DWP systems. I have met a number of people in prison who, for the first time in their lives, have a bank account. But there is still much more we need to do. There are too many people leaving prison with no job and no house, and without access to alcohol and mental health treatment, as I saw in Bronzeville prison last week.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the biggest problem facing the rehabilitation work in which he has been so involved for decades now is that many of the prisons in which the training and other support is offered are overcrowded, dangerous, Victorian slums? As our incarceration rate is now the highest in Europe, thanks to the average prison sentence roughly doubling over the last few decades, would he consider reconsidering, with the Sentencing Council, the guidance given on the use of prison as a sentence to the courts? Does he agree that experience in the Netherlands and other countries where there has been enlightened reform shows that it has no adverse effect at all on the rate of offending and the crime rate in the country if incarceration rates are brought down to a more sensible level?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Having been to prisons in Holland before, it is clear that they have a different approach. With the Sentencing Bill, which will come to your Lordships’ House soon, the inspiration has been the Texas justice system, where they did things differently and crime has come down by 30% and they have closed 16 prisons. What is clear from going around our prisons—as I do most weeks—is that they are too full. Today is a good day, as they are 98.4% full. We see that as a really good result. It is very difficult for our hard-working prison staff to rehabilitate people in overcrowded conditions, but I could give your Lordships many examples of prisons that I am proud of, and the noble Lord would be proud of too, where our staff do a fantastic job, in prisons that are modern, of turning people’s lives around.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, there was a manifesto commitment to reduce reoffending through improved access to education in prison. It has just been reported that the new national management contracts for prison education involve real budget cuts on average of 20% and in the case of some contracts of up to 60%. Can the Minister explain why, as a Justice Minister, he is abandoning the Government’s manifesto promise?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Education is absolutely vital. We want people to leave prison able to read and write, and far too many do not. The education budget is not being cut; we just get less value for money. We are rebalancing because some prisons had an oversupply of education, money and staff compared with others. I do not want to walk past classrooms in prisons that are half-full; they need to be full. We need to support people in prison with digital learning as well. It is not just about education; it is about how we get people ready for when they leave prison so that they do not come back. Education is an important part of it, but so is work, housing and their health.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, in support of the initiatives that I know the Minister is very much involved with and has mentioned, could he say what progress he is making to reduce the number of prisoners being released on a Friday afternoon?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right that, in the past, that has been a significant problem. It still happens, but it happens far less. We try to release people on a Thursday, but some are still released on Fridays because of various technicalities. One of the things that I am working really hard at is getting people into housing when they are released. Over 14% of people leave prison with nowhere to live, and it is not surprising that they come back so often. For example, I was at HMP Bronzefield last week, a well-run prison. I found there that the women who are leaving with nowhere to live are coming back. The average length of stay of a woman in Bronzefield is 56 days. We need to ensure that there are more reasons why they can get out and stay out.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
How much of the £700 million promised to probation will be going to the Probation Service for more probation officers’ training and support, et cetera, and how much of it will be going to Serco for tags? The Chief Inspector of Probation, as I understand it, has yet to get a straight answer to this. If the Minister does not have the answer in front of him, perhaps he could write to me and leave a copy in the Library.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The extra £700 million for probation is a 45% increase. From what I have learned, all roads lead back to probation, and so that is where we need to focus our investment. We are recruiting 1,300 more staff and we will be recruiting more. We have not decided exactly how the money is going be split up. A lot of it will be for accommodation, some of it for tagging, and some of it for the support networks to help with mental health and work. I am confident that we can make big changes quickly, but we have to embrace digital technology. Far too much of probation officers’ time—70%—is spent doing admin, when I believe that 70% of their time should be spent face-to-face with offenders, helping them turn their lives around.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House how his approach will apply to those prisoners who are on indeterminate sentences? The frustration of being there year after year compounds the danger that, when they are released, this frustration will be taken out on the larger community, and yet there is a need for them to see daylight as soon as possible and to have some future. Can he give the House some assurance?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I believe that everybody who leaves prison should have the opportunity for a full life after they have served their punishment. We need to run prisons well, and it is difficult to run them well when they are 99.9% full. That is why our focus in the Sentencing Bill is on a sustainable justice system, so that prisons and probation can work hand in hand with the courts, the DWP and housing teams to make sure that, when people leave, they leave with confidence. We do not want people, in the lead-up to being released, to be concerned about having nowhere to live and all the other anxieties about coming out. That is one of the reasons why recall rates are still far too high.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I know the Minister is interested in particular in those prisoners with drink and drug problems. Is he aware that many of the recovery centres that operate around the country state that funding to try to keep prisoners in recovery from drink and drug problems is drying up? This is principally coming from the health service side, but the Minister has an equal interest in this. Could he explore it and try to find some assistance around these continuing problems with funding?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right; this is absolutely vital for a number of people who leave prison. Some 49% of people go into prison with drug and alcohol problems. I have set up a drug and alcohol advisory panel with Dame Carol Black and others. I have also taken it one step further: I have been to an AA meeting to see how it works, and in the next two weeks I am going to my first NA meeting. I believe that the more of those types of meetings we have in prisons, the more opportunity people will have to overcome their addictions.
Jaguar Land Rover Cyberattack
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Jaguar Land Rover cyberattack has highlighted the vital need for robust cybersecurity across the UK’s economy, which is why today the Government have written to leading companies with advice on strengthening cyber defences using tools like the Cyber Essentials scheme and the Cyber Governance Code of Practice. We strongly recommend and encourage all companies to follow this guidance. We will also introduce very soon the cyber security and resilience Bill to raise cybersecurity standards in critical and essential services such as energy, water and the NHS.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, let me say that this weekend I came back from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where there were heartfelt tributes to the work of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. He was held in very high esteem. It is one example of his dedication to defending our national interest.
One of the concerns of the NATO assembly was hybrid warfare. Attacks like that on JLR may come from nation states or they may come from individuals, but together they add up to a war on our economy that is costing billions of pounds. The National Cyber Security Centre chief executive Richard Horne said today
“Cyber security is now a matter of business survival and national resilience”.
As the Minister said, Minister Jarvis has written to large companies, but can he assure your Lordships’ House that the Government understand that information campaigns alone, like that which he has just described, are not effective? Can he tell the House that he realises that there needs to be a substantial change in gear, because attacks like the one we saw on JLR prove that what we are doing today just is not working?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, may I echo the words of the noble Lord about the late Lord Campbell? On behalf of the Government and this side of the House, I thank the late Lord Campbell for his public service to this country. He will be sorely missed in this House.
The National Cyber Security Centre has been working very closely with Jaguar Land Rover to provide support in relation to the incident. The NCSC response to the JLR incident is ongoing, but it is set to reduce as mediation takes place. Throughout the event, the NCSC has been capturing feedback to inform national and internal incident management practices. The NCSC will participate in a cross-government “lessons identified” process to review how best to improve the Government’s response, share information across partners and react to some of the unique pressures, such as those that the noble Lord mentioned. The NCSC would be happy to share aspects, depending on classification, of this process with noble Lords and other Ministers once it has been conducted.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, according to the National Cyber Security Centre’s latest report—and following on from the noble Lord, Lord Fox—in the year to September, there were 18 highly significant attacks, meaning attacks with the potential to have a serious impact on essential services. Given the increasing frequency of these attacks, can the Minister reassure the House that the Government’s plans for a centralised national digital ID database would not create a single point of potential failure, one breach away from exposing the entire British public to foreign espionage, hostile state interference or domestic data misuse?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. As far as private enterprise is concerned, the Government will not interfere in what private business organisations do. However, government can produce the tools and the guidance so that companies can have a more robust and resilient approach to cyberattacks. For example, the Cyber Governance Code of Practice shows a board of directors how effectively to manage the digital risks to the organisation. As I said earlier, all companies, if they have not done so, should conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of their digital and cybersecurity framework. They should apply for Cyber Essentials certification or the various other forms of certification and ensure that they have appropriate cyber insurance.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend has had a chance to read an interesting article in this week’s New Statesman by Oliver Pickup about the people who have so far been arrested in relation to recent cyberattacks, particularly those on Marks & Spencer and Jaguar Land Rover, noting that they are very young and that, on the whole, they have learned their skills in hacking and cybercrime through their engagement with cybergames which they start very young. Will my noble friend have a look at that article if he has not had a chance to read it? Can he tell the House in what way the Government are aware of this issue and how they are addressing it within the education system and engagement with young people?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I have not read the article, but I will surely do so. The Government recognise the major role that UK cybersecurity professionals play in enhancing and protecting UK security, and it is vital that we support them. However, the defences are pretty complex, and we need to be very careful. While there are robust safeguards and oversight, we have concerns about how any defence could be exploited by cybercriminals and significantly hinder the successful investigation and prosecution of bad actors, so the Home Office is working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre, law enforcement and industry on this issue and will provide an update in due course.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, studies indicate that between 50% and 80% of cyberattacks result in the payment of a ransom. Ransom amounts are probably well over £1 billion a year, so it is no great surprise that cyberattacks are increasing: it pays well. Have the Government considered making the payment of ransoms by both public and private sector entities illegal?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I share with noble Lords that in the UK ransomware is considered the greatest of all serious and organised cybercrime threats and is deemed a risk to the UK’s national security by the National Crime Agency. In January 2025, the Home Office launched a consultation on a package of proposals to reduce the threat that ransomware poses to the UK economy. Alongside this consultation, significant stakeholder engagement also took place. Three proposals were consulted on: first, whether there should be a targeted ban on ransom payments to owners; secondly, a ransom payment prevention regime; and, thirdly, whether there should be a mandatory incident and reporting regime. The Home Office is progressing a new package of measures to protect UK businesses, and we will update the House accordingly.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, today is the last day of free support for Windows 10. It is estimated that 39% of our home computers will be impacted, as well as UK businesses, industry and our very national security. Why we are not requiring extended security updates for Windows 10, as are now required across the EEA?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Earl makes an interesting point that I mentioned earlier. Companies using outdated systems should consider whether that is still appropriate. To do so, I urge all companies to conduct Cyber Essentials certification. Once they have the certification, they can ensure that their customers and whoever they do business with are protected against cyberattacks.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, perhaps I might pose a somewhat more prosaic but urgent question. The crisis at Jaguar Land Rover had immediate and predictable consequences for the supply chain. The immediate call was for the taxpayer to stand in. Do the Government have a view about whether the banks should play their part in supporting good customers such as the supply chain of Jaguar Land Rover, which has a very good customer in Jaguar Land Rover? The crisis was clearly going to reach an end. I do not understand why the banks do not stand by. Otherwise, what are they for?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Noble Lords will know that there are certain commercial aspects of Jaguar Land Rover that I cannot possibly comment on. However, that said, the Government have published a Written Statement today stating that we will guarantee JLR £1.5 billion to ensure that it has sufficient cash reserves to pay its supply chain creditors. It will work its way through the whole system, and we hope that, eventually, most supply chain creditors will be paid accordingly.
Business of the House
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:57 - Division on Lord True’s amendment - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 261 - Lord True’s amendment disagreed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 22 October and Wednesday 29 October to enable Report stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would not normally remain on my feet after doing so, but I understand that the party opposite—the Opposition—has tabled an amendment opposing the Motion, so I thought it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House to be clear about what the Motion does, what it does not do, and why it has been tabled.
The Motion concerns the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. By agreement between the parties, the Bill starts Report on 20 October—next Monday—and the House will debate and decide amendments over four days. On two of those days, the Government ask that the House considers the Bill for two to three hours before Oral Questions, starting at 11 am. Notice of this was given on 17 September.
The planning Bill is central to the Government’s plan to get Britain building again and to deliver the economic growth that we need to drive up prosperity and improve living standards across the UK—aims overwhelmingly backed by the electorate just last year. It is crucial that the Bill is swiftly put on the statute book, to help us deliver the 1.5 million homes and fast-track the 150 planning decisions on major infra- structure projects that we pledged in the plan for change.
As we know, planning and infrastructure is a topic that attracts interest from all sides of the House. Many of us have spent many hours in this Chamber debating planning reform; Committee on the Bill was no exception. I am grateful to the Official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats, who worked with us to ensure that Committee was completed in the agreed time, including some very late sittings. We appreciated that.
I know that there can sometimes be what I would call “noises off” about scheduling and what is happening in your Lordships’ House. I recall the fury in the offices of the then Opposition—I acknowledge my noble friend Lord Kennedy in this—after we had agreed the Government’s proposals on the timing of the Rwanda Bill and the then Prime Minister proclaimed that Labour was the cause of the parliamentary delay, which was not true, so we understand that. I say clearly that an agreement was reached at Committee stage and all sides adhered to that agreement. We are grateful and appreciate that.
I turn back to Report. So far, 134 Back-Bench and opposition amendments have been tabled on the Bill for Report. I understand from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage that there are at least 10 issues that the Official Opposition intend to press further on Report. The reason for tabling this Motion is simply to ensure that the Bill completes Report within the four days and that, on those four days, our deliberations and decisions can conclude at a reasonable time.
These two mornings will provide up to an extra six hours of debate. It is a practical step on a single Bill, reflecting the interest in the topic, to ensure that we are able to effectively discuss and debate the amendments without sitting unduly late. We understand the difficulties that it causes for Members when the House sits very late; we felt that this approach was in the best interests of Members across the House.
The Motion does not permanently change the sitting times of the House, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders. I know a number of Members support such a change, but that can happen only through the settled will of this House. This Motion is specifically for two Wednesdays—22 October and 29 October. The Motion does not give these Benches any advantage. I do not want to incur the wrath of my Chief Whip or cast any doubt on his whipping process, but I have to say, looking at the numbers in your Lordships’ House, that the Government might more easily be defeated at midday than at midnight.
As I said in my opening, the Motion does not subvert the conventions of the House. As the Leader of the House, I have no desire to systematically abandon our conventions, as the opposition amendment says. I give the House that assurance. What the Motion says is that the House may consider the Bill before Oral Questions on two days in the next month. On the other 12 sitting days in October, the House will sit at our normal times. On all sitting days, Oral Questions will be at the normal time.
I reiterate: this Motion has been brought forward to be helpful to your Lordships’ House. Suggestions were made to my noble friend the Chief Whip from across the House that it would be easier and better for the House to debate Bills starting at an earlier time rather than later in the night. In that spirit, this Motion was brought forward to be helpful. I hope all noble Lords will be willing to support a pragmatic proposal to ensure proper and effective scrutiny of legislation.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord True
To leave out from “that” to end and to insert “given no persuasive case has been put for systematically abandoning the usual conventions governing the sitting times of the House, the House should meet at 3pm on Wednesday 22 and Wednesday 29 October and that consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill should begin after oral questions on those days; and the House should continue normally to sit at the customary times, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader for the constructive tone in which she spoke. I fear we may not be able to reach agreement at the end, but I appreciate the way she addressed the matter.
I want to make one thing clear at the start: we on this side recognise the importance the Government attach to this Bill. Indeed, we support many of the measures in it and we have absolutely no intention of blocking its passage to Royal Assent. Since we hear mutterings offstage about the OBR, let me make that clear to it as well—although, in fact, the OBR says nothing about requiring Royal Assent; all it asks for is consideration of policy announcements. It asks the Government to provide it with details of any proposed policy changes so that it can incorporate these in its forecast. Announcements have been made, so the OBR can incorporate them. Let us leave that canard aside.
The issue I want to raise is not delay, not the OBR, not even the Budget, which many people are looking forward to with some foreboding. The reason why I have tabled this amendment, and it is unusual, is that I believe it is time to review how we may best conduct our affairs. This was in some ways implicit in what the noble Baroness said. No one wants late nights. Many do not want morning sittings, which interfere not only with those who have business to conduct outside the House but with our Select Committees. Yet, because of the sheer weight of legislation, often ill thought through—this is not a novel matter—we are slipping into both morning sittings and late nights.
We best conduct our affairs by agreement in the usual channels, based on what I hold as the sacred constitutional principle that the King’s Government must be carried on: where, if greater scrutiny than originally envisaged is required, more latitude is given to the revising House by the Executive; and where, on the other hand, if the Government have extra need and good cause to make progress, the other parties agree exceptionally to sit outside normal hours. I believe profoundly that the best way to go forward for us is a reinforcement and restatement of our conventions in a spirit of give and take between all sides.
There are constant insinuations outside that your Lordships’ House obstructs government business. I took the previous Prime Minister to task on that when it was said, quite wrongly, as the noble Baroness will remember. What this House does is scrutinise legislation.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the usual channels, I regret that we have not reached an agreement. But I think it has to be recognised by the House that every Government ask for help when their legislative programme is under pressure. That is inevitable in a House where the pace of the business is unpredictable. I remind the noble Lord, Lord True, that he was responsible for the Procurement Bill, where we had 350 amendments tabled in Committee—so there is a little whiff of hypocrisy, I fear, in this amendment.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
There are three good arguments for opposing this amendment. If we do not accept some flexibility, we are going to be here later and later at night. We are going to have more late sessions: that is the reality. The late sessions are not good for scrutiny. People of our age should not be working late hours of the night. Last night I was here at midnight and there were about 12 other Peers in the Chamber, scrutinising a very important Bill. That is the reality of working late.
We also have—and I accept that the noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned this—a duty of care towards our staff and ourselves in working the late hours that we have been doing. We spend millions on the security of this House but do not give much attention to the fact that people are leaving very late at night when public transport is no longer available. We therefore have to show some flexibility. We have accepted this Motion and accept the quid pro quo that, if we are going to meet early, we finish at a reasonable time. That is how the House should operate.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I do not represent a considered view of the whole Cross Bench, but I will make one or two points. The first is that what the noble Lord, Lord True, said about making sure that we reaffirm the various conventions that operate this House would be a good thing. I certainly would play my part in trying to deal with that because, in some ways, this is a mild breakdown of conventions.
My second point is a very simple one: the Report stage of this Bill was the right size to fit into four days before the 67 amendments appeared. Looking at the 67 amendments, I think that they are quite major amendments and one would expect, therefore, there to be additional time required for the proper consideration of those amendments, particularly in view of the fact that they will not have been discussed in Committee, at Second Reading or even in the House of Commons. When the usual channels talk about this again, there may have to be some further time for this all. We will have to sit very late on at least a couple of those days that are coming up.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, this debate becomes more and more confusing as time goes by. It strikes at the heart of the way we manage this House, where we ask the usual channels to meet regularly and come to agreements. Most of the time that is exactly what is done to the advantage of us all. Even if some of us do not like the decision that the usual channels have taken, we accept them.
What I do not understand in this case is why things have broken down so catastrophically, particularly when my noble friend Lord True has explained how, at earlier stages of this Bill, the Opposition worked very hard with the Government to be able to deliver the Bill on a timetable. I would understand if the end of the Session were a few weeks away or a couple of months away, but we know that the end of the Session will not happen for another six months. There is no rush; there is no reason we have to sit in the mornings to complete this Bill.
Furthermore, we are a part-time House in the sense that we meet in the afternoons and evenings. I speak as chairman of the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, which meets on a Wednesday morning at 10 o’clock. That means that very distinguished senior Members of the House who sit on that committee will be unable to come and listen to the deliberations on what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord True have recognised is an extremely important Bill. I echo my noble friend in saying: would it not be better if both Motions were to be withdrawn so that realistic discussions could be had by the usual channels in order to come to an agreement?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I will make two very brief points: one specifically aimed at the noble Lord, Lord True, and the other a more general point about the House and its procedures.
The point for the noble Lord, Lord True, concerns the wording of his amendment, which says that,
“the House should continue normally to sit at the customary times”.
That is a long-winded way of saying it should continue in the future as it always has done in the past with no revision whatsoever. I am sure the noble Lord has not forgotten, but I remind some Members of the House, and maybe inform some new Members, that it is not so long ago since the customary times for meeting in this House involved Wednesdays for Private Members’ Bills and Thursdays for government Bills starting at 3 pm. This is a House with people, we hope, coming from all parts of the country. We did not start the business of the day until 3 pm. It was a struggle to get that change through, but we got it through. I am not aware of anyone —please stand up if I am wrong—on these Benches or any others who thinks we should revert to what was then the customary times of sitting.
The other point is about the procedures of the House. The fundamental function of this House is to scrutinise legislation. That is what we do. If anyone suggests to me that we scrutinise more effectively at 1 am than at 1 pm, I would ask them to reconsider their position. I watch day after day the attendance in this House—we know the figures; we can look them up; we can check the voting figures. When the House is sitting even at 9.30 pm, there is many a time when there are only about eight, nine or 10 people in the House: two on the Government Front Bench, a couple on the Opposition Front Bench, someone in the Chair, a couple of Cross-Benchers and maybe one or two with a particular interest in the Bill. That does not compare—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am sorry; I apologise to the Lib Dems. It is an error I have made frequently in life.
It is not uncommon at all to have such numbers of people in the House scrutinising. It is beyond argument that, if we are looking at the detail of a Bill at a sensible time, at midday or 1 pm, more people will be in the House, more people will be taking part in the scrutiny of it and, if there are any votes, more people will take part in them. It is a very simple, straightforward proposal from my noble friend the Leader, and I really hope the House has the sense and the common sense to pass it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have been very involved in Committee on the Bill, and I have a number of amendments before the House on Report. I think the very fact that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has brought her Motion before us today shows that four days was insufficient, even before the government amendments were tabled. I very much support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, but I also support the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The Bill originally looked at nationally significant infrastructure projects relating largely to energy; it has now been extended in large measure to water and other projects. The impact on the countryside, which I hold dear, is going to be huge. I believe we owe it to residents of country areas and rural areas to make sure that the Bill is properly scrutinised. Whatever time it takes and however many hours we have to sit, four days is not sufficient.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who contributed to this debate. The first thing I would say is that it shows a desire from all across the House to scrutinise legislation properly and effectively. The noble Baroness said that extra time is needed. This is why the proposal was brought forward, to provide some of that extra time, at a time of day when Members are perhaps at their best and sparkiest. I certainly think I am better at 11 in the morning than I am at 11 at night.
I want to address a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord True. He talked about the planning Bill being far too big. I remind him that I think we had the same discussions about the LUR Bill, which was significantly bigger than the planning Bill. The planning Bill has 111 clauses and six schedules. LURB had 223 clauses and 18 schedules, and a significant part was added. I know he has mentioned before the number of amendments that were tabled to the LUR Bill. There were some 700 on Report alone—no, there were 700 in Committee and 466 on Report, and over 200 of those amendments were from the Government. That Bill just went on and on and late at night. We are trying to provide the time required without having these late nights.
The noble Lord talked about press briefings. I have learned for a very long time, particularly as we get closer to party conference season, not to rely too much on press briefings but to see what amendments actually say. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: I think that over half of those 76 amendments—some 35 of them—come from discussions with the devolved Administrations to give effect to legislative consent Motions, so it is not an unusually large number of amendments to have.
On the issue of early sittings, so far in this Session there have been 196 sitting days, and we have sat early on nine of them—that is 5%. That was in response to the number of people wanting to contribute, and to the number of amendments. For example, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill had a large number of amendments and Members wanting to contribute.
I have to say to the noble Lord that, under the previous Government, early sittings were used for Bills, including important Bills. The noble Lord may remember Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—which I have mentioned—in September 2023, and the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Illegal Migration Bill earlier that year. This is not anything particularly unusual.
Let us address the elephant in the room. Two of the reasons why we have had so much business, sat so late and had longer hours have been the number of amendments tabled, which has been larger than usual, and the Opposition’s preference for debating smaller groups of amendments. Both those reasons are entirely legitimate. I make no criticism of doing that, and I recognise that they are within the rights of Members and in line with procedure. There is nothing untoward about that, but we have to recognise the reality that it does increase the time taken for discussions.
Some 67 amendments, over half of which are related to the devolved Administrations, have, as usual, been tabled a week before Report starts. They were discussed with the Opposition spokespeople, and I think the Opposition have now asked for a Keeling schedule for the most technical and complex amendments, which we are pleased to provide.
I have been very clear that I have no intention of systematically abandoning—I think that is the word the noble Lord used in his amendment—the conventions of the House, because they are important. The noble Lord talks about further discussions. We would welcome those discussions; they would be very helpful, because moving forward it would not be conducive to good scrutiny for Members or staff to have so many late-night and long sittings. Those discussions can be held.
I say to the noble Lord that the additional time required is provided for in this Motion, but if he wants to have further discussions through the usual channels, we will welcome them. My Motion is an enabling motion. If those discussions can reach an agreement whereby it is not necessary to have earlier sittings, then we will not use what is in the Motion, but we have it as a fallback if those discussions do not conclude in a satisfactory way.
We brought this forward as an offer to the House that is pragmatic and sensible, and in order to assist. Although there was not agreement through the usual channels, we would much prefer to have that. The Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, did receive representations from across the House from those who said that they would rather sit in the morning than have late nights, and we have tried to reflect that in this debate. However, it is a matter for the House. There is a large attendance here today, which is not quite so usual for Business of the House Motions. If Members want to sit here very late, they are fully welcome and entitled to do so. That is a matter for the House, and if that is the will of the House, I look forward to seeing a full House on those occasions.
I have been clear that although it might not benefit the Government, scrutiny at 11 am would probably be a bit more robust and thorough than it would be at 11 pm. Therefore, we offer the option to the House, but it is ultimately for the House to decide. We think it would be helpful to the House. We can continue with discussions, but if we do not need that extra time because the noble Lord and the noble Baroness can reach agreement with the Chief Whip, then that would be great. This is an enabling Motion that may be a fallback if discussions conclude unsatisfactorily. We are responding to requests to scrutinise legislation at a time when we can do our best work.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who spoke and to the Leader. I will come to her remarks at the end. I do not want to abuse the Companion, so I will not make a long wind-up speech. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, was saying that the Liberal Democrats’ view was that morning sittings should become the norm. If that is the case, this should be a matter for Procedure Committee.
I agreed with what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, and I grateful to him for picking up my point on reinforcing conventions, which the noble Baroness also picked up. He and my noble friend Lady McIntosh highlighted that 67 amendments have gone down. This is new material, and that must have an effect on the consideration on Report, notwithstanding what the other place might think of it.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde made a point I made about the difficulty of morning sittings for the committees of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred to the words “customary times” in the amendment. These were suggested to me by the clerks, rather than setting out all the existing times, which would have led to a lengthy Motion. I certainly do not want to go back to the traditions of long ago, when we sometimes met on a Saturday.
I am grateful for the tone of the Leader, and I believe that this should be possible, as it was in Committee on this Bill—and it should be possible for all Bills. That is always my aspiration. The noble Baroness referred to the LUR Bill. We let that Bill run for 15 days in Committee, over which many people in the House got to know something about what my view about that Bill actually was. I hope my noble friend is not behind me.
My fundamental point is that I hope this occasion will be an unusual occasion, not a usual one, because the usual place should be the usual channels. I am confident that, if we do have the kind of discussions that the noble Baroness has talked about in the normal spirit of amity between the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and my noble friend Lady Williams, we can find a way forward on this Bill that will allow for the time that may be required by the new material.
But I do not particularly care to negotiate with the equivalent of a revolver on the table. I was disappointed that the noble Baroness would not withdraw her Motion, so I will test the opinion of the House because it should be marked that this is a business Motion that has gone down without the consent of the usual channels. This is a moment in the passage of this House from the way we conduct our business towards where it might otherwise go. The noble Baroness has given us an assurance that she does not want to go in that direction, and I accept her word. But I believe that we should mark our displeasure at this, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That a committee be appointed to consider the safeguards and procedures contained in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Berger, B,; Berridge, B.; Finlay of Llandaff, B.; Goddard of Stockport, L.; Goodman of Wycombe, L.; Hayter of Kentish Town, B.; Hope of Craighead, L.; (Chair) Markham, L.; Newcastle, Bp.; Patel, L.; Scotland of Asthal, B.; Smith of Newnham, B.; Winston, L.
That the Committee shall hear evidence including from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and Ministers;
That the Committee, notwithstanding the usual practice of the House, may report by drawing the attention of the House to the evidence received without making recommendations;
That the Committee do report by 7 November 2025;
That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, after the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the House agreed a Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, to establish a Select Committee to consider the safeguards and procedures contained in the Bill. As agreed by the House on 19 September, the Select Committee will take evidence, including from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and Ministers, and will report by Friday 7 November.
The Motion before the House today gives effect to that decision by formally establishing the Select Committee and appointing its members. I am pleased to recommend to your Lordships the noble Lords who have agreed to serve. I beg to move.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the order of commitment of 23 April be discharged and the bill be committed to a Grand Committee; and that the instruction to the Committee of the Whole House of 23 April shall also be an instruction to the Grand Committee.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 23, Schedule 1, Clauses 24 to 41, Schedule 2, Clauses 42 to 52, Schedule 3, Clauses 53 to 66, Schedule 4, Clauses 67 to 83, Schedule 5, Clauses 84 to 90, Schedule 6, Clauses 91 to 113, Title.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:41 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 239 - Motion A1 disagreed.
17:36 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 215 - Motion C1 disagreed.
18:24 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 212 - Motion H1 disagreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will, with the leave of the House, speak also to Motions E, F, G, G1 and L, which are grouped together.
It is a great pleasure to bring the Renters’ Rights Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I start by thanking my colleague in the other place, the Housing Minister, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships. As he outlined, the Government made a clear manifesto commitment to the people to modernise the insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Bill delivers on this promise by empowering private renters with more rights, protection and greater security of tenure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments in this group.
I begin with the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, Amendment 11B, which would allow landlords to require an additional deposit equivalent to one to three weeks’ rent as a condition of their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. A requirement for a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. This is unaffordable for most tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300.
While I truly appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has considered these affordability issues to a degree in his amendment in lieu by stating that the additional deposit may be from one to three weeks at the landlord’s reasonable discretion, I am afraid that we still cannot accept this amendment. In practice, this provision would effectively be the same as allowing landlords to request up to three weeks’ deposit, as the original amendment did. Many landlords will charge the full amount, giving rise to the same affordability challenges as the original amendment.
As outlined at Lords Report, the Government have existing powers under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 which will allow Parliament to require a larger deposit where a landlord has consented to the tenant having a pet. We will continue to keep this position under review following Royal Assent. If there is clear evidence that pet damage is exceeding normal tenancy deposits, we have the Tenant Fees Act power, which would allow us to remedy this.
Amendment 39D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would introduce an annual reporting requirement on the quality of military accommodation. I express my grateful thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, for their continued engagement on this issue. I also extend my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his tireless advocacy for service personnel and their families. I am sure that the whole House will agree that our armed service personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. The Government acknowledge the vital role that accommodation plays in their lives. We are determined to ensure that our personnel have access to safe, high-quality accommodation that meets their needs and reflects the importance of their service to our nation.
As I have previously outlined, the Government are committed to driving up the standards of military accommodation further. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in service family accommodation over the next five years, above that already committed. Later this year, the Government will publish a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lived experience of our personnel.
I welcome the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness and can confirm that the Government support this approach in principle. We have therefore tabled Amendments 39B and 39C as amendments in lieu, which will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard. This amendment will place on a statutory basis the commitments the Housing Minister made in the other place for greater transparency and accountability on the quality of military accommodation. Alongside the Government’s wider actions that I have already highlighted, this will make a real difference in ensuring that service personnel and their families have homes of the quality they deserve. I have discussed the Government’s amendment in lieu with the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, and with Gideon Amos MP, to whom I am grateful for his strong advocacy on this issue in the other place. They have indicated their support, and I hope that noble Lords will also support this amendment.
Finally, Lords Amendments 26 and 27, which were tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, would require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his constructive engagement on this issue. We believe that local authorities will enforce these measures against the relevant standard of proof effectively. However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords that if this is not the case, there is a risk of an unsatisfactory decision.
With that in mind, I can confirm that the Government will include in the relevant statutory guidance to local authorities advice that a local authority exercises a quasi-judicial function when imposing a civil penalty, and should therefore be satisfied by credible, reliable and sufficient documentary or other evidence on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached a relevant requirement before imposing a penalty. Moreover, the Bill already gives a person against whom a local authority proposes to impose a penalty a right to make representations before a final decision is made, as well as a right to an appeal by way of rehearing against a penalty. I am pleased to have come to an agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, on this issue. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords and that they will agree to the Motion not to insist from the other place.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
“16D Pet damage deposit
(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which section 16A applies that if, at the time of consenting to the tenant keeping a pet, the landlord informs the tenant in writing that the payment of an additional pet damage deposit by the tenant is a condition of the consent, then the tenant must comply with that condition.
(2) The additional pet damage deposit under subsection (1)—
(a) can be used to make good pet damage,
(b) must be of equivalent value to a minimum of one weeks of rent and a maximum of three weeks of rent, depending on the nature of the pet, at the landlord's discretion acting reasonably,
(c) cannot be subject to the limits for deposits in tenancy agreements, and
(d) is subject to the rules governing deposits in tenancy agreements, for purposes of monies handled.””
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. Your Lordships should please note my interest in the register that I work for and am a shareholder in a veterinary business that cares for many pets. I also have the privilege of being a dog owner for many years.
My updated amendment seeks to provide protection and reassurance to landlords and give tenants much more opportunity to find a rentable property that allows pets. The Government quite rightly included in the Bill the right of tenants to request landlords to allow pets, as currently there is a limited number of properties available.
At the commencement of the Bill, the Government wished to support landlords with a change with regards to the financial risk that pets may cause damage to a property during a tenancy. This proposed solution was an insurance policy which provided a level of cover. The proposal was supported by many housing and pet charities. Due to the risk profile of this type of cover, the insurance market could not provide the appropriate policies. As a result, the Government withdrew the proposal from the Bill. That risk still exists. The tenant’s five-week deposit covers the risk that tenants may cause damage to a property. Housing a pet is an additional risk and therefore asking for an extra amount of deposit is surely not unreasonable.
One of the Government’s objections to the amendment, as already stated by the Minister, was the increase in the deposit, and I acknowledge that this is an issue that exists for some. We have considered this in updating and reducing the number of weeks’ deposit required to a minimum of one week and in an obligation on landlords to be reasonable when asking for the amount of deposit considered and the nature of the pet or number of pets.
The Government said that the five-week deposit will cover the damage of pets. They used figures from the University of Huddersfield survey provided to the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which say 76% of landlords have no issue with pets. That leaves 24% of landlords with issues; that is not a small number and the summary does not define what those pet issues are. The report did quote that the average cost of pet-related damage was about £300 per tenancy. I believe the average weekly rent is about £300, as mentioned in the passage of the Bill, so one weeks’ rent would cover the damage.
It may be that if a pet damages a property, a good tenant will repair it. Sadly, not all tenants are the same, just like we have a range of good and bad landlords. If a tenant has a pet that causes some damage and it is not repaired, is it not likely that, if there are other damages, they will not be repaired? That is what the five-week deposit will cover, and an additional pet deposit could cover the pet damage.
There is good evidence that tenants with pets tend to stay longer, and many take care of their properties to a high standard. One conclusion would be that these tenants stay in certain properties for longer due to the lack of supply of alternative rental properties—which, happily, the Bill wishes to address—but we need to support landlords with this change. By supporting this amendment, we will be supporting landlords and making the process of more landlords accepting pets without objection a far greater reality, as they will have the protection of an additional deposit. It will, I hope, also encourage existing landlords to stay in the private rental sector market and potentially encourage new landlords to choose long-term tenancies over short-term holiday and Airbnb lets, so maintaining supply of rental properties.
A table in the University of Huddersfield report asks landlords whether different policies or incentives would encourage them to consider pet owners as tenants in the future. Some 53% asked said that having a tenant with insurance cover for pet damage would help. Sadly, this is not available. Some 51% said that allowing landlords to charge for a deep clean would help; this would be covered by a pet deposit. Some 43% said that allowing landlords to be allowed to hold a pet deposit would help them, and this is what this amendment does.
Pets provide so much to us human beings in companionship and health benefits and provide friendship and support at difficult times. When owning a pet, we have a responsibility to maintain their welfare and health. This is both a time commitment and a financial commitment for the owners. If someone is a potential tenant with a pet, an additional deposit for a property should be thought of as part of that financial commitment.
I hope my revised amendment will find some support with your Lordships today, and that we can find a balance between landlords and tenants to increase the supply of pet-friendly accommodation. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I welcome Amendments 39B and 39C in particular—on my behalf and on behalf of our most able leader on this Bill team, my noble friend Lady Thornhill. We are absolutely delighted that military housing is going to be held to the same legal standard as the private rentals in the Bill. Putting this on a statutory footing fulfils the wishes of this Government and the campaigning work by some of my colleagues, particularly in the Commons: MPs Gideon Amos and Helen Morgan, to name but two. I thank Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, who has been working very hard on this over the recess.
I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her time and patience in discussing this issue and us getting to this very happy mutual agreement. I also thank Minister Pennycook for the time he spared, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who has spent time on this. The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have provided wisdom, backing and advice, and I am grateful to them both as well.
At the heart of this issue are those in the military who give the ultimate sacrifice and the families who live with them and stand by them. Let us hope, as a result of this change, that the appalling conditions they have endured so far will change and will be a thing of the past. We are enormously grateful for this change and are looking forward to seeing it introduced.
With regard to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we have consistently not supported this. We recognise the eloquence of his arguments in this area, but we continue to argue that this will place undue financial pressure on tenants and could be exploited by rogue landlords to impose excessive deposit charges. We believe that tenants, owner-occupiers and social tenants should be viewed on a much more equal footing. This speaks to some of the speeches that both I and my noble friend Lady Thornhill have made. Therefore, we feel we cannot support it, but we are absolutely delighted with the government amendment, and we look forward to its implementation.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 11B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector that have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, I am disappointed that we are having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place, having been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including Battersea, Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the Government’s position, and so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced Bill, which are designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the iniquity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own home. I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat.
Let us be clear: as I said in Committee, for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation, there is likely to be only very minimal, if any, damage. The standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear, as a survey conducted in 2021 by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection concluded. In rare circumstances, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit, measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate.
This costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many. Allowing landlords to require a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks’ rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas such as London—a figure which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity, with those living in cities, where rents are higher, being far worse off compared with those living in rural areas.
Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear.
The pet provisions in the Bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated, both inside and outside this House. It is clear from all those discussions that the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet and that this amendment is completely unnecessary. Its only result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, we should make that dream a reality, so I am afraid that, if the noble Lord presses his Motion, I shall be voting against it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.
Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.
The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.
Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.
Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.
Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his support—I will come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
I think the responses to this part of the debate are pragmatic. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. He mentioned the Government’s change in position on pet insurance. We had an extensive debate, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We drew on the expertise of Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees. The Government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following that engagement, we concluded that we were no longer confident that the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for landlords or tenants to purchase.
In view of that, we did not want to leave tenants in a position where they could not comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having pet provisions in the Bill. I am pleased to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has indicated its support for the Government’s approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. I received just today a letter of very strong support from Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and another email from Shelter expressing its support and hope that this amendment would not be accepted, because it did not feel that it was in the interest of tenants or their pets. We used the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration.
It is important to say that, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. We have powers to allow for higher deposits for pets, if needed. We are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement of five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership. I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damage costs from the normal tenancy deposit, as they do now. In rare cases, where the deposit did not cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts, in line with the wider rules in the sector.
We do not want to put tenants in a position where they cannot have a pet because there are no suitable insurance products available or they cannot afford the additional cost of a deposit. We will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Motion.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank your Lordships for your thoughts and speeches. I am pleased about, and support, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, being accepted by the Government.
The Minister has not changed her position on my amendment. I understand the comments regarding the deposit scheme. On the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I am just as passionate about allowing more people to have pets. With this amendment, I am trying to encourage landlords not to leave the sector due to tenants having pets. I would like more people to have pets, and I realise how important that is, but there is a balance to be struck with trying to reassure landlords, because they do not accept pets at the present time. There are very few properties on the market that allow them.
This amendment is trying to create a balance. I appreciate that some tenants will struggle to find that deposit, but I believe that, by having it in place, more landlords would be willing to accept pets, and there would be less disruption between landlords and tenants when tenants ask to have pets. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, before we turn to Motion B, I remind your Lordships that, during a Division in particular, I need a clear sight of the clerk at all times. It is therefore strictly forbidden for any Peer to move between the Table and me so that I cannot see the clerk.
Motion B
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 14A in lieu—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions C, C1, D and D1, which are grouped together.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments relating to the no-let restriction. Lords Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is intended to reduce the no-let period to six months where the property has been demonstrably on the market and no suitable offers have been received for that period. The noble Lord and I, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have discussed this amendment at length and I thank them again for their continued engagement on this issue. The Government understand that there may be situations where landlords genuinely intend to sell their property but cannot do so. However, the reletting and remarketing restriction is one of the strongest safeguards we have in the Bill.
I know that many noble Lords agree with the restriction in principle but disagree with its length. The Government believe that the 12-month period will make it unprofitable for a landlord to abuse this ground. It is vital that these strong protections for tenants remain in place, and I want to be clear about the Government’s position and commitment. This is shared by Members in the other place, and today I was pleased to receive strong support from Shelter, citing research from the Nationwide Foundation that one in five landlord sale evictions does not result in a sale.
Lords Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would exempt shared owners from the re-letting and re-marketing restriction and other important restrictions. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking the time to meet, particularly during recess when he was kind enough to have meetings to discuss this important issue, and for his continued support for shared owners. I also thank him for his amendments in lieu: Amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.
The Government are very sympathetic to shared owners experiencing building safety issues and the particular challenges they face. We have already taken a number of steps outside the Bill to provide greater clarity for shared owners on what flexibilities and support they can expect from providers. These include new commitments in the update to the Government’s remediation acceleration plan, published in July. The noble Lord’s amendments in lieu acknowledge the unique circumstances in which shared owners operate, while not compromising on the core aim of the Bill to improve security of tenure in the sector. The Government are delighted to support his amendments and we encourage the House to agree to them. We will continue to work with the noble Lord as the Bill is implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 18, Motion C1 in place of Motion C. To recap very briefly on the substance of the amendment, the Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property fails to sell.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, forgive me for interrupting, but we were on Motion B and I was under the impression that the noble Lord wanted to speak on Motion B, but it appears that he has gone to Motion C. Am I correct?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Oh, they are in the same group. It is not my afternoon, is it? Pray continue.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
We could set this to music if the noble Baroness wishes. Where did I get to? I will not start again, the House has been too patient, but I will start halfway through.
The Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell. They are not allowed to re-let it for 12 months. The property must stand empty and unrented for that 12 months. The amendment does not quibble with that punitive intention of the Bill. It accepts that, in order to prevent a few bad landlords trying to abuse the system, all property, belonging to all landlords, that fails to sell will stand empty and be impossible to live in for anyone seeking rental accommodation. The amendment simply sets that punitive period at six months and requires the landlord to furnish proof to a court of a genuine and reasonable, including reasonable pricing, attempt to sell the property during that time.
The House of Commons debate on this amendment acknowledged that the landlord being hit with 12 months of no income, along with the costs of their property standing empty for a year, is a problem. However, this was considered to be “relatively minor” and simply an
“inconvenience … to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell”.
It was claimed that it is “far too easy” for
“any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict”
to abuse the proposed period of six months, and that
“landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; cols. 651, 646, 652.]
I am sorry to say that no facts were presented, quantified or examined, and no evidence was provided, just these dismissive anti-landlord assertions.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion C1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I repeat my interest, in that my wife owns properties in London which she rents out, from which I occasionally benefit. I thank the Minister for meeting the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and me to discuss the matter. Her engagement with us was much appreciated.
I want to emphasise what the Minister in the House of Commons said when the Lords amendment was defeated. He said:
“We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; col. 637.]
So the Government expressly acknowledge that there will be landlords who are unable to sell, having intended to do so, and who are acting in perfect good faith. The issue is whether it is really appropriate in this Bill to penalise such good faith landlords by preventing them renting out their property for 12 months because of abuse—and there is abuse—by other landlords.
I suggest to the House that this is a plain and obvious case of a disproportionate sanction. It is a sanction against those who have done no wrong and who have acted in perfect good faith. This Government are often eager to emphasise the importance of human rights law. It is important to acknowledge that human rights law does not just protect prisoners and illegal entrants; it also protects law-abiding citizens who own property and who wish to rent it out.
It is a basic principle of the common law, adopted by the Human Rights Act, that any interference with the right to property requires a fair balance between the interests of the property owner and the interests of the community. I suggest to the House that to penalise a landlord who has acted in good faith by preventing them renting out their own property for 12 months when they have done no wrong defies the need for a fair balance. It is manifestly disproportionate. The modest amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to reduce the period to six months is fair and balanced, and if he divides the House, as he has indicated he will, he will certainly have my support.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I do not know if the noble Lord is wanting to speak. I am perfectly prepared to give way to him, although I seem to have the Floor of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, made a very powerful case, which was well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The noble Lord and others will remember that I supported him on this measure in Committee, and I think also on Report. It covers a wider ground than just the landlord who has been unable to sell. There is another ground, where the landlord has got possession of a property to put members of their family in. I cited the example of a landlord having done that for, let us say, parents coming in, one of whom then has a stroke, meaning that the landlord then needs to do something with the property that involves putting it back on the market. In that situation, the landlord is penalised in exactly the same way as when a landlord fails in a genuine attempt to sell, as the noble Lord has described.
In Committee, and I think also on Report, I proposed a better way of dealing with this problem: a prohibition on any landlord putting property on the market again at a higher price than the price at the time of the change of ownership. I should have succeeded in that argument, but I did not. However, I am certainly supporting the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as supported by noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I hope that your Lordships have heard the arguments from the noble Lords and will support them on this issue.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion D1 in my name, which the Minister referred to sympathetically at the beginning of our debate.
As we have heard, the Bill currently precludes a landlord who gives notice to a tenant because he wants to sell from re-letting that property for 12 months if that sale falls through. The Government want all tenants to be protected against abusive eviction by landlords, and I have no difficulty with that principle. However, in the case of shared owners, there are already safeguards against such abuse that are not there for conventional landlords, and their sales are more likely to fall through, through no fault of their own.
The amendment exempting shared owners from this provision was carried on Report in your Lordships’ House by the largest majority of any amendment to the Bill. While sympathy was expressed by Ministers in the other place for the plight of shared owners, the amendment was overturned there. Last week, the Government tabled their Motion asking your Lordships not to insist on that amendment. On 10 October, the Minister followed that up by writing to all Peers, hoping that they would support her Motion not to insist. Then last week, we had a Damascene conversion, and here I obviously had more good fortune than the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I am most grateful to the Minister for the time she spent with me on this last week, and indeed earlier, and to Matthew Pennycook and the officials. The amendment in my name is the outcome of those discussions and represents a deal that I can accept.
To briefly summarise the case, shared owners are social housing residents. They own a portion of their property and rent the rest of it from the housing association. They purchased a share of their home because they could not afford to buy on the open market. They are a distinct, legally identifiable group of people, and they are actually precluded from subletting without permission from their registered provider.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on the compromise he has achieved on this important amendment. I must declare a family interest: my wife owns rented property in Dorset. I shall speak in opposition to the amendment to Motion C in the name of my noble friend Lord Cromwell, well-intentioned though I believe it is.
My noble friend’s amendment would mean that a landlord who had gained possession of a property using the grounds of an intention to sell would be able to relet that property after six months if it had not been sold, rather than having to wait up to a year, as specified in the Bill. In normal circumstances, one would expect a sale to be agreed within around six months, or, if not, the landlord would still want to go for a sale rather than relet the property, so the issue would not arise in most instances where this ground for possession could be used. However, the Government want to prevent an unscrupulous minority of landlords using these grounds for eviction as a way of bypassing the Bill’s fundamental intention of giving renters greater security. The fear is that the landlord will profess to want to sell but has no such intention; they simply want to evict the tenant. They may want to switch to more profitable Airbnb-style lettings, or they may want to replace a tenant who is complaining about the landlord’s neglect of essential repairs and find a more malleable or more desperate tenant.
There is some evidence of such cheating behaviour from Scotland, where similar legislation has not had constraints on how quickly a vacated property can be relet, so the Government want to prevent abuses. The Bill needs to ban reletting for long enough to deter a landlord from misusing these grounds for possession. The question is how long a pause before re-letting is permitted would be long enough. Let us take a case where a renter is complaining about damp and mould. The property needs, say, £15,000 to be spent on rectifying various defects. If the tenant is paying £900 a month, it would be advantageous for the landlord to go without six months’ rent, that is £5,300, to be rid of that tenant and find someone who will tolerate the poor conditions. Having to forego 12 months’ rent before reletting, well over £10,000 in this case, would present a more robust deterrent against using this no-fault eviction route to removing the tenant.
I can see that a compromise of a nine-month ban on reletting would probably be acceptable all round, but in the absence of that halfway house, it is safer and more foolproof to stay with the Bill’s 12-month term and reject this amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord Best, in praising the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his tenacity and commitment to shared ownership owners, who really are the raw end of the market and get a raw deal in many ways. He has really shown his mettle in his commitment to this. It is also fair to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for listening and doing something about it. I hope that her commitment to shared owners continues in other areas that we will look at.
Turning to Motion C1, from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which it appears we will vote on, it is very difficult to follow the eloquence of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Cromwell, but I will try. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has already highlighted what we call “revenge evictions”, and we are approaching that issue from the position of working—for many years, in the case of my noble friend Lady Grender—with renter groups and renter charities. From that, we get a real idea of what is happening at the sharp end, which is not quite as narrow as we might like to think it is. There are probably more unscrupulous landlords out there than the number of homes that take over one year to sell.
On revenge evictions, there is the risk that a tenant will be kicked out because they ask for improvements—the noble Lord gave a very good example of that, but there are many others. In certain parts of the country where rents are not as expensive, six months’ rent would make it worth while for the landlord to kick somebody out on that ground if they ask for even some modest accessibility improvements and so on. We are arguing over six, nine or 12 months, and the truth is that only time will tell. What I seek from the Government is some reassurance that this will be looked at, because that could very well be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned Scotland. It is interesting that the properties in one in five evictions that were made on this repossession ground then turned up on their database as still being for sale. That gives weight to the fact that people are prepared to do it, because in Scotland they have no period for not re-letting.
In several debates, I mentioned that I chatted to my women friends who are landlords; I referred to them as my “landladies”. I put this to them, and they looked at me as if it were a weird question. They said, “If I were concerned about my property sitting empty, I am actually able to sell my property with the tenants still in the property while the ‘For Sale’ board is up on the door, so I would talk to them and say that the ‘For Sale’ board is going up, but I certainly wouldn’t be serving notice until I was certain that I had a buyer”. That is due to—this is a statistic that has not been bandied about—the length of time it sometimes takes to sell a house. Interestingly, they did not see it as the kind of emotive, big, terrible, unfair problem that noble Lords have made it out to be. By keeping your tenants in the property, you are not only getting the rent but—much more importantly, in our view—you are giving your tenants more time to find a home.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I will speak briefly to support two important Motions before us, one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on no re-let provisions, and the other by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on shared ownership.
On Motion C1, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, clearly explained, under the Bill, where a landlord seeks possession to sell a property and that sale then falls through—as it does in about one-third of cases—the landlord is prohibited from re-letting the property for 12 months. In practice, that means perfectly good homes must stand empty for a whole year. The amendment does not undermine the Bill’s purpose; it retains the requirement for a genuine sales process and safeguards against abuse. It introduces the vital element of proportionality. A six-month restriction would still deter bad actors while avoiding unnecessary loss of rental supply at a time when demand and rents are rising sharply. We have a housing crisis, and we must take every opportunity to improve the supply of housing and homes. Leaving homes empty for 12 months does not help those desperately looking for a home to rent.
Turning to shared owners, I would also like to extend my appreciation of the dedicated work of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and we support the Motion in his name. He has made a compelling and deeply fair case on behalf of shared owners who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves trapped by the complexities of the shared ownership system. I want to thank Ministers for listening to the concerns raised across the House and for working constructively with my noble friend on this issue. We would support my noble friend if he took this to a vote, but from what the Minister has said, my understanding is that the Government are supportive of it. Therefore, we hope that a vote is not necessary.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to our ongoing discussions on these matters.
On the failure-to-sell points, the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Pannick, queried why we are determined not to reduce the no-let period to six months if the landlord can prove that the property is not selling on the open market. Of course it is imperative that we provide the very strong protections against back-door evictions so that renters have more security and stability and can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of becoming homeless.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to 12 months being a disproportionate sanction, but we have carefully considered the balance between the rights of the landlord and the security of the tenant, and that is why we have come to the conclusion that the current 12-month restriction on reletting being introduced will prevent abuse of the possession grounds, for example, by potentially opening up the practice of backdoor Section 21-style evictions to unscrupulous landlords. This length of time will make it unprofitable for a landlord to evict a tenant with the intention of reletting the property to another tenant at a higher rent. Any noble Lords who have dealt with housing cases will know of cases where that has undoubtably happened. In the areas where the markets are very hot, it happens even more. The restriction also ensures that landlords cannot pursue the retaliatory evictions so clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We hear of frequent examples of that as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to me talking about people being forced to reduce the price. I do not think it was a matter of forcing people to reduce the price. If the property is on the market for that 12-month period, it discourages landlords from marketing their property at a price which they know will not sell. It will give time for that property price to be reduced over time and means it is less likely to encourage those Section 21 evictions via the backdoor.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about properties being empty for a whole year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, very ably demonstrated, there is no need for those properties to sit empty. They can be marketed while the tenants are still there if notice has been given. We do not need to have this protection reduced to six months. It is very important. I have had a plea from Shelter, as well as other renters’ organisations, over the last few days that we do not water down this provision in the Bill. It is a very important part of the protection for tenants. We genuinely believe that we have got the balance right between the rights of the landlord and the protections for the tenant.
On the issue around shared owners, as other noble Lords have commented, I have been very impressed with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has championed the cause of shared owners. We all realise the very difficult situation they find themselves in. I would also like to thank the Shared Owners’ Network, which has been very good in its briefings to all of us and in helping us to come to the conclusions we have reached on this. Shared owners find themselves in a very difficult position—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, describes them as reluctant landlords, and we know that that is where they are.
The noble Lord asked how the requirement for a shared owner to inform the assured tenant of the exemption will work for existing tenancies. The Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared-owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have the opportunity to provide this information to their tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take time to make sure that we get the right approach and ensure that we find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do this by using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by Clause 147 of the Bill. I very much look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this point as we prepare for the implementation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.
Lord Cromwell
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 18”.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I understand that at this stage I should be very brief, so I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that I also speak to many landlords and tenants groups. Indeed, I have put amendments down on behalf of tenants groups during this process. I thank all those who have spoken. I particularly admire the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to see into the mind of landlords who fail to sell their property and know what they would do next. I do question his maths, but perhaps we can come to that outside the Chamber. Selling with a sitting tenant is definitely a different matter to selling without a tenant on board. I simply say this: it is clear to me, and I hope to the House, that a rational basis suggests that a 12-month-long inability to rent out your property is disproportionate. Six months is still punitive, but it is effective. I have sought compromise on this in vain. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House and beg to move Motion C1.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.
Lord Young of Cookham
At end insert, “and do propose Amendments 19B to 19D in lieu—
“(3) Subsection (4) applies where the relevant person relies on Ground 1A and—
(a) before the assured tenancy was entered into, a relevant person had given the tenant under the assured tenancy (“T”) a written statement that the landlord under that tenancy (“L”) is a shared owner of the dwelling-house and that section 16E(2) or (3) might not apply to a subsequent letting, or grant of a licence, of the dwelling-house (because of this subsection and subsection (4)),
(b) when the assured tenancy was entered into, L was a shared owner of the dwelling-house, and
(c) before the date specified in the notice as mentioned in section 8(3)(b), a relevant person had given the landlord under the shared ownership lease of the dwelling-house a written statement that L intends to assign L’s interest under that shared ownership lease.
(4) Section 16E(2) or (3) does not prohibit a relevant person from carrying out a controlled activity if—
(a) before the relevant person carries out that activity—
(i) the dwelling-house has been valued by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in connection with the assignment of L’s interest under the shared ownership lease, or
(ii) L has advertised, or made an arrangement under which another person has advertised, that the dwelling-house is or may be available for acquisition by way of the assignment of L’s interest under the shared ownership lease, and (b) when the relevant person carries out that activity, L is a shared owner of the dwelling-house.
(5) In subsections (3) and (4)—
“controlled activity” means an activity that would (if subsection (4) did not apply) be prohibited by section 16E(2) or (3); “shared owner”, in relation to a dwelling-house, means a person—
(a) who is the tenant of the dwelling-house under a shared ownership lease, and
(b) whose share in the premises demised by the lease is less than 100%; and for this purpose, the tenant’s share in the premises demised is the tenant’s initial share in those premises, plus any additional share or shares in those premises which the tenant has acquired; “shared ownership lease” means a lease—
(a) granted on payment of a premium calculated by reference to a percentage of the value of the premises demised by the lease or of the cost of providing them, or
(b) under which the tenant (or the tenant’s personal representatives) will or may be entitled to a sum calculated by reference, directly or indirectly, to the value of those premises.”
“(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, repeal section 16F(3) to (5) of the 1988 Act.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 26, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 26A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 27A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A, and do propose Amendments 39B and 39C in lieu—
“The standard of MOD accommodation
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish in relation to each year a report
on—
(a) the extent to which service family accommodation in England meets the relevant standards during that year, and
(b) the work to maintain and improve the standard of service family accommodation in England that is undertaken during that year and planned for subsequent years.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) may make the required assessment, or
(b) may arrange for an independent person to make the required assessment, in relation to any year.
(3) If the Secretary of State makes the required assessment in relation to a year, the Secretary of State must—
(a) arrange for an independent person to evaluate the assessment, and
(b) include that evaluation in the annual report relating to that year.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay each annual report before Parliament.
(5) The required assessment for a particular year may be made by reference to what is, in the view of the person carrying out the assessment, a representative sample of service family accommodation.
(6) The duty imposed by subsection (1) may be complied with by the preparation and publication of a report which relates to service family accommodation in England and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
(7) For the purposes of this section, service family accommodation meets the relevant standards if the accommodation would be a decent home when assessed in accordance with the 2006 decent homes standard.
(8) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend this section so as to make provision about what it means for service family accommodation to meet the relevant standards (which may include provision that operates by reference to other subordinate legislation).
(9) But that power is not exercisable unless and until, in the Secretary of State’s view, it has ceased to be appropriate for the 2006 decent homes standard to be used for the purposes of the required assessment (having regard, in particular, to whether, or how, that standard continues to be used for other assessments of the standard of living accommodation).
(10) In this section—
“2006 decent homes standard” means the document called “A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation” that was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 7 June 2006; “annual report” means a report prepared in accordance with subsection (1); “independent” means appearing to the Secretary of State to be independent of—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) other Ministers of the Crown,
(c) government departments, and
(d) persons who provide, manage or maintain service family accommodation;
“required assessment” means an assessment of the extent to which service family accommodation meets the relevant standards during a year;
“service family accommodation” means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of service families as living accommodation (whether or not it is provided by the Secretary of State); and for this purpose a “service family” is—
(a) a person subject to service law and members of the person’s family,
or
(b) a civilian subject to service discipline and members of the civilian’s family;
and expressions used in this definition have the same meanings as they have in the Armed Forces Act 2006;
“year” means—
(a) 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, and
(b) each subsequent period of one year beginning with 1 April.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 53, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 53A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion H. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions J, K and K1, which are grouped together.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for their amendments relating to grounds for possession. Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would remove the restriction from ground 4A, which limits it to only students living in HMOs. This would allow students living in self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties, for example, to be evicted each year.
We have been clear from the outset that this ground has been carefully designed to ensure that the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We believe that the ground applying to typical groups of undergraduates living together in a shared house is the right position, while a postgraduate couple, for example, who have put down roots in the area and may live in a smaller property, should benefit from the full set of protections that the Bill gives tenants.
Noble Lords have expressed concerns about the impact that this restriction will have on the supply of one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties in the student market. With respect, I do not think that these fears will be borne out. There will continue to be demand for these properties, and many students will continue to move out in line with the academic year, even when not evicted. Renting to students continues to be a buoyant market, and I do not believe that the Bill will dampen this.
As I have stressed at length, one of the core principles of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure being evicted more regularly. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness does not insist on her amendment.
I turn next to Lords Amendment 64, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, which would introduce a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves, their spouse or child. I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtful amendment in lieu. He has carefully considered some of the points I raised when we discussed his previous amendment. It is more specific on the type of care to be given and ensures that the ground can be used only where the dwelling is very nearby to the person requiring care.
The Government of course recognise the vital work that carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. We will continue to look at what steps we can take to support the care sector, and phase 1 of the independent review into adult social care chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, should report next year. While we are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid that we cannot support the amendment.
I remind the House that we have already strengthened possession grounds to cover some situations, such as housing employees. In these cases, we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.
Providing security for tenants in the private rented sector is the Government’s priority, and we have put much thought into the design of the possession grounds to ensure that they balance the needs of landlords and tenants. There must be a compelling case for new grounds, with strong evidence that it is justified for a tenant to lose their home. This proposal does not meet that bar.
We engaged extensively with stakeholders throughout the development of the Bill, and there have been only very limited calls for a ground for landlords who require care. Any added ground increases the complexity of the system, which allows more potential for abuse. The amendment could lead to a long-term member of the community losing their home to house a carer required only for a short period, and there have not been significant calls for it from the sector. I therefore ask that the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in lieu.
On government Amendment 62A, I would like to extend my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union for their very constructive work with the department to find a solution to the concerns they raised. As the Housing Minister explained in the other place, the Government have reflected on their position and tabled amendments in lieu, which narrowly expand ground 5A to allow agricultural landlords to evict assured tenants in order to house both employees and non-employed workers engaged in agriculture.
We believe that this is a small technical change that supports the Government’s ambition to ensure that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising security of tenure. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union have indicated their support for these changes. I hope that noble Lords will also support the amendment. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 53”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H. I speak briefly to two important possession grounds, those concerning students and carers, and I also thank the Minister for her support on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which this side of the House supported strongly.
First, on students, as your Lordships know, Amendment 53A sought to expand Ground 4A so that it also applied to one and two-bedroom properties let to students. Extending this ground would maintain essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty. This is not simply about convenience—it is about fairness and inclusion. Many of these smaller homes are occupied by students who need quieter or self-contained accommodation. Often these include those who are neurodiverse and find shared living environments particularly challenging. For them, access to such housing is not a preference, it is a necessity. To exclude these properties from Ground 4A risks creating a two-tier system that leaves the most vulnerable in our society behind. I hope the Minister, and indeed our Liberal Democrat colleagues who once spoke so passionately in defence of students, will reflect very carefully on the points I bring forward.
We have a number of case studies that illustrate the implications of this ill-conceived plan, from Cornwall and Portsmouth to Loughborough. In Portsmouth, a letting agent and Propertymark member reported very high numbers of students renting one and two-bedroom flats, accounting for 20% or 30% of their portfolio—not a small number—and those included many international students. In Loughborough, feedback from another Propertymark agent on student tenancies showed a lower number of HMO lets compared with houses and flats. The evidence flatly contradicts the Government’s claims that one and two-bedroom student properties account for only a small fraction of the market. Regional variations exist, but the pattern is clear. These homes are a substantial and vital component of the student housing sector, and by excluding them from Ground 4A, the Government risk creating a two-tier system both geographically and between students themselves, particularly those with specific or additional needs.
I turn to carers and express my strong support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As I said on Report, this amendment is tightly drawn and provides flexibility in exceptional circumstances, where a property close to home could be used to care for a loved one, enabling people to live independently and with dignity, rather than entering into the institutional care system. Propertymark has also highlighted a helpful precedent from Wales where, under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, carers can have succession rights if the tenant they care for dies. While I understand that provision does not apply to landlords’ carers, it does demonstrate that such flexibility is possible in law and can be delivered responsibly.
If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will support him. I also beg to move Motion H1.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion J, specifically Amendment 62. I declare my interest in farming and rented cottages in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I want to set out on the record that the NFU and I have every reason to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her tremendous work on these amendments, particularly the one I am speaking to. I also thank the Minister, Matthew Pennycook, for his attention to it as well. I very much hope that this sets a precedent, particularly in the realms of the Ministers of Defra and the Treasury, to take farming interests more seriously and learn from what we have learned here today.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Motion H1 and the powerful points that have just been made by noble friend Lady Scott. The Minister spoke as if one-bedroom and two-bedroom student accommodation would be occupied by families and people who needed deep roots in their university environment, but much of it is also occupied by undergraduate students, who are often on low incomes, because this tends to be the lowest cost accommodation. If academic year tenancies in one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation become unviable then there is a real risk that this will act as a constraint on students going to university.
The Minister said that these fears would not be borne out, and I understand the sincerity with which she makes that point. However, we cannot be confident. My regret, looking back over the exchanges we have had as the Bill has progressed through this House, is that we have not heard at any point any kind of undertaking to review or assess year on year whether student accommodation is being affected by this measure. We simply cannot be as confident as she appears to be that these dangers will not arise. Therefore, I strongly support Motion H1.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, my amendment would extend the grounds of possession to a family in need of providing a full-time carer for a family member. Regarding comments made in the other place, I confirm that I have no direct interest with regard to any property. My interest came only through contact with rural letting agents who have clients who might need a carer themselves or have a family member who does and wish to use their property to house a carer.
The amendment has been revised since the Commons debate on 8 September. One of the concerns, as already mentioned by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is that the amendment is drawn too widely and open to abuse. The new amendment restricts who the carers can be used for, this being the landlord, their spouse, their child or a child they have legal responsibility for. We have also changed it so that, if the landlord wishes to give notice to a tenant, they must provide evidence with the eviction notice that a full-time carer is required to care for one of those individuals. This significantly tightens the range of the clause and therefore reduces the ability of an unscrupulous landlord to use it wrongly.
I acknowledge, from having spoken with housing charities, that landlords hold the power in the tenant/landlord relationship, and that approaching and challenging a landlord is difficult. With these changes, the onus would now be on the landlord to provide evidence rather than the tenant. The tenant could then go to the appropriate authority to challenge the eviction if no evidence is provided. We are not looking to change in any way the four-month notice period that a landlord would have to give if a family member needed the house.
I acknowledge that these grounds will be used on very few occasions, but when they are used it will be by a family at a very challenging time, when full-time care is required for an immediate family member. Landlords will evict only if they believe they need a carer for a significant amount of time, such as for an elderly person or a child with a long-term illness or disability.
A family that is fortunate enough to be in a position with the appropriate accommodation that meets the criteria of this amendment could, and most likely will, be in a location with limited supply of available or alternative properties, such as rural settings, or a city or town with high demand for rental properties, of which there are currently many. I acknowledge that a tenant needing to leave the property will cause upheaval, stress and potential cost to that family or individual, but surely a family has the right to use what possessions it has to maximise the quality of care for a family member and to support the rest of the family at a time of need.
I look forward to your Lordships’ support on this amendment. If I need to, I may test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 64B from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to create a new possession ground for carers. I know that every noble Lord here appreciates and values the important work that carers do in our communities. It goes without saying that we should take every step possible, every step we reasonably can, to help them in their work. The noble Lord has been thoughtful and very considered throughout these discussions, and clearly has the best interests of carers at heart, as he has again shown.
I understand that this is a difficult issue and appreciate the arguments that landlords who organise their own care are not burdening the state and that they should be able to utilise their properties to do just that. On the other hand, I note that these debates have previously highlighted—as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has again today—the difficulty of housing carers, for example in rural communities.
The scarcity of housing in rural areas also raises the counterpoint of the plight of the tenant. These tenants may be the local teacher or work in the post office—long-term members of the community who do not own their own homes. To evict them to house a carer for a landlord who may possibly be in the area for only a couple of years will upend their lives and leave them potentially struggling to remain in the area. It is worth adding that the only way currently to test whether there is a genuine need for a carer is if the tenant challenges their eviction and the landlord has to go to court to obtain a possession order. Unfortunately, I am afraid, experience shows that many tenants will not do that, as they will simply leave without the landlord ever having to prove a carer was really required.
I appreciate that this is very much a balanced argument but, on balance, I am of the view that allowing tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own in order to house carers for landlords is not the right approach, because of the threat and disruption this would cause to tenants and the scope for wider misuse of this ground. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, we should not underestimate the danger that this could become a loophole for unscrupulous landlords. There are enough of them, as we all know and realise from our experience in the private rented sector, so this could be a real danger.
There are dangers and scope for wider misuse. In my view, therefore, the benefit to a relatively narrow group of landlords should not be allowed to outweigh that disruption, so I hope that the Motion is not moved to a vote.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests as the joint owner of a small cottage in the village where I live.
I strongly support Amendment 64B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. It has had the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and of caring organisations, which would be helped immediately, not just condemned to wait for the Casey review, which we are all very keen to see. The amendment has been tightened up considerably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to avoid any abuse, in response to comments that the Minister herself made in Committee, which is very helpful.
The Government’s negative response is an example of their unwillingness so far to take the demise of carers seriously. Being able to provide accommodation for carers can make a real difference to their availability.
Not every carer wants to be a live-in carer, especially if they have families, yet we need growing numbers of carers. This is because there are ever-growing numbers of the aged and the disabled, as well as a scarcity of care home and hospice spaces. There is an acute shortage of housing and a scarcity of short-term accommodation, partly as a result of this very Bill. At the same time, we have smaller families, more couples having no children and more people seeing their relatives working or moving overseas. The need for hired carers is increasing, therefore, and those carers need short-term accommodation—it can sometimes be for years—as they move, over time, from job to job in different locations. We need to look at this. This change will be a small and totemic positive that would help both the caring sector and families in need. I invite the Minister to think again.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As previously, I declare my interest as a private landlord. In the context of this amendment, I had a relative to whom it would have applied; that interest no longer applies, as the Bill has caused plans to be advanced and the tenants in the relevant property were given notice under current law, but, of course, that does not take away my general concern around this topic.
This replacement amendment now has a narrower scope, applying only to homes needed to house carers in the immediate family—that is, the landlord, a spouse or children. Thus, it closes a loophole perceived by some of it being used by those with an awful lot of relatives, as was discussed with the Minister.
Some people have live-in carers. Others may need more than one carer or have progressive conditions. Whatever the reason—whether financial or in terms of availability—it may not be possible to have one large house to accommodate all the future carer needs under one roof or to sustain expenditure on such a property before it is required. People have to plan for the future deterioration of the person needing care and of the family members who are part of their support.
Some may have invested in an ideal adjacent property in good faith under current law as it became available. They may be using insurance payouts and—especially in the instance of children—are needing to plan for when parents are no longer around. Such plans have to be scrapped under this Bill, most likely resulting in property sales and earlier evictions. It may be a one-off readjustment, because nobody will make such plans in future, but is it really necessary to hit the vulnerable, such as children damaged at birth? That is among what we are doing.
To suggest that it is easy for affected people to set up and move elsewhere because they have the resources of more than one property is cruel. Avoiding upheaval can be an important factor, for reasons both of the health of the impaired person and of making bespoke adjustments to property—all of the equipment, bars, ramps, bathroom locations and so on. This is really not fair and not caring. I therefore support this amendment; with the narrower scope, I believe that it is a fair suggestion.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. We opposed the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on Report, and we see no reason to change our minds now. We have reflected carefully upon it. My noble friend Lord Shipley was very vexed by this question and was in conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. We finally came to the conclusion that the Government have probably got this about right, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. We are very pleased that the diligent work of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has finally got the concessions that I think it deserved.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am sorry, but every single person who would use this would be evicting a set of people, and the Bill is about protecting tenants in their place. Very few people will be in that privileged position. We and the Government have to make decisions about where that balance lies, and the decision has been made that way. I am sorry if it offends some people, but that has to be considered when making a decision of this sort.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to this debate. There have been some emotive discussions—I will come on to those in a moment—and some very thoughtful and considered responses to the amendments, and I am grateful for that.
I will start with the potential expansion of ground 4A. The Government recognise that the new tenancy system will have an impact on the way the student market operates. While we believe the ground covers the majority of the market, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that covers all circumstances. We think it is reasonable that the ground will apply to full-time students in larger house-share situations. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure—such as single parents living with their children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area—being evicted more regularly. I took my degree as a mature student. I am very sympathetic to people who have to run other parts of their life alongside their student life. They may be working or have families or caring responsibilities to cope with alongside their student life.
Noble Lords have raised concerns that the Bill could cause severe shortages of student accommodation or force students into expensive purpose-built student accommodation. We do not expect our reforms to have that level of destabilising effect on the rental market. I shall quote from Shelter’s email to me today: “This amendment would deny a group of renters the security and stability offered by the Renters’ Rights Bill, many of whom will be in employment or with caring responsibilities that sit alongside their student life”. That is when stability is key, and we do not believe they should be denied that stability. We will continue to work with good landlords and their representative associations throughout the implementation of the Bill.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for his amendment. As I have outlined, everyone in the House is aware of the remarkable and vital work that carers do to support families and individuals in difficult circumstances. However, given the risk of abuse and the very limited circumstances—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, put this very well—in which it might apply or could be used, we do not believe this new ground is warranted. We have ensured that possession grounds are fair to both parties, giving tenants more security while ensuring that landlords can recover their property when reasonable. For example, if the carer is a family member, as set out in ground 1, a landlord can use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate the carer.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Warwick for illustrating some of the issues that may arise, particularly in rural communities, around who may be evicted as a result of this ground. I want to add to the list of those who could be evicted an existing carer living in a rural setting where there might be very scarce housing, so you may have to evict one carer to put another carer in place. If there is scarce housing in that area, you may end up in that circumstance. Of course, the Government will continue to look at ways that they can support carers. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that once the Casey review is published, we will look at all the issues around carer support once again.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his comments. I know that he was not able to stay in the Chamber for the end of the debate, but we had specific issues raised by stakeholders, including the National Farmers’ Union. We listened very carefully to what they said, and we have ensured that the ground now has appropriate protections in place preventing landlords evicting assured tenants to house short-term workers. I am glad that that met the noble Lord’s request in terms of the amendment that he submitted previously.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I still do not understand why a group of students is not being looked after quite the same as other students. Therefore, I urge the House to support my Motion H1 to send the Bill back to the other place with our concerns for equality in the student housing sector, with housing for students who want, indeed need, small homes. Not every student can either work or live comfortably in an HMO, and not every student can afford specific student accommodation. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 55 to 62 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62A in lieu of Lords Amendments 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62.
“The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a qualifying agricultural worker.
For the purposes of this ground a person is a “qualifying agricultural worker” in case A or B.
Case A is where—
(a) the person will be employed in agriculture as a seasonal or permanent employee under a contract of employment, and
(b) the employer under that contract is—
(a) the landlord, or
(b) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of those landlords.
Case B is where—
(a) the person will be—
(i) employed in agriculture under a contract of employment, but the employer under that contract is not the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, any of those landlords, or
(ii) working in agriculture under a contract that is not a contract of employment, whether the contract is express or implied and (if express) whether oral or in writing,
(b) the person will be employed or working in agriculture under that contract wholly or mainly for—
(i) the landlord, or
(ii) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of the landlords, and
(c) the relevant landlord intends that employment or work to continue for at least six months after the relevant date; and here “relevant landlord” means the landlord, or whichever of the joint landlords, the person will be wholly or mainly working for.
In this ground—
“agriculture” has the same meaning as in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (see section 1 of that Act);
“contract of employment” has the meaning given by section 230(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 64, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 64A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
“New ground for possession for property which is required for a carer for the landlord or landlord’s family
24A After Ground 8 insert—
“Ground 8A
The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a person who is a carer for—
(a) the landlord,
(b) the landlord’s spouse, or
(c) the landlord’s child or a child for whom the landlord is the primary guardian,
where the dwelling-house is in sufficiently close proximity to the person requiring care to facilitate emergency callout.
The landlord is responsible for producing evidence to demonstrate that a full-time carer is required for the person specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) above. For the purposes of this Schedule, “carer” means an adult providing personal care or nursing care to another person, who may be under the age of 18, under a voluntary or contracted arrangement.
The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) specify the nature of the evidence to be produced by the landlord above, and
(b) amend the definition of carer.”””
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank your Lordships for your contributions to the debate on this matter. What I drew from it is how much we all value what carers do for all our people in need of care. I look forward to the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to help the caring market, which is coming out next week.
One of the comments has been that tenants would be evicted if this amendment were accepted, but tenants are being evicted all the time, for lots of different reasons. It is an important matter that people should be able to use their possessions to care for their families, as I said in my speech. However, taking account of the votes today, I will not move my Motion K1.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 67, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 67A.
Digital ID
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, we unequivocally oppose the Government’s dangerous mandatory digital ID policy, both in principle and in practice. If it is allowed to become legislation, the electorate risks being subjected to an extraordinary expansion of state power, one that comes not only at the expense of personal freedom but at great cost to the taxpayer.
Before I outline our objections to this proposal, it is important to understand the wider context in which this policy has been announced. Over this Government’s year in power, an estimated 50,000 people have entered the country on small boats, the largest recorded number to date, but the Secretary of State has claimed that digital IDs will deter these illegal migrants. Where is the evidence for this claim? Criminal gangs and illegal workers already operate outside formal employment and taxation systems. They do not care about paperwork or credentials. They work illegally, beyond the reach of existing regulation. They subvert existing national insurance requirements. Why would we expect digital ID to be different? To suggest that digital ID would somehow deter these operations is untested, unfounded and too optimistic to be convincing.
We are concerned, too, about the vast scope of this programme. The Government have claimed that digital IDs will result in “more joined-up” public services, saving people time from having to restate personal details to multiple departments. Here the Government seem to me to conflate separate issues: more effective public services and curbing illegal migration. They promise an end to bureaucracy while simultaneously constructing one of the most intrusive systems of state surveillance in our nation’s history. This is vast in its objectives, slight in its detail and, frankly, creepy in its reach into our privacy. Better online services do not require a centralised identity regime. We already have mechanisms such as right-to-work checks and DBS verification. These have all been designed with consent and privacy in mind, with nobody forced to pursue the digital route. The Government’s policy would herald an end to that freedom.
This policy was not even in the Government’s manifesto. There is no democratic mandate for digital ID, nor is there any appetite for it. In fact, over 2.8 million people have already signed a petition opposing it.
If, all of that said, the Government go ahead with this policy, we urge them to mitigate the risks and the costs in three ways. First, can they please ensure that the system is designed as a decentralised tool, using the blockchain to give citizens privacy and security? Secondly, to ensure some adherence to their stated goals, we urge the Government to adopt an agile approach of test and iterate rather than a build-once model. Thirdly, can the Government clarify and limit the stated goals? The current scope is simply too broad to be realistic.
Digital IDs fundamentally shift the burden of proof from government to citizens. In a free democracy, it is the state, not citizens, that must justify its actions. Under this scheme, one’s ability to rent, open a bank account or even order a drink would be conditional on the possession of government-issued digital ID. When the ability to work is conditioned on digital, state-approved credentials, meaningful consent ceases to exist. The choice between non-participation and never being able to work again is no choice at all. Last week, the Foreign Secretary proposed issuing digital IDs for those as young as 13. Once implemented, this policy will further infringe on people’s lives. Today, it is to determine the right to work; tomorrow, it could be to determine the right to vote or to travel.
Digital IDs are accompanied by a litany of practical problems and challenges, not least the enormous and real cybersecurity risk. The UK’s own sign-on system was breached only months ago during testing. The National Cyber Security Centre is yet to endorse the scheme. Further, 8.5 million adults lack the requisite digital skills to make use of these IDs, and many do not own a smartphone or have reliable internet access. Labour’s digital inclusion action plan is currently inadequate for the need and does not account for the structural barriers that vulnerable individuals face.
Finally, this presumably comes at a considerable cost to the taxpayer. Perhaps when he speaks, the Minister could give us some estimate of the likely costs for hardware, software, development and the operation of the system. The Government’s proposal for digital IDs is costly, controlling and risky. We do not think it will stop the boats and we do not think it will streamline services without very significant, and as yet unknowable, investment and programme delivery. Instead, we are concerned that it represents an illegitimate state encroachment on people’s privacy that they themselves are forced to fund. We are deeply alarmed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the introduction of compulsory digital ID represents another fundamental error by this Government. The Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this proposal, which is a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties and social inclusion. We thank the Minister for bringing the Secretary of State’s Statement to this House today, but my disappointment and opposition to the Government’s plan more than mirrors that of my honourable friend Victoria Collins in the Commons yesterday.
The core issue here is not technology but freedom. The Government insist this scheme is non-compulsory, yet concurrently confirm that it will be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. This is mandatory digital ID in all but name, especially for working-age people. As my party leader Sir Ed Davey has stated, we cannot and will not support a system where citizens are forced to hand over private data simply to participate in everyday life. This is state overreach, plain and simple.
The Secretary of State quoted Finland and the ability of parents to register for daycare, but I think the Secretary of State needs to do a bit more research. That is a voluntary scheme, not a compulsory one. We have already seen the clear danger of mission creep. My honourable friend Victoria Collins rightly warned that the mere discussion of extending this scheme to 13 to 16 year-olds is sinister, unnecessary and a clear step towards state overreach. Where does this stop?
The Secretary of State sought to frame this as merely a digital key to unlock better services. This dangerously conflates genuine and desirable public service reform with a highly intrusive mandate. First, the claim that this will deliver fairness and security by tackling illegal migration is nothing more than a multibillion-pound gimmick. The Secretary of State suggests that it will deter illegal working, yet, as my colleagues have pointed out, rogue employers who operate cash-in-hand schemes will not look at ID on a phone. Mandatory digital ID for British citizens will not stop illegal migrants working in the black economy.
Secondly, the claim that the system will be free is disingenuous. As my honourable friend Max Wilkinson, our home affairs spokesman, demanded, the Government must come clean on the costs and publish a full impact assessment. Estimates suggest that creating this system will cost between £1 billion and £2 billion, with annual running costs of £100 million pounds. This is completely the wrong priority at a time when public services are crumbling.
Thirdly, the promise of inclusion rings hollow. This mandatory system risks entrenching discrimination against the millions of vulnerable people, such as older people and those on low incomes, who lack foundational digital skills, a smartphone or internet access.
The greatest concern is the Government’s insistence on building this mandatory system on GOV.UK’s One Login, a platform with security failures that have been repeatedly and publicly criticised, including in my own correspondence and meetings with government. There are significant concerns about One Login’s security. The Government claim that One Login adheres to the highest security standards. Despite this commitment, as of late 2024 and early 2025, the system was still not fully compliant. A GovAssure assessment found that One Login was meeting only about 21 of the 39 required outcomes in the NCSC cyber assessment framework. The GOV.UK One Login programme has told me that it is committed to achieving full compliance with the cyber assessment framework by 21 March 2026, yet officials have informed me that 500 services across 87 departments are already currently in scope for the One Login project.
There are other criticisms that I could make, but essentially the foundations of the digital ID scheme are extremely unsafe, to say the least. To press ahead with a mandatory digital ID system, described as a honeypot for hackers, based on a platform exhibiting such systemic vulnerabilities is not only reckless but risks catastrophic data breaches, identity theft and mass impersonation fraud. Concentrating the data of the entire population fundamentally concentrates the risk.
The Secretary of State must listen to the millions of citizens who have signed the petition against this policy. We on these Benches urge the Government to scrap this costly, intrusive and technologically unreliable scheme and instead focus on delivering voluntary, privacy-preserving digital public services that earn the public’s trust rather than demanding compliance.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the points that they have raised with the Government. Unsurprisingly, I have no doubt that this is an area in which there will be strong interest across the House. I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, of the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, that the:
“Arguments against digital ID are paper thin”.
I shall address the concerns that have been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In the context of the Data (Use and Access) Act, we were clear that the services under that legislation were not mandatory, nor were they ever designed to be, and they cover many of the areas that have been discussed so far. This new national digital ID will be required, specifically and only, for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. It is a very narrow use for a very specific purpose.
However, we have always believed and continue to believe that there are huge upsides for a digitally enabled society, one where everyone feels able to participate, everyone feels a sense of agency and everyone’s lives are made easier by a digital key that indeed unlocks access to services—something that is a big upside to a digitally enabled society. Those businesses that enable this, as we have seen in other countries that have introduced a digital ID, and the services that those businesses provide will have an important role to play.
We expect the digital identity market to be able to build on the national digital pass and offer value-added services for individuals and businesses. In countries where digital ID is well established, the private sector has built a wide range of services around it, making everyday tasks such as open banking, renting a flat and applying for a mortgage faster, simpler and more secure, but that is not a mandatory use of this. The required use is for the right to work.
I turn to the subject of illegal migration, a problem that obviously has grown enormously over the past 10 to 15 years. I absolutely agree that there is no silver bullet to solving illegal migration, but ensuring that there is a single digital system to prove that you have a right to work will simplify the process and drive up compliance, making it easier for businesses and providing the Home Office—this is an important point—with an overview of employers conducting checks that they can use to audit those suspected of hiring illegally. It will be possible for it to see where there are a large number of employees but only two or three who have been checked for work. Ultimately, it should be easier for honest, legitimate employers to get started and much harder for those employing illegally.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that this was an invasion of privacy and civil liberties. I do not agree, and I think those countries that have introduced it would not agree. Digital identities preserve and increase privacy by limiting the information that individuals have to share when proving something about themselves. The credentials in play here are name, date of birth, information on nationality or residency status, and a photo. That is what you need for a right-to-work check, and the display may be as simple as a yes or no, with none of the information shared with the third party. We will ensure that strict safeguards are in place to prevent illegal tracking or misuse of data by the Government or anyone else.
On the point that has been raised about how this actually works and whether we end up with a big target —a honeypot—this will be a federated system, as it has rightly been pointed out that it should be, not a single repository, increasing security and not creating a honeypot of data.
A question was asked about those aged 13 and upwards. This is a system designed for 16 year-olds and above. As part of the consultation, there will be consultation about younger age groups and whether there may be utility for them. Any use of personal data will continue to be regulated by the independent Information Commissioner’s Office, and our consultation, which will be launched later this year, will consider whether further safeguards will be needed or appropriate.
The question of cost was raised. While I cannot give exact details of the cost, I can say that it will be met within the existing SR budget over the SR period.
OneLogin was raised. Indeed there were problems at the beginning, and that is not unusual with a system as it is getting set up. Those problems date from 2023 and have been resolved, and the National Cyber Security Centre is working hand in hand to get the OneLogin system to the place where it needs to be. The National Cyber Security Centre will be central to getting this system set up as well.
Finally, I want to talk about digital inclusion, a key point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and an area that is increasingly important for the times we live in. That is why this Government have made digital inclusion a priority. We set out a range of first steps in the Digital Inclusion Action Plan, published in February this year, and are working across government to improve inclusion. We know that those who do not own or cannot afford a smartphone, do not already have photo ID or have additional accessibility requirements will require special attention. One in 10 people already struggles to prove their identity and access the service that they have a right to because they lack a photo ID. This scheme is an opportunity to get them a free digital credential that proves their identity and helps them to access those services.
We will deliver a comprehensive inclusion programme, including face-to-face support to ensure that everyone eligible is able to access the new digital pass and benefit from it if they want to, including those using it for right-to-work checks—the only required need for this. It will provide targeted support to those who currently struggle to engage with digital services, including options for a digitally enabled physical alternative for those without a smartphone or who may experience data poverty, such as those unable to afford data use on their phone.
We have already started to engage with a range of expert organisations and community groups, including the Digital Inclusion Action Committee, and we look forward to continuing to do so throughout the credential’s design and development—a process that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, has pointed out, must be done in an agile way and will require both external input and government technical need.
This is an important development that, although with a narrow requirement, has a broad use that I think many people already take advantage of in different forms in this country. Digital ID will make life easier for people.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, underpinning any individual ID scheme has to be an individual ID number. Other countries normally seem to base that on date of birth plus a scheme of other numbers. Can the Minister make clear to us whether we have decided what our system will be? How far have they advanced in developing it, and when is it likely to be rolled out?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The consultation will start later this year. It will be very broad, and we welcome input from many groups. We know that this is not straight- forward; it will require considerable thought about how to get it exactly right. The answer is that we do not yet have a view on exactly how the system will be designed. That will be part of the consultation process. It will not be done overnight, and it will require us to come back to this House on many occasions. It will have great public input and technical input as we design it.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very sceptical about mandatory digital ID. Can the Minister tell us how many people at the moment do not even have a mobile phone, never name all the extra that is needed? When the Government talk about inclusion, this is one of the most exclusive kinds of suggestions. It was not even in the manifesto. If by any chance this actually did go through and become law, can the Minister give an absolute commitment that it would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that the Government would not listen to those people who say that, somehow, mandatory digital ID in Northern Ireland would be contrary to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her point. In terms of digital inclusion, we know, of course, that not everyone has a mobile phone. The vast majority do: I think 92% of people do. Some people already use an equivalent to some sort of digital ID in banking and other areas, but there are people who do not. That is why we are so keen to make sure that we have a digital inclusion stream right from the very beginning, to try to identify the needs of those individuals and how we deal with people who do not have a smartphone. There will, of course, be no requirement to have a smartphone. There will be a workaround for those who do not, which will enable them to have a physical manifestation of something that has a digital imprint.
In terms of the very important question about Northern Ireland, I can guarantee that this will apply to everyone eligible to work in the UK. It will take full account of the Northern Ireland situation, and indeed those from the island of Ireland who are eligible to work in the UK will be eligible to be part of this as well.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I confess that I am slightly confused. The Minister rightly referred to the Data (Use and Access) Act, and we spent a lot of time then discussing the introduction of digital verification services. At the time, those were described as having pretty much the same benefits as are described in this Oral Statement. In fact, the description is uncannily similar. Can the Minister please explain the additional benefits this digital ID will bring and why and how those benefits justify the £1 billion to £2 billion cost?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The new part, as I have said, is exactly about the right to work and the ability to have identity related to the right to work. That will form a platform for digital ID and the ability to use that in other ways for the services described in the Data (Use and Access) Act.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord may have seen an article in Computer Weekly in June in which the headline talked about the eVisa system as being “error-prone” and “anxiety-inducing”. Among the cases in this extensive report was a doctor with indefinite leave to remain who had been here for 20 years but could not travel to a medical conference because the IT error meant that they could not link their official identity documents to their visa account. The report also talked about a woman they called Athena who had to take a month off work because she was so stressed by the fact that the Home Office computer could not match the name on her passport to the name on her account, despite the fact that her name, which had never changed, was the same on her passport, her eVisa account and her biometric residence permit. Can the Minister tell me why the noble Lord or this House should have any expectation that we would not see the same situation with this proposal?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I am certainly not going to stand here and say that it is going to be absolutely error-free, because nothing is. I am not going to say that it is easy, because it is not. But there is a big gain at the end of this. It is not as though this has not been done elsewhere. It is not as though there are not ways in which countries have got this to work very effectively. Certainly, if you were to speak to anyone from Estonia, they would think we were mad not to have it already.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I chair the Digital Inclusion Action Committee. I do that not because I am a digital expert like the two Front-Bench people opposite and my noble friend, but because I know and have worked throughout my life on social exclusion. I know that we can do this. If either of the two Front-Benchers opposite, or anyone else, wants to come with me to a hub, I would love to take them to see it. The hub is doing this now with people who never thought they would get near it but now have digital devices that we organised for them, free. They learn to use them properly and are properly supported. Next week is Digital Inclusion Action Week and I hope that some Members will take care of that.
The reality is that, for many people who are socially excluded, the Government’s proposals will make a huge difference. If you are homeless, you frequently cannot get into a hostel because they cannot work out who you are. You cannot get benefits because you have no means—you have not got an address, so you cannot get the benefit. You cannot get a bank account. We are working with the banks to change that. We are working not just with the excluded but with the industry, with the not-for-profit organisations involved and with local government. There is enormous enthusiasm for this. I have met people whose lives have been changed. They want to know that they have the Government on their side and do not have to rely on everything else that is produced in America. We do not have any security of digital ID. We are all using iPads and iPhones now and they are controlled in America by people such as Elon Musk, who could not care less about your well-being and what happens to you. Let us make this secure, so that people here can have confidence that their digital ID is protected and they do not have to rely on people outside who do not care about them.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that powerful and informed statement. I am sure that my noble friend’s offer for people to come and visit will be taken up, and I certainly would like to accept that offer myself at some point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as I currently chair the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, which is, as it says on the tin, to prove the ages of young people who want to go out for a drink at night, engage in nighttime activity or go to the cinema. We are seeking to move from a purely physical card to a digital one, so I echo the confusion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Where are we with digital ID? If it is going to be for only one purpose—the right to work—you are excluding from activities those young people who currently are willing to buy either a physical card or a digital card for a very modest sum. They will be excluded from this free scheme because it is only for the right to work.
I can quite see where the Government are coming from, because there is a category of people who cannot prove their identity or their age because they do not drive, so do not have a driving licence, and do not travel so do not have a passport. But there is a bit of confusion at the moment in the Government’s thinking between proof of age, age verification and digital ID. If that could be clarified as soon as possible, it would be extremely helpful.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Let me just try to be clear about a point that I think is important. The required element of this is the bit to do with the right to work. The notion that this is available for all sorts of other things which people can choose to be part of or not is completely separate. The same structure will be used, but the only mandatory part is that, to have the ability and right to work, you will have to show this. The noble Baroness is quite right, of course, that there are lots of things that people want to use this for now. That is why work is going ahead already on the digital wallet and the ability to use those things. They are, of course, separate from a requirement to have this for the right to work.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has careful consideration been given to the circumstances on the island of Ireland, where there is quite a lot of cross-border working, both from south to north and north to south? The Government should also be mindful of the Good Friday agreement. Many people, including me, see their identity as Irish and would not want a digital ID issued by the British Government. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what discussions have taken place with the Irish Government regarding this particular issue and the method of implementation? Have all those issues regarding identity and nationality been fully considered?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are, of course, fully committed to everything in the Good Friday agreement. My colleague, the Minister for Digital Government and Data, was in Northern Ireland just last week. He had meetings with the Deputy Speaker, Northern Ireland’s Community Minister and the Finance Minister. Engagement with the Irish Government is planned as well. This will be done in close collaboration, recognising exactly the point about the desire of people either to have or not to have something linked to this. Of course, Ireland is introducing its own digital ID scheme as part of the EU. We intend to stay very close on this and make sure we do this in partnership.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with interest to the exchange so far. I have an open mind on this. My noble friend Lord Camrose raised some important questions about cost, security and utility. It struck me that it would be premature, before those questions had been fully explored, to come to a conclusion that this is something that should be opposed in principle. I note that in a recent opinion poll some 57% of the public were in favour of ID. The highest level of support actually came from people who voted Conservative.
My question to the Minister is about the consultation process mentioned in the Statement, which is due to begin at the end of the year. Can he tell the House when that consultation will end? What form will it take? Will it be an attempt to have a wide debate throughout the country, with documents being produced for public consumption? What exactly is the shape of the consultation? Presumably the Government will be in favour of the proposal, but what might be available to those who take a different view from the Government on it and may want some resources to campaign against it?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those observations. The consultation needs to be inclusive, involve various groups, and give everybody a chance to input into this from societal and technical aspects. The aim is to have a very widespread consultation to make sure we get the right input from all parts of society. We have talked about those who may feel excluded already. The intention is to have a consultation that really helps shape this. It is not a consultation just to say we have done one; it is one that will help shape this from every angle. We look forward to input from across the House and beyond.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House how the Government plan to address the arguments that will be made against these proposals, in particular in relation to concerns about individual privacy?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The argument about individual privacy is an interesting one, because digital ID is a way of increasing privacy. At the moment when you show a form of ID, it includes all sorts of information that the person who sees it does not need to know and should not necessarily know. A digital ID gives the chance to show simply that you meet the requirements that are needed without disclosing any more information whatever. There are arguments that need to be well rehearsed and described, as part of the consultation, as to why this will not be a sudden increase in exposing your information to others. It is a way of protecting it, owing it and having agency over what you do with it.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative and I have listened with interest to the two opposition spokespersons. In 2010 and 2011, they abandoned the work that had been done, and we have fallen so far behind. We have seen people come into the country and work unregistered—not paying tax and not being part of society in the fullest sense. If a digital system had been operating, even the old-fashioned ID system, then we would have had a much bigger income coming into the country and a much better state of affairs than we have at the moment. We would have deterred people from coming here, which is one of the major factors behind it. I hope we will move quickly on that part of the exercise. I welcome the second part to extend it over a wider front too.
On cost, I hope the Government will be innovative and will not think simply in old public service terms: “This department is doing this, and that department is doing that”. I hope we can create an umbrella organisation that will be made up of Governments, local authorities and charities, involve the private sector and extend this to citizens. We should give them an incentive to join—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talking about the rights of young people to go out and drink—and cover issues such as that within the ID system. We should try to have a completely new structure compared with what we had in the past.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments on migration. I agree that this is one way in which one can detect whether illegal employment is going on. It will be a deterrent, because the ease with which people can be employed here is part of the reason why it is an attractive place to come. On the way we go about doing this, in addition to the points he has raised, it is worth looking at what has happened in other countries, where businesses became very involved, saying, “Once this has been set up, how do we also start being a part of creating services that allow people to do things more easily?” I expect that to be a major part of this. We already have business sectors beginning to think about how they can use this approach to provide better services, better link-up and better access. That private sector involvement will be important for the uses that people want. They are not mandatory uses but ones that make life easier for people.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I have just been at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, so it is reassuring to hear that there will be close co-ordination and co-operation on this issue. I also welcome the response on social exclusion and those issues, although, in my experience, increasingly low-paid workers need to have a mobile phone because that is the way you get the job and carry out the work. I have heard about the benefits to business of the mandatory requirement in respect of digital ID and the right to work, but I would be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister could say, in lay person’s language, what the benefit is to the average worker.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The benefit to the average worker is that they are being employed by an honest company, in the right way, and they are not having their jobs taken by people who should not be working. This should be a very easy, quick thing to do. It should be very easy for the person wanting a job and for the company, and it will exclude people who do not have a right to work.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, further to the answer the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and me on Northern Ireland, I think more would be helpful. Every time a Minister in different places and parts of the United Kingdom says anything about this issue, something slightly different comes out. Could the Minister look carefully at this and perhaps write a letter to me and to the noble Baroness and put it in the Library, specifically on how this be implemented in Northern Ireland if it should become law?
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the matter before us today is a grave and serious one, and I am glad that we have another opportunity to discuss it, following my noble friend Lord True’s success in securing a PNQ on the matter yesterday. The collapse of the case against Mr Cash and Mr Berry goes to the very heart of this Parliament. What is at stake is nothing less than the dignity and security of Members of both Houses and of those who work within them.
In their handling of the matter, the Government have shown a grave failure of responsibility. The Statement issued by the Security Minister in the other place on Monday was woefully inadequate. This dispute turns on one simple question: why did the Government not give the Crown Prosecution Service the evidence it needed to pursue this case? In both his Statement and his replies, the Security Minister failed to clarify four central matters.
First, he proceeded on the false premise that the previous Government did not regard China as a national security threat. The record shows that they did. For example, the head of MI6 in 2021 said that China was one of the biggest four threats to the UK, alongside Russia, Iran and international terrorism.
Secondly, like the Prime Minister, the Security Minister seemed to argue that it was not open to the current Government to give the Crown Prosecution Service evidence that differed from the previous Government’s view of the threat from China. In other words, he seems to have assumed that the present Government could not form their own view of the threat during 2021 to 2023 or provide a statement to that effect. That was wrong. Nothing in law or practice stopped the Government from doing so.
Thirdly, he cited the Roussev judgment as though it had narrowed the 1911 Act. It did not. The Court of Appeal made it clear that “enemy” includes any state acting against the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, whether or not we are at war with it.
Fourthly, he assumed that only the Government can determine who falls within that definition. There is no such requirement. The question is one of fact, not fiat, and may properly be assessed by a jury on the evidence before it.
I might stress that noble Lords should not just take my word for it. The Minister’s and the Prime Minister’s argument has been refuted by no less than one former DPP, two former Cabinet Secretaries—one of whom was a National Security Adviser—two former heads of MI6 and a professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, who said this week that Ministers’ statements so far are “misleading” about the legal position. The experts are all clear that Mr Cash and Mr Berry could have been prosecuted under the old legislation. Are we to believe the Government’s position that they are all wrong and that they—the Government—are right?
This case is only one symptom of a deeper failure in the Government’s approach to China. Ministers are still intent on allowing the Chinese Communist Party to build its new embassy on the Royal Mint site, within sight of some of the most sensitive financial and communications infrastructure in the country. They have done so despite clear and repeated warnings from our allies in Washington and from our own intelligence agencies that the project poses a serious espionage risk. Those warnings have been brushed aside and key details redacted from public view.
The decision to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius tells the same story. China’s ambassador there publicly welcomed the move, congratulating Mauritius and confirming its intention to join Beijing’s belt and road initiative. Now, even as evidence of Chinese interference has reached into Parliament itself, the Government’s response has remained slow, confused and complacent. This is not an isolated failure but a pattern of neglect—one that leaves the United Kingdom exposed at a moment when China’s ambitions are clearer and more aggressive than ever.
Before I conclude, I have several questions for the noble Baroness the Minister. It is not for Ministers or officials to determine what evidence meets the threshold for prosecution. That judgment belongs solely to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government’s duty was to provide all relevant information to the CPS when asked. They did not. The question is: who decided that the Crown Prosecution Service would not be provided with further evidence? Was that decision taken by Ministers, officials or advisers?
Everyone in government knows that a matter of this kind would have gone to Ministers. To pretend otherwise is not credible; to blame a single official is wrong. Did the Deputy National Security Adviser act without ministerial oversight in determining the evidential basis of the case? If so, who authorised that arrangement? Were any Ministers or special advisers shown, did they clear or were they consulted on the Deputy National Security Adviser’s draft statement before it was sent to the CPS? When the CPS requested further material, were Ministers shown this request and did they clear the revised version? Will the Minister publish the internal guidance that allowed the Deputy National Security Adviser to act “without interference” from Ministers, as well as the correspondence between the Cabinet Office, the CPS and the Foreign Office concerning the drafting of his statements?
Furthermore, how many current investigations rely on the 1911 Act, and have any been paused following Roussev? What part of that judgment, which produced six convictions, prevented the CPS proceeding in this case? Did any official or Minister advise that Roussev made prosecution under the 1911 Act impossible, and will that advice be placed in the Library? Mr Justice Hilliard cited the evidence of Matthew Collins, the Deputy National Security Adviser, as authoritative in Roussev. Why is the same official’s evidence deemed unusable when applied to China?
Why is guidance to Members being launched only today, when MI5 and the National Protective Security Authority have been aware of active Chinese interference since at least 2022?
Finally, will the Minister confirm whether Sir Olly Robbins has been instructed to make clear to his counterparts that the United Kingdom regards China as a national security threat and to set out what discussions he is authorised to hold?
This is not about one prosecution that failed. It is about whether we still possess the will to defend the institutions that safeguard our liberty. It is about whether those charged with protecting this country still understand what it means to act in its defence. When foreign powers reach into our Parliament and Ministers look away, it is not only our security that is breached but our sense of who we are. A Government who will not face the truth invite their own humiliation. A nation that tolerates such weakness endangers itself.
Britain’s strength has never rested on wealth or size but on the courage to confront those who would test it. That courage is now being tested again. The Government must speak plainly, act decisively and show that this country will never be cowed, compromised or complacent in the face of the ambitions of China. I urge the noble Baroness to answer not with evasion but with candour, and to meet this moment with the seriousness our duty to the nation demands.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I do not think that I have followed the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in the past and it is a great pleasure to do so. I am happy to say that there are still one or two things left to say.
This Statement is clearly an attempt to put to rest the issue of these botched prosecutions, or non-prosecutions. So far, however, it has not only failed in that ambition; at the same time, it has resurfaced other issues regarding China and our relationship that generate increasing concern. Regarding the prosecutions, and given the Minister’s Statement and the Government’s adamant view that they have not concealed evidence or suppressed anything, it would be easy for the Government to publish all the relevant documentation. They have nothing to hide; we know that—they have told us, and we trust them. Will the Government publish all the relevant documents, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the correspondence between all officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS?
It is time for the Government to properly protect the interests of our citizens so, working with the CPS, will the Government look at all legislative options to make sure that these two individuals have their time in the court, face a jury and are able to plead their case? These are the ways that the Government can push this issue to rest: by openness and actually seeking to prosecute.
More widely, this case has exposed appalling gaps in the Government’s willingness to challenge China’s considerable espionage efforts, but I am pleased that they recognise that we have a problem. The Statement is clear:
“We fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security”,
it says, but their actions fly in the face of that reality.
A former director-general of the Security Service has warned that Chinese espionage is being carried out on an industrial scale, including by seeking influence over Parliament, as well as in industry and education. This has been clear for some time. That was why we warned that exempting China from the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act was a terrible mistake by this Government.
Will the Government now undertake to include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist Party-linked organisations in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? More than that, the Government, supported by the Conservatives, exempted government administration and public bodies in their entirety from the FIRS scheme. Will the Minister now undertake to listen to the intelligence community and include people performing in these activities in the enhanced layer of FIRS?
Finally, as we have heard, it is now time for the Government to come to their senses and block the planning application for the Chinese mega-embassy. We know that, through its embassy in the UK, China has been co-ordinating the transnational repression of people who are carrying out normal and legal activities in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister confirm that the intelligence agencies were not consulted before the Government approved China’s new super-embassy in London, and will the Government now take heed and halt that project until a full national security review is completed?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, that is a significant number of questions, which I have written down and now lost—thank you—and I will endeavour to answer all of them. I will also review Hansard and make sure that I correspond on anything that I am unsuccessful in responding to. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their participation and genuine interest in this. Let us be very clear that matters of espionage, especially those that have seemingly been conducted within your Lordships’ House, but also within Parliament, are of the utmost seriousness.
I want to begin by reinforcing that this Government remain extremely disappointed by the collapse of the Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry trial. During yesterday’s PNQ, I committed to update your Lordships’ House on the facts surrounding the collapse of this trial, as well as government actions to counter state threats—as my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister, also made clear yesterday. The decision not to prosecute was made independently by the CPS. It is a bedrock principle of our democracy that decisions of the CPS are independent of Ministers and the Government.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has written to the chairs of the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee, setting out that the CPS decision not to take this case to trial was because the evidential test was not met. As the Prime Minister—who, if we are citing former DPPs, I remind noble Lords is also a former DPP—has stated, the policy position of the current Government was “immaterial” to the CPS’s assessment.
The legal test required consideration of the Government’s policy at the time the alleged offences were committed—between December 2021 and February 2023—when Members opposite were in Government. At that time, the previous Conservative Government described China as a “systematic challenge” in the Integrated Review 2021 and an “epoch-defining challenge” in the Integrated Review Refresh 2023. They did not designate China as a threat or an enemy; that is at the crux of the issue.
I want to be clear, and I am genuinely horrified by the suggestion, that accusations that the Government concealed evidence, withdrew witnesses or in any way restricted the ability of witnesses to provide evidence are entirely untrue. The Director of Public Prosecutions has given his assurance that the CPS was not influenced by any external party, any member of this Government or any senior civil servant or special adviser. As the Security Minister set out in detail yesterday, evidence was provided to the CPS by the Deputy National Security Adviser, who is highly respected and has the full support of this Government. All the evidence provided by the Deputy National Security Adviser was based on the law at the time of the offences and the policy position of the Conservative Government at that time. The DNSA did not materially change his evidence and was under no pressure from anybody to do so.
On the question raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox—which was also raised yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Gove—it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in further ongoing legal processes. To do so, or not, would likely affect witnesses in coming forward and hamper the interests of justice.
I understand that many noble Lords are also rightly interested in the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the facts around the collapse of this case. The Government’s approach will always be to make as much information available as possible through the appropriate processes, given the national security considerations. I welcome that the National Security Adviser will be giving a private briefing to the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy next month.
On our approach to China, this Government are unequivocal. China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyberattacks and foreign interference to the transnational repression of Hong Kongers. This Government fully recognise the gravity of these threats. However, we must also recognise that China presents opportunities. It is the world’s second-largest economy. To act in the UK’s best interests, we must adopt a long-term strategic approach, as the last Government did. This means a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement without compromising our national security.
On some of the other specifics that have been raised, I want to respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the Chinese embassy. No such decision has been made. The noble Lord knows that, throughout the process, we have been clear that we have considered the breadth of national security considerations and have publicly outlined necessary security mitigations that we would need to see to support an application. National security has been our core priority throughout the process. A final decision will be made in due course by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in their quasi-judicial role, and we expect a decision imminently. We do not underestimate the impact of national security as part of that decision.
As I also said yesterday in response to the PNQ, no decision has been made on China regarding the FIRS scheme. We are talking about a scheme that has been undertaken for only three and a half months. No decision has yet been made to exempt or include China, but a decision will be brought forward to your Lordships’ House.
On the specific question of the 1911 Act, the legislation the CPS uses for arrests and prosecutions is a matter for that agency. I do not have access to that data; that would be for the CPS. To clarify for noble Lords, there is a reason why many hours were spent in your Lordships’ House debating the National Security Bill in 2023—which was supported by my colleagues too on a cross-party basis—to update the Official Secrets Act. It is unfortunate that the 1911 Act was the basis of this prosecution, but there is a reason why we had to update it, and that is because of the very definition of “espionage” and “enemy”. This is a piece of legislation that was written prior to World War I. The world has changed, the threat level has changed and how people undertake threats has significantly changed.
I think I have touched on all the evidence. The Deputy National Security Adviser operated within the confines and constraints of the policy direction of the previous Government. We are fully committed to his work. He can operate only within the confines of the situation of the moment and, on that basis, there is nothing more for him to answer.
I reiterate this Government’s unwavering commitment to our national security. Yesterday, MI5’s National Protective Security Authority launched new guidance, building on previous guidance—it was not brand new—to protect our democratic institutions from foreign interference. I urge all noble Lords to read this vital guidance. Furthermore, the Government continue to hold China state-linked actors accountable for cyber espionage. The National Cyber Security Centre recently co-sealed a US-led technical advisory calling out Chinese state-sponsored actors for targeting global networks, including in the UK. We will continue to take all necessary action to tackle state threats, including those from China. That is the primary responsibility of government.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that, as chair of the ISC, I do not recognise some of her comments about our security services concerning China.
This confuses me because, as I understand the situation, the prosecutor has taken the 1911 Act. It was the ISC that, in 2020, called for reform of the Official Secrets Act, and there is still undone business on the 1989 Act, for example. But the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Roussev did not raise but lowered the bar in terms of the definition of “enemy”, if I am reading it correctly. So, on the idea that the CPS should just rely on the Government’s input into this, I cannot understand why it could not, for example, have used the ISC’s 2023 China report, which outlined our concerns about the threats. It would be interesting to know why the CPS did not look at that judgment. If they were not satisfied with what the Government gave it, there was plenty of other evidence out there that it could have used.
I say to my noble friend that the ISC meets on Thursday, and we will discuss this, as she can imagine. If—as is likely—we ask for the intelligence on this, I ask that we are not hindered in receiving it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his work as part of the ISC and his work in these areas for several decades. I would expect full co-operation with the committee in terms of what happens next. We want to be as open to scrutiny as possible but, given the issues, talking within the appropriate processes—the ISC is one of them—will be a matter for his committee and future conversations.
We need to remember that this was an independent decision made by the CPS. We genuinely believed that this case was going to proceed until we were informed by the CPS just before the embargo. We provided full co-operation with the CPS, I am reassured, within the constraints available to the Deputy National Security Adviser at that time, based on what had been said.
We need to remember—the noble Lord is absolutely right—that it was not until 2019 that the integrated review first mentioned China at all. Until that point, the previous Government did not consider China worthy even of mentioning in the security review. Importantly, at the point that we are discussing, the then Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, when asked whether China was a threat, said it was
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”
to sum up our relationship with China in one word. As I said yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, when she was Trade Secretary, said:
“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe but we can describe it as a challenge”.
That is the constraint within which the Deputy NSA gave his evidence. We need to be very clear about what government policy was two years ago.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I ask the noble Baroness to clarify the answer she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the important subject of transparency? He asked whether the Government will publish correspondence between officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS. The noble Baroness’s answer was exactly the same as that given yesterday by Mr Jarvis, the Minister in the Commons:
“it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in any further ongoing legal processes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/25; col. 70.]
My question is: what ongoing legal processes? This criminal prosecution has ended and it cannot be resurrected, and there is therefore no reason not to inform the public of all the details of this so that any concerns can be removed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, his level of expertise in our legal processes is much more significant than mine, but neither he nor I know what plans the CPS has for any future prosecution.
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
Tuesday 14th October 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberDeprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill 2024-26 View all Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 14 July 2025 - (14 Jul 2025)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
There is no more important task for any Government than to keep their citizens safe, and this Bill will form an important part of the Government’s ability to do just that. I remind noble Lords that the Bill is very narrow in its scope and intent: it contains just one substantive clause, which is focused solely on closing a specific loophole in the existing deprivation of citizenship process.
Noble Lords may recall its substantive provision, in Clause 1, which addresses a recent Supreme Court ruling: N3(ZA) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The effect of this ruling is that, if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, or if a deprivation of citizenship order is withdrawn, that initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be British. This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before any further avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
The effect of this judgment creates two risks. The first is that someone who poses a significant threat to public safety could return to the UK before all onward appeals are determined. I am sure that is a situation that noble Lords would not wish to see. Secondly, it could allow a person who has been deprived of citizenship, on the ground that it is conducive to the public good, to undermine further deprivation action by renouncing their other nationality before all onward appeals are determined. This is because reinstatement of a deprivation order would then render them stateless. This Bill simply intends to maintain the status quo by closing these loopholes, which may arise in a very small number of deprivation appeals.
It is important to say at the outset that the scope of this Bill does not touch on any wider areas of the deprivation process. It is important to say that because this Bill does not amend the existing deprivation power, it does not extend its potential application to additional individuals, and it does not in any way widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship. It also does not change any existing right of appeal, and it does not place any new restrictions on individuals who are subject to a deprivation order.
It is self-evident that deprivation of citizenship is a significant power, and I know that many noble Lords have strong feelings on its use. However, Parliament has enacted the power and entrusted the Home Secretary with using it, including to protect the UK from those who mean us harm. The existence of this power is not, however, the matter before us today. Rather, in this Bill, it is the specific provision that relates only to the potential period between a successful appeal and a final determination on the case.
To explain why it is so important that this power remains effective, which is what the Bill seeks to achieve, I shall set out briefly the circumstances in which the power is used and therefore the types of threat that the Bill will help protect society from. Deprivation is an important part of the suite of tools available to the Government to maintain public safety and preserve national security. The use of deprivation where it is conducive to the public good is a decision to be taken personally by the Home Secretary. It is used against some of the most dangerous individuals who pose a threat to the United Kingdom, including terrorists, extremists and serious and organised criminals. Someone who has been deprived of their citizenship and is in the UK no longer has any immigration status. Steps may be taken to remove them from the UK; they may be held in immigration detention in the interim; if they are overseas when a deprivation decision is made, they would not be permitted to enter the UK. In these circumstances, this is clearly an effective way to disrupt the threat posed by dangerous individuals.
I know that noble Lords will be interested in the volumes of this power: it is a power used sparingly. From 2008 to 2023, the entire period of the last Government’s use of the power, 12 people a year on average were deprived of their citizenship when it was determined to be for the public good.
There will undoubtedly be interest in this debate in the safeguards within the system. As I have set out, the existing safeguards will not be affected by the Bill. Deprivation decisions are carefully considered and made in accordance with international law, following advice from officials and lawyers. Each deprivation case is assessed individually. Along with many other things we have been discussing this week, this regime complies with the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and always comes with a right of appeal.
On the specific provision in the Bill before the House today, I reassure noble Lords that there is indeed grit in the system to ensure that the Bill, once enacted, is not used for any spurious purpose. Rules of court set defined timescales within which any application by the Home Secretary to appeal must be made. In addition, the decision to grant permission for such an appeal lies solely with the courts and is contingent on the presence of a properly arguable point of law. This means that the Government cannot rely on the provisions of the Bill to maintain deprivation of a person’s citizenship following a successful appeal without proper legal grounds or justification.
Finally, noble Lords will be aware that the deprivation power can also be used where someone has obtained citizenship for which they were never entitled on a fraudulent basis—for example, by providing false documents. Indeed, the majority of the deprivation orders fall under this category, as from 2018 to 2022, there was an average of 151 cases in that category per year. However, I want to be clear up front that the Bill will not apply in such cases. This is because where citizenship has been obtained fraudulently, a deprivation order is made only once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Such cases will therefore not be impacted by the narrow scope of the Bill.
As I hope I have stated and illustrated to noble Lords, the Bill is extremely narrow—in fact, in my nearly 30 years in both Houses of Parliament, it is probably the smallest Bill I have had the pleasure to introduce—but it seeks to ensure, in its smallness, that the deprivation power remains effective by retaining the status quo.
It is important, in finishing, to place on record a tribute by the Home Office team and me to our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They work tirelessly to keep us safe, and we owe them tremendous gratitude for that. This Bill is another tool in our toolbox to ensure that we can preserve our national security. I hope that noble Lords will examine it in detail. It is a small Bill; I hope they will support it, and I look forward to discussing it with Members of this House today, in Committee and on Report at a later date. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister in opening the Second Reading of this short but highly important Bill. There is a lot that we disagree on in this House—indeed, in politics in general, it would be fair to say that the Minister and I have differing views on a number of issues—but we all have the same end goal: we want to see this country thrive and, to do that, it must be as safe and secure as possible. To that end, I fully support the Bill.
The Minister has given a detailed account of the events that led the Government to seek this change to Section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981. As he said, it arises out of a Supreme Court case earlier this year. In that ruling, the court held that were an appeal against a deprivation order successful, the order is considered to have had no effect. That means that while the Home Secretary’s further appeals are pending, the person would be able to enjoy their full rights of citizenship. The point here is that the power to deprive is used as a last resort. There was some talk in the other place that this power has not been used sparingly. That is not the case, because between 2010 and 2024, 222 orders were made on the grounds that deprivation was conducive to the public good—that is an average of 15.8 per year—and 858 orders were made for fraud. For context, there were 269,621 grants of British citizenship in 2024 alone, and since 2010, there have been at least 100,000 grants of citizenship every single year. We are therefore talking about a very small proportion of people who have their citizenship deprived when compared to the number of new citizenship grants that have been made. It is evident that the power is indeed used sparingly, in cases of the utmost seriousness.
Is it not wholly right, therefore, that in cases of such gravity the deprivation order should continue to have effect during the period of appeals? Of particular importance here is where a person whom the Home Secretary rightly deems to be a national security risk is currently abroad. The deprivation order would prevent that person returning to the United Kingdom. Under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the law, if that person were to successfully appeal in absentia, their right to enter the country unhindered would be reinstated automatically, with no regard to the potential risk they presented to the British public. That is surely an untenable situation.
This new interpretation is also legally inconsistent with asylum and immigration decisions. With asylum claims, a refusal continues to have effect until all legal processes are completed. Asylum status is not simply automatically granted by a court upon the first successful appeal. The process requires one to exhaust the full spectrum of legal challenges first.
This Bill is not about attempting to subvert judges or to amend the appeals process, nor does it make it easier to deprive a person of their citizenship. Rather, it is about reasserting the simple fact that it is for Parliament to decide what British citizenship means and the expectations we place on those who are granted it. Citizenship is a privilege, one that demonstrates a bond of trust. Those who violate that trust and openly threaten our society, or who utilise fraudulent means to gain it, should have that privilege revoked. The Government are right to ensure that deprivation can continue during the appeals process and are right to bring forward this Bill.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this legislation, while described by the Government as “small” and highly focused, carries constitutional significance and poses risks to fundamental rights, which is why it needs the rigorous scrutiny which this House can provide. The Government’s stated purpose for the Bill is clear: to safeguard the UK from individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety. The Bill seeks to amend Section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that if the Government strip a person of their British citizenship, the deprivation order remains in effect throughout the entire appeal process. This measure is a direct response to the Supreme Court judgment in N3(ZA) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That judgment established that when a person successfully appeals a deprivation order, their citizenship is automatically and retrospectively restored at that point.
The Government argue that this Bill is necessary to prevent high-harm individuals who are overseas from returning to the UK, and to stop persons seeking to undermine deprivation action by renouncing other nationalities in order to become stateless while an appeal remains ongoing. I understand the Government’s duty to keep the country safe, but we must question whether this measure is right, proportionate and the only tool available to achieve that goal. I will raise some of the contradictions that have been raised in the other place and look at some of the possible solutions to them. I will then pose questions to the Minister that I think will help to clarify the rightness and proportionality of the measure and whether it is indeed the only tool available to achieve that goal.
This Bill proposes to overturn the ordinary presumption that court orders take immediate effect. The legislation delays the restoration of citizenship until all governmental appeal rights are exhausted. That diminishes the only mechanism for scrutinising the Home Secretary’s decisions and thus could be viewed as an assault on the rule of law. The Bill grants the Government unwarranted power to ignore court rulings that find their actions unlawful. The Bill also applies retrospectively to appeals brought but not yet finally determined. This means that any individuals currently caught in the legal process will have the rules changed against them mid-appeal.
The principal concern relates to the severe consequences that this Bill poses, particularly for vulnerable individuals and potentially for British children. Under the current regime, the UK employs deprivation of citizenship orders more frequently than most other countries in Europe. The practice of citizenship-stripping disproportionately targets ethnic-minority communities. Some of those affected are stranded overseas and exposed to severe harms such as detention, cruel treatment and death, without consular protection or the ability to return home, even when courts rule in their favour.
The case of N3 (ZA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department is instructive. A child born in the UK to a British father whose citizenship was later ruled to have been unlawfully stripped was initially denied recognition as a British citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that the father should be treated as having retained his citizenship throughout the deprivation period. This Bill reverses that, meaning that future children in similar positions could be left without UK state protection until their parent’s final appeal is exhausted, which could be some years later.
We know that British children are already detained in inhumane conditions in places such as north-east Syria. Available information indicates that all British adults detained there have been stripped of their citizenship, leading to the creation of stateless, or effectively stateless, children. The Bill would expose those children to these extreme risks for a significantly longer period, even after a court has found that they have a valid claim to citizenship.
The Bill impairs an individual’s ability to participate meaningfully in legal proceedings. Individuals challenging deprivation from overseas face insurmountable barriers to accessing justice, making it difficult to instruct lawyers or access documents. The Bill prevents the individual, even after winning at the first instance, from returning to the UK to participate fully in the ongoing appeals process. UK courts have already acknowledged that appeals from those detained in north-east Syria would
“not be fair and effective”.
Forcing an individual to continue participating in this admittedly ineffective process compounds the unfairness.
I need to press the Minister on why the Government have chosen this blanket approach, rather than legislating for more targeted solutions, and why crucial safeguards have been either omitted or rejected. My questions to the Minister are as follows. First, the Government’s stated motivation is to maintain the ability to exclude individuals who pose a threat. Why was the alternative approach, suggested by Reprieve and others—of legislating to clarify the rules governing stays in the First-tier Tribunal and the SIAC, allowing the Government to apply for a stay of a successful order on a case-by-case basis where justified—rejected in favour of a blanket suspension?
Secondly, given that the duration of the appeals process could be considerable—potentially lasting years—and result in British children being stranded overseas, why have the Government resisted establishing an expedited appeals route to ensure unlawful deprivation orders do not continue to have effect for prolonged periods of time?
Thirdly, the Government have rejected judicial discretion to suspend the effect of a successful appeal, asserting that national security accountability rests with the democratically accountable Secretary of State. However, in the House of Commons, a proposed amendment—the so-called the Malthouse amendment—would have provided judicial discretion to prevent severe hardship, specifically if a person faced a real and substantial threat of serious harm, or if the continuation of the order would significantly prejudice their ability to mount an effective defence. Can the Minister confirm why the Government did not accept these basic judicial safeguards to protect against the most egregious cases of abuse and harm?
Fourthly, the current power to strip citizenship is already criticised for placing excessive power in the hands of a single Minister under the subjective test of being
“conducive to the public good”.
Will the Government commit to reforming the entire deprivation process—as called for by the Liberal Democrats—to require the Home Secretary to apply to a court for permission to make a deprivation order in the first instance, thereby ensuring judicial oversight before the power is exercised?
Finally, following concerns about transparency and oversight, will the Minister commit the Government to publishing annual reports detailing the use of deprivation of citizenship powers, and ensuring their regular review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation?
The Bill grants greater authority to the Government in a context already marked by high levels of citizenship-stripping and minimal checks. It threatens to legislate away the authority of British courts. Your Lordships’ House has a constitutional role as the final check on government overreach to ensure that, if this Bill is to proceed, we can preserve judicial oversight and prevent British people, particularly children, being left at risk of serious harm.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the author of a report, required by statute and published almost 10 years ago, on citizenship removal resulting in statelessness. It was a short report, since that power introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, which was always intended to be highly exceptional, had never been used at the time—there was therefore nothing to report on.
However, my crash course in citizenship deprivation—a concept with which this country seems notably more at ease than most of our European and North American neighbours, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said—prompted three reflections of a general nature that may still be relevant. First, the
“conducive to the public good”
threshold for citizenship deprivation—which, in 2006, replaced the previous threshold of
“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”—
is remarkably low. There is some comfort in the self-imposed guidance that governs the interpretation by government of this elastic and subjective phrase. However, that comfort may not survive the arrival of another Government less keen on self-imposed guidance. For my part, I hope that we will return someday to this threshold issue.
Secondly, as was pointed out by speakers as different as Kit Malthouse and Bell Ribeiro-Addy in Commons Committee, citizenship deprivation discriminates by its very nature against individuals and groups who have, or are entitled to, another citizenship. Jews and those born in Northern Ireland were mentioned, but of course there are also many others. The power to strip people of their citizenship, however sparingly used in practice, reminds naturalised citizens in particular that the citizenship that they went through so much to achieve is precarious in a way that my citizenship is not.
A few years back, in the Nationality and Borders Bill, the proposal to allow the removal of citizenship without notice was greeted with an outcry, including a petition signed by more than 300,000 people. That is a consequence not only of Clause 9 of that Bill but of the sense it conveyed to some people with dual heritage that they were second-class citizens. Thanks to your Lordships’ House, that outcry was channelled into the much-improved Section 10 of the Act.
Thirdly, there is a gap where review of citizenship deprivation should be. The Minister in the Commons pointed correctly to reviews by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that were published in 2018 and 2024. But the purpose of those inspections was procedural, as it was described in the 2018 report, to examine
“the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office’s processes”.
Even that procedural exercise had its limits. The 2024 inspection looked only at the status review unit, which deals with deprivations prompted by fraud or related to serious organised crime. What were described as
“‘conducive’ cases where sensitive intelligence is relied upon to make a decision”
are handled by the special cases unit and were acknowledged by the independent chief inspector to be “out of scope”. Published figures are welcome, but do not answer all the pertinent questions. What was the intelligence case for the sudden surge of conducive deprivations from 14 in 2016 to 104 in the following year? What were the circumstances of those subjected to it, and why was deprivation used in preference to the many other tools in the counterterrorism and state threats armoury?
The reality is that deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is a power used for national security purposes. Like other such powers, its exercise should be reviewable by the security-cleared Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, as successive holders of that office, including me, have recommended.
Having got that off my chest, I turn to the Bill. It is one of a growing number of Bills that seek to change the law as it has recently been declared by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the next one will come along on Thursday: the Crime and Policing Bill. There is nothing constitutionally improper about that. The courts try to make sense of what we decide, which, in this field, has chopped and changed several times since 2002, as the Supreme Court’s judgment made clear.
It is also relevant, it seems to me, that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, after consideration of all factors, including the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, declared the law to be as the Government now seek to clarify it by means of the Bill.
The Supreme Court took what it described as a “middle position”, under which the Secretary of State is bound by the result of a successful appeal for all purposes
“other than in respect of the validity of immigration enforcement action taken on the basis of the deprivation order up to the time the appeal against it is allowed”.
By doing so, the Supreme Court sought to banish the unwelcome spectre of damages claims in respect of past immigration enforcement action, while requiring the individual to be treated as having always been a British citizen for all other purposes, including in the hard case that was before it, by passing that citizenship to any child born during the currency of the deprivation order.
I am persuaded by the Minister, and I thank him for his time and that of the Bill team, that there are good reasons for preventing a person from regaining their British citizenship, even following a first-instance victory in SIAC until such time as the Home Office has exhausted its appeal rights. These are, in summary, the prospect of empowering a person who endangers national security to enter the United Kingdom, possibly forever; the risk that the tactical renunciation of other citizenships will render deprivation of British citizenship impossible; and the desirability of having immigration powers, such as detention and immigration bail, pending the resolution of appeal rights. Those are reasons enough for me to support the thrust of the Bill.
The Bill might be considered tough on infant children, such as ZA in the Supreme Court case. For that reason in particular, I see the case for a limited judicial discretion along the lines proposed by Kit Malthouse in the Commons and I will listen carefully to the debate if a similar or narrower amendment is tabled here. But I am not as struck by this as the noble Lord, Lord German. There is surely consolation in the fact that the appeal process is finite and can be expedited by the courts, and that the child’s citizenship will still be recognised if the Home Office is unsuccessful at the end of the day.
The Bill is retrospective in its operation, resembling in that respect court rulings, including the judgment of the Supreme Court that it seeks, in effect, to reverse. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, asked the Government why retrospectivity applied across the board and could not be limited to “conducive” cases. The Minister’s answer, that deprivation orders on other grounds are not made until the person has exhausted their rights to appeal, with the result that the Bill does not apply to them, sounds pretty conclusive to me.
Finally, I have in mind the fact that people may have their citizenship removed when inside as well as outside this country and that views on deportation, including in this country, appear to be hardening in some quarters quite alarmingly. I expressed to the Minister my concern that a Government less scrupulous than this one might take advantage of the Bill to remove a person’s citizenship on conducive grounds and then take advantage of their new status as a non-national to deport them, even after SIAC had declared the removal of citizenship to be unlawful. I was told that this fear was unfounded, in summary, as I understand it, because a deportation order does not come into force until in-country appeal rights, including on human rights grounds, have been exhausted, and because Section 78 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 prohibits such a person from being removed while any in-country appeal is pending.
On the face of it, that is reassuring, at least for as long as we have the Human Rights Act. But I would welcome the Minister putting his detailed explanation on the record, either from the Dispatch Box or in writing, so that it can be scrutinised by those more expert than me. This is not something that would have seemed worth worrying about 10 or even five years ago. But I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to pass a Bill that could facilitate the future use of unlawful citizenship deprivation as a means of effecting the arbitrary or large-scale deportation of British citizens who are objectionable or unwelcome to the Government of the day. Subject to that clarification, the Bill has my support.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who brings so much expertise and wisdom to this debate.
This is a short Bill, yes, on a narrow point, but it raises some important constitutional questions. It concerns the power of the Home Secretary under Section 40 of the British Nationality Act to deprive a person of British citizenship. As we know, under this provision the Home Secretary may deprive a person of citizenship in two cases: first, if she is satisfied that the deprivation will be conducive to the public good; and, secondly, if she is satisfied that citizenship was obtained by fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. I do not have any problem with the second scenario; it is the first one which is intensely problematic.
There is a limit to the exercise of this power. A deprivation order may not be made if that person would be rendered stateless, and thus would result in a breach of our obligations under the statelessness convention. But this limit, however important, is insufficient. In practice, as has been mentioned before, people with two nationalities, such as me, are British citizens only for as long as the Home Secretary of the day is satisfied that depriving us of our citizenship would not be conducive to the public good. Under the law as it is, it is easier for me to be stripped of my British citizenship than of my barony. This rule is based on an idea of citizenship that is simply unfit for a modern liberal democracy. Yes, the power is used sparingly, as the Minister said, but we are, as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out, a country that, in Europe, uses this power to an exceptional degree. We strip citizenship at rates that are higher than those of almost any other country in the world, as was noted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report, Accountability for Daesh Crimes.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation observed that there is a sharp contrast between the high number of deprivation orders in these cases, which are usually national security cases, and the low number of prosecutions or temporary exclusion orders. To put these things in perspective, from 1972 to 2006 only 10 people were deprived of citizenship, whereas from 2010 to 2023 there were 1,080 deprivations of citizenship, and of those 222 were on the basis of the “conducive” test—104 of those deprivations were in one year alone, 2017.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, we need to think of how this power would be used by a Home Secretary who comes to office with a rather different conception of the public good from that of his or her predecessors. We have to be very alive to those risks. There is little in the language of Section 40 to which we could point to invite restraint if faced with a Home Secretary determined to make even more extensive use of the power of deprivation than has been the case so far.
The problem with this Bill is that it makes a power that is already excessive even worse by reversing the decision of the Supreme Court in the N3(ZA) case. The Supreme Court ruled that a person deprived of British citizenship automatically and retrospectively regains their citizenship following a successful appeal. It is still possible, even after the Supreme Court ruling, for the deprivation order to be made and enforcement action pursuant to that order to be taken, despite the affected person bringing the appeal.
As a matter of principle, it seems to me that, given that the power of the Secretary of State is already so extensive, and in the light of the severe consequences that the exercise of that power has, it is wrong to allow deprivations which our courts have found to be unlawful to continue to have effect pending an appeal. It seems to me even more important for a power such as this that we should stick with the ordinary approach, which is that the decision of the court should take effect pending the appeal and, where circumstances justify, the Government could seek a stay—or, as the noble Lord, Lord German, explained, there could be some work around identifying the grounds on which such a stay should be granted.
Another problem with the Bill is that it creates an incentive for the Government to pursue every possible point in order to preserve the continuing effect of an order. On matters of such importance, if anything, the incentive should be the opposite.
Last but certainly not least, British children born during unlawful deprivation periods find themselves in an even worse limbo. Under the Supreme Court ruling in N3, children would acquire British citizenship if their parents’ appeal is successful, and they would do so immediately. Under the Bill, children would not acquire citizenship, even though the most authoritative determination of the law at that point would support their acquisition of citizenship. I appreciate that the consequence of the Supreme Court’s approach is that a child would be treated as a British citizen during the appeal period and that, if the Government are ultimately successful, that child would have to be regarded as never having acquired British citizenship. But, as a matter of principle, I would rather we erred by treating a non-citizen child as a citizen temporarily than by depriving a child who was a British citizen all along of the benefits of British citizenship.
I have two questions on this point which echo points raised by the noble Lord, Lord German. First, the national security reason, which is stated as the main justification for this Bill, does not apply to children. Being the child of an individual who may pose a threat to national security is not a national security concern. So what is the reason for extending the consequences of the measure to children? Secondly, would the Government be open to considering ways of mitigating the effects of the Bill on children, in the light of the fact that the consequences for them cannot be justified under the underlying justification for the Bill—namely, national security?
I do not have any objection in principle to Parliament taking the view that a law, as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court, must be changed. It does not mean that the Supreme Court was wrong about the law. As lawmakers, we have a different perspective from that of judges. Our role is to make the law and sometimes change it, and that may at times require reversing a decision of the Supreme Court. In this case, however, I see no legislative reason and no reason of principle that justifies a fundamentally different conclusion from that reached by the Supreme Court. As for the position of the children of the persons who have been deprived of British citizenship, there is a strong reason for considering forms of mitigation.
It seems to me that by extending the powers in Section 40, as the Bill requires us to do, we are going in exactly the opposite direction of that which we should be taking, which is to restrict a power that has been on the statute books for a long time but that is way too illiberal and exorbitant.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friends who have just spoken, though I do not agree with them altogether. I had prepared a much longer speech, but I do not think it is necessary, so I will make just a few points.
First of all, my noble friends are much too pessimistic and are not actually exercising the role which we have today—I respectfully include an old friend of mine, the noble Lord, Lord German, in the same comment. My observation of the law relating to the deprivation of citizenship is that it is extremely valuable that the decision is made by the Home Secretary herself. She will be advised in a proper way and will ensure that the advice is properly given.
The decision we make is about the situation we are in today; it is not about some future in which a malign Home Secretary might come into existence. I do not think it is right for us as legislators to take that view of the future, unless there is hard evidence of imminence of such a person being appointed. We can rely on our courts and on the separation of powers to protect us from that kind of situation, and indeed on lawyers such as my noble friends to be part of that protection. The legal process by which these orders are tested through the court system is extremely rigorous. SIAC has the advantage of having special advocates who have access to all the relevant material upon which the case is decided. The appellate courts act likewise, and we can be confident that courts will provide protection.
On the essence of the Bill, it is extremely important that national security should protect us from those people who have been deprived of their citizenship. That is what the Bill is about in the here and now, and in broad terms at least I fully support that aim.
As to my noble friend Lord Anderson’s question about whether we should improve the test from “conducive to public good” to a more strict test, I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that. We might improve the law during the course of the Bill’s passage by such a change, if it can be drafted.
I agree that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation should be inserted into this process. There are two of us here who have been Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and I can see it being something that the independent reviewer could do easily.
My noble friend Lord Verdirame made some comments about the increase in the number of cases in which citizenship deprivation orders have been made. This is actually over the period when I was Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the period since. That is nothing to do with me—it is just a consequence of the change in terrorism and the change in the cases that we have had to face up to. It is no surprise to me that there is a need for a greater number of deprivation orders in 2025 than there was in 2007. I am afraid that that is an evolution of the very unpleasant effects of terrorism.
As for the situation with children, I would like the Minister, if he would not mind, to explain to us again the protection that children have during the period when appeals are pending. In principle, I am afraid I can see no reason why we should change an old existing situation in which there is no birthright to British citizenship applicable to children who happen to be born there. Some countries have that birthright; some countries—I can name one in the European Union—have that birthright if the father was a citizen of that country but not if the mother was a citizen of that country. There are all sorts of laws dealing with the nationality of children. I see no reason to change our law, particularly under the particularity of this Bill.
Broadly, I support the Bill. We should get it through this House as quickly as possible, so we can ensure that the measure intrinsic in it is able to protect our citizens as quickly as possible and as well as can be done.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I enter view with some hesitation after speeches by such a phalanx of Cross-Bench lawyers. I understand the reasoning behind the Bill, as set out by the Minister in introducing it. I understand, too, that it will put us on more or less the same footing as like-minded countries. Finally, I appreciate that the Bill has cross-party support.
However, I have two concerns. The first, as I have explained to the Minister—to whom I am very grateful for his letter responding to my concern—is the implications of the Bill for children, especially children born between a successful appeal and the final determination of the case. Here, I share the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Verdirame.
Consider a child born to a successful applicant, whether in Britain or abroad. Under the present draft Bill, the child, unless born in Britain with one parent with British citizenship, will be deprived of citizenship even though his or her parent has successfully appealed against deprivation of citizenship. If the next stage of the appeal were quick, this might be acceptable, but the gap between the successful appeal and the hearing of the Government’s counter-appeal may be five, six or seven years. During that period, the child will be deprived of all the benefits of British citizenship, and if the parent and child are abroad, the child may be in a far worse situation, subject—as we are seeing in north- east Syria, for example—to illness, separation from his or her parents, or terrorist attacks.
My second point is that the obvious way forward is to speed up the appeals process. The Minister said in his letter to me:
“Provisions already exist to enable the courts to expedite such appeals … and it remains within the judiciary’s discretion to determine the suitability of such measures”.
Indeed, but five, six or seven years is too long. I understand and fully support the independence of the judiciary, but I ask the Minister at least to give an assurance that the Government’s views of the desirability of a speeded-up appeals process will be made known to the judiciary.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, this is a small but very important Bill. Most of the important issues it raises have already been spoken to by noble Lords, but some of them bear repetition.
To my mind, this is yet another Bill that, depressingly, seeks to make indents in our constitutional, judicial and democratic rights. The Bill, as we have heard, overturns the presumption that court orders take immediate effect. Clause 1 gives the Government of the day the power to overrule the court’s decisions by ignoring court rulings that have found the Government’s actions to be unlawful.
In brief, the Bill will deny citizenship to individual cases which the courts have already ruled eligible for further appeal. This denial persists until the last of all possible appeals have been exhausted, and as again we have heard, in some cases this may amount to years. Individuals awaiting appeal, and especially their children, are vulnerable, in that, in whatever conditions they find themselves, they are precluded from consular or any other protections.
In effect, this clause renders individuals stateless, and their children open to all kinds of other abuse, including forcible recruitment to armed militias from the age of 12, and/or to compulsory training camps, as happens in northern Syria. UK citizens in northern Syrian camps, for example, have already languished awaiting a court decision, and in some cases face life-threatening conditions. The Bill, given its retrospective mandate, will add years to their detention and render their children, some as yet unborn, vulnerable for years to come.
The purpose and the outcome of the Bill, to quote from a recent Reprieve briefing, is
“to prevent individuals from exercising their rights as British citizens even after the courts have ruled their deprivation unlawful, purely to maintain the Home Secretary’s unchecked ability to exclude them from the UK—however grave the abuses to which they risk being exposed”.
As we know, again, there was an attempt in the other place to introduce an amendment by Kit Malthouse, which proposed, among other elements, that a judge would be able to determine that an order had no effect during the appeal period if the individual faced a substantial threat of harm due to the order. This might be because such an order would adversely affect their ability, for example, to mount an effective defence, and/or the duration of the appeal period was excessive due, perhaps, to actions or omissions by public authorities.
Current levels of deprivation of citizenship in the UK are already very high and— again depressingly—disproportionately affect those from ethnic communities. The Home Secretary’s authority is considerable, in being able to issue an order to deprive a person of his or her citizenship on the basis simply that a person’s presence as a citizen is not conducive to the public good. There is no requirement, as far as I can tell, for judicial oversight, nor is the targeted individual necessarily informed of such a decision. Challenge at this stage is virtually impossible, as decisions are made under secret proceedings. Moreover, the current appeals system is lengthy, complicated and expensive, and certainly not easily accessed by those outside the UK.
This Bill is unnecessary. I hope very much that the relevant clauses will be challenged in Committee to ensure a more equitable, democratic and transparent procedure.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive a Front-Bench speech from the second Bench: it is for practical reasons and not out of disrespect. I knew that a one-clause Bill would not defeat the House in its determination to make varied, well-informed forensic points. For me, the phrase “deprivation of citizenship” brings back memories of my noble friend Lord Avebury—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is grinning. Eric was so forceful and so clear about statelessness not being used as a punishment. I have often thought of him as a role model to whom I have not been able to live up.
As we saw a couple of years ago with Bangladesh, our Government’s views about a person’s citizenship do not always, as a matter of practice, align with those of the other state involved. Of course, many argued at the time of the Begum appeal judgment that two-tiered citizenship had been created, downgrading citizenship for naturalised citizens and the children of immigrants.
I have to say that I am one of those who is troubled by the phrase “conducive to the public good”. It is not for us today, as the Minister reminded us at the start of the debate, to try to open up the 1981 Act, but the term requires a value judgment. It is capable of varying and wide interpretations, and it sets a low bar, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, described it. At one point during his speech he used the term “hard cases”. I was not sure whether we were being asked to think about bad law following on from that. Why not “threat to national security”? Indeed, Minister Jarvis in the Commons really seemed to use the terms interchangeably.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested that we might be able to look at some change during the course of the Bill. The Long Title of the Bill is actually very short and very unhelpful in that sense, stating that the Bill is
“to make provision about the effect, during an appeal, of an order under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981”.
I look forward to the noble Lord’s ingenuity in seeking to build on that.
Whatever the ground, as has been said, it is not only the subject of the order who is affected, and the consequences for a child may be extreme, as we know from recent and current history. The APPG on Trafficked Britons in Syria, of which I am a member, has pointed out the risks of statelessness and the concomitant risks of exploitation and extreme ill-treatment, so let us not lose sight of the best interests of the child.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked a number of specific questions—I have seen the Minister’s reply—one of which was about the national security point that I have made. The letter also argues against SIAC having powers to suspend the effect of a successful appeal. Not quite all cases, I think, are security matters—or perhaps they are. It seems to me that “conducive to the public good” might extend that. One of my concerns is about it being a little unclear. There should be consistent mechanisms for managing all cases. The JCHR also asked about expediting appeals and the Government have told us that determinations are for the democratically accountable Secretary of State. I do not think the JCHR was actually challenging that.
I have seen a paper prepared by ILPA, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, regarding seeking a stay while an appeal is pending or still possible and pointing out a number of procedural matters that I would have thought could be overcome. I assume that the Home Office has seen the briefing. If not, I wonder whether I might send it to the Minister. It raises points that are pretty technical, I think, and perhaps not appropriate for the subject of this debate. But, if I send it to the Minister, perhaps he could consider responding to it, via me if that is appropriate. It is not aggressive; it is pointing out problems.
Like other noble Lords, I thought that the Malthouse amendment had much to recommend it in the Commons. Kit Malthouse said that he hoped that the Minister would do the right thing. Well, if they could not, let us do so.
The Government maintain the position, not just in this situation, that it is possible, practicable and not disadvantageous to exercise legal rights from outside the UK. When I was in practice as a solicitor, from time to time I found it difficult enough to get a coherent picture from some clients with whom I was face to face—never this sort of situation. It takes time, trust, patience, skill and, of course, access, particularly with a person who has undergone, perhaps over a long period, some extreme experiences. Like others, I feel that our system, which operates on the basis that if a relevant court makes a finding in favour of an individual, that stands, unless it is stayed, until it is overturned, is the way we should continue to do things.
I have been told that the Home Secretary’s powers are used almost exclusively against individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who hold or are perceived to hold dual nationality. I can see how that could come about. The Minister might like to comment on that because, in the current highly charged political atmosphere, we should be as clear as possible about the facts.
Apart from one point that strikes me as a very good basis for a possible amendment in Committee—my noble friend does not know this yet, because I did not know he was going to make the point, but we will discuss it afterwards—I remain with the basic principles: that no one should be made stateless; that the state’s response to allegations of threats to national security should be tried in the UK unless there are very good reasons to do otherwise; and that the best interests of the child are a priority. I use the term “a priority” as that is what is in other legislation; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, about that—and it would be a great shame if his barony were challenged. Finally, I remain with the basic principle that the exercise of the power of deprivation should always be proportionate.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his clear exposition of the issue that is addressed in this Bill. I extend my thanks also to other noble Lords who have spoken this evening, albeit that some of the contributions would appear to me to go beyond the scope of the present Bill in seeking to address, for example, the amendment to Section 40 of the 1981 Act.
The Bill concerns one of the most significant powers available to the state: the ability to remove a person’s citizenship when it is deemed conducive to the public good. It is therefore appropriate that this Parliament should give the power the fullest scrutiny and that we should proceed with some caution and considerable care. However, this is not a new power. It is one that successive Administrations have exercised, albeit only in the most serious cases where individuals have posed a threat to our national security.
Some comment was made about the increasing number of instances in which deprivation has taken place but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, observed, over the period since the provision came into force, we have seen an evolution of the terrorist threat that is faced by this country.
The right to determine the conditions of citizenship is a core attribute of sovereignty and clearly recognised under international law. Obviously, it must be exercised responsibly and in accordance with due process, but, following the recent Supreme Court judgment that has been referred to, this Bill seeks to restore the balance that was deemed to exist prior to that decision earlier this year.
The court’s ruling created a severe problem with respect to the effect of deprivation orders during an appeal process, with the result that there could be an undermining of public safety. Indeed, consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court, where a tribunal overturned a deprivation order, that decision would take immediate effect even before the Government had exhausted their rights of appeal. I would indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that a right of appeal is not liable to take five to seven years. Albeit that we have considerable delays in the Crown Courts of this country, we have moved on from Jarndyce and Jarndyce.
Clearly, where the Supreme Court decision would have applied, it would have been open to an individual who was considered to be a serious security risk to this country to return to or enter this country during an appeal process. That would have been properly regarded as an unacceptable risk.
We agree with the Government that it is appropriate that this narrow and targeted measure should be taken. After all, the first duty of any Government is the security of the nation and the security of the people. We would champion, as do the Government, effective counterterrorism measures, including the reform proposed in this Bill.
I welcome the assurance from the Minister that the Bill does not alter the substantive grounds on which citizenship can be removed, nor diminish the right of appeal itself. It merely clarifies the issue following the Supreme Court decision. Of course, public confidence in this power depends not only on its necessity but on its consistent and judicious employment. The Government must continue to ensure that every deprivation decision is taken only after the most robust and rigorous assessment with appropriate safeguards in place. Those safeguards are in place through the application of Section 40 of the 1981 Act. I nevertheless ask the Minister to reassure us that the Home Office will continue to use deprivation powers carefully and only when there is the clearest justification in each individual case.
The Bill is not a sweeping reform but a measured correction to protect national security and uphold Parliament’s original intent with regard to these statutory provisions. It preserves our right to defend the nation state within the bounds of legality and due process. Therefore, we on these Benches support that aim. After all, the first duty of Government is to protect the nation state and the British people. There is always a balance to be achieved between liberty and security. It is never simple to achieve, but with this Bill we believe the Government have rightly struck the appropriate balance, and that is why we lend our support to it.
Finally, I merely observe that there is some constitutional significance to this Bill, inasmuch as it illustrates how our sovereign Parliament can move swiftly to reverse a decision of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court when the public interest is perceived by Parliament to trump legal niceties.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have raised points in this Second Reading. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for their support from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I also welcome the broad support from the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile. I recognise that other noble Lords have made legitimate points, and I will try to respond to them.
I remind the House that the debate is about the very small amendment to the legislation. It is not about the principle or application of deprivation, or the numbers of people who have had their citizenship deprived. It is a response to the Supreme Court judgment and what that means in relation to individuals who could potentially return to or retain their status in the United Kingdom when the Government have, through the Home Secretary, determined, for whatever reason, that that individual needs to have their citizenship deprived. That is a very serious step for a Home Secretary to take. When the Supreme Court states, as it did in the recent case, that an individual can retain their citizenship during the appeal process, that means that the individual, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, just mentioned, will be free to remain a British citizen, with all the rights and privileges that brings, while the appeal is ongoing, unless this legislation is put in place.
The noble Lord, Lord German, in his introductory remarks, made a number of points about that. Essentially, I ask him whether he is willing to take the risk. That is the nub of the argument that we are putting to the House today—that the purpose of deprivation of citizenship being maintained during the course of the appeal procedure is so that the United Kingdom Government, the Home Secretary, accountable to the House of Commons, and me in this House, accountable for the Home Office, can take a decision and uphold it during the period of appeal. If the appeal is successful downstream then all bets are off and the individual’s citizenship is restored. For whatever reason it was originally removed, the Home Secretary’s decision has been overturned and the status quo for the individual remains. However, in the event of the individual remaining at the serious risk level that meant the Home Secretary brought forward the citizenship issue in the first place, that opens the United Kingdom to a risk until such time as the appeal is heard. This Bill deals solely with that issue. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said on this matter, but I put it to them and to the noble Lord, Lord German that the issue is about the management of risk by the UK Government in a limited circumstance, which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for raising.
This has been a fair debate about what we call the “Kit Malthouse amendments”, as a number of noble Lords have raised in their contributions. It is not appropriate to confer this discretion on the courts, because it is the Secretary of State who is accountable to this House and to Parliament, through the House of Commons, for matters of national security. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned, deprivation of citizenship and national security are matters for the Home Secretary. The Supreme Court itself emphasised that in its discussion and judgment. The Bill will align the approach to asylum and human rights appeals and extend it to appeals to the Supreme Court.
Decisions to deprive are taken in accordance with our international obligations and with consideration as to whether to give deprivation will expose the person to a real risk of mistreatment, which would constitute a breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Home Secretary is the person responsible for that decision. I hear what noble Lords have said but that is the reason why my noble friend in the Commons, Minister Jarvis, rejected the Kit Malthouse approach, and the reason why I do so today.
Valid points have been raised. The noble Lords, Lord Jay, Lord German, Lord Anderson and Lord Verdirame, mentioned citizenship and the impact on the child. I pay great tribute to the private discussions —which are now public discussions because we have talked about them—that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, because they raised an important issue. We have looked at that and reflected on it, and I hope I can give a satisfactory response to all noble Lords who have raised this question with me. It is simply this: the Bill does not alter the existing situation in relation to children born to deprived individuals, which is already established in law.
Where a child holds British citizenship, the deprivation of the parent’s citizenship has no effect on the child’s nationality status. Again, those points were mentioned across the House today. In cases where a child is born after the parent was deprived of British citizenship—another issue that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has mentioned privately and in the Chamber today—their entitlement to British citizenship will depend on a number of factors, including the status of the other parent. The consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in N3(ZA) is that if the child would have been British had their parent not been deprived then a successful appeal against deprivation by their parent means the child is automatically a British citizen. There are no changes in any of the principles that we have here, and I hope that reassures noble Lords on these points. Again, I am happy to reflect on that in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made valid points on the question of the appeals procedure and the fast-track process that takes place. In answer to what I think was his pointed question to me, the Government are committed to supporting the expediting of these cases on a case-by-case basis, where appropriate, as quickly as possible. It is in no one’s interests to have long drawn-out appeals. What is the practical implication of that in relation to the courts determining the length of the appeal procedure where disagreements arise, now that courts have the power to order case management reviews to resolve issues? The current rules of court already permit the court to make directions to expedite cases if there are reasons for that to be done. The judiciary themselves are probably, dare I say it, better placed than the Home Secretary to determine and assess in each case how they can expedite those cases or not. All the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is concerned about are things that would potentially mean that a judge could determine, with “defence counsel”, that this needs to be done quickly. That is reasonable, and we want to see it over and done with as quickly as possible. We can look at the practical implications for the Government, but I hope I can reassure him on the principle.
Questions were asked about whether a person could be deported from the UK while they are appealing against the deprivation decision. In theory, it is possible for a person to be deprived of citizenship and deported before the deprivation appeal is resolved, but in practice that is going to be difficult because there will be the opportunity for people to make a human rights claim in response to the stage 1 deportation letter, and that means they would have an in-country right of appeal against the refusal of that claim if certified and a right of redress against the certification decision. It is a matter for the courts how those appeals are managed.
A number of other points were raised, including by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the role of the terrorism reviewer having oversight of these matters. The current situation is that the oversight for this aspect of public policy lies with the inspector of borders. They can determine their own inspection regime, if they wish to look at that. The terrorism reviewer does not currently have that role and responsibility—that is an argument the noble Lord might want to put down for debate. Should the inspector of borders wish to have an investigation on the performance of any matter to do with this—including the rights of the child, the length of the appeal procedure or the Home Secretary’s powers—they could do that, should they so wish, independently of government. So there is a sort of oversight there, but maybe not to the standard or type that the noble Lord wishes.
Ultimately, for this House—and, again, I am grateful for the support of His Majesty’s Opposition, in particular on this—it boils down to whether we are willing to take the risk. If the Home Secretary has taken advice from officials at a senior level and signed that order and taken the decision to deprive an individual of their citizenship, they have done that because there is a threat to the United Kingdom, in one form or another. If this Bill is not enacted, that threat will potentially materialise in another form as the individual will be able to restore their rights as a citizen when they appeal the original decision. This is the purpose of this Bill.
I recognise the range of points made by noble Lords from across the House on a range of issues, from the principle of deprivation in the first place to the numbers and so on, but that is the focus of the Bill and I put the question: are noble Lords willing to take that risk? I suggest that the Government are not and I am grateful to those Members who will support that position in this House today.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I have a question for the Minister about the possibility that perhaps in the future the deprivation of citizenship would be used as a prelude to deportation, even in circumstances where the first-instance tribunal had decided that the deprivation of citizenship was unlawful. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord could write to me about that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I thought I had answered that, but if I have not answered that to the extent that I thought, I will reflect on what we have said in Hansard and will ensure that, before the next stage of this Bill, which I think is scheduled for a week today, a piece of paper in electronic or physical form lands on the noble Lord’s desk. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.