Oral Answers to Questions
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
This Government are co-producing a national youth strategy—the first in decades—to bring power back to young people, no matter who they are or where they live. I am really proud that we are directly investing over £28 million in youth programmes across the country this year.
Sam Rushworth
As a young man who owes as much to youth theatre as to my schooling for giving me the confidence to speak in this place, I know the importance of youth services. I am really pleased that the Government have the better youth spaces fund, which organisations in my constituency have been engaging with, and I hope that the Government will look favourably at what comes from Bishop Auckland. The process has brought to light just how stripped bare our youth services are and how few meet the 50% threshold of youth services provision. Would the Secretary of State or one of her advisers meet me to discuss how we can ensure that we have the youth workers in order to actually bid for the funds in the first place?
Lisa Nandy
We had to take the difficult decision to focus the better youth spaces funding on organisations whose main aim is supporting young people. My hon. Friend is right to point to the absolutely dire state of youth services that we inherited. A billion pounds was taken out of youth services under the last Government, and thousands of youth workers and hundreds of youth clubs were lost up and down the country. Our forthcoming national youth strategy will put youth workers and youth clubs at the heart of those plans, and we will invest.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Local charities would be better equipped to deliver youth services if they could maximise their income from sources such as the People’s Postcode Lottery, but in spring the Government refused to make the reforms that would enable more money to be available for good causes, despite supporting it in opposition. Given that this decision has proved quite controversial, will the Government agree to revisit it?
Lisa Nandy
We have heard concerns from across the House on this issue, and the Youth Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), would be happy to meet with the hon. Lady to discuss it.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
We all recognise the value of youth services, but the right hon. Lady will be well aware that many youth services, from mental health support to sport provision, are commissioned and then provided by charities, which are under quite severe financial pressures, yet incredibly charities were not exempt from Labour’s national insurance increases. Even children’s hospices were not. Why not? Is the Department engaging constructively with the Chancellor about the plight of children’s and youth charities? There is no point having a youth strategy if the Government are undermining the viability of the providers of the services.
Lisa Nandy
First of all, I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his place and thank him for the very constructive way that he engaged with colleagues from across the House as Sports Minister, including me. I hope that is a model we can replicate.
I really do recognise the centrality of charities to everything we are trying to do as a country. The shadow Secretary of State will know that my background at the Centrepoint charity and then the Children’s Society was what led me into this place. On his specific issue, we have protected the smallest charities, which will be better off as a consequence of our reforms. We have also ensured that the majority will pay either the same or less. We do recognise the challenges, however, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Civil Society has been working through those issues with charities as part of our work with the civil society covenant.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have been working with representatives from the creative industries and major tech companies to ensure that we have a copyright regime that is fit for purpose. But our message is clear, to speak directly to the hon. Member’s concern and that of many other Members of this House: if it does not work for creatives, it will not work for us, and we will not do it.
Rachael Maskell
Daisy May Johnson is an exceptionally talented author of children’s books in York, but her work has been scraped and reproduced by generative artificial intelligence. She has not given permission and has not received a penny, but she has lost thousands of pounds. The same can be said about artists, musicians, writers and other creatives. When the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 was going through this House, we were given a commitment that the Government would do more, so could the Minister set out what progress has been made and ensure that there is legislation on this in the next Session?
Lisa Nandy
I really appreciate the urgency of this issue. The example of Daisy from the hon. Member’s constituency is similar to examples from many other Members. As a Labour Government, we obviously believe strongly that people must be fairly paid for their work, which is why we have put transparency and remuneration at the heart of the principles that will govern our approach. Like I said, we have made progress with the expert working group, and we will be able to announce the details shortly. We are also establishing a parliamentary working group, which I very much hope the hon. Member will participate in, to make sure that we hear the views of people from across the country through their MPs. I will be able to deliver a statement to the House by the end of this year on the future of the copyright framework.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Government continue their haphazard approach to artificial intelligence and copyright. I wish they would get that resolved. One thing that has concerned and upset the sector was the comments of a newly appointed special adviser to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, who said,
“whether or not you philosophically believe the big AI firms should compensate content creators, they in practice will never legally have to”.
I am really hoping that the Secretary of State distances herself from those comments and that that is not the intention of her Government.
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance: that is not the Government’s intention. He says that there has been a “haphazard approach”. Actually, no country in the world has yet managed to resolve this matter. We appreciate the urgency and we are determined to address this and become the gold standard. The creative industries are at the centre of our industrial strategy for a reason: because we know that they lead and light up the world. Whatever AI model develops in future, human, good-quality content will be at the heart of that. We have to and will protect it and I am happy to give him that assurance.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
As someone who used to manage a local band called Squeezebox when at university—available at all bad record stores—I understand that grassroots music is the lifeblood of the music industry. The Government have committed to supporting the live music industry’s introduction of a voluntary levy on tickets for stadium and arena shows and that money will be ploughed straight into the grassroots music sector. The Government are providing up to £30 million for the music growth package, which will provide further Government support to grassroots venues by fostering domestic growth, talent development and music exports.
Luke Taylor
Grassroots music venues across the country, particularly across London, are finding it increasingly difficult to survive as customers are spending less when they come to gigs because of the cost of living crisis. Will the Minister explain the progress on the levy? Will he consider the Lib Dem calls to reverse the national insurance rise on small businesses to give venues such as the Sound Lounge and the CryerArts Centre in Sutton, which are so valued by our local community, the best chance to survive and thrive?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman lays out the difficulties, of which there are many, for the live music sector and potentially the venues, many of them in his constituency. We want to see 50% of all ticket sales for stadium and arena shows in 2026 enter that music levy; that is this Government’s aspiration and we encourage all ticket providers to do so. In the autumn 2024 Budget, as he suggests, the Chancellor set out plans to transform the business rates system over this Parliament. Those reforms will provide certainty and support to businesses, including music venues. The Government have been engaging with the live music sector on business rates reforms and will set out further policy details in next month’s Budget.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his place and I look forward to working with him—I am delighted to hear that he is a keen musician. Since Brexit, British musicians’ European tours have dropped by around 9% year on year, as a mountain of bureaucracy blocks those hoping to cut their teeth on the European circuit. In Frome and East Somerset, I am lucky to have musicians who travel in Europe, but who will not have a team of people to do the paperwork for them. Will the Minister update us on what tangible steps have been taken for touring artists since the so-called reset deal, so that our musicians can take centre stage in Europe once more?
Ian Murray
Let me correct the record. I did not say that I was a musician; I said that I managed a band. I would not like that to be incorrectly recorded in Hansard. In any case, I thank the hon. Lady for the encouragement.
This matter is a priority for this Government to try and resolve. It was mentioned in the UK-EU reset summit agreement. We are working hard with the Paymaster General, who takes forward those negotiations. I am already in touch with the European Commissioner for culture. I can assure the hon. Lady that we will do everything we possibly can to get the agreement and the commitment over the line.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
This Government are proud to play a part in the continued growth and success of the motorsport industry. We have recently published the advanced manufacturing sector plan, which has automotive at its heart, aiming to nearly double the annual business investment in the sector to £39 billion by 2035, with 84% of advanced manufacturing jobs based outside London.
Mr Forster
As well as congratulating McLaren, which is based in my constituency of Woking, for winning the Formula 1 constructors’ title for the second season in a row, will the Minister also agree to ask the Chancellor to change the tax on sustainable fuel, so that this country can continue to have a leading place in the motoring industry?
Stephanie Peacock
I would of course like to congratulate McLaren on back-to-back Formula 1 constructors’ championship victories, and I am sure the support it receives in Woking is no small part of that. Alongside the Secretary of State, I attended the British grand prix in the summer and witnessed McLaren and Britain’s own Lando Norris claim victory. My Department will continue to stay in close contact with Formula 1, and I will reflect his comments to the Chancellor.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government are committed to supporting the visitor economy in rural and coastal communities, because we recognise the potential the sector has to contribute to economic growth and to the pride in place of an area. Through ongoing dialogue with other Departments and Ministers, we are exploring how best to support communities and businesses, including through our forthcoming visitor economy growth plan.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Suffolk Coastal is proud to be the tourism capital of Suffolk, but we also wear the badge of hosting possibly the highest number of nationally significant infrastructure projects within a small, 10-mile radius. Suffolk Coastal is home to Aldeburgh, Southwold, Woodbridge and Saxmundham, and every day I speak to businesses and constituents about the impact of the lack of co-ordination of these NSIPs in a very small geography. Investing in energy infrastructure and tourism do not need to be in conflict. Is the Minister having conversations with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about how we can better co-ordinate? If she is not, will she?
Stephanie Peacock
I recognise how important the tourism and hospitality sectors are to Suffolk, and I know that my hon. Friend is a strong champion for them and for her area. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport works closely with other Departments, including DESNZ and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the needs of the visitor economy are considered as part of the planning and delivery of large-scale projects. The Government acknowledge concerns that numerous projects may be consented to in one region, and the cumulative impacts of schemes are considered as they move individually through the NSIP regime. I will reflect her comments to MHCLG, but of course such large infrastructure projects are important for the country.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
My constituency has the largest number of wind turbines, either constructed or consented to. Does the Minister share my concern that the Scottish Government continue to override the views of local councils and local communities in consenting to further projects that are to the detriment of the landscape and therefore the local tourist industry?
Stephanie Peacock
I have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am sure that the relevant Secretary of State and indeed the Scottish Government have heard it. I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I know from my own experience, from Members across the House and from my constituents, of the deep unhappiness with CISWO. As Charities Minister, I met representatives of the Charity Commission to discuss CISWO’s support for coal mining communities, and I know the commission is in contact with CISWO. I encourage the chief executive officer and trustees to reflect on how they deliver their charitable purposes in the light of the dissatisfaction expressed by hon. Members and local communities, and I strongly encourage CISWO to strengthen its engagement with the local coalfield communities that it was established to support.
Ian Lavery
The Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation dates back to the 1920s. Its main function then and its main function now is to support the mining communities, but sadly many mining MPs are witnessing exactly the opposite. The chief executive officer’s rigid enforcement of decades-old covenants and dogged intransigence is working against our mining communities. In my patch of Blyth and Ashington, the eviction of the Bedlington Terriers from a ground they have played on for more than 50 years is a prime example. The trustees believe themselves to be untouchable and have tret the coalfield MPs with the utmost contempt. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the chair of the coalfield group to discuss how together we can reverse the current mindset of the CISWO trustees and reflect the real needs of the people in our mining communities?
Stephanie Peacock
I understand my hon. Friend’s grave concerns, which are reflected across our coalfield communities. I am deeply troubled to hear the example he shares with the House. Charities must stay true to their charitable purposes and act within the law and the terms of their governing document. Where they fail to do so, it is right that we have the Charity Commission as the independent regulator to investigate. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns in more detail. That invitation is open to any Member of the House, as it is clear to me that concerns regarding CISWO are sincerely held. I once again reiterate my encouragement for the CEO and trustees to reflect on how they deliver their charitable purposes for the coalfield communities they are meant to represent.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
We will soon be launching our national youth strategy, created with young people and designed to tackle the problems affecting them. As part of that work, we engage regularly with Cabinet colleagues on ensuring that the problems impacting young people are heard and properly tackled. This financial year, DCMS is investing over £145 million in youth funding.
Liz Twist
I welcome the Government’s work on the national youth strategy and their investment in youth services so far. How do they expect the move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to benefit young people from different backgrounds in my constituency and in general?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all her work. In our youth strategy, we will set out the next steps to invest in the future of our young people. We want to better co-ordinate youth services and move away from a one-size-fits-all approach from central Government. In short, we want to put power back in the hands of young people and their communities.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Youth services deliver huge benefits to our community, both socially and economically, reducing knife crime and antisocial behaviour and, in turn, saving the country £500 million a year. Yet the clubs that I meet in my constituency, including Wesley Hall youth club and Eyres Monsell club for young people, tell me that there is a real recruitment and retention crisis in the sector. With over 4,500 workers leaving in the past decade, what measures is the Minister taking to address this issue?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Member is absolutely right to outline the importance of youth services, particularly in the prevention of knife crime and other issues. Of course, we saw a 73% reduction in real-terms spending over the last 14 years under the Conservative Government. We will not be able to reverse that overnight, but that is why we look forward to our youth strategy, which will be published by the end of the year.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
On this issue, the Secretary of State met my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) in her role as the Second Church Estates Commissioner and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). In March 2025, my noble Friend the Minister for Heritage met the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, my noble Friend Lord Khan of Burnley, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and church representatives, as well as visiting Salisbury cathedral and St Michael Le Belfrey in York.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but I am not sure the Government have understood the level of uncertainty and panic that has set in following their approach to this grant scheme. Some of the most cherished buildings in our constituencies are waiting on clarity for when the Government will come forward with concrete steps to extend this scheme. What will happen after March 2026? I would be grateful if the Minister could give us that clarity now.
Ian Murray
This is an incredibly serious issue, but the Conservatives did not allocate any funding for it at all when they were in government, and therefore we are left with the current situation. I reiterate to those who may wish to use the listed places of worship grant scheme that £13.7 million is left in that scheme. Grants are capped at £25,000, but the analysis from the Department is that 94% of all applications are unaffected by this change because most claims are under £5,000. There is plenty of money left in the pot for this year, and I would encourage them to use it.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
We believe in the power of grassroots sport, which is why we announced investment of £400 million in future grassroots facilities. But we are going further than that and insisting that girls will have equal access to any facility that we fund, because girls belong on the pitch. I take this moment to pay tribute to the Lionesses and the Red Roses on their incredible victories in the women’s Euros and the rugby world cup. It was a particular pleasure to join the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) to cheer on the Red Roses. We want all girls to grow up not just with dreams of being able to match those ambitions, but with a real plan.
Noah Law
Access to sport is vital for not only our public health, but fostering a sense of community and reducing antisocial behaviour. Yet in St Austell, many of the astroturf facilities, such as the great one at Penrice school, cannot be used after dark because they lack floodlights. Will the Minister look at how small-scale investments of this kind in vital community facilities could help unlock all-year-round access to physical activity for people of all ages?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for being an outstanding champion for sport in his community. I would encourage Penrice school and others who have similar challenges to approach the Football Foundation, through which we fund floodlights and other small-scale investments. Previous funding allocations have been far too prescriptive. We believe communities know best what they need and through the Football Foundation, we are determined to deliver it.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Earlier this week, the Committee heard from Henry Hughes and Nathan Young, two brilliant swimmers who are travelling to Tokyo next month to represent Britain as part of the Deaflympics. The competition has been running for over 100 years—longer than the Paralympics, in fact—but deaf athletes are the only disabled elite sports group who have no access to either Government or UK Sport funding. Will the Secretary of State join me in wishing all our deaf Olympians the very best of luck in Tokyo next month? Will she also agree to meet them on their return with UK Deaf Sport to discuss how this terrible situation can be improved and how they can be supported much better in the future?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Member, as always, for raising an issue that has been raised with both me and the Minister for Sport. We are working with UK Sport to try to resolve it. Of course we will be cheering our athletes on in Tokyo—I am really looking forward to that—but we know that those opportunities are not available to all. I would be happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this further.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
This has been an incredible year for women’s sport, with both the Lionesses and the Red Roses inspiring a generation with their fantastic performances and historic successes on the pitch. The previous Conservative Government worked in partnership alongside the national lottery, Sport England and various national bodies to help to support these incredible athletes with investment in grassroots facilities, including the £30 million Lionesses fund, which directly increased opportunities for women’s and girls’ sports. Beyond the sentiments that the Secretary of State has already expressed today, will she confirm whether her Government will support a new Lionesses and Red Roses fund specifically for women’s sports? Will she also confirm that fairness and safety will remain the key pillars of guidance for female sports?
Lisa Nandy
It was a real pleasure, with the Prime Minister, to meet the Lionesses before they went off and then on to victory in the Euros. We have been working closely with rugby football and other areas of women’s sport to advance this issue. The £400 million investment that I referenced in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) will double the number of places across the board, which will mean a significant increase in the number of women and girls able to access sports. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport was pleased to launch the women’s sport taskforce, which will really grip this issue. I am happy to work cross-party on that; it is something that the whole House should be able to get behind and support.
Mr French
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer; hopefully she can pick up the point about fairness and safety in women’s sport in her next answer, because that was also part of the first question.
The Secretary of State will be aware that, alongside investment from Government and national sports bodies, voluntary donations and corporate sponsorship play a key role in funding our grassroots and professional sports clubs and leagues. For example, Flutter’s Cash4Clubs programme has invested £7 million in grassroots clubs since 2008. Does the Minister therefore share my concern that the Chancellor’s proposed racing tax will not only see thousands of British jobs lost across the country, but damage key sponsorship of a number of UK sports, especially British horseracing? Will she confirm that her Department has made it clear to the Treasury that it opposes this tax raid on our British sport?
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely recognise the point about fairness and safety, and I have had representations and conversations with many women athletes and competitors since taking office. Of course we want to be as inclusive as possible in the approach that we take, but we recognise that fairness and safety really matter, and we have been supporting the sporting bodies in dealing with that. It is a matter for them, but we stand ready to support.
In relation to the issues that the hon. Member raised about gambling, we believe that the gambling industry is an important part of the UK economy. We know that it brings joy to millions of people. Of course, future proposals on taxation are matters for the Treasury, but I can reassure him that we regularly engage with the Treasury to ensure not just that the voice of stakeholders is heard, but that we avoid any unintended consequences of tax reform.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Local authorities play a vital role in delivering youth services and have a statutory duty to provide sufficient leisure-time activities and facilities, in line with local needs. This Government inherited local authorities that were on their knees, and in that context some are struggling to meet their duties. That is why, as part of our wider investment in young people, we are investing over £8 million this year to support local authorities.
David Williams
I know the Minister will join me in welcoming the recent £600,000 investment to improve the offer for young people in Stoke-on-Trent. With the upcoming review of arm’s length bodies such as Sport England and the Arts Council, will the Minister ensure that greater collaboration will mean that our young people always have somewhere to go and something to do on their weekends, their evenings and during their school holidays?
Stephanie Peacock
Of course, I welcome this investment through the local youth transformation pilot, which will support pathfinder local authorities to start to rebuild a high-quality offer for young people. We want to see greater co-operation and co-ordination, so I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that investment. It is really important that young people have something positive to do during their evenings and weekends, and I have seen that in my own area of Barnsley, where, for example, the Barnsley youth choir supports hundreds of young people. Having attended their concert on Saturday, I wish them well in competing in Spain this week.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. Her enthusiasm is infectious, and we wish her well and thank her for all she does. The local Youth Justice Agency team in my constituency makes important rehabilitative interventions for young people. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss what is happening here with the Department of Justice back home, to ensure that the benefits here come back to us in Northern Ireland as well?
Stephanie Peacock
I am incredibly grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind comments. I have visited Northern Ireland twice in my capacity as a DCMS Minister. I speak with my counterparts, and I would be delighted to discuss that further with the hon. Gentleman.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Since we last met, the Football Governance Act 2025 has become law. The Independent Football Regulator now has a chair, a chief executive and a board, and it is wasting no time in putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
I know the whole House will welcome the news of the ceasefire in the middle east, which we hope will bring an end to the appalling suffering in Palestine and Israel. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many fearless Palestinian journalists who have reported so bravely from Gaza—248 lives have been lost. They say that truth dies in the darkness. They will not be forgotten.
Grahame Morris
I thank the Secretary of State for her comments. Despite previous reassurances from Reach plc, owner of the Mirror, Daily Record, Express and many regional papers, it has announced redundancies that put 600 journalists’ jobs under threat. Many Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the continued erosion of our media landscape, and particularly the loss of experienced and professional journalists, which risks driving people towards fake news and misinformation on social media. Will the Minister meet the National Union of Journalists and concerned MPs from the all-party group to discuss this pressing issue?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in supporting not just local journalism but local journalists. They are an essential part of our democracy, and it was not lost on me that local newspapers helped to counter the misinformation and disinformation that was spreading online like wildfire during the disorder last summer. It is why we are developing a local media strategy, working with many of the organisations that he mentioned, but I would be delighted to meet him, other Members of Parliament and the NUJ to discuss this further.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I welcome the new Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), to his role, and I thank the Secretary of State for her welcoming comments to me earlier. She is right: we have had many conversations in the past about many aspects of DCMS not being overtly party political, and that is a good thing.
However, there are areas of disagreement, including this Government’s anti-business attitude and policies. Increasing national insurance and business rates has caused untold damage to swathes of DCMS sectors. Will the Secretary of State therefore support the Conservative policy of 100% business rates relief on the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors? At the very least, can she assure me that she is begging and pleading with the Chancellor not to do any more damage to those sectors in the upcoming Budget?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Member for his warm words. However, it takes some brass neck to represent a political party in this Chamber that in recent memory crashed the economy and left working people across the country paying the price. The demand for charities soared as a direct result of the Conservatives’ policies, while the ability of charities to stand up and speak up for the people they represented was attacked and undermined at every turn by his Government. I can confirm that we will not be following Conservative policies. We will be proudly flying the flag for Labour policies, which put people and communities back at the heart of our country again.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
There is no specific duty on owners to keep their buildings in a good state of repair, but local authorities have powers under legislation to take action where a listed building may be at risk, through urgent works notices and repairs notices. The Government also support local authorities by providing funding for conservation projects, and they are consulting on reforms to make it easier for homeowners to protect their historic properties while preserving their unique character. There is also the buildings at risk register, and I encourage my hon. Friend to speak to her local authority to see what can be done to help,
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
As a former member of a Select Committee that the right hon. Gentleman chaired, I am acutely aware that he is always right. I have been pleased to work with the Lawn Tennis Association and others to consider what we can do to ensure that more of that funding is used for tennis facilities. I have received representations from Members across the House about how restrictive that funding was. We believe that communities know better which facilities they need, and I confirm that we have made changes to the funding allocation, so that it is easier for communities to access whatever they need, including tennis.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Grassroots boxing clubs do fantastic work with young people and provide a pipeline of future talent for our communities. Crawley has provided such leading lights in the boxing world as Alan Minter. Will the Secretary of State meet me and representatives of the sector to see what more can be done to support grassroots boxing?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for championing grassroots boxing. Our Government believe that too many sports, whether that is boxing or rugby league, have been overlooked by Government for far too long, and we are determined to bring them back into focus. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock) has been working with the all-party group on boxing, and would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. May I also say how thrilled I was that Natasha Jonas received an honour this year? Boxing brings joy to millions of people, and it ought to be celebrated.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Ian Murray
This Government applaud and support the role that museums play in educating and inspiring audiences, including in Cornwall and across every part of the country in every Member’s constituency. Last week the Government announced that 75 museum groups around the country will benefit from an additional £20 million of funding as part of the museum renewal fund, delivered by Arts Council England. Together with our new £25 million investment in regional museums via the aptly named museum estate and development fund, which is to be announced in the new year, that represents a considerable show of support for local museums across the country, on top of the £44 million allocated by Arts Council England.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
You may be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that today is the launch of Peterborough tourist board, and our new Discover Peterborough website. That brings together our great attractions, such as our 900-year-old cathedral and our great museum, as well as the great outdoors such as Nene park and Flag Fen. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the formation of Discover Peterborough, and say what more she can do to support the visitor economy and great attractions in places such as mine?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I am delighted to take on the responsibility of being Minister for Tourism. Over the past month, it has been a pleasure to make a number of visits and to take part in meetings highlighting just how much the sector has to offer. We want the benefits of tourism to be felt across every nation and region, and a key strand of that work will be increasing the number of visitors who are aware of the offer outside London. I welcome the work that my hon. Friend is doing to promote Peterborough and I look forward to a visit with him.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Ian Murray
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the DCMS ministerial team and the entire Government are fully committed to ensuring that there is full access to training and skills in the arts. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that project, but if any young person in any part of this land wants to get into the arts, this Government are for them.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I understand from a number of people who work at the National Coal Mining Museum for England in Wakefield that unfortunately there is an intractable dispute there. My constituents have asked me to put two questions to the Minister. First, will she say how proud we are as a country that we have a national museum of coalmining to celebrate the history of the mines? Secondly, if necessary, will she seek to secure an agreement between the disagreeing parties at the museum?
Lisa Nandy
As the very proud Member of Parliament for Wigan, which is the greatest coalmining community on earth—[Interruption.] I can hear that I have lost the good will of the House. I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the National Coal Mining Museum for England and to the fact that we keep alive our heritage and the history of the contribution that working-class people have made to this country. I am delighted that I will have more to say about that later today. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), has visited the museum, and I am keen to work with him to ensure that we get the matter resolved as soon as possible.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Lisa Nandy
This Government have wasted no time in taking action to increase the amount of support available to the minority of people for whom gambling becomes a problem. As I said to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), gambling brings joy to millions of people and it is an incredibly important part of the UK economy, but we are determined to ensure that support is there for that minority of people. That is why we wasted no time in introducing a levy that is helping to boost such support, particularly for young people. We are happy to continue the conversation with Members from across the House to ensure that we tackle this important issue, but on the specific proposal that the hon. Lady makes, we have no plans to introduce such a measure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry but I have to pull stumps as we are well over time. DCMS questions are so popular—many hon. Members have not been able to get in—that I believe we really need an hour on the subject, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. I know that the Secretary of State wanted to congratulate Hull KR on its treble in rugby league and on beating Wigan Warriors in the final, and I am sure that she will be supporting Great Britain when we play Australia a week on Saturday.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Church of England supports efforts to defend international religious freedoms for Christians or whichever religious group faces persecution. The Church has created parliamentary caucuses involving religious leaders in east and west Africa, and in south-east Asia to support legislation to protect religious freedoms.
Brian Mathew
Next month marks the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church, when congregations across the world will pray for those persecuted for their faith. That includes those in Sudan, where many Christians have been abducted and killed and more than 100 churches have been targeted for damage in recent years. I ask the hon. Member to use her good offices to encourage the Church of England to do all it can to protect the rights and security of worshippers across the world.
Marsha De Cordova
I am sure that across the House we can all agree that the situation in Sudan is desperate. The Church of England dioceses have given financial support and practical aid and worked through local agencies and international charities to support the local clergy in Sudan. The Bishop of Leeds has visited the country many times, most recently within the past year. He is in regular contact with the archbishop of the province and continues to raise the situation in the other place. That said, I will reiterate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Sudan will be one of many countries that churches in the UK hold in their prayers as they mark the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church next month, but there is no question but that more needs to be done to uphold the freedom of religion or belief for all.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
The Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief launched the Government’s new strategy on 8 July this year, and the Church welcomes that continuing commitment. Obviously it is too early to assess the effectiveness of the strategy, but the Church remains concerned about the global and local trends. The levels across countries are currently either high or very high, and Government restrictions on freedom of religion or belief are at their highest level since 2007.
Adam Jogee
Anglicans in Newcastle-under-Lyme will very much welcome the appointment of the new Archbishop of Canterbury and will be praying for her—as the first woman in the role, she has made history. The United Kingdom has long worked to promote pluralist values across the globe, so I welcome the employment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), but there is more to do. Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner update the House on what conversations she and her colleagues have had with the Government on their efforts to emphasise the importance of supporting freedom of religion in their conversations with countries with which we are pursuing trade deals?
Marsha De Cordova
The Church is in regular dialogue with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and welcomes the Government’s continued commitment to implementing the findings of the Truro review. As part of its continuing conversations, the Church raises the importance of supporting freedom of religion with other countries, including those countries that the Government are pursuing trade deals with. I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that I do not comment on Government policy as such.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner very much for all that she does personally—I know that she is committed to making lives better personally and as the Second Church Estates Commissioner. What discussions has she had with organisations such as Open Doors UK in relation to furthering steps that can be taken to support Christians who are persecuted and have their human rights diminished and reduced every day as a result of their religious beliefs? I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.
Marsha De Cordova
I always welcome the contributions of the hon. Member in Church Commissioners questions, and he raises a really important point. As I said, the Church continues to have dialogue with the many different charities and non-governmental organisations working in this area. I am sure that he, like me, will mark the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church next month. As I have said, more can always be done in this area, but I thank him for his continued commitment.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
Rural churches play an important role in the life and wellbeing of their communities. Funding has been allocated by the National Church Institutions in recognition of that, and it is making a significant difference to missions across the country. Funds have been awarded to the diocese of Hereford to pay for a series of centres to support rural parishes with their outreach to children and young people. In the diocese of Carlisle, there is investment to help train new leaders, as part of a three-year pilot in rural mission communities.
Josh Newbury
Back in May, St John the Baptist church in Slitting Mill near Rugeley held its final service. St John’s is a huge loss to the community—it was such a welcoming and unique church, having been housed in a semi-detached house with neighbours still living next door. Although the closure was sadly necessary to protect the other four churches in Rugeley and Brereton, Slitting Mill now has no church, as well as no bus route. Could my hon. Friend tell the House what the Church Commissioners are doing to ensure that rural communities are not left without any access at all to places of worship?
Marsha De Cordova
I am truly sorry to hear about the closure of St John the Baptist church. As I have highlighted, in recognition of the importance of supporting churches in rural communities, the Church is investing £11 million with partner organisations dedicated to sharing the Christian faith. That funding will be available to nearly half the parishes across the Church of England, and a range of traditions, activities and organisations will be supported through that funding. However, I would be happy to meet or write to my hon. Friend. It is really important that churches are available and that people have places to worship.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Under the Local Government Act 1972, parochial church councils may serve notice requiring parish or district councils to assume responsibility for the maintenance of closed churchyards. Local government reorganisation and the creation of unitary authorities is requiring parish councils to take on more responsibility as district councils close. Are the Church Commissioners giving any thought to the effect of local government reorganisation on how those closed churchyards might be maintained?
Marsha De Cordova
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. That overlaps with what is happening at local government level, but also with what the Church Commissioners are doing. I will write to him to set out whether discussions are taking place with the Church Commissioners. I hope he will find that sufficient.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
St John’s church in Darlington, an iconic church that makes up the skyline of our great town, has recently been put up for sale. Will the Commissioner meet me to discuss exactly what criteria the community needs to meet to ensure that we can repurpose the church as a building of social value?
Marsha De Cordova
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Can I ask the hon. Lady to encourage the Church Commissioners to share best practice and their experience of sustaining small churches in rural communities with the Church of Scotland? Sadly, in my constituency we have seen almost the wholesale closure of every small church in a rural area.
Marsha De Cordova
Again, I am sorry to hear about the right hon. Member’s constituency and the number of churches that are no longer in operation. I will certainly ensure that whatever best practice the Church Commissioners have can be shared with the Church of Scotland.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
The Church of England has a presence in every community in England, and provides support to its clergy and other faith communities through its presence and engagement initiative. Our churches work with inter-faith networks to stand in solidarity with others, bringing people together, and to deepen understanding, offering both spiritual and practical support to those in need.
Jessica Toale
Bournemouth has been made richer by its diversity and the communities that have chosen to make it their home, yet tensions rose over the summer due to protests about asylum seekers. I pay tribute to our local churches, particularly Lansdowne church and Gateway church, for the vital work they do to welcome asylum seekers and build community connection between our many communities. How can we do more to support those churches and the vital work they do?
Marsha De Cordova
I recognise and commend the work of all churches that are standing up for minority communities, refugees and those seeking asylum. Our diversity is our strength, and our strength as a Church lies in supporting every member of our communities, including those who face barriers, persecution or prejudice. I also want to recognise my hon. Friend’s leadership in the work she is doing to support her local community, as well as her local churches. It is so important that our churches work across faiths with all of our communities to enhance community cohesion.
Tom Rutland
Over the recess, we witnessed the horrific antisemitic attack on one of Manchester’s synagogues and then, just days later, an Islamophobic attack on one of our Sussex mosques. It is in these difficult and worrying times that religious leaders can continue to play an important role in bringing communities together. What support can the Church provide to its leaders to continue to work across communities and across faiths, and to foster the supportive, inclusive and diverse tolerant communities that we are all proud to represent in this place?
Marsha De Cordova
My thoughts and prayers are with those communities affected by the tragic attack at Heaton Park synagogue, as well as that at the mosque in Sussex. The Church of England responded by offering direct support through its Manchester interfaith adviser, who worked closely with the authorities and is known and respected in the local community. The Church Urban Fund, including the near neighbours programme, has played a vital role in strengthening community relations, as does the Church’s presence and engagement initiative.
Across the House, we all know the important role that all our faith organisations play, showing leadership in times of desperate need and suffering. I thank all our faith leaders across the country for all they do in fostering good relations, but also in bringing about peace and reassurance.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady recognise the awesomeness of the Rev. David Harrigan at St Elisabeth’s church in Eastbourne? Working with the food bank, he has pioneered a partnership that has been featured by the Trussell Trust as an example of best practice for a relationship between a church leader and a food bank. Will the hon. Lady meet Rev. David and me to discuss the Church Commissioners’ plans for the land next to St Elisabeth’s church, to ensure that it is used for community benefit?
Marsha De Cordova
I am always happy to meet hon. Members about any issue they wish to raise. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s church, which is working in partnership with the food bank. There are many such examples, including at St Mark’s church in my constituency. We all know the role that our churches play in our communities to provide that social action support. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
The House Administration sources a wide range of crockery from firms in the UK, as well as those based elsewhere. Where possible, Parliament endeavours to purchase British goods to support domestic supply chains. All purchasing is in line with the relevant legislation for public bodies, which prioritises value for money. Some 85% of crockery purchased in the past two years has been from British manufacturers.
Gareth Snell
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership on this? The exquisite Speaker’s House collection that you personally commissioned is made proudly in Stoke-on-Trent by Duchess China. I am sure that the House will be pleased to know that it is in stock, reasonably priced and available in time for Christmas. This place is a great showcase for British talent and skills. Although I accept my hon. Friend’s answer, there is more that we can do. Through him, I encourage the Commission to ensure that whenever a tender is offered for crockery, giftware or tableware in this place, it looks not just at value for money but at the social value of supporting British manufacturers wherever possible.
Nick Smith
It pleases me when I see my hon. Friend turning his plate or mug upside down in the Tea Room, to double-check whether the crockery was made in Stoke. It is good when Westminster shows off the best of our UK ceramics manufacturing. Where possible and appropriate, and in accordance with procurement law, Parliament will endeavour to purchase British goods and support our domestic supply chains.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
On 3 October, after 11 months, Bishop Sarah Mullally was appointed as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury. This is an historic appointment, as she is the first woman to be appointed to the position.
Rosie Duffield
As my hon. Friend will know, it has been a really difficult year for the Church, and for Canterbury cathedral in particular, with the death of our beloved Dean Emeritus Robert Willis, the horrible circumstances surrounding the resignation of Archbishop Justin, and the current controversy about an art exhibition that seems to have offended the vice-president of America, among other people. Does she agree that the historic choice of Bishop Sarah Mullally as the first ever woman appointed to the role could and should herald a new start for the Church and a righting of the historical wrongs of child abuse, which she speaks about a lot?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend makes some very good points, and I thank her for her words and good wishes. She is a true champion of women’s rights, but also of women in leadership.
I want to place on the record my congratulations to Bishop Sarah on making history. She spent over 35 years in the NHS, becoming the youngest ever chief nursing officer for England. She was made a Dame Commander of the British Empire in 2005 for her contributions to nursing and midwifery. I would add that Bishop Sarah served her curacy at St Saviour’s, Battersea Fields, in my constituency.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
May I add my congratulations to the new Archbishop of Canterbury? I wrote my thesis on the campaign for women’s ordination in the Church of England, so it is brilliant to see a woman go to the highest office for the first time, and I place on the record my thanks to the women and men who campaigned for women’s ordination in the first place. Will my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the role that women are playing in the Church of England at all levels across our country?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Across this House, I think we would all congratulate and celebrate all the women in leadership within our Church. Indeed, just last night I was at the installation of the new rector for St Mary’s, Battersea—a woman.
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the three witness statements in relation to the alleged breach of the Official Secrets Act on behalf of China.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank the hon. Member for the question and for the opportunity to respond to it today. I appreciate how serious and personal this is for the hon. Member, who, like other Members of this House, is sanctioned by China and/or named in the witness statements.
Following the Security Minister’s statement to the House on Monday, the Prime Minister updated Parliament yesterday, following the Crown Prosecution Service’s clarification that the Government were able to publish the witness statements of the deputy National Security Adviser. As the Prime Minister said in the House, he carefully considered this matter and, following legal advice, decided to disclose the witness statements unredacted and in full.
I reiterate that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, under this Government no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. The Prime Minister cannot say whether that was the case under the previous Government, but I once again invite the Conservative party to clarify that.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Stop playing politics! This is about national security, you petty little man!
Chris Ward
Having now had the opportunity to read these statements, Members will have been able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say—[Interruption.] No, you are going to hear it, whether you like it or not. Mr Tugendhat, I expect better from you. You will be wanting to catch my eye, and this is not the best way to do it. Can we please show a little bit more respect, which I normally get from you?
Chris Ward
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Having now had the opportunity to read the statements, Members will be able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have stated repeatedly: the DNSA faithfully, and with full integrity, set out the position of the previous UK Government and the various threats posed by the Chinese state to the UK, and did so in order to try to support a successful prosecution.
The first and most substantive witness statement is from December 2023, under the last Government. The second and third, which are both much shorter, are from February and August 2025 respectively. It is clear from these statements that the substantive case and evidence submitted by the DNSA does not change materially throughout, and that all three documents clearly articulate the very serious threats posed by China. The second witness statement, in particular, highlights the specific details of some of the cyber-threats that we face, and emphasises that China is the “biggest state-based threat” to the UK’s national security. The third statement goes on to state that the Chinese intelligence services are
“highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the…security of the UK.”
It is clear from this evidence, which all can now see, that the DNSA took significant strides to articulate the threat from China in support of the prosecution. The decision on whether to proceed, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, was taken purely by the CPS. It is also clear that the three statements are constrained by the position of the Conservative Government on China at the time of the alleged offences.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday and the Security Minister said on Monday, this Government’s first priority will always be national security and keeping this country safe. We wanted this case to proceed. I am sure all Members of the House did, and I know you did too, Mr Speaker. We are all profoundly disappointed that it did not.
Neil O’Brien
I should declare an interest as I am named in the witness statements. As someone sanctioned by China, I was shocked to learn that the Prime Minister knew that this case was about to collapse several days beforehand, but chose to do nothing. We now know that the CPS was not far short of what it needed. The Director of Public Prosecutions told MPs yesterday that it was something like 5% short. However, we do not know exactly what the CPS was asking for—what that 5% was. We do not know why the Government would not go that bit further when they were asked to. That is what we need hear from the Minister today: why did the Government not give the CPS what it was asking for?
Nobody is disputing that there is plenty of evidence. The witness statements are shocking. They tell us that China is conducting “large scale espionage operations”. Cash is said to have told Berry in a message,
“you’re in spy territory now”.
Yesterday, Government sources briefed The Guardian that the “civil service decided” that decisions
“should be done independently of ministers”.
No, no, no, Mr Speaker. The civil service does not get to decide anything; Ministers decide. The Prime Minister was not some helpless captive, unable to make sure that the CPS had what it needed. He knew, and he decided not to help. Why?
Let us come back to the evidence that was provided. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was utterly constrained by the position of the previous Government, and every expert had already contradicted the PM on this. However, we can now see that the two witness statements from this year did state the position of the current Labour Government—a direct contradiction of what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The evidence includes lines from Labour’s manifesto, and they weaken the case. They make it less clear that China is a threat to our national security. That is one of the things that changed.
The Sunday Times reported on a meeting convened by Jonathan Powell with the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office to discuss this case. Until yesterday, the Government said that that was just made up. Now they admit that it happened, but they still will not come clean about what happened in that meeting, or any other meeting.
In conclusion, this House needs to know what was asked for by the CPS and why it was refused, and we must see all the correspondence and the minutes. If the Government will not publish the China files, people will ask: what have this Government got to hide?
Chris Ward
I thank the shadow Minister for that and, as I say, I do recognise how personally important this matter is to him and to many Members of the House.
On transparency, the Security Minister has given two statements to this House. The Prime Minister gave what I think we can all agree was a rather lengthy statement yesterday, and he used the pretty unusual process of publishing the evidence in full yesterday, so transparency is something the Government are trying to provide.
The key point the shadow Minister made was about why the Prime Minister or Ministers did not interfere or try to do so. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, this was a matter for the CPS independently, and an important principle of this Government—[Interruption.] Evidence was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister made it clear, and this is the bit I find confusing—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Cartlidge, you are very energetic there and even I can hear you from here, so please can we have a little bit less?
Chris Ward
This is the bit that I find slightly confusing about the Opposition’s approach. On Monday and today as well, they have accused this Government of political interference, including by the National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that that is completely untrue. On the other hand, they are saying there should have been political interference, and that the Prime Minister should have directed or tried to help the CPS. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that that is not the case, and that no Prime Minister and no Government would interfere with the CPS on a decision to charge, which is entirely for it to make.
In terms of the evidence in the three statements put forward yesterday, there is clear consistency across them. They all set out the very, very serious threats that China poses. I do not think anyone can think that that is not the case. [Interruption.] It was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser without interference from anyone else. They are his words. It is his choice what happens, and that is what happened.
We have been through this several times—on Monday, yesterday and today. The Prime Minister has provided the evidence. It is there for Ministers and Members to see. Ultimately, the decision was taken by the CPS not to proceed and we are all disappointed in that.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It seems to me that the issue is this: given that all the deputy NSA’s witness statements refer to China as a threat, I cannot understand why the CPS took the nuclear option of collapsing the case rather than leaving it to a jury. Twenty years as a criminal barrister has given me absolute faith that the jury would have spent no time on how many angels can dance on the top of a pin, but would simply have looked at whether or not China was an enemy. They would have found it very easy to decide that that is exactly what it was and then moved on to whether or not these men had been spying on behalf of China. It does seem to me that the decision should have been left to a jury. Does my hon. Friend have any idea why on earth the CPS dropped the case?
Chris Ward
As I say, this was a decision taken by the CPS independently, with no interference or involvement from the Government. Members may or may not sympathise with that decision. It was a CPS decision. That is why it is important that the evidence is in the public domain now and that everyone can judge from that how things proceeded.
I will just make one final point. Obviously, the CPS decision was not based purely on the evidence put forward by the DNSA. It was based on much wider evidence collected over a much longer period, so the decision on whether to proceed was taken by the CPS on a much broader evidential basis.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Yesterday, we saw finger pointing and “gotcha” moments from both the Government and the Opposition Benches during Prime Minister’s questions, but the release of the witness statements last night provides further questions for both sides, including what pressure was being applied to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) from within their own party to dampen down their criticisms of China. This whole thing makes an absolutely mockery of what is a serious collapse of a case and a threat to our national security—a threat that is not going away but will only increase.
Did the CPS tell the Government in advance that the case was at risk of collapsing? Did it ask the Government to be more explicit in their wording, and if so, why were the Government not more explicit? Will the Minister commit today to a statutory independent inquiry, which would provide radical transparency and ensure that the right lessons are learned so that this does not happen again?
Chris Ward
I can promise that I will try to avoid all “gotcha” moments and finger pointing. On the question of when the CPS informed the Government, my understanding, and the Prime Minister made this clear yesterday, is that the Prime Minister was informed very shortly before the case collapsed—a matter of days before. That is on the record—it was in the House, if you need to refer to that, from the Prime Minister.
In terms of future inquiries, I should have said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that this is an issue Select Committees will want to look at as well. There is a normal process for that, but I am unable to go beyond that today.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Government published the witnessed statements last night, but clearly there are a lot of questions yet to be asked in terms of how this came about and what evidence there was that may not have been shared, or perhaps was not asked for. The Joint Committee met this morning to discuss the situation. We will hold a formal inquiry into the issue. Just to remind Members, the Committee comprises the Chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee, so we are well covered. We will be holding the inquiry as soon as we possibly can. Will the Minister give his commitment that we will have access to Ministers, civil servants and whoever we wish to come before us?
Chris Ward
As I say, parliamentary scrutiny and transparency is something that, despite the allegation, we are trying to provide with statements and by publishing evidence. I am sure, going forward, that that is something that will carry on. I will come back to my hon. Friend on the precise mechanism for how we will do that, but I am sure people will be made available to his Committee.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Obviously, this is too important for party politics; it is a matter of national security against an existential threat from China. The Prime Minister was clear yesterday when he said that no Minister would ever apply pressure to the CPS, and I completely believe him. But we would like to have clarity that Ministers had no discussions with civil servants and then subsequently civil servants with the CPS. We want to be absolutely clear that there was no ministerial involvement at all.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Paragraph 8 of the 4 August statement says:
“It is important for me to emphasise…that the UK Government is committed to pursuing a positive relationship with China to strengthen understanding, cooperation and stability.”
Why did the deputy National Security Adviser think it was a good idea to include that in the statement?
Chris Ward
The deputy National Security Adviser was reflecting Government policy at the time. That was his choice of words, and it was his decision to include that. But if we look across the statements, we see there is broad consistency and no material difference on the policy relating to China, which has been pretty much shared across the House.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is now clear that the Crown Prosecution Service asked the Government more than once, over more than a year, for some additional evidence on what the CPS considered to be the crucial question of whether China constituted a national security threat during the relevant period. It seems to me, having read those statements, that at least two important questions arise.
The first is the one just asked by the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). Given that it was clear at the point when the deputy National Security Adviser made his second and third statements that the question he was being asked to comment on was whether that bar of being a national security threat was met or not, what is the possible relevance of the inclusion of information about China as an economic opportunity? Surely the Minister and the Government can see that that only weakens the substance of the question that that witness was being asked to answer. It would be useful to understand whether the DNSA came to that view on his own or had it suggested to him that that would be a useful thing to include.
The second question is this. The Government have been clear—the Minister has been today, and the Prime Minister was yesterday—about how disappointed they are at the outcome of the trial and how much they wanted the prosecution to proceed. Given the length of time and the number of requests received by the CPS, surely it would be logical to assume that the Government would be straining every sinew to find extra evidence to meet the CPS’s requirement. Whether they thought the CPS was right to ask for it or not, it was clear that, with that extra evidence, the CPS would have proceeded with the case as the Government say they wanted. What evidence can the Government provide to us that every sinew was strained and that they did everything they could to find that evidence? If that evidence is in fact available and others could find it, will the Government not have some explaining to do?
Chris Ward
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the tone of his question. On the first point—[Interruption.] I am so sorry; will he remind me what that was?
Sir Jeremy Wright
The first question was about why the deputy National Security Adviser included reference to economic opportunity in his statement when he knew that that was not the question he was being asked, nor the relevant question.
Chris Ward
I am so sorry; I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That was done to provide broader context of the Government’s position on China at the time, but it was an independent decision—taken freely, without interference from Ministers or advisers—of the DSNA to do so. [Interruption.] It is not my position to account for that. That was his decision, and that was the evidence submitted under consecutive Governments. I am afraid that is all I can add on that point.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
May I take the Minister back to the wording of the Act? It says that it is an offence to pass information that would be
“directly or indirectly useful to an enemy”.
It does not say that it is an offence to directly or indirectly pass to an enemy information that would be useful. The difference is that in the first, it is the usefulness of the information that constitutes the offence—it might be passed to any unauthorised person. In the second, it is the passing of it to an enemy that constitutes the offence. By using the second interpretation, it is therefore possible to argue that unless the person the information was passed to was an enemy, no offence was committed. That, it would seem to me, is how the two men had the case dropped. In fact, by passing it to a person not authorised to receive it, friend or foe, they had allowed it to circulate outside of the UK Government’s control, where it could then be obtained and used by an enemy—surely that is what the Act sought to criminalise. If the Minister agrees, is he satisfied that the wording of the Act is as it should be, or does he think that the prosecution was dropped erroneously?
Chris Ward
Commenting on whether or not it was dropped erroneously is not something that any Minister would do from this Dispatch Box.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I would like to make a broader point about China’s activities in the United Kingdom related to this. The application for the super-embassy is currently on the Government’s desk. As the Minister says, and has been acknowledged, China is a threat and is actively working to undermine our national security. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Government
“would never compromise national security”.
How can the Government give any consideration to approving the Chinese super-embassy, which would give extraordinary capability to China to continue to expand its espionage activities and to target Hongkongers on British soil with its transnational repression?
Chris Ward
As the hon. Gentleman says, the decision on the Chinese embassy will be taken by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in due course. It is completely unrelated to this case and anything in it. That is an important point to reiterate.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his responses so far on this important matter. I want to draw his attention to sub-paragraph d) of paragraph 21 of the deputy National Security Adviser’s initial witness statement, in which he references Newport wafer fab, as it was called in 2023. Does the Minister share my concerns that the wafer fab sale could have been adversely affected by this leak of private information, thus jeopardising the livelihoods of good people in my constituency, and what can he say to reassure me and others that this cannot happen again?
Chris Ward
I can understand how seriously my hon. Friend and her constituents will take this. If she will permit me, I will get back to her with a substantive answer on that from the team as soon as I can.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
May I apologise for earlier outbursts, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not in the position of needing any advice or help. I have had enough from the Opposition Benches; I do not want it starting on the Government Benches, too. I think we will take it that there was, in fairness, an apology to those on the Front Bench.
Tom Tugendhat
May I start by saying briefly quite how this feels, Mr Speaker? My home has been broken into, my files have been ransacked, somebody was put into my office by a hostile state, and the two parties are playing politics with it. This is the national security of the United Kingdom. The people of Tonbridge elected me; they may have chosen wrong, but they did. The people of other parts of the United Kingdom chose everybody else in this House—it is up to them to choose who represents them. Yet here we have two individuals seeking to extract information from us, and the Government’s response is not as mine was: do everything you can to make sure the prosecution works. No, no, it was “process, process”. Well, who the hell’s side are you on? This is not about bureaucracy; this is about leadership. We are not sent here to be civil servants. We are sent here to lead the country and to make decisions.
I feel nothing but fondness for the Minister in his place, and I am very sorry that he has been sent out on what is not quite his first outing, but pretty close—[Interruption.] Oh, it is his first outing! He has been sent out on his first outing to defend the indefensible. He now has the position in which he effectively has to say that he is not a politician, but a bureaucrat, that there is nothing he can do, and that frankly he should not even be here in the first place, because that seems to be the Prime Minister’s line. Former Attorneys General have got up and prosecuted on the state’s behalf. This Attorney General and this Prime Minister have said, “Not on my watch—not worth the effort.”
Chris Ward
Just to say, I have huge respect for the right hon. Member, even if that evidently is not mutual at the moment—let us see if we can get to that place.
The Prime Minister answered this question yesterday. I fully appreciate how personally this affects the right hon. Member, his constituency and his office. I do understand that, and I am genuinely not trying to play politics. I see his eyebrows raised at that, but I am genuinely not. I am trying to tell the story of how this situation has progressed and to reiterate from the Dispatch Box the point that the Prime Minister made yesterday and the Security Minister made on Monday, which is that the Government’s position—as it has been under successive Governments, but particularly under this Prime Minister—is that there will be no interference with the CPS in the process of this, and that every effort was made to try to deliver evidence to support its case when it was asked for.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) emphasises so emphatically, across the whole House we are appalled by the actions of the Chinese state. I want to go back to the precise law under which the charges were brought. The Act was first introduced in 1911 and the Conservatives set out to review it when they were in Government in 2015, but they did not successfully replace with a law that was fit for purpose until 2023, eight years later. Had the Conservatives got on with the job and replaced the law more quickly, would we be in a different position now?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend invites me to play party politics, and I have promised several times that I am not going to do that. Factually, it is true that if the espionage Act had been updated more quickly and the current Act had been in place at the time, the case would have been able to proceed. That is the case. Decisions were taken not to do that, and I think that is greatly regrettable.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister to his place on his first outing— I have to say, I think the Prime Minister owes him a favour. The Minister will understand the need for absolutely clarity, and I know he says that, but given the serious threat that he has said China poses to us, can he be absolutely clear on two issues: first, that there was no ministerial involvement whatsoever in pulling this case, and, secondly, that the Government provided all evidence that they were asked for? I am afraid that just saying “It is my understanding” is not good enough. We need some assurances.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Given that the deputy National Security Adviser is a civil servant and therefore accountable, who was holding him to account for the job that he was doing? May I just emphasise that I am sure he was doing his level and honourable best in the circumstances in which he found himself, but it is really beyond belief that—as became apparent from the third inquiry, where the Director of Public Prosecutions was asking for a clear statement that China was a national security threat—nobody was capable of telling him, “Well, actually, you’d better say that”? The idea that he was somehow beyond any influence from anybody is laughable. One can only conclude that this conspiracy of omission was something that the Government wanted because they did not want this trial to go ahead.
Chris Ward
No, that is really not the case. First, people who have worked with the DNSA will know that he is of the highest calibre and integrity on this matter. He presented evidence under successive Governments on this, devoid of any influence from advisers or Government on this side—I cannot say if that was the case under the previous Government, but I am sure it was. He presented that evidence freely and to the best of his ability under successive Governments.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Leaders should delegate responsibility but not accountability. The argument at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday revolved around whether a Minister or a special adviser had influenced the collapse of the case, and it was established that neither Ministers nor special advisers had involvement in the provision of evidence, but does the Minister think it would have been worth Ministers reflecting on the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2023 China report and requesting sight of the witness statements provided by the senior civil servant before they were submitted? In essence, have the Government sought to delegate to a civil servant responsibility and accountability?
Chris Ward
No. It is not the position of the Government, or of successive Governments, to vet witness statements made in such cases. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is what he is asking. Across the three witness statements, the deputy National Security Adviser sets out—15 or 20 times; I cannot remember the exact number—clearly and consistently the very serious threats that China poses. On the basis of that, the decision not to prosecute is taken by the CPS.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am slightly baffled by the answer that it is not the job of Ministers to vet witness statements when they are made on behalf of the Government. That is exactly the point; they are accountable. The Prime Minister said that the evidence that was relevant to the case was the previous Government’s China policy, but the statements published last night showed that they were changed to reflect this Government’s China policy. That is not the only way in which the Prime Minister’s story has fallen apart, but on that specific point, what he told the House was not correct, was it?
Chris Ward
It was. There was no political interference from the Government in any of the statements made. [Interruption.] It does not matter how many times hon. Members allege it; it was not the case.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Among all the noise of this China spy scandal, my constituents in Boston and Skegness—and the whole British people—want some clarity from the Government. Do they view China as a national security threat—yes or no?
Chris Ward
Throughout the evidence, the threats that China poses are set out multiple times. There is complete consistency between the two. Obviously there are very serious threats—I have read them out in my statements.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The deputy National Security Adviser is clear in his evidence that China is the greatest state economic threat to the UK. Does the Minister agree with that? Is he seriously trying to suggest that the deputy National Security Adviser, given what he has said in his evidence, did not clear what he was doing with the CPS with his superiors, Jonathan Powell or Ministers?
Chris Ward
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, the Prime Minister said yesterday, and the Security Minister said on Monday.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Notwithstanding the decision to drop this case, it is clear that China is trying to undermine our democracy. Will the Government include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist party-linked organisations on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Chris Ward
I am afraid that I am not across the specific of that in my brief, so I will get back to the hon. Lady.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister knows the Prime Minister well, having been one of his close advisers as well as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. Why, when he learnt that a major trial concerning spying on Members was going to collapse, did the Prime Minister do nothing? Why did he not ask if anything could be done to stop the trial collapsing? Is that what he wanted to happen, and if not, why did he not act?
Chris Ward
As I have said many times, the Government wanted the prosecution to proceed and allowed every opportunity for evidence to be provided for it and for the CPS to gather that. The Prime Minister has already stated when he was informed that the trial was in that process. He also made it clear yesterday, in response to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), that it is not his position to interfere. The case was then dropped by the CPS independently.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The CPS has independence from Ministers; civil servants do not. The whole point of our constitution is that civil servants can never be thrown under the bus because Ministers are responsible. They own everything the civil servants do. There is no carve-out because someone has this high title of being a National Security Adviser. They are a civil servant. It was not once; it happened repeatedly in an iterative process by which the CPS asked for and said there is a gap. What is it? Will the Minister please stop trying to make out that we have a different constitution from the one we have, in which he suggests that somehow Ministers are not responsible for the behaviour of their civil servants when that is the foundation of accountability within our parliamentary system?
Chris Ward
I will refer back to what I have said already: it is not the place of Ministers, under this or previous Governments, to be vetting or interfering in evidence on that matter.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The battle with China is not just an economic one; it is also a battle of ideas about how the state should operate, and the fact that this case has collapsed is making a complete mockery of our arguments about how the state should operate compared with how China does things. I suggest to the Minister that, along with the Prime Minister, he is in danger of inadvertently misleading the House. He has been asked a number of times about the content of the statement in relation to the Conservative party position at the time, and he has insisted that the statements made only reflected the position of the Conservative Government at the time. Will the Minister explain, then, why the exact wording in the Labour party manifesto in relation to China and its role, ended up in that statement?
Chris Ward
The wording in that statement was put in there to provide wider context of the situation, but as I have said many times, and I will keep saying it, that wording is provided independently by the DNSA without any involvement from Ministers or political advisers.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Can the Minister tell us whether the Attorney General shares the concern of the CPS that there is not enough evidence to prosecute?
Chris Ward
I think every Member of the House shares the concern that the case did not proceed, and that there was not enough evidence, but that decision was taken by the CPS.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Earlier this week, the Security Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), came to this House and said that the National Security Adviser did not have any links to the 48 Group, a group that promotes economic links between the UK and China. Why did the Minister say that when the National Security Adviser was listed as a fellow of the 48 Group on its website until very recently?
Chris Ward
I cannot reply on specifics of the 48 Group; I do not know that. But the National Security Adviser was not involved in any part of this, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The CPS decision not to prosecute leaves our nation less secure. What assurance can the Minister give the House that the Government did everything in their power to ensure that the CPS had the necessary evidence to prosecute?
Chris Ward
As I have said several times, this Government did everything they could to support the CPS in that process and to allow evidence to be submitted, but I gently point out again that one of the reasons that this did not proceed was Conservative policy at the time—not materially different from this policy—and the reliance on the 1911 Act.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Minister, what a baptism of fire. As an MP, I understand the beautiful picture that words can paint, but I also understand the damage of ugly words, and unfortunately, I see here the problems that playing with words is leading to. With great respect to the Minister, does he acknowledge that the play on words by the Government and the CPS further erodes trust in Government and that the witness statements may be construed to underline the views of my constituents in Strangford and elsewhere that China is a threat to those in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Will the Minister meet his Cabinet colleagues to find an open and transparent path to justice, not simply for this but to send a message to the Chinese Government to ensure they accept the sovereignty of this country and this nation and the protections that should and do exist for all those who live here, my constituents and everybody’s constituents?
Chris Ward
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I thank him for his kind words in welcoming me. If I can speak as many times in this place as he does, I will be very grateful—[Interruption.] I am not sure anyone really wants that. He makes a very serious point about the threats posed by China and the threats posed to his constituents and all our constituents by that. That is the central message we should be trying to get back to: how the Government can work across the parties and how, with the CPS and others, we can all work to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Until the statement was published last night, some of us had no idea about the details of this case, but the Government appear to be unwilling to answer three questions that have been asked repeatedly in this Chamber, so can you, Mr Speaker, kindly help me to ascertain how we get answers to them? The first concerns proof that, for the 14 months the CPS asked about, the DNSA at no point spoke to any Ministers or the National Security Adviser. Why, when the Prime Minister was informed that the case would collapse, did he not do everything in his power, and is there any evidence that he took any action at all? And why, if the Government are so disappointed that the case collapsed, have there been to this day no repercussions for the Chinese Communist party, despite the Government in power having every tool in the box to make it clear that we will protect this House, this democracy and this country?
Mr Speaker
I cannot prolong the UQ. I know the hon. Lady well, and I know she will not leave it at that point of order. She will go and use all the options that are open to her, and I am sure that she will be coming back in not too distant a time.
Mr Speaker
I call Tom Tugendhat, who will not keep this debate going.
Tom Tugendhat
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not; I am going to raise a different argument, if I may. Given that the Government’s position is that the bureaucrats run the Government and are in charge of everything, may we dissolve this House and save the taxpayer the money, because clearly this is not a democracy any more?
Mr Speaker
I am sure the right hon. Member would not want to give up his seat quite so quickly.
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have taken a close interest in this issue, Mr Speaker—the fact that it goes to the heart of this Parliament on the protection of Members of Parliament and the secrets that we sometimes hold. I am sure that you will share my concern that someone on their very first outing has been sent out on this issue and that the Prime Minister used yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions and has not faced proper scrutiny in this House in a statement. May I gently ask whether you would seek to have him make a statement to the House?
Mr Speaker
It is not even a point of order, and you know that—we are keeping the debate going. I do congratulate the Minister and feel sorry that this is his first outing, but I have to say, if you take the pay check, you also take the pain that goes with it.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we move to business questions, I would like to pay tribute to BBC Radio 4’s “Today in Parliament” programme, which last week celebrated its 80th anniversary. Barring the occasional power cut, “Today in Parliament” has been broadcasting every night that Parliament has been sitting since it was first aired on 9 October 1945. My predecessor and great friend the late Baroness Betty Boothroyd thought the programme was “champion” and once commented that she would even put her book down to listen to it in bed. On behalf of the House, I would like to say congratulations to “Today in Parliament” and its many presenters for covering our proceedings in an incredible 13,000 episodes over 80 wonderful years.
Business of the House
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
With permission, I shall give the business for the week commencing 20 October, which includes:
Monday 20 October—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.
Tuesday 21 October—Committee of the whole House of the Sentencing Bill.
Wednesday 22 October—Consideration of a Lords message to the Renters’ Rights Bill, followed by a debate on a motion related to financial assistance to industry, followed by a motion to approve the draft National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025, followed by a general debate on devolution in Scotland. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Thursday 23 October—General debate on Black History Month.
Friday 24 October—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 27 October includes:
Monday 27 October—Remaining stages of the Victims and Courts Bill.
John Lamont
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I want to start by paying tribute to Lord Ming Campbell, a former Member of this place and former leader of the Liberal Democrats. He was a hugely respected parliamentarian, and I know he will be much missed. I would also like to express my deepest sympathies to those killed, injured and affected in the horrific terrorist attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue in Manchester.
I am substituting today for the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who is in Poland with the Defence Committee. What an interesting conference recess it has been. I was in Manchester for a fantastic Conservative party conference, but also out and about at home in my beautiful constituency in the Scottish Borders. From spending time with the Scouts in Hawick to fighting LNER’s plans to cut the number of train services in the Borders, it has been a busy few weeks. We have seen six party conferences during recess. The SNP maintains its age-old obsession with independence rather than sorting out Scotland’s struggling NHS, schools and transport system. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) continued auditioning to become a circus act, and the Labour party continued its own internal chaos, drama and division. We had a direct challenge to the leadership of the Prime Minister, with the Mayor of Greater Manchester no less, Andy Burnham, parading himself around as the next leader, an act he managed to keep up for just a few days, before he scuttled out the back door of the conference centre. How embarrassing for the—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Snell, I thought you were the man who had sent me a letter about going on the Chairmen’s Panel. This is not the way to get a good interview.
John Lamont
How embarrassing for the Labour party. I am sure the Leader of the House is relieved to no longer be the Government Chief Whip, although perhaps he thinks he could have done a better job than his successor at attempting to manage the increasingly rowdy mob lurking behind him.
The Labour party conference was also deeply disrespectful to this House, with Government policy announcements galore. It was like a King’s Speech scattered over four days, with major policy announcements, all made to the party members and trade union barons in Liverpool, not to this House, where Members have had to wait for over two weeks to hold Ministers to account. That is simply not acceptable. What will the Leader of the House do to ensure that this Government show MPs and this Parliament the respect we deserve? The most controversial announcement was the plan to introduce digital ID. Can the Leader of the House confirm when that legislation will come before Parliament, so that MPs can finally scrutinise what is being planned?
I visited many local businesses in the Scottish Borders during recess, and they are quite frankly terrified of what the Chancellor plans to do to them in her Budget; and yesterday, the Chancellor admitted what we all knew. She is going to raise taxes in the Budget once again, because this Labour Government have destroyed our economy. Unemployment is up by over 17% since Labour came to power, with another rise this week, fuelled so sadly by rising joblessness among young people. The International Monetary Fund says we will have the highest rate of inflation of any country in the G7. That is the reality—more people’s jobs and livelihoods on the line, people’s household bills getting bigger and bigger, and a cost of living crisis. The Chancellor should listen to the challenges facing households and businesses across the nation. Will the Leader of the House say whether the Government will set out a plan for how they will help households across the UK with the increasing cost of living?
In contrast, the Conservative party conference in Manchester could not have been more different from Labour’s—costed, bold plans for a stronger economy and stronger borders; reducing the cost of buying a home; cutting the cost of people’s energy bills; reducing the size of the welfare state; leaving the European convention on human rights to take back control of our borders; cracking down on crime; and much, much more. While we have been doing the hard, detailed work to decide which taxes we will cut, the Chancellor was deciding which ones she wants to put up.
Finally, I know that Members are deeply concerned at the collapse of the China spying trial. Earlier this week, the Government claimed they could not publish the evidence relating to the collapse of the trial because the Crown Prosecution Service would not allow it, a claim that the CPS said was completely incorrect. There are key questions for the Government. What additional evidence did the CPS request from the Government? Did the Prime Minister authorise the withholding of that information? Was evidence withheld by the Government to win favour with the Chinese Government? This House deserves to know the truth. We need to see the China files. Yesterday, a number of Chairs of House of Commons Committees met the Director of Public Prosecutions, and there will now be a formal inquiry. Will the Leader of the House ensure that all parts of the Government fully co-operate with that inquiry? China remains a real and present threat. Unless the Government act, all of our security is at risk.
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I welcome the shadow Deputy Leader of the House to his place for his inaugural address. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) also makes his debut today, so I find myself in the unusual position of being somewhat of a veteran of business questions on only my second outing.
As ever, due diligence led me to Wikipedia to find out a bit more about the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. I discovered that he was the fastest MP to take part in the 2018 London marathon, with what I am told is a commendable time of three hours, 38 minutes and three seconds. Genuinely, that is not only an impressive achievement, but the fact that then and since then he has raised a great deal of money for charities is to his credit. I also note that in 2014, he became the first UK politician to complete an Ironman triathlon. It seems fitting that in Margaret Thatcher’s centenary year, I find myself up against the Conservative party’s new iron gentleman.
I want to associate myself completely with the hon. Gentleman’s words about the terrible Manchester attack, which has rightly been condemned on both sides of the House, and with his words of tribute to the late Ming Campbell, who was, as he said, hugely respected as a dedicated public servant and a tireless champion for his constituents. As the late Denis Healey would say, he was a politician who had hinterland.
Yesterday was the fourth anniversary of the murder of Sir David Amess. He dedicated almost four decades to this House and to his constituents. We remember him fondly and with respect, as we do our friend Jo Cox, and we recommit ourselves on these occasions to the values that brought them and us to public service. We also need to remind ourselves of the importance of the language and tone of our debates and deliberations.
Let me turn to the questions posed by the hon. Gentleman. As an athlete of some renown and a marathon runner, his description of the Manchester conference reminded me of one of my favourite films, “The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner”. I stand second to none in respect for Parliament. We will be bringing forward digital ID legislation in due course, but we did bring it to the Floor of the House in a statement at the earliest opportunity, on Monday this week.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the economy, I genuinely believe that anyone on the Conservative Benches who stands up and says anything about the economy should begin with an apology, because theirs was the only Government in recent times where living standards were lower at the end of the Parliament than they were at the beginning. As for the detail of the Budget and whether there is a plan, of course there is a plan for growth. He knows that he will have to wait until 26 November for any details of that.
In terms of the evolving situation regarding the matter of China, I am the fourth Minister this week to stand at the Dispatch Box to potentially face questions about that. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed to a key meeting that took place yesterday between the DPP and Committee Chairs. I am a firm believer in strong, independent Select Committees, and I am quite sure they will do a fantastic job, should they put their mind to that—it is not for me to tell them how to do it. Of course, I expect that Committees will get the full co-operation for everything they seek from the Government.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
On Monday, Members spoke movingly in the Backbench Business debate marking Baby Loss Awareness Week, highlighting the vital, multifaceted role of midwifery in supporting bereaved families, and yet this week, the chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives announced that it has decided not to contribute to NHS England’s professional strategy for nursing and midwifery because it had become clear that midwifery was being treated as an “afterthought”. Will the Leader of the House allocate time to debate the need for a distinct midwifery strategy—one that reflects its unique contribution and creates a positive, proactive plan and funding model for maternity care overall, giving midwifery the priority it deserves, with its pivotal role in all our lives?
Sir Alan Campbell
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that midwives provide vital and diverse services, particularly when they are supporting bereaved families. The independent national investigation into maternity and neonatal care will report in spring next year, and we are committed to recruiting more midwives and making sure we retain those with experience. She raises a really important point. There are avenues for her to raise this matter in debates—either Backbench Business or Adjournment debates, which I am sure would be popular. I will also ensure that the Health Secretary is made aware of her comments.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Leader of the House for his warm welcome—it is a warmer welcome than I received online, where somebody compared me to a failed contestant on “The Apprentice”, which is a good start. I share the right hon. Member’s sympathies expressed about the synagogue attack in Manchester, as well as his tribute to Ming Campbell, which is greatly appreciated by Liberal Democrat Members. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for her service in this role, and I wish her well in her new job.
This past week we have been digesting news of the ceasefire in the middle east which, despite reporting, has nothing to do with President Trump’s candidacy for the Nobel peace prize and is all about the welfare of the people living in that region. There is indescribable relief that the hostages are now heading home and the bloodshed can come to an end. The immediate concern is that the ceasefire holds, and the hope is that there will be a just and sustainable peace in the region, including a two-state solution. As we look to the future, it is also important that we do not forget what happened before. A few weeks ago there was a UN report that a genocide had taken place in Gaza, and it is the international community’s obligation to establish the truth and hold those responsible to account. Will the Government, at the appropriate time, make a statement about how Britain will contribute to such an international process, so that justice and accountability for what happened in Gaza can be served?
Sir Alan Campbell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role. I genuinely look forward to our exchanges, and to working with him on the Committees that we will both be on. He comes from a very good constituency pedigree, because Tom Brake, who served his constituency between 1997 and 2019, did the same job as he is now doing, including as Deputy Leader of the House in government. He will be a hard act to follow, but I genuinely wish the hon. Gentleman well. I also join him in thanking his predecessor, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for her work, particularly on the Modernisation Committee. I did not get to know her particularly well, although we will continue to work on some Committees together.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, first I join him in welcoming the landmark first step of a ceasefire being achieved, and seeing the hostages released after so long and aid returning to Gaza. The Government are committed to playing a leading role in Gaza’s reconstruction, and the next stage of talks on the implementation of the peace plan. He is right to say that accountability and justice for everyone who has committed atrocities, including those involved on 7 October, is crucial. The Government’s long-standing position is that it is up to the courts to determine whether a genocide has occurred, and we will continue to support international law and its essential role in achieving justice in the region as we go forward.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please grant a debate on tenants paying their landlord a reasonable rent? In Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, Vodafone is in dispute with one of my community organisations, Aberbargoed rifle and pistol club, over the hosting of a telecoms mast. Vodafone’s rent helps to fund the club’s Christmas dinner, and visits to places of interest such as the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, and Bisley. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is important for large telecoms corporations to work wherever possible hand in hand with our local community organisations?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree absolutely, because I think we all have examples of where the opposite is the case and telecoms corporations do not do that. That is not only painful for communities, but ultimately it is also painful for some of those companies. I remind my hon. Friend that the Renters’ Rights Bill is proceeding through the House, and he may wish to raise some of those points in that debate. He may also wish to ask for a debate, and again, because of their experiences, I have no doubt that many other Members will wish to join in.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for allowing protected time on Monday for the debate on baby loss. It was a three-hour debate and a three-minute limit was imposed on contributions from Back Benchers so that everyone had the opportunity to speak. I trust that we can look at doing that again in future, in particular next Wednesday, when we will have a debate on devolution in Scotland, which had to be pushed from its original date. I know that there will be important Government business before the debate, so will he allow protected time for the Back-Bench business?
I am always keen to offer support to the Leader of the House. If we are granted the date, there will be a debate on property service charges on Thursday 30 October, followed by a debate on ageing communities and end of life care.
Next week in Westminster Hall, on Tuesday there will be a debate on progress in ending homelessness, and on Thursday there will be a debate on the performance of the Building Safety Regulator, followed by a debate on the impact of NHS workforce levels on cancer patients. On 28 October in Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on obesity and fatty liver disease, and on Thursday 30 October there will be debate on histological testing of all excised moles, followed by a debate organised by the Liaison Committee about the work of the Education Committee, the subject of which, I believe, will be special educational needs and disabilities.
Next week, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists will be celebrating Diwali, followed by Hindu new year. That will be a happy occasion, and everyone will be celebrating, but unfortunately that will not be the case in Bangladesh. On Tuesday, at the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus, we received a report from Insight UK about the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. They are being persecuted, oppressed and killed, their temples are being destroyed, and their properties are being burned down, with household members in them. I have raised the issue before, but can we have a statement from a Government Minister about what action we are going to take to safeguard minorities in Bangladesh who are suffering from severe oppression?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for updating the House on the work of the Backbench Business Committee, and I thank him for his diligent work as the Chair of that Committee.
It is the case that we protected time for the debate on Monday and it was good that hon. Members were able to speak for a limited time, but let me go further. I was distressed, to some extent, by the fact that the debate did not start until 9 pm and, as a result, did not finish until midnight. It is true that the protected time meant that the debate went ahead and people were able to have their say, but I know from past experience how difficult it is for colleagues to stand up and tell their personal stories. I do not think it is the place of this House, if we can manage it, to get to a situation where those stories are not told until 11 pm or 11.30 pm. There is a wider point—I am drifting somewhat—about how we use Mondays. At the beginning of the day, there were three big statements that took a lot of time—undoubtedly, they were important statements that had to be made—but we need to address not just the timing but the content of the debates that follow, so that we treat those topics with the respect that they deserve.
I thank the hon. Gentleman not just for his work on the Backbench Business Committee but as Chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus. We strongly condemn all instances of hate or violence directed towards minority religious communities. We have been and we are actively engaged in addressing the humanitarian situation in Bangladesh and supporting the interim Government to support a peaceful democratic transition. We are deeply committed to the protection of freedom of religion. If there is a point at which a statement is appropriate, the Government will bring one forward or there will be opportunities for debate, and I am sure colleagues will want to take part in that.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It has now been over a year since the tragic murders in my constituency of Juliana Falcon and her children Kyle and Giselle, by their brother. Our town is understandably still shaken by this horrific incident. It came to light that the murderer was able to obtain a gun with a forged shotgun licence. The previous Home Secretary promised the tightening of private arms sales following this tragedy. Can we please have a debate or a statement on this issue, and on the need for a national database of gun licences?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. It was a truly tragic and shocking case, and the Government are committed to doing everything that we can to prevent similar incidents. We have introduced tighter controls on firearms licensing to keep people safe and help the police to apply the law consistently, and we will consult later this year on measures to strengthen controls on shotguns and to improve controls on the private sale of firearms. I am sure my hon. Friend will be keen to have a debate should it help that process.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
This is the first time I have seen the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box in his new role, and I welcome him. He mentioned religious freedom. That freedom must not be allowed to conceal the malevolence of Sharia courts, which operate in places across our constituencies—there are around 85. Indeed, we are described as the western capital of Sharia law. Although they have no legitimate lawful authority, those courts are reinforcing all kinds of horrors, including discrimination against women and non-believers, polygamy and other such things. It is time that there is a debate on this issue in the House, for we need to shine a light on that malevolence. There can be only one law in this country: the law that applies to each of us and all of us.
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government and I agree absolutely with the point on which the right hon. Gentleman finished his question, because the rule of law is sovereign in this country. No other law takes precedence over that, and he is absolutely right in saying what should take precedence. Again, I am sure that many colleagues will at least share some of his concerns, and I am sure he will have support should he seek a debate.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
As a current member of the Panel of Chairs, may I say what a wonderful job you do in this Chamber, Mr Speaker? [Laughter.]
Will the Government set aside some time to debate an issue of concern to me—why National Highways has declined to replace a bridge on virtually the busiest road in Merseyside, leading down to the Liverpool port? The A5036 Park Lane has 40,000 vehicles a day going down it, which is considerable at peak time. I am concerned that we need to tease out why National Highways felt it inappropriate to replace a bridge when there is a school, a church, a day centre, a hotel and a shopping centre all nearby. That is a concern, and we need to debate it.
Sir Alan Campbell
I will ensure that Transport Ministers have heard what my hon. Friend says, but I am confident that National Highways will also have heard what he says. Should that not produce the action that he demands, there are ways to raise that issue in this House, particularly in an Adjournment debate.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Sheffield Young Carers action group and some of the wonderful people who it supports. I was a young carer myself and know the deep impact that that can have on a young life. During our meeting, the children told me about their mental health struggles as a result of their responsibilities, but they have limited access to counselling. Even when they have been able to get mental health support, they have felt that the service did not understand the specific challenges they face. Will the Leader of the House confirm that mental health must be a key component of the 10-year health plan, and allow time in Parliament to debate the challenges faced by young carers?
Sir Alan Campbell
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to young carers, who do a fantastic and at times very difficult job; some of us wonder how we would cope in those circumstances. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked tirelessly on not just this issue but other issues for her constituents. I can confirm that mental health is a key component of our 10-year health plan. It sets out how we will work with schools and colleges, which is really important, to identify and meet the mental health need of all children and young people, including young carers. That would make an excellent topic for a debate, and I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for one.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Havant Thicket reservoir, which is just outside my constituency, is the first reservoir to be built in 30 years. It is a welcome investment in the south-east, which is designated as water-stressed, but it is also the proposed site of an effluent recycling scheme; it is the first time that that has been used to supplement drinking water in the UK. With confidence in Southern Water at an all-time low, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on water recycling schemes and reservoirs?
Sir Alan Campbell
It may be the first reservoir in 30 years, but we are committed to making sure that it is not the last. Putting right the crumbling infrastructure that we were left with is an important part of growth, which is the priority of this Government. I cannot comment specifically on what the hon. Lady has said, but I will draw it to the attention of Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She may seek to raise the issue at questions or at a meeting with Ministers, or indeed call for a debate on it.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that 2027 will mark the 1,100th anniversary of the unification of England under King Athelstan, and the Royal Society of St George is proposing that we have a bank holiday on 12 July 2027. Will he make time for a debate on such a great, momentous occasion for our country, and will he also join me in celebrating Essex Day on 26 October? I thank you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the flag of Essex will be flown from the Palace of Westminster for the first time ever. I hope the Leader of the House will ensure that under the new local government reorganisation, historic and ceremonial counties will be put together, so that we can celebrate our true county identity.
Sir Alan Campbell
I was aware of that anniversary, because I think the hon. Gentleman has raised it before. [Interruption.] Rather cruelly, my colleague sitting next to me says that I was there for the event, but that simply is not true. I am sure that when the time arises, it will be an appropriate opportunity to have a debate in this House, because we should be very proud of our national identity and celebrate it. When an anniversary such as that comes along, we should seize it with both hands.
I wish Essex Day all the very best. It is not just about being proud of our nation; it is about being proud of our regions and our towns, too. Devolution and where we will end up with it is a matter for another day as the devolution Bill progresses through this House. At this moment, I am not going to speculate about the future of counties, either historic or not as historic.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming this week’s record investment in flooded communities, and ensure that our local community volunteers—such as the Shrewsbury Quarry, Minsterley and Coleham flood action groups—are supported as per the recommendation in the Environmental Audit Committee’s flood resilience report, published this week?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is doing a fantastic job on behalf of her constituents, and join her in playing tribute to flood action groups such as the ones in her constituency. We talk—as I will in a moment—about the investment that goes into flood schemes and the importance of that investment, but flood action groups play a crucial role in our communities.
I also join my hon. Friend in celebrating the investment that the Government are making. We inherited flood assets that were in the poorest condition on record, but we are investing a record £10.5 billion through to 2036, benefiting almost 1 million properties. However, we should also celebrate community groups, which are very important to the success of any plan.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
First, I associate myself with the comments about Ming Campbell. Ming was a friend and mentor to me for 42 years, and I wanted to take part in the tributes, but I was with the Select Committee in Brussels. Knowing his commitment to the European ideal, I was pretty sure that that was where he wanted me to stay.
Might we have a statement from the telecommunications Minister, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), about the resilience of links to island communities? For the second time this year, hundreds of my constituents in Shetland are being left without service as a consequence of a breach of the Shefa cable. This time, it is going to last for four weeks. That is a colossal failure of customer service and a failure of regulation. I am now inviting all the parties to come to Shetland for a resilience forum next month; will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure we get Government co-operation to hold everybody’s feet to the fire on this issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is hard to overestimate the importance of such transport links to communities like the right hon. Gentleman’s. As ever, he is an assiduous supporter of his communities. I will draw the matter to the attention of the appropriate Department. I wish him well in bringing together the bodies necessary to make these decisions, not just now but in future, and get some certainty.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
After months of campaigning, public meetings, presenting a petition, sending letters, meeting Ministers, holding a day of action outside Ladies Walk and scrutinising Dudley council, I am delighted that the Ladies Walk Centre in Sedgley, a vital community hub providing NHS and library services, will remain open. This is a victory for local residents, who rightly oppose Dudley council’s near-closure of the site despite its chance to renegotiate the lease five years ago. Will the Leader of the House welcome this news and grant a debate on local government transparency?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am pleased to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituents’ successful campaign for a much-loved community asset. I know, and they will recognise, that she is a true champion of their interests and of their local community. References have already been made today—dare I say it, I anticipate more—to the importance of community and of community assets. I encourage hon. Members to join together and look into getting a Backbench Business debate so that they can raise pertinent issues.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Nineteen thousand: that is the number of homes that this Labour Government want to impose on the Walsall borough. In Aldridge-Brownhills, not only are we fighting to protect our precious green spaces and our green belt, but we now find ourselves threatened by this term, and new regulation, “grey belt”. May we have a debate in Government time on the urgent need to protect our precious green spaces, our communities, our countryside and our food security?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am informed that the changes that we are proposing to the planning framework actually do that, but I point out to the right hon. Lady that it is a matter of balance. I am a firm defender of matters environmental. However, housing is so important, on all sorts of levels. People need somewhere to live. We have been left with a situation in which there is just not enough housing, particularly affordable housing. Difficult decisions have to be made because, quite frankly, some previous Governments failed to make those decisions. Furthermore, housing is not just important in providing places to live; it is crucial to growth in the economy. Without growth in the economy, we will not be able to rescue the public services that were left in a terrible state at the end of the last Conservative Government.
I am sure that there will be a great deal of concern, and I genuinely understand why people are concerned—a number of houses are being built in my constituency almost as I speak. I do understand that, but there needs to be a sense of balance. Politicians have a responsibility not just to join the protest, but to make the case for why we need more houses.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It is great news that QTS is investing £10 billion in a state-of-the-art data centre in Cambois in my constituency, because artificial intelligence will undoubtedly shape the economy, society and workplaces for decades to come. It is also very exciting that the Government have announced that my constituency will be part of an AI growth zone. I will be holding an AI national conference in Northumberland early next year to share our views and unite our voices, hoping to shape a fair future for all, and I have invited the Secretary of State to attend. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to bring along businesses, involve trade unions and involve leaders of the community and residents themselves? With that in mind, will he agree to a debate in which we can discuss what AI actually means for the future of constituencies like Blyth and Ashington, and how working people will not be left behind?
Sir Alan Campbell
I wish my hon. Friend’s AI national conference well. I hope that Ministers have listened to his request for attendance and support; I am sure that they will look to see whether that is possible. He is absolutely right when he says that business is crucial to making this a success, as are organisations across the community.
Typically, my hon. Friend has hit the nail right on the head: AI is the way forward and there is no doubt that it is crucial to the economy that we seek to build, but it has to be a fair economy. It has to work not just for some people, but for everyone. I share his concern, not about the new jobs coming in—that is understandably good news—but about the communities that he represents. I know his constituency pretty well, and we need to ensure that those communities are beneficiaries of AI as well. I am sure that there will be a lot of interest in any Backbench Business debate, whether he wants to call one soon or to come back and report on the success of his conference.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Three weeks ago today, I met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the important decisions around quantitative easing and quantitative tightening, and the Governor agreed with me that this is actually a fiscal matter. It is triggering losses of tens of billions of pounds for the taxpayer every year, and therefore the Governor would welcome more input from the Houses of Parliament on this important matter. I wrote to the Chancellor—copying in the Leader of the House—to request a debate before the Budget, because if this House had a debate and voted on a different decision to guide the Governor and the Monetary Policy Committee, it would actually help the Chancellor in her difficult decisions around the Budget.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, so I will take him at his word. On having a debate on these matters, he raises important points. I suggest that he should be the one calling for a debate. If there is to be a discussion about economic policy in the run-up to the Budget, there are various avenues by which he can call for that and make his points. It is not unusual in this situation—we are a number of weeks away from the Budget—but the Chancellor is working extraordinarily hard to come up with a Budget that not only repairs the damage to our economy that we inherited, but puts forward a plan for the future. To some extent, the ball is in the hon. Gentleman’s court, should he seek a debate.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House agree that access to high-quality residential care close to home is essential for the dignity and wellbeing of our elderly constituents? In Clayton-le-Moors, the Reform-led Lancashire county council is consulting on the future of Woodlands care home, causing deep concern to residents, their families and the incredible staff. The council is providing no information about what it might do if it were to close the home. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging the council to keep Woodlands care home open?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We know, either from constituency cases or, indeed, from our own family circumstances, that the closure of a care home can be extremely distressing for residents and families, who need as much notice as possible should such a situation become a possibility. Unfortunately, I am afraid the circumstances that she describes are not untypical when it comes to Reform in government—the party has over-offered and is generally underachieving. This is a matter for local authorities, but she may wish to raise it at Health and Social Care questions next Tuesday.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
On 14 March, my constituents Sue and Dave Evans lost their 18-year-old son, who was the passenger in a car being driven by a newly qualified driver. Yesterday, Sue and Dave were in Parliament with the RoadPeace charity to call for graduated driver licensing, to save other families from the devastation of losing loved ones in a preventable accident. When can we expect the Government to bring forward a road safety Bill, so that this House can consider proposals to reduce deaths caused by newly qualified drivers?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises this matter with the tone and respect that have come to be associated with him, and I thank him for that. I pay my respects to the family concerned. It is an unbelievable tragedy when this happens. It happens far too often, which is why the Government are focused on this issue. Work is under way to deliver an updated strategic framework for road safety—it will be the first one in over a decade. Quite simply, the aim will be to reduce road deaths and injuries, and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an update on that work.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Last Friday, I attended a graduation for STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—students at Forth Valley College. This college is a crucial educational asset and it is vital to plans to re-industrialise our area. However, due to a 20% cut in funding for the college sector since the SNP began its fourth term in 2021, Forth Valley College recently proposed closing its Alloa campus. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that, instead of causing colleges to consider closure, the Scottish Government should be backing all routes for young people to train, learn and succeed?
Sir Alan Campbell
I want to send my congratulations to all those graduating from Forth Valley College, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. He is a great advocate for his constituency. This Government have delivered the biggest Budget settlement for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution, and he will know that education and skills policy is devolved. However, I hope that Ministers in the Scottish Government have heard his concern, and I hope they give as much attention and priority to the matter of colleges in their work as the Government here are determined to do.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Last week, I visited Christ the King school in Thornbury for the great school lunch, which raises awareness of the benefits of healthy and nutritious school meals. There is real concern that the funding for both school lunches and breakfast clubs is not enough to cover the cost of providing them, putting pressure on school budgets, particularly in constituencies such as mine where schools are among the lowest funded in the country. Will the Leader of the House agree to raise this issue with the Chancellor ahead of the autumn Budget, to ensure that underfunded schools are not left behind?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Leader of the House responds, let me say that many Members wish to contribute, so can I ask that questions are short and that the Leader of the House is on point as well?
Sir Alan Campbell
So far, 750 schools are offering free breakfast clubs, which puts, on average, £450 a year back into parents’ pockets, and we intend to extend free school meals too. I understand that areas believe this may not be enough, or that other areas are better off. I will draw that to the attention of the Chancellor, but so can the hon. Lady at Treasury questions.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and Bawtry in my constituency is once again painting the town pink to help raise awareness. This year, it has launched its own “Legally Blonde” inspired bend and check campaign to remind everyone to take charge of checking their own breast health. To support the cause, will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the team at Visit Bawtry the very best of luck in raising money for Breast Cancer Now?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in wishing the Visit Bawtry team success in raising money for such an important cause. We know that early diagnosis is vital, which is why we are upgrading 30 testing centres across the country with the latest digital AI to catch cancer early, and I support local initiatives such as the one that he mentioned.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post, and my athletic constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), to his.
Today at 2 pm there will be a protest in Moffat by campaigners who are making a last-ditch attempt to save the local Bank of Scotland branch, and I commend them for their efforts. It is one of five branches to be closed in my constituency this year. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that, if banks cannot be persuaded not to abandon the high street, they should at the very least ensure that their premises are provided for community use? Therefore, in the case of the Peebles branch, does he also agree that the bank should look favourably on the offer from the Peebles Community Trust for that branch?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do agree with the right hon. Member, because in-person banking is important to our local communities. In fact, I have a hub opening in Whitley Bay in my constituency in about 10 days’ time. I understand that is cold comfort for the people of Moffat, but we are seeing banking hubs rolled out across the country. I think banks have such a responsibility, and the best banks actually look at their responsibility to continue to have a branch presence. Should they not, I think they have an obligation to work with others to ensure that there is access to banking. I would also say that the Scottish Government have their own community right to buy policy, which he may wish to look at as part of any campaign for the purchase of a community hub. Next week in Westminster Hall there is a debate on financial inclusion in which he may wish to amplify his point.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
After two years of bombardment and siege, Gaza’s healthcare system has been decimated. I am sure the whole House welcomes the ceasefire, fragile as it is, the release of hostages, and that aid is beginning to increase somewhat. Will my right hon. Friend consider the case for a debate on the steps that Britain could take to support the rebuilding of Gaza’s hospitals, so that the most innocent in this awful conflict—children—can at least begin to get the healthcare support they so desperately need?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important question and makes a really important point. As the Foreign Secretary said, the ceasefire does give an opportunity not just to scale up aid, but to look at the future of Gaza’s recovery. An important part of that is healthcare for children, because they deserve a better future than what they currently have. We are actively supporting the rebuilding of Gaza’s healthcare system and we will update the House on the measures we are taking. We have brought forward debates and statements on these matters, and we will continue to do so.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
A couple of weeks ago, I spent a fabulous day at the races at Bath racecourse. For centuries, horseracing has been part of our national sporting history, and it is part of our DNA, yet across the industry people are deeply concerned about the threat that harmonising tax rates will have on the sustainability of the sport. May we have a debate before the Budget on the impact the proposed measures would have on British horseracing?
Sir Alan Campbell
I read stories, as the hon. Lady does, about what might or might not happen. As she would expect me to say, she will have to wait until the Budget to see whether those stories are accurate. She could secure a debate before the Budget, because I know this is a concern for a number of Members across the House.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
York is a kind and welcoming city. Following the recent wave of intimidation, racism and violence perpetrated by a few which has rocked our city, I have launched the York Unity campaign with the hashtag, #ourthreewords, to ask people across York to provide three values that define our city. Mine are inclusion, community and caring. What support can the Leader of the House bring to our campaign, and may we have a debate on inclusion in our cities and communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for that fine historic city, but also for the cause she speaks of today. She is often a voice of calm in these matters, and I thank her for that and for raising the matter today. I know that there are concerns across the House, so perhaps she could look to secure an Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate to see if there are shared views and experiences across the House.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
In Woolavington village in my constituency, three separate planning applications, totalling over 400 homes, have been submitted, with the prospect of a fourth, even larger proposal to follow. The cumulative impact of those developments on local services will not be fully assessed, because each application is treated separately. To make matters worse, Somerset council’s temporary emergency planning measures have led to the cancellation of many planning committees, leaving local councillors cut out of decision-making processes. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House for a debate on how cumulative housing impacts are assessed and how we ensure that local democratic oversight is not undermined?
Sir Alan Campbell
Notwithstanding the comments I made to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) about the importance of housing, I understand from a constituency perspective, but also from the experience of colleagues across the House, that there is concern, particularly in rural areas that are seeing their communities transformed—albeit in a necessary way, in many cases. I think the hon. Gentleman would be able to make an excellent case for a Backbench Business debate, so that he can expand on the views he has expressed today.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
As I have said before, the fact that the railway stations at Burntisland, Cowdenbeath and Kinghorn are not fully accessible causes many of my constituents a great deal of trouble. In June, Network Rail told me that it would have the first stage of a feasibility study into how to make Burntisland station accessible complete by the end of the summer. Despite repeated requests, it still has not given me a date by which that will happen. Does the Leader of the House agree that Network Rail needs to make this a priority, and will he make time for a debate on accessible transport?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to improving the accessibility of Britain’s railway and I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue with the Transport Secretary. We will make announcements in due course, but I agree with her that Network Rail has a responsibility, as well as Government. It is a matter that needs to be addressed and we are going to get on with it.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
In my constituency, there is a fantastic organisation called the Filo Project, a community interest company that provides innovative and award-winning dementia care. When people come to the Filo Project, however, their care is subject to VAT of 20% simply because it is not commissioned by a local authority, which can claim back VAT. Will the Leader of the House find time in Government business for a debate on the VAT status of community interest companies that are providing this level of dementia or other disability-related daycare, so we do not stay with a system where there is VAT on life-altering social care?
Sir Alan Campbell
Community groups are the golden thread that run through our communities and hold them together, so the hon. Member should be credited with raising these matters, which are important because community groups often struggle. She should perhaps— I might not be forgiven for saying this—draw this issue to the attention of the Chancellor as we approach the Budget. She also has an opportunity to raise it as a matter for debate, because others may share her concern.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
At my Whitchurch meet and greet, residents raised serious concerns about dangerous and disruptive heavy goods vehicle traffic on Oving Road. One warned me that soon there will be a nasty accident, yet the route remains unrestricted for HGVs. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the impact of HGV traffic on our villages? Does he agree that local authorities such as Buckinghamshire council should make full use of their powers to restrict or prohibit HGVs where that is possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
HGVs can have a negative effect on communities—both on safety and through their environmental impact—particularly in villages, where roads and pavements are often narrow. As my hon. Friend said, local traffic authorities have powers to restrict or prohibit the use of HGVs on any road. If they have the power and there is demand for it in a local area, they should use that power. I think that is a good topic for a Westminster Hall debate.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
We know that at times it is hard to see a GP, and the Teenage Cancer Trust has highlighted that 16 to 24-year-olds have to see a GP more often than any other age group—often three times—before getting a referral for cancer diagnosis. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on increasing access to GPs as part of the wider national cancer plan, particularly for young people?
Sir Alan Campbell
We were acutely aware of the state of access to GPs when we came into government, and we are doing something about it. We have delivered over 5 million more NHS appointments since July, and we are continuing to push on that; in fact, we have delivered on our manifesto pledge seven months early. We have set out our 10-year plan, backed by extra investment. It is important not just to ensure that there are extra slots for people to be seen, but to think about where they are and where people can get access to information. I know from talking to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that he is acutely aware of that. If he has not heard what the hon. Member said, I will draw it to his attention.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
Last Saturday, I attended the 60th anniversary celebrations of the Dowlais male voice choir, which is one of at least six choirs in my constituency. They do a great job of representing the town locally, nationally and internationally. I took particular pleasure in congratulating Meurig Price, the only original member of the choir left from the early days—from 1965. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the choir on this milestone anniversary? May we have a debate in Government time on the benefits of choirs and choral societies to community life and to individual health and wellbeing?
Sir Alan Campbell
I congratulate the choir. When we think about the Welsh valleys, we associate them with male voice choirs, which are an important part of the fabric of those communities. The Government are acutely aware of that, so I would welcome the opportunity to raise these issues through a debate. Where the Government are able to support music and other community activities, they are keen to do so to ensure that support does not go just to certain areas and to certain types of music, but that everyone and every area—particularly community things like male voice choirs—gets its share.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Rural families across North Yorkshire, including those in villages such as Killinghall and Hampsthwaite in my constituency, have been left stranded by changes to home-to-school transport rules, with children living in the same villages now set to go to different schools and parents facing having to give up work to get them there. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on reforming school transport laws so that school transport properly serves areas like North Yorkshire? Will he perhaps pass that on to colleagues in the Department for Education?
Sir Alan Campbell
I think it is important that the hon. Gentleman seeks a debate on that matter so that he can put together the evidence and bring it to the attention of Ministers, who are acutely aware of the cost of public and school transport. I think that an opportunity to share experiences of that across the House would inform debate.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
When a landfill operator fails to follow the rules that have been laid down to protect the environment and the community, it takes far too long for the Environment Agency to take enforcement action. In one case in my constituency, the company then declared liquidation in order, presumably, to avoid the costs of clean-up. That is not acceptable. It happens elsewhere in the country, so could we have a debate on this matter in Government time?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend could seek a debate to raise this matter, but I will take his concerns to the relevant Department, and perhaps he could seek a meeting with Ministers to explain what the problem is.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
My constituent Mark Houghton MBE served his country in the British Army for more than 20 years. In February, while working abroad, he was seriously injured in an accident that has left him unable to walk. Mark is now back in the UK and receiving treatment, but he is not currently entitled to any further support because he had been working abroad for two out of the last three years. Does the Leader of the House agree that our veterans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and will he allow for a debate in Government time on support for disabled veterans?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, it is important to recognise the contribution that veterans make. These are somewhat unusual circumstances, but they are harrowing and concerning. Should the hon. Lady seek an Adjournment debate, she may be able to draw her concerns to the attention of the relevant Minister, because we are looking at the whole question of how we can treat our veterans better, with the dignity and respect that they deserve, and she may get the answers she seeks.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The streets around Birches Head and Sneyd Green have become an impenetrable labyrinth of road closures, diversions and blockades while Severn Trent Water digs up the roads to replace important infrastructure, causing great disruption to local people. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004 should give local authorities the ability to co-ordinate some of those works, but in this case it simply is not happening, and those Acts now seem deficient in doing what they are meant to do. Could the Leader of the House arrange for either a statement or a debate in Government time on how we can ensure the co-ordination of those works to reduce the impact on local people?
Sir Alan Campbell
Again, this issue is not unique to my hon. Friend’s constituency, and though he is a great advocate for his constituency, I am sure others have similar stories. He may seek a Backbench Business debate to raise these matters, because as far as I can remember, we have been discussing these things for quite a long time and we therefore do need to work out what further things can be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Apparently, we have a short question from Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Once again, I welcome the Leader of the House to his new role, which he is clearly enjoying very much. I wish him well.
On Wednesday past, I met a deputation from Chin state in Burma. I am deeply concerned about increased reports of junta military attacks on the majority Christian community in Chin state, including last week’s airstrike, which struck a church in Matupi township. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning this appalling attack and urge the Foreign Secretary to outline what action the Government will take in response to the escalating attacks against religious communities in Chin state in Myanmar?
Sir Alan Campbell
In terms of my demeanour, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that appearances can be deceptive. He is, as ever, a fierce champion of freedom of religion or belief, and he raises a very serious matter. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all. I will make sure that the Foreign Secretary hears his concerns and that he gets a reply, but I also encourage the hon. Gentleman to raise his question at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office oral questions on 28 October. He is no stranger to questions, I am sure.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Teresa Mulholland, who earlier this week was named Cumbrian woman of the year? Teresa is director of Carlisle United’s community sports trust and was recognised for her leadership, empathy, courage and determination to help others. In congratulating Teresa, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to put on the record our thanks to all community sports trusts across the UK, which do so much for our local communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend not only in congratulating Teresa on her well-deserved award, but in acknowledging the importance of Carlisle United football club and other football clubs for the work they do across communities. Those qualities of leadership and selflessness are ones that I am sure MPs across the House will recognise in volunteers in their own constituencies. One of the aspects of business questions, I am already aware, is to share our appreciation and admiration every week for volunteers and their dedication to their communities.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The long-awaited report by the Joint Intelligence Committee on the link between biodiversity, sustainability and national security is still not with us. Lord Dannatt and other senior military figures have increasingly expressed concerns about the threat the collapse of global biodiversity poses to our food security and the security risks arising from climate change. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that, contrary to recent press stories, the JIC report has not been blocked, and can he tell the House when it will be published?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises important matters. I will take that away and find an answer to the questions he poses, because they are such important matters. If something is stuck in the system, we need to get it out so that he can see what the Government intend to do.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Redditch policing team, who do a fantastic job of keeping our community safe. However, residents are frustrated that our newly redeveloped police and fire station has no front counter; instead, residents must travel 20 miles to speak to an officer face to face, which simply is not good enough. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on how we can ensure that all communities have visible and accessible policing support?
Sir Alan Campbell
Decisions on local resourcing of police stations are made by chief constables and elected police and crime commissioners. However, I have a huge amount of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying, because in my constituency—and, I am sure, in others—the importance of face-to-face contact with the police is crucial, not just for reporting incidents, but so that residents can feel safe and reassured. I urge him to call a debate on this important matter, both to highlight his own constituency concerns and to let others do the same.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this year, I had the absolute pleasure of visiting the Needles pub in Alvaston, where Mel and Trevor have created a great atmosphere and a welcoming space for the local community, whether through pulling pints or raising vital funds for local charities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not want to see pubs calling last orders for good, because it is pubs like the Needles that create such great atmospheres? Instead, we want to see them thrive in our communities.
Sir Alan Campbell
Pubs are at the heart of our communities and often serve as vital community assets, and we certainly do not want them to close. We are working with the sector, including through the Hospitality Sector Council, to address the clear challenges faced. I urge my hon. Friend to raise his concerns at Business and Trade questions on 30 October.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. In order for me to get everybody in, the questions will have to be shorter. I call Warinder Juss to show us how it is done.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Penn cricket club in my constituency has been under an Environment Agency stop notice since July 2022, after soil was wrongly imported on to its grounds, and nothing much has happened since. Will the Leader of the House support my attempt to encourage the Environment Agency to complete its investigations so that my constituents can get their cricket club back?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s concern. I understand that the Environment Agency area director for the west midlands, Mr Ian Jones, would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents to take this forward, but I will also ensure that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are made aware of the situation.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Whitburn Community Development Trust is at the heart of the town, providing many vital services for local residents including a community fridge and garden. Last Saturday, Charlotte, David and the team hosted their first charity ball, raising more than £7,000 for local projects. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the benefits of community projects and join me in congratulating the Whitburn team and thanking Ben Murphy and John Devlin, two founding directors who recently stood down after many years of service to the town?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to send my congratulations not just to Ben and John for their many years of service, but to everyone associated with the trust. Community development trusts are really important for local communities; they are, as I have said before, the thread that holds communities together, so I am happy to send my congratulations and wish them well.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Nepal has seen so much change in recent weeks. Widespread protests over corruption very sadly led to 72 people losing their lives, with many more injured. On a more positive note, a new interim Government has been peacefully formed, including the historic appointment of the country’s first woman Prime Minister, Sushila Karki. As chair of the Nepal all-party parliamentary group, I know the depth of feeling across our Nepalese community in the UK and in our sister nation. Will the Leader of the House join me in offering condolences to those who have lost loved ones, welcome the new interim Government, and find time for a debate on how the UK can best support Nepal in delivering on its aspirations for accountability and inclusive government?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this matter. I certainly condemn the appalling recent loss of life and the violence in Nepal. The Government support fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights, including the right to protest and peaceful assembly. I am sure the Foreign Office will have heard her remarks.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities, Councillors Ish Mistry and Senthil Karadiar, Rugby First, Rugby borough council, Keya Joshi, the marshals, volunteers and participants on stage on their very successful Diwali celebration held on Saturday and enjoyed by all Rugbians? Diwali symbolises light over darkness and reflects the wider need for understanding in our community. Could the Leader of the House consider granting time for a debate on all we can do to boost community cohesion and counter the forces that seek to divide us?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am pleased to hear of the Diwali celebrations in Rugby. I am not going to repeat the list of all involved, but I am sure it was a fantastic event, and I wish everyone celebrating a happy Diwali. Community cohesion will become even more important as we go forward. I recommend that my hon. Friend seeks a debate so that we can start to build our way to better social cohesion.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Arthur Terry Learning Partnership is an academy trust with 24 schools across the west midlands, including five primary schools with alternative provision and my old secondary school in Lichfield. Last year the trust was bailed out by the Department for Education, and last Friday it wrote to all its staff inviting applications for voluntary redundancies and suggesting that there may be compulsory redundancies to follow. This is a huge worry, not only for the hard-working staff but for parents, pupils and the community.
I have reached out to other Members affected—the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi)—as they share my concerns. Can the Leader of the House arrange for me and those Members to meet the relevant Minister to discuss how we can ensure that the trust is supported to continue to deliver the best possible education?
Sir Alan Campbell
These are always distressing situations. I will draw this case to the attention of the Department, and hopefully my hon. Friend will get the meeting that he seeks.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituency is lucky to have good school libraries such as the one at King Charles school, run by talented librarians like Emma Seager, who can get anyone reading. They also provide calm, supervised spaces for students. I was delighted to hear the Chancellor’s commitment at our conference to having a library in every primary school. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the benefits of school libraries or a statement to confirm the steps in the process that can enable primary schools, like mine in Flushing, that want to create a school library to do so?
Sir Alan Campbell
Reading is transformative, and every child should have access to a library space. That is why we have committed to providing £10 million to guarantee a library in all primary schools by the end of this Parliament. I invite my hon. Friend to seek a debate on how that investment can best be used.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Last week, the Care Quality Commission published a shocking report on Colchester hospital that found the safety of aspects of medical and emergency care there to be inadequate. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on ensuring that the record levels of investment in our NHS is reaching frontline staff and patients?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are investing record money, but unfortunately stories like this do emerge and are extraordinarily distressing. I understand that my hon. Friend is meeting a number of stakeholders regarding this report. I invite her to make this point at Health questions next Tuesday, and to perhaps also apply for an Adjournment debate, which I am sure would be well attended.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My constituent Rebecca Dowdeswell has a small business called nkd, which has incurred over £30,000 plus VAT in legal fees fighting L’Oréal in a dispute over a mark she has been using for over 15 years—longer than L’Oréal has been using its Naked brand in the UK. This dispute is an example of David versus Goliath situations, where small businesses absorb huge time, cost and stresses to protect their intellectual property. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is important that small businesses are supported to protect their intellectual property, and will he ensure time for Members to influence the Government’s small business plan, which was announced over the summer?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that we support small businesses; they are so vital to the success of our economy. The Government’s “Backing your business” plan commits the Intellectual Property Office to strengthening intellectual property support for small businesses. I will write to the relevant Department and ensure that my hon. Friend gets a response.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House would join me in expressing my deepest condolences following the sad passing of the people’s champion, Ricky Hatton—a man who inspired millions with his courage in the ring and his honesty outside it. My thoughts are with Ricky’s family at this time. In his memory, those closest to him have launched the Ricky Hatton Foundation, dedicated to supporting the mental health and wellbeing of current and former sportspeople. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Ricky’s remarkable career and contribution to British sport, and in wishing the new foundation every success in building a lasting legacy for Ricky?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Ricky Hatton, who was a remarkable character and sportsman. I wish the foundation every success, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to give it the attention it deserves.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I recently attended the Pennine Domestic Abuse Partnership’s 50th anniversary event “Magnificent Menopause”. The event celebrated the resilience of menopausal women. While marking World Menopause Month, will the Leader of the House congratulate PDAP’s outstanding work, and can we have a Government statement on what steps are being taken to advance menopause research?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do congratulate the partnership’s fantastic achievement. Women who have experienced symptoms of menopause have been failed for far too long. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has invested an extra £5 million in menopause care. If my hon. Friend wants to hear a Government response in quick time, there is a Westminster Hall debate later today on World Menopause Day. He may wish to contribute, as well as to hear what the Minister has to say.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
A constituent of mine—an elderly gentleman in his 90s—recently tried to change his energy tariff to one that was cheaper. Unfortunately, when he applied it transpired that he could only do so if he was online, which was not possible for him. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is an unacceptable form of digital exclusion, and can he suggest how we might try to address it?
Sir Alan Campbell
Digital inclusion is a priority for the Government. It is important that everyone has access so that they can engage in a modern digital society, whatever their circumstances happen to be. We have published the digital inclusion action plan to tackle digital exclusion and ensure that everyone is able to access the services they need.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
During the recent Fairtrade Fortnight, many constituents contacted me with concerns about the need for good business practices. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on mandatory due diligence to protect against corporate harms and ensure that UK companies are held accountable for abuses in their global supply chains?
Sir Alan Campbell
Businesses must conduct proper due diligence. We understand the concern of my hon. Friend’s constituents, because they are widely felt across the country. He may know that we have launched a review on responsible business conduct as part of our trade strategy, and he may wish to seek a Backbench Business or Adjournment debate to highlight these matters.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
On Saturday morning, I met residents concerned about persistent antisocial behaviour, drug dealing and under-age vaping. I am trying to get the solutions they need by arranging a community meeting with the police. How can I use the Government’s new powers to limit vape shops and barbers in particular areas so that the residents of Warwick Place, Wickham Road, Hannington Road and York Place, and the surrounding streets, can finally feel safe?
Sir Alan Campbell
Unfortunately, this is an all too familiar story. We are committed to cracking down on antisocial behaviour in our communities. As the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities set out yesterday, the pride in place programme will give communities the power to block unwanted shops, including vape stores and fake barbers. We are also bringing in new laws to crack down on dodgy vape shops through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which is currently going through the Lords.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of meeting the SBA Unity racing team from Scarborough University Technical College, which came third at the STEM Racing world finals in Singapore. The Scarborough team raised a whopping £30,000 to compete, while the teams from Germany and Australia that beat them had financial support from their Governments. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating students Jack, Mandy, Ryan, Billy and Joey on their outstanding achievement, flying the flag not just for Scarborough but for the UK?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank Scarborough’s SBA Unity racing team for its fantastic success and send my congratulations to the whole team. We know about the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, so I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Education learns about the team’s success and reemphasise why this is a fantastic opportunity for young people.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
During recess, I became the first interviewee of my constituent Brendan Woodbridge, an inspiring disabled 19-year-old who aspires to be a freelance journalist in order to spotlight accessible places and services so that people like him do not feel trapped at home. Brendan and his mom Natalie told me that when leaving the nurturing school environment, there is often nothing for young people like him to go on to. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on educational and job opportunities for disabled adults?
Sir Alan Campbell
I wish the hon. Gentleman’s constituent all the best in his journalistic ambitions. As a Government, we are committed to breaking down barriers and supporting every young person in their education as they move into adult life. Wherever they are and whatever their background, they all deserve that support. I am sure that would be a popular Backbench Business debate should my hon. Friend wish to apply for it.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Thameside theatre in Grays is the only public purpose-built theatre in Thurrock. It is a vital cultural asset and has provided the first experience of the performing arts for a number of people, including myself, who trod the boards there for five years as a member of Thurrock’s local scout and guide gang show. My colleagues on Thurrock council are desperately searching for a way to secure the long-term future of the theatre and the wider complex, recognising that once it is gone, it is gone. Will the Leader allow a debate in Government time to talk about how vital cultural assets such as community theatres are and how we can work together to ensure their sustainability?
Sir Alan Campbell
Local and community theatres are so important to communities in all sorts of ways, not least in giving confidence to young people who come forward and take part in events and shows. My hon. Friend may seek a debate on those matters because I am sure they are shared across the House. I will also raise her concerns with the relevant Minister.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My constituent Chris is a local police officer who has had to take on vast amounts of overtime to afford his Child Maintenance Service payments. He is one of many constituents who have raised with me the issues in the CMS, so will the Leader of the House secure some time for us to debate this issue to ensure that parents and their children are properly supported?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear about Chris’s situation. I understand that my hon. Friend may be in correspondence with the Department of Work and Pensions and either awaiting or have just received a reply. Oral questions for that Department are next week, but depending on those things, I suggest that he either follows up by meeting Ministers in the Department or by seeking a debate on the matter because there will be a shared concern across the House.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Many will have been engrossed by the programme “The Summer I Turned Pretty”. Personally, I am team Conrad. He has shown a new audience that therapy is accessible to young men in a world that still shames our emotions. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on improving access to therapy and mental health support for men?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter and to champion mental health for men and young boys, who often find it difficult to open up about their emotions. Our forthcoming men’s health strategy will set out how we can find ways to promote healthy behaviour and improve outcomes for conditions that hit men and boys. Should my hon. Friend seek a debate, he may hear about our plans from the Minister.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Eleven-year-old Jake from my constituency, who has special educational needs and disabilities including Down’s syndrome, has been left without appropriate schooling provision for this year because of the failings of Nottinghamshire county council. Does the Leader of the House agree that children such as Jake should not be left behind? Will the Government find time to hold a debate on how we can deliver the provision that is needed for young people with SEND like my constituent?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important matter. The Government believe that the SEND system is broken; it does not work for children and their carers. As part of our plan for change, we are committed to creating a new system that truly supports every child and we will set out our approach in the forthcoming schools White Paper. I understand from my own constituency how people at the forefront of this find it hard to know why they have to wait. We have announced £1 billion in extra funding to help schools with the additional costs they face, including for SEND provision, and I encourage whichever authority has the power to spend that money to do so wisely and quickly.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the great town of Paisley in my constituency on being shortlisted for the Scotland Loves Local town of the year award? Will he go further and throw his full support behind Paisley’s nomination as the best local town in Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
There is a certain risk to that, but I will do it. I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Paisley, and wish it the best of luck. She raises the important point about pride in communities and I am sure that her constituents are proud. I hope that that is recognised, and that she is a proud champion for Paisley.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I have recently hosted a series of meetings on the SEND system with parents and teachers. One moment was most striking: when I asked a roomful of parents how many of them knew or suspected that their child had additional needs before the age of five, every single hand went up. Will the Leader of the House consider giving time to a debate dedicated to the importance of early intervention in the SEND system so that we identify problems and support parents and children as early as we possibly can?
Sir Alan Campbell
Early intervention is crucial, which is why the Government are giving such attention to improving the SEND system, which I have just said we believe is broken and is not working. Oral questions to the Department for Education are on Monday, so I invite my hon. Friend to raise that then. I also invite him to think about a debate on the issue, because it will not go away and the Government are determined to do something about it.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Throughout the year I have been working with residents in Astley in my constituency. Four large warehouses, each measuring up to 60 feet high, are being built close to hundreds of houses and a primary school. Although they have planning consent from the local authority, residents are rightly concerned that the consultation process was not adequate. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the consultation requirements for large developments to ensure that the voices of residents, such as my constituents in Astley, are heard?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government expect local authorities to engage meaningfully with residents on planning. Planning law requires local planning authorities to notify neighbours regarding planning applications, either by site notice or letter, and to publish information about the application on a website. My hon. Friend may wish to seek a debate on those matters, not just to highlight the concerns of his constituents, for whom he is a great champion, but to see what the Minister’s response will be.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Brian Leishman.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
As an enthusiastic but error-prone goalkeeper, and having been a golf professional for 23 years, many will say that I have still to find a sport that I am any good at and they will be absolutely correct. Someone from my constituency who is excellent at sport is Ruby Henderson from Sauchie. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Ruby for winning a silver and bronze medal at last week’s taekwondo youth world championships in Croatia?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend can see, I never found a sport I was very good at either. Success in sport is fantastic, particularly for young people. It is such an important part of growing confidence and giving pride. I am sure that Ruby’s family and friends and the whole community are extraordinarily proud of that achievement.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Thursday 16th October 2025
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberBiodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that will implement obligations in the United Nations BBNJ agreement in UK law and enable us to move towards ratification of this historic agreement. I am sure the Bill will be welcomed by Members in all parts of the House. I recognise the contribution of Members, particularly those on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, who have kept oceans high on the parliamentary agenda. In all fairness, I pay tribute to the previous Government, who did a lot of work on the Bill.
I am personally proud that we are turning words into action. In April 2024, I was the shadow Minister on a debate on this topic, and I made the commitment that if Labour were lucky enough to win the election, we would ratify this treaty, so I am very pleased to be able to say that we are going to. People in civil society, academia and industry will be delighted to see the introduction of the Bill. Organisations such as the National Oceanography Centre and the Natural History Museum have provided invaluable support to the UK delegation. I also thank the High Seas Alliance and the World Wide Fund for Nature, as well as many other environmental non-governmental organisations, for their unwavering commitment.
The BBNJ agreement is the result of years of dialogue and negotiation involving stakeholders from all around the world. In fact, I heard just this morning that negotiations started in 2012, so it has taken quite a while to get to this point. The UK’s role in these negotiations was informed by the expertise and passion of marine scientists, legal scholars and environmental advocates, and I thank them all for their contributions.
The BBNJ agreement has achieved the 60 ratifications required for its entry into force, which will happen on 17 January 2026. We expect the first meeting of the conference of the parties to take place later in 2026, and the UK can attend that meeting as a party only if it has ratified the agreement at least 30 days previously.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister is absolutely right to say that there is support across the House for this really important Bill. She is right also to pay tribute to the previous Government for some of the work they have done, but it is true to say that, despite the fact that in the last Parliament there were many times when this Parliament did not have a great deal to debate, we never actually got this on the statute book. Just over one year into this Government, when there is a tremendous amount of legislation, we have managed to find the time to get this through. I pay tribute to the Minister. I think it is worth taking that bit of credit because we are doing something that has not previously been done.
Emma Hardy
I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend on that, can I? I thank him for his comments. As I said, it means a lot to me to be able to stand here today and say that I have fulfilled in government the commitment that I made in opposition.
We need to pass the Bill and the associated secondary legislation before we can take the next steps to ratification, so it is about not just the passage of this Bill but the statutory instruments that will follow it. I know that all sides of the House will want to see the UK playing a leading role in future discussions at the conference of the parties, and that is why we must maintain momentum.
The Bill marks a significant step in the UK’s commitment to protecting the two thirds of the world’s ocean that lie beyond the jurisdiction of a single nation. From one of the heaviest fish, the sunfish, to the delicate sea butterfly, this vast expanse of ocean is home to extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems that are vital to the health of our planet. It sustains fisheries that feed billions, and it underpins weather patterns, coastal protections and the livelihoods of people across the globe, but these areas of the ocean are vulnerable to exploitation, degradation and irreversible harm.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I agree with the Minister that her engagement with various stakeholders—environmental NGOs, academics and universities—is crucial. I also acknowledge the parts of the Bill that underline the role of devolved Administrations and the important work that has to be done. Will her officials work closely with the devolved Administrations on the international impact of the Bill and that that will continue throughout this legislation?
Emma Hardy
I can offer the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. That is an important point well made.
The BBNJ marks an historic breakthrough. It is a multilateral treaty adopted under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea that is designed to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The agreement delivers on four critical fronts. First, it established new obligations to share the benefits arising from research into and the use of marine genetic resources from these ocean areas. Secondly, it created a mechanism to establish area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, which was an essential step to safeguard fragile ecosystems.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is great that the UK is finally ratifying the treaty, and it is also great to hear the Minister talk about the benefits of marine protected areas, but if the Bill is to signify a new and invigorated Government focus on protecting our precious marine environment, does she not agree that the terrible, destructive fishing practice of bottom trawling obliterates vital habitats on our seabed? It makes a mockery of the entire term “marine protected area” that the UK Government have ignored the Environmental Audit Committee’s advice to ban bottom trawling from our own marine protected areas.
Emma Hardy
Of course, domestic marine protected areas are not within the remit of the Bill because we are talking about areas beyond national jurisdiction. What I can say is that the UK Government have introduced a consultation looking at banning bottom trawling in 41 of our marine protected areas. That consultation is out now. We are showing our commitment to oceans on not only an international scale but a national scale.
Thirdly, the agreement strengthens the framework for environmental impact assessments by building on the provisions of the UN convention on the law of the sea to ensure that new activities in these areas are sustainable and responsible.
Fourthly, it reinforces capacity building for developing states and promotes broader technological transfer. The journey to the agreement started with an ad hoc informal working group in 2006, before it progressed to a preparatory commission that worked through 2016 and 2017 and culminated in a formal inter-Government conference that negotiated the text between 2018 and 2023.
The UK has already played a leading role in shaping the agreement over the course of more than a decade of negotiations. In September 2023, we were one of the first countries to sign the agreement when it opened for signature at the UN, and today, through the Bill, the UK takes a major step towards ratification.
I will now outline the structure of the Bill, which is divided into five parts. Parts 2, 3 and 4 are designed to correspond and give effect to the three core sections of the BBNJ agreement relating to marine genetic resources, area-based management tools and environmental impact assessments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for her deep interest in this subject. We are all very impressed by what the Minister does and we thank her for it. Further to intervention of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins)—he and I both represent coastal communities—I would like to say that marine biodiversity is the lifeblood of the fishing industry and that, as we have often said, fishermen are the greatest natural caretakers of the sea. Does the Minister agree that the input and the generational knowledge of the fishing sector is essential as we move forward?
Emma Hardy
I pay tribute to all the fishermen throughout the United Kingdom who play such a vital role in helping to feed our nation.
The Bill also ensures that the UK has the necessary powers to implement decisions adopted at future meetings of the BBNJ conference of the parties, beginning with the marine genetic resource provision. Part 2 of the Bill sets out the requirements related to the collection and use of marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction and digital sequence information generated on those marine genetic resources.
These measures mean that UK researchers conducting collection activities from UK craft or equipment, such as royal research ships or autonomous systems, will need to notify a national focal point within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office before and after the collection of these resources. Additionally, any users of marine genetic resources or digital sequence information will need to notify the national focal point once results of utilisation are available and make those results available in publicly accessible repositories or databases. The results of utilisation, including publications such as journal articles and patents granted, should detail the outcome of research and development on these resources. These notifications will provide valuable data on material collected and on the results of research in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These notifications will be passed on to a clearing-house mechanism—a core part of the future architecture of the BBNJ agreement.
The clearing-house mechanism will act as a global online notification hub, where parties to the agreement will submit their notifications, allowing researchers from the UK and elsewhere to see what is being collected from where and how it is being used. That function is key to the benefit-sharing mechanisms under the agreement, enabling researchers from developing countries to work from the same scientific data as a researcher in the UK. That will also facilitate the development of cross-national research groups crucial to supporting breakthrough scientific discoveries.
The measures in the Bill also require repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. That will apply to bodies like the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities. Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information from marine genetic resources will need to ensure public access. Marine genetic resources may hold the key to future medicines, enzymes and sustainable technologies. This is a fast-growing global sector, and our universities and biotech firms are world leaders. Taken together, the measures will allow our researchers and companies to remain at the cutting edge of marine genetic discovery, benefiting from and contributing to global research in this space.
Part 3 of the Bill provides powers to allow the UK to implement internationally agreed measures in relation to marine protected areas and other area-based management tools established in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Any such measures will be agreed in meetings of the conference of the parties and will aim to manage activities in geographically defined areas of the ocean to achieve conservation and sustainable use objectives. Part 3 also ensures that the UK can implement any emergency measures adopted by the conference of the parties to respond to any natural or man-made disasters in areas beyond national jurisdiction that may require, for example, restrictions on navigation of UK ships or discharges from UK crafts.
Part 4 updates domestic marine licensing legislation to meet the environmental impact assessment requirements set out in the agreement. These changes apply to licensable marine activities that take place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It provides the power needed to adapt the UK’s domestic marine licensing and related environmental assessment system as new international standards and guidelines are agreed by the BBNJ conference of the parties. For example, that may include applying the latest standards for environmental assessments or for the ongoing monitoring of impacts. In short, it will future-proof the UK’s marine licensing legislation, ensuring that we can keep pace with emerging technologies and activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
In addition to the Bill, secondary legislation is required before the UK can formally ratify the BBNJ agreement. We will need to make changes to domestic legislation to implement the BBNJ agreement provisions relating to environmental impact assessments and to define digital sequence information. Those issues require engagement with stakeholders, and statutory instruments will be laid before Parliament after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Once the secondary legislation is in force, a standard six-week process will allow us to finalise the instrument of ratification, which includes signature and formal submission to the United Nations.
The provisions in the Bill may appear to be narrow and technical, but once implemented, they will enable the UK to participate fully in global efforts to conserve and sustainably use the ocean beyond national jurisdiction. Working with our international partners, the BBNJ agreement will allow us to safeguard fragile ecosystems, protect endangered species and ensure that scientific benefits are shared fairly and responsibly.
The Bill is rooted in this Government’s broader environmental and international goals. We are protecting and improving the marine environment at home and internationally to meet the global commitment to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and this Bill is a key instrument in delivering that goal. The Bill supports our efforts to maintain multilateral agreements and international governance as the bedrock of our global community, and to address collectively the biggest issues of our generation: climate change, food insecurity and harm to marine environments—issues that affect not just the UK, but every nation on Earth. I hope that Members will recognise the urgency and importance of this moment. The ocean cannot wait, and the consequences of inaction are profound. This Bill is an opportunity to act, to protect marine life, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the benefits of the ocean are shared fairly and responsibly. I commend this Bill to the House.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill. It is an important piece of legislation, and I thank her for acknowledging that it started under the previous Government. I hope there will be a consensus, but there are many questions to be answered, and we need to go into this legislation in a lot of detail to ensure that there are not unintended consequences.
Nobody in this House doubts the importance of protecting our oceans. The high seas belong to us all, to every nation on this planet, and the United Kingdom, as a proud seafaring nation and a world leader in natural sciences with no less than 16 overseas territories spanning—for now at least—all five of the world’s major oceans, has always led the world in safeguarding them. The protection of our oceans is one of the defining challenges of our age. Two thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation, and those waters are home to a vast array of life that sustains the planet’s ecosystems.
Britain depends on the seas for our trade. They have been a moat for our national security and are our bridge to the wider world. We therefore have not only a moral duty to protect them but a strategic one. One of the core values of the small c conservatism that I believe in, as the name suggests, is to conserve things that truly matter. That applies not only to our institutions and our way of life here in these islands, but to the preservation of our green and pleasant land and, in this case, that of the marine biodiversity, so that we can hand on to our descendants the natural beauty that I know we all cherish. That principle is certainly not in question today by anyone in this House of any party.
Nowhere is our record clearer than in the crown jewel of our leadership on the environment that is the blue belt programme. Through it, the United Kingdom and our overseas territories have created over 4.4 million sq km of marine protected areas from the South Atlantic and the Pacific to the Indian ocean. These waters safeguard king penguins on the Falkland Islands, green turtles on Ascension Island, grey reef sharks on the Pitcairn Islands and countless other species across the globe. I have had the privilege to visit the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island and see the amazing biodiversity that we are responsible for, and the oceans around those territories are vital to protect. The blue belt is one of the largest networks of protected ocean on Earth, and it exists because of British leadership alongside the Governments of the British overseas territories. We granted those creatures and their habitats protection from exploitation by others, from industrial fishing fleets and from countries that would plunder our resources without a second thought. That is something this nation should be immensely proud of.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member is saying, and he is absolutely right on the blue belt. Does he therefore regret that in all the debates we have had about the Chagos Islands, the Conservatives have not raised the importance of the conservation of the fish stocks and the biodiversity around those islands?
Andrew Rosindell
The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is, I am afraid, incorrect. We have raised those issues on many occasions, and I have personally raised them on countless occasions over the years. Before too long, the right hon. Member will hear a bit more about the Chagos Islands and the importance of protecting marine stocks and biodiversity in that part of the world.
Despite what has been said today, I fear that at this stage the Government are riding roughshod over that record and undermining those very principles through their abject surrender of a marine protected area. The British Indian Ocean Territory might look like a scattering of remote atolls in a far-flung region of the planet, but they are home to 640,000 sq km of ocean—one of the most pristine marine ecosystems on the earth, an area of ocean the size of France. Within it live more than 1,000 species of fish and over 200 species of coral.
I had the opportunity to see it for myself in 2019 when I visited the Chagos islands, in particular the atoll of Peros Banhos, where I was greeted by the wonderful Chagossian coconut crabs, as I jumped out of the dinghy and walked on to the beach and into the uninhabited island—where we shamefully forced the people to leave their homes all those years ago and refused to allow them to return. Its waters shelter seabirds, turtles and dolphins. It is an environmental treasure that the world envies and that Britain has rightly protected over so many years.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mauritius was one of the early signatories to the UN global ocean treaty? If so, I am not sure what his point is.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Member should examine how Mauritius behaves in reality, which I will come to later. If we want a nation that will actually take these issues seriously, it is the United Kingdom. It is easy to sign a treaty, it is not so easy to follow it through in practice.
In what I believe to be an act of historic folly, this Government are to hand that amazing territory over to Mauritius. That nation does not have the record, the capability or the will to protect such a fragile environment. Its own waters have suffered from overfishing and poor enforcement. Its close alignment with China, and indeed India, should concern anyone who cares about the Indian ocean’s future. Indeed, the evidence speaks for itself. In the 2024 Environmental Performance Index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, with a score of just 0.8 out of 100; 83rd for marine habitat protection; and 131st for marine protection stringency, down nearly 78%. Are these the credentials of a nation ready to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems? The Government appear to think so. I disagree.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am just wondering whether the hon. Member finds himself in the wrong debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I am overseeing the debate. If the hon. Member had been in the wrong debate, I would have pointed it out.
Andrew Rosindell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us do care about our British overseas territories and the marine environment. Some of us have made these arguments for many, many years, as have many on the Government Benches. If we are to take this issue seriously, we need to take our responsibilities seriously. Otherwise, future generations, not just in this country but across the world, will look back at this debate and what we are doing today, and think, “What on earth were they doing, giving away such a vital part of the planet that we are responsible for?”
Either the Government truly believe that Mauritius will reverse course and persuade China to respect this marine protected area, or, as I am afraid the Chagos surrender treaty implies, we shall end up doing the heavy lifting while paying for the privilege. Forgive me for not being entirely convinced, but I do not believe that the statistics I have cited are those of a nation ready to take on responsibility for one of the world’s most delicate marine ecosystems.
Scientific assessments show that live coral cover in Mauritian waters fell by up to 70% in the late 1990s, while coastal erosion and reef degradation continue unchecked. A United Nations review in 2022 found that, while on paper Mauritius has environmental laws, enforcement is inconsistent, community involvement is limited and responses to emerging threats such as ocean acidification remain inadequate. Unbelievably, seagrass beds, which are vital for carbon storage and marine biodiversity, are still cleared to make way for tourism development. Is this really the environmental guardian that Ministers are entrusting with 640,000 sq km of some of the most pristine ocean on earth? It beggars belief.
We need to look around the world to see what happens when Chinese fishing interests move in. In Ecuador, thousands of octopuses and sharks have been left dead on the shore because of illegal fishing by Chinese vessels. We need to guard against that in future. Off the coast of Ghana, fishermen’s catches have fallen by 40% due to Chinese bottom trawlers decimating local fish stocks. Around the Korean peninsula, squid populations have collapsed by 70%. I hope that this legislation and this agreement will help to protect the oceans around the world and countries where there are no protections at the moment. If the Chagos islands are handed over, the same fleets will soon appear in some of those waters, and Chagos will be at the mercy of exploitation.
That is the context in which the House is considering the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. It runs to 26 clauses, as the Minister has said. It is impossible to run through them all today, but no doubt we will look at them in greater detail in Committee. There are, however, several points that must be addressed in today’s debate.
When will ratification happen? Clause 25 provides for the commencement of regulation, but without any statutory deadline or parliamentary trigger, leaving ratification entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. To add to that, clauses 9 and 11 grant far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing Acts of Parliament by secondary legislation. Where is Parliament’s role in that? How will the House scrutinise decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement? Will we be consulted before international rules are imposed on British institutions and industries? Will British waters or those of our overseas territories ever fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign or supranational regulator? We surely cannot allow global bureaucracy to override British parliamentary sovereignty.
Beyond the question of control lies the spectre of bureaucracy. Clauses 2 and 3 impose heavy reporting duties on marine research and genetic sampling. Clause 16 allows still more procedures by regulation. Has the Department assessed what that will cost in time and money for our scientists and shipping operators and for legitimate researchers? How will small British enterprises compete if they face mountains of paperwork, while less scrupulous nations exploit the same waters freely? We all support high standards, but in the world we currently live in, we cannot afford to lose innovation or competitiveness.
Then there is the matter of expense. The impact assessment admits that compliance, licensing and enforcement will not be cheap, yet provides little detail on who pays. At a time of fiscal restraint, when every Department must justify every pound spent, can the Minister explain whether this legislation will truly be the best use of taxpayers’ money? How much will it cost to implement the BBNJ regime in full? Will the task of monitoring fall to the Royal Navy or the Marine Management Organisation, and what extra resources will they receive to do the job? What is the cost-benefit ratio, and have the Government assessed whether there could be indirect impacts on the taxpayer?
What of the impact on British industries, fishermen, offshore energy and biotechnology? Can the Minister assure us that British fishermen will not face restrictions, that our energy sector will not be burdened by impractical licensing demands, and that our biotech pioneers will not find their discoveries trapped in international bureaucracy?
Emma Hardy
I wonder if I could offer some helpful clarity. This debate is on BBNJ—biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, with the word “beyond” giving a clue to the fact that it does not relate to British waters. The points the hon. Gentleman is raising, about what impact the high seas will have on offshore wind development here, might therefore not be entirely valid, and his points about the impact on British fishermen fishing in UK waters might not be covered by the global ocean treaty. I wonder if it might be helpful for him to read the explanatory notes alongside the Bill.
Andrew Rosindell
The Minister will have plenty of time to explain all these matters in detail in Committee. This is Second Reading, when we raise issues of concern. I look forward to Committee, and to all my questions being answered at that stage, if not today. I thank her for her intervention.
What safeguards will protect British intellectual property in marine genetic research? Will the benefit-sharing provisions prevent our scientists from developing the fruits of their own work? Will other nations shoulder equal obligations, or will Britain be left carrying the cost because we are doing the right thing and others are not? Our research institutions are some of the most prestigious global leaders in the marine sector, whether it is the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre or our magnificent universities. First and foremost, there must be a guarantee from the Government that this Bill will not drown them in red tape.
Clause 20 rightly extends the Bill’s provisions to the British overseas territories, which are central to our environmental success story. From the Pitcairn islands, with their 35 residents, to Tristan da Cunha, home to barely 240 residents, these far-flung Britons have shown what small communities can achieve for global conservation when they have British support. But how can they have confidence in the Government’s assurances when they witness what is happening in Chagos? If Ministers are willing to trade away one British territory without consultation or consent, what message does that send to the rest? I remind the House that conservation with the loss of sovereignty and without credible means of enforcement is a hollow virtue. The United Kingdom has a record to be proud of, from Captain Cook to David Attenborough. We must build on that record and not undermine it with rushed ratification.
If Ministers will answer the questions that I have laid out, and if they will commit in statute to parliamentary oversight, a fully costed implementation plan, explicit safeguards for British science and intellectual property, and legally enforceable protections for the overseas territories, many on the Conservative Benches will consider how to support measures that genuinely conserve our seas. If they will not, I and others—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Rosindell, can I check that you are nearing your conclusion?
Andrew Rosindell
I was literally about to get there, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If Ministers will not do so, I and others will oppose any step that weakens Britain’s hand. I end where I began. As Conservatives, our principle is that we want to conserve, to keep safe, to steward and to defend what we are responsible for. We must be true to that principle. We must continue to act as custodians of the seas in a way that respects our sovereignty, honours our obligations to our descendants and protects the livelihoods and ecosystems that depend on the United Kingdom.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am really proud to be standing here today, because it is an historic day for ocean conservation. Let us make no mistake: the world’s oceans are under significant threat. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that if global warming reaches 1.5°, 70% of coral reefs will die. If temperatures rise by 2°, as now sadly looks likely, 99% of the Earth’s coral reefs will die. Coral reefs are not just a pretty thing that we go diving on; they are incredibly complex and important ecosystems. They are fish nurseries, but they also provide significant protection for islanders from both adverse weather and sea level rises.
Other threats include illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which is decimating fish populations across the globe, and deep-sea mining, which threatens to cause damage from which ecosystems will take decades to recover. Currently, two thirds of the ocean lie outside the jurisdiction of national states, and that is what the Bill focuses on. For the health of oceans and the planet as a whole, it is crucial that the international community develops ways of ensuring that these areas are not subject to lawless exploitation, as is currently happening.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
In January this year, as Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend wrote to the Government to push them to ratify the global oceans treaty. As a member of her Committee, I thank her for her efforts on this front. If I recall correctly, our Committee’s work highlighted that the UK had to work globally because there are 3 billion people who depend on the oceans for work, especially in poorer, smaller developing nations. Does she agree that this is a vital step forward for the future, especially of small island developing states, and that the Government must push others who have signed up to this treaty to ratify it?
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague. He is absolutely right, and that is why today is so historic: this is the UK taking that leadership role and hopefully corralling some of the other countries that are more reticent to do the right thing.
The International Development Committee and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, both of which I chair, have long been calling on both the previous Government and this Government to put in place the necessary legislation to ratify this agreement. To have finally reached this point is a credit to the Ministers—particularly the Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), but also the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman.
In an era of international fragmentation, I am relieved that 145 states have come together to forge this agreement and safeguard a global public good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) alluded to, 75 countries have already taken the next step of ratification. I am very proud that the Minister for Water and Flooding was championing this in opposition and has delivered on her word, leading this ratification in government. I thank her for that.
As a seafaring nation and a centre of expertise in maritime law, the UK is perfectly placed to lead the charge to protect the world’s oceans. Sadly, we are lagging behind many countries, including the Seychelles, St Lucia and Barbados, which ratified the agreement last year. It is not surprising that the small island developing states, or SIDs—or large ocean states, as they prefer to be called—were quick to ratify, because they recognise the existential threat that ocean ecosystem degradation poses to human societies and their economies.
As the International Development Committee argued in our report last year, SIDs need reliable partners. The UK talks a good game when it comes to responsible global leadership, but activists and policymakers from SIDs told the Committee they were concerned about the consistency of Britain’s commitment. I hope we will see that change at this moment, under this Government, and that we will stand up for small island developing states, particularly our overseas territories, which the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned.
The health of the world’s oceans is not an issue confined to low-income countries; it is an existential issue for all of us. As the Government’s impact assessment acknowledged, the impact of reduced fish stocks and decreased capacity will be borne by all of us, including future generations. The UK must seize this moment to match its international conservation ambitions with tangible action to protect our domestic waters. Bottom trawl fishing, a highly destructive practice, is still permitted across almost all of the UK’s seas, including in more than 90% of our marine protected areas. I welcome the Government’s consultation on that, and hope that they will take the necessary step to ban that practice wherever they can.
The Government must consider introducing additional legislation to ensure that the UK’s marine protected areas are actually protected, because sadly, even though they have the title, many of them are not. The Bill also offers plentiful opportunities for the UK’s blue economy as a world leader in marine science and technologies. To support quick progress, the UK needs a definition of the use of “marine genetic resources”, and “digital sequence information”, by the time the agreement is ratified. That is to support all those who will implement it.
The UK’s next steps are vital to ensure that we fulfil our leadership role in ocean protection. The 120-day countdown has started. The first conference of the parties, Ocean COP1, will be held within just 12 months. With the clock ticking, will the Minister set out a timetable for the passage of the Bill through both Houses? We need it to pass quickly to allow the UK to play its full part in the first conference. Will the Minister also confirm whether the Bill legally extends the UK’s existing domestic duties to have regard to the precautionary and polluter pays principles to the high seas? If not, will she say whether something to that effect should or could be inserted into the Bill? Will the Minister consider producing an ocean strategy? Ocean issues currently fall between a number of different Departments, which unfortunately means they are under the ownership of none. The Bill is to be commended and must attain Royal Assent without delay. I strongly urge all Members to support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a privilege to speak in support of this Bill. This is a hugely important step that, as the Minister laid out, will finally allow the United Kingdom to ratify the high seas treaty and play its full part in protecting our shared global ocean. That is something that I hope Members across the Chamber will support. I share in congratulations to the Minister on keeping her word that she gave as shadow Minister. That is really good to see.
The Bill comes at a crucial time. After more than a decade of negotiation, this treaty is one of the greatest biodiversity conservation victories in history. It is a landmark moment for global ocean governance, setting out for the first time a clear legal framework for establishing ocean sanctuaries and area-based management tools on the high seas, two-thirds of which lie beyond national borders and are therefore currently lawless. We refer to our rainforests as our planet’s lungs, but our oceans are just as important for biodiversity, regulating our climate, absorbing almost a third of human-made carbon dioxide, and sustaining billions of people around the world. As we have heard, they are also under extraordinary pressure from overfishing, plastic pollution and the growing threat of deep-sea mining. The treaty is currently the only viable pathway to meeting the global 30 by 30 biodiversity goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s ocean before 2030. Currently, less than 1% of the high seas is fully protected, so time is running out to meet that goal by the end of the decade.
I welcome the Bill, which provides the legal framework for the UK to deliver on the high seas treaty’s three central pillars: first, the fair sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources, the DNA and data of ocean life; secondly, the creation of marine protected areas and area-based management tools on the high seas; and thirdly, stronger environmental impact assessments to prevent harmful activities before they happen. This has to be fair for developing nations, and capacity building and technology transfer is central to that.
This is personal to me. Before entering Parliament, I spent over a decade working professionally on the creation of marine protected areas in east Africa and South America. I helped to create the first ever multiple-use marine reserve, together with fishermen and Government in Zanzibar on Misali island. I then spent several years mediating conflict and reaching consensus between fishermen, tour operators, the Galapagos national park, and the Government, to help create the Galapagos marine reserve, which at that time was one of the largest MPAs created. Since then I have been involved in work towards international marine governance beyond national jurisdiction, the high seas treaty, as well as the UK’s Blue Belt programme, and I worked with communities and officials on all those overseas territories. I have seen at first hand what is at stake, from working with fishermen to prevent the destruction of coral reefs by dynamite fishing, to the terrifying news that we have reached the first climate tipping point, with our precious and beautiful warm-water coral reefs now in irreversible decline, putting at threat the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people.
I have also mediated negotiations with the fishing sector on deep-water fishing to find sustainable fishing quotas and standards for tuna fishing, while protecting vital marine corridors for our endangered marine mammals and birds. I have dived along those, tagging whale sharks to understand the routes that they take across the high seas, beyond national jurisdictions. That is often the wild west, where we are facing the “tragedy of the commons”, and there are no agreed rules or governance to stop everyone in the race from taking as much as possible before someone else does.
That is why it is so important to highlight that the global ocean treaty could provide a legal mechanism to address the “blue hole” in the south Atlantic—a region requiring agreements about what is sustainable fishing practice, and ways effectively to deter terribly unsustainable activity. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a coherent ocean policy, and an ocean strategy that links the global commitments we make through the Bill to stronger domestic action on marine protection, sustainable fishing and pollution at home.
The UK was instrumental in securing an ambitious treaty text at the UN, and we should take pride in that. However, as other Members have said, we must be honest: the UK was not among the first 60 nations to ratify that treaty, and that matters because where Britain leads, others follow. The commitments being made today must be matched with commitments to sustainable fisheries management and marine conservation back in our own waters. Our credibility and moral authority on the world stage is under threat when Ministers seem to say that we might not implement an outright ban on bottom trawling, despite pledging earlier this year to extend the ban on bottom-towed fishing gear to offshore protected areas.
I was a member of the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into marine governance, which recommended the ban on bottom trawling ahead of the UN ocean conference, and we commended the Government on their announcement at that time. I fully support the Committee Chair’s response, which repeats the Committee’s call to completely ban bottom trawling within offshore MPAs, and pleads with the Minister and the Government to take the right decision on the back of the consultation that is happening now, and not to undermine the integrity of our protected waters.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are clear: we support the Bill, and we urge the Government to bring forward ratification swiftly—I hope Members across the Chamber will support that—so that the UK has a seat at the table when Ocean COP1 takes place, and going forward.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Like others, I very much welcome the Bill, and I hope it swiftly passes into law so that we can play a full role at Ocean COP1 next year. If we look back beyond recent years, we had people such as John Kerry, and David Miliband as co-chair of the Global Ocean Commission, spearheading efforts on this front, but it then felt as if the issue dropped off the agenda. Next year will be important for ensuring that it becomes a priority again.
I will start by saying why the oceans matter, why they are under threat and why protecting them is so important. As we have heard, oceans are a massive carbon sink. They absorb over 90% of excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases, as well as around 25% to 30% of global carbon dioxide emissions. They host around 80% of all life forms, many of which are still waiting to be discovered. They are under threat from plastic pollution, ocean acidification and the bleaching of coral reefs, and from overfishing on an unsustainable industrial scale. The largest factory trawlers have net mouths of up to 1,200 metres wide and 200 to 300 metres deep that sweep up hundreds of tonnes of fish and seafood in one trip, much of which is bycatch, not for human consumption, that is then discarded. Oceana has called this
“marine deforestation—akin to clear felling an entire rainforest when you’re only looking to harvest one type of tree”.
The Environmental Justice Foundation has done some brilliant reports in the past into slavery and labour exploitation as part of this industrial-scale fishing, particularly in the Thai seafood sector. The fish stocks in territorial waters are depleted, but the further afield those ships go, the higher the risk to the workers that are kept at sea for years at a time.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, between 35% and 37% of assessed fish stocks are being fished beyond biologically sustainable levels. That figure is much higher in the high seas and in straddling fish stocks, with two thirds classified as over-exploited or depleted. That includes iconic species, such as sharks, that are a crucial part of the ocean ecosystem. It is estimated that there has been a 71% decline in the ocean population of sharks and rays since 1970. Some 77% of oceanic shark and ray species are threatened with extinction. Roughly 100 million sharks a year are killed by humans through targeted fishing, shark finning and bycatch.
Many of us will have seen “The Blue Planet” series that did such a brilliant job at highlighting, among other things, the threat of plastic pollution and at spurring calls to action. I want to give a shout out to BBC Bristol’s natural history unit, which has been hugely influential, as well as giving great enjoyment to all the people who have seen its programmes. It is a great shame that agreement still has not been reached on a global plastics treaty, and we must keep up the efforts on that front.
I hope that Sir David Attenborough’s latest production, “Ocean”, will have a similar impact when it comes to bottom trawling. As Sir David says:
“What we have done to the deep ocean floor is just unspeakably awful.”
He says that the trawlers tear the seabed with such force that
“the trails of destruction can be seen from space”.
It was reported that some of the material filmed for the programme was deemed too shocking to be shown.
Due to climate change, more than half the world’s straddling fish stocks will shift across maritime borders between economic exclusion zones and the high seas by 2050. In the high seas, fisheries management is much more challenging and stocks are much more likely to be over-exploited, as I said earlier. That makes the need for marine protected areas in the high seas even more important. As we have heard, as well as being an island nation ourselves, because of our overseas territories the UK is the custodian of a fifth of the world’s territorial waters. That means that we are the neighbour, which is the next best thing as a custodian, of much of the high seas, including the Sargasso sea.
Greenpeace is calling on the UK to take a lead in working with our overseas territory, Bermuda, on developing an ocean sanctuary proposal for the Sargasso sea, ready to present it at the first Ocean COP next year. The Sargasso sea is a uniquely biodiverse and important ecosystem. The floating sargassum mats are known as the “golden floating rainforest”, and they are a haven for juvenile fish and turtles, a spawning ground for a rich range of species and an important migratory pathway for humpback whales. As a generator of massive carbon sequestration and oxygen production, the Sargasso sea is vital in tackling climate change and planetary health, but it is at risk of overfishing, pollution and shipping traffic. There is much support in Bermuda for the proposal, and I hope that we will be able to take that forward next year.
Given our strength as a global financial centre, the UK is uniquely well placed to play a role in developing innovative financial instruments that will help finance marine protection, building on what countries like Seychelles and Belize have done with their blue bonds and their debt restructuring. At COP29 last year, we launched our six principles for high integrity carbon and nature markets, and they have been out for consultation this year.
In a world where public sector resources and donations are dwindling, the world is looking to make progress on leveraging private sector finance in a meaningful and sustainable way. That could be of huge benefit to climate-vulnerable coastal countries and small island states, but could also be applicable to funding marine protected areas in the high seas, making it economically viable to protect our seas rather than to plunder them. I have heard that the Treasury may be less enthused about the nature side of these voluntary markets than the carbon side, but I hope that is not the case. I will certainly keep up the pressure on the Treasury to take this forward.
I want to speak briefly about deep-sea mining, to which I am totally opposed. Deep-sea mining could cause irreversible damage to deep ecosystems and a loss of undiscovered biodiversity. I understand that the current UK position, as confirmed by an FCDO ministerial answer last month, is that we back the suspension of deep-sea mining and support a moratorium on the granting of deep-sea mining contracts by the International Seabed Authority. The Minister said that we will not grant licences for exploitation unless
“there is sufficient scientific evidence about the potential impact on deep sea ecosystems, and strong enforceable environmental Regulations, Standards and Guidelines”.
However, it is not clear what powers we will have through this international collaboration to stop other countries issuing such licences, so I hope that the Minister will clarify that in her summing up. I am a little concerned that the measures in the Bill about marine genetic resources will open the door to deep-sea mining. I accept that there is a case for exploring the potential of such resources, if carried out under strong safeguards, but I would resist any attempt to allow deep-sea mining to occur.
Finally, while I welcome international initiatives and, as has been made clear, the Bill addresses areas beyond national jurisdiction, we need to lead by example with stronger protection for our own territorial waters. As has been said, there has been some progress, notably around our overseas territories, but perhaps it is easier to act when those areas are thousands of miles away and do not have the same economic interests. There has been great work around Ascension, Pitcairn and South Georgia, but there is more of a mixed picture around the UK coast.
Dogger Bank in the North sea is one of the largest marine protected areas. Since it was established in 2022, it has benefited from a 98% reduction in bottom trawling, supporting the recovery of marine species like halibut, cod, angel shark and eels. As it says in the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, all marine protected areas must be well managed, enforced and effective, not paper parks. We could start by moving faster to end all bottom trawling in our marine protected areas.
The recent excellent report “Blue Carbon”, published by the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, set out a blue carbon mapping project carried out with the help of the Scottish Association for Marine Science. We are the first country to undertake such mapping. We know about the importance of kelp forests, seagrass meadows and mangroves, but it is the less glamorous sediment on our seabed that is the true hero in carbon sequestration. The report found that 224 million tonnes of organic carbon was stored in just the top 10 cm of seabed sediments and vegetated habitats, and 98% of that was in the sediment, such as the mud.
In my role as Minister for climate, it frustrated me that we talked so much about the role of trees and forests in carbon sequestration, but we did not talk about the oceans at all. I was told that that was because it was difficult to quantify, so this project is a great example. If this is the amount of carbon work that is being done by the seabed around the UK coast, just think about the amount that the seabed of our high seas is doing. We must have action on that at Ocean COP. I hope that the Bill will be enacted very soon, and I look forward to next year’s discussions.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Less than 1% of the high seas are fully protected; there could not be a more important time for this treaty. It is the world’s only viable pathway to meet the global biodiversity goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s ocean before 2030. Along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome the fact that the Government are finally bringing forward this legislation. It is disappointing that the UK was not among the first 60 countries to reach the threshold to get the treaty ratified, especially given the long cross-party support for the subject in this House, but I hope ratification will be swift to allow the UK a seat at the table at Ocean COP. We Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both internationally and domestically, including through the ratification of the global oceans treaty.
The Bill is welcome, but we must not be complacent. Global plastic production and waste have doubled in the last 20 years, and more than 12 million tonnes of plastic are dumped into the ocean every single year, putting countless species at risk of extinction. In 2023, the BBC reported that there were more than 170 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world’s oceans. That is simply shocking and totally unacceptable.
Biodiversity relies on healthy oceans, but plastic pollution, climate change and unsustainable fishing practices are destroying our marine biodiversity. With 10% of marine species at risk, we must act now. Communities across the world rely on the oceans for their livelihoods, jobs and food security—indeed, we all rely on the oceans for our livelihoods—but we are taking more from the ocean than can be replenished, with 90% of big fish populations depleted and 50% of coral reefs already destroyed.
The first Ocean COP is on the horizon for next year, which will give the UK an important seat at the table if we ratify the treaty in time. While there, the UK should champion further measures to protect our oceans, including a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. Bottom trawling is a most terrifying practice that damages the seabed, kills animals and plants indiscriminately, and releases carbon from the sea floor in very large proportions, which drives climate change.
If Members have not watched the documentary “Ocean with David Attenborough”, please do—it is terrifying. Once I watched it, I made a pledge that I would not eat fish until we had at least signed the ocean treaty, so there is a personal reason why I push the Government for early ratification. I love fish, and this should not be a call not to eat fish; this is about protecting the oceans. If Members watch the David Attenborough film, they will see that a good and positive thing is that the oceans can recover very quickly if we give them the option to recover. That is why today is such an important day.
The British public are with us; some 81% of British adults say that they would like to see bottom trawling banned in MPAs, according to polling from Oceana. The Environmental Audit Committee backs the call to ban bottom trawling. In September, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the Environmental Audit Committee that it would not roll out an outright ban. I implore the Government to reconsider.
We must manage our territorial waters effectively, and we could start by implementing the Fisheries Act 2020 in full. Through that, we could reform the fishing quota distribution to phase out the fixed quota allocation system, which largely rewards those with the deepest pockets. It could be replaced with a system that rewards and incentivises lower impacts from fishing that deliver environmental, social and economic benefits to communities around our coast.
We must also look more closely at illegal and unregulated fishing. Hidden overfishing—when illegal discards are unaccounted for in fishing quotas—is driving stocks into severe decline. Marine groups are urging the Government to introduce a strategy to tackle overfishing by the end of 2026, including catch limits and a fair deal for fishers adjusting to lower catch limits.
The transparency around enforcement and monitoring of fishing activities in UK seas is not adequate. The Marine Management Organisation is not even required to publish data on the enforcement of fishing regulations. We were told that post Brexit, the UK would establish best-in-class fisheries management as an independent coastal state, but we have not taken advantage of that freedom to strengthen our regulations.
I welcome the Bill as an important starting point, but if we are serious about protecting the blue heart of our planet, this must be just the beginning of real action to restore the health of oceans across the world and here at home. I repeat the Liberal Democrats’ call for a coherent oceans policy.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am delighted to rise to support the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. The introduction of this legislation marks the beginning of a process for the UK to ratify and implement the global ocean treaty. This vital agreement enables the protection of international marine life. No protection currently exists for wildlife such as fish, turtles and dolphins that inhabit the high seas, over which no one country has jurisdiction.
The ocean, which covers more than 70% of the surface of our planet, is a vital shared resource. It provides us with sustenance, oxygen and genetic resources for food, medicines and research. It is also our greatest ally in the fight against climate change, as the largest carbon sink on the planet. However, it is an ecosystem under perilous threat. Increased ocean temperatures are symptomatic of the warming climate, and endanger us on land through a decreased capacity to absorb carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, rising sea levels and the loss of vital marine life and resources.
The introduction of this legislation reaffirms this Government’s dedication to protecting global marine life as well as mitigating climate change and improving our natural environment. In the current moment, when the environmental consensus is at risk and there are those who would retreat from the world, pretend that we can draw up a metaphorical drawbridge and keep safe behind the safety of political castle walls, this Bill is a significant marker of this Government’s commitment to multilateral processes, which are in fact the only way to address some of the great challenges of our time.
This debate is one of many on the environment and nature that I have attended in recent weeks and months to which not a single Conservative Backbench MP has bothered to turn up. I do not say that to thumb my nose at them; I say it because it is profoundly depressing. I oppose the Tory party with every fibre of my being, but it is one of the great political parties of western Europe over the last 100, 200 and more years, and it has just given up.
His Majesty’s official Opposition is just not interested. That is not just today; it is in debate after debate that I attend. Some hard-working Opposition Front Bencher turns up, but not a single person sits behind them. I say to them, in the most earnest sincerity, that election defeats are disappointing, but the Tory party has to man up. It must turn up and start taking this seriously, because these are matters of the most supreme importance, and we cannot have the official Opposition just refusing to engage.
I have to say that the comments from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) were pretty lukewarm. I understand that the previous Government looked at this issue for quite some time, but they never got as far as legislating. In listening to what he said, I was left uncertain of how supportive the Opposition actually are of the proposed measures; we will find out more in Committee. I hope that, having committed to this issue in government but never actually legislating on it, they will get behind this important legislation.
As we have heard, this Bill fulfils the commitment made by the Labour Government at the UN ocean conference and in opposition. The oceans need UK leadership and action. The evidence that the EAC received during our recent inquiry, “Governing the marine environment”, painted a worrying picture of the state of the marine environment. It is under threat globally from global warming, pollution and overexploitation, leading to a 49% decline in populations of marine mammals, birds, reptiles and fish species according to the Living Planet Index. UK seas are also in poor condition, failing on most of the indicators of good environmental status in the most recent assessment by the Government.
However, there is some good news: marine conservation efforts are effective. When we do them, they work. While only 9% of the ocean is currently protected in a marine protected area, remarkably half of all catalogued marine species have been reported in those areas. Some 72% of species facing extinction have found refuge in marine protected areas.
The Government are taking important action to better protect the 38% of UK seas already designated as marine protected areas. I repeat what has been said by other colleagues: we want to see the Government going further. Damaging activities can still take place in those areas, but the consultation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) is vital. Nearly two thirds of the ocean is considered high seas or international waters, which poses a governance and logistical challenge: how is it possible to protect areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of any one nation? That is why the global oceans treaty of 2023 was so significant—a landmark moment in providing the legal foundation for establishing MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The creation of protected areas in the high seas is essential to making 30 by 30 a reality.
This Bill, which establishes the legal framework necessary for the UK to meet its obligations, is vital. Its Royal Assent will lay the groundwork for the UK to ratify that agreement. As we have heard, 60 countries have already ratified the treaty, so it will come into force next January, and the first UN ocean conference will be held within the year. As such, it is vital that the UK gets on with ratifying that treaty so that it can be party to discussions and can shape agreements. Setting out a timeline for the UK’s ratification of the global oceans treaty was one of the key recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee, so we welcome the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice having kept their word on that.
This is a narrow Bill that allows the UK to fulfil our global commitment. I caution well-meaning allies against extending the process or undermining the commitment that the Government have made by attempting to attach to the Bill other commitments that are not relevant to it and create division—in this incredibly important area, what we need is unity. However, the ratification of this treaty is just the start. We have much more to do to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030 and establish marine sanctuaries where marine life can thrive.
To conclude, I strongly support the Bill. I look forward to its passage through Parliament, and I thank the Government for prioritising this issue despite a heavy legislative workload. It is a welcome development that provides the powers and regulations needed for the UK to ratify the treaty, working with other nations.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The oceans have long struggled to get the attention they deserve—there are no voters out there on the ocean. Thanks are owed to Sir David Attenborough and the many filmmakers and photographers who, over the years, have brought the oceans into our living rooms and helped us to get to know them and care about them. Most of us only get to experience oceans from a beach, or from 30,000 feet—looking down from an aeroplane window at a vast, endless blue expanse—but I have spent months and months alone on the ocean, a long way beyond national jurisdictions, rowing across oceans to raise awareness of the environmental crisis facing our world, particularly the parts of it that are blue. I was trying to bring a human face to the plight of our oceans.
Out there in the middle of an ocean, when you have not seen dry land for several months, thousands of miles separate you from the closest land mass and the nearest human beings are on the International Space Station, it feels like you are well beyond jurisdictions, and often beyond justice. It was out there in that lawless place that I came to understand both the power and the fragility of the ocean—you see its beauty and its bounty, but also its vulnerability to what we humans choose to do. The ocean has no voice in this place, so today, we are being its voice.
The ocean may seem boundless, but it is not indestructible. We have polluted it, overfished it, and warmed it. The deep sea is home to some of the most extraordinary forms of life on Earth—I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister refer to sunfish, which are surely the weirdest creatures I have ever seen—but it is increasingly targeted for exploitation. We know the surface of the moon better than we know the bottom of the ocean. There is a real danger that we could destroy species before we even know they exist.
More than 60% of the world’s surface and nearly three quarters of its ocean volume lie out there in the places beyond any country’s control. For centuries, the high seas have been treated as no one’s responsibility—beyond the environment, a lawless expanse—and still today, only 1% is properly protected. Meanwhile, overfishing, pollution and deep-sea mining are degrading ecosystems that we barely understand. The ocean is becoming more acidic, threatening the existence of plankton—the base of the entire marine food chain—and weakening its capacity to absorb carbon and regulate our climate. That is what is at stake. The health of the ocean is the health of our planet.
That is why the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty matters so profoundly. It is the first global treaty to bring order, fairness and protection to the high seas. It offers a framework for managing those shared waters responsibly and ensuring that the benefits of ocean science are shared globally, not hoarded by the few. Earlier this year, when I brought the Climate and Nature Bill before this House, I further pressed the Government to commit to ratifying the BBNJ, and I am pleased and thankful that they are now delivering on that promise. I particularly thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), for her long-term persistence and commitment to this cause. It shows that when we work together across the House, we can turn ambition into action.
However, ratification is only the beginning; turning this treaty into a practical reality will demand co-ordination, funding and focus. As such, I would like to ask the Minister a few practical questions about implementation from the FCDO perspective, questions that I have sent to her office. First, on institutional co-ordination, how will Departments such as the FCDO, DEFRA and the Department for Transport work together to manage marine genetic resources, environmental assessments and new conservation tools under a single, coherent system? Secondly, on enforcement, what mechanisms will ensure compliance by UK vessels and research institutions operating beyond national jurisdiction, given the real challenges—of which I am keenly aware—of surveillance and jurisdiction at sea?
Thirdly, turning to resourcing and capacity, have the Government assessed the staffing, budget and technical resources needed to set up the new repositories, databases and administrative systems required by the BBNJ? Fourthly, on transparency and fairness, what plans are in place to ensure that the data held by repositories such as the Natural History Museum and the National Oceanography Centre are accessible and interoperable—especially for developing countries, including small island states—in line with the BBNJ’s principle of equitable benefit sharing? Finally, on international engagement, with the first oceans COP expected in 2026, how will the UK prepare to shape the operational details of the agreement at the international level, and who will represent us at that table?
These questions matter because they will determine whether the Bill delivers real protection, rather than just good intentions. Our scientists are ready to lead. The National Oceanography Centre, with its cutting-edge research and fleet of autonomous submersible vessels—including one known as Boaty McBoatface—is already mapping deep sea currents and gathering the knowledge we need to understand and protect the ocean. Under the BBNJ, that vital work will become part of a global effort to heal the seas.
The ocean is the blue heart of our planet. It gives us half the oxygen we breathe, shapes our weather, and sustains life on a scale that defies our humble human imaginations. If that heart falters, everything we depend on will be at risk. We often think of oceans as dividing nations, but actually, they connect and unite us; we are, so to speak, all in the same boat. As the great American oceanographer Dr Sylvia Earle said,
“We need to respect the oceans and take care of them as if our lives depended on it. Because they do.”
By ratifying and implementing the BBNJ, we can help turn the tide—sorry, I just cannot help it. Let this be the Parliament that gave the ocean a voice and a future.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
It has been almost 19 years since I first met Professor Alex Rogers at a two-day conference at Somerville College, Oxford, convened by the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment. The subject was international law on the high seas. The young postdoctoral fellow inspired us about the amazing biodiversity of our global ocean— I use the singular deliberately—but he also frustrated us by explaining that the international community lacked any legal framework to protect it.
The ocean accounts for 99% of our planet by volume and nearly two thirds by surface area. Every second breath we take is supplied to us by the ocean. Some 90% of the excess heat in the climate system has been absorbed by the ocean. The ocean is our greatest nature-based solution to climate change, and it is only by restoring the health of our marine ecosystems that we can deliver on our promise to meet the 30 by 30 target in the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. The BBNJ treaty is the missing part of the jigsaw. That is why today’s debate is so important, and why the Bill is so important.
The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill is welcome and necessary, but we must recognise what the treaty is and what it is not. We must do so not in order to understate what the Bill does, but to understand clearly what action we must take following its passage. We will need secondary legislation to implement the treaty, and—dare I say this before the Budget statement?—it will require adequate funding. The treaty creates a framework for the establishment of protected areas on the high seas, but it does not, in and of itself, create those protected areas. It is therefore important that the Government start to develop proposals for high seas MPAs, especially in regions of the world where the UK is a party to the relevant regional fisheries management organisations.
I commend DEFRA for the work that it has already done in its stocktake of area-based management tools in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is a really important baseline. I ask the Minister to set out in her response to the debate what further work is planned to identify, support and deliver specific MPAs. I am particularly keen to hear how she might develop the supplementary report that has already been prepared on the Sargasso sea. Will she confirm that this internationally significant ecosystem is a priority for the development of an MPA? It has now been 13 years since the Sargasso sea was recognised as an ecologically or biologically significant area, having met all seven EBSA criteria.
Our country’s history has left a legacy. That legacy is our exclusive economic zone, which is the fifth largest in the world, largely due to our remaining overseas territories, but that legacy brings responsibilities with it. I pay tribute to the work of the previous Conservative Administration, who expanded the blue belt programme to nominally protect more than 4 million sq km of ocean, from Anguilla in the Caribbean to Pitcairn in the Pacific ocean. In the last year, the programme took satellite imagery of more than 100 million sq km of UK overseas territory waters, providing crucial monitoring and surveillance to crack down on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities. It is this very tangible knowledge and expertise that the UK should be at the forefront of delivering through the first BBNJ COP, which will take place within a year of the treaty taking force, from 17 January 2026.
I welcome the announcement, following the spending review, that the blue belt programme will receive increased funding for 2025-26. However, given that £2 million of this £8.6 million comes from official development assistance, which itself is being cut, I hope it will not seem churlish if I ask that the programme be ringfenced for the future.
For much of human history, we did not need the BBNJ treaty. The high seas were protected from the worst impacts of human activity by the simple reality that they were so far from land and too difficult to access. The dawn of the industrial age and motorised ocean-going vessels changed all that. Even species that lived their whole life hundreds or thousands of miles from land were no longer safe from human exploitation.
Nothing epitomises that sad reality more than the slaughter of the great whales. Industrialised whaling caused the deaths of nearly 3 million whales. Even the blue whale, the largest animal that has ever lived, had its numbers reduced by more than 90%. Whales’ size and the fact of spending most of their lives in inhospitable and hard-to-reach parts of the open ocean had kept them safe for millennia, but the introduction of new and more powerful technologies meant that even they became the victims of massive over-exploitation. Today, there are fewer than 400 North Atlantic right whales left in our ocean. And why was it called the right whale? Ironically, it acquired its name because it was rich in blubber and baleen, it moved slowly and it floated after being killed, so it was easily towed in to be butchered—so it was deemed the “right” whale to hunt.
The history of these great mammals shows just why we now need the BBNJ. Biodiversity is no longer protected by its remoteness from land. Human greed will destroy it wherever it is found on our planet, unless we act decisively to regulate our most destructive activities. Today, although the international whaling ban is still ignored by a few countries, whales are no longer threatened by hunters, on the whole, but they are killed by ship strikes and they are entangled in fishing gear.
I emphasise the importance of the international ban not just because I believe that it is one of the most important conservation achievements of the 20th century, but because it was a great achievement of multilateralism —something that is not much in vogue at the moment. It shows how, by acting in concert with other nations, we can mobilise popular support around environmental objectives with both a clear ecological and a clear moral purpose, and we can achieve results. I regard it as an inspiration and a template for what we are now doing in the BBNJ.
The huge factory ships that once slaughtered whales have largely gone, but in their place, equally large factory ships now plunder the ocean as if it were a bottomless pit of profit. There are longliners setting fishing lines tens of kilometres long, each with up to 15,000 hooks, and huge purse seiners using nets that are 2 km long and 200 metres deep. Imagine a net that is twice as deep as Big Ben—the Elizabeth Tower—is tall, and which stretches out so far from this House of Commons that it takes in the whole of Buckingham Palace and most of its gardens. These fishing enterprises devastate the very populations that they are targeting. That is why we need this Bill.
Earlier this year, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—the Government’s own marine experts—found that more than half of the UK’s key fishing quotas were set above the levels recommended by scientists. Overfishing has led to a 98% collapse in Celtic sea cod populations since 2012, with an 84% collapse in haddock, an 85% collapse in whiting and an 80% collapse in herring. Just two weeks ago, the scientific assessment of mackerel showed that the species has declined by 78% in the past 10 years. Despite continued advice from scientists to reduce catch quotas, that reduction has not happened.
While the UK has been a world leader with the blue belt programme, at home we continue to practise the opposite of what we preach, most notably through disastrous sustainable catch limits and quotas. Worse, we have driven out small fishing fleets, leaving our seas vulnerable to the monstrous mega-ships whose bottom-trawling scrapes away the existence of all life in their path. The inequitable quota allocation that was formalised in 1999 has resulted in more than 90% of the quota for mackerel, herring and blue whiting being held by just 20 companies, most of them not even British. Half of the English quota is held by Dutch, Icelandic and Spanish interests, more than half of Northern Ireland’s quota is held by just one trawler company, and 85% of Wales’s quota is held by Spanish companies.
The system has been rigged against the UK’s inshore fleet and its independent fishers. All of this was done by UK companies selling their quota abroad, but it is the awful consequence of the privatisation of a public good—our fisheries—and the UK taxpayer has received not a penny in benefit as a result. If the UK is truly to be a leader in the implementation of the BBNJ and to demand of other nations that they curb their rapacious plundering of the high seas, we must at the very least begin to stop the over-exploitation of our stocks at home. Our ability to make our voice heard internationally will sound hollow if we continue to ignore the science and set politically led quota allocations at home.
High seas fisheries often have unimaginably high levels of bycatch. This is particularly true of tuna fisheries, because tuna often school with other pelagic species, such as dolphins, manta rays and billfish. Indeed, many tuna species inhabit the same surface mixed layer of the ocean that is inhabited by vulnerable species such as silky sharks or turtles. It is estimated that 100 million sharks are caught every year—most as bycatch in high seas fisheries—so it is no wonder that the number of large open ocean sharks has declined by at least 70% in the past 50 years, almost entirely due to high seas fishing, where they are either targeted or caught as bycatch beyond the reach of national jurisdictions.
The leatherback turtle, the largest turtle in the world, is threatened with extinction because it is so often caught as bycatch by purse seine fleets of fishing vessels on the high seas. In the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of endangered species, published just last week, only one of the 22 species of albatross is not threatened with extinction through being caught as bycatch on hooks on longline fishing fleets in the open ocean.
Distance from land once provided protection for many species in the pre-industrial era, and the same can be said of the deep seas. Until recently, the deep ocean was out of reach for human activity. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Industrialised fishing fleets are now able to fish deeper and deeper, but many deep sea species are slow-growing. An orange roughy reaches sexual maturity only between the age of 20 and 30—much older than shallower water fish. These factors make deep sea species uniquely vulnerable to overfishing, and as many of the deepest waters are on the high seas, we need to ensure that the BBNJ agreement protects them and their habitat better.
Deep sea fishing, especially on seamounts, poses an existential risk to many deep-sea ecosystems, and bottom trawling, which is devastating in coastal and shallow seas, is arguably even more so on the high seas. Bottom trawlers tend to focus on seamounts, as these underwater mountains act as biodiversity hotspots in the open ocean. I seek the Minister’s assurance that, in considering the next steps after ratification, establishing protections around seamounts on the high seas will be one of the Government’s priorities. I ask for the same assurance in relation to the issue of deep seabed mining—I trust that the Government will continue to oppose any developments of this on the high seas.
The Bill before us is excellent. It will delight the now Professor Alex Rogers, who I suspect is not at his desk either in Oxford or at the National Oceanography Centre, where he is now the science director. Most probably, he is out somewhere in the Antarctic ocean in a submersible exploring the deep ocean, as he has been doing for more than 30 years. If he were to take a break from his mission to discover 100,000 new marine species in the deep ocean in this decade and send us a message, I suspect that it would emphasise the importance of getting this Bill enacted quickly. If we do not ratify the treaty at least 40 days before the first COP, the UK will not have a seat at the table; we will merely be a spectator as others set the ambition, or the lack of it, as they roll out the implementation of the treaty.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill to the House for its Second Reading, and trust that we are able to see the whole ratification process completed in time for the UK to make strong proposals at COP1 next year.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Venerable Bede first wrote of the “Isle of Eels” back in the 8th century. He explained that the Isle of Ely is known as such because it was surrounded by water, with an abundance of eels, but these eels do not spend their whole life in Ely or, indeed, in the UK.
The biological story behind eels is a quite remarkable one. They breed in the Sargasso sea, which, as we have heard, is so important to many other species as well, and they drift across the ocean for two or three years as tiny and fragile eels. They adapt to freshwater and mature in rivers—sometimes growing up to 1 metre in length—before swimming all the way back to the Sargasso sea to reproduce once more before dying. These eels face many dangers in their life cycle, including the impact of climate change on ocean currents, pollution and poaching.
European eels are considered a critically endangered species, so it is imperative that we take action to protect them now. At a local level, the creation of eel passes—not, as it might sound, a passport, but ladders or passages—has been welcome action to allow them to get from the sea into freshwater habitats and back again. However, much more needs to be done to protect them and other endangered species on a global scale, so it is really good that the Government have proposed this Bill.
Ely holds an annual eel festival, which not only recognises our history but celebrates biodiversity and nature. The festival celebrates our heritage and is always tinged with concern about the decline in the eel population, but also with a determination to see eels return to our rivers in abundance. They are not anywhere near as common in the River Great Ouse as they once were, owing to all the factors I mentioned, but the good news is that in 2022, over 74,000 eels were recorded as making the 3,000-mile journey from the Sargasso sea to Cambridgeshire.
Measures like banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas would be a good way to protect endangered species like eels and others, as would the provision of greater resources for international environmental co-operation. I hope the Government will take on board calls for a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. We cannot possibly have the moral authority to call for such a ban on the global stage when we have not done it in our own waters.
Like our eels, all wildlife depends on our oceans, as indeed do we as the human race. The speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) was shocking and depressing. For a party that once hugged a husky to now be questioning its support for our oceans is shameful.
Twenty-five centuries ago, Aristotle questioned where eels came from, but if we do not take urgent action to protect them and other marine wildlife, we will not be asking where they came from; we will be asking where they have all gone. I therefore welcome this Bill and the international co-operation of which it is a part. Let us get it through the House as quickly as possible, so that we can sign the treaty and make sure that it delivers what we all hope it will deliver.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her remarks and for the attention that the FCDO has paid to the importance of marine conservation. The biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty represents a transformation in the way that we protect nature in the high seas. I commend the Government for being an early proponent of the agreement, and I am so pleased—in fact, I am thrilled—to see that we are finally going to ratify it.
I feel that I have been witnessing the Chamber at its best this afternoon. To hear such passion and such well-informed expertise on both sides has been a real honour. It reminds one what an honour we all have in being Members of this place and sitting in a room to listen to such speeches, which has been wonderful. Let me confess that I am one of those people—I remember that when I came back from seeing sperm whales I was still weeping, and I apologised to the organiser of the trip that I seemed to just not be able to stop weeping, but she said, “Don’t worry, dear. We see lots of people like you on these trips.” I feel as though I have found my people, given the passion that has been expressed today for the high seas and for biodiversity.
Today, I want my speech to have a particular focus—please forgive me for this—because I believe that our commitment to this treaty can be tested by how we treat our current responsibilities. I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), in using the Chagos islands as a test. I apologise for not recognising that the Opposition have been talking about the biodiversity of the Chagos islands. Perhaps I was only focused on the considerable amount of time they have spent on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. I have since spent the time available looking up their references to biodiversity, and there have been three of them, so I apologise for saying that there had not been any.
I have had a number of exchanges in this House with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has responsibility for Europe, North America and the overseas territories, about the vital importance of safeguarding marine protected areas around the Chagos islands. I am grateful for the assurances he has given me that the Government are committed to the continued protection of the unique and unparalleled environment of the Chagos archipelago.
However, the FCDO’s assurances, although welcome, really do not go far enough, but before I say why, I want to explain why these waters matter so much—not least because of their role in replenishing the high seas—and the extraordinary obligation that the UK owes the world to ensure that they remain protected. As has been said, these 640,000 sq km of near pristine ocean are among the most pristine in the world. They are home to the largest living coral atoll and to 58 islands. They are the breeding site for more than a quarter of a million pairs of seabirds, as well as the vital and unexplored deep-sea ecosystems that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) talked about with such passion.
The vast no-take zone that the UK established in 2010 provides a vital sanctuary for numerous endangered species. If this marine environment were damaged, it would do huge damage to the seas generally and to species already on the brink of extinction, such as the endangered hawksbill turtle, which forages in the waters of the Chagos islands and nests on their beaches, or the unique population of reef manta rays, which use the protected waters as a refuge and which would soon disappear if those waters became unprotected. This is exactly the kind of marine life that the BBNJ agreement seeks to protect through the establishment, among other measures, of marine protected areas in the high seas.
The vast marine protected area around the Chagos islands provides a safe corridor and foraging ground for vital migratory species and apex predators such as tuna, sharks and whales, and without it we would see their numbers crash much more widely across the world. In a warming world in which coral is dying at a terrifying rate, the coral in the Chagos archipelago is relatively healthy and acts as a reseeding bank for other reefs in the Indian ocean through larval dispersal. The reefs and marine life of the Chagos archipelago help to replenish degraded reefs and depleted fish stocks from east Africa to Indonesia. The coral in the Chagos archipelago has shown an extraordinary degree of resilience and an ability to recover even from bleaching events, and it is not known why. This resilience and the undisturbed nature of the Chagos ocean make it a really important site for scientific study. It could give us an important insight into what we can do next to save our coral reefs, and a proper insight into how healthy marine ecosystems function and the impact of climate change.
For the last 15 years, the UK has protected those waters and taken seriously its duties as the steward of those ecosystems, just as the BBNJ agreement invites the entire international community to do as stewards of the high seas. As the UK now hands them over to Mauritius, we have an equally serious duty to ensure that they remain protected. That brings me to the terms of the Chagos deal and the Minister of State’s evidence to my Foreign Affairs Committee, for which I am grateful to him.
The Minister noted that the UK and Mauritian Governments are committed to promoting the conservation of the environment of the archipelago. I obviously welcome that, and I pay tribute to the Government of Mauritius for their clear determination to protect nature. Nothing I am about to say is intended to cast any doubt on that commitment. The problem, however, is that Mauritius is a democracy—a vibrant democracy—in which Governments have historically had different attitudes to protecting the ocean. It is therefore not good enough for the Minister just to point to the commitment of the current Mauritian Government to marine protection; we need a basis for lasting confidence and mechanisms to ensure that these ecosystems remain protected for future generations. My principal concern is that there is no funding mechanism in place to ensure that Mauritius will properly resource marine protection in the Chagos archipelago and to incentivise it to do so. That stands in contrast to the treaty we are discussing.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the right hon. Member for giving me an opportunity to say sorry to the shadow Minister for misunderstanding, when I intervened earlier, why he thought it was so important to mention the Chagos islands. I hope he will accept my apology.
Emily Thornberry
I must say that we are all behaving so well this afternoon.
I was saying that there is no incentive or funding mechanism in the Chagos archipelago deal, yet the treaty we are talking about—the subject of the Bill we are giving a Second Reading today—does have that very funding mechanism. Why does it? Because we know that that is needed for it to work. Without a dedicated funding mechanism for Chagos marine protection, in which a transfer of funds is contingent on the continuing protection of the marine environment, there is nothing to ensure that this protection will continue. The Mauritian Government want to allocate resources for doing so, but they operate in a resource-constrained environment. It is therefore deeply regrettable that both parties did not reach an agreement on future arrangements for environmental protection across the Chagos archipelago before signing the treaty. They should have allocated dedicated funds to it, or agreed a funding mechanism that would have been a proper basis for confidence. In short, the Chagos agreement should have followed the lead of the BBNJ agreement.
I remain concerned that there is a lack of concrete action on the future conservation of the Chagos archipelago’s unique marine environment and biodiversity. I appreciate the commitments that the Minister has given to the House and my Committee, but now actions need to be taken, drawing on the example presented by the BBNJ agreement. The ratification of the high seas treaty is testament to Britain’s renewed global leadership on climate and nature. That reputation risks being undermined by a failure to invest in the protection of the unique and extraordinary marine environment that is the Chagos islands.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Government and the Minister’s leadership on this issue in bringing the Bill to the House to enact the UN high seas treaty. I, too, am a member of the APPG for the ocean.
I know that people in Exeter care very deeply about our natural environment, particularly the seas and oceans, and rightly so. The world’s oceans are vital to the health of our planet and to our people. They produce over half of the world’s oxygen and absorb a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, helping to regulate our climate. They support an immense diversity of life, providing food for billions of people and supporting enormous ecosystems, which contain knowledge that we have only just begun to tap.
After decades of industrial damage, this landmark legislation and the treaty will go some way to protecting two thirds of the world’s oceans, and it represents a massive step forward by nations across the world to protect marine life and ecosystems beyond our national borders. By providing the legal framework necessary to implement the BBNJ agreement domestically, the Bill includes provisions for marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments and the sharing of benefits from the collection and use of marine genetic resources, and will help us to meet the target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. I also welcome the Bill as a core part of re-establishing the UK’s role in providing global leadership on climate and nature, both at home and around the world.
Just as the UK is a leader in marine and climate science, so is Exeter. I was delighted this week to host in Parliament the Met Office, which is based in Exeter, to showcase the range and depth of its expertise. The Met Office is not just a specialist in our weather. It is also a specialist in space weather, our oceans, and the connection between climate change and forecasting. Its work on ocean biogeochemistry—studying how carbon and other gases are absorbed, transported and exchanged by the oceans, the mechanisms involved and the impact changes have—is pioneering. It researches the risks of rapid loss of sea ice, and is studying the rise of sea levels and the impacts on communities, the environment and the economy.
The Met Office also provides a vital service in generating risk assessments of rapid changes to the meridional overturning circulation, which I am told—I am literature graduate, Madam Deputy Speaker, not a science graduate—plays an important role in regional climates. It is also part of the National Partnership for Ocean Prediction, bringing together world-class expertise and research, as well as developing beneficial marine products and services.
In addition, the University of Exeter has a wide-ranging research community working on projects related to our oceans. These come together under the Exeter Marine research network, and their ocean research runs from pollution and conservation to governance and human health. In June this year, Exeter University’s Professor Callum Roberts was the lead author of a report in Nature supporting the UN high seas treaty. His paper highlighted that the high seas are the Earth’s largest and most secure carbon sink. Protecting them is critical to preserving the biological and nutrient cycles that draw down and keep atmospheric CO2 in check. They welcome the UN high seas treaty, saying it offers a pathway to greater protection, but they are concerned about the length of time for implementation. The report’s authors also argue that a full and permanent ban on extractive use of the oceans is both feasible and necessary, modelled on the successful precedent set for Antarctica in the 1950s. Will the Minister comment on what more can be done, beyond the treaty as we bring it in, to protect our oceans above and beyond this legislation?
Finally, I want to pay tribute to my constituents Mary Attewell, Debbie Thomas, Sue Down and Lizzie Waler of Exeter’s Greenpeace group, who have been doggedly campaigning for the UK’s ratification of the treaty. I thank them for all their work and for keeping this issue at the top of the political agenda. I hope they will be celebrating this evening, if the Bill passes its Second Reading. They have asked to question how the treaty will be enforced. I would welcome comments from the Minister on that, too.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) that we want there to be cross-party and cross-House agreement on this issue. While it is disappointing that the Conservatives are not here, it is also disappointing that Green party MPs, other than one small intervention at the beginning, are not here to participate substantially in the debate.
I commend the Bill. I am extraordinarily thrilled and pleased to support it. I know that the ratification of the agreement as soon as possible supports the UK’s broader climate and nature agenda, and will mean that we can take our seat at the top table at the first COP. That will ensure we remain at the forefront of global efforts to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change through multilateral co-operation. This will strengthen the role of international law—so important in these times—and multilateral institutions as the foundation for ocean governance.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill for what it seeks to put into law, but also for what it signals about the approach of the Government, and hopefully this House, to national and international obligations and interests. It is a testament to the continued survival and delivery of multilateralism in global affairs. In an age of continued and heightened global strife, conflict and antagonism, the Bill is proof that there still remains hope for global co-operation and that joint endeavours with shared purpose can deliver common goods. Institutions such as the United Nations can still be practical and effective forums to facilitate states coming together to work out collective solutions to collective problems. There are those who seek to withdraw from international agreements, seeing multilateral institutions and processes as threats. We must eschew such an approach, because it ultimately does not serve our national or global interests. Such an approach of withdrawal and isolation will not further our interests effectively.
In this case, the United Nations biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, which the Bill will bring into the framework of UK law, will be one of the most important strides forward for biodiversity and the marine environment. For the first time, the United Kingdom will have a legal framework to help us to protect large expanses of the seas that are beyond our national waters. The establishment of such protections will help to ensure that regions of the high seas are safeguarded from harmful extractive and destructive practices. The protections will help to restore biodiversity to these regions and help maintain the ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2 produced by human activity, thus helping to mitigate the impacts of global warming.
As has been mentioned, the oceans absorb about 30% of man-made CO2, and this treaty will help to ensure that they are fit to continue doing so. The ratification of the treaty must not be the be all and end all for protecting the biodiversity of the world’s oceans. It must be a means through which the UK and allies globally can continue to advocate for greater protection of our shared marine environment. One means of doing that through the treaty will be the first conference of the parties—or Ocean COP1. This will be the first forum for the treaty’s signatories to discuss and action its implementation, such as agreeing proposals for the first generation of high seas sanctuaries. The treaty is welcome and the Bill is welcome, but implementation is necessary to deliver what we need.
As the Minister said in her opening comments, the COP will take place within a year of 17 January 2026, which is when the treaty comes into force. As has been said, if the UK has failed to ratify at least 40 days before that date, we will not have a seat at the first COP. That is why I urge the House to pass this legislation at pace. Already, there are reports that the first Ocean COP could be as soon as August next year. The Government have rightly spoken at length about the importance of the UK bringing its soft power to bear. With this being the first COP of its kind, it is essential that we bring UK expertise and influence to the event while the treaty is in its infancy. We have seen the importance of conferences of the parties as a means of promoting collective action on climate change and nature. We cannot miss this chance to be a part of the first Ocean COP to do the same for our world’s oceans. Multilateral agreements implemented by collective action are the way forward on this issue. I am therefore more than content to support the Bill enthusiastically today.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Two thirds of our planet is ocean. Our oceans, which sustain life on Earth, cannot be left unguarded any longer. After years of international negotiation, the world finally agreed to the high seas treaty. With the Bill, we will turn that treaty into action and show that Britain is serious about delivering on its promises.
There is no response to the climate crisis that does not also respond to the nature crisis. That is why it is important to protect biodiversity in this country, beyond our border and beyond the seas. Two thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond national borders, and until now they have had almost no real protection. The Bill gives us the power to protect international waters by establishing marine protected areas, by demanding proper environmental assessments before deep-sea mining or destructive fishing can go ahead, and by making sure that the benefits of marine science are shared fairly. The Bill underpins the global goal of protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030—a goal that Labour put in its manifesto and one that we should be proud to be delivering on. The high seas absorb carbon, regulate weather and produce half the oxygen that we breathe. If we do not get biodiversity right, we will not get climate change right either.
We have all heard the tedious lines often repeated by Members on the Conservative Benches—where no one is currently sat—that we cannot act because other countries are not acting, but to lead in addressing climate change we have to do precisely that: take action, do something meaningful and lead other countries in making a difference. Hon. Members may wonder why I, from the most landlocked constituency of Calder Valley, am speaking on the Bill, but in Calder Valley we know the cost of climate change as floods devastate our towns. We also know that protecting nature is our first line of defence, and whether that is restoring our moorland at home, insisting on biodiversity net gain in developments or safeguarding oceans abroad, the principle is the same.
I commend the Government for introducing the Bill, which is a vital step in turning the international commitments into real action. The next challenge is to ensure that the Bill not only passes but is properly enforced and resourced, as many colleagues have said. I look forward to hearing more detail on that from the Minister. Let us see this as the first day of Britain’s leadership on our seas.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
On land and at sea, our natural environment has suffered a soul-crushing collapse over many decades, putting the future of iconic species and entire ecosystems at risk, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) in a tour de force of a speech. The Government were elected on a clear promise to end that catastrophic decline, the long-term consequences of which, if we do not reverse that trend, will be profound. Our food security depends on healthy ecosystems, the bedrock of our economy is our natural capital, and the public—our voters—cherish our seas, rivers, coastlines, ancient woodlands and national parks. They will not be forgiving of a political system that fails to protect and restore our shared natural inheritance.
The Bill is a particularly vital step towards the renewed protection of our natural environment. It recognises that biodiversity does not obey national borders or jurisdiction, so neither can our duty to safeguard it. As obvious as that truth may seem to the public, let alone conservationists, successive Governments have failed to give the high seas the attention they need. The Bill begins to put that right by at last creating a legal framework for the UK to ratify the UN BBNJ agreement and meet our international obligations in full.
As has been noted, just 1% of the high seas have full protection, and there is still much research to be done on deep sea ecosystems, but they are increasingly recognised as a key global reservoir of biodiversity, so the crucial task is to move the legislation forward quickly and end the crisis engulfing our oceans. Industrial fishing practices such as bottom trawling—the underseas equivalent of ploughing a bulldozer through a wild flower meadow—are tearing apart fragile seabed habitats while trawl nets indiscriminately catch and discard countless non-target, endangered species. Once those species are gone, they will be gone forever, and their entire intricate web of connections will go with them, unravelling irreplaceable ecosystems with profound knock-on effects that we can neither predict nor prevent.
As has been mentioned, if we fail to pass the Bill urgently, the UK will not have a seat at the table for the treaty’s first COP. That would not only represent a dereliction of our international obligations—we have as great a responsibility as any nation to protect global biodiversity—but silence our voice in safeguarding our own national interests, such as the protection of the UK’s 8 million seabirds, over half of which are already in decline. Species such as the albatross and the petrel spend more than 80% of their lives foraging on the high seas. We cannot protect them with action on our own coastlines alone, yet Britain stripped of her seabirds would hardly be Britain at all. Other countries will have their own priorities and national interests to pursue, so our Government must be at the table playing its part in securing the long-term future of the many species that play such an important part in our culture and identity.
I welcome the Bill and the opportunity it creates to discuss nature and biodiversity in this place: a topic of serious debate right now for the public and for the Government. I close by saying again that decisions driven by an ideology that prioritises profit over people and the environment did not just undermine our economy; they wrecked our natural world and our social cohesion. National renewal must mean economic revival, but also once more cherishing those things that make life beautiful, and that means protecting nature. I thank Ministers today for doing just that.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Cannock Chase may be one of the most landlocked constituencies in the country, but that has not stopped my constituents from writing to me in support of the Bill, and rightly so. If anyone does come across a marine genetic resource in Staffordshire, I would be impressed and also slightly concerned, but the point is this: what happens in the world’s oceans matters just as much to the people of my constituency as it does to those living on the coast. As the wise Franklin D. Roosevelt once said,
“The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.”
I would like to extend that to say that the world that destroys its oceans destroys itself. The UK has long positioned itself as a global leader on marine protection, and with the BBNJ agreement about to enter force—on 17 January—we must not give up our status on marine conservation. That is why I speak in support of the Bill: legislation that gives the Government the ability to ratify that vital United Nations agreement and take part in the world’s first ocean COP next year.
As the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, I want to emphasise how vital the Bill is in protecting the long-term health of our global food systems. The high seas—those vast areas of ocean beyond any single country’s jurisdiction—are essential to our food security. They are home to rich marine ecosystems, and globally over 3 billion people rely on fish for at least 20% of their animal protein intake—for many coastal and island nations, that figure is much higher—yet the vast majority of these waters have long been unregulated and are vulnerable to a multitude of threats including overfishing, unrestricted oil drilling, pollution and deep sea mining, which directly threaten not just ocean health but global food security. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) that, to ensure the agreement has real impact, the Government must rapidly push for new marine protected areas in international waters.
The Bill will enable the UK to play an active role in addressing all those threats. It will extend marine licensing requirements to British activities beyond our waters and mandate environmental outcome reports for potentially harmful activity. It will also ensure greater transparency in the collection and use of marine genetic resources, the biological material from marine organisms that holds immense promise for medicine, biotechnology and food innovation. It is often said that the world’s rainforests hold countless discoveries to come that could cure many illnesses and enable advancements that will enrich our human existence—as well as, I certainly hope, our stewardship of the natural world. However, although they are often overlooked, the same is very much true of our oceans. These scientific and ecological discoveries must benefit all nations and not simply be the preserve of the already wealthy. I therefore very much welcome the emphasis on open access repositories and databases that is so prominent in the BBNJ agreement. The agreement also embeds vital safeguards like the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle. I hope it will pave the way for international action that will finally turn the tide—pun absolutely intended—on the reckless destructive practices that nations across the world have perpetrated.
I could not let the opportunity to speak on the high seas go by without mentioning the global plastics treaty, on which I hope we can find international agreement soon. I pay strong tribute to the Minister and the British delegation to the Geneva talks. We know from her recent appearance at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that she deeply regrets the collapse of those talks without an agreement, and I know that she is already redoubling efforts to find a way forward so that we can start to halt and reverse environmental catastrophes such as the great Pacific garbage patch. I urge the Government to do whatever they can alongside fellow members of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution and advance international action on this urgent issue.
As we have heard, the Government have committed to protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030. The Bill makes good on that commitment on an international level, not just as an environmental ambition, but as a foundation for international co-operation, sustainable development and global food resilience. I commend the Government for their leadership in bringing this legislation forward, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, in a packed legislative programme as we seek to get our country back on its feet. It demonstrates this Government’s commitment to and prioritising of the health and sustainability of our oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and I urge colleagues across the House to support it.
Whether we live by the sea or in Cannock Chase in the heart of England, a healthy ocean is essential to a secure and sustainable future for us all. The oceans cannot wait, and nor should the United Kingdom.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Our oceans are teeming with complex life, but today they are also in a state of crisis. Climate change, pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction and plastics are all placing our oceans under strain like never before. Our oceans are paying the price, with more than a third of UK fish stocks currently overfished and more than a third of marine mammals at risk of extinction.
The high seas treaty, which the Bill will ratify into UK law, represents a significant and much-needed step forward. For the first time, the treaty creates a legal mechanism to establish marine protected areas in international waters—a crucial tool to ensure that by 2030, and in accordance with the global biodiversity framework, 30% of the world’s land and sea will be protected. However, the success of the treaty will depend on whether it is enforced, so I urge the Government to ensure that adequate funding is provided to help to protect these newly created marine protected areas.
We must also do our bit at home to protect marine life here in the UK. Some 38% of UK waters are now designated as marine protected areas. However, during our inquiry into the marine environment, the Environmental Audit Committee heard that these sites lacked sufficient protection to contribute towards our targets of protecting 30% of land and sea. While Government proposals to nearly triple the amount of seabed protection from bottom trawling are welcome, I therefore urge the Government to enact the recommendation from the Environmental Audit Committee and ban bottom trawling in all marine protected areas; without a ban, it is hard to see how we can claim that these areas are protected at all. Bottom trawling is a highly destructive practice that tears up the seabed, destroys habitats and releases carbon stored in the ocean floor. As David Attenborough said in his film “Ocean”, the idea of bulldozing a rainforest causes outrage, but we do the same underwater every day.
We also cannot protect our oceans without addressing the climate crisis. The oceans have absorbed 90% of all excess heat caused by climate change, and this excess heat is resulting in widespread marine heatwaves that are killing marine ecosystems and causing our oceans to acidify. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been clear that if we allow warming to reach 1.5°C, the vast majority of coral reefs will be lost forever. The willingness of some of our opponents to abandon climate commitments means that it is on us to go further and faster and to do all that we can to protect nature and stop the climate crisis. This Bill represents a welcome move in that direction.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
“It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement, the greatest source of visual beauty, the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living”—wise words by David Attenborough. They are words that everyone can relate to, whether that is a university professor in Oxford, a 12-year-old watching “Blue Planet” on the BBC or, indeed, the specialist in ocean conservation I met yesterday as part of my role as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean. Everyone in this room, in this country and on this planet has an interest in ensuring that our oceans are protected.
When we stare down from space at our blue jewel of a world, it is simply unfathomable that 230 million square kilometres of it are at present effectively unmanaged. It is a free-for-all. It has been allowed to become so because of history, but we now have the obligation to create a system of management, both in this room and across multilateral agreements with other countries. It is the wonder of our democracy in this country and other countries around the world that we can finally introduce a piece of legislation where we can manage many of these locations.
I stand as a proud MP for Medway, in particular Chatham, which has an historic dockyard that served much of our maritime trade and provided support to the Royal Navy. Many in my community have a proud history and legacy of serving on the oceans, from working on fleets supplying freight to participating in our royal naval tradition.
Our country has a proud history of conservation through the National Trust and other terrestrial organisations. We also have a number of third-party sector organisations that are committed to delivering on ocean conservation, not just through this treaty but through the many there have been in the past. Such organisations include Oceana and the Marine Conservation Society.
There is also excellent work being done by Plymouth University and Southampton’s National Oceanography Centre, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and I had the pleasure of visiting earlier this year. Our Natural History Museum, with its work in London and across the country, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace have all advocated for this in many ways and continue to do so. In many cases their work is not high profile; they do their work quietly and behind the scenes, such as by engaging with DEFRA—I am sure the civil servants can attest to this—and ensuring that they are safeguarding our fisheries and world.
This Bill is extremely welcome and timely. The high seas treaty reached its required 60 ratifications on 19 September, and the 60th ratification triggered a 120-day countdown, after which the treaty comes into force. If we want to be at that multilateral table to deliver for our residents in our communities and our country, we need to deliver this legislation. I welcome the Bill being placed before the House, and I welcome the debate with Members across this Chamber—from those who are fascinated by the sperm whale or the right whale to those who have rowed across oceans and seas.
The contents of the Bill are critical. Genetic heritage has not been mentioned much today, but it is a critical element as it can lead to cures for cancer and heart disease. Genetic heritage is a marker for our future on this planet. If there are cures that come as a result of this legislation, it is today that we give security and licence to it. The designation of marine protection areas has been much debated across this Chamber with regard to UK controls, and I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do more domestically to protect our MPAs, make them fit for purpose and allow them live up to their designation.
This legislation creates the licence for marine protection areas in international waters, which will support our heritage and legacy for future generations. It is a pathway to the goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. The Bill also gives scientific protections around licensing. We know that there are significant challenges for both our biotic and abiotic resources. Much time has been spent this afternoon discussing the damage caused by international industrial fisheries, with new technologies and industrial-sized trawlers coming from many nations of the world. The damage caused by these monsters, as I refer to them, is decimating not only our biological resources directly in that location but sea birds, species and any food chains associated with it.
There is also a debate about mining and drilling to be had in the next 10 to 20 years as we begin to get access to our deep-sea resources. Whether it is hydrates or base metals that we need, we need to have that conversation, so I implore the Government to look very closely at any moratorium. Then there is climate change, which is not to be denied by many across the world. It is happening. Species are under threat, and the destruction of habitats as a result of the warming and acidification of the ocean is impacting both coral reefs and seaweed beds.
To conclude, I still have a number of questions around the use of the Marine Management Organisation in this country and regional fisheries management organisations. How much extra resource will they need, because I certainly have questions at present around the MMO and its oversight? How do we know that this is going to be enforced? The UN has calculated that to make this effective we might need to look at figures of around $170 billion annually. Where is that money going to come from?
There are serious questions about who will enforce overfishing protection and marine protection areas when we have fishing piracy going on around the world. What are the measures for dispute resolution? We know that there are United Nations convention on the law of the sea disputes around the South China sea with China, and disputes are also ongoing over the Arctic, so what measures and mediation will this treaty introduce? This treaty tells everyone watching about our values, whether they be a 12-year-old “Blue Planet” watcher or a professor in a submersible in the Arctic. It sets the tone for the next hundred years. It is necessary that we do this and I implore colleagues to support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings
With the leave of the House, it only remains to say that we have heard, across the Chamber, impassioned and professional expertise. We have also heard about the importance of working together, not only in terms of multilateralism—[Interruption.] I hope that Members on the Conservative Front Bench are listening. We have also heard about the importance of working across the Chamber, on something that is so vital to all our constituents, our allies across the world and those in our overseas territories to finally fill the gap of the lawless part of the oceans through a global ocean governance that we can all agree on collectively.
That will be hard. As hon. Members have heard, I have worked with artisanal and industrial fishermen and with researchers, scientists and conservationists. It is not, and it will not be, easy to come to an agreement about area-based management plans and the ocean sanctuaries and MPAs that we are looking to create, but we can do it if we all work together. I implore hon. Members, across all parties and Benches, that we get to ratification in a timely fashion so that we can be part of the new global ocean movement, sit at the table at the first global ocean COP and take a leading position going forward. We owe it to ourselves, to the children of everyone we know and to the future of the planet.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
This has been a wide-ranging and important debate on a vital Bill. There have been many valuable and informed contributions, not least from the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) is rightly proud of the great academic institutions in his constituency, highlighting the important role that UK research plays in the world.
It was a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) making one of the first Back-Bench contributions. She reinforced the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made about the destruction of the marine environment. I know that she speaks from a position not just of expertise but of passion, and she has shown that over so many years, with a commitment to our oceans and with the work that she has led on.
May I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that she shows why it is so important that we have people in this House with such wide-ranging experience, who have had lives outside this place? She has brought expertise to the debate and I am sure that many of us envy her in what she has been able to do, the intellect that she has applied to the argument and the fact that we can all listen carefully to what she has said.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said something important when she talked about marine deforestation and some of the mainstream media shows that had footage that she had heard had been too shocking to show. That represents a real problem in this debate. Are we wrapping this up in cotton wool for some people, to not show exactly what we are trying to deal with? She made the important point that we should not hide from what is going on in the world.
Kerry McCarthy
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to an extent. It was reported in The Guardian that some of the footage was deemed too shocking to be shown. I do not know whether he has seen it, but what remains in the film is incredibly powerful. I have read about bottom trawling in the newspapers for a long time, so I knew about it from a factual perspective, but it was only when I saw those images that it was brought home to me how terrible it is.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important intervention.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) raised the importance of mainstream media. We are grateful for her apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for misinterpreting his drive about the importance of the Chagos islands.
It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is no longer in his place, felt that not enough of my colleagues were in attendance, but those of us who were here have stayed here—Mr Speaker has commented on many an occasion that I can often be more than enough. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) pointed out how little we know about the oceans. That is an important point. It has often been said that space exploration gets lots of coverage and we talk about it very much—indeed, we are talking about manning the moon again, and maybe using it as a launch pad to go to Mars—yet so much of our own planet is completely unknown and unexplored.
That brings me to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who has a genuine interest and expertise. He gave a wide ranging and important speech and made an important point about the ocean being one of the biggest solutions to climate change. He is indeed right that the European economic zones are a legacy from the days when we owned half the world. One of the great achievements of the last Conservative Government is the work we did on the blue belt and on ensuring that we protected important marine environments. I do not know whether he will expand on this in later debates, but I noticed that he did not appear to be fully supportive of giving up on the fisheries from the EU with the EU reset. I wonder whether he may have things to add to that debate at another time, but perhaps now is not the time and place. However, he does make an important point that we can only do what we have to do as a country if we have the ability to do it in those waters.
The way that the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) approached the subject of the Conservative party’s record in this area was a real pity. I am proud of some of the work we did on the blue belt, including working on this Bill, and as we have seen during the debate, there is wide support for it across the House.
The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) pointed out her genuine delight in the fact that this House has so many experts to speak on such an important issue. She echoed the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford on what will happen with the Chagos Bill. I do not want to go into great detail on that, because we are going to be here a long time on Monday evening debating that Bill, but I think she was driving at the fact that the assurances in the Chagos Bill do not go far enough in protecting the blue belt. I welcome her clarification that my party has raised the issue of the blue belt. She comes with expertise and deserves to be listened to when she is raising these important points.
The Minister opened the debate by talking about the urgency and importance of this moment. That is true. When my hon. Friend the Member for Romford spoke, he made some very serious points, not least about how we can ensure that the responsibilities that the United Kingdom has always taken towards marine fisheries do not get overridden if we cannot control our work entirely. He made the point that, in the scheme of things, we must ensure that we do not hand over the ability to other countries to stop us doing that work.
The reality is that—again, I will touch briefly on this because it is not part of the debate—the UN Security Council, set up for a reason, finds it hard to react to what is happening in Ukraine because Russia can override anything with its veto. We must ensure that we have the ability, as a Government and a country, to employ the laws and protections that we need to put in place. We will raise these areas in Committee, even if that is through probing amendments, because we want to ensure that the Bill can do exactly what it intends to do.
The reality of the Bill also comes into some of these situations that we see on the horizon. We know about the opening up of the Arctic, the melting of the sea ice and the opening of the north-east passage, which for many months—certainly weeks—of the year is fully navigable; the ice has gone away by that much. At the same time, we know that President Putin and the Russians have said that there are hydrocarbon resources in that ocean that they want to mine. That would be devastating for the fragile ecosystems that exist in that unique area of the world, which is almost completely untouched.
I had the pleasure back in May of being part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly visit to Svalbard. The University Centre in Svalbard has dozens of countries, universities, academic institutions and hundreds of nationalities studying that region, climate change and the effect it has on the Arctic, and the effects on ecosystems. It is absolutely vital, as we see the geopolitical tensions forming in areas where they have not been before, that we have those strong protections in place.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I was about to finish, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Barry Gardiner
The right hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about the opening up of the Arctic and the geo-strategic threats that we face there. In that respect, would he support my earlier call that the Government should release the Joint Intelligence Committee’s report on the link between biodiversity, sustainability and national security?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I will not be drawn quite into that trap about releasing Joint Intelligence reports. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, because there is no doubt that we are talking about sovereign security if we do not get this right, and that applies to all countries around the world. If we allow climate change and not the protection of valuable ecosystems, as has been described by many hon. and right hon. Members across the House, it is all of us who will suffer.
We have our concerns about some areas of the Bill. We will be tabling some amendments in Committee and probing those areas, but on the whole we hope that we can support the Bill, and it is important to carry on the work that our Government started.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I thank the shadow Ministers and hon. and right hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to the debate. It has been encouraging to hear the broad support for this important piece of legislation, and to hear the expertise, both from Members’ life experience prior to coming to this House and from the extensive work of our Committees over a long period of time.
I want to recognise the work of a number of the key stakeholders involved in informing the debate, some of whom I was able to speak to in the course of preparing for today, including the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace, Oceana, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Blue Marine Foundation. I want to make a cheeky remark towards the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), for whom I have a lot of respect, in that he suggested he could make up for the fact that there were no Conservative Back Benchers here during the debate, but indeed he made a useful contribution. That is important, because this should be a whole-of-House debate. It is important to recognise that we are continuing work that was started under the previous Government and that we supported all the way through. It is important that Members from all parties are present as the Bill starts its passage through the House, because as I will set out, it is important to inform the implementation and the ongoing debate.
I will draw on and respond to the contributions that have been made during my remarks. In particular, I know that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—whose comments, based on her extensive experience, were very much respected by the House—will make a great contribution during the passage of the legislation. She also talked about the importance of multilateralism and how we play our part with others around the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has experience of chairing a number of APPGs and has made a long-standing contribution. I will come back to some of the points she raised, but it was helpful to hear from her early in the debate.
We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)— I will come back to some of the points she raised—my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), for Exeter (Steve Race), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). That goes to show that we have had a whole-of-nation debate.
Before I turn to my more detailed remarks, I want to make a point about young people and the next generation. The important point was made that the oceans do not have voters, but when I think about the issues that are most important to young people, including in primary schools in my constituency, the health of our oceans and how we protect our environment are very high on the agenda. The oceans have their supporters across all generations, and that is important.
Let me start by reminding the House why this Bill and the BBNJ agreement matter. The BBNJ agreement is a huge step towards protecting our shared ocean. It will enable greater conservation of the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdictions and will support the delivery of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, which includes the target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. Environmental degradation could lead to huge economic costs globally, making ocean conservation a long-term economic imperative, too. The agreement supports the UK’s wider climate and nature agenda, ensuring that we remain at the forefront of global efforts to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change through multilateral co-operation. It also strengthens the role of international law and multilateral institutions, and reinforces the UN convention on the law of the sea as the foundation for global governance.
There are also clear opportunities for the UK, which has one of the world’s leading marine scientific research communities. World-renowned institutions in the UK, such as the National Oceanography Centre, the Marine Biological Association and our leading university marine science departments, are at the forefront of ocean research and will greatly benefit from provisions in the agreement that promote transparency and data sharing around marine genetic resources. The Bill, along with the secondary legislation that will follow, will deliver on our commitment to ratify this historic agreement.
Let me turn to some of the points raised in the debate, and I will aim to answer as many questions as possible. In relation to the Chagos islands, this deal will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. Both the UK and Mauritius have committed to protect what is one of the world’s most important marine environments, and that commitment will be supported by an enhanced partnership between both countries, under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos archipelago. The UK’s support for this will be agreed in a separate written instrument as part of the implementation of the agreement, and Government officials have already begun discussing with their Mauritian counterparts what it will involve. This has been welcomed by leading conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London, and both the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity, including the fight against illegal fishing.
It is worth mentioning that under the treaty, the UK will continue to manage environmental protection on Diego Garcia and the surrounding 12 nautical miles. That shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable international law and with due regard to applicable Mauritian environmental laws. The Minister for Europe, North America and the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is at the heart of these discussions and has been leading on maritime protection in the overseas territories through expansion and confirmation of funding for the blue belt programme and our work in the polar regions. He has met scientists in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda last month and on board the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough to discuss their crucial work in the Antarctic and Arctic. We are doing crucial work on the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, which I am sure will be the subject of further debate in the House.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for speaking about the points made about the British Indian Ocean Territory by myself and others, including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). The marine protected area was established by the Government of Gordon Brown at the tail end of the last Labour Government. It is a vital area that we need to protect. What guarantees can she honestly say we are getting that, if we are to hand over the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius, Mauritius will protect it in the same way we have done under both Labour and Conservative Governments?
Seema Malhotra
I reiterate what I said: both the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity. Indeed, the UK will still have responsibility for managing environmental protection on Diego Garcia and the surrounding 12 nautical miles, and discussions are ongoing in relation to the establishment of the marine protected area, which will be the subject of a separate written agreement. I cannot speak further on that, because I want to go through other points, but I am sure the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth will be happy to discuss this matter further in the House.
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) raised the issue of protecting intellectual property rights. The Secretary of State will not transmit information to the clearing-house mechanism that would be protected under intellectual property or trade secrets law. I am sure the hon. Member will be aware of that from his reading of the Bill.
A number of Members spoke about the process and implementation. This is a very significant step, as we move to ratify the agreement at the United Nations, which will happen following the passage of the Bill and associated secondary legislation. Indeed, it is a huge step towards protecting our shared ocean. It will provide the legal framework necessary to implement the BBNJ agreement domestically, ensuring the UK is able to comply fully with its international obligations under the agreement. The Bill and subsequent statutory instruments will ensure that we can implement and enforce future decisions of the conference of the parties.
At international level, a preparatory commission has been established to prepare for the convening of the first conference of the parties. The UK has been fully engaged in the work of the preparatory commission, including co-chairing a working group on the design of the clearing-house mechanism with Barbados. That will lay the groundwork for a successful first conference of the parties, which will enable parties and stakeholders to progress work on the ambitious implementation of the agreement.
In her opening remarks, my the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), referred to the consultation that we have had on bottom trawling, as well as to the work we are doing on proposals to restrict bottom trawling in more vulnerable marine habitats. The Government have outlined plans to restrict damaging fishing activity in marine protected areas, where that is needed to protect designated species and habitats. A number of Members mentioned plastic pollution, and the Government participated in the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution to develop an international legally binding instrument. It is disappointing that an agreement was not reached at the resumed fifth session in Geneva in August, but we continue to work on it. Indeed, we are a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution.
The hon. Member for South Cotswolds raised the matter of institutional co-ordination, and I confirm that the FCDO ocean policy unit will be the national focal point, working closely with DEFRA and the Department for Transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East asked about deep-sea mining. The UK supports a moratorium on the granting of exploration contracts for deep-sea mining projects by the International Seabed Authority. That means that we will not sponsor or support the issuing of such contracts until sufficient scientific guidance is available.
On the polluter pays and the precautionary principles, parties to the BBNJ agreement are guided by such principles and approaches. It is therefore our view that there is no specific need to include those principles in the Bill.
Seema Malhotra
I am running out of time, but I will be happy to pick this up with the hon. Member afterwards. Ministers will have to abide by the principles that I mentioned, and the Environment Act 2021 places a duty on Ministers to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy; we need always to abide by those principles.
I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions. I have sought to address as many of the points raised as possible, but I am happy to speak to colleagues about those that I did not reach. I am encouraged by the strong cross-party support for this important Bill. This landmark piece of legislation ensures that the UK can play its full part in the international movement to ratify the treaty. The measures it contains will not only strengthen and safe- guard our marine ecosystems, but will strengthen our environmental security and deliver real benefits for the UK’s research and innovation community. The Bill represents the UK taking decisive action, protecting the ocean that sustains us all, while empowering scientists, innovators and institutions in shaping its future. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A (7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges or fees under or by virtue of the Act.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Children’s Hospices: South-east England
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcement this morning, in anticipation of this afternoon’s debate, of £80 million of support for children’s hospices over three years. I thank the Minister for listening to the calls of the children’s hospice sector and the Liberal Democrats.
The three-year settlement will enable hospices to plan and deliver services over a longer period. Above all, it will ensure that seriously ill children and their families can continue to access hospice care. However, providers tell me that this level of funding does not solve the children’s hospice funding crisis, nor does it put children’s hospices on a genuinely long-term, sustainable financial footing. Bluntly, this funding will only slow the rate at which children’s hospice services are being cut.
Across the south-east—indeed, across the whole of England—children’s hospices support thousands of seriously ill babies, children and young people, and the families who love and care for them. One such organisation is Shooting Star Children’s Hospices. A parent recent said:
“Without the support of the team at Shooting Star I believe our family would be under enormous strain and feel unable to know where to turn.”
They are places of compassion, expert medical care and human dignity. They provide everything from end-of-life care to vital symptom management and psychological support, but our children’s hospices are in crisis. Unless urgent action is taken, many may disappear.
Since 2019, the number of children and young people needing end-of-life care has doubled. The demand for symptom management has surged by 108%. Hospices are having to provide more care and support than ever before, yet they are struggling to keep their doors open. At the same time, inflation and rising costs, particularly in recruiting and retaining highly skilled staff, has driven hospice expenditure up by an average of 15% in the past year alone.
The Government’s disastrous national insurance hike has only exacerbated the existing pressures. For example, Southern Hospice Group is a local charity made up of three Sussex hospices: Chestnut Tree House children’s hospice near Arundel, Martlets in Hove and St Barnabas House in Worthing. The national insurance rise has collectively cost them £500,000. Yes, the Government have increased funding in cash terms, but it is simply not enough. Local NHS funding from integrated care boards remains 18% lower than it was three years ago, even as hospices stretch to meet rising demand. Children’s hospices are now dipping into their reserves to stay open. In 2024-25, 59% of them ended the year in deficit. In 2025-26, that figure is expected to rise to a staggering 91%. This is clearly not sustainable.
Meanwhile, a postcode lottery in funding continues. Recent freedom of information requests conducted by the charity Together for Short Lives showed that some integrated care boards in London spent over £400 per child needing palliative care, while others spent less than £25. We see that too in the south-east: one ICB spent over £260 per child, while another spent just over £100. Only 32% of ICBs could even say how many children accessed hospice care in their region. This gap in data must be filled.
The announcement this morning suggested that funding being distributed via ICBs would tackle the postcode lottery issue, but the results of these FOI requests suggest that there is an awfully long way to go. How will the Minister ensure that ICBs commission children’s hospice services equitably? What guidance will they be given to ensure that these vast variations in support are eliminated?
If I can emphasise one thing, it is that people are the beating heart of the hospice movement. Highly qualified specialists, passionate volunteers and generous donors all make the seemingly impossible happen, but the work- force is in crisis. Incredibly, there are only 24 full-time equivalent paediatric palliative medicine specialists serving the entire UK, when we know the need is for at least 40 to 60. If we followed the guidelines of the Royal College of Nursing, we would have nearly 5,000 community children’s nurses; right now, we have under 1,000. The professionals who care for our sickest children are being stretched to breaking point.
I urge the Minister and the Government to build on today’s announcement by first fixing the broken commissioning system. We must instruct NHS England and the Department to model what each local NHS body should be spending on palliative care and to hold them accountable. We must commission services at regional and national levels, where appropriate, to create economies of scale, and we must use the new pan-ICB commissioning offices to ensure consistent and equitable access to care across England.
Secondly, we must tackle workforce shortages and invest an additional £2.4 million per year in GRID and SPIN training for paediatric palliative medicine. We must fund and implement safe staffing ratios for nurses and aim to employ the 4,960 community nurses that England truly needs.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. An amazing children’s hospice that serves constituents in my patch is Demelza, which has an amazing array of staff, volunteers and the rest, including Queen’s nurses such as Donna Mole. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Donna on being a recipient of that award? Will she also congratulate the fabulous Fia, one of the children served by the hospice, on a book that she has written, and will she encourage the Minister to order a copy?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for celebrating the work of Queen’s nurses and fabulous Fia for what she has done in writing a book—I am not sure that I could do that. It is truly impressive, and I am happy to encourage the Minister to buy the book; it sounds like I had better buy it too.
This is about real children like fabulous Fia. It is about real families and real suffering that could be eased. Children’s hospices provide £3.32 of care for every £1 invested by the state, which is extraordinary value, so they deserve more support. These children deserve dignity, comfort and skilled care, and their families deserve the support that only children’s hospices can offer.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
My hon. Friend has brought forward a critical debate on children’s hospices. While we are looking at children’s hospices, let me say that this issue is also critical for adult hospices. In South Cambridgeshire, we have the fabulous Arthur Rank hospice, which at the moment is looking toward the cutting of its adult hospice beds. The outcry from constituents and members is huge. Does my hon. Friend agree that the ICBs could look at strategic commissioning of that care across both adult and children’s hospice beds?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for the campaigning she is doing with her colleagues on Arthur Rank hospice in Cambridgeshire, and she is right. When I went to visit Chestnut Tree House in Sussex last week, I saw that it is talking to adult hospices in the area about where that more strategic view can happen.
These children deserve dignity, comfort and skilled care, and their families deserve the support that only children’s hospices can offer. Will this Government truly support the vision laid out in the NHS 10-year plan in which neighbourhood health centres, hospitals and hospices work together to deliver high-quality end-of-life care in the community, or will we continue to let these vital services be ignored, underfunded and unconnected? There is an opportunity for more action than that in this morning’s announcement and for a longer-term commitment. I urge the Minister to do what is necessary and right and ensure that no child is left without the care and dignity that they deserve.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this vital debate. I also thank all those who work or volunteer in the palliative care and end-of-life care sector for their care and support—the compassion that they provide to patients, families and loved ones when they need it most.
This Government want a society in which every child receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life, irrespective of condition or geographical location. In England, integrated care boards are responsible for the commissioning of palliative care and end-of-life care services to meet the needs of their local populations. To support ICBs in that duty, NHS England has published statutory guidance and service specifications. It has also developed a palliative care and end-of-life care dashboard, which brings together all relevant local data in one place. That dashboard helps commissioners to understand the palliative care and end-of-life care needs of their local population.
While the majority of palliative care and end-of-life care is provided by NHS staff and services, we recognise the vital part that voluntary sector organisations, including hospices, also play in providing support to people at the end of life and their loved ones. In recognition of this, we are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million capital funding boost for eligible adult and children and young people’s hospices in England, to ensure they have the best physical environment for care. I am pleased that the first £25 million tranche of that funding, which Hospice UK kindly allocated and distributed to hospices throughout England, was fully spent by hospices on capital projects. An additional £75 million has been transferred to Hospice UK for onward allocation to individual hospices for use in the 2025-26 financial year, and I know that many hospices are already spending that funding this year.
Hospices in London and the south-east are receiving over £28 million of that £100 million capital funding. That includes over £4 million for children and young people’s hospices in London and the south-east. We are also providing £26 million in revenue funding to support children and young people’s hospices for 2025-26. This is a continuation of the funding that, until recently, was known as the children and young people’s hospice grant. Children and young people’s hospices in London and the south-east are receiving almost £8.5 million of that £26 million of revenue funding.
As confirmed in my written ministerial statement laid earlier today, I am delighted and proud to be in a position to announce that we will continue that centrally administered funding for the next three years of this spending review period. That includes the 2026-27 to 2028-29 financial years, as well as 2025-26. Each year, children and young people’s hospices in England will receive at least £26 million—adjusted for inflation—from NHS England via their local ICBs. This amounts to at least £78 million over the next three years to support hospice care for children and young people, mirroring current and previous years’ transaction arrangements. By doing this, we are promoting a more consistent national approach and supporting commissioners to prioritise the palliative care and end-of-life care needs of their local population. Further details on the delivery of this funding will follow in due course.
This Government’s commitment to provide that much-needed funding until the end of the spending review period recognises that the ability to plan for the long term is vital to our children and young people’s hospices. I am proud that this Government have removed the cliff edge of annual funding cycles, so that our children and young people’s hospices will now be able to operate on the basis of far greater certainty and stability.
Alison Bennett
I agree that increasing the time period covered by this grant to children’s hospices to three years will really help. Can the Minister comment on whether there are plans to do the same for the adult hospice sector?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady will know that children’s hospices are in a different situation from adult hospices: there has always been a centralised grant for children’s hospices, whereas the funding for adult hospices goes through ICBs and is part of the broader budgeting and commissioning process. Clearly, we will need to set an overall financial framework for adult hospices. We are currently going through the final stages of negotiations, both with the Treasury and within the Department of Health and Social Care, to finalise the financial envelopes and allocations for each part of my portfolio and the portfolios of my ministerial colleagues.
Although the investment is important, there are big opportunities around reform. A lot more needs to be done around the early identification of people in need of palliative care and people reaching the end of life. The interface between hospitals, hospices and primary care is nowhere near where it needs to be. A big part of our neighbourhood health strategy will therefore be about how we ensure that hospices have a strong voice at the table in the holistic integrated planning that is such an important part of the journey. The hon. Lady made some powerful points about that in her speech, and we are looking at the issue as we speak. I am meeting officials to determine how to reform the system. It is not just about the money, but about how the system works. We think that there is huge room for improvement.
I was truly inspired to visit Noah’s Ark children’s hospice in Barnet yesterday to understand the key issues that it is facing and see how our three-year funding commitment will support it to continue delivering essential palliative care and end-of-life care services to children and young people in its community. When I chatted to the chief executive yesterday, it was very clear how pleased she is to have some stability and certainty in planning the staffing and the services provided at Noah’s Ark. It is a wonderful place; I pay tribute to everybody who works there, and to the families.
We recognise the challenges facing the palliative care and end-of-life care sector, particularly hospices. The Department and NHS England are looking at how to improve the access, quality and sustainability of all-age palliative care and end-of-life care, in line with our 10-year health plan. The Government and the NHS will closely monitor the shift towards strategic commissioning of palliative care and end-of-life care services to ensure that services reduce variation in access and quality, although some variation may be appropriate to reflect both innovation and the needs of local populations. Officials will present further proposals to me over the coming months, outlining the drivers and incentives that are required in palliative care and end-of-life care to enable the shift from hospital to community, including as part of neighbourhood health teams.
Furthermore, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Department is investing £3 million in a policy research unit in palliative and end-of-life care. The unit launched in January 2024 and is building the evidence base on palliative care and end-of-life care, with a specific focus on inequalities and on ironing out the regional variations to which the hon. Lady rightly pointed.
I hope that those measures and our plans reassure hon. Members of this Government’s rock-solid commitment to building a sustainable palliative care and end-of-life care sector for the long term. Alongside key partners, NHS England and others will continue to engage proactively with our stakeholders, including the voluntary sector and independent hospices, to understand the issues that they face. We will continue working with NHS England in supporting ICBs to effectively commission the palliative care and end-of-life care needed by their local populations. I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for bringing this vital issue to the House, as well as to all hon. Members who have intervened in the debate and are passionately committed to it on behalf of their constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 16th October 2025
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 October 2025 - (16 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices or turn them to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, as well as on the parliamentary website. I remind Members who wish to speak that they should bob to catch my eye. If a Member wishes to press to a Division an amendment that is not the lead amendment or new clause in a group, they must inform me in advance, or I will skip straight past it. My fellow Chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following a debate on relevant amendments. I hope that that explanation is helpful to the Committee.
Clause 20
Extension of general power of competence to strategic authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Since its introduction via the Localism Act 2011, the general power of competence has given local authorities the legal capacity to do anything that an individual can do that is not specifically prohibited in law. It has allowed local authorities to undertake a wider range of activities and reduced the need for the Government to issue legal clarifications or new legislative instruments.
Extending the power to all mayoral and established mayoral strategic authorities will bring consistency to the current landscape and ensure parity with local authorities, providing them with the same broad enabling power to do creative and innovative things in delivering for their communities. Foundation strategic authorities will also be permitted to exercise this general power of competence for the purpose of economic development and regeneration. This will ensure that areas can benefit from devolution.
The Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London will not receive the general power of competence. Instead, they will continue to rely on the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which provides a similarly broad general power that has served successive mayors well. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and to resume consideration of the Bill.
The Opposition are proud that the general power of competence was introduced when we were in government during the coalition years. It was something that I, as a serving local authority councillor at the time, lobbied hard for. The then Secretary of State, now Lord Pickles, was very receptive to the view that local authorities should have a greater remit, rather than being constrained to do those things that they were specifically permitted to do by law.
I have a question of clarification for the Minister. She said that the general power of competence could be exercised for economic purposes. Will the authorities have the full general power of competence, or will the power be constrained to a specific set of mayoral functions? Constraining it would not be entirely consistent with what was said in previous proceedings about the use of precepts.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
For mayoral strategic authorities, it will be the full general power of competence, but for foundation strategic authorities, at the single tier level, it will be exercised in the context of economic development and regeneration; the constituent local authority that makes that foundation strategic authority already has the wider general power of competence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 21
Power of mayors to convene meetings with local partners
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 21, page 23, line 28, leave out subsection (b) and insert—
“(b) one or more of the following—
(i) health and social care;
(ii) planning;
(iii) environmental concerns;
(iv) funding;
(v) sustainability measures;
(vi) education;
(vii) transport provision and
(viii) green and community spaces.”.
This amendment ensures that mayors must consider specific community matters when consulting with local partners.
In previous contributions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I have made clear the importance of decision making at the lowest possible level. I welcome the explicit provision on convening meetings with partners.
On clause 20, the Minister talked about the breadth of issues that come under the general power of competence and the scope and interest of combined authorities and mayors. We are concerned that the wording in clause 21 on the topics about which meetings can be convened is too narrow, as it is restricted to the items in clause 2.
There should be an ability to convene meetings at a strategic level about matters that are not covered there, such as education. Where skills are within the remit of the strategic authority, and education remains the remit of the constituent parts, the impact and the opportunities available would be across the strategic area.
There is also a concern that while the Bill provides the opportunity to convene meetings and consult, share and partner, it does not provide any sense of obligation for a mayor to do so where others are involved. We would like to see more of an obligation on mayors, rather than a sense of, “Let’s hope they do; if they don’t, never mind.”
The amendment seeks to broaden the scope of clause 21 beyond the items listed in clause 2. I am looking for some assurance that the Minister will be interested in broadening the clause so that we get a meaningful sense of two-way discussion, where the mayor is part of that area conversation.
David Simmonds
The Opposition are not entirely persuaded of the argument for this amendment, although the point is well made. We will be listening attentively to what the Minister has to say.
We are always very conscious that there is a risk with this legislation of creating conflicts. I know you have done a lot of work in the past in the field of education, Mr Stuart; we have seen that the well-intentioned education policy of school autonomy can come into conflict with the statutory duties placed on a local authority. We need to ensure that is resolved. As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, education is a good example of where conflict can crop up—for example, a university technical college is part of the skills economy, but is also, for the purposes of the Bill, a school. There is a need to ensure that all those statutory duties are squared off.
Although we are not persuaded of the need for the amendment, we would like to hear what the Minister has to say so that we can be confident that those points have been fully taken into account.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for her amendment. I am not sure that, as drafted, it achieves the intended effect. The Bill already defines the meaning of a relevant local matter as one that occurs within the geographical boundary of a strategic authority and relates to one or more of the areas of competence set out in clause 2. The areas of competence are deliberately broad to allow for a wide range of activities to fall within scope. However, the amendment would remove the existing references to skills and employment support, economic development and regeneration, climate change, public service reform and public safety. That risks inadvertently constraining the matters on which a mayor may convene meetings with local partners.
On the specific point about the dialogue needing to be two-way, I refer the hon. Member to the evidence we heard in the context of the Greater Manchester combined authority. Ultimately, for the mayor to have impact and traction, and to deliver, they must work with key partners, because ultimately those partners are the delivery arm of any strategic intent of the mayor. That requires two-way engagement and a two-way conversation. While we have not locked that in explicitly in the way that the hon. Member suggests in her amendment, that is fundamentally the principle that sits behind the way a mayor ought to work.
Vikki Slade
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 21, page 23, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 252 of LURA 2023 (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (5)(a), after “subsection” insert “(8)(aa) or;
(b) in subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) under section 17B(5);”.”.
This provides that regulations made under new section 17B of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (mayoral power to convene meetings with local partners), as inserted by clause 21 of the Bill, are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This Government have committed to empowering mayors to make the right decisions for their local communities—a thing that runs through every aspect of the Bill. The new power to convene meetings with local partners and the corresponding duty on those partners to respond to any meeting requests will strengthen the ability of the mayor to drive local action. The use of the negative procedure provides an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for the regulations. The amendments will enable us to efficiently deliver the legislative framework needed to support our mayors to effectively use their powers to engage local partners and deliver for their local communities.
David Simmonds
We have concerns about these measures; I will briefly explain why. As we have seen in the passage of the Bill so far, much of what is proposed for mayors will cut across different Government Departments. It could have financial and legal implications for constituent authorities, and there is plenty of scope for disputes to arise, not least where there might be different political control across different authorities. Our concern is that if we go down the route of using the negative procedure, there is a risk that the awareness of the issues in government will not be triggered and that what we will, in fact, be doing is setting up the authorities to fail by not having the appropriate procedures for getting the issues resolved at the first point where they arise, rather than waiting until they are the subject of disputes in the courts. So we are not content that this is the best way to address the issue.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand the hon. Member’s concern. The process is an iterative one. Strategic authorities do not operate in a vacuum. They are in constant conversation with the Government. We have set up the mayoral council as a way for us to have that conversation and dialogue. The fundamental role of national Government is to ensure that our mayors succeed. If issues arise in the way that we are seeing with existing mayoral authorities, there is a space for conversations and mechanisms for those issues to be resolved. I do not think we need an onerous legislative and regulatory procedure to resolve that. The amendment looks at the duty to convene the relevant partners. That matters where the mayor has a mandate to do something, but it requires them to bring lots of different partners around the table to deliver that. We are seeing mayors using their soft power. We have created an additional power to enable them to perform that vital function.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: 85, in clause 21, page 24, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 117 of LDEDCA 2009 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3)(a), after “order” insert “or regulations”.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This provides that any regulations made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 that are not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. This will include regulations under new section 103B (mayoral power to convene meetings with local partners), as inserted by Clause 21 of the Bill, and section 107N (public authorities: duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities), as inserted by Schedule 19 to the Bill
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 295, in clause 21, page 24, line 27, leave out subsection 3.
This amendment would remove the requirement on local partners to respond to a meeting request from the Mayor.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 294, in clause 21, page 24, line 35, leave out from “specified” to end of line and insert “by the Mayor;”
This amendment would give Mayors, instead of the Secretary of State, the power to define the meaning of a local partner.
David Simmonds
The purpose of the amendments is to continue a theme that we have woven throughout our amendments to the Bill: to ensure that this is genuine devolution and that it is the mayor and local authority that make the decisions rather than the Secretary of State. There seems to be an inherent contradiction. We are talking about a devolution Bill that increases the decision-making powers of the Secretary of State to determine what goes on in each local area. The amendments seek to ensure that it is the mayor—the elected local person, of whom we have heard a great deal—who makes the decisions, and that where disputes arise, where one of the local partners feels it is not appropriate to respond to a meeting, there is provision in the legislation for that to happen. I think particularly about how the previous debate is relevant to this one.
If we look at the situation in London, the mayor has decided to spend a proportion of the mayoral precept on funding free school meals, but has not funded them sufficiently, so local authorities are faced with bills for making schoolteachers redundant because of budget shortfalls caused by that mayoral decision. There needs to be a process for resolving such issues. Simply assuming that everyone will have a meeting and that that will resolve it will not resolve those kinds of hard-edged issues. We need to make sure that local discretion works in practice and that it is not simply a matter of the Secretary of State dictating it from Whitehall.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
On the subject of local partners, could the Minister confirm that the intention here is to include private sector organisations as local partners? I am keen to see mayors make the most of this power, being able to use it to ensure that conversations can take place with, for example, large local employers or anchor companies to create economic alignment, or developers and utility companies to deal with issues during development.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to my hon. Friend’s question, and then I will address the amendments. It absolutely does apply to anchor organisations—the key people we would expect to have around the table for particular issues. We expect it to be private sector, although I think the power of direction might be a bit weaker for the mayor in that context. In order to advance an issue, it will be for the mayor to be clear about the partners that they need around the table, both private and public, and to bring them around the table. The experience of mayors has been that most of this is done voluntarily, because most partners in a place want to work together to deliver the outcome for their people. This provides an additional tool that the mayor can draw on in instances where, for whatever reason, partners are not automatically willing to come around the table.
Turning to the amendments, first, I want to flag that as drafted, they are focused on the Mayor of London. We believe they introduce an inconsistency between the powers of the Mayor of London and his counterparts elsewhere in England. They also run contrary to a central aim of the Bill, which is to standardise and simplify the legislative framework for devolution across England, including London. Clause 21 includes a power for the mayor to convene meetings with local partners on relevant local matters, and amendment 295 seeks to remove the corresponding requirement on local partners to respond. The power is designed to enable a mayor to bring the right people around the table; it is not an enforceable call-in power. That is not what we are proposing here; rather, it is aimed at empowering a mayor to work with local partners to drive delivery and better outcomes for their communities. Members will see that the requirement on local partners is proportionate and not overly burdensome. It does not obligate partners to engage or collaborate, but it requires them to respond to requests from a mayor. We hope that that triggers a process where most parties will be willing to engage or move forward.
Amendment 294 would allow the Mayor of London to specify local partners where other mayors should not, which would lead to a piecemeal and unclear definition of local partners, risking confusion at all level. Defining local partners in regulation allows for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and will provide a single, coherent definition across England that can be understood by both mayors and local partners.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I understand what she is saying, but we have seen a contradiction from the Government on Second Reading as well as in Committee. Is the meaning that they want to go a full devolution power and have mayors in power to make decisions for their local people? I think it is accepted that, across different geographical areas, there will be different local partners, so why are the Government being so prescriptive and removing the role of the mayor to govern their own corresponding responsibilities?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The regulation, when drafted, will be permissive, because we recognise that it will be different in different places. Through the regulation, we are trying to ensure that it is proportionate. We are also trying to make sure that the scope is drawn as broadly as possible in a way that makes sense for the mayor. I come back to the point that this is not a compulsion to be around the table; it is to trigger a process that means that if a public utility is required around the table, they have to engage. Even if the engagement is to say no which we would hope it would not be, it forces a process of engagement. We think that gives the mayor an additional tool to get the right people around the table to drive the change they want to see.
David Simmonds
My major concern is that it sounds like a mess. We can easily imagine situations, given the diverse job of the mayors and some of the ambitions envisaged for them as part of the legislation, where there will be a high degree of confusion about what is expected of whom and who has what obligations.
To simply say that it will be the subject of a permissive regulation when drafted seriously risks setting this up to fail, particularly when it comes to the envisaged economic partnerships. The Committee has not seen that regulation, and has no idea how it will work in practice at a local level.
We will push these amendments to a vote, which is all we can do at this stage. I am sure we will return to this issue during the later passage of the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
New clause 19—Duty on mayors to establish a citizens’ assembly—
“(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘17C Duty to establish a citizens’ assembly
(1) The mayor for an area of a CCA must establish a deliberative citizen’s assembly (“the assembly”) within six months beginning on the day of their election.
(2) The purpose of the assembly is to inform strategic decision making on relevant local matters.
(3) The assembly must comprise at least 40 persons from the area of the CCA, who are—
(a) selected by sortition or lottery, and
(b) representative of the population of the local authority area.
(4) “Relevant local matters” are such matters as the mayor may specify with the agreement of the assembly.
(5) The mayor must make arrangements for—
(a) the assembly to convene within one year beginning on the day on which the mayor is first elected, and at least once per year thereafter; and
(b) the establishment of a regular consultation process with the assembly in addition to its convening under paragraph (2)(a);
(6) The mayor must—
(a) take into account any recommendation made by the assembly either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation; and
(b) publish a response to any such recommendation within two months beginning on the day on which the mayor first receives the recommendation.’
(2) After section 103A of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘103C Duty to establish a citizens’ assembly
(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must establish a deliberative citizen’s assembly (“the assembly”) within six months beginning on the day of their election.
(2) The purpose of the assembly is to inform strategic decision making on relevant local matters.
(3) The assembly must comprise at least 40 persons from the area of the combined authority, who are—
(a) selected by sortition of lottery, and
(b) representative of the population of the local authority area.
(4) “Relevant local matters” are such matters as the mayor may specify with the agreement of the assembly.
(5) The mayor must make arrangements for—
(a) the assembly to convene within one year beginning on the day on which the mayor is first elected, and at least once per year thereafter; and
(b) the establishment of a regular consultation process with the assembly in addition to its convening under paragraph (2)(a).
(6) The mayor must—
(a) take into account any recommendation made by the assembly either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation; and
(b) publish a response to any such recommendation within two months beginning on the day on which the mayor first receives the recommendation.’
(3) After section 40A of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 15 of this Act) insert—
‘103C Duty to establish a citizens’ assembly
(1) The mayor must establish a deliberative citizen’s assembly (“the assembly”).
(2) The purpose of the assembly is to inform strategic decision making on relevant local matters.
(3) The assembly must comprise at least 64 persons, who are—
(a) selected by sortition or lottery, and
(b) one of whom must live in each London borough.
(4) “Relevant local matters” are such matters as the mayor may specify with the agreement of the assembly.
(5) The mayor must make arrangements for—
(a) the assembly to convene within one year beginning on the day on which the mayor is first elected, and at least once per year thereafter; and
(b) the establishment of a regular consultation process with the assembly in addition to its convening under paragraph (2)(a).
(6) The mayor must—
(a) take into account any recommendation made by the assembly either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation; and
(b) publish a response to any such recommendation within two months beginning on the day on which the mayor first receives the recommendation.’
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify—
(a) the period by which the Mayor of London must appoint a deliberative citizen’s assembly, and
(b) any necessary further provision relating to deliberative citizens’ assemblies.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.” —(Siân Berry.)
This new clause creates a duty on mayors to convene a citizens' assembly consisting of local people within the first year of their election and at least once annually after this, with an additional, non-legally binding duty to take account of the recommendations from the citizens' assembly, as well as defining the term “citizens' assembly”.
New clause 42—Power of mayors to convene meetings with local public service providers and government—
“(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘17C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a CCA must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) Meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(2) After section 103B of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘103C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) Meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(3) After section 40B of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘40C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The Mayor must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) Meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This amendment would require mayors of combined authorities, mayors of CCAs, and the Mayor of London to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 21 will ensure that mayors have the means to drive effective engagement across the communities to generate economic prosperity. We have already talked about local partners playing a vital role in this process, and in helping mayors to address shared challenges and seize opportunities, but to be very clear—I stress this again—the clause does not oblige local partners to support matters they oppose. Rather, it creates a duty to respond to a mayor’s request to meet or engage on an issue, facilitating constructive dialogue even where there may be disagreement.
Mayors have a powerful local voice—we know that; we see it across the country where there are mayors—but that soft power does not always allow them to drive forward change. The clause strengthens a mayor’s existing soft power and encourages collaboration with local partners, so they can drive growth in and deliver improvement to their communities.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. New clause 42 would make it a legal duty for mayors to hold regular meetings with local councils in their area; with service providers such as the NHS, police or transport bodies; and with town and parish councils. The power to convene would become a mandatory duty to convene. In particular, parish and town councils are included on the list of bodies that local mayors are required to convene meetings with.
I used to be a parish councillor, so I know the important role that these rural councils play and the many services that they deliver. They also stepped up socially during the covid pandemic, including setting up food-share schemes and referring people to food banks if they lost their job. Town councils are also important. For example, a town council in my constituency has been fostering important community projects. One of the initiatives is working with local businesses to make Alcester a neurodivergent-friendly town—a town for all.
These councils are invaluable partners for combined authorities and mayors in the shires. Engaging with such bodies means that the combined authority and the mayor have direct insight into local issues. Put simply, the new clause would ensure that mayors regularly bring together local authorities and public services to co-ordinate on shared priorities and improve co-operation across the region.
In rural areas such as my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, parish and town councils, as we have already discussed, are the first tier of local government. Mayors should include these important councils as partners and consult them on a range of issues. We must create a regular, structured forum for dialogue between all the key players in local government and public services.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
To clarify, the suggestion in the new clause is that town and parish councils will meet the mayor once every 12 months. My constituency, which has 80 parish councils, would be part of a Thames valley mayoralty—let us call it that—that would have even more constituencies. How many days of not meeting parish councils will there be for the mayor?
Manuela Perteghella
These councils need to have a voice at the table of decision makers. The hon. Member has also been a parish councillor, if I remember properly from our last debate, so he knows how important they are as stakeholders in their local communities. There is a way of making this convening duty less cumbersome on the mayor. To be fair, though, if someone stands to be the mayor of 1.2 million people, they have a responsibility towards all of their communities.
Paul Holmes
I do not want the hon. Lady to look so disheartened, because I am about to agree with her. She looked horrified that I was intervening on her.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we share a concern about town and parish councils being consulted. However, does she not think that the new clause is slightly over-egging the pudding? If a mayor was worth their weight in gold, or accountable to their constituents, it would be in their own interest—in the interest of them staying in their job—to meet those people anyway. I wonder whether she thinks that the new clause may be too prescriptive.
Regarding the plan to have meetings once every 12 months, that would be perfectly achievable by meeting all the town and parish councils on the same day. To answer the hon. Member for Banbury, there would be 364 days when mayors would be able to meet other people.
Manuela Perteghella
I do not think we are seeing that at the moment. We are not seeing it with metro mayors or combined authorities, so that is why we would like to see a mandatory duty to convene.
Mayors wield significant powers over transport, housing, skills and regeneration, and it is imperative that local councils and community representatives are included in conversations about how such powers are used. New clause 42 would also promote joined-up public service delivery, because regular meetings with all stakeholders, including the first tier of councils and local services, will eventually result in better co-ordination on cross-cutting issues, which could be regional.
The measure would also—I will say this again and again—strengthen accountability and transparency in this new, exciting, revolutionary programme. Residents should be able to see that their local leaders are meeting openly and regularly, working together on the priorities that matter most to their communities. The new clause would ensure that. Fundamentally, the point of devolution is to bring power and decision making closer to the people whose lives are directly affected by those decisions.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart—my huge apologies for arriving late to proceedings.
I want principally to talk about new clause 19, in my name, which sets out a duty on mayors to establish a citizens assembly. It would place on the mayor of a strategic authority a duty to convene, within the first year of their election and at least once annually after that, a citizens assembly consisting of local people. There would be an additional non-legally binding duty to take account of the recommendations of the citizens assembly. The new clause defines the term “citizens assembly”, and its account of the method of selection and the need to be representative of the local community are taken from descriptions of citizens assemblies that have already been commissioned by Parliament, including on climate change.
A lot needs to be done to the Bill to help it live up to its title. There is a real need for this kind of empowerment.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
In a certain way, the citizens assembly is the electorate, and there is an election for mayors. Why does the hon. Lady feel the need for more engagement and more citizens assemblies, when there is a ballot and a free and fair election?
Siân Berry
I take the hon. Member’s intervention in good spirit. I will talk about the ability of a standing citizens assembly not simply to react—even voting, at the end of a mayor’s term, is a reactive act—but to consider and make proposals. Mechanisms for getting ground-up proposals from the local community are lacking in the Bill.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
For clarification, when the mayor is not meeting one of the 80 parish and town councils, they would be meeting a citizens assembly. Can the hon. Lady give an example of any precedent, anywhere, of a mayor meeting with and reporting to a citizens assembly, or is this a new proposal?
Siân Berry
The hon. Member asks about the mayor meeting the citizens assembly, which misunderstands what a citizens assembly does. It does not ever have to see the mayor if it does not want to. It is there, in its own right, to consider things. I will explain more about how they work in a moment—
Siân Berry
No, because I need to get to end of my sentence. I intend to explain how citizens assemblies are different.
Citizens assemblies are not town hall meetings, and they are not a method for the public to hold the mayor to account. They are a completely different part of democracy, and have been very successful. I mentioned that Parliament has convened one on climate change. We have also seen them used successfully to consider knotty issues in other countries, such as changing to marriage laws to be more inclusive. Where, at the political level, an issue is contentious and divisive, a citizens assembly sitting and considering it can come to quite sensible recommendations—taking politics out of it. It is a good way to build communities of democratic citizens. We know that people who take part in citizens assemblies and have their voices listened to go on to greater engagement and participation in political life.
The method of selection is essentially sortition or lottery. These are people who are akin to a jury—often they are called citizens juries—who are selected as uninterested people, so far, in the issue to be considered. They convene and set their own agenda. They will hear and request evidence. They will hear from people directly affected and potentially from experts. The agenda is driven by them. They then make recommendations. There is no requirement for the mayor to be involved in the process at all, in terms of their time, but the new clause suggests that the mayor should take account of the recommendations when they have been put together in such a careful way.
The new clause also suggests that the agenda of what would be a standing citizens assembly would be discussed and agreed between the mayor and the citizens assembly as it goes forward.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I am a Labour party member, so I love a meeting that is a talking shop—anyone who has ever been to a constituency Labour party meeting will know exactly what my experience has been. The idea behind a citizens assembly is really positive—empowering people—but I see a couple of challenges. First, on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee we looked at how we get community empowerment, and we could not find a single piece of evidence that said that standing citizens assemblies actually make a difference. They become a talking shop. Could the hon. Member give us an example of where a citizens assembly has successfully happened? That would give some precedence and make it more than just a great idea.
Siân Berry
That is a good question. Certainly, the evidence from the citizens assembly that was commissioned by Parliament to look at climate change has been extensively used by the Climate Change Committee when thinking about what interventions in climate policy would work and be more successful. I would enjoy it if more councils put together citizens assemblies on things like traffic reduction policies, because often it is the loudest voices, who are already empowered to talk in public, who are listened to most on such issues.
The closest comparison is to a jury. People respond incredibly well, individually, to being part of a citizens assembly—to the idea that they can consider the issue in the way that they choose as a group and to the way that their recommendations are then listened to. It is empowering. The fact that the title of the Bill has empowerment in it has prompted me to want to talk about citizens assemblies.
Vikki Slade
I am really sympathetic to the idea of citizens assemblies. In fact, when I was at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, we looked at how we could create something that was representative of different types of community—a quasi-citizens assembly—including carers, young people and employers, to get more genuine breadth. Having looked at citizens assemblies, the cost per assembly can be hundreds of thousands of pounds. Within the hon. Member’s vision for the new clause, does she have any idea of what the costs might be? Those might need to be balanced.
Siân Berry
When I was a local councillor, we spent tens of thousands of pounds on a citizens assembly—again, that was to look at climate measures and issues around reducing traffic and air pollution. I believe it is good value.
Sean Woodcock
As a Cherwell district councillor I was very keen on promoting citizens assemblies for the purpose of discussing climate change, but that is not the only thing that people might want to gather to talk about. Is the assumption that the subject would be prescribed by the mayor, or would it be okay for a citizens assembly to get together to discuss the death penalty, immigration or whatever? Could the hon. Lady clarify that?
Siân Berry
The new clause specifies that an assembly would consider “relevant local matters” and that those are matters that would be agreed between the mayor and the assembly. Any sensible body would want to be considering issues that are soon to be the subject of decisions by the mayor—that would make perfect sense.
I will cite some polling to show that the public do not have much of a problem understanding this concept. When asked by YouGov in 2023, 55% of people said they would trust a citizens assembly to make policy recommendations in their “best interest”. That compares with 14% of people trusting MPs. In May 2024, YouGov asked the public if they would trust a citizens assembly “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to tell them the truth. Fifty-nine per cent said they would, compared with 17% of people who would trust MPs. Hon. Members can see that this is something that the public respond positively to.
Certainly a mayor who is governing a very large area and seeking to win consent for a policy would do well to have put in place a process of consideration by a citizens assembly. I hope that good mayors out there would use the process to engage citizens as part of wider consultation measures, to get comments on their proposals from people directly affected and a representative sample of the local public.
The proposal is supported by Compass, which I worked with in drafting it. In its “From Whitehall to Townhall: What the English Devolution Bill Needs” report published in August, Dr Jess Garland wrote:
“Across the country, councils have used citizens assemblies to understand local priorities on issues from climate to neighbourhood policing. These practices engage a randomly selected and representative group of residents in the decision-making process, learning about the challenges and trade-offs, and coming to decisions collectively. Such measures aim not to replace representative political structures but to support and add credibility to them, helping tackle difficult issues and improve understanding of local priorities, but they have a wider benefit, helping to build the trust and connection that underpins a thriving democracy.”
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to new clause 19 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I wholly respect the reasons why she tabled it. However, I intend to speak against it, because of the burdens that it would place on the mayor, as well as some of the additional costs that it would introduce, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole intimated.
I should declare at the very beginning that I am a firm believer in democracy. Just as my party does when it puts itself forward to run this country and I stand for election, everyone who wishes to be a mayor will put before their electorate a manifesto, and if those manifestos are worth the paper they are written on, they will state very clearly what that mayoral candidate intends to do during their term. Occasionally, the Labour party adds things that were not in its manifesto, or possibly drops things that were in it, but a prospective mayor’s manifesto should be very clear about what they want to do for their residents.
Therefore, residents who engage with the electoral process—granted, turnout needs to be higher—will know very clearly what the winner was promising, whether they disagree with them or not. I am accountable to my constituents. A mayor will be accountable to their constituents. What is the point of establishing another body that chooses to meet when it wants and, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion said, might not even need to meet the mayor?
Siân Berry
I agree that a citizens assembly is not about accountability, but would the hon. Member care to comment on the issues that I raised about trust and consent for policies that are being put forward for implementation?
Paul Holmes
I will—that is called an election. That is my point. I understand that the hon. Lady comes at this from a genuine position—I hope she accepts that I do, too—but the accountability and trust element is a general election, or an election for the role of mayor, at which they will be held accountable for whether they have committed to and, more importantly, delivered what they said they would do. That is the key process, and key accountability structure, of the Bill.
Although new clause 19 is very well drafted, it would place a huge cost burden on the new authority, or the mayor, to establish a citizens assembly, not to mention the administrative burden of selecting 40 people from the area “by sortition or lottery”. Although I do not believe in prescriptive legislation, I think that the new clause would be open to interpretation in many different ways and would add huge costs to the operation of the authority or the mayor, at a time when it is generally accepted that the public finances are not in the way they should be. The mayor must not be overburdened in delivering their key priorities and strategic aims by the additional expenditure that would be required.
Vikki Slade
I think there is absolutely a role for citizens assemblies. What does the hon. Member think about asking the Minister to look at a role for citizens assemblies but without the prescription about 40 people? In an area of 1.2 million people, 40 would not be representative; we might want to make it much bigger or have it convene on an ad hoc basis. We might want to create something in the legislation, but possibly not what is proposed.
Paul Holmes
The suggestion fills me with horror—I am open in saying that it fills me with utter dread. The electoral process is the point. The hackles on my neck stand up when the words “citizens assembly” are mentioned because we have the electoral processes. Already, every day, people out there in our communities form groups and challenge the mayor. Every day in this job, we are lobbied by groups with well-intentioned policy aims.
Siân Berry
Has the hon. Member considered the occasional lack of involvement in those groups by a genuine cross-section of the community, and how a citizens assembly could directly address that problem?
Paul Holmes
I think that most campaigning groups are filled with people who are utterly enthralled and want to achieve the outcomes of that group. It is a bit of a generalisation to say that there is not a proper cross-section of the community in those groups, because those people are motivated by an interest and an issue that affects them and their lives every day.
The cost and the administrative burden really concern me. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion outlined that new clause 19 would not necessarily force the mayor to engage with the citizens assembly—I believe she said that it “suggests” they should do so—but the new clause clearly states:
“The mayor must…take into account any recommendation made by the assembly either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation; and…publish a response to any such recommendation within two months beginning on the day on which the mayor first receives the recommendation.”
That is a very different proposition.
Siân Berry
As I understand it, the drafting means that recommendations could be made by the assembly
“either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation”.
Paul Holmes
Subsection (6) of the new clause’s proposed new sections clearly states the words I quoted, which include:
“The mayor must…take into account”.
Therefore, what the hon. Lady has said about what the new clause would establish is not necessarily correct. I believe that it would overburden the mayor in his day-to-day role.
I hope that those who read the Hansard report tomorrow will see clearly that I am very much not in favour of citizens assemblies. If a citizens assembly wants to get in touch with me, I will make that very clear. I am not against scrutiny or accountability and I am certainly not against constituents getting in touch with me to suggest how they can make their area better—that is why I am in politics. We all do that every day.
Every mayor, including the Mayor of London and hopefully the Mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, when that role is established, is a politician who is accountable to their electorate. The new clause would overburden the role of the mayor at a time when finances are already tight. I oppose it, and I hope that my party spokesman will too.
David Simmonds
I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend—he has not been nearly vocal enough in expressing the level of his concern.
The faults in new clause 19 are multiple. It would compel mayors, in a Bill that is supposed to be about devolution. Having spent a part of my life engaged with deliberative democracy and citizens assemblies, I agree with my hon. Friend. While I am sure they were an uplifting experience for all concerned, they achieved absolutely nothing. They wasted a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. If we reflect on the previous Labour Government’s Local Agenda 21, all the money was spent on meetings to discuss what to do about climate change, and there was nothing available to implement any of it. On Building Schools for the Future, years were spent on consultations and project planning, with not one brick laid and not one school roof repaired as a consequence. We have seen lots of examples where these kinds of processes have led citizens up the garden path.
The point about trust and consent is an important one. I reflect on my own party’s experience in government during the pandemic of low-traffic neighbourhoods. A vocal minority argued for them, but did not remotely gain the trust and consent of the affected residents. That sparked a backlash, which has led to their removal, at great expense to the taxpayer, in order to enable people to go about their daily lives. Our experience with these processes is quite negative. If a mayor wishes to implement such a process, in particular on a specific policy area, they should be free to do so, but they should not be compelled. I suspect we and the Government will find common cause on that.
The hon. Member for Banbury made reference to talking shops. We do not like talking shops in the Conservative party. I am sure he will find one quite easily if he wishes to continue his proposed debate about capital punishment and the death penalty—I am sure there are many people who would like to discuss that. It is really important that mayors are focused on the things that they can do on behalf of their constituents. We should not set up authorities that are there to talk; they should be there to do things on behalf of their constituents.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 19. I have a lot of sympathy and support for the concept of citizens assemblies, so I have sympathy for the intention behind the new clause, but it is really important that mayors, as locally elected leaders in their region, should have the ability to decide how best to engage with their local communities.
Mayors can already convene citizens assemblies using functional and general powers of competence as a way of hearing from local people and ensuring that local voices play a role in decision making. I give the hon. Lady the example of the Mayor of the West Midlands, and the Mayor of South Yorkshire, who held a citizens assembly on climate—they are already happening across the country.
Once the Bill becomes law, all mayors will have the general power of competence that we have talked about, which will enable them to convene citizens assemblies should they wish to do so. However, as other hon. Members have said, placing a duty on all mayors to convene a citizens assembly, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or how costly it is, would take away the local choice of mayors to decide how best to engage with their residents. I therefore ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause.
On new clause 42, I again completely recognise the spirit in which it has been tabled. It will be important for all mayors to engage with the wider public and with local authorities when delivering their functions. On that we are completely agreed. However, the Government cannot accept the new clause, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, it would impose a disproportionate and unworkable administrative burden on mayors of strategic authorities. By way of illustration, North Yorkshire alone comprises 729 individual parishes, which are organised into 412 town and parish councils. Expecting a mayor personally to discharge the proposed duty in respect of each body would, I fear, be impracticable and inevitably crowd out the time needed for the office’s other core strategic responsibilities: driving change and economic outcomes across the area.
Furthermore, many public service providers will be commissioned and contract-managed by local authorities. Superimposing a parallel mayoral duty would blur lines of accountability, cut across established commissioning arrangements, and risk duplication, confusion and delay. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will not press the new clause, however well-intentioned it may be.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Duty of mayors to collaborate
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 296, in clause 22, page 25, line 29, at end insert—
“(7A) The guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 7 may not include a role for trade unions.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from creating a role of trade unions in the execution of mayors’ duty to collaborate.
I shall speak briefly about the motivation for tabling the amendment. A concern that has run through the Opposition’s responses to a number of the Government’s measures, especially in the space of economic development, is that the Government have chosen not to enshrine the roles of businesses, entrepreneurs or local employers, but always to give a statutory privilege to trade unions to be part of discussions. Although it is wise for any local leader to include the broadest possible range of stakeholders, singling out one, which serves the interests of only one group—sometimes at the expense of others—is simply not a process that any democracy should envisage. We tabled the amendment to ensure that that is not the case in the Bill, and we will press it to a vote. We are clear that, following a change of Government, this is one provision that we would seek to repeal very rapidly.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are two issues with the amendment. First, we believe that it could create an inconsistency between the powers of mayoral combined authorities and their equivalents elsewhere in England, because it would change only the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
More fundamentally, we have already talked about the duty to bring local partners around the table. Underneath that is a presumption and expectation that all relevant parties, including parties in the private sector, that are fundamental to the mayor driving outcomes on behalf of his voters and residents come together to deliver things. There is a vital role for trade unions both in being a clear voice for workers in an area and in being a fundamental part of that economic partnership to drive outcomes.
David Simmonds
May I ask the Minister to clarify something? Some 70% of workers in this country are in an enterprise with fewer than five employees in total. Where is their voice at the table? Why is it only the unions representing large-scale organised labour that are compelled in legislation to be at the table when the mayor makes decisions?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Business organisations, whether small businesses, the Confederation of British Industry or chambers of commerce, will inevitably be around the table when a mayor worth their salt is making economic decisions and driving forward strategic partnerships.
The Government believe that as part of that partnership between workers, businesses and civic leaders, it is right that trade unions are firmly around the table. They give voice and expression not only to their individual members but to key concerns for workers across the piece. We do not resile from that; we think it is critical.
Paul Holmes
Correct me if I am wrong—it may be very rare, but sometimes I am—but earlier, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire asked the Minister for assurance regarding the ability of a mayor to engage with businesses to further economic regeneration across the country. Why has the Minister decided to legislate for mayors to consult with trade unions, but not—to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—with private business, which represents vastly more economic output and employers than the trade unions do? Why is she doing that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear that the duty to collaborate will include a wide range of partners. We are going through a process of engaging with and consulting mayors to make sure that in secondary legislation we fully reflect the sorts of partner they want around the table. We believe that trade unions should have a place at the table. We are taking a set of actions to empower trade unions, because we think it is the right thing to do for our economy, so it is important that we include them within the duty to collaborate.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has said previously, “We want to empower local communities,” “We want mayors to have freedom,” and, “We want mayors to have choice,” but in this case she is prescribing which organisations should be around the table. How do those two opinions meet? In some cases, she is saying she wants mayors to have the freedom and the choice to drive local communities, but in this case, she is prescribing organisations that should be at the table.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will specify in secondary legislation the range of local partners, based on feedback from mayors. Again, this is not compulsion; we think it is really important that civic organisations, local leaders and the mayoral strategic authority engage with organised labour. That is part of the economic model that we think is right, because it means we have the voice of organised labour around the table, driving outcomes on behalf of workers. I know the Conservative party struggles with that, because the idea of empowering workers is a bit of a strain for them, but Labour is very clear. We are building a model that ensures we have the voice and representation of labour alongside businesses and our civic leaders, driving change in the economy for working people.
David Simmonds
I spent many years chairing employers’ organisations, negotiating with trade unions about all kinds of matters. I have a very high degree of respect for them in the space in which they have expertise, but I do not really understand the Government’s rationale for arguing for a model in which one specific group—perhaps coincidentally, a very large-scale Labour funding group—is given a privileged place at the table when decisions are made about political matters for which the mayor is elected. That place at the table is not protected in statute for anybody else affected by it. That seems to me to border on abuse of the political process. It is very serious to be putting trade unions in a position to make decisions on matters that are not remotely within their area of competence and for which they have no mandate whatever. It is simply unacceptable.
Paul Holmes
I want to make some brief remarks agreeing with my hon. Friend. I have negotiated with trade unions and I have a huge amount of respect for them. When I was cabinet member for children’s services and learning at Southampton city council, a hugely unionised organisation, I was responsible for negotiating some of the pay contracts for our really important staff. I had a very productive relationship with my trade union representatives and held them in great respect, as my hon. Friend did his when he was deputy leader at a local authority.
We are not anti-trade union, but we do not believe that there should be political favouritism for organised labour, where private business is essentially left out. Why does the Minister believe that organised labour, who, I must say, have intrinsic links with the Labour party movement, should have that prestigious and privileged seat at the table with the elected mayor? The Minister has resisted legislating for a mayor to have a duty to ensure that private business is included around that table; she is leaving that to the direction and the whim of the mayor elected at the time. Why can she not take that same attitude towards organised labour and the union movement?
Finally, I would say that this is very closely bordering on abuse of the political system. We on this side of the House firmly believe that. [Interruption.] Government Members can chunter as much as they want, but I ask them again: when they go around their constituencies and speak to private businesses that have been drastically affected by the decisions of this Government, will they say to those businesses, “It is absolutely fine that, when you get a mayor, you will not be legislatively consulted, but the unionised, organised labour workforce will be guaranteed a prestigious seat at that table”? That is a clear blurring of the lines on what a mayor should be doing. That is why we in the Opposition are opposed to that legislative proposition. As I have said clearly, Conservatives—including any Conservative Government and my hon. Friends and I here today—are not anti-trade union, but the measure gives legislative access on a dangerous scale, and that is why we will be opposing it. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is welcome to intervene if she wants to.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I do not want to drag out this debate any further, but I think the hon. Gentleman is over-egging this. This is a duty to collaborate; it is not about decision making. Any mayor worth their salt will collaborate with key businesses in their local area if they want to drive economic outcomes. We have also been clear that we will put in place regulations outlining the set of partners, including local partners.
I hope the Opposition understand that it is not always second nature for mayors to decide that they want to collaborate with trade unions. [Interruption.] Well, our view is that they should, because we think it is important that workers are part of that collaboration and work as part of that partnership.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is absolutely correct when she says that a mayor should, if they are worth their salt, discuss and collaborate with business. I entirely agree with her on that, but she has not ensured that that is enshrined in legislation. What she has enshrined in legislation is that organised labour and the trade unions should be around that table. If she really believed in equal access for everybody who contributes to economic output in our regions, she would include private business on the face of the Bill.
As I say, this is a dangerous precedent to set; it is favouritism. It is privileged access to the mayor for organised labour, and I think that is a bad thing. If the Minister wanted to give organised labour parity with private business, which delivers economic growth across this country, she would have our support, but she certainly does not have our support for the privileged position that she is putting our trade union movement in.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear that if a mayor is serious about driving economic outcomes in a way that works for their community, they must collaborate with a set of partners. That 100% includes private business, and will include anchor organisations, but it should also include trade unions. The duty to collaborate will be broadly set. We will lay out the set of partners in regulation, but that will be dictated by the feedback that we get from mayors. I therefore ask that amendment 296 be withdrawn.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 297, in clause 22, page 26, line 22, at end insert—
“(3A) If a collaboration request is denied by mayor B, the request may not be appealed or reissued for the same purposes.”
This amendment would prevent a collaboration request which has been denied by mayor B from being appealed or reissued.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 298, in clause 22, page 29, line 27, at end insert—
“(3A) If a collaboration request is denied by mayor B, the request may not be appealed or reissued for the same purposes.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 297.
Clause stand part.
David Simmonds
The purpose of amendments 297 and 298 is to forestall the possibility—with reference to the Minister’s earlier comments—that, when in response to a request to collaborate or engage with an issue an organisation legitimately says it is not prepared to do so, that is followed by multiple repeated requests, which would create a situation in which there was a foreseeable conflict that should be avoided. That is the purpose of the amendments, which sit together. We will see what the Minister has to say about how that particular risk will be managed.
Siân Berry
I am speaking to clause stand part. Broadly, I very much support the duty. I do not agree with the amendment moved by the Conservatives. I cannot see how that would be logical or work when a mayor or council might well change. Similarly, in the sense that I would like it clarified today, I raise the issue of why the clause only seems to allow for collaboration between pairs of mayors. The various proposed new sections for the different Acts in this clause—often in the proposed new subsection (4)—seem to mandate that the two areas must be adjoining. A mayor may therefore only make a request to a neighbour, and I do not think that they may request to collaborate with a number of neighbours. However, a key transport connection in the strategic rail or road networks could lie in the next mayoral area beyond. A mayor might want to approach the other mayor about the possibility of collaborating on approaching Great British Railways about some financing ideas, for example. Likewise, a key hospital or employer might be in a nearby mayoral area that is not adjoining—a collaborative project at a strategic mayoral level might still be appropriate.
For a mayor in the middle, potentially a chain of collaborations could be set up, but were it a transport link, if the mayor in the middle was not that bothered or was focused on other things, such as digital tech rather than transport links, they might be able to stand in the way. I want to check whether the clause needs some amendment to allow for more flexibility in how mayors collaborate, and with which other mayors.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I note that amendments 297 and 298 relate only to the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities, not to the Mayor of London. That inconsistency runs contrary to the Bill’s goal of standardising and simplifying arrangements across England. More broadly, the clause already gives mayors discretion to decline a request to collaborate. The provision is intentionally flexible—it would not be appropriate or practical to prescribe those interactions in statute in advance. Any issues around repeated or unreasonable requests can be addressed through statutory guidance, to which mayors must have regard. That guidance will set clear expectations for constructive engagement without imposing unnecessary legal rigidity. Mayors should retain the freedom to initiate or decline collaboration requests as they see fit, provided they act reasonably and in accordance with any guidance.
David Simmonds
Following discussion with colleagues, we remain concerned about this, but we made the point in earlier debates and there has already been a vote on a similar issue. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Regulation of provision of micromobility vehicles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause gives the Secretary of State the ability to empower local authorities to license on-street micromobility services, such as dockless cycle schemes, operating in their areas. The market for those services is currently unregulated. Operators do not have to get permission for services, and local leaders are limited in their ability to address antisocial behaviour and poor parking. We have all seen the issues created by rental e-bikes obstructing pavements. It is apparent in my constituency, and I know that other hon. Members will have it in theirs. The Government remain committed to keeping streets safe, and the clause will tackle this directly.
Local leaders have been vocal about their need for more powers to ensure that schemes work for their communities. We want more shared cycle schemes across the country, and ensuring that local leaders have the powers to manage them properly will be key to delivering sustainable, long-term growth of these services. The industry is also keen to see regulation, but the patchwork system is creating burdens on business and holding back growth and investment in the sector.
Lewis Cocking
This is one of the good clauses in the Bill, but I would like the Minister to clarify this. A number of authorities want this power now to combat the issues she just spoke about, so where strategic authorities do not exist, is there any way for even county authorities to get those powers, if the Bill receives Royal Assent?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause gives the ability to empower local authorities.
Lewis Cocking
In that sense, if an authority wants one now but is not on the devolution priority programme and does not have a strategic authority coming, will it be able to get those powers upon Royal Assent?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes. Where a local transport authority exists, the power will essentially be conferred on it.
We will discuss the detail of the regulatory framework when we come to schedule 5. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Providers of micromobility vehicles
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 372, in schedule 5, page 124, leave out lines 1 to 14.
This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations which create exemptions from the prohibition on the provision of micromobility vehicles without a licence.
We welcome the clarification that micromobility vehicles will be licensed, but I am slightly concerned—I hope the Minister will provide some clarity—that the broad nature of the provision may inadvertently catch hundreds of leisure-hire businesses in tourist areas such as the Camel trail in Cornwall, the New Forest and parts of the Purbeck, where visitors can hire bikes from a public place. Those businesses do not need to be licensed, and licensing them would create a huge burden on the council and on those small businesses. They may be covered under the exceptions in proposed new section 22G, but if that is the case, it does not feel defined precisely enough—it talks about a person having made
“arrangements between the licensing authority and that person”.
I would like some clarity that the new section will not inadvertently capture businesses that are not share schemes whereby people pay by the minute or by the hour, which I think is the intention of the legislation.
We have Beryl bikes in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and in parts of Dorset. Such schemes are excellent and licensing them is a great idea. We want more measures to be put in place to protect pedestrians and road users, particularly from scooters. We have seen so many cases of unregulated and unlicensed scooters travelling at as much as 30 or 40 mph on pavements. Any additional measures to prevent that will be useful.
We also see a lot of e-scooters and e-bikes being used in crime. In Dorset, innovative work is happening, with smart water being used to spray offenders as they go, thereby allowing them to come back later and not risk either the offender or the police in a dangerous chase. Whatever we can do to make the legislation tighter for organisations would be a good thing.
I am sure I am not alone in regretting the fact that we still do not have clarification of the law on the private use of e-scooters and other micromobility vehicles. I am concerned that if local and strategic authorities are going to get more powers to license vehicles that are used through hire organisations, it will be a real missed opportunity if the Department for Transport were not encouraged to bring forward a decision on private use at the same time. So many local authorities get calls from the public about problems only part of which local authorities can deal with. Councillors’ and MPs’ inboxes are filled with people asking, “Why can’t you act on x?” We reply, “Well, we cannot act on that bit, but we can on that bit.” Alignment in respect of the use of micromobility for public or private use would be really helpful.
My particular concern, and the reason for the amendment, is that schedule 5 caveats important powers granted to strategic and local authorities by allowing the Secretary of State to override them with new regulations at any point of their choosing. That would appear to have a direct effect on the number and types of locations, as well as the purpose for their use. A situation last year demonstrates the point. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council wanted to extend its successful partnership. We had no e-bikes in Christchurch, where the population was oldest and most in need of e-bikes, and we wanted to increase the physical number of scooters from 500 to 1,000, because the scheme was so successful. But the council was forced to come to the Secretary of State to get permission for changes that everybody locally wanted and that the provider could deliver, and we missed a window in the season when we would have got really strong use.
The amendment would delete lines 1 to 14 on page 124 of the Bill, so that the power truly remains at the local authority level, rather the powers just granted being undevolved by allowing the Secretary of State to override them. I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment. I have a lot of sympathy for the principle behind it. The framework that we have set out is necessarily broad in scope to capture all types of micromobility schemes, including those that may emerge in the future. We have made it clear, however, that the exception power ensures proportionality in licensing to avoid unnecessary burdens on, and the criminalisation of, businesses such as those to which she referred that operate small, low-impact schemes. We have specified the type of exemptions that we expect we might make in order to keep the scope of the power contained—for example, community schemes with a handful of cycles, or cycle hire on privately owned but publicly accessible land. While I accept the sentiment behind her proposals, I do not believe that the amendment is needed. I therefore ask that it be withdrawn.
Vikki Slade
That deals with my first concern, but the second one was about subsections (2) and (3) in proposed new section 22G on the first 14 lines of page 124. However, I apologise and withdraw my comments—the clause applies specifically to the exemptions and not to the ruling. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 300, in schedule 5, page 128, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) The regulations must include a requirement for the license holder to maintain sufficient docking space for the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license.
(4) The regulations must include requirements for license holders which would require them to ensure that the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license do not obstruct any highway, cycling path, footpath, bridlepath, or subway.
(5) The regulations must stipulate that failure of license holders to comply with subsections (3) and (4) will warrant a loss of license.”
This amendment would require that regulations ensure that license holders for micromobility vehicles are responsible for maintaining sufficient docking space for their vehicle and ensuring their vehicle does not obstruct any highways or public paths, or else lose their license.
From the interactions so far on the subject, I feel as if there is a high degree of consensus on this point. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any regulations under the Bill will answer some of the questions that many of our constituents have been asking about such micromobility schemes. A number of Members present have a particular interest in this topic and a series of pilot schemes across the country on the hire and use of micromobility were broadly modelled on some of the previous schemes that were introduced to improve access to bicycles. They have met with mixed reviews.
The key thing that comes up repeatedly is the number of micromobility vehicles that are left to cause obstruction to people who have disabilities, parents who have pushchairs, people who have vision difficulties or are partially sighted, and those who are undertaking duties such as repairs, maintenance and cleaning. They all can find such vehicles a significant problem if not properly managed. The purpose of the amendment—I particularly draw attention to proposed new subsection (5)—is to be clear that if the provider of the scheme fails to manage its vehicles properly, the licence may be removed. I am open to what the Minister has to say about how such a provision could be enshrined.
Paul Holmes
Does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that part of our problem in many of our city centre locations, as he rightly outlined, is the impact of the vehicles being discarded across the pavements? The operators do not necessarily have the wherewithal or enforcement ability to take responsibility. Does he agree that the amendment absolutely places that responsibility on them, so that there is no doubt about their duties with regard to the public?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to spotlight what is at the heart of the matter. The learning from the pilot schemes is that they are widely engaged with and used, and I know Members of this House who use micromobility hire as part of their commuting near the Palace of Westminster. Such schemes potentially form a responsible and useful part of our transport system, but we need to ensure that the issues that persist in undermining them are addressed. I will listen closely to what the Minister has to say about how the Government propose to deal with the issues.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 16th October 2025
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 October 2025 - (16 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I am delighted to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is great that there is broad support across the House for this schedule. We have introduced this framework to tackle obstructive parking, so although I appreciate the sentiment behind the shadow Minister’s amendment, I do not believe it is needed.
In common with other traffic management measures, traffic authorities know their roads best and are best placed to consider what level of provision is appropriate and in what locations. The schedule already gives the Secretary of State the power to set what conditions must be in every licence issued and what additional conditions licensing authorities can set, as well as powers to fine operators or suspend or revoke licences where the licence holder does not comply with those conditions. We will publish guidance on best practice for deciding on parking provision and enforcement, but since we think that there are enough safeguards in our proposals, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I wanted to make a speculative point about schedule 5, although I have not tabled an amendment.
The Chair
If your point is specifically on schedule 5, you can make it when we debate the schedule. We are currently debating amendment 300 proposed to schedule 5.
Siân Berry
It is specifically on schedule 5, so I will bob during that debate, Chair.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise in support of amendment 300, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. It is important that we bring in more powers to tackle this issue. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, about six years ago, we were asked whether we wanted to be a trial area for e-scooters—we said no, thank goodness. My constituency is right next door to London, and we have had a number of issues with people parking on the outskirts of London and taking the vehicles out of where they are licensed. Walking around London—not just the Palace of Westminster, but the wider community—we see large problems with hundreds of scooters all in the same place, which I suspect are very popular locations for pick-up and drop-off.
We need more powers for local authorities to tackle the issue. I mentioned earlier that many of councils will want this power now, rather than having to wait for mayoral combined authorities to be set up. Amendment 300 would be important in holding these companies to account. They are getting away with far too much at the moment and it is putting people off walking, especially if someone is pushing a buggy or is disabled. There are lots of issues. I am sure there will be cross-party support, as we have all seen this problem when out and about. We really need to regulate this. I am not always in favour of more regulation, but the companies could have done much more without legislation and have failed to, so it is time for stricter regulation. The amendment would be important in solving some of these issues.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Schedule 5 sets out the details on giving the Secretary of State the ability to empower local authorities to license on-street micromobility services, such as dockless cycle schemes, operating in their areas. We have had a good, broad debate on this, and I think there is support across the Committee for the view that this area must be tackled.
All licensing regimes will contain mandatory conditions and additional local conditions, which will bring the consistency that all parties seek, while ensuring flexibility to meet the needs and priorities of different areas. The framework allows for new micromobility modes, such as pavement robots and e-scooters, to be incorporated in future, to ensure that our local leaders will always be able to manage their streets effectively.
The schedule sets out clear, consistent processes and powers for local authorities to feel confident that these services are operating safely and effectively in their areas, and are well integrated into the transport networks of the future. I commend schedule 5 to the Committee.
Siân Berry
As I indicated, I would like to make a rather speculative suggestion in relation to schedule 5, which is to ask whether Ministers have considered, or might consider, extending these kinds of provisions on the licensing of micromobility to also cover managed delivery services, many of which currently use micromobility-type vehicles, or vans. Those tend to cause similar problems, which could be solved in similar ways, and that would add up to helping to achieve the same goals as this schedule.
Essentially, Ministers could add delivery vehicles and managed delivery services to be licensed in the same way as micromobility vehicles. As with this schedule, the details of how that was done would come in guidance afterwards, so Ministers could choose between something relatively light-touch or something a bit more useful.
Reasons to consider this suggestion include traffic generation and the ability to speak regularly to, or regulate, the companies involved to allow for more consolidation, so that journeys are carried out more efficiently. Powers to regulate and license food delivery by bike might be very useful in relation to issues of safety and workers’ rights. We know that freelance delivery riders report huge time pressures and poor working conditions, and people who have problems with how some of the micromobility hire services are used by users also often report the same kinds of issues with delivery riders. Although I do not want to create a huge amount of bureaucracy, I think the issues are similar, and Ministers might look either now or in the future at widening the scope of these kinds of powers for the authorities that we are considering today.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as usual, Ms Vaz. I want to make a quick remark, notwithstanding the fact that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, may want to speak to this. Briefly, I welcome that the Minister’s and the Government’s recommendations, contained in schedule 5. The Minister does not know those of us on the Opposition Benches too well at the moment—she will do by the end of this Bill Committee—but, if she can get my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to agree to extra regulation, that is absolutely good enough for me. He is well known as somebody with strongly held views about the role of the state in local government from when he ran his excellent local authority and administration. The Minister has managed to achieve something that I, as his Whip, have never managed to achieve.
I welcome this sensible piece of regulation. One of the things I welcome in the Bill is the assurance the Minister has given, and which is set out within the House of Commons Library paper, that it would grant strategic authorities and county or unitary authorities where a strategic authority does not exist. That is a sign that the Government are listening to the wants of local authorities—as the previous Government did when they licensed pedicabs, for example, with my former colleague Nickie Aiken getting that Bill through. I wanted to place on the record that I believe this is a welcome piece of regulation—but the Minister should not get too carried away and start making regulations everywhere willy-nilly.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I have nothing to add, apart from the fact that this is a good addition; but the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned pedicabs, and I cannot let that go by without asking the Minister to look again at that issue, because they are absolutely blighting the part of London where we work, making tourists’ lives utterly miserable, and contravening virtually every traffic law I have seen, with little enforcement. If there is any opportunity to go further on pedicabs, bring it on.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. It seems to the Opposition that this schedule is weaker than it would have been had the amendments been accepted. I know that when we have debated other areas of local government legislation, the issue that comes up time and again is the frustration that our constituents feel when they are unable to get what sounds like a perfectly robust regulation enforced in practice—whether that is fly-tipping, antisocial parking or the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion around delivery drivers, scooters and so on, which I know exercises many of my constituents.
We remain concerned that this is a missed opportunity to give local authorities the most robust tools that would put beyond doubt what the test that had to be met was, and create the appropriate legal path for effective and rigorous enforcement locally. None the less, the schedule broadly represents a step forward. Therefore we will not oppose it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and the support for the schedule. In response to the questions raised about additional types of vehicles on the road that are of a similar nature, obviously the scope of the schedule is on micromobility, but the points have been made well—they are also being made by local authorities and our communities. We are considering how we can respond so that mobility vehicles—of sorts—on our streets are not blighting our communities, and we will take that away.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 24
Arrangements to carry out works on highways
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to provide oversight of the construction and maintenance of the highways in their area. That is particularly likely to be the case when required works cross local authority boundaries. As such, the clause provides that all existing and future strategic authorities can, when asked to do so by the Secretary of State, carry out work on trunk roads on behalf of National Highways. The second measure in the clause allows strategic authorities to enter agreements with local authorities and National Highways regarding highway planning and maintenance.
The strategic authority is uniquely placed in that it has a transport planning role encompassing the whole authority area. This provision capitalises on that and would, for example, enable strategic authorities to enter agreements on the maintenance of cross-boundary roads. Both those powers would only be allowed with the consent of the relevant constituent authority. Together, those two measures will enable strategic authorities to oversee a co-ordinated approach to improvements to local roads, leading to less disruption and better outcomes for motorists.
David Simmonds
We understand the logic of this. Could the Minister set out for the Committee where the liability will sit for issues arising from the maintenance, standards or provision of those roads under the clause?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
In the end, this will only come into place where the constituent authorities support it. When it is the Secretary of State making the request, it would be with the Secretary of State; when it is constituent authorities coming together to do maintenance or works that they would do anyway, it would be shared among them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 25
Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 246, in schedule 7, page 138, line 22, insert—
“3 (1) After Paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, insert—
‘Exercise of functions relating to civil enforcement
11 Any functions related to civil enforcement described by this schedule must be exercised directly by—
(a) the elected mayor for the area of an authority, or
(b) a member of an authority who is an elected member of a constituent council.’”
This amendment ensures civil enforcement powers, when exercised by CAs and CCAs, must be under the direction of elected officials.
Amendment 348, in schedule 7, page 138, line 22, at end insert—
“3 (1) Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (4) insert—
4A ‘(1) There is a parking contravention in England if a person causes an obstruction which, without lawful authority or excuse, causes or permits a motor vehicle to stand on a pavement in such a manner as to wilfully obstruct free passage along the pavement.
(2) A parking contravention under subparagraph (1) is a civil offence which may be enforced by the local authority in which the contravention has occurred.
(3) The relevant local authority under subparagraph (2) may issue penalty charges for a civil offence under subsection (2).
(4) The amount for a penalty charge under subparagraph (3) shall be determined by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under subparagraph (4) may specify different penalty charge amounts based on—
(a) the obstructing vehicle class,
(b) the area of the local authority in which the obstruction has occurred, or
(c) any other relevant circumstantial consideration.
(6) In this paragraph—
(a) “motor vehicle” has the meaning given in section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and
(b) “pavement” has the meaning given in section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.
4B (1) Penalty charge amounts for parking contraventions under this Part may be set by the relevant local authority.
(2) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must align with provisions under section 77 of this Act.
(3) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must have regard to any regulations made under section 87 of this Act.
(4) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must be published by the local authority and may be revised from time to time.’”
This amendment would allow local authorities to enforce obstructive pavement parking within their areas as a civil offence and devolves the power to set parking penalty charge amounts for all parking penalty charge offences to local authorities.
Amendment 291, in schedule 7, page 138, line 23, at end insert—
“3 (1) Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) After subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) A qualifying CCA or combined authority may not make an order under subsection (1).’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In this section “qualifying CCA or combined authority” has the meaning given in paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement areas and enforcement authorities outside Greater London: bus lane contraventions).’
4 (1) Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1994 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) After subsection (9) insert—
‘(9A) A qualifying CCA or combined authority shall not undertake any activity provided for under this section.’
(3) In subsection (10), after ‘Greater London Authority Act 1999’ insert—
‘“qualifying CCA or combined authority” has the meaning given in paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement areas and enforcement authorities outside Greater London: bus lane contraventions)’”.
This amendment would prevent mayors of CCA from increasing charges for vehicle parking, and from using proceeds of those charges.
Schedule 7 stand part.
Amendment 368, in schedule 9, page 152, line 17, at end insert—
“16 In section 178 (Preliminary)—
(a) In subsection (1) leave out ‘workplace’;
(b) In subsection (4) leave out ‘workplace’;
(c) In subsection (5)(c), at end insert ‘by a combined authority or combined county authority’.
17 In section 182 (Workplace parking places)—
(a) In the heading, leave out ‘workplace’;
(b) In subsection (1) leave out ‘workplace’;
(c) In subsection (5) leave out ‘workplace’.
18 In section 190 (Rights of entry—
(a) in sub-section (1) leave out ‘workplace’;
(b) in paragraph (1)(a) leave out ‘workplace’.
19 In section 198(1) (Interpretation of Part III) after ‘“local transport policies” has the meaning given in section 108(5),’ insert “and include the policies of an applicable local transport plan as defined in section 113.”
This amendment would extend the power to create parking levies to all strategic authorities. Where a strategic authority had become local transport authority and responsible for the local transport plan, it would deem that plan as forming the policies of any constituent authorities.
New clause 47—Road traffic contraventions: requests by Mayors—
“(1) The Mayor of a strategic authority may submit a request to the Secretary of State to make regulations providing that a specified traffic contravention relating to high occupancy vehicle lanes is subject to civil enforcement under Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004.
(2) On receipt of such a request, the Secretary of State may by regulations amend the tables in paragraph 8A(5) of Schedule 7 to that Act to give effect to the request.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause allows combined authorities and combined county authorities to take on the responsibility for civil enforcement of contraventions of bus lanes and other moving traffic restrictions including banned turns, no entry and box junctions. Currently, English local authorities may apply to the Department for Transport for an order designating powers to take civil enforcement action against such traffic contraventions. The clause does not change the current arrangements, whereby constituent local authorities wanting civil enforcement powers must apply for a designation order. Instead, it enables joined-up enforcement across a combined authority or combined county authority area, conditional on each constituent authority giving its prior written consent. That means that motorists crossing over boundaries, including within large cities, who are otherwise likely to encounter different types of enforcement, will benefit from a joined-up and consistent approach across the region.
David Simmonds
We have tabled amendment 291 to schedule 7. I know that this is an issue of great contention; the major concern is, as we have seen to a degree in London, mayors choosing to use their powers to levy fines, largely as a way of generating income. That sits somewhat ill with the regulations for parking, which are treated separately and are a local authority matter, where the proceeds from fines and enforcement activity is part of a ringfenced parking revenue account that may only be used for purposes connected to parking and the maintenance of the highways and the roads. There is therefore already a measure, regarding local authorities, that ensures that those who are paying the fines, fees and charges can see that the contribution that they are making through those is used to improve the safety and quality of the environment in which they drive, walk or cycle.
We remain concerned about the implications of this measure; some of those mayors and combined authorities may see this as a very handy revenue raiser, and start to ramp up enforcement in a way that is unhelpful. As we have seen in the case of Greater London, policies that might work well in highly congested central London are simply totally inappropriate on the fringes, and a replication of that scenario could be seen across other parts of the country—a one-size-fits-all approach that we would wish to see avoided.
That is the motivation behind amendment 291, but I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how the Government will ensure that this is not simply a measure to use motorists as a cash cow.
Vikki Slade
Before I speak to amendments 246 and 348, I just want to reflect on the Minister’s comment about the ability of local authorities to enforce things such as yellow boxes, and the requirement to still obtain that consent from the Secretary of State. At Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, we were granted the rights to do that, but the council was incredibly limited in the specific locations in which it was able to apply for that right. There were a number of places that felt their yellow box junctions were ignored.
In my own ward of Broadstone, one such yellow box at the entrance to a parking area regularly caused extensive delays. For local people, if we could change one thing for them, it would be, “Get that damn yellow box enforced!” However, it was not seen as strategic enough for the local authority to apply for the permissions. Enforcement is therefore reliant on police officers, who are not going to stand there and patrol those sorts of things. I would therefore be interested to hear whether the Minister would be willing to devolve that power more truly, rather than retaining it at the centre.
Amendment 246 is a simple one that seeks to retain the decision making of those new civil enforcement powers to the elected persons, whether that be the elected mayor or an elected member of the authority. Elsewhere in the Bill, there are elements that are not allowed to be devolved to a commissioner. The amendment is about ensuring that these decisions are not devolved to a commissioner but are made by the elected person, as they will have that direct impact.
Amendment 348, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I have also put our names to, seeks not to change the law on pavement parking— as we have discussed in the Chamber on a number of occasions—but to harmonise the rules so that the existing law on obstruction of the pavement, which requires the police to enforce, can also be enforced by civil authorities.
We regularly have situations in which civil enforcement officers—traffic wardens to you and I, Ms Vaz—have to walk past a car or van, often a delivery van, parked on a pavement, blocking guide dogs and people with mobility scooters from getting past. There is nothing they can do. I know that colleagues in this room will constantly be emailed by people asking, “What are you going to do about it?” All we can do is say, “Call the police.” We may be getting more police officers, but I personally do not want to see my police officers having to spend their time ticketing.
Manuela Perteghella
My constituents are also quite confused about which public service to call. We have to explain, “If it is about parking restrictions, you have to call the county council; if it is about dangerous parking, you have to call the police.” But how do you define “dangerous parking”? Sometimes the police will then point people back to the council. We would really appreciate clarification—or harmonisation, actually—of civil enforcement on highways matters.
Vikki Slade
This is very much about clarification. We know that a decision will be made, apparently very soon. I believe “very soon” was used in a Westminster Hall debate only a couple of weeks ago—I am new at this, but I think that that might mean sometime in this Session, perhaps—and we will get the outcome of the consultation on general pavement parking. Our amendment 348 is about obstruction, which is an existing offence.
Paul Holmes
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, the Lib Dem spokeswoman, for her excellent speech. Will she acknowledge that—as much as she gets emails, every colleague across the country gets such emails—this is about making it easier for the end user, our constituents, to report stuff? Does she agree that Guide Dogs, which has been running an excellent campaign on behalf of the blind for many years, would be pleased to see the Minister accept amendment 348?
Vikki Slade
I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Guide Dogs. I have Guide Dogs written down on my notes, as well as the RNIB, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, of which I am a champion. They have been campaigning for the full change, but amendment 348 would certainly be a step along the way. I also understand that it would implement the Transport Committee’s 2019 report recommendations. A lot of work has already been done on the issue.
The second element of amendment 348 contradicts something that the shadow Minister talked about in connection with Conservative amendment 291, which relates to parking fines. As a councillor and former leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, I was delighted that over the summer a Minister gave permission for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole to have a trial of extended fines. That is not about councils trying to make money, but about councils trying to balance the books and local taxpayers not carrying the burden.
Let me give the Committee an example. A parking fine for someone who parks in the middle of a roundabout, on a grass verge or somewhere else dangerous—I am talking not about not paying in a car park, but about a dangerous piece of parking—is £70, reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days. For someone who has travelled down to Bournemouth for a day at the beach, parking will cost between £25 and £30. It will cost a similar amount to park in Brighton, Bath or Oxford—in most of our thriving places.
Someone might as well pay £35 between four adults in a large vehicle that can bump its way up the kerb and park right next to the beach, where it is really convenient. The vehicle will need to be ticketed and, at some later stage, probably towed away if it is causing a danger to ambulances or bus routes. Even if it is towed away, the fine that can be levied is £150, and yet for the council to have that vehicle towed away can cost up to £800. The difference is paid by the local council taxpayer. In a typical summer in somewhere such as Bournemouth, something like 1,500 tickets are given out. Members can imagine how much of a shortfall there is.
Amendment 348 seeks to give the ability that already exists in London to other places, so that they can apply a different parking fine where deemed appropriate, potentially in limited circumstances. The system is not working at the moment. So many people think that it is perfectly okay to turn up to places and do that, although I do not think it happens quite so much in Cornwall. When I visited there, people behaved incredibly well, but people who visit places like Bournemouth behave incredibly badly, and to have that freedom would be useful.
David Simmonds
I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady has said. In my constituency, people come from as far afield as Sheffield for a day out at the Ruislip lido, the only beach in Greater London. It is a huge cause of trouble for local residents, and I am glad that we have a local authority that is using its existing powers and is implementing measures such as towaway zones and higher parking fines to begin to address that. She probably feels, as I do, that we do not see mayors who do not know the local area, but the specific purpose of our amendment 291 is to ensure that this is not an opportunity to raise funds for them at the expense of the ability of the local authority to use its powers in a specific area to deal with the traffic management issues for which it is responsible.
Vikki Slade
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for clarifying the purpose of his amendment 291, and I will be happy to withdraw my comment that it contradicts amendment 348, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. The hon. Member is exactly right; the purpose of these parking fines is to ensure safe parking, and it is unreasonable that there should be shortfalls for the local council tax payer. Even if there was a surplus, that money should be rolled back into the experience and hopefully into encouraging people to use different forms of travel, such as park and ride, cycling, buses, and so on, all of which would seem to make the roads safer.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on what has been done, what could be done and how we might use these amendments to further those aims.
Siân Berry
I want to speak in support of my amendment 368, to schedule 9. It belongs in this debate because it would broaden the issues in schedule 9 beyond simply workplaces. I have been working on the amendment and on these proposals with Transport Action Network—I should declare that I used to work for a predecessor to that excellent campaign. There is a technical part to the amendment and a more forward-looking part, so I will talk about it in three parts.
First, we need to ensure clarity in the Bill about what counts as a local transport plan, in terms of the power to levy what are currently called workplace parking levies, but actually parking levies more generally. Section 179 of the Transport Act 2000 says that a local licensing scheme, which is what a workplace parking levy scheme is,
“may only be made if it appears desirable for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of local transport policies of the licensing authority.”
I believe that the Bill, however, moves the responsibility for setting such policies through a local transport plan from the local traffic authority to the combined strategic authority, and that other provisions requiring due regard to a strategic authority’s local transport plan do not fix this, as the condition in section 179 of the Transport Act 2000 relates to the authority’s own policies, not other policies it needs to pay regard to. Without an amendment, the Bill could inadvertently scupper proposals that are under development for new workplace parking levies or at least create new legal risks for them.
Many people will know that Nottingham has had a workplace parking levy since 2012, which has helped it to invest £1 billion in transport—not all of it came from the levy, but a lot did—which has made public transport relatively more attractive than driving to work. There has been a virtuous circle of improvements and investment as a result of that initiative. We know that Oxfordshire is considering introducing a workplace parking levy, and Leeds is considering introducing one too, again to invest in new tram infrastructure. Nottingham. Edinburgh and Leicester are also considering that in some detail, and there are definitely discussions in London between boroughs and the Mayor. Several mayors of the new combined authorities could make good use of these powers. It is up to local authorities to do this, and they should definitely be able to do it, which is what I am concerned about.
Secondly, the omission in the Bill of an extension of the power to create parking levy schemes to strategic authorities is odd. Indeed, it is an exception to the other powers that the Bill extends to them. It makes sense to combine this power with the body that in some cases also sets the local transport plan. That does not mean that a workplace parking levy would need to cover the whole of a combined authority area. Parking spaces, by definition, cannot move, so an intricate map of things that were being levied and not levied could definitely be put together. Strategic authorities have the scale to adopt the visionary approach of some of the larger areas making plans that I have already mentioned.
Thirdly, the amendment would do a big thing in extending the current law beyond workplace parking. There are many reasons why I want to argue for that. Since the pandemic, there has been a notable shift from the dominance of travelling to work to other purposes, particularly leisure. We see that on the roads, but we also see it on the railways. It is a general travel trend. It therefore makes sense to consider broadening the scope of levies such as this beyond simply commuting to workplaces, and include other trip generators, particularly when leisure travel makes up the majority of mileage. I want to say clearly that parking spaces on the public highway would be out of scope, no matter what. This would be for parking on private land, and I think the existing rules for workplace parking levies are very clear on that.
I will give a few examples of ways in which this could form part of a truly integrated set of transport policies, be beneficial in generating investment, change travel behaviours and make good applications to things such as safety and congestion. One fairly obvious example is out-of-town retail parking. This would help councils with struggling high streets to level the playing field between those high streets and sprawling out-of-town retail. We see councils around the country subsidising town centre parking, forgoing revenue to revitalise high streets. With this measure, they could instead charge a small fee for parking at out-of-town developments, and make that an incentive as an alternative to forgoing revenue that can be spent on sustainable travel. With new investment, those kinds of parking levies could unlock more reliable, cheaper bus services, improving access to town centres and, potentially, essential things in the periphery of the city for people who do not own a car. Car dependency is a genuine equalities issue.
There is also the question of big car parks. This is a land use question, really. Big car parks use up land. They are very profitable for the private landowners, but this measure could genuinely create a new incentive to convert unproductive land into much-needed homes. Big car parks are often near to city centres, and the higher-density social housing that could replace those car parks would be very desirable to many towns and cities. On a slightly smaller scale, it could nudge owners of under-used garages to redevelop those sites for housing as well, doing infill and increasing the density. I could go on for a long time about the potential benefits to land use planning of enabling local authorities and strategic authorities to make plans for parking that is an unproductive use of land into something better.
Then we have leisure. Leisure uses concentrate in cities and town centres, but in some rural areas, transport and traffic problems are caused by big attractors and tourist destinations. Having a way of raising revenue to improve sustainable travel to those places and disincentivise the promotion of car travel would be excellent. It would increase access to exciting, educational tourist destinations to people who live in urban areas and do not own a car. If attractions outside London or other cities cannot be reached by public transport, people are stuck if they do not own a car. It would potentially be a way of increasing visitors and helping to get investment for more access for visitors to some of these places if we can stop looking at them as places only to drive to.
That is essentially my case. The existing rules around workplace parking levies are extremely rigorous. There is a process for gaining consent, and there have to be public enquiries. There is a good process there that, if extended to other ideas—and the limits on that extension could be set out in regulations—could have a really beneficial impact on transport planning, traffic reduction, car dependency and could potentially increase the viability of towns, cities and rural areas right across the country.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are a few amendments to work through, so let me take them in turn. On amendment 246, although I share the desire of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to ensure that the general public can hold their authorities to account, particularly on something as important as parking, the amendment would limit the ability of combined authorities and combined county authorities to effectively discharge their functions. It would prevent the mayor and elected members from delegating functions to officers or commissioners—that is the intent of the amendment—but delegating those functions to individuals with the specialist knowledge and capacity to carry out those functions effectively is an important and long-standing feature of how those authorities operate.
I can absolutely reassure the hon. Member that officers are already accountable to the authority, and to its overview and scrutiny committee. The Committee yesterday debated commissioners, and their accountability to the mayor and the oversight committee. Likewise, where a combined authority or combined county authority exercises civil enforcement powers they may do so only with the written consent of relevant constituent authorities. We believe that sufficient safeguards have been put in place to address the important point that the hon. Member raises.
I share the concerns that amendment 348 seeks to address. I agree that vehicles parked on pavements can cause serious problems for all pedestrians, especially people with mobility issues or sight impairment, as well as for prams and pushchairs. All mums in the House, and indeed dads, could attest to that. The Government are already considering measures to address pavement parking. We know and have heard that it is an issue. As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole stated, the Department for Transport put out a consultation in 2020. We will publish a formal response to that consultation in due course. In the meantime it is worth saying that highways authorities may continue to introduce specific local pavement parking restrictions using their existing powers. We know that pavement parking is an issue. It is an issue that the Government and the Department will come to more fully.
On the specific matter of varying parking charges across different areas, local authorities already have the ability to vary charges within the levels set in national guidance. Obviously, they have to take the decision to vary carefully, and do it alongside public consultation.
Amendment 291 essentially seeks to prevent mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities from increasing charges for vehicle parking, and from using the proceeds of those charges. The Bill does not provide mayors with powers in respect of parking provision. Parking restrictions inherently apply with localised variations—we acknowledge that. Consistent enforcement across a combined authority and combined county authority area is therefore not appropriate. That is why the Government have determined that powers relating to parking provision should continue to be exercised by local authorities. Combined authorities and combined county authorities will not have powers to provide paid-for parking places. The Bill does provide combined authorities and combined county authorities with the ability to take on powers on civil enforcement of contraventions of bus lanes and moving traffic restrictions. Critically, any proceeds in any case are ring-fenced, in the way that they are with local authorities, for environmental measures and public transport schemes. The scenario would not arise in which parking charges could be used to fund something other than those narrowly defined areas.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause will make it easier for Transport for London to free up land for new housing and development in the capital. The Bill gives the Mayor of London the power to agree to Transport for London selling or leasing unneeded operational land. In most cases, this will remove the need for Government consent, which currently adds complexity and delay to the process.
To guard against the risk of Transport for London inadvertently disposing of operational land that is relied upon by the wider rail network in London, the Bill requires Transport for London to consult Network Rail before selling or leasing land involved in wider rail services. To reflect the Mayor of London’s geographical remit, and to mitigate against a democratic deficit, the Mayor’s powers to consent will apply only to Transport for London land within the Greater London Authority area. These changes will better enable the Mayor of London to unlock land for much-needed housing, supporting growth in the capital.
David Simmonds
The current Mayor of London clearly has a mountain to climb, given the distance by which he has fallen behind his housing targets. We remain concerned that some issues are sometimes seen as easy pickings, such as the disposal of TfL surface car parks, where we have seen a series of unwelcome planning applications that have risked creating congestion in town centres across Greater London. However, we recognise that the purpose of the clause is more about the technicality of the consultation process, and therefore we will not oppose this provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Key route network roads
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause introduces schedule 8, which relates to key route networks in England. As we will discuss later, in the debate on schedule 8, combined authorities and combined county authorities take important roles in co-ordinating local transport networks. As I have just noted, schedule 8 sets out some of the roles for combined authorities and combined county authorities on local road networks. This will include agreeing a local key route network and power of direction, and the power to transfer a duty to make reports on traffic levels.
David Simmonds
Briefly, the Bill states, “including road traffic reduction”, and the Opposition’s concern is that when we consider our UK transport infrastructure, the one area in which we conspicuously lag a long way behind our peers is our provision of roads, particularly our motorways. We have about 20% less road capacity than peer countries, but we are in line with them on things like high-speed rail, trams and bus networks, where we have seen enormous progress in recent years. However, I recognise that these are plans that will be implemented subject only to that local democratic process, so we will not oppose this provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Key Route Network Roads
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 87, in schedule 8, page 142, line 20, leave out from beginning to “that” in line 25 and insert
“under section 33 or 33A of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or under a permit scheme prepared under section 33 of”.
This amends the definition of “permit authority power” in relation to combined county authorities so that it conforms with the definition used in relation to combined authorities in section 89A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (as inserted by this Bill).
Under schedule 8, the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities will have a power to direct local highways authorities in the use of their powers on these roads, including over traffic, highway, street and permit authorities. The power of direction will help mayors to deliver their local transport plans and assist places in developing more integrated transport networks.
The role of a permit authority is to provide permits for roads and street works. The amendment will make a minor adjustment to ensure that the definition of a permit authority is coherent throughout schedule 8. This is an important amendment to ensure that schedule 8 delivers on our aims of a consistent framework of powers across all combined authorities and combined county authorities.
Amendment 87 agreed to.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 328, in schedule 8, page 147, line 7, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 329 to 333 would apply the traffic reporting duty to all local roads within the area of a Local Transport Authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 329, in schedule 8, page 147, line 11, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 330, in schedule 8, page 147, line 16, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 331, in schedule 8, page 147, line 21, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 332, in schedule 8, page 147, line 25, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 333, in schedule 8, page 147, line 28, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 334, in schedule 8, page 148, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) publication of reports, including the standardisation of data across reports”.
This amendment would enable guidance to cover the publication of reports and data, in addition to covering the preparation of reports.
Amendment 335, in schedule 8, page 148, line 4, after “preparing” insert “and publishing”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 334.
Siân Berry
These amendments all do the same thing. Amendments 328 and all the amendments up to 335 would simply remove the words, “key route network” from the part of the Bill that specifies traffic reporting duties. Essentially, they would apply the traffic reporting duties to all local roads within the area of a local transport authority, not simply the key route network.
When it comes to strategic transport planning and its informed scrutiny, I believe that requiring data collection and reporting only for the key route network makes no sense. We, the public, those doing the transport planning and those scrutinising it at all levels of government need to have better data about traffic on local roads, too. The strategic level is the right level at which to require that data to be organised and published, so as not to place new burdens on local authorities, but giving those authorities new tools to work with as well. Obviously, resources must be put in place to enable that, but the benefits—achieving good-value investments, effective policy that serves the public good, and benefits to public engagement and scrutiny—will be huge.
Strategic authorities do the strategic planning, setting the direction for where major developments go. Major developments affect not only key route networks, but local roads as well. Those authorities are also the ones more likely to be moving forward with things like demand management policies and congestion charges—I have already talked about workplace parking levies being able to be run at that level. All of those policies are needed to tackle traffic and congestion, but to be able to plan them, it is really important that good information about local roads is out there and collected. Local authorities have far fewer powers to tackle traffic, but they would also benefit from this kind of information when implementing policies such as safer speed limits and bus lanes. Bringing this duty all under the strategic authority would be a gift to local authorities, and would make transparency much easier as well.
I have tabled further amendments that ask for similar data collection and publication at the strategic authority level, which I will speak to later. In concept, this mirrors the new planning data-related transparency requirements that have come from the same Department that has introduced this Bill. More generally, the system of outcomes frameworks proposed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government currently has big gaps in it—this is just one of them. That system needs to be looked at again. In its consultation on outcomes frameworks, MHCLG recently admitted that transport was a unique area and that the Department had work to do with DFT on reporting. This particular example seems like one where the Department would benefit from thinking things through again and potentially doing exactly what this amendment suggests—if not now, then at a later stage of the Bill’s passage.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to amendment 328 in particular. As the hon. Member has set out, the amendment would expand the duty of combined and combined county authorities to make reports on traffic levels to all roads within their area, rather than just key route network roads.
I believe that any duty to make reports on traffic should be accompanied by meaningful powers to give effect to such reports directly. That is why, elsewhere in the schedule, mayors of combined and combined county authorities are given a power to direct the highways authority in the use of its powers on such roads. These amendments would give combined and combined county authorities duties to make reports on traffic on such roads, but without any direct control of the traffic itself.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Schedule 8 will provide mayors with a power of direction on key route network roads and transfer duties to make reports on these roads to them. Combined authorities and combined county authorities have an important role in co-ordinating local transport networks, including local roads.
Although local highways authorities will rightly continue to manage local highways, mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities will be required to propose a key route network. This will allow places to work together at the appropriate level to manage traffic and ensure that there is effective traffic planning. To this end, mayors will gain a power to direct highway authorities on these roads, helping them to deliver their local transport plan. The powers balance the important role of local highway authorities in maintaining the road network while helping mayors to co-ordinate and lead transport planning at a strategic level. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I will speak to amendment 287. We understand the point that the Minister is making about a need to ensure that there is strategic oversight of what is going on. Our concern is that, as we have seen in London, where a version of this already exists, there is sometimes a conflict between what a mayor seeks to do and the views of a local authority—in particular, the elected mandate of that local authority.
We have heard a lot of evidence and had a lot of lobbying as constituency Members of Parliament about issues such as the impact of floating bus stops on people who are partially sighted, and the conflict that the use of bus lanes can sometimes introduce with cyclists. Rather than a duty to implement whatever the mayor decides, there clearly needs to be a duty to “have regard to” it, so that those two things can operate constructively together. That is the thinking behind the amendment, which we intend to push to a vote in due course.
Sam Carling
The schedule contains comprehensive provisions around the designation of key route network roads, but I am conscious that we have not defined key route networks in statute. I am a little worried, therefore, about the potential for mayors to designate inappropriate roads as key route networks for political purposes.
I was struck by the evidence the Committee received from Mill Road 4 People, a Cambridge-based campaign group I was familiar with when I was a councillor there, although I was not involved with them in any way. The group is concerned that mayors could use key route networks to undermine or remove bus gates or low-traffic neighbourhoods that councils have introduced, in an attempt to gain votes by whipping up tensions around the so-called war on motorists. That could seriously undermine councils’ ability to bring in such schemes, very much against the Government’s commitments to active travel.
The group’s concerns are based on a local situation, as that is exactly what is likely to happen in Cambridge if the incumbent mayor gets his way over Mill Road, which is semi-pedestrianised through the use of a bus gate. Will the Minister consider introducing safeguards to prevent such issues by more clearly defining what criteria a road should meet to be eligible for designation as a key route network road? Should it perhaps have to be an A or B road, or else be subject to more detailed justification?
On a related note, has the Minister considered requiring the designation of key roads to be for a specific purpose? On page 139, schedule 8 requires that for the mayor to designate a key route network road, the combined authority has to pass a resolution approving it. However, when the mayor comes to give directions, proposed new subsection 23A of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not require the passing of a resolution, and the power is vested in the mayor alone.
That could create a loophole whereby a mayor could get the combined authority to pass a resolution to designate a road for some reason, and a future mayor with different plans could use the designation for a completely different purpose without the combined authority board having to vote again. One option for solving that could be that when they create a designation, the mayor has to set out its purpose and broadly what powers they envisage exercising. I wonder if the Minister could consider whether that is an issue.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I think, in my enthusiasm for the proceedings, I made reference to the amendments that we will be dealing with in the next grouping. I shall not repeat my observations, but I am sure the Minister will hold my comments in mind and be desperate to respond to them when she makes her introduction to the next group.
Siân Berry
This seems the right point to bring this up. The Minister has talked about how the schedule creates powers to make directions in relation to roads that are not on the key route network. The Minister will have many decisions to make about regulations, and the complexity is coming out in our debates. Are discussions taking place in Cabinet about replacing the Office of Rail and Road with something broader to capture more of this area? The Office for Rail and Road only covers National Highways roads—the strategic road network. I wonder whether the key route network would benefit from being included in the work of the office, which could be named the Office for Integrated Transport and could also cover local roads, buses and active travel. Has the Minister had discussions with the Department for Transport about that?
Vikki Slade
In general I am supportive of the schedule, but I want to raise a slight concern. Proposed new section 2A of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 makes quite a few references to “local road traffic” and “key route networks”. That seems to be a clash of two different terms. It refers to local road traffic using local roads but also to the key network.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new section refers to producing a report to specify targets to reduce the levels of
“local road traffic using key route network roads”.
The impact of that will probably be that that local road traffic will use non-key networks, but there is nothing in the Bill that says where that traffic will go. As much as we would all like it to disappear, it generally does not, and that takes us back to the comments from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about a report on all roads. That feels potentially cumbersome, and I worry about the costs. There seems to be a mismatch here; there is a requirement to produce something, but nothing is said about its possible implications and impact. I do not expect the Minister to have the answer now, but I am sure she can come back with it to help me understand what the impact of the reports might be. I would hate to see local authorities having to deal with the impact of something done in good faith at a strategic level.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to the questions that were asked. The key question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire concerned the designation of key route networks and its potential inappropriate use by mayors. The mayor will not be able to do that unilaterally; they will be able to do so only alongside their constituent authorities and with their support. We think that that will fundamentally mitigate that risk, but he is right to raise it, and we will keep it under review to ensure that the Bill does not operate differently from the intent behind it.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that we should move beyond having an Office of Rail and Road to having an office of integrated transport. I endeavour to write to her to inform her of the Department for Transport’s considerations.
On the wider question of key route networks versus local road networks, we are trying to strike a balance between conferring strategic power on the mayor, and the ability not just to request reports from the highways authority, but to direct it to respond to them. The principal authority has the ability to put those requests, but also the ability to respond to them. We think we have the balance between those things right, because, in the end, they interact in a place. Although we do not want to confer too much power on the strategic authority, neither do we want to denude the local highways authority of the power that sits with it.
Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 287, in clause 28, page 36, line 12, leave out “implement” and insert “have regard to”.
This amendment, and Amendment 288, would ensure that councils had to have regard to local transport plans, rather than be under a duty to implement them.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 288, in clause 28, page 36, line 33, leave out “implement” and insert “have regard to”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 287.
Clause stand part.
David Simmonds
Mindful of your invitation to repeat my earlier remarks, Ms Vaz, I am none the less going to risk your displeasure by refraining from doing so.
Lewis Cocking
I am in favour of the two amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I have served on a district council and a county council. Some of the powers to do with highways will sit with the constituent authorities and some will sit with the mayor, so we could end up in a scenario in which a person is elected as mayor with one thing in their manifesto, a council is elected on another manifesto and the two things contradict each other. I was leader of Broxbourne council, and we have the A10 going through the entirety of my constituency. That was not a priority for Hertfordshire county council, which had some highways authority powers over it, and that caused a lot of tensions about where we were going to have growth and where the investment was going to go.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have some sympathy for the point that has been raised. What I would say in response to amendments 287 and 288 is this. Strategic authorities are the local transport authority for their area. We are very clear as a Government that in performing that role, strategic authorities must work closely with their constituent councils, which are responsible for managing local highways. Indeed, that is the way things are operating at the moment in places where the mayoral strategic authority is the local transport authority.
Clause 28 supports this by placing a duty on all types of constituent council to implement the strategic authority’s local transport plan when carrying out their functions. That does not undermine our expectation that strategic authorities work in co-operation with constituent councils. Instead, I hope, it will ensure that local transport planning is consistent across strategic authority areas. This duty already applies to metropolitan district councils. The purpose behind clause 28 is to create consistency between different types of constituent council.
Amendments 287 and 288 would undermine clause 28 by weakening the duty placed on constituent councils. That would reduce the proposed alignment between constituent councils and their strategic authorities. I reassure the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner that constituent councils, as members of the strategic authority, have in themselves a key role to play in the development of the authority’s local transport plan. As set out in other aspects of the Bill, that includes a vote on whether to approve the local transport plan. Therefore, I think that there are enough checks and balances, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 88, in schedule 9, page 149, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
“(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here ‘constituent council’ has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority),”.
This clarifies when a county council or a council of non-metropolitan district will not be a local transport authority for the purposes of the Transport Act 2000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 89 to 97, 99 and 100.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Government amendment 88 ensures that the combined authority or combined county authority is the only local transport authority for the area with the associated powers and duties once it has completed its first full financial year. That includes having responsibility for local transport planning, bus partnerships and bus franchising, and is in line with its role as the strategic decision-making authority for the area, with other responsibilities such as producing the local growth plan. Constituent councils sometimes need to retain certain local transport powers to continue the operation of, for example, a local authority-owned bus company. That will still be possible through bespoke arrangements provided for in secondary legislation.
Turning to Government amendments 89 to 97, 99 and 100. Paragraph 4 of schedule 9 currently sets out the voting arrangements for adopting local transport plans for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. These amendments extend the provision to cover all types of combined authorities and combined county authorities. This will provide standardisation and clarity for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities about the requirements for adopting their local transport plans.
Regarding Government amendment 92, there are currently no provisions in schedule 9 for the type of vote needed to adopt a local transport plan in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. The amendment provides a clear voting arrangement: a simple majority vote of constituent members. That is in line with the approach taken for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities in the schedule. It ensures that a majority of the constituent members agree with the decision on top of the consent requirement provided for in Government amendment 96.
Government amendment 94 provides detail on how votes to adopt the local transport plan occur in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. In line with the existing provisions in schedule 9 for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities, the amendment ensures that each constituent member has one vote. Unlike mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities though, no member of a non-mayoral combined authority and non-mayoral combined county authorities will have a casting vote. In the event of a tie, the resolution would not pass. A clear majority would be needed. This amendment is important to bring clarity to how votes to adopt local transport plans are taken in all types of combined authorities and combined county authorities.
Finally, on Government amendment 96, the standard voting arrangement for making decisions in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities will be a simple majority vote, as is provided for in clause 6. However, in the English devolution White Paper, the Government committed to ensuring that key strategic decisions would have the support of all constituent councils. Adopting a local transport plan is one of those key decisions. Existing non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities already have provisions in their constitutions that require local transport plans to be agreed by all constituent councils.
We know that these provisions provide reassurance to prospective constituent councils, which is why the amendment introduces a requirement for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to get the consent of all their constituent councils before adopting a local transport plan. I commend all the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 88 agreed to.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 265, in schedule 9, page 149, line 37, at end insert—
“(4D) In preparing or revising a local transport plan, a local transport authority must have regard to the air quality guidelines established by the World Health Organization.”
This amendment requires all local transport authorities, including mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities, to have regard to the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines when preparing or revising their local transport plans.
This is a simple amendment that I worked out with the Healthy Air Coalition and my good friends who campaign on air pollution, such as Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah who works in memory of her daughter. The health burden of air pollution falls hardest on those with the least choice—children, old people and low-income communities living near congested roads and industrial corridors—yet the current legal limits for nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter are four times higher than the World Health Organisation recommends.
The latest figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may show improvements in some cities. Areas such as London and Nottingham are now technically compliant with the legal limits, but compliance with outdated legal limits does not mean the air is safe to breathe. The Bill gives combined authorities a crucial opportunity to align transport planning with public health outcomes and the correct goals.
Combined authorities have shown some real willingness to act, but their ambition can be constrained by national standards that lag far behind the World Health Organisation’s evidence and guidelines. The Bill is a chance to change that by ensuring that local transport plans are designed not just to meet the legal minimum but to deliver genuinely clean and healthy air for communities.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 98, in schedule 9, page 152, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert—
“14 In section 146 (mandatory concessions: supplementary)—
(a) the existing text becomes subsection (1);
(b) in that subsection, in the definition of ‘travel concession authority’, after paragraph (c) insert—
‘(cza) a combined authority,
(czb) a combined county authority,’;
(c) after that subsection insert—
‘(2) A county council or a council of a non-metropolitan district is not a travel concession authority for the purposes of this Part where—
(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here “constituent council” has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority), and
(b) the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year.’”
This removes joint functions as a travel concession authority from constituent councils of a combined authority or CCA once the authority has completed its first full financial year.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Under schedule 9, all combined authorities and combined county authorities will hold powers and duties over travel concessions. This includes the duty to provide concessionary fares for older and disabled people, as well as a power to provide concessionary fares beyond those that are mandatory.
Government amendments 98, 103 and 104 provide for a transition period for all recently established authorities, during which time they will hold these powers and duties concurrently with constituent authorities. That transition period will extend until the end of the first full financial year following the establishment of the authority, at which point the combined authority or combined county authority will become the sole travel concession authority for the area.
These are important amendments that mean that schedule 9 delivers on our aim to have a consistent framework of powers across all combined authorities and combined county authorities. That will streamline the management of travel concessions, making better use of local government resources. Having only one travel concession authority in an area means a uniform approach for passengers, who can rely on their concession passes working across their local area.
I now move to Government amendments 101 and 102. It is essential that newly established strategic authorities can staff themselves and establish robust decision-making procedures—for example, before exercising certain vital transport functions. That is why amendment 101 introduces a transition period, so that newly established combined authorities and county authorities do not have to secure the provision of passenger transport services on day one.
Until the end of the combined authority or combined county authority’s first full financial year, their constituent councils can continue to exercise that duty to ensure that bus services, for example, are provided for local residents. The transition period allows the combined authority or combined county authority to build up capacity and capability, and to agree a suitable approach to taking on the exercise of these functions. That will support a smooth transfer that minimises disruption for passengers and supports the continued delivery of services.
Finally, Government amendment 102 introduces a transition period for powers to make agreement with Transport for London specifically regarding paying for public transport services, in line with similar transition periods for other local transport powers and functions already provided for in the Bill. Proportionate transition arrangements are essential to support the smooth transition of transport powers from constituent councils to newly established combined authorities and combined county authorities. That will be particularly relevant for councils that border London if they form new strategic authorities. Any agreements that they have made with Transport for London to pay for public transport services can remain in place for the transition period, which gives the combined authority or combined county authority time to negotiate agreements during that period, rather than having to do so on day one.
David Simmonds
We have some concerns about the real-world impact of the measures outlined in these amendments. We all recognise that there is a logic in bringing consistency to concessionary travel, but public transport is commonly not uniformly available across all parts of single existing and combined authority areas. If we think of the footprint of Greater London, there are places such as Harefield in my constituency and Orpington on the opposite side of London that are essentially rural villages that do not have access to trains and are not on the tube network. They are entirely reliant on buses and their transport connections are frequently outside the boundary of Greater London. The value to people who live in those places of the transport network for which they are paying is therefore significantly less than it is to people who live in the centre of the city.
It certainly feels like this set of measures will benefit people in urban areas at the heart of some of these new combined authority areas, but leave people in areas on the fringes paying but not seeing much benefit in terms of access to transport. We know that in many rural parts of the country, access to bus services, for example, is infrequent. Such services are certainly not fit for purpose in terms of providing school transport and transport for medical appointments or similar purposes.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. One is around how existing settlements—whereby local authorities that will become constituent authorities are already, in effect, levied through the local government finance settlement to pay into a centrally co-ordinated concessionary travel scheme, which is what operates in London—will be managed.
The London boroughs effectively forgo a part of their budget in return for free public transport being paid for children of school age. The Freedom Pass also operates for older people, alongside a variety of other concessions—for example, for people with disabilities. How will that be managed so that we do not see a situation where the mayor takes control of it but has no responsibility for that element of the financial impact, or indeed chooses to redeploy resources away from the things for which that resourcing was originally provided?
Secondly, how will that issue be addressed in areas where this factor is newly established? When the end of that first financial year comes into effect, the constituent authorities, which may have a variety of schemes—for example, because one has a particular priority around access to apprenticeships and may have set up a concessionary travel arrangement to enable people to access that—might find themselves at risk of losing them because the combined authority does not have the same priority? It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how those arrangements, many of which are designed to take account of specific local circumstances, will be accounted for in the provisions.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will write to the hon. Member on the specifics of that. I will say that the mandatory concession scheme is determined by the Department for Transport and would operate in that way, and then there is the ability for greater flexibility for additions on top of that. The way that is applying at the moment is that it varies between different strategic authorities in the approach that they are taking, both in terms of who is eligible and the way that they implement it. On the details of how the provisions in the Bill are mitigating against the scenario that he sets out, where the strategic authority wants an additional concession and it has a financial impact on constituent authorities—
David Simmonds
If the Minister can give us an assurance that she will provide that in writing before the conclusion of the Committee, I am happy not to press these amendments to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am very happy to give that assurance. I think the hon. Gentleman can accept my word: in a previous sitting, I assured hon. Members that I would come back in writing, and I think we did that within a day.
Amendment 98 agreed to.
Amendments made: 99, in schedule 9, page 152, line 15, leave out “place insert” and insert—
“places insert the following definitions”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 90.
Amendment 100, in schedule 9, page 152, line 17, at end insert—
“‘non-mayoral CCA’ means a combined county authority that is not a mayoral CCA,
‘non-mayoral combined authority’ means a combined authority that is not a mayoral combined authority,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 90.
Amendment 101, in schedule 9, page 152, line 30, leave out from “are” to the end of line 31 and insert “—
(a) where the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year, references to the combined authority or combined county authority (instead of to the council), and
(b) until that time, references to the combined authority or combined county authority as well as to the council.”
This provides for combined authorities and CCAs to have joint transport functions with county councils within their area until they have completed their first financial year, and thereafter to hold those functions alone.
Amendment 102, in schedule 9, page 153, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert “—
(a) where the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year, references to the combined authority or combined county authority (instead of to the council), and
(b) until that time, references to the combined authority or combined county authority as well as to the council.”
This provides for combined authorities and CCAs to have joint transport functions with county councils within their area until they have completed their first financial year, and thereafter to hold those functions alone.
Amendment 103, in schedule 9, page 153, line 13, at end insert—
“19A In section 93 (travel concession schemes), after subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) A county council or a council of a non-metropolitan district is not a local authority for the purposes of this section where—
(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here “constituent council” has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority), and
(b) the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year.’”
This removes certain jointly held travel functions relating to travel concessions from constituent councils of a combined authority or CCA once the combined authority or CCA has completed its first full financial year.
Amendment 104, in schedule 9, page 153, line 18, at end insert—
“(d) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(4) The power under subsection (1) does not apply to a county or district council where—
(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here “constituent council” has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority), and
(b) the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year.’”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This removes the power in the Transport Act 1985 of constituent councils of a combined authority or CCA to provide travel concessions once the combined authority or CCA has completed its first full financial year.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Transport Authority functions: funding and support—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that relevant authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of those authorities in relation to their transport functions, taking into account the scale and complexity of those functions.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act’ means—
(a) functions of a local transport authority as described in Schedule 9, and (b) any other functions reasonably connected with the transport.”
This new clause creates a requirement for regular reviews of the financial and administrative needs of authorities to carry out their transport functions.
New clause 17—Total transport authority powers for strategic authorities—
“(1) Every strategic authority is a total transport authority for its area.
(2) In any case where an area is covered by more than one strategic authority, the total transport authority for that area is the strategic authority that covers the largest overall area.
(3) ‘Total transport authority’ means a local transport authority (as defined in section 108 of the Transport Act 2000) with the additional responsibilities, powers, and functions provided by this section
(4) The additional strategic responsibilities of total transport authorities are—
(a) the integration of public, private, and community transport within its area;
(b) modal integration of all public transport within its area, including integrated ticketing across all modes of public transport;
(c) integrating the procurement and delivery of transport services with those provided by other public services in its area, including NHS trusts, local authority social care providers, and school transport;
(d) integration of local transport plans with local strategic priorities, including landuse planning and local growth plans; and
(e) entering into cross-border transport agreements with neighbouring transport authorities where the total transport authority or a neighbouring authority consider it appropriate for the purpose of discharging their duties under section 108 of the Transport Act 2000.
(5) A strategic authority may discharge its functions and duties as a total transport authority through either—
(a) the strategic authority itself, or
(b) delegation to a functional body of the strategic authority.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the powers and duties of total transport authorities.
(7) Schedule 23 (Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors) applies to regulations made under this section.”
This new clause would create total transport authorities from existing local transport authorities and provide them with new powers and responsibilities relating to integration of transport.
New clause 18—Report on strategic authority financing of transport projects and schemes—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of—
(a) providing to strategic authorities additional borrowing powers for transport projects or schemes; and
(b) the establishment and operation of tax increment financing schemes for transport projects.
(2) A report under this section must consider—
(a) options for a standardised model for tax increment financing to enable strategic authorities to fund infrastructure;
(b) which revenue streams could be provided to strategic authorities for use in tax increment financing arrangements; and
(c) the potential for revenue generation resulting from infrastructure investment under any such scheme.
(3) A copy of a report published under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on the potential merits of enabling strategic authorities to levy a tax increment for the purposes of transport development.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Local transport is a key responsibility of strategic authorities, which will continue to be the local transport authority for the area. These authorities will be responsible for local transport planning, the duty to secure the provision of local passenger transport services such as buses or trams, and other relevant powers for bus partnerships, bus franchising and travel concessions. This will allow them to make strategic decisions to support growth and placemaking across their areas through improved transport outcomes.
Currently, combined authorities and county authorities hold varying local transport powers under diverse governance arrangements. The Bill gives authorities certainty and clarity about these powers by standardising them. I commend schedule 9 to the Committee.
Vikki Slade
I rise to speak to new clause 11 on funding for transport authorities. There is a lot of merit in harmonising and simplifying the way that transport authorities work. Having borders between different systems can cause huge complications for people crossing them. Obviously, such borders will still exist, but hopefully they will be fewer and farther between.
The purpose of our new clause is to address the elephant in the room. The legislation adds a healthy set of new transport functions for combined authorities, set out across the various measures we have already heard about, and many of them are very positive, but the reality is that those transport authorities that are currently local authorities receive a lot of central Government funding, while the strategic and combined authorities sitting at the higher level do not. Their money is not coming from the magic money tree; it is coming from levies and precepts.
Additional responsibilities are great, but given the additional work involved in all this transport reporting that we have heard about, and the additional functions at a higher level, I am greatly concerned that we may be setting some of these organisations up to fail from the start. Through new clause 11, I am seeking assurance that the Secretary of State will continue to assess and review whether authorities have sufficient support and capacity to carry out these functions, and ensure that they are not too onerous given the source of their funding—levies on the authorities beneath them and precepts directly on the taxpayer.
This Bill is a move away from how we have been funding local authorities; yes, some local authorities are on zero revenue support grants, but many are still quite heavily reliant on central Government funding, and this is the first opportunity for me to say, out loud: are we sure this is a good idea? We are creating a whole framework of legislation and a whole set of local authorities, that have no real central funding. New clause 11 provides the first chance to ask that question and get assurance from the Minister about precisely where the money is coming from. If the money is coming directly from our residents through precepting, we should say that out loud, so that they understand what they have let themselves in for.
Sam Carling
I have a brief, technical question. I might be mistaken in my reading of the provision, but I seek clarification about the arrangements for local transport plans. On Tuesday, the Committee agreed to clause 6, which amended the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to introduce a standard of simple majority voting on combined authority boards. However, we included a grandfathering provision to allow some distinctive governance arrangements at existing authorities to continue.
Schedule 9 makes a similar amendment to the Transport Act 2000, specifically for the adoption of local transport plans, as we have heard, but this amendment does not have the grandfathering provision. Thinking of my own combined authority in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, where local transport plans require a two-thirds majority, I wonder whether the Bill could create legal ambiguity that could lead to judicial reviews or legal challenges. According to clause 6, setting out the general arrangements of boards, the existing arrangements stand once this Bill comes into force, but according to schedule 9 they are overturned. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intention there? Then we can find a way to remove that ambiguity.
Siân Berry
I support the arguments made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. We seem to have a lot of new responsibilities, and in transport we lack clarity about where the money is coming from. I agree with the idea of integrated settlements, but will transport continue to receive what it currently does? Will the new authorities be well funded? With austerity so entrenched in local authorities and all this reorganisation happening, will any of that start to be reversed?
With that in mind, I have put forward two new clauses with ideas to solve some of those issues. I will briefly outline why Members might consider supporting new clauses 17 and 18, which are closely related.
New clause 17 is an attempt to put together so-called total transport authority powers for the strategic authorities, to help them to be more of an integrated transport authority than would be achieved by simply transposing local transport plan powers over from the Transport Act 2000. It would add strategic responsibilities around planning and integrating different modes and transport providers in a total transport authority’s area. To be clear, it is not necessarily about providing all those things; many are provided by different parts of the public sector. It is about having responsibility for integrating them.
New clause 17 is also about bringing in integrated ticketing. That is crucial, not just for the convenience and benefit of passengers on public transport, but as a way—particularly at the scale of a strategic authority, which is where these kind of total transport authority responsibilities sit—of achieving the ability to cross-subsidise different modes of travel. This is a good way of making efficiency work in terms of funding, raising money and making the most of the ability to use revenue to create borrowing for investment.
The Department for Transport conducted a viability trial of total transport solutions in 2019 . It was focused on rural areas, and found that local authorities made savings—relatively modest, but they were at the local authority level—and services could be improved without additional costs. This saves money at the wider Exchequer level. If we are talking about the providers of public services listed in the new clause—NHS trusts, local authority social care providers and school transport provision in the area—strategic authorities are asked to look at better integrating those obviously integratable types of transport, and make them more efficient.
The new clause would also enable cross-subsidisation between profitable and non-profitable streams of transport provision. We see that in the London budget, with which I was intimately familiar for many years. The tube network is able to make a profit, which helps to subsidise bus journeys, and that is to everyone’s benefit. That is worth Ministers’ consideration in more detail, and I hope the new clause will prompt them to do that.
It was not my intention to go over the top with this, so I tabled a second new clause—new clause 18—which asks Ministers to look again at tax increment financing, instead of attempting to amend powers already in the Bill. There are clear benefits from tax increment financing. The ability to add a levy to, for example, business rates, as has been done in the past, or potentially on VAT in an area, and to use that to borrow for significant investment, is potentially really powerful. It was used in part for the Northern line extension to Battersea, for example—a glimmer of new tube line that suddenly happened because of that kind of initiative. New clause 18 asks Ministers to look at this issue again and to consider the power for strategic authorities.
We are all wondering where the money might come from. We can see the potential benefits of this level of organisation, but the new clause would put some more powers in place and prompt further reviews of what might be done to help these bodies stand on their own two feet. As we discussed earlier in relation to precepts, powers to raise money will not necessarily lead to a lot of new taxes and levies; they are self-regulating via the process of democracy and are therefore not to be feared.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire and then turn to new clauses 11, 17 and 18.
I assure my hon. Friend that grandfathering arrangements apply. Existing local transport plan voting arrangements for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough that have already been brought into their constitution will apply, and the amendments in the Bill will not override them.
I welcome the intent behind new clause 11 and completely agree with the principle that we need to ensure that the local transport authorities we are creating, which have an vital role to play in our areas, have the resources and funding to do that well. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked whether we have thought this through. We actively have, but more important is that places have thought it through; there is a clamour to move in this direction and to put in place strategic transport functions, because the huge opportunities are recognised.
We already have a mechanism through the spending review by which we can judge and calibrate whether individual local transport authorities have the resources to do the job required. All local transport authorities will make a judgment about the demands versus their funding as part of the spending review decision.
It is worth noting for the Committee that funding for local transport increased in the spending review settlement, with £15.6 billion put in place for transport for city regions, £2.3 billion for areas outside of city regions and £1 billion for buses. That was in addition to local transport funding provided through the local government settlement. That is both proof and an example of how conversations about what is needed are being matched by resources provided.
Alongside that, we are creating as much flexibility as we can through the local government finance settlement, where we are moving to more consolidated multi-year funding, but also through the Department for Transport giving local leaders greater funding certainty and flexibility, again with multi-year funding settlements, which allows them to plan better.
Finally, as we discussed on Tuesday, there is the question of capacity. We must include capacity to ensure that combined authorities and combined county authorities are doing the job that is being asked of them by their respective constituent authorities, voters and us. That is why we are committing to include funding for capacity building.
On new clause 17, I share the desire of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for transport integration. Strategic authorities have been created to seize the opportunities to come together across a larger geography on transport, economic development and regeneration. However, the new clause would duplicate many of the existing powers and actions of strategic authorities, as well as the new powers already being introduced by the Bill.
In addition to the new powers over planning, clause 21, in part 2 creates a new power for mayors to convene other public bodies to assist with their aims. This power could be used to bring these bodies together without creating a new class of authority. Strategic authorities already undertake significant work to bring together transport modes and functions in their areas, and already have wide-ranging public transport powers. We encourage authorities working on these plans to engage with providers, including those of community transport.
I recognise that new clause 18 is well intentioned and well reasoned, but I do not believe that it is necessary. Existing mayoral strategic authorities possess borrowing powers for all their functions, including transport, which enables them to invest in projects and infrastructure. Through the Bill, we are also enhancing the opportunities for mayors to raise revenue so that they can invest more in local transport. This includes enabling the existing mayoral council tax precept to be spent on the full range of growth levers, including transport, and giving mayors the power to charge a mayoral community infrastructure levy. If mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities wish for changes to existing powers, they will be able to express this through the statutory right to request process. For all those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to push their new clauses to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
The Chair
We have to do a little bit of procedure. I am sure you all noticed that we missed the decision on clause 29 stand part. We can remedy this with an amendment to the programme motion that changes the order of consideration, meaning that clause 29 can be taken after schedule 9, which is now.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 16 September be varied as follows—
In paragraph 3, leave out “Clauses 28 and 29; Schedule 9; Clause 30;” and insert “Clause 28; Schedule 9; Clauses 29 and 30;”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Adult education
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 30, page 38, line 3, leave out “adult”.
This would be consequential on Amendment 108.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to understand the sustained demand for education and training places in their areas. In line with the rest of the Bill, the clause places duties on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils to plan provision locally and ensure that enough education and training is provided in their areas. This will ensure that the needs of those aged 16 to 18, and those aged 19 or over with an education, health and care plan, are met. Some strategic authorities already have these duties. This provision creates uniformity across all areas and provides the legal basis for the allocation of funding to meet such duties. All areas should benefit from strategic authorities working with their constituent councils to deliver essential education and training for young people.
Government amendment 107 will ensure that at least one full academic year has passed between the establishment or designation of a new strategic authority and its ability to exercise the six adult education functions. It also ensures that the strategic authority delivers those functions from the beginning of an academic year, thereby mitigating disruption for learners and providers. The full academic year gives strategic authorities time to build their adult skills teams, develop their skills strategies and plan how they will fund and procure adult skills provision in their areas, thereby maximising the chances of effective delivery. This approach is in line with that taken for strategic authorities that already exercise such functions. Strategic authorities that already exercise adult education functions will continue to do so uninterrupted.
Amendment 105 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Devolving adult education functions, such as the duty to secure the provision of education and training for persons aged 19 or over, will provide strategic authorities with an essential tool to drive regional economic prosperity. As I have said, adult education functions are already devolved to 21 strategic authorities and delegated to the Greater London Authority, but the arrangements are currently ad hoc and patchwork. Clause 30 will allow the automatic conferring of adult education functions on new and existing strategic authorities, to create a more consistent and coherent model of devolution. It establishes a standardised framework—a key objective of the Bill—so that devolved powers, duties and functions are taken up by all strategic authorities.
Schedule 10 amends the Apprenticeships, Schools, Children and Learning Act 2009 to confer education-related duties to strategic authorities. The manner in which those duties are conferred is in line with the approach for the 13 authorities that already have adult education functions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 106, in schedule 10, page 153, line 22, after “this” insert “Part of this”.
This would be consequential on Amendment 108.
Amendment 107, in schedule 10, page 157, line 37, at end insert—
“10A After section 120A insert—
‘120B When functions become exercisable by strategic authorities
The Mayor of London
(1) The functions conferred on the Mayor of London by this Part are exercisable by the Mayor in relation to—
(a) the academic year beginning with 1 August 2025, and
(b) each subsequent academic year.
Combined authority or CCA already exercising the functions
(2) Subsection (3) applies to a combined authority or CCA if functions conferred on it by this Part are also pre-commencement functions.
(3) The functions continue to be exercisable by the combined authority or CCA on and after the commencement day (but as functions conferred by this Part).
Other combined authority or CCA
(4) Subsection (5) applies to a combined authority or CCA—
(a) if functions conferred on it by this Part are not pre-commencement functions;
(b) whether the combined authority or CCA was established before, or is established on or after, the commencement day.
(5) The functions conferred on the combined authority or CCA by this Part are exercisable by it in relation to—
(a) the second academic year to begin after the academic year during which it was, or is, established, and
(b) each subsequent academic year.
District or county council already exercising the functions
(6) Subsection (7) applies to a district council or county council that is a strategic authority if functions conferred on it by this Part are also pre-designation functions.
(7) The functions continue to be exercisable by the district council or county council on and after its designation (but as functions conferred by this Part).
Other district or county council
(8) Subsection (9) applies to a district council or county council that is a strategic authority if functions conferred on it by this Part are not pre-designation functions.
(9) The functions conferred on the district council or county council by this Part are exercisable by it in relation to—
(a) the second academic year to begin after the academic year during which its designation takes effect, and
(b) each subsequent academic year.
Interpretation
(10) In this section—
“academic year” means each period—
(a) beginning with 1 August, and
(b) ending with the next 31 July;
“commencement day” means the day on which the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 is passed;
“designation”, in relation to a district council or county council that is a strategic authority, means its designation as a single foundation strategic authority;
“pre-commencement functions” means functions which were exercisable by a combined authority or CCA immediately before the commencement day by virtue of—
(a) an order under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(b) regulations under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
“pre-designation functions” means functions which are exercisable by a district council or county council immediately before its designation, by virtue of regulations under section 16 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.’”.
This would specify when the education functions dealt with by Schedule 10 become exercisable by a strategic authority. If a strategic authority does not already have the functions, or is established or designated after commencement, the functions are exercisable in relation to the second academic year after establishment or designation.
Amendment 108 in schedule 10, page 158, line 36, at end insert—
“Part 2
Education for 16-19 year olds etc
13 The Education Act 1996 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
14 (1) Section 15ZA (duty in respect of education and training for persons over compulsory
school age: England) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1), for ‘local authority in England’ substitute ‘relevant authority’.
(3) In the following provisions, for ‘local authority’ substitute ‘relevant authority’—
(a) subsection (2);
(b) subsection (3), in the words before paragraph (a);
(c) in subsection (4), in the words before paragraph (a);
(d) in subsection (5), in the words before paragraph (a);
(e) in subsection (9).
15 In section 15ZB (co-operation in performance of section 15ZA duty), for ‘Local authorities in England’ substitute ‘Relevant authorities’.
16 In section 15ZC (encouragement of education and training for persons over compulsory school age: England), in subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘local authority in England’ substitute ‘relevant authority’.
17 In section 579 (general interpretation), in subsection (1), after the definition of ‘regulations’ insert—
‘“relevant authority” means—
(a) a local authority in England,
(b) a combined authority established under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(c) a combined county authority established under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.’”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would confer on strategic authorities additional functions relating to education and training for persons over compulsory school age.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31
Planning applications of potential strategic importance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Mayors will be given new powers in relation to planning applications of strategic importance, in order to help them to shape the strategic development in their area. The Secretary of State and the Mayor of London have long had the power to intervene and call in planning decisions; we want to ensure that mayors across the country have the opportunity to do the same. This will help to decentralise decisions away from Whitehall—something that I know all Committee Members are keen on.
Clause 31 introduces schedule 11, which works alongside schedule 12, which is inserted by clause 32. The schedules expand existing Mayor of London powers in sections 2A and 74(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to give mayors outside London the ability to call in or directly refuse applications. Schedule 11 also amends section 2A of that Act to allow call-ins when the local planning authority is a mayoral development corporation.
The powers will apply only to the most significant developments that have the potential to raise genuine strategic planning issues—for example, large-scale housing and commercial developments, or significant development on protected areas such as the green belt, which could have a bearing on the implementation of the area’s adopted spatial development strategy. Mayors will be able to intervene only where applications meet thresholds set out in secondary legislation.
The Government have made clear the importance of getting a spatial development strategy in place, so we will legislate so that a spatial development strategy must be in place before the powers can be used. We will consult on legislation before bringing the powers into force. I strongly emphasise that local planning authorities will continue to make decisions on the vast majority of applications without recourse to the mayor.
Finally, the new powers will not affect the well-established arrangements that have been in place in London for more than 15 years. We are, however, engaging with the Mayor to improve the process in order to support greater housing delivery in London, which I know the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is very keen on.
David Simmonds
I rise to ask some brief questions of the Minister, perhaps starting with the last point, about where there is a conflict. London is a good example. The Mayor’s total failure to achieve the housing targets set by central Government is creating a knock-on pressure at local authority level. We know that, in trying to unlock developments, the Government are currently engaged in discussion about significantly reducing the target for affordable housing. There is the potential for call-in powers to create a conflict with the housing duties of the local authority against its overarching objectives. I can think of places in or close to my constituency—a good example is Hendon circus, where 27 years ago I chaired a planning committee that granted consent. That is still a derelict site, despite multiple interventions with the Mayor of London, because it has basically been ping-ponging between developers. We need to make sure that this legislation has rigour and will actually deliver.
Will the Minister provide some assurance that an effective mechanism will be in place? It is all very well talking about mayoral powers to direct planning authorities, but we often see a mayoral failure to progress developments, to the frustration of a planning authority. How will we ensure that there is that rigour, so the homes for which planning consents are granted actually get built?
Siân Berry
I, too, have much experience of the London system of planning—of putting together the London plan and its implementation through strategic planning applications. I have a couple of things to say.
First, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, we have heard alarming reports today that the well-worked-through, evidence-based requirements that were put into the London plan may be undermined by an unclear process. We would like assurance that once the processes are carried out—once local people have engaged and many local authorities have given evidence in respect of a plan and some policies—the policies are kept in place and used by the mayors who have gone to so much trouble. We hear rumours of CIL holidays and other really worrying things. I will not ask for answers on that now, but we will discuss the community infrastructure levy later.
The issue I want to raise is the transparency and clarity of the online information that accompanied the Mayor of London carrying out his strategic planning responsibility in respect of individual planning applications. As an expert user of that online information in the past, I know it is vastly worse than what is commonplace and very good from most local authorities. One does not get easy access to the accompanying documents or other people’s comments as they come in; they can be incredibly useful in local authority planning applications. By contrast to the national infrastructure planning process, the documents associated with the planning application are not published and the timetable is not necessarily available. I had endless trouble while trying to scrutinise and take part in the process.
I beg the Minister to look at putting in place a more standardised way of making the planning applications that are intervened on by mayors, and the process that happens, more transparent. It should match either of the other two planning levels we have. At the GLA end of things, it has not been very good.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We all share the desire to see housing built. I will not make the political point that the last Government, of which the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner was part, categorically failed to do that. The challenges faced by the Mayor of London are the function of systematic failure over 14 years and a housing market that is in a very difficult position.
We absolutely want to see house building at pace. First, we are putting in place a requirement that there has to be a spatial development strategy that sets out how the mayor will deliver housing needs—a core document that will ensure that it bites. Mayoral call-in powers can be used only once that spatial development strategy is in place. Once house building has been granted permission, we want to see it built out effectively. Obviously, we will keep this under review to ensure that the duty to direct comes alongside the call-in and that the spatial development strategy works effectively to deliver the outcome we want to see.
On the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion’s point about the transparency of the process, residents across the piece often find the planning process, whether at the strategic or local authority level, pretty opaque and hard to navigate. We will continue to look at that, because it is important that when strategic or local planning decisions are made, residents understand why, how, and how they can fully engage in the process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 32
Development orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 32 expands existing Mayor of London powers in relation to mayoral development orders and directions to all mayors of strategic authorities. It will allow the mayor to be consulted on and to direct the refusal of certain planning applications, and it makes consequential changes to other legislation. We will discuss the effects of the schedules that the clause introduces in greater detail later. For now, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12
Development orders
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 58, in schedule 12, page 162, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
This amendment would remove provision for the Secretary of State to have the power to approve a Mayoral Development Order where a Local Planning Authority has not approved it by the end of the period.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 59, in schedule 12, page 164, line 1, leave out subparagraphs (9) and (10).
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 58.
Manuela Perteghella
I will speak mainly to amendment 58, because amendment 59 is consequential on amendment 58, which seeks to decentralise even further planning decisions from Whitehall. It would remove the power of the Secretary of State to step in and approve a mayoral development order when the local planning authority has not given its approval within the set timeframe.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but we cannot accept it. In any planning process, constituent authorities will be fully consulted and engaged. Ultimately, the implementation of a local transport plan or of transport decisions that are made through a mayoral development order will require engagement and work with the constituent authority, so the process will be one of consensus. In the broad majority of cases, we expect to see that consensus. Indeed, where we currently see collaboration across boundaries, consensus is what is driving decisions across those boundaries.
However, we recognise that there will be occasions when consensus cannot be reached. It is absolutely right that mayors can then refer the case to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate, to be assessed on its planning merits. The ability to make a referral to the state and the Planning Inspectorate is a standard feature of the planning process, even for local authorities, and we think it is right that it operates. I come back to the point that, ultimately, to implement big schemes, constituent authorities need to be brought in and to be part of the implementation. Finding consensus is not only what happens in practice but the spirit in which we expect mayors to work. This provision is but a backstop.
David Simmonds
I listened carefully to the Minister. We have great sympathy with the amendment. One of the concerns that has run throughout this debate and that on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, with which this legislation interacts, is that it complicates the planning system still further. My earlier example illustrates that well: a developer applies to the local authority and gets consent for something; it comes back for something larger, but is refused; it goes to the planning inspector, gets consent for something else; it puts in another application, going to the mayor and getting the chance of going to a Secretary of State call-in; and then the developer sells the site, and the whole process starts again. No homes are built and no infrastructure is delivered, but value is added from the developer’s perspective, because it has traded the site on.
There is clearly a risk to introducing that extent of mayoral call-ins as well. They will provide massive incentives for a developer at every stage to second-guess the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee at the local authority, the mayor, the planning inspector or the Secretary of State, continuing the merry-go-round of the 1.5 million planning permissions in England at the moment where development has not commenced. In many cases, that is because of that trading process.
We are minded to support the amendment. I appreciate that the Government have the numbers and we will be defeated, but the point is well made: we need to streamline the system, not add to its complexity and bureaucracy in this way.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government agree that we need to streamline and simplify the planning process, making it much quicker and smoother. I will again put on the record that the previous Government had 14 years to do that, but they absolutely, categorically, failed to do so. We are now getting on with it, and my colleagues in the Department have taken the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through the House. Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches should not want to be talking about their record, because they should be ashamed of it.
On the key point about adding another level of complexity, I point hon. Members to the fact that the measure applies only to strategic sites. The planning system will operate as usual, with local planning authorities having the key remit to drive things forward. This provision is for strategically significant sites, partly because of their scale or because they are critical to the strategic development plan.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 252, in schedule 12, page 163, line 19 at end insert—
“(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert—
‘(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure—
(a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and
(b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area’.”
This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 304, in schedule 12, page 164, line 33, at end insert—
“61DCB Density requirement
(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—
(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,
(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or
(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.
(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation
(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”
This new clause would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.
Manuela Perteghella
The amendment would require mayors to ensure that planning approvals are consistent with the strategic spatial energy plan and the land use framework for their area. I want to tell the Minister that this is a friendly and collaborative amendment. We want development to be coherent with energy policy and land use. That is important, especially in rural areas that are off grid, or in areas vulnerable to flooding or with protected landscapes, for example. Without the amendment, decisions about housing, infrastructure and new settlements can be made without proper reference to energy needs, grid capacity, or wider environmental and land use priorities. In our view, that would be a great mistake. We have the chance to improve the Bill here.
The strategic spatial energy plan and the local area energy plans set out how an area intends to meet its energy demands and, most importantly, to decarbonise its supply and deliver the infrastructure needed for the transition that we all want to see to net zero. The land use framework also provides a strategic view of how land is allocated to balance the needs of housing, agriculture—in my constituency—and businesses. Education and skills are also important, including adult education, as are transport and so on.
By requiring mayors to check that development applications are consistent with the strategic frameworks and any strategic visions, the amendment would ensure that short-term decisions are made with a strategic mindset and a long-term vision, taking into consideration our national commitments to sustainable growth, sustainable energy, net zero targets and local priorities in a given area, which could be the visitor economy, agriculture, business and so on.
Like the other amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled, the amendment would strengthen local voices in decision making. Our local energy plans and land use frameworks are documents and visions that are made by consulting local people. The frameworks have been developed through public consultation and partnership with local councils, businesses, residents and, as I have mentioned before, town and parish councils. Those efforts should be recognised and embedded in the Bill.
The amendment is pragmatic and constructive. It would not remove any powers from mayors, but only ensure that those powers are used in a way that respects local frameworks and national targets, and supports the needs and interests of our communities.
David Simmonds
I shall speak to amendment 304, which stands in my name. I would like to think that it is one of those amendments that the Government will adopt, if they are wise, because it would do something practical towards the delivery of a higher level of housing through the Bill.
Despite the provision of very large amounts of capital funding by the previous Government, the Mayor of London has been a case study in the failure to deliver. There will be complex reasons in the wider market why it has been a challenge, but the previous Government delivered just shy of a net additional 1 million new homes over the life of the previous Parliament, in line with the target. Since then, house building has collapsed. Partly that seems to be because operators in the market—big developers and house building companies—are looking at the Bill and seeing opportunities to increase the potential value of their sites by arbitraging between all the different layers of bureaucracy, rather than delivering homes.
However, many of our constituents look at areas that have good PTAL—public transport access levels—scores, and so an ability to access effective public transport, as offering a high degree of opportunity. The Opposition’s view is that we should prioritise sites like that, which in some cases are quite close to securing planning consent, because of their ability to densify our urban centres. In London and other big cities, such as Manchester, where we had our recent party conference, we see examples of this approach delivering large amounts of additional housing in city centre areas. It contributes to growth, to housing delivery and to the economy of those local areas.
For all those reasons, the amendment is positive, so I hope that the Government will accept that it would add significant value to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Paul Holmes
I echo some of the words of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, and I want to talk briefly about one of the things I feel particularly passionate about in planning: the densification of our urban centres. I spoke at a number of events at Conservative party conference where I advocated for it, as my hon. Friend has, as well as speaking about where we did not get it quite right when we were in government.
I am the first to say that we did not come down as hard as we should have on many speculative developments on green spaces, both in my constituency and across the country. We lost a lot of the ability to regenerate some of our urban centres, which is a fortunate and necessary by-product of unlocking some of the sites in our urban centres, as amendment 304 is intended to do. Our urban centres are where many of our younger people want to live. There is a connectivity already. The infrastructure exists, although I am the first to say that much of the infrastructure in our urban centres needs to be improved. That is where our younger people, our more mobile people, our entrepreneurs and those who want to make a success of their life, particularly in tech centres and economic centres, want to live; but, unfortunately, that is where the higher-priced properties are.
Siân Berry
I endorse the amendment. It is extremely sensible to have this kind of priority in place. It is extremely reminiscent of planning policy guidance note 13, which was abolished by the coalition Government in 2011 and was originally put in place under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2001, if I recall correctly. It was part of an integrated transport policy, making sure that homes and transport were planned in concert and that there was a sequential test for focusing first on areas that were already developed—areas close to urban centres—and then allowing for sequential use of greener areas.
That is something that we lack in planning policy at the moment. Having a policy that is entirely either/or, or where we free up things completely or not at all, without a sequential test, has led to a lot of conflict in planning policy lately. Something that sets a sequence of priorities is much more sensible, and I think the Minister should look at it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for her constructive and helpful amendment 252. In principle, the ability to integrate a land use framework and energy plan at the strategic level obviously makes sense. Regarding the amendment as drafted, the Government have consulted on a land use framework but have not yet provided a response, so the land use framework is not a tangible thing that strategic authorities can hinge their plans on.
Similarly, strategic spatial energy plans, which I have a lot of support for, and which I hope to see across the country, are at an embryonic stage. We do not know how high level they will be. The principle—that as strategic authorities are thinking about their strategic plans they should think about a whole host of things—holds, but we do not think that the amendment is appropriate because of the frameworks that it hinges on.
Vikki Slade
I wish to clarify the purpose of raising the issue of strategic spatial energy plans. There is a real risk that people confuse local area energy plans with net zero and climate change, but there is a possibility for us all to agree that it is far easier to put the role of the strategic authorities to think about the future of energy, from grid capacity to how we get things done, in those terms than to risk it becoming a net zero football. I would love to see, as the Bill goes through Parliament, a way for this measure to be inserted, because there are some real risks coming down the line, with potential leaderships that may try to drive things in a different direction.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I agree with the hon. Lady’s broader point. There is absolutely a piece for us to think about regarding energy infrastructure. Having served as Minister for energy consumers, thinking about how we drive warm homes and the interaction with the grid, there is clearly a big piece of work that needs to be done there, and a role for strategic authorities to play in thinking about that planning in an integrated way.
The frameworks that amendment 252 refers to are nascent and likely to be quite high level, but the principle is that as strategic planning authorities think about their spatial energy plan they should think about both how they effectively use the land and the energy and transport infrastructure that is in place.
I agree with the intent behind amendment 304. I refer hon. Members to the national planning policy framework, which rightly places greater emphasis on the use of previously developed land, and we want to see mayoral development orders used to support urban regeneration. On those points, we are completely aligned. However, we should not over-constrain mayors. We want legislative flexibility to allow a mayor to use a range of land types across their area. Where an urban extension or a new town is the appropriate thing, we do not want to bind the hands of mayoral strategic authorities and stop them being able to use the right land for the right development.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is right to say that the NPPF outlines previously developed land, but it does not include density, so it is not necessarily relevant to this amendment. We seek an incentivisation of densification: does she agree with that policy basis?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national planning policy framework, which tries to encourage and incentivise the use of previously developed land, and to make sure that within our urban centres we are building out as much as we can. That is an issue for the NPPF and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It would not be right, in the context of mayors specifically, to constrain them and say, “You can only use one land type.” We must allow the flexibility but use national planning policy to encourage urban regeneration and urban densification.
Manuela Perteghella
I will not press the amendment, but I would like a reassurance from the Minister on the frameworks. Although they are nascent and in their embryonic state, they are really important. By the time the Bill becomes law, we will be consulting on these frameworks and applying them. Will the Minister write to tell us how this issue will be resolved? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment proposed: 304, in schedule 12, page 164, line 33, at end insert—
“61DCB Density requirement
(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—
(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,
(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or
(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.
(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation
(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”—(David Simmonds.)
This new clause would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
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
Black Maternal Health
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
Health and Social Care Committee
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
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We start this afternoon’s sitting with a Select Committee statement. Paulette Hamilton will speak on the publication of the third report of the Health and Social Care Committee, “Black Maternal Health”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of Paulette’s statement, I will ask Members who want to put questions on the subject to do so, and then call on Paulette to respond to each of those questions in turn. Questions and responses should be brief, please, as we have only 10 minutes, and that will help everyone to get in.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Betts. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship.
I wish to make a statement on the recent publication of the Health and Social Care Committee’s report on black maternal health. I speak on behalf of the Committee, which I formally thank for all its hard work and dedication to this inquiry. I also wish to speak for the black mothers whose lives have been forever changed by failings in maternity healthcare, although I note that many of the issues raised with the Committee affect all women who use maternity services.
I thank all those who gave evidence, written or oral, to this inquiry, and I extend my deepest sympathies to anyone affected by maternal health failings. The voices of black women are at the heart of this report, and I thank them in particular for their powerful and often painful testimonies.
Despite repeated policy commitments and public concerns from multiple Governments, black patients still receive poorer-quality maternity care and support. The support they receive often fails to meet their emotional and cultural needs, which has led to black mothers in England being more than twice as likely to die during childbirth than white mothers. The figure for 2014 to 2016 was almost five times higher, which appears to show that there has been progress in this area, but I stress that the reduction is partly due to worsening outcomes for other groups, not improvements for black women.
Our report follows a comprehensive inquiry that identified three key areas where action is urgently needed: culture, leadership and racism. Racism is one of the core drivers of poor maternal healthcare for black women, and it must therefore be tackled urgently and effectively. Black women suffer stereotyping, bias and racist assumptions during childbirth, as was made explicitly clear to us throughout our inquiry. The testimonies we heard were harrowing.
Let me share some examples. First, women suffer due to the “strong black woman” trope. During active labour, one woman was denied pain relief and given only paracetamol—her baby was born 10 minutes later. Another woman was told that she could handle the pain despite losing a concerning amount of blood.
We also heard of a midwife who chose to blame an African pelvis for slow labour, rather than check for complications. Another mother was told that she was making noise when she pleaded for help during childbirth, having been ignored by staff. Another experienced racism in its purest form, being told, “This isn’t Africa, you know,” when she had family members visiting. We also heard of a black woman receiving no breastfeeding help or support from white midwives, which changed only when a black student midwife came on shift. A report from Five X More described similar experiences.
Racism in the NHS not only harms patients; it affects healthcare professionals from minority ethnic backgrounds who encounter and experience the same discrimination and structural barriers, just in a different context. That, alongside the host of other evidence that we received, led us to call for mandatory cultural competency and anti-racism training in the NHS. Currently, where it does exist, it is optional or limited in scope.
We also call for leadership to be held accountable for creating inclusive and anti-racist environments, as we have heard that NHS trusts can refuse even to acknowledge that racism exists in their services. When we spoke to the Minister, Baroness Merron, she agreed that greater accountability is needed. That is welcome, and we will continue to hold her and the wider Government to account on this issue.
The second key area for improvement is the workforce. The NHS currently faces a shortfall of 2,500 midwives. On top of that, 74% of midwives cite unrealistic workloads, and 87% report unsafe staffing levels. Those shortages directly impact the quality and continuity of care that all mothers receive. It is essential that there are firm commitments in the upcoming workforce plan to deliver safe staffing levels for maternity services. We also know the importance of continuity of care to both midwives and mothers in building trust, tailoring support and spotting warning signs early. That used to be a national target, but it was abandoned three years ago due to workforce pressures. We call for that target to be reinstated in the upcoming plan.
Workforce diversity is also paramount. We have heard that, despite almost a third of the workforce coming from minority ethnic backgrounds, that is true of only 12.7% of senior NHS managers, and 95% of midwife educators are white. The plan must therefore include specific targets to diversify maternity leadership and education, backed by robust monitoring.
The third area is data. Without complete data, disparities in maternal outcomes cannot be accurately identified, let alone improved. That is particularly relevant in two areas. First, the current frameworks for monitoring maternal morbidity do not have the same scope or rigour as those for baby deaths or maternal mortality. Successive Governments have discussed implementing a maternal morbidity indicator to track and measure non-fatal complications such as sepsis, eclampsia and postpartum haemorrhage, but progress has been shockingly slow. Developments must be accelerated on that measure, and there must be a clear timetable for implementation.
Secondly, too many ethnicity entries in the maternity services dataset are recorded as “unknown” or “not stated”. In a 2022 example from the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital, more than 9,000 missing ethnicity background details were identified. Better data is crucial to improving results for those with the lowest outcomes in maternity health: black women. The upcoming workforce plan must also include support and training for effective data collection.
The final area I would like to discuss is funding. All the issues relating to maternity care that I have spoken about today simply cannot be fixed without adequate funding, yet the maternity service development fund has recently been cut from £95 million to £2 million, which is deeply concerning. Although the NHS said that the money is still available and has just been moved elsewhere in the budget, we are concerned that, without ringfenced funding, maternity services will be deprioritised and will continue to cause harm to all mothers. We therefore call on the Government to restore the dedicated, ringfenced funding for the maternity service development fund to its previous amount.
Since 2019, the NHS has faced a £27.7 billion bill for maternity negligence. That exceeds the total maternity budget for the same period by almost £10 billion. I know there are funding pressures across the NHS, but that clearly shows that greater investment here would have the potential to more than pay for itself. Since we launched the inquiry, the Government have announced a rapid national investigation into maternity and neonatal services, which is welcome. Addressing the racial disparities in maternal outcomes must be one of the core aims of the investigation, and I hope to see it as a prominent feature in the investigation’s work.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but we need to move on to the questions. Time is very short, so can we please have questions, rather than reviews of the report?
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I very much welcome the report and the leadership that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) has shown throughout its production. I have the honour of serving on the Health and Social Care Committee, and this is one of the standout pieces of work that we carried out while she was interim Chair.
One of the things that stood out to me as we undertook this investigation was the huge need for cultural change in maternal care, which struck me as very impactful. How can a woman at the most vulnerable point in her life feel safe receiving healthcare from a trust that has been called racist? The need for that cultural change was the key takeaway for me. Does my hon. Friend agree that, on a widespread basis across maternal services in the NHS, this change is desperately needed?
Paulette Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a brilliant member of the Committee, including during the inquiry. She is absolutely right. The issue of cultural change applies to everybody. We need to look at cultural change within maternity services, not just for black women but for all women. If we are to get the improvements in maternity care that we need, we need to look at how we can develop both the cultural awareness training and, more so, people’s mindsets, because of how they think within that system.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), my fellow member of the Health and Social Care Committee, not only on the manner in which she handled this inquiry but on the manner in which she stepped in, very appropriately, during our work on maternity care. This is a particularly exciting day, because this morning my niece produced a wonderful, healthy daughter, Aria Diana, weighing 9 lb 7 oz, for heaven’s sake—a very healthy baby. They are in hospital but will, I understand, be discharged this afternoon.
In relation to the report, the hon. Member highlights the importance of workforce and workforce planning. Does she agree that it is a pity that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ workforce toolkit has not been adopted? And does she agree that we should encourage the Minister, who it is great to see here, and the Department to adopt that as quickly as possible so that we can improve the quality of maternity services for all?
Paulette Hamilton
I thank the hon. Member, who is a member of the Committee—I love him to bits. He has been absolutely brilliant throughout, and I absolutely agree with him. I press the Government to look a little more carefully at some of the things that have been put forward regarding workforce, because some of them are simple things that would make a massive difference for maternity services.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I remind Members of the need for brevity in questions.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The statistics in this report and everything they reflect are completely shocking. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for bringing it forward on behalf of the Committee. Records at Leighton, my local hospital, show that work has been done on improving experiences and outcomes for Asian and black women, but unfortunately, given the quality of data collection, it is quite difficult to be sure whether that is translating into better clinical outcomes for everyone—particularly black and Asian women. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to urgently push that work forward?
Paulette Hamilton
To be brief, we do need to look at data. It is crucial that the rapid review takes on board the data and improves the way that it is collected and used.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for bringing this statement forward. I am sure that all Members are shocked by the statistics showing that black and Asian women have much worse outcomes than white women in maternity services, but we must recognise that improvement in maternity services has stalled overall as well. Does the hon. Member agree that protecting the ringfenced funding is critical to ensuring safe staffing in the future? I hope the Committee will continue to push for that.
Paulette Hamilton
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. The ringfenced funding was removed. The Committee was told through its inquiry that the funding can still be used—it is just in other parts of the budget. But if we do not have that funding ringfenced, it will not be prioritised. That means that women will continue to suffer in maternity services. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I welcome the work of the Committee and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for her personal leadership on this critical issue. Black women are twice as likely as white women to be hospitalised with mental illness during the perinatal period. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a shocking statistic, and that as we look at the way forward to improve maternity outcomes, we must ensure that mental and physical health are given equal weighting?
Paulette Hamilton
Mental health is something that I have been interested in for years. During the inquiry we did not specifically focus on mental health, but it came up through some of the personal statements a number of times. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that mental health should have parity of esteem with physical health. Without good mental health, there is no health.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) and the Committee for what they have brought forward. We live in a society that is multicultural; every part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is multicultural. In my constituency we have people from Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are very welcome. What has come out of this report refers to England and Wales. Would the hon. Lady and the Committee share the information with the relevant health organisations back home to ensure that we can all benefit from what this report tells us?
Paulette Hamilton
We will of course share this report far and wide. I am hoping that every parliamentarian has had a copy. We will ensure that it gets anywhere that it needs to go. If Members share where it needs to go, we will ensure that it gets there.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on black maternal health, I extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) and all the members on the Health and Social Care Committee for this vital report. Was my hon. Friend disappointed, as I was, not to see any specific mention in the NHS 10-year plan of black maternal health? We have long awaited a target and a plan for ending this disparity. Does she agree that that is something we should look towards?
Paulette Hamilton
That is a really important question, and the answer is yes. We were absolutely disappointed not to see it. Several members of the Committee highlighted that it was not there.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for presenting this report. Does she agree that we need to have a wider conversation about healthcare for black and ethnic minority individuals, especially as there is a chasm in the provision of healthcare? For example, body mass index, ratios and thresholds, and respiratory meters are not measured for black individuals. We are therefore missing out on detecting health conditions, simply because we are using archaic equipment.
Paulette Hamilton
I thank the hon. Member for his question—he knows what I am going to say. Yes, I do agree with him. I became chair of the APPG on black health because I feel passionately that there needs to be more equality in this area.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I call Tom Hayes and then Ben Coleman: two questions and one response.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the important work of the Select Committee. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for her leadership. It is striking that in England black mums are twice as likely to die as white mums. In Dorset our NHS is really eager to get this right. We have a new maternity, neonatal, early pregnancy and emergency gynaecology unit at the Royal Bournemouth hospital in the new BEACH building, and there is a plan to make records available in accessible languages and formats. Can my hon. Friend speak a little about what Dorset could do more of to make its healthcare more accessible?
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee I have had the pleasure of working under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on this report. I have also been a member under her leadership as the vice chair of the APPG on black health. I thank her hugely for all that she has done. I also congratulate the honourable great-uncle for St Ives and Cornwall, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). My question is: does my hon. Friend agree that, although powerful, the recommendations in the report are neither new nor radical? They are well known. What would be new and radical, and what would make a change, is if we took advantage of the fact that we have a new Labour Government prepared to do what has not happened to date, which is to listen to black women, implement the recommendations and get women the care and support that they need and deserve.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Paulette Hamilton has two seconds to respond.
Paulette Hamilton
I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman). I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham says. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East, we do not have long enough to go through what needs to be done, but I think the recommendations in the report would be a good start.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. That is the end of that session. I apologise to the Minister: many Back Benchers wanted to speak and I thought it was right to allow them to. We will move on to the next debate now.
Backbench Business
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
World Menopause Day
(2 days, 4 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
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Menopause Day.
I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this important and timely debate during World Menopause Month. We did not have a debate on menopause last year, so this is the first under the current Government. Back in 2023, I asked the last Government for a commitment to show 51% of the population that they matter by prioritising menopause support in healthcare, in the workplace and across society. I might now be sitting on the Government Benches, but I can assure everyone that I still want that commitment, and possibly more.
It feels like I live and breathe menopause—I certainly have for the last seven years since the first World Menopause Day debate in 2018. In that time, two issues that have come up time and again when women have contacted me are the need for better understanding and treatment in primary care and better support in the workplace. Those are the two areas that have been targeted in this year’s Menopause Mandate mega-survey. As a proud patron I was delighted to join the team in Oxford Street on Monday at the launch of the results. As has now become custom, the launch was followed by our third annual walk and talk. I am not sure whether there is a collective noun for it, but for want of a better term, a flush of menopausal women, some of whom are here today, walked to the Department for Work and Pensions. I was very grateful to the Minister for accepting the survey results from us on Monday—a survey that reflects the thinking of women from right across the country.
A staggering 15,000 people responded to the survey, and the results offer some truly powerful insights into the menopause experience. There is a lot to unpack, but for me the takeaway statistic, which cannot be ignored, is that 96% of the 15,000 women said that menopause had negatively impacted their quality of life. That is truly heartbreaking.
That is particularly evident in the workplace. More than three quarters of those surveyed said that their symptoms had affected them in the workplace, with one in 10 changing their role and one in 20 quitting their job. These are women with years and years of experience and loyal service, who will have irreplaceable job knowledge. They are women at the prime of their careers, who should be seeking promotion, but without the support they need they are seeking an exit strategy instead. On the plus side, more than a third of the women are now working for an organisation with a menopause policy.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a fantastic contribution on this important topic. I am sure that she will recall the shared visit we had to Tesco in Abertillery, in my constituency, where staff talked about the extensive package of support that their employer gave them. Will she join me in commending employers such as Tesco for leading the way in terms of workplace support for their staff?
Carolyn Harris
As with any occasion when I spend time with my hon. Friend, that occasion is etched in my memory forever. Like other organisations, Tesco is doing some wonderful work for women. It is also important to recognise the work of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB, which play a huge part in promoting workplace policies for menopausal women.
When next year we implement the plans for employers with more than 250 employees to have a menopause policy or framework in the workplace, a key measure of success will be the Department ensuring that we are monitoring those plans, so that they do not just get left in a cupboard to gather dust. This will be mandatory only for employers with more than 250 staff, and I welcome the changes, but from the correspondence I have received it is clear that thousands of women working for smaller companies want to know whether they will be supported. We are not talking about big changes: flexible working hours, breathable uniforms and comfortable working environments are small adjustments, but they make a huge difference.
Employers in every sector rely on occupational health specialists to support the physical, mental and social wellbeing of their staff. They need to be given specialist menopause training. Imagine the number of women in their 40s, 50s and 60s that that would have helped. They might not have left work. They may return to work, or even stay and thrive in work.
Nick Smith
My hon. Friend’s point about these issues affecting older women is, of course, fair and understood, but is it not also true that younger women can be affected and need support?
Carolyn Harris
Certainly. There is no age on menopause. Maggie’s centre has a fantastic programme to support women experiencing crash menopause, in which a cancer treatment causes them to go into early menopause. Unfortunately, the woman will walk away from surgery or treatment without being given information. Maggie’s is doing some wonderful work, and I am delighted to be able to promote it today.
I do not want to be standing here in another seven years, still asking for the same things. Without support, women suffer, but so do businesses and the wider economy. Reduced hours, career breaks and early retirement all lead to women reaching pension age without enough resource to claim their full state pension, which they may be relying on. We should not have to make this an economic argument, but anybody who knows me knows that I will use any argument to get what I want, and I want women to have fair play.
While we seek to make progress in the workplace, we must not overlook the fundamental issue that many women still face in accessing menopause care. A quarter of the women who responded to the Menopause Mandate survey said that seeking medical advice from their GP or another medical professional was not a positive experience. Reassuringly, two thirds of women were offered hormone replacement therapy—hallelujah!—or at least it was discussed with them, but too many women are still being offered antidepressants. They should be outlining their symptoms to a GP who will understand what is wrong with them.
Those symptoms, as we now know, are wide-ranging and differ for every woman. The survey found that although it might be the physical symptoms, such as hot flushes and changes to periods, that trigger women to think about menopause, it is the psychological symptoms that women struggle with most: anxiety, brain fog, low mood and low self-esteem. Those are the main complaints from women. For many women—indeed, for over half of those surveyed—the lack of knowledge that their symptoms were signs of perimenopause caused a delay in their seeking support and accessing treatment.
Women feel that better education and earlier advice would have benefited them, and a staggering 99% of the 15,000 women surveyed said that they believe menopause should be discussed at the NHS 40-plus health check. That is something that I have long campaigned for, as has Menopause Mandate, and I have raised it with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care, arguing that it is a vital component of the women’s health strategy.
Employers can also step up by providing menopause training, organising events and encouraging discussion within a safe environment, which will give women the information they need as well as confidence in the workplace. That would show women that their workplace cares for them.
We should ensure that healthcare providers incorporate measures within the standard packages, including menopause advice. Support should be signposted on staff bulletins, on noticeboards, in bathrooms and wherever any kind of information can be put. It is the simple things that will help people to tackle the problems, because, as with any other area of healthcare, being aware of the symptoms allows people to take control, to understand their own bodies and to seek the best treatment options available to them.
We know that for some women, HRT can be life-changing—I am a devout believer in HRT. Other women think that the symptoms of menopause are manageable without HRT, and some women cannot take HRT because of medical conditions, but we know that a significant number of women still avoid HRT because of its perceived risks, which is an issue that urgently needs to be addressed. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration recently announced that it is commissioning a review of the risks and benefits of HRT for women experiencing menopause. That follows an expert panel on menopause and hormone replacement therapy that was held earlier this year.
We know that historical data has been proven inaccurate, but it is responsible for a fear of HRT among a whole generation of women and medical practitioners alike. I wonder how many women have walked away from their career because they felt unable to cope without HRT but were too frightened by the false allegations and media frenzy to take it. Campaigners and industry experts, many of whom are here in Westminster Hall today, have worked tirelessly to dispel these myths. I know that they support my calls for an independent UK review to ensure that information about the risks and benefits of HRT reflects the most up-to-date global evidence.
The all-party parliamentary group on menopause, which I chair, has been championing such a review since it was first set up five years ago. Just last year, shortly before the general election, we undertook a national study that looked at access to treatment and services. The results show that both those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those from black and Asian communities experienced severe disadvantages.
The results of that study prompted us to look more deeply into such disparities. Later this month, we will launch the report and recommendations from a nine-month inquiry into the menopause experiences of those from historically marginalised communities. We have taken evidence from women from ethnic minority backgrounds; those who are disabled or neurodiverse; those living in poverty; those who are survivors of domestic abuse; people from LGBTQIA+ communities; and women who have experienced menopause in prison. From hearing and reading so many personal stories, I know that we still have much to do to improve menopause services so that everyone can get the support they need in the way they need it, wherever they need it—be it in healthcare, the workplace or society in general.
The last Government made some tentative steps in the right direction. The HRT annual prepayment certificate was introduced following my 2021 private Member’s Bill. That has helped thousands of women who were struggling to cover the cost of HRT prescriptions. I was absolutely delighted to see that almost 90% of those responding to the Menopause Mandate survey were aware of the prescription prepayment certificate—that is fantastic news, but it is not enough on its own. We need to build on that and show women that this Labour Government listen and care.
The evidence of what women want and need has already been presented, and none of it is difficult or costly to implement. That includes a review of the risks and benefits of HRT to help dispel the dangerous inaccuracies that have caused unnecessary fear for more than two decades, and the inclusion of menopause and its symptoms in the NHS 40-plus health check—if 99% of women think it is a good idea, then it is.
We need a guarantee that Ministers will work with business leaders to ensure that the menopause workplace action plans set out in the Employment Rights Bill are genuine, real, credible and operational, and that they work. We also need a promise to women working for smaller businesses who employ fewer than 200 people that they will not miss out on workplace support; and menopause training for occupational health specialists so that the simple adjustments that women need are implemented. The number of one in 20 loyal and experienced women leaving the workforce is too many, and one in 10 changing their role and reducing hours to avoid promotion is terrifying.
We have an opportunity to change the narrative. We cannot stop women experiencing menopause. We cannot magic away the symptoms or ignore the changes that happen, but we can make sure that those experiences have a positive impact. We can help to provide the right treatment for the symptoms, and we can ensure that adequate support is available wherever it is needed, so that women can embrace the changes with confidence and purpose.
I can honestly say that since I embraced my menopause and took control of it, I am a better person and—God help anybody who thinks I was not confident before— I am really confident now. Taking control of our own health and wellbeing is life-changing. I stand here today as proof of that, and I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that all women have the same advantage: to access the treatment they need, to flourish and succeed at work, and to be the very best version of themselves in perimenopause, menopause and beyond.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to indicate if they wish to speak.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am proud that not one but two of my constituents are leading figures in the Menopause Mandate campaign, and they are here today. I would like to pay tribute to that organisation and all the work it is doing on this issue, ably supported by the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), whose passion and energy about this subject are so wonderful to see. I pay tribute to her for convening this debate.
As someone who does not personally have direct experience of menopause yet, and whose mum is not around to advise her, most of what I know about menopause comes from following the social media accounts of organisations such as Menopause Mandate. That is a sad indictment of the lack of information that women in their 40s have about a health issue that will affect them. I am sure that Menopause Mandate and everyone else here agrees that it is time to stop tiptoeing around the topic of menopause and the perimenopause.
Brain fog, hot flushes, night sweats, panic out of nowhere—they are not just inconveniences; they are symptoms that can knock women off their feet. Often, however, as with so many other health issues, women’s concerns are too readily dismissed. Women deserve serious, joined-up education, action and policy. They deserve to be heard, believed and supported, not left to suffer in silence. As has been mentioned, according to Menopause Mandate’s recent survey, only 12% of menopausal women were actually diagnosed by a healthcare professional, while around 60% had to figure it out for themselves. We are leaving women to google their way to an answer after years of avoidable misery, without guidance and often without treatment. That is not good enough.
The Menopause Mandate team has a simple, sensible ask: education for all. If our health professionals are not adequately trained, and women are not given routine consultations about the subject, we are setting them up to face menopause and perimenopause ill-prepared and uninformed about the lifestyle changes, treatment options and support that could make all the difference. This is not a niche issue; it should be a mainstream health policy. It could be seamlessly integrated into standard mid-life check-ups. When I had mine a few years ago, menopause was not mentioned. There are specialist clinics doing great work in this area, but frustratingly many of the best have huge waiting lists unless women can afford to be seen privately. I know that is true of my local hospital.
Most women have to speak to their GP or practice nurse, so we need to equip primary care properly to recognise symptoms, treat confidently and refer swiftly. Menopause is also not just a health issue, but an employment one. One of the most shocking findings in the Menopause Mandate survey was that—as has been mentioned—one in 20 women has left their job because of menopause symptoms. Those may be women doing brilliant work, often at the peak of their careers: teachers, nurses and business leaders—the kind of people this country cannot afford to lose. We need to keep that experience in our NHS, schools, offices and everywhere that this country relies on it. We should not be losing it because we fail to support half the population in a health issue that every one of them is going to face at some point.
Here is the to-do list: let us make menopause education mandatory in healthcare training with regular refreshers; include perimenopause and menopause in routine health checks—so that I am not relying on Instagram to find out what is going to happen; work with employers to provide basic workplace support for flexible working, manager training, cool spaces and clear policies; and, above all, make sure women can manage this stage of life with dignity, confidence and proper support. This is not a women’s issue; it is a fairness, workforce and public health issue. It is time we gave it the serious attention it deserves.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
There is a four-minute guideline for speeches. Please try not to go over it so that we can get everyone in.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this incredibly important debate and speaking with the passion and verve that we have come to expect of her.
Menopause, as I am sure we will hear time and again this afternoon, affects millions of women, but is still too often overlooked in the workplace. My menopause workplace story is sadly similar to that experienced by far too many women. While working a stressful job and juggling family and the care needs of elderly relatives, I failed to recognise that my burnout was not a sudden inability to do my job, but my body going through a profound and overwhelming change. The response from a senior director not only was brutal, but showed a complete lack of awareness, let alone understanding:
“I used to think you were really good at your job, but you have changed.”
I had changed—but I did not realise the change that my body was going through.
Menopause is a natural phase of our lives, yet for many it comes with symptoms that can be physically and emotionally challenging: hot flushes, fatigue, brain fog, anxiety and more. Those are not just personal health issues; they can, as I found, impact performance, confidence and wellbeing at work.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in acknowledging the impact of menopause-related urinary tract infections on women’s quality of life and ability to work? Does she agree that we must do more to acknowledge that aspect of menopause and educate GPs and the workforce?
Ms Minns
I agree entirely. Menopause remains an area where many employers are still failing to support their staff in the way that they need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East said, one in 10 women who works during the menopause will leave their job due to their symptoms, and nearly a quarter more will have considered quitting because of its impact on their working lives. That is hundreds of thousands of experienced professionals walking away not because they want to, but because they have not been properly supported or have been made to feel that the workplace is no longer somewhere that they can function.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue not only has an impact on a woman’s feeling of self-worth and value, and on her career progression, but can have a severe economic impact on her family?
Ms Minns
Absolutely. I am a single parent, and the impact of my menopause was quite severe for my family, and for my financial situation at the time, because it forced me to make some unfortunate decisions about my work.
We are lucky in Carlisle to have excellent community groups such as Cumbria Radical Birds, where women can come together to support each other. However, not every community is so lucky. It is my profound belief that women should be able to find some of that support in their workplace, not just in their community. Supporting employees through menopause is not just the right thing to do; it makes business sense. When we create environments where people feel safe, respected and supported, we unlock their potential. That means flexible working, access to information, open conversations and policies that reflect real-life experiences.
Those are not idealistic goals; for decades they have been the standard for women going through pregnancy. I therefore invite the Minister to consider how we can protect women experiencing menopause in the workplace in the same way that our colleagues who are pregnant are supported by not only the Equality Act 2010 but health and safety regulation. We can and must normalise talking about menopause. That is why debates such as today’s are so important. Let us listen, learn and lead with empathy. When we support women through every stage of life, we build stronger, more resilient workplaces for everyone.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I commend the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on setting the scene so well, as she always does. I have always been pleased to help and support her. She is dedicated to her causes—that is the way I would put it—and she always leads by example and with passion. It is really hard to say no to her, to tell the truth. I say that genuinely: it is, because I support her in what she does.
When someone says the word “menopause”, reactions will differ. There will perhaps be a sense of embarrassment. For others, there is an immediate sense of understanding. For some, there is a sense of sympathy. For others, there is a distance. The fact is that conversations have taken place, and led us to a place where we acknowledge the effect that menopause has on families, and how we can work together to give support and love during a different phase of the family journey.
I have seen change from the days in my parents’ household, when these things could never be mentioned, to the family home where my children were raised, where my wife Sandra is the heart of the home. I have an understanding of the changes in her life, which brought about changes in the home. That gave me a slightly better understanding. I am thankful for that progress, and although I am by no means saying that we are all understanding and enlightened, I know that conversation has brought about changes, and an awareness in me that I hope has enabled me to provide greater support to those who need it in my office.
I always say that I am blessed with women of many generations in my office. They give me an understanding of so many issues. I have women in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. I am blessed to have their hard work and wisdom. It is my job as an employer to facilitate their carrying out that hard work. There are obligations on employers. They can be easier to meet for office staff than for others, but it is important to help staff to work well at every stage of their lives.
We need to step up information and guidance for small businesses on providing help to enable all staff to feel valued at every stage of their journey. We need to ensure that medical support is more readily available. For most women, their GP does the blood test, tells them that their hormones are still present, and sometimes will say just to grin and bear it, yet we know that the perimenopause can affect women for years. Even the acknowledgement that they are in that stage can be useful for strong, independent women, who have difficulty understanding the physical and emotional changes that they are going through. With that in mind, I am pleased to add my support to the campaign of the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East.
I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place. This is a new role for her, but in all the roles that she has held, she has done exceptionally well, and I have no doubt that she will do the same in this one.
I conclude with this: menopause is much more than the change of life. Life is ever changing, but menopause is a major milestone on life’s journey, and it must be acknowledged as real and worthy of attention. Perhaps I cannot totally understand that section of the journey—there is no road map, for instance—but I am prepared to help and support as needed. Let us work in every area of Government to provide guidance and help to those who need a bit of support along this part of the journey, and ensure that employers have the tools that they need to meet the requirements of their staff.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this debate marking World Menopause Day. My mum taught me well; she taught me lots of things, but in particular, normalised the menopause. It is as simple as that.
I used to run services that employed in the majority women, and having open conversations and flexible working, as we have just heard, is critical. I want to be a conduit for the women in Bournemouth East who have shared their experiences of the perimenopause and menopause. It is a privilege to speak in a debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for many reasons but especially because she visited Bournemouth a short while ago to meet me and Viv Galpin at BH Live at the Littledown centre.
Viv runs a brilliant local initiative called Beat the Pause—a programme supporting women through community-based exercise and wellbeing sessions that help to manage menopause symptoms, build confidence and strengthen social connections. I think Viv will be pleased to know that I have just had a conversation with Mariella Frostrup, the chair of Menopause Mandate, who is here today at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East, in which I spoke about Beat the Pause and Viv’s work. Beat the Pause sessions are running locally in Bournemouth, and the women who attend describe them as a lifeline—a place where they can find community, consistency and compassion. As Viv puts it:
“When you hit peri-menopause, you can feel completely lost. Your mind and body feel like they belong to someone else. You lose all reason and have no idea where to start. We trust our doctors and the NHS—but this is where the biggest amount of work needs to be done.”
That experience of confusion, frustration and being left to navigate symptoms alone is far too common. That is why the women of Bournemouth East have been clear about what needs to change. They have developed a community wish list that is both practical and achievable. First, every GP practice should have at least one member of staff trained in perimenopause and menopause care—someone responsible for upskilling colleagues and ensuring consistent advice across the surgery. Secondly, monthly menopause health talks should be held in GP surgeries, including evening sessions for working women, to improve access to accurate, trusted information. Thirdly, GPs and pharmacists should routinely promote the HRT prepayment certificate to help to ease the financial burden of ongoing prescriptions.
Fourthly, there should be greater consistency across GP practices and primary care networks, so that support does not depend on where a woman happens to live. Fifthly, GPs could partner with local wellbeing providers, such as Beat the Pause, to signpost trusted services and build a joined-up approach between medical and community support. Finally, local councils such as Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council could do more to support exercise and wellbeing sessions in public spaces, using our beautiful beaches, parks and leisure centres to host accessible activities tailored to menopausal women.
Although Beat the Pause began with Sport England funding, which was to last for only a short time, it has kept going because of the commitment of people like Viv and the women who support one another. It is a shining example of how local wellbeing initiatives can complement clinical care, but also of the changes that we know need to happen in employment, combining exercise, education and peer connection into a holistic model that truly works.
I will close by giving a few further shout-outs: to Join the Meno-Make, a creative group for women who experience the menopause and perimenopause, who meet together, share stories and make art about their experiences at Re-imagine on Belle Vue Road, and to the Southface dermatology clinic, which, in addition to further events, will host the Kickass Menopause event today—it sold out twice and had to move to a larger venue at the Village Hotel. Lastly, I thank Arts University Bournemouth, which has just completed an important research project looking at creativity in the menopause, organised by Pauline Ferrick-Squibb.
In this World Menopause Day debate, I pay tribute to every woman in Bournemouth East and here in Parliament who has spoken up about her experience. Together, they are breaking down stigma, building community and showing us what menopause support looks like in practice. I want women in Bournemouth East to know that I, as their MP, have their back, and agree with them that women deserve consistent, informed and compassionate menopause care in every GP surgery, every community and every part of our town.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate.
I wish to start my remarks on World Menopause Day with a tribute to a simple yet powerful initiative: the menopause APPG, diligently chaired by my hon. Friend, has designed easily distributable bookmarks. They are so easily distributable that I searched high and low for one to bring along with me today and found that I have given them all away. These bookmarks list an A to Z of menopause symptoms, which I am sure that some of us in the room will recognise. They do more than mark a page; they give visibility to a natural stage in a woman's life. With half the population facing this transition, you would think that it would be better understood, but from doctors’ surgeries through to prisons, women face confusion and dismissal when they try to explain their symptoms. I commend my hon. Friend on her tireless efforts to extend awareness and education into spaces where women’s voices are rarely heard.
Menopause is not just a single symptom. It is not just hot flushes or mood swings; it is a pattern of physical, emotional and cognitive changes that can impact every aspect of a woman’s life. Yet all too often, in many medical settings, symptoms are treated in isolation. A woman may be prescribed or offered antidepressants for low mood. I have been there myself. “No—I just want to be able to sleep at night.” Painkillers are given for joint aches or sleeping pills for insomnia, but nobody actually joins the dots. Medical professionals need the tools, the training and the time to recognise menopause as a whole-body experience. We have to start treating menopause holistically.
If we improve the health outcomes, we will restore dignity, agency and quality of life, because all too often women feel as if their power is being taken away from them. That really has to change. This debate is critical to give the message that we, as parliamentarians, and in wider society, recognise that every woman deserves to be seen, heard and supported through this transition. Let us use those bookmarks to continue to guide us through this next chapter of change.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
There is an argument that World Menopause Day should not need to exist, as the support that is needed should not be in the “too difficult” box. Much of it is basic common-sense support that should be built into the norm. World Menopause Day is, however, an ideal opportunity to remind ourselves of what has been done, and more importantly, what still needs to be done.
I pay tribute to all the work that my hon. Friend has done to promote the cause, and the work that she and others have done on Menopause Mandate. She is a great champion. I remember with pleasure attending a menopause bingo evening on the fringe of the Labour party conference in Brighton. I am not sure whether I volunteered to go, but, as with most things with my hon. Friend, it is easier to say yes at first than at last. None the less, it was an enjoyable and informative evening, with a very important message of awareness.
I was delighted that my hon. Friend spoke at the menopause in the workplace event that I held at Merthyr football club in 2023, which was attended by local organisations and key employers across the constituency. That event highlighted to me some of the local issues, which are very similar—indeed, identical—to the picture across the country, and it reinforced the message that much more needs to be done.
In the limited time that I have remaining, I want to focus on menopause workplace support. The fact that 15,000 people responded to the survey is a significant result, as surveys go, and it provides a snapshot of the issues faced across the country. Eight in 10 women highlighted that they were affected by symptoms at work, which is why increased awareness among employers is hugely important. They should put in place support. Some small adjustments would make a big difference and help employers retain staff who may otherwise feel that they are not able to continue in their roles.
It is often easier for larger employers to make positive changes to enhance the experience of women dealing with the menopause in the workplace. We must all work harder to raise awareness among smaller employers and bring them on board, because they face many issues and employ a large number of women. More awareness and action would make a big difference. My hon. Friend highlighted that we are not talking about big changes; she rightly told us that small adjustments will make a big difference.
The British Standards Institution has the role of developing standards for use in society, including on wellbeing. BS 30416, the standard on the menopause in the workplace, has been adopted by lots of public bodies in Wales. It is a valuable tool for employers—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—and could help them to provide important support to retain women in the workplace.
Too many women are forced out of the workplace because they do not have the support they need to continue in their roles. We need to do more to change that, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what more the Government can do to support and encourage employers—large and, in particular, small—to do more to support women in the workplace.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing the debate. It is fantastic to see her continuing to call for better support for and awareness of menopause, which too often is treated as a private inconvenience. It is the reality for many, and we should make it the reality of the workplace.
Millions of women balance emotional, physical and professional demands with symptoms that can be debilitating. As we have heard today, menopause affects not just women in their mid-life, but younger women, who may experience early onset for a number of reasons, including medical ones.
I am sincerely grateful to the women in Wolverhampton North East who shared their stories with me. They include a lady whose story will not be unfamiliar to many here today, including those in the Public Gallery, who I thank for coming to support this important debate. She is a senior leader who has always been regarded as unflappable. Others turn to her in a crisis; she is always confident and capable. But when her hot flushes started to persist, they disrupted meetings, and brain fog made her doubt her judgment. When her sleep became patchy and exhaustion crept in, she did not feel that she could say a word, because in her workplace there was no policy and therefore, she felt, no flexibility. Her punctuality was hit after sleepless nights. She used annual leave to cope, but that was not enough. She avoided opportunities that she once would have gladly embraced. Eventually, she decided to step back from a promotion that she knew she had earned.
It does not have to be this way, and it should not be, but we note the scale of the issue. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development reports that more than half of women experiencing menopause have missed work because of their symptoms, and one in 10 leave the workforce entirely. That has an estimated economic cost of £1.5 billion each year.
I welcome the measures in the Employment Rights Bill that will require larger employers to publish menopause action plans, but I must echo my hon. Friend and ask for monitoring of their impact and efficiency. The commitment to provide guidance for smaller employers on uniforms, temperature, flexible working and managing menopause-related leave is equally important, and the appointment of a menopause employment ambassador, supported by an expert advisory group, gives the agenda real momentum to forge progress and the provision of better support.
However, legislation and leadership must be matched by cultural change. Employers need to understand that by supporting women through menopause, they will retain dedicated and experienced staff, so it makes good economic sense. If we want experienced women to stay in the workplace and thrive at work, we must foster environments in which speaking up is seen not as a weakness, but as part of a modern, responsible and inclusive workplace, and as the norm.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for their co-operation in keeping to time. We will now move on to the Front Benchers, who I hope will leave a couple of minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to wind up the debate.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this debate in recognition of World Menopause Day, on opening it with such an inspirational speech, and on her tireless campaigning in recent years.
As a 50-year-old woman, I will avoid the danger of oversharing; however, becoming menopausal has not been the most fun thing that has ever happened to me. The common symptoms of menopause have been described, but there is a vast array of other symptoms that can not only affect self-esteem, but have a detrimental impact on mental health and the ability to function well day to day. It is no wonder that as many as one in 10 women leave their job as a result of menopause.
My own experience of menopause has included its impact on my sleep pattern. Night sweats, itchy skin, pins and needles, random joint pain, muscle aches and heightened anxiety do not make for peaceful slumber, and lack of sleep, night after night, impacts the rest of the day.
More worryingly for many women, the symptoms of the menopause are broad and varied, and easily dismissed as “just the menopause”. Women run the risk of ignoring the early signs of something extremely serious because they are expected to feel pretty rubbish for a high proportion of the time. That is why a women’s health strategy is so important, so it was disappointing to see it relegated in importance by the new Government.
The Conservative Government brought the NHS to its knees and patients right across the country, not least in North Shropshire, have paid a heavy price. We all recognise that the new Government face a huge challenge in turning the NHS around, but the women’s health strategy was one of the few areas in which the Conservatives made progress. The abandonment of the target of a women’s health hub in every area is extremely disappointing. Failure to ringfence funding incentivises the scaling back of existing hubs in order to ensure that funding is focused on areas where there are performance targets, the meeting of which will be crucial to the local integrated care board and its associated trusts.
Women’s health should not be seen as some niche and distracting target. We make up 51% of the population and have worse health outcomes than men; we live longer, but in much worse health. Women’s health hubs could be one way to ensure that women’s ill health can be quickly diagnosed, appropriate treatment found faster, and the menopause support that they need is available. They are absolutely in line with the Government’s desire to shift care into the community and to prevent, rather than treat, disease.
I would be grateful if the Minister could speak to her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, commit to the original plan for women’s health hubs, and roll them out in every area, not least Shropshire, where lack of transport and a high level of rurality means that ensuring access to healthcare for everyone can be a significant challenge. The level of service provided at a hub should not be just another postcode lottery, whereby some people who have paid taxes all their lives have to settle for a second-class service, as is so often the case in my area and in other rural parts of Britain.
I welcome measures in the Government’s Employment Rights Bill that will require large employers to publish menopause action plans each year, as part of wider equality plans to improve the retention of women experiencing the menopause. The plans will outline workplace support, such as flexible working and simple adjustments for menopause symptoms. I certainly cannot speak for all women, but I think that alongside those simple changes, wider awareness and understanding of menopause, and a reduction of the taboo around it—and, if the people who manage Portcullis House are listening to the debate, air-conditioning—would play a big part in helping women to remain supported at work.
I want to touch on the shortages of HRT medication, which can be very effective in reducing the symptoms of menopause—I have certainly experienced that. In July 2025, the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy published the report of its inquiry into medicine shortages in England, in which it says that shortages have shifted from isolated incidents to a chronic structural challenge. Access to HRT has been a postcode lottery in recent years. How do the Government plan to tackle geographical inequality in the availability of these drugs?
Finally, I thank all the trailblazing, amazing, campaigning women who have talked about their own experience—many of them are here today listening—reduced the taboo associated with the menopause and brought us to the stage of debating a meaningful, working strategy to improve women’s health as they go through this natural and important stage of their life.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate on an issue about which we know she is extremely passionate and has campaigned for a long time.
In recent years, our country has made good progress in female empowerment. Today, women occupy 43% of company board roles and 35% of leadership positions at FTSE 350 firms. More women than ever before are partners in law firms, consultants in hospitals, entrepreneurs and executives managing successful businesses in every part of the country. None the less, there is a serious fault line running through that progress. Most women reach the professional apex of their careers in their late 40s to early 50s, after accruing many years of experience. For thousands of women across the country every single year, that moment of career maturity tragically coincides with the onset of the menopause.
An abrupt change to the menstrual cycle can happen; sometimes there are sudden floods of menstrual blood, hot flushes at inopportune moments throughout the working day, problems with concentration, low self-esteem, migraines, aches and itches—all things that make it more difficult to fulfil the employer’s expectations, let alone, as we have heard, fully rest in the precious hours of the night. Symptoms can be truly debilitating, running from months to years and fluctuating unpredictably over time. They leave some women with an impossible choice: their health or their career. I have heard from professionals in my constituency who love their job but felt there was no option other than to step back. I have seen it while working as a consultant in the NHS, too; some colleagues, amid the worst of their symptoms, go from thriving to just about surviving.
When that becomes commonplace, our economy pays a price. Every year, the UK loses 14 million working days to menopause-related absence. Graver still, we are losing many thousands of women from the workforce every year because of overwhelming symptoms and lack of support. The NHS Confederation tallies up the damage to a staggering £1.5 billion.
I am proud that the previous Government recognised the scale of the challenge and took concrete action. In 2022, aware that not enough focus was being given to women-specific issues like the menopause, they published a women’s health strategy for England. That set out 10-year ambitions, including for people to be informed of the menopause at an early age and provided with access to the full range of treatment options, improved understanding among healthcare professionals, and increased research of alternatives to HRT.
I am proud that the previous Government made good on those ambitions. They also launched the national menopause pathway programme, providing optimal care pathways to ensure more women get the right care the first time around. Recognising that almost nine in 10 adults were never educated about menopause in school, the previous Government changed the curriculum to add menopause to relationships and sex education for secondary school students. They also reduced the cost of HRT in England by making prescriptions available on an annual basis; 500,000 women saw their costs decrease by up to £200 as a result.
That is what real progress looks like, but the current Government have undermined those achievements. Many women I speak to are incandescent at the Government’s callous decision to disregard the women’s health strategy and replace it, seemingly, with nothing. It does not stop there: this Government have also compromised women’s healthcare provision by scaling back targets in NHS guidance and binning the commitment to roll out health hubs across all ICBs.
Can the Minister explain what impact these changes are going to have on support for menopausal women? What do the Government plan to replace the women’s health strategy with? I commend the Government for appointing a menopause employment ambassador—having a champion focused solely on the menopause in conversation directly with employers gives the issue exactly the attention it deserves—but women are best served by good execution and delivery, not just good intentions. That is where my concerns with the Government’s strategy lie.
The Employment Rights Bill will impose a new duty on firms with more than 250 people to publish menopause action plans. We know the menopause affects women in different ways, so I question the value of uniform plans, which will give some human resources managers cover stories for doing little of actual substance. How will the increased administrative burden translate into better support for menopausal women in the workplace, rather than simply becoming a cost for business? What metrics will the Government use to ensure that women are materially helped by menopause action plans? We know that many businesses with more than 250 employees are just as stretched as those with 25 employees—and no less so due to tax increases by this Government. What are the Government doing to prevent a two-tier system emerging, whereby the quality of workplace support hinges on not need but the size of an employer?
There is much the Government can do to help menopausal women that does not necessitate wielding the regulatory sledgehammer—for instance, improving public awareness, as the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East talked about. Most adults were not taught about the menopause in school. Thousands of women are enduring excruciating symptoms without always recognising what is happening to their bodies, or realising that there is NHS support readily available for their symptoms in the form of HRT. This is a problem that can be solved.
The Menopause Charity ran a highly successful national campaign last year under the banner “educate yourself”. This year, as we have already heard, we have witnessed Asda and Tesco, among several other retailers, partnering with GenM to develop menopause aisles in their stores, replete with information to improve awareness and help women easily identify products that are capable of alleviating symptoms. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to encourage and amplify such voluntary initiatives by national charities and businesses?
The Government can also learn lessons from abroad. Ireland launched a nationwide campaign in 2022, deploying advertising across public displays, newspapers, magazines, radio and social media—a highly effective way to raise the awareness that British menopause advocates have long called for. Can the Minister say whether the Government have considered rolling out a national menopause awareness scheme?
I recognise that the Minister and the Government want to help menopausal women, but goodwill must translate into effective delivery. The previous Government made good progress on managing the menopause, which is why women want that progress to be built on, rather than dismantled. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I appreciate that some of these points are not in her brief, but within the scope of the Department of Health and Social Care. If she is not able to answer my questions herself, I would be grateful if she would commit to sending a letter in reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important debate from the Backbench Business Committee, and on her passionate and exceptional speech. I thank her for her tireless work in raising awareness of this issue over many years, and, in particular, her leadership of the APPG on menopause, which has been instrumental in making some of the changes we have seen in support for women going through menopause over the last few years.
[Gill Furniss in the Chair]
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East gave an interview a few years back in which she described being sent out of the room as her mother and her aunties discussed “the change”. We can all reflect on that and think, “Well yes, a small child being sent out of the room,” but what I found interesting was that my hon. Friend was actually 36 years of age!
It is fair to say that this House has not been much better in dealing with the menopause. The term menopause was coined in 1821, but a quick scan of Hansard shows that it was 1964 before it was first mentioned in the House of Commons. We had literally sent a man to space before we had started to talk about the menopause in this, the mother of Parliaments. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Willesden West argued that women could not bear the extra mental strain of giving up smoking
“with all the other changes going on”.—[Official Report, 12 February 1964; Vol. 689, c. 513.]
That was the level of the debate back in 1964. Thankfully, things have changed considerably since then, and that is due in no small part to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East.
We have heard many passionate speeches in this debate. I will follow my hon. Friend’s use of the word flush by saying that a flush of MPs have made speeches this afternoon. In particular, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) talked about the role of good information and not having to rely on Google. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) talked about an awful, painful experience at work but also referred to Cumbria Radical Birds, which I would love to hear more about.
As ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a very thoughtful contribution. I was pleased to hear about Sandra, his wife—I had not heard about her before—as well as about his role as an employer and the support he gives to the women who work in his office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) said at the outset that his mum had taught him well, and from what he said today, she absolutely did. He gave a shout-out to Viv Galpin and Beat the Pause. I was also interested in the Kickass Menopause Event that is going to be held.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) spoke about the need to join the dots—that is vital—and said that every woman deserves to be seen, heard and supported through this transition in their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) talked interestingly about the menopause bingo event that he went along to, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) talked about early medical menopause in particular.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), made a very personal speech, with which many of us can identify. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), has a medical background and spoke with her usual thoroughness, but I have to say that some of her comments about the role of the previous Government and what they achieved were rather rose-tinted.
I am pleased that my first debate in Parliament as the new Minister for employment is about menopause. Women make up 51% of the workplace, and every woman will go through menopause. This Saturday’s World Menopause Day throws a spotlight on the challenges faced by women and the support they need and deserve. It reminds us of the need to keep raising awareness among women and men, and challenging taboos about this very natural stage of a woman’s life, so that everyone can access the help they need.
Let me underline some facts. Each year, around 400,000 women in the United Kingdom will enter menopause, and around three quarters of them will experience symptoms—that is more than the population of my home city of Hull, each and every year. Symptoms can last for years, with one in three women’s symptoms lasting for more than seven years. For one in four women, the impact can be severe, touching on every area of life, both at home and at work.
This is an issue for every one of us. When women have their symptoms minimised or cannot get the treatment they need, it is a fairness issue. It is also an economic issue: the cost to the UK economy from menopause—from sick days, lost productivity or women leaving work entirely—is estimated at £1.7 billion each year. The loss of women and their knowledge, skills and experience from the workplace is certainly not something that I am willing to tolerate.
We have heard much about the new mega-survey from Menopause Mandate, which I had the pleasure of meeting earlier this week. It reveals that more than three quarters of women going through menopause say that they have been impacted by symptoms at work, and that four in 10 even considered quitting or changing their jobs as a result, yet only one in three women—35%—say that their workplace has a menopause policy.
We need to build understanding across women and men so that everyone has the knowledge to provide the support that is required. When workplaces fail to support women, and when they lose out on women’s unique skills and experience, our whole economy suffers. I want to move on to what we are going to do to change that.
Anna Sabine
It seems to me that an awful lot of what we have talked about today—the impact on women, particularly in the workplace—would also apply to periods, so I wonder whether the Department of Health and Social Care might think about employers considering periods as well.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am not a Health Minister, but a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. I take the point, however, and I will raise it with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I will also raise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East highlighted about looking at the health of women throughout their whole career in employment, including when women have children and when they are pregnant, and how we can best fit that together. That is a very important point that I will take forward.
I want to go through a few of the things that I think it is important to refer to today. Our Employment Rights Bill marks the biggest update in employment rights for a generation. For the first time, employers with more than 250 staff will have to produce menopause action plans setting out exactly how they will support women going through the menopause. The action plans will be published, so that employers can be held to account for the actions that they take. Our experience with gender pay gap reporting shows that such things are not just treated as formalities. They have the power to drive businesses’ behaviour and bring about real change. Menopause Friendly UK has said that the provisions mark “real progress” and are a
“sign that menopause in the workplace is finally being recognised as the serious issue it is.”
It is really good to hear about the work that employers such as Tesco and trade unions such as USDAW and the GMB are already doing.
Smaller employers, which some Members are concerned about, will be given guidance on how to help women experiencing the menopause, from changing the office temperature—Westminster Hall today has certainly had the thermostat set at menopause temperature—to providing fans, making changes to uniforms, allowing regular breaks and flexible working. I also take the point about the need to evaluate the policy.
Secondly, on the last World Menopause Day almost a year ago, the Government appointed Mariella Frostrup, the broadcaster, women’s rights campaigner and menopause champion, as the Government menopause employment ambassador. Her role is to work with employers nationwide to raise awareness of menopause in the workplace and improve workplace support. She has been hard at work and has already engaged with over 300 employers to raise awareness. In April, she chaired the first meeting of the independent menopause advisory group, bringing together some amazing expertise from leaders across a range of sectors, including business, media, energy, education and the law. They will draw on their real and vast experience to create practical advice on supporting women going through menopause in the workplace. As Mariella said at the time, midlife is a time when women are often balancing many other responsibilities. It is only right that they are supported themselves when they are in work. I very much look forward to working with Mariella and to meeting her soon.
Thirdly, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East said about the need for support for women in the workplace, which will be key to helping them stay in work and thrive, or return to work and thrive. Good occupational health can be a route to achieving that. However, we need to improve the scope, coverage and quality of the support offered for all in the workplace. That is why the Government commissioned the Keep Britain Working review, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, which is exploring the employer’s role in creating healthy and inclusive workplaces, and the support that can help them achieve this. We look forward to receiving his recommendations from the review shortly. I am pleased to note that Sir Charlie spoke to Mariella and received input on the importance of considering women’s health during the engagement for that review.
Many hon. Members raised issues relating to healthcare and support, so I want to refer to some of the work going on across Government, both in health and in education. We are updating the 2022 women’s health strategy to assess the progress that has been made and to continue delivering for women. Where shortages in vital hormone replacement therapy products have occurred, we have worked extensively with suppliers to expedite deliveries and resolve supply issues, and we have issued management guidance for healthcare professionals and serious shortage protocols to make sure that patients can get alternatives quickly and easily without needing to get a new prescription.
In November last year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published updated guidelines on the menopause. NHS England has created a menopause self-care fact sheet, and the General Medical Council has introduced the medical licensing assessment for all doctors starting work in the UK, which includes knowledge of the menopause and building better understanding in new doctors and the profession at large.
In education, we know that taboos and stigma will end only with greater understanding. That is why the Department for Education’s revised statutory guidance, released on 15 July, on relationships, sex and health education emphasises the need for all primary and secondary pupils to have a full understanding of women’s health, including menopause.
I see that you are giving me a look, Ms Furniss. Do you want me to conclude?
Dame Diana Johnson
Okay. Although the action that the Government are taking, and the work of so many—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East—show our commitment to this issue, we are also making huge strides in society in our understanding and acceptance of the menopause. That, in turn, will make a real difference to the lives of many women. But we cannot stop here while so many women still need support.
I want to finish with Mary Wollstonecraft’s famous words:
“The beginning is always today.”
There is more to do, and we will continue to work to make sure women have that support.
Carolyn Harris
I thank all hon. Members for attending today. Your participation really gives me, my fellow menowarriors and all women faith that women’s health and welfare is a priority that cannot and will not be ignored.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Menopause Day.
Ada Lovelace Day
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
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Ada Lovelace Day and Government support for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Today, many hon. Members will talk about modern women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—or STEM—but I confess that I am mostly interested in the fascinating woman Ada Lovelace.
Ada was born into the nobility in 1815, the child of two very talented parents. Her most famous parent was Lord Byron, while her mother—Lady Annabella—was a gifted mathematician. Lord Byron called his wife the “Princess of Parallelograms” and later, when they fell out, his “mathematical Medea”.
Ada never knew her father, and her education was organised by her mother. She inherited both the mathematical genius of her mother and the creativity of her father. In her early teens, she was distracted from her proper studies by designing a flying machine in the form of a horse with a steam engine inside. She is now best known for working alongside Charles Babbage on his hypothetical computer—the analytical engine.
Ada was a pioneer in computer science. She saw the possibilities of computing when no one else could. She understood technology as not just a set of calculations but a way to unlock creativity and serve humanity. For years, Ada was denied the recognition and credit that she deserved for her insight into the potential of computing. She displayed a grasp of mathematical imagination far beyond that of most of her contemporaries.
However, we know that talent alone is not enough. Innovation needs opportunity, guidance, and room to fail and try again. Too often, women and girls are denied that chance, and with them ideas that could transform our world are lost. How many Ada Lovelaces have we lost because they did not have access to that support? Although she was brilliant, Ada’s achievements did not happen solely as a product of her talent. They were made possible by her position in society and through the efforts of the women around her: by a mother determined to see her educated, by tutors she could access only through her social status, and by the circles she moved in, which led her to her collaborator, Charles Babbage. Even with those advantages, it took remarkable persistence for Ada to be part of that work, and her insight would go unrecognised for generations.
I take a moment to thank Suw Charman-Anderson, who is in the Public Gallery. She is the founder of Ada Lovelace Day and has given me much of her expertise on Ada. This speech would not be possible without her contribution, and in some cases I have used her words directly. I also put on record my thanks for all the work that she has done over many years to promote women in STEM.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising the essential work of student-led groups such as the Women+ in Engineering group at the University of Strathclyde in my constituency? Its members champion and support each other in overcoming the considerable barriers to entry that still remain in the science, technology and engineering industries.
Lizzi Collinge
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Groups such as the Women+ in Engineering group at the University of Strathclyde can do so much to support other women in STEM. I must also put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for inspiring this debate.
Now, back to Ada—it was her mother, Lady Annabella, who allowed and encouraged Ada to pursue her intellectual passions. Annabella hoped that mathematics would temper whatever dangerous poetical tendencies young Ada might have inherited from her father. Ada was a curious child. At 13 she was designing flying machines. By 15, she had already impressed a man called Augustus De Morgan, a mathematician at the forefront of symbolic logic. He tutored her in maths and logic, exchanging dozens of letters. He even wrote that, had she been a man, she would have had the potential to become
“an original mathematical investigator, perhaps of first rate eminence.”
But Ada was a woman and as such, De Morgan believed, like many at the time, that mathematics might simply be too strenuous for her.
Ada had been plagued with health problems—first headaches, then a bout of measles at 13 that left her paralysed. Confined to her bed, she had to relearn to walk at 15, and De Morgan believed that tackling mathematical problems would only exacerbate her frailty. He wrote that
“the very great tension of mind”
that maths problems require is
“beyond the strength of a woman’s physical power of application.”
Ada, of course, ignored him. At a time when women were not allowed to go to university, her academic development relied on a cobbled together series of tutors and mentors. She burned through one tutor’s entire mathematical knowledge in just a few weeks.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on a matter close to my own heart. My first job out of university was supporting women into science, technology, engineering and maths. Today, I would like to pay tribute to Georgina Barnard from my constituency. Last month, we opened the institute of technology in Stafford—the best in the country —and she led that project from start to finish. I called to ask her about this debate and what she thinks is most important to help young women get into STEM and face those challenges. From her perspective, it is about supporting young women, from as early an age as possible, to see themselves in those careers. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and Georgina that making sure we have those visible role models is so important?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and with Georgina that having role models and mentors is really important. One of Ada’s mentors was a woman called Mary Somerville, a scientist and polymath. It was Mary who introduced Ada to Charles Babbage, whose work would capture her interest and provide the inspiration for her most significant contributions.
Babbage was a professor of mathematics and a celebrity in the scientific world. He was a visionary, with countless unfinished plans for clockwork calculating machines. At the time, his fascination was his latest device, the analytical engine, a proposed improvement on his earlier and uncompleted difference engine. The analytical engine, he said, would be able to perform any calculation set before it, but the patience of his parliamentary sponsors had worn thin. Having funded him to the tune of £1.7 million in today’s money, they refused to finance a second machine while the first was unfinished.
Babbage was therefore forced to look abroad. After he gave a lecture at the University of Turin, the Italian engineer Luigi Menabrea wrote up his notes and published them in French. Charles Wheatstone then suggested that Ada translate them into English, as she was fluent in French and other languages. She showed the translation to Babbage, who was ecstatic, and he suggested that she add her own notes because as he put it, she understood the machine so well.
Ada’s footnotes tripled the paper’s original length, because she understood Babbage’s device, but she also saw further. She rightly saw it as what we would now call a general purpose computer. For Babbage, these machines were nothing more than calculators, but Ada saw past that. She understood that a machine capable of manipulating numbers—and of representing any value, from letters to musical notes—would have a grip on a world beyond mathematical calculation. Crucially, Ada’s vision for computing recognised that technology must be applied for, in her words, “the purposes of mankind.” Technology must serve humanity, not the other way around.
At the time, Ada’s ideas amounted to little more than a vision. Let us remember that she was working in the 19th century, before there were even any functional computers. Her work was not revisited until nearly a century later, when Alan Turing quoted her in his work.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Ada Lovelace event held earlier this week in Parliament was an excellent way of highlighting for many of us the importance of women in manufacturing and STEM, but Ada Lovelace was clearly a visionary. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to keep that visionary sense at the heart of all we do when encouraging the next generation of women into STEM? That means encouraging the further education sector to work with businesses and apprenticeship providers, such as In-Comm from Aldridge, whose representatives were at the event.
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady. Having that visionary view of science—looking beyond what is to what could be—is absolutely essential. The providers and the businesses that she talked about are essential to that.
Ada contributed to a debate that is extremely pertinent today when she discussed the possibility of machine intelligence back in the 1800s. She said:
“The Analytical Engine has no pretentions…to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform… Only when computers originate things should they be believed to have minds.”
That is in contrast to Alan Turing’s later thought that computers should be understood in terms of their ability to appear to think. He termed her thoughts “Lady Lovelace’s objection”, which I think is rather beautiful.
What developments would we have seen by now if we had understood earlier the potential that Ada saw? What developments do we still lose out on because we do not see the potential in women? The barriers keeping women and girls back from STEM do not just disadvantage them; they disadvantage all of us. The 2025 Lovelace report, written by Oliver Wyman in collaboration with the organisation WeAreTechWomen, found that the tech industry loses between £2 billion and £3.5 billion every year through a broken career framework that drives out talent, with women bearing the heaviest cost.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Ada Lovelace’s legacy is absolutely stellar, as everybody points out. I have the slightest link because I was lucky enough to get married in Newstead abbey, her father’s ancestral home—we all want a piece of Ada. Hers is a name that people recognise and her contribution is rightly credited. What concerns me is that the Lovelace report found that
“80% of women surveyed have recently left or are interested in leaving their tech roles”.
As has already been touched on, if you can’t see it, you can’t be it. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute travesty that only 20% of people in tech are women, and that we have to work to combat that?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree that that is a travesty. We are losing women in STEM at a terrible rate, which I will come on to.
The UK has made bold commitments to become a global leader in machine learning and digital technology, but to meet our goals we need to double or triple our workforce capacity in that sector. How can we do that when there is a steady exodus of women from STEM, with approximately 40,000 to 60,000 women each year leaving their tech or digital role? Surface-level takes have attributed that to caregiving responsibilities, but surveys from the Lovelace report found that caregiving was cited in less than 3% of cases. The true culprits are systemic: underpayment, stalled career progression and lack of opportunities for influence and leadership. Surveys show that more than 70% of experienced women pursue extra qualifications, yet 60% still struggle to go into leadership roles. That damages progress and profits.
Evidence suggests that not only do more diverse teams come up with better solutions to problems, but companies with more women in senior leadership roles are more profitable. Change comes through different perspectives, different worldviews and different visions for the future. On vision for the future, the world’s most powerful military, in the Pentagon, is now running a programming language called Ada. That is quite a legacy, and we need to ensure that that legacy is available for future women and girls in STEM.
Finally, I come to my daughter Ada. I want her to see the story of the woman who inspired her name and I want her to know that nobody can tell her what she can or cannot achieve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. I remind all Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) on securing this important debate. Some Members may remember a debate that I held a few months ago on the contribution of maths to the UK. There was, I think, cross-party agreement that increasing the quality and uptake of mathematical education will be central to the Government’s growth mission. I will not repeat the arguments I made in that debate, but I will focus on maths today. Historically, it is one of the worst-performing subjects in terms of gender equality, and one where issues emerge long before women reach the leaky pipeline of STEM careers that others may mention today.
The gender imbalance in STEM is not just about fairness; it is about meeting a national need. Jobs in engineering and technology are expected to grow faster than other occupations across the UK through to 2030, yet women make up just 15.7% of the engineering and technology workforce. That is quite stark.
Around the country, excellent work is already being done to increase the participation of women and girls in maths. Yesterday evening, I attended a reception to celebrate the achievements of uMaths, the network of university maths schools that tackles under-representation in STEM through core programmes of maths and further maths A-levels, with university-linked enrichment. One of these schools is Cambridge maths school, which serves my constituency, and which I was delighted to visit earlier this year. Already nearly 50% of the school’s year 13 pupils are female, which is something to be proud of—indeed, it is amazing, considering the national figure on the uptake of maths and further maths A-level is nowhere near that level of parity. More than 10,000 male pupils took A-level further maths in 2023-24, but the number of female pupils taking the subject was less than half that.
Cambridge maths school has clearly made a huge impact simply through its core offerings and ethos, and it is looking to increase support for female students even more. Over the summer, in partnership with the university and Raspberry Pi, it ran a free Girls Enjoy Maths summer school that offered interactive workshops, talks from leading female mathematicians and time to speak to current Cambridge maths school students about their experience. It gave female students a much-needed opportunity to meet role models and see that mathematics does not have to be the masculine-dominated world it may have been for quite a long time. That is vital to increasing participation. Days such as Ada Lovelace Day should not be a historical anomaly. We should be celebrating Ada as much as possible, and I am really glad that we have this debate to do that.
If we are truly to open access to STEM careers to all, I do not think we can rely just on the provision of maths schools that separate students into the STEM versus humanities dichotomy. The Liberal Democrats believe in a broad and balanced approach to the curriculum that gives students, no matter what subjects they study, the skills that they will need in careers that are increasingly technology-driven. That matters particularly to women because research shows that the gender gap opens early—by age 10, only 11% of girls aspire to engineering careers compared with 44% of boys. Between 2019 and 2023 alone, interest in science among 11 to 14-year-old girls declined by 10 percentage points.
Evidence shows that female students are generally more likely to want to study a broader range of subjects than their male peers. It is speculated that it is partly for that reason that the uptake of further maths, a subject that makes one twice as likely to pursue a mathematically intensive STEM degree, is so low. If someone takes further maths, that means filling two of their A-level options with maths, which narrows the opportunity to choose a broader option with more humanities. As a result, many female pupils opt for only single maths, even if they are capable of much more.
Given that suffering from early pigeonholing, the other thing that I would highlight is the opportunity to reskill.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also an important role for apprenticeships, particularly apprenticeships in the tech sector? There are some excellent apprenticeships of that nature in Reading and the surrounding area. Would he perhaps also offer a few words of support for the Government’s new policy of increasing the number of apprenticeships and setting a much higher target for both apprenticeships and university entrants?
Ian Sollom
I certainly support the increase in apprenticeships; getting more young people on to any course that offers opportunity is ultimately what it is all about, and I look forward to scrutinising the Government’s White Paper on post-16 education when it comes out—in the near term, I believe.
Lifelong opportunities are important as well, giving those people who might have been hampered by the choices they had to make at a young age an opportunity to reskill and join the STEM workforce later in life.
I want to highlight an event happening next week: the University of Cambridge’s Institute for Manufacturing is co-hosting the Women in Manufacturing 2025 conference in Coventry—a clear recognition by the sector of the importance of breaking down barriers, and of supporting women to enter and progress in manufacturing careers. Breaking down barriers to women’s inclusion in STEM careers also requires cross-departmental thinking, with the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology all involved with STEM and careers. I hope that promoting such cross-departmental thinking is something that the Minister can commit to today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I am afraid that I now have to limit future speakers to three minutes each.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for bringing this important issue to the House for debate today.
As we know, Ada Lovelace Day is a time to celebrate the achievements of women in science, technology, engineering and maths. I am honoured to speak in this debate and to champion women in STEM, in Leigh and Atherton and across the country, and to commit to fostering progress in helping women to thrive in these often male-dominated fields.
I will cut my speech as I go along; I always get a time limit imposed on my speeches. I will talk about some of the work that I did before being elected to this place. I think that it is important to mention my time at Leigh Spinners mill. I am the former manager of the mill, and I would often talk about Ada Lovelace when showing visitors around the heritage looms in the scutching room. The punched cards that were used to automate the weaving of intricate patterns were a key part of the tour. It is often said that they were the inspiration that Ada Lovelace drew upon when developing the idea for the analytical engine, which is widely considered to be the first computer.
Just a few floors up from the scutching room, on the fourth floor of the mill, sits the newly formed Northwest Computer Museum, an interactive showcase of the history of computing. It is a brilliant space that connects our industrial past with our digital future, and Ada Lovelace’s legacy is woven through both.
Remarkably, 80% of the businesses at the mill are still run by women. That is a legacy and a powerful example of strong female leadership. I am extremely proud of that project—this is not the first time I have mentioned it in this House.
We must support pathways that nurture future women entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers and tech leaders—and let us not forget the arts, humanities and creative sectors. That means investing in education, mentorship and inclusive workplaces. It means challenging the stereotypes that tell girls that STEM is not for them. It is not just about gender: class plays a part too. Working-class women are doubly overlooked in elite spaces. When I walk into a meeting, I bring my femininity and my northern working-class spirit with me.
Let me shine a light on two examples of brilliant women driving STEM innovation in Leigh and Atherton. Cat is a leading figure at Leigh Hackspace, a dynamic, collaborative hub, based in the mill, where people passionate about tech, science and digital art come together to create, experiment and inspire. It is a space built on curiosity and community, and it is inspirational to see a woman at the helm of such forward-thinking work.
Then there is Emily Simcox of the ComputerXplorers, which offers children aged three to 13 specialist computer classes, offering an engaging blend of fun and education that is designed to capture the imagination, spark their creativity and prepare them for a tech-driven future—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I want to say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for leading the debate. In the short time that she has been here, she has shown herself to be formidable, dedicated and committed. I want to say well done for her excellent speech on this subject—we all enjoyed that.
It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I do not know about double-jobbing; I think she was a Whip the last time I saw her. I do not know whether she has been elevated or is doing both jobs, but I wish her well.
I will very quickly give a Northern Ireland perspective. I remind everyone that we are all part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together. Because of that, we share ideas about what we do back home and what we do over here, and hopefully we can all learn.
In Northern Ireland in 2021, 59% of students who gained qualifications in the narrow STEM subjects of engineering, technology and computing were male, and 41% were female, so the differential was not too high, but the Department for the Economy has identified other gaps, specifically in engineering and computer science, so there is more to do. Women are often under-represented in many STEM workforce roles—especially technical roles—in Northern Ireland. There are many initiatives in Northern Ireland, some of which have been set up to support women in gaining skills and unlock access to the sector. Organisations such as WOMEN’STEC and the WE Bridge programme at Ulster University provide training and personal development for non-traditional careers, especially in sectors such as construction and IT. Those are not alien to ladies, and they can do those jobs too, so we want to encourage those initiatives.
Careers advice in schools—especially in sixth form—is important. I often hear of younger ones saying that they remember being clear about their options. Their careers advisers in schools from certain employments really helped them to get a steer on the kind of industry that they wanted to be involved in. Back in 2017, I gave a young girl work experience in my office, and she is now a member of my staff. She had the social skills and what was needed to move forward.
If we do not have more female role models in STEM subjects, it is harder for younger women to believe that those pathways are accessible to them. It is all about breaking barriers and providing opportunities at a young age to ensure that progression is possible. It is important that we bring forward encouraging news from all our constituencies.
I will keep exactly to your three minutes, Ms Furniss, so I will conclude with this. We cannot overlook any section of our society, for the future of our economy and the workforce. I believe that we have world-class potential across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; if we want to stay competitive and creative, we must ensure that the opportunities to succeed are open to everyone. I believe that they are in Northern Ireland, and that they can be here too.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) so much for securing this important debate.
Other hon. Members have already outlined some fantastic initiatives to encourage women and girls in STEM. Such initiatives are so important. There is one in my constituency, at the all-girls Sandbach high school, which runs an extracurricular club called CAUC—Complete and Utter Chaos—for their female students. To be honest, it does not sound chaotic to me: together they design and build electric cars in the school’s workshop, and then race them against other schools at prestigious circuits around the country, including Silverstone. I have been and it is honestly phenomenal. They have this car building workshop, and it is just incredible.
The aim of CAUC is to inspire and encourage female students to pursue careers in traditionally male-dominated industries. We know that, at the moment, only 14.5% of UK engineers are female. The club looks to expose its students to a unique hands-on learning opportunity and many of them have gone on to do STEM degrees and become engineers and have obtained placements, including with Bentley and an F1 racing team. They are doing great stuff.
There is also the Jodrell Bank observatory in my constituency, which I truly love and have spoken about before—I should mention that a member of my immediate family works elsewhere within the University of Manchester. There are lots of fantastic women at Jodrell Bank doing groundbreaking research and discovery, and I want to recognise that Jodrell Bank has made active efforts to improve the percentage of women using its radio telescope with double-blind evaluation of applications for it. Having done that, female scientists now take up 50% of the telescope’s usage, which is fantastic and what we should all be aiming for.
The point I want the Government to look at is that there is a massive problem with childcare for people doing PhD studentships. I do not regard childcare as exclusively women’s work, nor do I regard it as exclusively their financial cost to bear. None the less, if a person doing a PhD is a young woman wishing to have children, it takes years and it is quite likely to be within a time during which they might want to have kids. At the moment, if they do a fully funded PhD, paid for by the state, they are not eligible for free childcare hours within nursery settings. An average PhD stipend is £15,000, whereas an average full-time nursery place is £12,500 a year. People would be completely unable to live and parent on that sort of money. We should urgently change that. Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered radio pulsars during her PhD. We could be losing all kinds of talent by having that restriction.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for securing this debate.
Ashley Combe, which sits above Porlock Weir, was Ada Lovelace’s home for many summers. She would walk across west Somerset, admiring its fauna and flora, including the forked spleenwort. There is a famous quote from the late, great Christopher Hitchens:
“The cure for poverty has a name, in fact. It’s called ‘the empowerment of women’.”
It is in that spirit that I speak today.
Despite the rich intellectual legacy Ada has left behind in her summer spot, STEM paths in the area, and in particular the numbers of girls going into STEM, leave much to be desired. The west Somerset part of my constituency, for all its natural beauty, suffers from the country’s lowest social mobility and ranks among the poorest for travel times to employment—at the 96th percentile. In our part of the world, we are hampered by inaccessibility which stifles ambition and aspiration. The development of Hinkley C in the years ahead will lead to inward commuting and a further exacerbation of inequality in transportation.
I laud the fact that Nicola Fauvel has been appointed station director at Hinkley Point C, having migrated from Hinkley Point B, where she became only the second woman to head a British nuclear power station. A cultural sea change was needed, and I know that Nicola has been supported no end by the group chief executive officer for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, David Peattie, and his fantastic team.
Enter the wonderful Ada in Porlock community action group. And I am delighted to say that members from the committee at Ada in Porlock join us here today. Still somewhat in its infancy, having run for just a year and a half, it has been at the heart of a number of community projects. Those initiatives have unveiled the truth that the gap between male and female interest in STEM widens, although the number of STEM students has risen by half in the last five years.
In each generation there is an Ada Lovelace and a Marie Curie. Somewhere out there today is a female scientific savante who does not know it yet. It is that potential force—the potential energy, to borrow from scientific speak—that has not been tapped into to the fullest extent. That is where the wonder lies: the randomness of greatness, the untapped potential of so many. There are more Adas out there. We know it, especially in Porlock in west Somerset—in my beautiful, wonderful constituency.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am truly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for securing this debate and for her powerful speech.
One of this debate’s origins was a question raised by a pupil at St Thomas Aquinas school in Kings Norton. They wanted to know what more could be done to improve the share of women and girls in STEM subjects and employment. I hope the fact that we are asking ourselves these questions today will be taken as proof that representations to us as MPs make a difference in Parliament. If more time was available, I would love to talk about the work going on in my constituency to sustain and improve those shares.
Many women other than Ada Lovelace have made foundational contributions to the development of science and mathematics, but there is something that draws us back to Ada Lovelace in particular. Her insights into the possibilities of computing speak to us 200 years on—they seem sometimes to be more of our time than of her own—yet she was also unbound by today’s boundaries between arts, humanities and other subjects. As she wrote in one early letter: “give me poetical science”. Perhaps it was Ada Lovelace’s combination of science and poetry that allowed her to see, in a way that no contemporary did, the true potential of the analytical engine and general purpose computing.
As has been said, Ada Lovelace’s comments on the creative potential and limitations of computing, and her foresight about the power of general purpose programming for the common betterment of mankind, speak in a remarkable way to the debates that we have in this House today. On the question of whether Ada was a true programmer, the fact that the first and famous note G contained a very small bug, and that her periods of intense concentration were followed by occasional intense frustration, will resonate with anyone who has engaged in programming.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, we should imagine what might have been accomplished if Ada Lovelace, and uncounted millions before and after, had enjoyed the same formal and informal advantages as men. How many great discoveries in the fields of medicine, manufacturing and technology have been delayed or are still undiscovered because there were not women in the room? Towards the end of her life, Ada Lovelace hoped that she would leave a mathematical legacy; the inspiration that she has left means that that hope is fulfilled.
As my hon. Friend said, this is a time to ask ourselves the famous question, “What should we tell our daughters?”
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for securing this important debate.
Ada Lovelace Day is an occasion for us all to pay tribute to a trailblazer in the fields of science and technology, and recognise the importance of women who work in those sectors today. Ada was an incredible figure—the first computer programmer—and she remains a role model to many women in STEM careers and girls who aspire to follow them. She leaves behind such an impressive legacy. I hope that we can continue to honour her by empowering more women to get involved in these fields.
This issue is deeply personal to me. Working in the life sciences and technology field prior to entering Parliament, I saw at first hand the tremendous skills and knowledge that women provide in this field, but I also saw the difficulties women face in pursuing a career in what remains a male-dominated sector. As chief executive of a company in the science and technology field, I boosted the number of female staff working in the company to more than 50%, and all my senior leadership team were women. I am also a father of three girls, two of whom are chemists, so I recognise the importance of women working in science.
Currently, women make up less than 30% of the STEM workforce. That is why I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy, which aims to increase women’s representation in the sector to 35% by 2035. I also welcome the equality charter set out by the Government, which ensures that firms’ diversity data is publicly available. It is disappointing that previous Governments failed to capitalise on this issue. I am reassured by the Government’s approach and intention to unleash the skills, abilities and passions that many women have in this field.
As we remember Ada, let us appreciate her efforts as an inspirational figure for women in STEM, let us recognise the dedication, passion and the resilience of many women in STEM today, and let us commit to educating, training and employing many more women in STEM.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for securing this debate—she beat me to it; I am absolutely delighted.
It is wonderful to be here to speak in this debate commemorating Ada Lovelace Day, which was earlier this week, and was founded by Suw Charman-Anderson—it is wonderful to see her sitting in the Public Gallery. Ada Lovelace was the world’s first computer programmer—a woman who saw long before her time that technology could be both analytical and creative. She reminds us that progress in science depends not just on logic, but on imagination—on putting the “a” for arts in STEAM, because when creativity meets science, innovation truly thrives.
It would be remiss of me not to mention that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and the APPG on financial technology. I also speak today as the founder of Labour: Women in Tech, a network that brings together women from across the tech sector—and our male allies, which is super important—to push to get more women into the tech sector. We certainly need progress.
I am going to talk at a rate of knots. The recent Lovelace report, published by WeAreTechWomen and Oliver Wyman, found that the UK’s tech sector is losing between £2 billion and £3.5 billion because women are leaving the industry or being pushed into non-technical roles. That is a huge waste of talent and potential. Keeping women in tech is not just a question of fairness; it is about what is right for the economy and for innovation. When women are not in the room, the consequences show. Too often, products and systems that are designed mainly by men deliver the best for men—from voice-recognition software that fails to understand women’s voices to health apps that ignore women’s biology and car safety testing still based on the male body. If we want technology for everyone, it must be designed by everyone.
Right across the country there are great organisations such as InnovateHer, Stemettes, Tech She Can and Code First Girls to name just a few, which have been fighting for change for years in this field, mentoring, training and inspiring the next generation. They deserve our thanks and continued support. It was wonderful to be asked to be on the front row at the Labour party conference recently as the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology announced that she was creating a women in tech taskforce. That is a real step forward, and I look forward to it being resourced and empowered to deliver.
The priorities are clear: we need inspiration and education of the next generation, and existing people who would perhaps like a career switch; greater transparency on gender data; action to retain women mid-career; incentives for firms to embed inclusion in design and innovation; and an intersectional approach that recognises every barrier of race, class, disability and sexuality. Ada Lovelace taught us that imagination is the engine of invention, and if we apply the same imagination to how we build our industries, we will create not only fairer workplaces but better technology, and deliver greater economic growth for Britain.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and many others have so expertly touched on Ada Lovelace’s story, I thought I might—with your indulgence, Ms Furniss—touch on another champion of 19th-century science who has always inspired me: Mary Anning, a pioneering palaeontologist renowned for her significant geological discoveries on the Dorset coast. Mary’s findings heavily influence how scientists now understand prehistoric life. She discovered the first complete plesiosaur skeleton—she could say it better than I could—and the ichthyosaurus, but she was held back from the proper recognition she so badly deserved because she was working class, because she was uneducated and because she was a woman.
I have always been inspired by her story, and I know that many girls and women across the country have too, including Bracknell’s all-girls robotics team, the RealTech Bots, who were crowned world champions at the FIRST Lego League international open earlier this year. The team, made up of school pupils aged between nine and 15, beat 96 teams and 11 countries, flying the STEM flag for Bracknell and the UK, and we are all extremely proud of them.
According to BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT, if we continue at our current rate, it will take women 283 years to make up an equal share of the tech workforce. Given the rapid development of AI and the fact that it is ultimately shaped by its designers, this lack of diversity should worry us all. That is why it is so important that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has set up a new women’s tech taskforce to, in her words—because the words of a woman here are more important than mine—
“finally smash those glass ceilings. Because Britain’s future shouldn’t just be shaped by the Tech Bros in Silicon Valley but our Tech Sisters—right here, in the UK.”
While other parties are arguing against diversity initiatives, it is important that this Government are recognising that economic growth must be underpinned by shared economic benefits to everyone.
Finally, I turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and others about the important intersection between Ada’s mathematical legacy and the arts that so influenced her. She often blended mathematics with art, predicting the use of computers in music and visual art, as well as other things. She wrote:
“We may say most aptly that the Analytical Engine weaves algebraic patterns just as the Jacquard loom weaves flowers and leaves.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
There are three more Members left to speak, and I can only allow two minutes each, if we are to get everyone in.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for securing the debate.
We are here to celebrate Ada Lovelace Day—a day to celebrate women in STEM across the country and across the world. When I spotted this debate on the Order Paper, I was reminded of 12 July last year, when I received a Facebook message, of all things, from a former pupil— I have no idea how she found me. She had just that day passed out, getting her doctorate in astrophysics, and had placed a note in the acknowledgements section of her thesis thanking me
“for being so inspiring and enthusiastic…and planting the seed by asking me the all-important question once after a class: Have you ever considered studying astrophysics at university?”
That does not sound like an exact quote—I suspect there was possibly more sarcasm when I said it—but it made me reflect on the fact that we should never miss the opportunity to ask such a question of a young person.
We need to go further and faster. We need women working in STEM and women teaching STEM. We also need to change the way we do this. We need to talk about adjectives, not just verbs. We need to talk about the beauty of mathematics. It is hard to describe to a non-mathematician, but it is so beautiful. We need to talk about the creativity of physics. We need to talk about how caring some of the life sciences can be. We need to talk about the adjectives, not just the verbs.
We also need to make sure we have a cross-governmental response to encourage more people into STEM. It is the Department for Transport, DSIT, the Department for Work and Pensions and further afield. We need parity of esteem for vocational courses in STEM. We need access to triple sciences for more kids, not just the highest achievers. We need the measures in the Employment Rights Bill. We need the women’s tech taskforce. Here’s hoping that, soon, every day can be Ada Lovelace Day.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for giving us all the opportunity on Ada Lovelace Day to celebrate not just a brilliant mathematician but a trailblazer who, remarkably early, smashed a glass ceiling and proved that women could and should shape the future of science and technology. Ada wrote the first algorithm for a computing machine in the 19th century. Imagine that: while many were telling women to stick to sewing, she was coding the future. That message is so important for every young girl to hear, so that they dream big.
I speak as someone who spent 25 years teaching chemistry, encouraging girls to explore their natural intellectual curiosity and excel in STEM with confidence. Unfortunately, over the years I have also seen talent stunted not by ability but by stereotypes and lack of role models. Too often, brilliant girls quietly sideline themselves from physics or computing because culture says that it is not for them—well, I have always said nonsense to that.
Research by the Royal Society shows that the scale of the challenge continues. Interest in science among girls in years 7 to 9 has dropped from 75% to 65%, while boys’ interest remains steady. We must continue to challenge and tackle gender inequality and the enormous barriers faced by girls, especially those from working-class backgrounds.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I think we will need a longer debate next year. I am hugely positive about our technological future, but I also recognise that we are grappling with serious questions that will define our future. Like it or not—trust it or not—information technology defines our age. There is not an off switch, and it is a dereliction of duty to pretend that there is, or to blithely insist that we can roll it back or that halting progress would mean that we somehow protect a version of our lives. If we do not endeavour to understand and take control of this industrial revolution like we mastered the last one, it will inevitably assert unacceptable influence over our lives and our national sovereignty.
Ada Lovelace’s legacy presents profound opportunities for us all, but there are risks that we must mitigate. Those risks are undeniable, but there are benefits to the industrial revolution that we are living through. We must all work together to ensure that Ada’s computational legacy benefits all, with women and girls, and diverse communities, included by design, not as an afterthought. That is why I was so proud to support my constituents Hazel McPherson and Jess Matthews to develop a national first in Weston-super-Mare: the CSIDES coastal cyber event at our awesome conference venue, the Grand Pier. Hazel and Jess brought internationally renowned cyber experts to join over 300 local business leaders and educators and 80 students to talk about cyber knowledge and resilience. Cyber is not just for the city—it is for the seaside as well. Such events are how we embody the spirit of Ada Lovelace, how we innovate and how we engage our communities—nothing about us, without us.
If the UK hopes to fulfil the ambition of the AI opportunities action plan, we have a lot of work to do to encourage women into STEM. BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT, found in its annual gender diversity report, which will be published next week, that if gender representation in the tech sector was equal to the workforce norm, there would have to be an additional 530,000 women working in the UK’s tech sector. The gap is huge, and closing it will take a whole-system approach from schools, apprenticeships, universities and lifelong learning. There is loads more to say, but I have run out of time.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) on securing this fantastic debate marking Ada Lovelace Day, which I am delighted to contribute to as the Lib Dem spokesperson for science, innovation and technology, and the daughter of a woman who studied engineering. In today’s increasingly technological world, Ada’s vision is more relevant than ever, and it is vital that we celebrate her achievements and the opportunities they continue to inspire.
In honouring Ada Lovelace’s legacy, we must also confront the challenges that have been put forward during the debate. In 2024, for every woman working in STEM there were three men. Women are less likely to be encouraged to study physics at school, to start coding or to pursue engineering at university. There may have been an upward trend in the proportion of women in STEM, but the workforce is still not equal. Stereotypes in education, lack of female role models and biases at university act as systemic barriers to inclusion for women in STEM, as many Members have mentioned.
As has also been mentioned, failing to empower women in STEM is a loss not just for women, but for all of us, and for science, innovation and the economy. That is why, when I started a tech company, the very first thing I did was look for mentors, because I felt that I could not do it without them. It was by interviewing and talking to so many great women that I felt inspired and able to move forward.
Ada Lovelace stands as a shining example of a woman who shattered barriers, paving the way for modern science and innovation. However, far too many women like her have been erased from history. Rosalind Franklin’s image of DNA was crucial, yet the Nobel prize for that discovery went to three men. Esther Lederberg made breakthroughs in genetics that were overshadowed by her husband’s receipt of the Nobel. Dorothy Hodgkin’s scientific achievement was reported in the press under the headline “Oxford housewife wins Nobel”. She remains the only British woman to win a science Nobel prize. That is not good enough. The instrumental role of women in STEM needs to be celebrated everywhere.
Rothamsted Research in my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted stands as a strong example of inclusion. Pioneers like Katherine Warington and Winifred Brenchley, who worked at Rothamsted Research, are considered the first women in the UK to break into the field of agricultural science. It has been wonderful to hear about so many women’s initiatives from Members in the debate today.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned, in 2014 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee stated that the lack of women in STEM was a “leaky pipeline”. Women have the talent and want to pursue a career in STEM, but along that journey, systemic forces push them out at every stage of their career. More than a decade on, the problem remains. We must recognise that more must and can be done to fix the leak of female talent.
We need to start challenging the core assumptions that push women out of STEM. For example, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) mentioned, childcare policy must be reformed so that nobody has to choose between a career and starting a family. Doubling the statutory rate of shared parental leave would be a significant start. The Liberal Democrats’ policy of six weeks’ use-it-or-lose-it leave for each parent at 90% of earnings would support women who want to work. In the long term, a committed vision of universal childcare is a lasting solution that would break down those barriers.
It is not just childcare. Awfully, a UNESCO report stated that women in STEM are more likely to be a target of gender-based violence and sexism than those in other fields. We need stronger protections for women. More must also be done to include women and under-represented groups. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), we need better transparency on pay gaps and progression in the workplace. We need stronger support and career guidance from primary school onwards so that girls are always taught that women are in STEM. This also means talking about women in STEM that history has forgotten. Days like Ada Lovelace Day, International Women’s Day and the International Day of Women and Girls in Science are important. They start crucial and wonderful conversations like the one we are having today. They allow us to reflect not just on what women are doing today, but what women have done in the past.
It is important to take these opportunities to push back and show that not enough has changed. There are still gaps that need to be filled to ensure that women are able to fulfil their potential. From Ada Lovelace to the countless women who have made significant contributions, history reminds us that barriers, not ability, have held women back in STEM. As my party’s spokesperson for science, innovation and technology, and the proud female MP for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, I want to ensure that every woman in the UK can imagine herself at the forefront of discovery and innovation. I look forward to working with the Government on such issues. By breaking down these barriers today, we can honour the pioneers of the past and empower the scientists, engineers and innovators of tomorrow.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I feel I should donate some of my minutes to some of the other hon. Members present, who, by the time they had finished their contributions, had effectively given a rap to the audience. [Laughter.] It was highly skilled. I loved the potted, warm biography of Ada Lovelace and the tribute to her own beautiful daughter by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge). I was glad to hear of another father who has three girls, including chemists. My dad has three girls, but unfortunately one of them became an MP rather than a scientist—and this MP has not even got the brainpower to remember everybody’s constituency names, so I apologise.
This morning I had the special privilege of visiting the Royal Society in St James’s, and I was lucky enough to get a glimpse of its incredible archive. Founded in 1660, the Royal Society is the world’s oldest continuously existing scientific academy. It was established by natural philosophers and physicists, including Christopher Wren and Robert Boyle. Its motto, “Nullius in verba”—“Take nobody’s word for it”—reflects the commitment to evidence and experimentation that has defined British science for over three and a half centuries. Archivist Keith Moore brought out the most incredible selection of gems, including the society’s founding register, which has the original signatures of Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Michael Faraday, Francis Crick and Stephen Hawking. It is simply extraordinary.
The first female signature comes only after 1945, the point at which women could be admitted as fellows. Since then the register has included the Nobel laureate Dorothy Hodgkin, who revealed the structure of penicillin; Dame Anne McLaren, whose research laid the foundations for IVF; and Dame Sarah Gilbert, the Oxford scientist behind the covid vaccine. Margaret Thatcher, a chemistry graduate, is also listed, and this month we mark her centenary. These are utterly remarkable scientists, who stand on their own merits and happen to be female. Keith also shared with me a letter from Ada Lovelace herself, who happened to be born at the wrong time to be admitted as a fellow. It reads:
“You were quite right to make your letter mathematical. I can understand that language better than any other.”
Today, we mark Ada Lovelace Day, not only to highlight women’s contributions to science, but as an opportunity to encourage more women into STEM—and my goodness, what can be achieved by them if we do. Just recently, I found myself walking in the middle of a three-carriageway road junction next to the M25 as the junction 28 works neared completion. My guide was an inspirational young female engineer, around 30 years old. She had completed a degree apprenticeship in civil engineering, gone straight into the workplace and was now building the bridges and roads that impact thousands of my constituents’ journeys daily. That is a practical, clear example of success in getting women into STEM careers. Other examples have been cited today, including that of women in nuclear technology by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour).
Right now, however, there are too many young people leaving university to a very tough job market. At the same time, too many employers in STEM industries are wondering how to get people with the right skills into their businesses. We have to get much better at matching those two challenges so they can solve one another.
Since 2010, successive Conservative Governments have worked on those challenges. Education reforms have raised standards, with a focus on maths, science and a knowledge-rich curriculum. Apprenticeships have been expanded, the apprenticeship levy introduced and skills bootcamps launched to support retraining in digital and technical skills. In my constituency, New City college has been awarded a prestigious accreditation as a STEM centre of excellence with strong industry partnership. I also have local job fairs to match companies such as AstraZeneca to young jobseekers in my constituency—other Members, including those elected in 2024, may wish to do that as they get more experienced.
We have things such as the Women in Innovation programme to support hundreds of female entrepreneurs, with women-founded tech firms raising £3.6 billion in 2022. The STEM ambassadors network reaches thousands of schools, providing role models in science and tech. The STEM returners programme helps women resume careers after a break, which has been discussed by a number of hon. Members. Indeed, the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) made an excellent point about free childcare for PhD students. I fully understand as a working mother the unbelievable costs of childcare but had not been aware of the issue in relation to PhDs. Will the Minister touch on that? We also have the Turing scheme, which funds international placements for students in STEM subjects, and we have heard about many other initiatives today.
The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), made mathematics a personal focus, recognising numeracy as the foundation of opportunity. The importance of maths was also referenced by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). There are still challenges, however, and we have heard some of the stats today, including from the Lovelace report and those cited by the Royal Society, which show the disparity between girls and boys in their interest in STEM subjects.
Teacher recruitment in STEM subjects is an enduring challenge. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) highlighted an example where he had provided inspirational leadership to a student simply by asking whether they had considered going into astrophysics at university. That is an incredibly insightful moment. What steps are the Government taking to get inspiring science and maths teachers into the classroom to encourage the next generation of female scientists and mathematicians?
I am also keen to know what is being done to combat youth unemployment, especially among graduates, and on a new skills policy to match skills gaps, especially for those seeking to work in STEM subjects. Also, what are the Government doing to make sure that, in the long term, we retain our position as a leading science and technology nation, especially in the life sciences? We have seen particular challenges in that area in recent weeks, with the loss of important investments such as that of Merck in King’s Cross.
From Ada Lovelace’s letter in the Royal Society archive to that young engineer I met building our infrastructure, I have seen what incredible scientists and engineers can do. I hope we will see many more young women with fantastic science and tech careers ahead of them, who will utilise their talent not just for themselves but for the good of others.
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and to respond on behalf of the Government for the first time in such an inspiring debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) for securing today’s important debate. Her touching tribute highlighted many things about Ada Lovelace’s pioneering spirit. A daughter of the arts, she studied widely and passionately and grew up to become the mother of an entire field. Without her insight into the possible applications for computers, who knows where we would be today? An 1836 portrait of Ada proudly graces the walls of No. 10, but her legacy is about much more than a picture hanging on a wall. It is a legacy of determination, achievement and inspiration that we should honour by giving women and girls every opportunity to follow in her trailblazing footsteps.
I thank all hon. Members for their powerful contributions today. It was good to hear about the girls enjoying maths summer schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and about working-class women like Cat and Emily; I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) that northern women are some of our very best. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who has spent much of her time in this place championing women in tech. I may not be a woman in STEM, but I am a woman in politics, and there are nowhere near enough of us in this profession either. It is great to see so many women in this Chamber giving this issue the debate that it deserves, and I am proud to see some of our male colleagues supporting us too.
Gender equality in STEM is not just about fairness, but about unlocking the full potential of our society. As this room shows, when women and girls are empowered to lead in any field, we gain richer perspectives, stronger teams and smarter solutions. STEM must reflect the world that it seeks to improve. It is wrong that women made up only 16.5% of the engineering workforce in 2024, and that only 22% of those in occupations developing artificial intelligence were women. That is especially troubling as we celebrate the legacy of Ada Lovelace, a pioneer in the field. A report by the Royal Academy of Engineering notes that more diverse and inclusive research teams in the United States generated 121% more patent citations than those that were not diverse—clear evidence that we work better when we work together.
Diversity in tech is not just about fairness, however, nor is it a question of patent citations. It is estimated that £2 billion is lost annually as a result of women leaving the tech sector or changing jobs because of barriers to their work. The reality is simple: talent exists everywhere, but opportunities in the tech sector do not reach everyone equally. That is why the Government fully support increasing the number of women in STEM and supporting those who already work in those areas to thrive.
That work begins in schools. The Department for Education supports a range of initiatives, including the I Belong programme and the advanced maths support programme, which aims to improve girls’ progression into advanced maths post 16, and which received £18.2 million in investment from this Government in May this year. That sits alongside our groundbreaking new £187 million tech skills programme, TechFirst, which creates the opportunities to inspire tech talent from early school age to entering the industry and beyond.
The Government support women who currently work in STEM roles in the civil service. The Government science and engineering profession is working to help women with peer support and mentoring specifically targeted at those working in science in Government. This work unites Government. A recent series of talks by women scientists about their work in the public sector attracted over 1,400 attendees from 55 Departments across Government.
It is important to recognise the work of our arm’s length bodies in supporting women in STEM. For example, UK Research and Innovation encourages participation through the STEM ambassador programme—a network of over 28,000 volunteers, about half of whom are women, that reaches more than 3 million young people each year. The brilliant CREST awards recognise pupils undertaking project work in STEM subjects, with more than 50,000 young people in the UK gaining an award each year.
It is important to mention the great work of Innovate UK, the UK’s innovation agency, which supports women in the process of creating ideas through to commercialising products, providing targeted funding, mentorship and opportunities for women entrepreneurs and researchers. Innovate UK’s Women in Innovation programme has increased the number of women-led applications from one in seven to one in three, and an exciting new competition for Women in Innovation awards will open next year.
The UK’s national academies also play a part in encouraging and supporting women in STEM, with the Royal Academy of Engineering working closely with partners across the sector to address the persistent under-representation of women and other groups in the engineering workforce. The academy’s diversity impact programme, inclusive leadership programme and Culture+ platform all help to foster inclusivity in what has traditionally been a male-dominated field.
However, we know that there is much more to do. The fabulous female Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology was clear in her conference speech that one of her top priorities is getting more women into tech, and she has announced a brand-new women’s tech taskforce with BT Group’s Allison Kirkby and the Stemettes founder Dr Anne-Marie Imafidon. The taskforce will bring together leading voices from across industry to identify interventions for Government and industry to attract and retain more women in the sector.
Crucially, women in tech are also women in the workplace—women who are being supported by new rights on gender pay gap publishing, protections for pregnant workers and an ongoing consultation on mandatory menopause action plans. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) has already beaten me to this line, but together this work will ensure that progress and innovation is led by more tech sisters right here in the UK, not just tech bros in silicon valley.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to all the women in STEM who have pushed the boundaries of knowledge in our societies forward, which of course includes Ada Lovelace herself, whose pioneering work forms the basis of so much of the technology that we use today. I reiterate the Government’s support for the women who are currently working to make the United Kingdom a scientific powerhouse and encourage those currently in education to follow in their footsteps. Women in STEM is not just a slogan; it is thousands of girls in classrooms right across the country and countless women working across the sector as we speak. From listening to all the passionate contributions today, it is clear how we as leaders have a role to play in inspiring the next generation of women and girls in science, technology, engineering and maths. The talent is there in schools and laboratories across our country, and this Government are committed to unlocking its full potential.
Lizzi Collinge
I thank colleagues across the House for their wonderful contributions. I am very pleased to welcome our visitors from Ada in Porlock and of course Suw Charman-Anderson, the founder of Ada Lovelace Day, along with others who have travelled here today.
We heard from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) that maths is the worst topic for gender inequality—an inequality that opens up very early—and I am thankful to him for highlighting solutions. I also want to highlight the work of the Good Thinking Society on identifying talented mathematicians at a young age and nurturing them. We have heard today about many such excellent schemes across the whole of the UK, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, but the question is how to link them up, including with museums such as the Northwest Computer Museum, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) mentioned.
I was fascinated to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) about the Complete and Utter Chaos team at Sandbach high school building EVs at school. We also heard about Bracknell’s RealTech Bots and about Hazel and Jess at CSIDES in Weston. We heard more fascinating facts about Ada from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), but also about the practicalities needed to truly realise potential, such as financial equality and transport access.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) spoke of Ada’s belief in poetical science and the false split between science and humanities. We heard about hon. Members’ personal and professional experience of boosting women in STEM from my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), as well as the need for good role models. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) also made excellent points about realising the full potential of this new industrial revolution.
All those contributions have showed the strength of support across this House for Government support for women in STEM. They show that women’s potential is not being realised, just as Ada’s was not, and that that is damaging our country and our economy. It was an absolute pleasure to welcome the Minister to her place, and I am very grateful to her for outlining how this Labour Government are supporting women in STEM, and how together we will make sure that no future Adas are lost.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Ada Lovelace Day and Government support for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Public Sector Fraud Authority
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
Fraud remains one of the biggest challenges facing the public sector, with estimated losses for fraud and error measured in the billions annually. The damage extends beyond just financial consequences: fraud erodes the public’s trust in our public services and confidence in the Government’s ability to protect taxpayers’ money. Working people across the country expect their taxes to fund the vital public services that they and their families rely upon. When that money instead ends up in the pockets of fraudsters, it undermines the principle that everyone should pay their fair share.
Fraud against the public sector occurs in many forms and includes procurement fraud, benefit fraud, fraud in the construction industry and the fraud experienced by the Government throughout the covid-19 pandemic. Tackling fraud against the public purse is the responsibility of the Public Sector Fraud Authority, whereas the Home Office is responsible for fraud against individuals and businesses. That is why I wish to inform the House about the record-breaking success of the Public Sector Fraud Authority in protecting taxpayers’ money. In the 12 months to April 2025, it has prevented £480 million from falling into the hands of fraudsters. This means the Government have millions more to invest in our plan for change.
These successes have been driven by artificial intelligence and advanced data-matching. The recently announced fraud risk assessment accelerator is part of this approach. The tool scans new policy proposals for potential fraud weaknesses and early tests show it could reduce the time to identify fraud risks by 80%, while preserving essential human oversight. The UK intends to license this technology internationally.
The Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner has been tasked with recovering taxpayers’ money from fraudsters. Over a third of the money saved by the Public Sector Fraud Authority—£186 million—comes from tackling fraud committed during the covid-19 pandemic. The National Fraud Initiative sits in the Public Sector Fraud Authority and is also responsible for a significant amount of these savings. It has prevented over £68 million in wrongful pension payments and saved £36 million for local councils across the country.
Wider investment in counter-fraud includes the introduction of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, and investment in significant measures that will deliver an estimated £9.6 billion in savings by 2030. This record-breaking year demonstrates that with the right technology, determination and leadership, we can go further, and do more, to protect taxpayers’ money while delivering the Government’s plan for change that our country needs.
[HCWS969]
Children’s Hospice Funding
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I am delighted to announce to the House today that the Government and NHS England can now confirm the continuation of the centrally administered children’s hospice funding, previously known as the children’s hospice grant, for the three years of the next spending review period, 2026-27 to 2028-29 inclusive.
This Government have already made it clear that we hugely value the important role that hospices play in supporting the palliative care and end of life care sector and the big role they will play in the shift of care from hospital to community settings, including via integrated neighbourhood health teams.
In December 2024, we announced the biggest investment in a generation for hospices, providing £100 million in capital funding to adult and children’s hospices across England over 2024-25 and 2025-26, and continued revenue funding for children’s hospices of £26 million in 2025-26.
We are now confirming that children’s hospices will receive further revenue funding for the next three years: 2026-27, 2027-28 and 2028-29. This funding will see circa £26 million (adjusted for inflation) allocated to children’s hospices in England each year, via their local integrated commissioning boards on behalf of NHS England, as happened in 2024-25 and 2025-26. This amounts to at least £78 million over the next three years.
This is in line with our 10-year health plan, promoting a more consistent national approach, while also supporting commissioners in prioritising the palliative care and end of life care needs of their local population. Further details on the process and delivery of this funding will follow in due course. The allocations to individual children’s hospices will be refreshed to reflect updated prevalence data.
This funding will be in addition to existing local arrangements for services commissioned from children’s hospices, and any locally agreed funding to hospices should continue at the discretion of the relevant ICBs, which are responsible for commissioning palliative care to meet the needs of their populations.
This Government’s commitment to provide this much-needed funding until the end of the spending review period recognises that children’s hospices need funding certainty in order to plan ahead, rather than relying on year-on-year funding decisions, and also acknowledges the invaluable support that children’s hospices provide to children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions and their loved ones.
Meanwhile, ICBs will work to embed strategic commissioning approaches, with the support of the Department and NHS England, to ensure that population of children and young people with palliative care and end of life care needs, including those currently met through the centrally administered children’s hospice funding, are fully incorporated into their five-year organisational plans, as outlined in the planning framework.
We want a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life, and we recognise that access to high-quality, personalised palliative care can make all the difference for seriously ill children and their families. This funding will allow children’s hospices to continue to provide this all-important support to those who need it most, at some of the most difficult times of their lives.
More widely on palliative care and end of life care, the Government and the NHS will closely monitor the shift towards all-age strategic commissioning of palliative and end of life care services to ensure that the services reduce variation in access and quality.
Being able to plan for the long term is of vital importance to our children’s hospices, so I am proud that this Government have removed the “cliff edge” of annual funding cycles, so that our children’s hospices will now be able to operate on the basis of far greater certainty and stability.
[HCWS970]
Health and Care System: Tackling Antisemitism and Racism
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today I am updating the House on urgent action to tackle antisemitism and racism across the NHS.
The NHS is a universal service which demands the highest standards of care and respect for all patients, regardless of their background. It is unacceptable that many people, including those in the Jewish community, do not currently feel safe working in or using the NHS.
The vast majority of doctors, nurses and healthcare workers embody the very best of our country. But recent cases have exposed something deeply troubling.
That is why we are taking immediate action.
I have commissioned Lord Mann, the Government’s adviser on antisemitism, to conduct a rapid review into how healthcare regulators can better tackle racism. As well as addressing the real challenges of antisemitism, I also expect Lord Mann’s recommendations to improve the NHS’s ability to tackle all forms of racism in its ranks.
At the same time, all 1.5 million NHS staff will be required to complete updated mandatory antisemitism and anti-racism training, with existing equality, diversity and human rights programmes being expanded.
We are also asking NHS England and all Department of Health and Social Care arm’s length bodies to explicitly adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to ensure consistency across the health system. NHS trusts and integrated care boards are being strongly encouraged to follow suit. The Government are also reviewing the recommendations of the independent working group on Islamophobia.
NHS England is reviewing the uniform and workwear guidance last updated in 2020, in light of recent successful approaches rolled out at University College London Hospitals NHS foundation trust and Manchester University NHS foundation trust. NHS England will engage stake- holders on its proposals and issue new guidance shortly. The principles of this guidance will be that religious freedom of expression will be protected, patients feel safe and respected at all times, and that staff political views do not impact on patients’ care or comfort.
Together, these actions will help us build a health and care system where everyone feels safe to work and be treated.
[HCWS971]
Starvation as a Weapon of War
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brown of Silvertown
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of starvation as a weapon of war globally, and what steps they are taking to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld in this regard.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, I am incredibly grateful for this opportunity to raise an important issue that affects millions of people around the world. Today is World Food Day, and this year’s theme calls for global collaboration to create a peaceful, sustainable, prosperous and food-secure future. Yet we live with the devastating reality where last year, over 295 million people faced acute hunger. In armed conflicts, both intranational and international, hunger is increasingly used as a deliberate strategy of warfare and control.
Conflict-related food insecurity affects over 140 million people. Humanitarian aid is restricted, aid workers and journalists are killed, cities are blockaded and starved, agricultural land is destroyed and vital food infrastructure, like bakeries, is bombed. Starvation and malnutrition do not only kill people; they destroy the very fabric of societies, making it so much harder to achieve peace, and lock countries and communities in a never-ending cycle of conflict and insecurity.
The use of starvation as a weapon of war in international conflicts is recognised as a war crime in the Rome statute, including starvation through wilfully impeding relief supplies. An amendment in 2019, which the UK has not yet recognised—it would be very good to know where the Government currently stand on this—extends this recognition to non-international conflicts. The UN Security Council has also unanimously adopted Resolutions 2417 and 2573, which condemn the starving of civilians and the deprivation of objects indispensable to survival as methods of warfare.
Yet this abhorrent tactic is increasing in prevalence throughout the world. It is often undertaken with impunity, and we are seeing it across nations such as South Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Ethiopia and Syria. Children are most at risk of death, whether from starvation itself or from preventable diseases that turn deadly because of the way malnutrition weakens our bodies. To quote a doctor,
“Basically, the body just”
shuts
“down … it pulls energy from other organs just to keep the brain going”.
If a child does not die from the conflict or from an infection, eventually, the heart gives out.
“It is a very cruel, slow death”.
The generals’ war against the people of Sudan is a blight on humanity. These generals use their forces to enact a brutal campaign of terror, using mass executions, sexual violence and starvation as inhumane tools of war, with devastating consequences. Over half the country—more than 24 million people—is now in acute food insecurity. Famine was confirmed in 2024 in North Darfur’s Zamzam region and is now present in 10 regions of the country. Some 3.2 million children under the age of five are expected to suffer from acute malnutrition this year.
There are grave concerns about the RSF siege of El Fasher, where 260,000 civilians have been trapped for more than 500 days. There have been indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and a blockade on aid is being used as an attempt to starve the city into submission. Diseases like cholera are increasingly prevalent as critical infrastructure is targeted and vital supplies diminish. Both the SAF and the RSF use starvation as a deliberate strategy to break the civilian population through hunger, fear and exhaustion. A doctor based in El Fasher said:
“The children of El Fasher are dying on a daily basis due a lack of food, lack of medicine. Unfortunately, the international community is just not watching”.
We cannot afford to let this crisis unfold: there needs to be a greater international effort to stop this brutal war. The UK is the UN penholder for Sudan. Is the Minister confident that we are using all our influence on the international stage and within the UN to build a coalition of the willing against those generals, and to protect the people of Sudan?
I very much welcome the doubling of UK aid to Sudan, but within Sudan there are many local actors and organisations that could be used to save lives and distribute humanitarian aid. They have an undaunted spirit, and a hope that a Sudan free from the generals and their catastrophic war is achievable. The recent report from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact has highlighted that the UK struggles to provide direct funding for these local organisations. Can the Minister assure me that the department can address this going forward?
Sudan is a hidden war in which the generals’ forces continue to act with impunity, but that has not been the case in Gaza. We have seen the conflict constantly play out on our TV screens and news feeds. We have followed the flotillas, and millions of us have marched throughout the country to campaign for an end to this war.
Aid has not been allowed into Gaza—except the pittance the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was permitted to distribute—with often disastrous consequences. More than 12,000 children are acutely malnourished, and more than 150 have died as a result of starvation. A mother in Gaza city wept: “We fast for days, just to leave something for the children. Sometimes, there is nothing—only water. At night they cry, saying, ‘Mama, we’re hungry’. I hold them and say, ‘You’ll eat in heaven’, and then I cry when they fall asleep.”
Given the peace deal, we must now ensure that this truce turns into lasting peace and that humanitarian aid can flow unrestricted into the area. Deliberate starvation of civilians not only kills people; it undermines the very fabric of society, normalises these crimes for future conflicts and weakens the international legal order.
I close with a call for action. We need a united and urgent response to ensure the upholding of international legal norms, and we need accountability for those who have deliberately starved populations as a method of war and control. I hope that by next year’s World Food Day, we will have seen an end to this abhorrent use of hunger—I am not holding my breath—but for this to begin to happen, we need action now.
Baroness Helic (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. In my own family’s memory lies Sarajevo and the siege, when starvation was wielded as a weapon and for more than 1,400 days, civilians were cut off from food, water, medicines and power. Some starved, surviving on nettles, grass and animal feed; others died as snipers and shells struck queues for bread and water. During that time, 11,500 civilians were killed, including more than 1,600 children.
The UN airlift later known as Operation Provide Promise flew 160,000 tonnes of aid into Sarajevo across more than 12,000 missions. It was far from perfect. Aid was often intercepted and spoiled by the besieging militias and forces, but it prevented famine and sent a message that the world would break the grip of siege designed to starve civilians into submission.
In Sarajevo today, you can see a monument shaped like a vast tin can and printed on it is the brand name ICAR, the canned food distributed to surviving civilians during the siege. It is a gritty reminder of indignity, but also of survival and international resolve. The monument stands not only for what was given but for what should never be withheld: the basic necessities of life. Sadly, the siege is not ancient history. The forced hunger and deprivation that we have seen in Syria, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Sudan and Gaza follow the same tactics. Civilians are reduced to begging for scraps or denied access to humanitarian relief convoys, even as they wait only a few hundred metres away—even as they can see them.
Sudan and Gaza are the most recent examples of this inhumanity. Gaza has been subject, on and off, to full or partial blockade since October 2023. Its civilians were starved, denied basic medical support and stripped of dignity and hope. A cruel collective punishment was inflicted on them, which resulted in a manmade famine. This lack of humanity spreads across countries and into our social media feeds. Only yesterday I was reading about Google’s recent facilitation of false advertising that starvation was taking place in Gaza. Today, it has said that it is not going to remove those posts from Instagram and so on. This week, the withdrawal of aid from Gaza was again used as a threat.
As has been mentioned, using hunger and starvation as tools of warfare is prohibited by international law: the Geneva conventions and additional protocols, the Rome statute and UN Security Council Resolutions 2047 and 2573. We have the legal framework. Yet, despite that legal framework and despite all the promises, outrage and condemnation, starvation is now used just as sexual violence is: not as a tragic by-product or a breakdown of discipline or an incident, but as a premeditated weapon designed to inflict pain and death. Blocked air corridors, denial of relief and seizure or destruction of supplies all contribute to catastrophic hunger and often amount to collective punishment, with consequences lasting generations. As we have heard, an often overlooked aspect is the dire impact that malnutrition has on the brains and bodies of young children. Those who survive never recover.
We do not lack legal means. What is missing is consistent enforcement, political courage and accountability. What we are missing is shame that this is happening on our watch. We in the United Kingdom should always be absolutely clear that there are no circumstances under which the withholding of food to a civilian population—no matter where they are, no matter the colour of their skin and no matter their religion—should ever be tolerated. It should never be allowed.
With this in mind, I ask the Minister to answer a few questions. First, how will His Majesty’s Government ensure that, wherever starvation is used as a method of war, it is systematically investigated and prosecuted? Secondly, with our foreign aid commitment set to fall to 0.3% by 2027—critically, programmes are already being closed in Sudan and elsewhere—will the Government consider ring-fencing resources for starvation prevention as a core humanitarian priority? Finally, what steps will the Government take to embed compliance with international humanitarian law not only in our Armed Forces’ training, but with partners trained here? Can the Minister confirm that proportional defence and military training is allocated under international humanitarian law compliance, so that the forces we train never become perpetrators of these crimes?
The legal tools and precedents exist; moral and political courage must follow. As the president of the ICRC has said:
“International humanitarian law is only as strong as leaders’ will to uphold it”.
I finish by reminding us all that our duty is not merely to condemn starvation as warfare; it is to ensure that starving civilians are protected, not as an afterthought, but as a legal, enforceable and moral imperative.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chief executive of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger. It is a huge privilege to follow that very powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for securing this debate and for her eloquent words which laid bare the scale and devastating consequences of the increasing use of starvation as a weapon of war.
I will focus on two issues: first, how we ensure accountability and meaningful consequences for state and non-state actors that use starvation as a weapon of war; and, secondly, the role that malnutrition plays in destabilising societies and contributing to conflict.
Recent years have seen an explosion of conflict and of what the World Food Programme describes as the
“increasing ‘instrumentalisation’ of humanitarian aid”.
Humanitarian access is frequently denied. Humanitarian workers are targeted and often killed. Crops, livestock and food storage facilities are destroyed and, as the Mines Advisory Group notes, agricultural land is often rendered unusable as a result of mines or contamination with other ordnance. Action Against Hunger draws attention to how critical infrastructure, such as water systems, markets and transport routes, is frequently attacked, denying communities access to the resources that they require to survive.
Some years ago, I had the privilege to visit Sudan on several occasions, working with the civilian democratic parties before the outbreak of the war. I watched with horror as the fighting created one of the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophes. Famine is now ongoing in at least five areas, and there is a risk of famine in 17 additional areas. Warring parties have imposed sieges and attacked food infrastructure, leaving over half the population facing acute food insecurity.
In Gaza, there has also been a deliberate policy to deny access to food, fuel and water, contrary to international humanitarian and criminal law. Before the recent ceasefire, which we hope will allow food to get in and alleviate the situation, 95% of the population was in acute food insecurity, 1 million were in emergency levels of food insecurity and famine conditions existed for 500,000 people. In both cases, ostensible allies of the United Kingdom are either imposing such policies directly or supporting armed groups that are. Despite the obligation of third parties to take all measures necessary to ensure that parties to conflicts respect the provisions of international humanitarian law, we and our international partners have done far too little to impose real consequences for these actions and to enforce accountability.
As Action Against Hunger and others have argued, the UK needs to ratify the amendment to Article 8 of the Rome statute, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, so that non-international conflicts are covered. We need to put UN Security Council Resolutions 2417, 2573 and 2730 at the heart of our diplomatic efforts to prevent starvation being used as a weapon of war and to protect humanitarian workers. Where these resolutions are violated, we should be willing to impose meaningful economic and other sanctions.
We need also to look at how we can best support efforts to prevent conflict in the first place. There is a good understanding of how conflict drives malnutrition, but much less well understood is the role that malnutrition plays in destabilising societies and giving rise to conflict. A research study carried out in north-eastern Nigeria by experts from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, CGIAR and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture found strong links between malnutrition and conflict, and demonstrated that acute malnutrition is an early warning signal of social breakdown in fragile settings.
People who are not getting the food they need may increasingly be inclined to support, or be recruited by, armed groups to ensure food security, shelter and physical protection. This cycle will not be broken without tackling malnutrition, because nutrition is so foundational to individual, societal and economic development, and indeed to global prosperity. We need to look again at the false economy of the huge cuts that we have made to our development budget; there was a cut of more than 60% to the budget for combating malnutrition in 2020-21 alone.
The numbers impacted by deliberate policies to use food as a weapon of war in Afghanistan, DRC, Gaza, Sudan, Yemen and elsewhere are immense, but figures so large can numb us to the real meaning of these actions. That reality was brought home to me by a faded picture of a young boy that my colleague at United Against Malnutrition and Hunger, Roh Yacobi, carries with him always. It is of his younger brother, Mohammad. Roh says this:
“When I was a child, living under a brutal Taliban blockade, thousands starved to death, including my little brother Mohammad. I was the last person to see him alive. He was buried in a small grave in the village graveyard at dawn, and soon joined by more children”.
That is the brutal cost of what happens when parties to conflict use starvation as a weapon of war. Millions of people have been subject to similar blockades, with similar horrific consequences. Such actions will continue with increasing frequency and impunity unless we, with our international partners, are willing to impose meaningful consequences on perpetrators, whether they be our friends or our foes.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for securing this timely and profoundly important debate. I also support wholeheartedly the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Oates, powerful as they were.
Today is World Food Day, when we commemorate the creation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1945, born out of the ashes of the Second World War. It stands as a reminder that access to food is not a privilege but a fundamental human right, one that the international community vowed to protect when it said “never again” to the suffering and cruelty of total war. Yet across the world, right now, rights are being violated and weaponised. Food, water and even humanitarian aid are being turned into instruments of war and tools of political coercion.
In Sudan, as we heard earlier, more than 24 million people face acute food insecurity. We also heard earlier about Gaza, where the United Nations has warned of famine, declaring that almost every child under five is suffering from nutrition. In both places, civilians have been deliberately deprived of food, medicine and clean water, not by accident but by design. This is not a tragic consequence of conflict; it is a method of war, and it is expressly prohibited under the Geneva conventions, the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, and UN Security Council Resolutions 2417 and 2573, yet impunity reigns. The law exists but the will to enforce it has withered.
Food is not the only weapon. We are witnessing the growing weaponisation of water through the destruction of infrastructure, the blocking of access or the manipulation of rivers that sustain entire nations. Water is life itself, yet it too is being politicised and withheld. The recent decision by India to suspend co-operation under the Indus Water Treaty and divert flows from the northern rivers that feed Pakistan should concern us all. For decades, that treaty has stood as a model of cross-border co-operation, even in times of tension. To undermine it for political leverage is to risk regional instability, deepen food insecurity and erode a vital humanitarian norm: that access to water must never be used as a weapon.
This is where the United Kingdom must rediscover its voice. After the horrors of the Second World War it was the UK, with its allies, that helped to forge the rules-based international order: the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva convention and the principle that the strong are bound by the same laws as the weak. These were not abstract ideas; they were the moral foundations of a world rebuilt from ruins. That legacy places upon us both a moral duty and a strategic obligation to defend those principles today, to uphold the rule of law when others abandon it and to lead by the strength of our example.
So, what should the Government do? First, the Government should ratify the 2019 amendment to the Rome statute, extending the prohibition of starvation as a weapon of war to all conflicts, whether international or internal. Secondly, the UK must deploy every diplomatic, legal and economic tool available to hold violators to account—whether state or non-state actors, allies or adversaries—including targeted sanctions, as we heard earlier, against those who obstruct humanitarian access or manipulate essential resources such as food and water.
Thirdly, as we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, we must restore our commitment to international development in nutrition, food security and climate resilience. The cuts to aid in recent years have not only cost lives but diminish our nation’s moral authority. Reinvestment in those programmes is not charity but a reaffirmation of who we are and what we stand for.
Finally, our voice must be consistent and principled. International law cannot be applied selectively. We cannot condemn war crimes in one region while turning a blind eye in another. Our credibility and our conscience demand that we speak with one standard, guided by law and humanity. Starvation and the denial of water are not tactics of war; they are crimes against humanity and an affront to the conscience of the world. The United Kingdom, as one of the architects of the post-war order, must not stand silent as these norms are eroded and these crimes repeated.
Let us, on this World Food Day, reaffirm that no person anywhere should ever be starved or denied water as a weapon of war. Let us stand for the principles our forebears fought to defend: for the rule of law, for human dignity, and for the belief that the measure of a nation is found not in its power but in its moral courage to uphold what is right.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, given the gravity of the events that are the subject of today’s proceedings, while it is not exactly a pleasure to contribute to this debate, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, and to thank him for his powerful contribution, and to have the opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown for securing this debate and for a clear-eyed, informed, impressively analytical and forensic speech. I shall not repeat the appalling statistics and data that show the extent to which starvation as a weapon of war is deployed globally, but I will focus on a limited number of issues.
Like all noble Lords who are contributing to this debate, I received briefing notes from INGOs. They are, independently and collectively, both comprehensive and helpful. Helpfully, they include recommendations of questions to my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, whom I am delighted to see speaking from the Front Bench on this issue. I hope that he and his office have had the opportunity to review the briefing notes we all received.
I have in the past suggested that your Lordships’ House should find a way of publishing with the Hansard record the briefing notes that we receive to complement the debate. I am convinced that, if they are moderated before publication, such briefing notes will show the degree to which, in its deliberations, your Lordships’ House is engaged with and connected to the outside world and values the knowledge and experience of those who have expertise in particular policy areas. However, and sadly, publication in this case would have detrimental repercussions on the very authors of these notes because they require humanitarian access, and it would only get worse if they are known to have been doing this. So I will not press the issue in this debate but will focus on three issues.
First, on the Rome statute amendment, the UK has long prided itself on being a global leader in upholding international humanitarian law, yet it remains one of the few countries not to have ratified the 2019 amendment to the Rome statute. This amendment criminalises the deliberate starvation of civilians in non-international armed conflicts, closing a critical loophole in international law. It puts the legal framework in place for the ICC to pursue investigations and prosecutions of starvation crimes when they occur. By ratifying it, the UK would send a clear signal that starvation—whether in Gaza, Sudan or elsewhere—can never be an acceptable tactic of war. Ratification would cost us nothing but would show that we mean what we say about accountability and the protection of civilians. It is time for the Government to take that simple but powerful step. Will the Government commit to ratifying the 2019 Rome statute amendment and ensure that the necessary co-operation and enforcement mechanisms are in place so that this vital legal reform has real effect?
On ODA spending and conflict prevention, we cannot separate famine prevention from conflict prevention. Yet, as my Government have reduced UK ODA to 0.3% of GNI, they have also drastically cut spending on peacebuilding and conflict resolution—the very areas that prevent conflict and humanitarian crises before they start.
If the UK wants to help to break the cycle of conflict-driven hunger, it must reinvest in its tools of diplomacy, mediation and early warning. Restoring ODA levels is part of that, but so too is ensuring that our remaining aid is directed towards reducing violence and protecting civilians, not simply responding after catastrophe strikes. Can my noble friend, whom I greatly admire and who has the ear of your Lordships’ House, confirm what proportion of UK ODA is currently allocated to conflict prevention and resolution, how this compares to previous years and what rationale underpinned those reductions?
Finally, on Israel and the use of starvation as a weapon of war, in Gaza today almost the entire population faces acute food insecurity and more than half a million people are in catastrophic conditions. It is a famine in all but name. Access to food, fuel and water is being systematically restricted in direct violation of international humanitarian law. The Government must be clear that the deliberate deprivation of food as a method of warfare is prohibited under international law. We must press Israel continuously to comply with those obligations and ensure that humanitarian access is immediately and unconditionally restored. The UK cannot champion international law abroad if it applies it selectively. What representations have the UK Government made to Israel regarding the use of starvation and the obstruction of humanitarian access and what response has been received from the Israeli authorities? In the words of Justa Hopma, research fellow at the University of Sheffield, writing in the Conversation:
“Famine doesn’t just ‘happen’ - and those who cause it must be held to account”.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silverton, for this debate and I am grateful for all the powerful speeches that have been made, all from perspectives of people who know, care and are involved in this issue. Each one of them has added a different aspect of the dimension, which we should all appreciate.
As people will know, I spent 10 years as chair of the International Development Committee watching what the UK could and did do in humanitarian aid and I am appalled that we are no longer able to do that. There is a really important point here. Not only did we do stuff, but we were witnesses to what was going on. The plea that has come from every speech about ensuring that consequences flow from imposing starvation as a weapon of war means something. If there is nobody there to see it happening, it is surely much harder to promote successful prosecutions, so the absence of aid workers is an issue. It is probably the reason why so many aid workers are killed by protagonists—325 last year, as the World Food Programme has identified.
Of course, it is odd to have rules for war. War is a terrible thing and terrible things happen, but we have created rules. Many players in the past have attempted to take account of them, but the actors who are playing now are not interested in the rules; they have total disregard for the rules. They are state and non-state players and they think that there is no accountability. That is the problem. The message from everybody seems to be, “What are we going to do about it?”
On Article 8, first, it should be ratified, but, secondly, we need to clarify what the intention is. Nearly all the speeches identified situations where it should not be difficult to prove the intention—that starvation and deprivation of water and food was a deliberate act to intimidate people, put them into a desperate situation and subjugate them. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, is right that Sudan is the worst situation and is on an almost unprecedented scale. Hopefully, the situation in Gaza is about to become better, but let us not hold our breath. Other places, such as Mali and Haiti, are in pretty desperate straits. There is no doubt at all that hunger is increasing. Not all of it is caused by conflict, but more of it is conflict-related than anything else and more of it is being deliberately perpetrated rather than being just an incidental consequence of the conflict.
I want to make a suggestion that may not be appreciated by everyone. We have a very real concern in this country about migration—desperate migration—but what drives this migration is exactly this. If you are in a situation where you are trapped, then of course you cannot get out, but if you are in a situation where there is no food or water, your family are threatened and you are under attack, what are you going to do? You get as far away as possible if you have half a chance.
A point that many of us made about why the aid cuts were such a mistake is that one of the things that aid did was help to reduce and remove some of the pressures of migration for desperate people. I therefore make no apology for saying that in my view the Government got it badly wrong. They can do it differently, and that is fine. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, said the cuts brought the aid budget down to 0.3% but, when you take out the handling of refugees in the UK and the consequence of that, it is about 0.1%. In other words, it has gone—it hardly exists. I genuinely think that Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, care about this and I regret that they have to perpetrate a government policy about which I am sure they are as appalled privately as I am. I hope that they will use their voices inside to make clear how strongly people feel about this and how it is connected to the domestic agenda.
One of the reasons why it was possible to rip up the aid budget was that the consensus broke down and opportunist politicians started to denigrate its achievement: “Oh, it was just charity. It was a waste of space. It wasn’t effective”. I know how effective it was because I saw it. Most of that was misrepresentation and untruth, but the consequence was that politicians took the view that, “These are faraway places of which we know little and the British public are much more concerned about domestic issues”— of course that is true—“and they’re concerned about migration”. We fail to point out to them that if we do not support these communities and these people in situ, that adds to our problems. It creates a situation in this country that we have to deal with.
I argue that, from a moral point of view, this timely debate is absolutely right. My final plea to the Minister—I know that I am knocking at an open door—is that he will use whatever means he can to ensure that the UK Government take genuine, consistent leadership to condemn this, but also to do everything they can at every opportunity to make it clear to those protagonists that there will be consequences. When people see that there are consequences, that will not stop it but it might reduce it. And please have a rethink about our aid policy, because it is not serving our national interest.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent, albeit brief, debate. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for securing the debate and for her extremely powerful opening remarks. It is worth putting on record my party’s deep-felt relief that a ceasefire has now, hopefully, been reached in Gaza, that the remaining hostages have been released and that the war that has caused so much death and destruction over the past two years now appears to be over, although, while I join the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in very much hoping that it is at an end, there is still an awful long way to go.
As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, observed, it is hardly a pleasure to contribute to this debate on such a tragic subject. It is a worry that reports of starvation being used as a weapon of war are still in abundance and, frankly, getting worse across the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and others have drawn attention to the situation in Sudan. It remains a wonder to me that, while we have seen thousands marching on our streets regarding Gaza, we have seen virtually no one marching regarding the much worse situation in Sudan and it makes me wonder about the motivations of some of the protesters.
The reports that we have seen include, from Sudan, an estimate by the UN of 25 million people being deliberately starved; 4.5 million in Somalia; and accusations of a covert, and sometimes overt, starvation operation by Russian forces in Ukraine, among others. Sadly, none of those has yet led to any prosecutions, which speaks to the difficulty of verifying the use of starvation as a weapon of war in general, let alone in some of the active war zones. That point is driven home by the fact that there has never been an international prosecution of this as a war crime on its own. It is for that very reason that it is hard to verify cases of weaponised starvation. If they are, punishment must be executed in a timely fashion so that justice may be seen to be done. It is not something, as other speakers have observed, that can be solely delegated to judges in The Hague; the UK and our allies must continue to commission and support the gathering of evidence and press for those cases to be brought to court.
I sympathise with Ministers; Ministers in my Government also spent much time on this matter. But producing change of course requires more than paying it lip service; it means interacting with international partners, including those currently at war. We in the previous Government secured commitments from the Israeli Government, by working and collaborating with them, to open specific pathways for aid, such as the Erez crossing and the port of Ashdod. We extended aid hours and ensured that more aid trucks were promised entry.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. We should all benefit from hearing from the Minister about the steps the Government are taking to ensure that starvation is not used as a weapon of war. We are proud signatories of the Rome statute, and we should be doing our utmost to take practical actions to uphold it.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to my noble friend for securing this debate. I am also grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. The simple fact is that millions of people today are dangerously malnourished because of conflict, and too often this malnourishment has devastating consequences, in particular for children. It has severe and often irreversible impacts on their physical growth, cognitive development and immune system, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and ill health, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, highlighted.
It also impacts on the very thing we want to achieve: economic development. Growth, jobs and education are the key elements for changing this disastrous situation. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, is absolutely right about malnutrition: addressing nutrition is the foundation for real change. The Government of course acknowledge that the deliberate deprivation of food, water and other essentials for civilian survival is a growing and persistent threat.
Let me address the questions from my noble friend Lord Browne and other noble Lords on ODA and the current situation. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that for us to achieve a safer and more prosperous world, we need to address aggression, particularly the prevention of conflict, which is a priority. Certainly, the difficult decisions we have made have been in response to the aggression committed by the Russian Federation. But I stress what noble Lords have heard me say before: ODA is not our only tool in ensuring peace, prevention and development. We need to use every tool in our toolkit to ensure that we can focus. A key element of that is supporting those conditions to ensure investment and increase trade. We are absolutely focused on that.
Promoting compliance with international humanitarian law is at the heart of our foreign policy. Our debate has underscored a sobering truth: as many as 70% of major food crises are directly linked to conflict and insecurity, according to the World Food Programme. We have seen patterns of sieges, blockades and denial of access in multiple contexts, so ably evidenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, whose personal experience is true evidence of this terrible situation. In too many cases, these patterns are not collateral consequences of war; they are being used deliberately to weaken, punish and displace civilian populations.
It was against this backdrop that, as the Minister covering Africa and human rights, I attended the launch event in May this year for the Government’s legal handbook on conflict, hunger and international humanitarian law. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, this handbook is not only a guide for our diplomats, lawyers and Armed Forces but a very important advocacy tool, setting out clearly what the law requires of all parties to conflict, including non-state armed groups. This is important because famines are significantly less likely to occur if all warring parties, including non-state armed groups, comply with international law.
The handbook also firmly backs UN Security Resolution 2417, as my noble friend set out, which helped the United Kingdom in 2018 when we joined the consensus on the amendment on the intentional use of starvation as a method of warfare in non-international armed conflicts—which was adopted, as she rightly pointed out, by the ICC Assembly of States Parties in 2019. Our position on ratification remains under review. The simple fact is that we need to ensure a very strong coalition for action, as she pointed out.
Many noble Lords also referred to Gaza, where we are witnessing a catastrophic man-made famine. As the Prime Minister said, the welcome ceasefire agreement must be implemented in full, without delay, accompanied by the lifting of all restrictions on life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza. To respond to my noble friend Lord Browne, the Foreign Secretary delivered a very strong message at the UN Security Council on 23 September. We also led joint statements with over 30 partners, pressing Israel to allow food, medical supplies and fuel to reach those in most desperate need. The ceasefire is that opportunity to get desperately needed humanitarian aid in there, fast.
We are also funding a £74 million aid package this financial year for Palestine and Palestinians across the region. Alongside our diplomatic efforts to increase humanitarian access, this is contributing to providing food, shelter and support for over two million people. There is no doubt that this is saving lives.
Many noble Lords, but my noble friend Lady Brown in particular, along with the noble Lord, Lord, Oates, highlighted Sudan. We are deeply alarmed by the UN fact-finding mission’s findings that starvation has been deliberately used there as a method of warfare. No one could have failed to be moved by this morning’s BBC “Today” programme, which had first-hand evidence of the impact of that starvation on not only the civilian population in general but children in particular, and its absolutely horrific consequences. As my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, almost 25 million people are acutely food insecure, and almost 9 million are on the brink of starvation. This is absolutely abhorrent. I congratulate the BBC for reporting on that, but we are not getting sufficient focus on Sudan, and we need to do more.
As the third largest humanitarian donor in Sudan, we have already provided aid to over 2.5 million people since the conflict started. To reassure noble Lords, we are using our position at the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council to call out violations and demand rapid, unimpeded humanitarian access. At last year’s UNGA, I also led a meeting where we brought in first-hand evidence from the victims of sexual violence and from those who were suffering as a consequence of food deprivation. In October, we led efforts to renew the UN fact-finding mission’s mandate for a third year, securing the strongest council support and reinforcing the independent mechanism investigating human rights abuses across Sudan.
I will briefly mention Ukraine. We are fully committed to holding Russia to account for its illegal and barbaric actions, and we have welcomed the agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe to have a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. It is a good example of how we can hold people to account. We are absolutely strong supporters of the ICC, and we are determined to hold those responsible for serious violations of IHL to account. To address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, we are also supporting Ukraine and the training of its troops in international humanitarian law. It is a good idea to see how that works in practice, and how we can spread that good practice.
It has been a great, important debate, focusing on issues that are often too silent. We must ensure that starvation must never be a weapon of war. We must never be silent when it is used as one, because protecting civilians is not optional; it is both a legal obligation and a moral imperative.
Music and Dance Schools: Affordable Access
Lord Blackwell
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are committed to maintaining affordable access to specialist music and dance schools for talented children of all social backgrounds.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, just before the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, starts, I emphasise that the timings on this debate are very tight. Most speakers have two minutes, so can noble Lords please stick within that, so that everybody can be heard and the Minister can have adequate time to respond.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, my purpose in raising this question is to highlight the vital role of MDS, the music and dance scheme, which provides means-tested support to enable exceptionally talented young children from all backgrounds to attend specialist music and dance schools. I should draw attention to my interest as governor of the Yehudi Menuhin School and the Royal Academy of Music, both of which have students who participate in this scheme.
There are a handful of specialist music and dance schools in the UK that take exceptionally talented and highly committed youngsters and provide them with the advanced tuition they need to achieve their potential. The children who attend are at the very top of their peer group, and most go on to make careers as acknowledged leaders in the music and dance professions. To fulfil their mission, these schools aim to take the highest-potential children regardless of their social background and financial means. The intense specialist education that these schools provide, mostly within a boarding environment, is expensive and beyond the means of all but a few parents. The boarding fees at the Menuhin school, for example, are almost £50,000 a year—and that does not cover the full cost. Musical talent is not restricted to wealthy families, and the music and dance scheme provides the financial support that is essential to enable talented children from any background to attend. Therefore, while these schools are classed as independent schools, they are not the preserve of rich, privileged kids.
At the Menuhin school, for example, only a handful—under 10%—pay the full fees, and they have to earn their place on ability just like every other pupil. The other 90% can benefit from this special environment only because of the financial support they receive from MDS, together with the bursaries funded by charitable donations. Without MDS funding, some of these schools would no longer be financially viable. Unlike many private schools, with such a limited number of full-fee payers, they cannot simply expand the number of pupils paying full fees and raise enough money to subsidise scholarships to those from poor families. Further, any lowering of standards to accept wealthy children who do not have the talent or commitment to reach the top of their profession would not be fair to those children, putting them in an environment where they were unlikely to succeed. Nor is it realistic to make up any shortfall through more charitable donations. Every one of these schools is already struggling to raise enough funds to fill the hole in their finances, and they do not have massive endowments.
After several years of zero or limited increases in the MDS funding, we are now approaching a crisis point. Over the past 10 years, the real value of fees funded by MDS has fallen by more than 15%. On top of general inflation, in the last year these schools have been hit with the additional costs from the loss of business rates relief, higher national insurance contributions and VAT on fees. Responding to an Oral Question in June, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, made clear her personal commitment to the long-running MDS scheme, and I welcome her success in securing this year’s MDS funding in last year’s settlement. However, whereas historically, schools received a three-year settlement, there has been no assurance that the funding will continue beyond this year. The absence of a firm commitment to future funding at a level that makes these schools financially viable is putting them, and the parents of their children, in an impossible position, with no certainty for some of them about whether they will be able to continue.
To lose these schools would be a tragedy not just for the exceptional youngsters from all backgrounds who benefit from their unique support, but for the artistic calibre of the country in the years ahead. The Government have declared that creative industries will be at the heart of their industrial strategy, and their sector plan set out a commitment to back the next generation of British talent. The Government’s support for music hubs to broaden access to music education is welcome, but it does not replace the role of the MDS. As with sports, we need to support excellence in every field of artistic endeavour not just for those individuals but for the leadership and aspiration that they transmit in raising standards across the board. The outreach programmes of these schools are also very important and complementary in delivering this.
I understand the constraints around budget decisions, particularly in the current environment. However, the cost of this vital support—some £36 million a year, including the cost of the advanced training centres—is small change in the budget ledgers. In responding to this debate, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will put on record the Government’s commitment to maintain the MDS at a level of funding that will ensure the future of these small but precious schools, and that we see that reflected in next month’s Budget announcements. I thank other noble Lords for their interest in this debate and look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, clarity on the future of the music and dance scheme to ensure access to specialist music and dance education for students, regardless of their background, is urgently needed. As a supporter of the National Youth Orchestra, I wholeheartedly support the points from the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, but I put in a plea to ensure that all our youngsters have a high-quality creative arts education in primary school and on through secondary school.
Music education is in a parlous state in many mainstream schools. Many commentators have pointed to the absence of the arts from the English baccalaureate as a key reason for the decline in these subjects in our schools. Secondary schools are measured on the number of pupils who take GCSEs in these core subjects. Another measure, Progress 8, introduced in 2016, adds further pressure to prioritise EBacc subjects. Neither the EBacc nor Progress 8 specifies music, dance or drama in their assessments. Since 2010—the year that the EBacc was introduced—there has been a 42% drop in overall arts subjects and GCSE entries in music in England have fallen 25%. Music A-level entries to England fell for the third consecutive year.
The EBacc has made art subjects an add-on with which schools can dispense, yet teachers tell me that music is often now the only subject where an entire classroom of 30 students work together as one, building collaborative skills and social confidence. Music develops creative intelligence; our creative industries start in the classroom.
Will the Minister assure us that creative subjects will be properly recognised in the anticipated curriculum and assessment review? The recent £88 million “Building Creative Futures” package is encouraging, but to ensure that every child has access to a high-quality music and arts education in school requires concrete action, not just good intentions. Will my noble friend the Minister start by putting the arts back into the EBacc?
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I speak in this short debate as someone who owes her career to a predecessor of today’s music and dance scheme. I will focus my time on what it takes to achieve that success in the highly specialised field of dance. Without that understanding, it is easy to underestimate the importance of the MDS.
Elite performance—and I use that word as we do for athletes—is performance at the limits of human potential, characterised by extreme flexibility, accuracy and speed. It is achieved only through 10 years of intense daily practice under expert tuition in specialist facilities; those 10 years have to start before puberty sets in if a dancer is going to compete in a global market. It is not just about physical prowess; it is about training the brain to send precise movement commands and issue corrections faster than the human eye can see. When you watch an expert dancer, you are seeing the cerebellum at its most extraordinary.
This intensity of training is impossible to achieve within the state school system, which does not have the teachers, the spaces or the hours in the day. And it is expensive; without government support, it is beyond the reach of many talented children. Over 50 years, Governments have recognised this through the music and dance scheme, which allows specialist schools to trawl wide and offer places on talent alone, blind to financial or social circumstances.
The Prime Minister has often said, “Talent is everywhere, opportunity is not”. The MDS schools offer that opportunity but 12 years of funding freezes mean that it is a system under strain. I therefore ask the Minister to press the Treasury to deliver the £4 million the schools need and restore the three-year settlements so that the schools can plan efficiently and children can be confident of completing the training they begin.
Without this investment, the scheme is at risk. This risks not only the talent pipeline that underpins the UK’s global creative success but a return to a world in which only the most advantaged can access the opportunities their talent deserves. I feel sure that the Minister does not want this to be the legacy of her party’s years in power.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
I send my warmest congratulations to my noble friend Lord Blackwell and my appreciation of his dedicated service at the Yehudi Menuhin School. It is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who was principal dancer at the Royal Opera House when I was Secretary of State in the mid-1990s. She is a wonderful advocate for dance; it is always so important to remember that dance matters quite as much as music.
It was a privilege to be Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but I am aware that whereas on the sport side there was a real commitment to investing in creating international excellence and successful Olympiads, on the music, dance and arts side, much went into restoring our wonderful institutions, doing what Sir Ernest Hall called creating the “national treasure houses”. As he said, the National Lottery did for the arts and culture what the Medicis did for the cultural treasure houses in Florence. We did not focus on the pipeline, however, and that is the critical issue now.
Talent is everywhere; regrettably, opportunity is not. The 2024 Sutton Trust report on social mobility and the creative industries is a call to action. Privately educated students represent more than half the students at the most prestigious conservatoires. At Oxford, Cambridge, King’s College and Bath, more than half the creative students came from upper middle-class backgrounds. At Hull, where I had the joy of being chancellor for 17 years and which has a top 10 music school and a very impressive dance school, it was better but not good enough. Among under-35s, there are four times as many individuals from middle-class backgrounds in the creative industries. We have to do better to extend opportunity. The Sutton Trust calls for an arts premium to fund arts opportunities. I ask the Government: what is their practical action?
Malcolm Gladwell refers in Outliers: The Story of Success to the 10,000 hour rule: to become an expert, an elite performer requires 10,000 hours of practice. How can the Government help us to ensure that for the young people of the future?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I have worked to ensure access to excellent education for talented children from all social backgrounds, and specialist music and dance schools are no different. As a society, we have a duty to break down barriers that prevent young people from underrepresented backgrounds—working-class kids—achieving their potential in the subjects in which they have exceptional talent. Education transforms lives, enables social mobility and is a great way of investing in our economy and future growth. My friend Natasha Kaplinsky, chair of the Royal Ballet School, brought this issue to my attention. The school is a shining example of excellence and accessibility. However, it has great financial challenges.
I particularly like the title of the MDS paper, Supporting Potential Before Privilege. It is clear that we have to do this both to ensure fulfilment and success for the students themselves, and to safeguard the domestic talent pipeline for the creative sector, which contributes such a vast amount of money to the Exchequer, as well as providing thousands of jobs.
To sustain the success of our creative industries, we must nurture talent and develop skills. The UK’s status as a global creative superpower, of which I am hugely proud, is only as good as the talent that underpins it. The education that students receive in the music and dance schools simply cannot be provided in mainstream schools, and it must be protected. Financial support is critical to ensure that talented children and young people from all backgrounds can become the stellar performers of the future. It is also vital to enhance the resilience of the schools. I therefore strongly support calls on the Treasury to provide an uplift of £4 million to the current MDS settlement, and I support restoring three-year MDS grant agreements from the DfE. It would be a tragedy if not only was access limited but schools themselves had to close.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, there were comments last week about Canterbury Cathedral posting graffiti in the great cathedral as part of an exhibition to attract young people. Many people saw as it as an act of great vandalism. I rather saw it as quite avant-garde, experimental and exciting, but that is an aside.
I hope that by securing the music and dance scheme, we ensure that we do not commit an act of vandalism against one of the great music traditions in this country, which is, of course, English choral music. I can use the opportunity of this very brief speech to praise the Church of England for its support of English music. We have more than 2,000 choristers and more than 207 cathedral choirs. When I was in the other place, I was lucky enough to represent a constituency that had chalk streams in it, a unique geographical feature of England and northern France, and we fought hard to preserve them. We must not inadvertently lose one of the most important music traditions in this country.
In many respects, this debate is a metaphor for all Governments’ approaches to the arts. Nobody is suggesting that the music and dance scheme is under fundamental threat. It is part of the Government’s national music plan. It is ably supported by £34 million of funding. The message that goes out today from this debate, as it should for the arts in general, is: please may we have long-term funding rather than just one-year grants, which are impossible to manage? Three-year grants are not too much of an ask. Please, can we stop nickel-and-diming the arts budget? It is a pinprick on the Government’s budget. The budget for the music and dance scheme is a pinprick on their budget but the rewards are almost limitless.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, at this moment in the Government’s lifetime it feels important to make, or at least re-emphasise, some basic points. The arts, as opposed to the wider creative industries, are themselves an engine of growth. The more financial support there is from the Government, the more jobs are created and the greater the financial rewards, many times over, for the Treasury. This is aside from the democratic necessity of both the arts and arts education, which are part of the same ecology. I say this now because of the very worrying signs that this message about the importance of the arts to the industrial strategy is simply not getting through.
The signs include the hugely disappointing cuts to DCMS funding, which, as has been said, are drops in the ocean in relation to overall Treasury funding; the decision to stop state funding of the international baccalaureate, which is so important for the arts and critical thinking; and the complete axing of ITT bursaries for all arts subjects, including music, which the Independent Society of Musicians described as a damaging decision just before the final report of the curriculum review. These savings are false savings; they save very little money but are potentially devastating for the arts. With the eight music and dance schools in England, we are talking about the achievement of excellence in the arts alongside an inherent commitment to social mobility, a double whammy in a good way, and a no-brainer, surely, for the £4 million funding required to enable these schools just to survive. This is yet another test case of how much this Government are willing to make that commitment to invest in the arts that the Prime Minister himself promised for both the arts and arts education 18 months ago.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, first, I must say how much we miss Lord Lipsey in this debate as he was totally committed to the cause that we are discussing today. I support those who have spoken eloquently in favour of the future of the music and dance scheme and scholarships. My wife was for several years managing director of the English National Ballet and then went on to serve on its board for many years, and I know Caroline believes very strongly in the case for specialist schools.
I have two points to make. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about the importance of cathedrals, particularly in church music. My own cathedral, Carlisle Cathedral, set up the school that I went to some time in the seventh century, allegedly with St Cuthbert. It has a very long but fragile tradition, and it needs support. It needs a new partnership between the state and the church in this area of music education.
My second point is that, yes, we need more scholarships at specialist schools, but we also need a broader base of encouraging experts in the arts throughout our education system. This is where changes in the curriculum are so important. Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
“Seriously, in what world does learning to act, dance, sing or paint count less than learning a language from more than a thousand years ago?”
He went on to say:
“We’re going to update the Progress 8 performance measure and use it to help all kids study a creative arts subject or sport until they’re 16”.
Does the Minister believe that the Government are going to deliver on the pledge that Keir Starmer made?
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Royal College of Music, one of our leading conservatoires, ranked number one in the world QS rankings for performing arts. That we are able to be a global leader in this way, a huge source of soft power for UK plc, is because of the health of our music ecosystem. That ecosystem, the so-called pipeline, is in danger as never before. If it fails then the threat to the future of music in our country is, without exaggeration, existential. It is a delicate organism, depending on many interlocking actions, from primary school teaching right through to the conservatoires and universities where tomorrow’s musicians are trained.
Central to that fragile but vital system are the music and dance scheme schools, the seedbed from which so many of tomorrow’s talented music graduates grow. The future of our conservatoires, in turn, is absolutely predicated on their success. Last year 123 applications for the BMus course at the RSM came from the MDS schools, resulting in 73 offers being made. That is a significant proportion of those coming to study and providing the greatest talents. If the MDS schools failed, with their rigour and training, it would have enormous consequences for all conservatoires. For a tiny amount of money—a rounding error, frankly, for the Treasury—the return is incredible. It is difficult to think of a more important investment in the future of our creative industries, and one on which we should in fact double down.
The future of music in this country hangs in the balance as we wait for action from the Government on so many fronts—on copyright protection, the school curriculum, the future of the Arts Council and the future of the hubs, which exist from hand to mouth because they have no guarantees of funding. I understand that those are all complex issues that can take time, but here we have one that is really simple and which could immediately both help to secure the future of the ecosystem and, at the same time, signal the Government’s commitment to the music. The MDS is a huge success, it is integral to the ecosystem and it pays for itself many times over. Let us show our confidence in it by uplifting its current settlement and restoring three-year grant agreements.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead (CB)
I shall speak in favour of another part of the MDS scheme: the role played by the centres of advanced training, the CATs. These provide specialist training in music or dance for talented 10 to 18 year-olds, while allowing them to stay at home and attend their regular schools. When I chaired the Music and Dance Advisory Board in the noughties, a long time ago, this was a scheme that we all wanted to cherish. What could be better than finding talent wherever it might be, supporting it, nurturing it and giving financial support to those who otherwise would never conceive of having a life in music or dance? That is what these centres—the CATs—do.
However, for that to work, you need long-term commitment. It is difficult to run anything involving people’s lives as this does—young lives—when you are living from year to year not knowing where the money is going to come from. The support that they need to grow is measured over years, not the short-term cycles that we all work on. I also think that commitment should include—and indeed increase—going out there, working in schools and looking for talented children. I myself have seen the inspiration that can come from a dancer or a musician working up close with children in schools.
This morning I had an inspiring chat with an alumnus of a CAT about just that. Reece McMahon grew up in York in a single-parent household on a council estate with no car. For him, it was the Northern School of Contemporary Dance coming into the classroom in his secondary school that lit the spark. As he said to me:
“That visit genuinely opened up the rest of my life”
and
“It gave me confidence”.
That is why CATs cannot be passive, waiting for people to come to them. They have to create those transformative moments and be funded to do so. Reece, by the way, now runs Chisenhale Dance Space. I think he is the youngest dance leader in the UK. He is passionate about giving opportunities to others, opening up doors, however difficult the funding landscape is. As he and I were agreeing, it is not that we lack evidence—we know this works. Over more than two decades it has been finding and producing some really talented people. Let us keep on opening those doors.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I stand before you as an alumnus of Tring Park, one of the MDS schools. Dance is, I believe, the “Cinderella” of the arts. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about the years of training but there is little chance of making money. The UK is blessed: we have world-class ballet companies and schools, but there is a danger that they are filled only with those who can pay and talented foreign dancers.
The Government recognise dancers as critical to economic growth, as they are included in the list of priority professions for visas, but without sustained public funding we will not have homegrown talent—no more Billy Elliots, no more Reese McMahons, no more like the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. Ninette de Valois recognised the need to nurture homegrown talent in 1926 when she created a school before she founded a company.
Professional dance training is expensive. There are audition fees, even for the associate programmes, requirements to travel—sometimes for many hours—around the country to access training hubs, and, even with MDS contributions, fees are more expensive now with VAT. MDS support does not cover exam fees, registration fees, music supplies, physio, insurance, uniform or shoes—and yes, ballet dancers get through a heck of a lot of shoes. This is all before we consider the impact on the rest of the family. You need either really dedicated parents to take you to all these classes, summer schools, intensives and exams, or to be able to afford to board. Neither option can be said to be truly affordable for many families.
Ballet is a global market. We have an incredible British heritage but if there is to be a future for British dancers within our great schools and companies, then truly affordable access to specialist training, through the MDS and CAT schemes, must be maintained for the longer term.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, the music and dance scheme or MDS is a vital gateway for talented children from disadvantaged backgrounds to access world-class training. It is a success story that we must protect to ensure the future pipeline of talented musicians and dancers in the UK.
Schools such as Chetham’s School of Music in Manchester—technically independent but primarily funded through MDS—are in financial distress. Rising costs and the introduction of VAT on fees have compounded issues which were caused because government grants have been frozen or increased below inflation since 2011. Chetham’s actually made efficiencies to manage within budget, and says it would be breaking even this year without the increase in national insurance and the teachers’ pay rise.
At the Hammond School in Chester, students come from Liverpool, Wigan and St Helens but every parent relies on financial support—whether from MDS, dance and drama awards, bursaries or charities. That school absorbed the VAT on fees, as it felt it could not pass it on to families. Now it is operating at a deficit and fears becoming financially unviable within two years. Chetham’s and the Hammond are vital to ensuring specialist training for children in the north of England. These are not typical fee-paying institutions. They are grant-funded centres of excellence in music and dance, serving children whose families cannot afford fees.
I had the privilege on Sunday of speaking to Carlos Acosta, at an event where he was honoured for his outstanding contribution to British theatre. He came from a poor family—as one of 11 children—and received dance training at a state-funded school in Cuba, training that was crucial to his development. Carlos’s vision for Birmingham Royal Ballet centres on the development of future talent. He was therefore disturbed to hear of the financial pressures facing our dance schools. The music and dance scheme is not just a funding mechanism; it is a lifeline. It is the difference between a child from a low-income household accessing world-class training and never discovering their potential at all.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chairman of the English Schools’ Orchestra. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blackwell for his long-term championship of the music and dance scheme. The almost one thousand hugely talented students who are supported by the scheme are this country’s soloists, orchestral players and, of course, the corps de ballet of the future. They are among those at the apex of the UK’s cadre of young musicians and it is vital that their funding is not jeopardised. The students are chosen, of course, from a pool of the most musically accomplished children in the country, but, alas, that pool is growing smaller as musical opportunities in state schools diminish.
Many of your Lordships had the good fortune, as I did, to attend schools where music was very much part of daily life. School assemblies, celebration and open days, and parents’ evenings all had musical accompaniment, and of course there were many concerts and other musical entertainments. Alas, this is too often no longer so. There are too many schools where little or no classical music is heard by children, and, where music-making is available, instead of being part of school life it is often off-site at a music hub. Only about 15% of state schools have school orchestras, compared with about 85% of independent schools, so instrumental tuition and playing are too often a solitary activity for the young, with limited chances of taking part with other players in ensembles and orchestras. How wonderful, therefore, that we have the MDS schools, such as Wells Cathedral School and the others, with such high standards of music-making, to which other schools should aspire. It is imperative that they remain as a vital national resource.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, Britain’s reputation as a global creative powerhouse rests on the strength of its education system, yet while other nations expand investment in creative learning, we appear to be retreating from it. The recent decision to remove bursaries for music and art teachers, at a time when recruitment for secondary music trainees meets barely 40% of the Government’s own target, illustrates starkly this contradiction.
The Department for Education claims that music teacher recruitment has risen by 53%, which is very welcome, but this represents recovery from an exceptionally low base and not success. Meanwhile, 42% of state schools had no students entered for GCSE music in 2022-23, up from 28% in 2016. Against this backdrop, the removal of support for training new teachers seems a puzzling way to rebuild capacity. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, the disconnect between rhetoric and reality undermines confidence. Ministers speak of restoring creative education, yet their departments steadily dismantle the infrastructure needed to deliver it. It is as though the ghost of former Minister Nick Gibb still haunts the department’s corridors, his philosophy lingering in policies that reward STEM while quietly trimming the arts.
I ask the Minister who in the department is driving these decisions. How do they align with the Government’s stated commitment to creative education? The music and dance scheme embodies what is at stake—eight specialist schools nurturing 940 gifted young people, many from low-income families—yet its funding has been frozen since 2011, losing a third of its value in real terms. A modest £4 million uplift and multiyear funding would secure these pathways and show that the Government’s cultural ambitions are more than words.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, according to research by the Sutton Trust, 43% of classical musicians went to private school, compared with 7% of the population as a whole. More than half of all students at the Royal College of Music and the Royal Academy of Music did so. Since you are 10 times more likely to go to private school if your parents are in the top 10% of earners, rather than average earners, it is obvious that many young people are being denied the opportunity to shine in the creative industries simply because they were not born into a wealthy family. That is unfair to them and, of course, to all of us. How many amazing performances are audiences missing out on because stars in the making had to drop out through lack of funding?
Taxpayers lose out too. Some £11 billion a year is an already amazing economic contribution from music and the performing and visual arts, but just imagine how much more it could be if talented youngsters were not being turned away through lack of funds. The fact is that specialist music and dance training is expensive, which is why government help for those who would really benefit if they could only afford it is so important.
I should perhaps declare a maternal interest at this point: I have a daughter at the BRIT School, the first and leading state school for performing and creative arts in the UK, with Adele and Tom Holland among its alumni. The BRIT School is a model of diversity, with nearly half of students coming from lower-income families. To be clear, it is not part of the music and dance scheme, which is why I declared a maternal rather than a financial interest. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that, having had the opportunity to see for myself the power of top-quality specialist creative education, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, secured this debate on the importance of affordable specialist music and dance schools.
I anticipate support across the Committee, not least given the welcome Labour manifesto commitment that
“the arts and music will no longer be the preserve of a privileged few”,
followed by the Government’s recently published plan to significantly increase direct funding for the creative industries sector. Confirming the future of the music and dance scheme would be an excellent contribution to this plan, providing the opportunity for more talented youngsters without wealthy parents to attend the very best specialist schools and colleges.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s clear manifesto commitment was that
“the arts and music will no longer be the preserve of a privileged few”.
Nothing is more crucial to the fulfilment of this pledge than ensuring continued access to our world-class specialist music and dance schools on the basis of talent, not parental wealth, yet here we are, starving these national treasures of resources and giving them no certainty on future funding.
The principal of the Purcell School, the oldest specialist music school, puts a precise number on the shortfall in the MDS scheme this year: £4 million. Coincidentally, that is the sum that the Government have added to MDS funding to compensate lower-income parents for the VAT added to their fees. How simple it would be to bring joy to our specialist music and dance schools, and to secure their futures, by allowing them to retain that money, rather than having it recycled back into the Treasury.
The other fundamental that our specialist schools need is certainty. The Government must revert to the historic norm of funding the MDS on a three-year basis, allowing schools to plan their budgets and resources. If they do not do this, the Purcell School believes that the majority of MDS schools will be forced to close down within the next two years.
If we want to ensure the future of our world-class orchestras, dance companies, theatres and rock bands, we must cherish the fantastic resources in our specialist schools, particularly if we wish to ensure the continued diversity of players and performers and provide a career path for the gifted, regardless of family financial status. Surely this must be exactly what the present Government desire. If they will the end, they must provide the means.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, from listening to this debate it is quite clear that one theme has come through: please give us certainty. With a one-year scheme, nobody would encourage a child to go into this. In dance, you are more certain to break your leg than you are in professional rugby—okay, maybe it is an even draw. You are asking a child to go into something risky, with no guarantees, so at least let them finish their training with a degree of certainty. I have to disagree: three years is not long enough. It should go on through their entire training. There has to be certainty.
If the Government do not like the MDS, they should change it and bring in something else that guarantees opportunity. That is something that is coming out here today. The economic case has been made—here and on many occasions—that you get a very good bang for your buck if you produce good artists.
I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. We need to make sure that we have an identification process for getting people into this, by encouraging the schools to at least have an introduction that might allow children to go on to this. You will cut out many people from the state school sector if you do not have some familiarisation package that means that they are ready for specialist training. The two go together, and there has to be an ongoing commitment to ensure that they are both working together.
If the Government do not like the MDS or the CAT scheme, they should come up with something new. If they do like them, they should guarantee them for as long as the Labour Party is in power. That is not too much to ask, and the economic benefits are clear.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blackwell and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions, which are clearly united in their support. Access to high-level music and dance training should be an opportunity for every individual with shining talent. The music and dancing scheme exists to ensure that talent, wherever it is found, has a route to success. For over 2,000 students from low-income backgrounds, it has been exactly that—a lifeline, as was so well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley.
That lifeline, however, is now under threat. There are serious and growing concerns about the future of the music and dance scheme. The Government have yet to confirm whether the scheme will continue beyond the current academic year, leaving students, parents and the schools themselves in a state of prolonged uncertainty.
In the spring, we were told that a decision on the scheme’s future would follow the conclusion of the spending review. That review has now passed but there is still no announcement on funding. No one likes uncertainty but the Government are helping to create uncertainty for families, schools and those very children with the talent and ability to achieve their dreams of performing at the highest levels. Surely, they deserve better than vague timelines and delayed decisions.
One had only to look at the front page of a major newspaper yesterday to see that the Government are spending £260 million on centres for deportation, which provide illegal migrants with “art classes”, including skills such as “sketching, crafts and … painting”. Can the Minister explain how, on the one hand, the Government seriously continue to provide arts funding of this nature but, on the other, will not commit to just £36 million per year for the music and dance scheme? The noble Lord, Lord Black, is entirely correct: it is a rounding error. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, is spot on: it is a pinprick in a Treasury spreadsheet. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition urge the Government to end this uncertainty and publicly commit to the continuation and stability of the music and dance scheme. Surely our future young musicians of the year and dancers are worth it.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I start with an enormous thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for bringing forward this important debate. The number of people taking part demonstrates the strength of feeling in this House and, clearly, beyond. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, who have considerable experience in this area. It is always an enormous privilege to hear them.
I mentioned before my personal interest from my role as the leader of Leeds City Council, when I took on its cultural portfolio. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, who talked about ballet shoes, and my noble friend Lady Ramsey, who spoke of her personal experience, I have personal experience from a granddaughter who is very involved in this area, and thank goodness—it is wonderful to see, as we have heard from all who contributed.
I make clear from the outset that access to specialist music and dance education must not be the preserve of the privileged few. This is the Government’s clear view. In emphasising the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, we have to stress this throughout, despite the difficult times through which we are living. As part of our opportunity mission, we want to widen access to the arts, so that young people can develop their creativity and find their expression and voice. This is important in its own right—subjects such as music and dance are a critical part of a rich education—but it also supports young people with the dedication to excel in the performing arts.
In closing this debate, I underline this Government’s commitment to maintaining affordable access to specialist music and dance education so that, regardless of their background, high-achieving young people can access specialist training. As we have heard through the debate, the Government continue to provide generous support to help students access specialist music and dance education and training. We committed £36.5 million to the music and dance scheme this academic year, as we have heard.
I will pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the contribution that the sector makes to the richness of our economy. We know that growth is the Government’s number one mission and that the new industrial strategy is central to that. This is a sector in which the UK excels today and will propel us forward tomorrow.
The creative industries have been announced as one of the eight growth-driving sectors in the industrial strategy, which has been published following the multi-year spending review. The creative industries sector plan has been designed in collaboration with business and devolved Governments and the regions. It is critical that we provide a workforce with the right skills and capabilities, as we will go on to discuss. I am looking forward very much to the Government’s work on skills and where this sits within it.
I emphasise that the scheme provides income-assessed bursaries and grants to enable high-achieving children and young people in music and dance to benefit from world-class specialist training, regardless of their personal and financial circumstances. The scheme supports students to attend eight independent schools and 20 centres for advanced training, the latter providing places at weekends and evenings and in the school holidays. Bursaries support more than 2,000 pupils a year, with around 900 pupils attending schools. I emphasise that all families earning below the average relevant income of £45,000 per annum and making parental contributions will continue to receive additional financial support this academic year, so they will be unaffected financially by the VAT change in January 2025.
The music and dance scheme is a long-term commitment and the Government will continue to look at it. We know that there is enormous gratitude for the additional £4 million covering the issue of VAT. I want to give reassurance that due consideration will be given to the cost of providing specialist education, including consideration of the points made today by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, my noble friend Lady Royall, and the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Black and Lord Hall. They all made important points about long-term funding, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, emphasised them.
I have to say, however, that we have been, in the main, in this space for more than two decades. This is not something new that has been brought in. The current scheme was established in, I think, 2002 under the previous Labour Government. We need to be clear about where we are going forward. We know that we have had to make tough decisions to get our finances back under control—the noble Lord, Lord Hall, referred to this—including some additional non-bursary funding and some music and dance scheme centres. The main bursary funding itself has, however, been protected. All eligible students from the last academic year have continued to receive MDS bursaries, and new eligible students will have commenced at the beginning of this term.
The Government will also ensure that high-quality arts education, including in music and dance, is available across all state-funded schools. To achieve this, additional support for our schools and teachers is needed. We acknowledge this. I want to pick up on the comments of my noble friend Lady Warwick on the impact of EBacc and recognising the need for pupils to be prepared and ready for training as the noble Lord, Lord Addington said. We want every child, regardless of background, to have a rich, broad, inclusive and innovative curriculum.
I am sure all noble Lords will be aware that we are still awaiting the launch of the independent review of curriculum assessment, chaired by Professor Becky Francis. She is looking at all subjects. She is looking at music and seeks to deliver a curriculum that readies young people for life and work, including in creative subjects and skills. It is being informed by evidence and data, and in close consultation with education professionals and other experts. Parents, children, young people and other stakeholders, such as employers, have been involved in that work.
The final report is very close to being published but I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that review, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware, despite requests for me to do so. We will of course consider associated implications for accountability measures, such as EBacc and Progress 8, alongside this. It is fundamental that we take this incredibly seriously. I hope noble Lords understand that the Government are emphasising these points, as my noble friend Lord Liddle highlighted.
On additional support, again, that is why we announced in March our intention to launch the new National Centre for Arts and Music Education as we go forward. We believe that the new centre will help us to meet our ambitions for improved and equitable arts education. The centre will support schools in teaching music and dance, as well as art and design and drama. It will also be the national delivery partner for the music hubs network, with the 43 hub partnerships central to supporting schools. Our intention is to appoint a delivery partner for the centre through an open, competitive procurement. We have been engaging with sector stakeholders, including the music hubs network, to refine the details of the centre. The invitation to tender is due to be issued soon.
Again, in recognising how important this is, the music hubs grant funding of £76 million has been secured for the full academic year of 2025-26 and to the end of August 2026. Following the outcome of the spending review, longer-term funding will be confirmed in due course. The Government continue to invest £25 million in capital funding to widen access to musical instruments and technology to the end of this year.
I am taking a bit of licence here in what I pick up, with the permission of the Whip, because we have until 3 pm.
Baroness Bull (CB)
Can the Minister help me to understand where dance will sit within the new centre that she describes? The centre is dedicated to music and the arts but, as we know, in schools dance sits within the PE curriculum. Is there going to be some sort of tension in how the centre can support dance within schools, when in fact it is not viewed as an art but as a physical education subject?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I have had the great pleasure of having this discussion with the noble Baroness on a number of occasions. I cannot go further than we have before on the curriculum review, but there is an acknowledgement of the position of dance and its relationship to PE. In all of the wider picture, that voice is very loud and it has been heard.
I want to emphasise the issue of teacher training, on which an important point has been raised. It is true that the £10,000 tax-free bursary for music will be removed in 2026-27 but this is due to improved teacher retention and higher ITT recruitment. That is the basis for that announcement on 11 October. I also emphasise the importance of choir schools, referred to by my noble friend Lord Liddle. As part of the scheme, the department provides a grant of £210,000 to the Choir Schools Association. This offers means-tested support to choristers attending CSA member schools, including cathedral and collegiate choir schools in England, to help those with exceptional talent who are unable to afford the fees.
This has been a rich debate and I am conscious that I have not been able to give all the points that have been made their due notice. I know that we will have more discussion across the House but we are at a critical point, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, mentioned, given the timing of the Budget that is coming up. I understand why so many noble Lords have brought these matters to the attention of the House through this important debate.
In closing, I underline this Government’s commitment to ensuring that all children can access and engage with high-quality music and dance education. Access to the arts is a vital part of a rich education and must not be the preserve of the privileged few.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, since we have a couple of minutes, I have a point of clarification. The figure of £4 million has been repeated a number of times in the debate. I would clarify for people watching that the £4 million the Government have given is to offset VAT, but the music and dance schools are asking for an entirely separate £4 million. I just wanted to put that on record.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Thank you. I acknowledge that and we will obviously take away some of the more detailed comments made. I have just had a note to tell me that the new PE and sport partnerships will support dance as well as sport in schools, if that is helpful.
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the challenges presented to the international order by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation following the recent summit held in Tianjin.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, there are moments which stick in your mind because they tell you that “something has changed”. Sometimes it is obvious, such as when the Brandenburg Gate was opened and the Berlin Wall fell, but at other times it takes a bit longer before it becomes clear just what has happened. I had one of those “Is this history being made?” feelings when I watched the footage of the 2025 China Victory Day parade in the first week in September. It was not just the parade but the parade combined with the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, hosted by China in Tianjin between 31 August and 1 September, which made me reflect.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation which brings together 10 countries, including China, Russia and India. Its members represent 42% of the world’s population and account for 23% of global GDP, and the official languages are Russian and Chinese. A feature of this particular summit was the attendance of the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. This was his first visit to China in seven years. Two days later, on 3 September, in Tiananmen Square, the 2025 China Victory Day Parade in Beijing celebrated the 80th anniversary of the end of the second Sino-Japanese War and the Second World War. Over 12,000 troops of the People’s Liberation Army participated in the parade. For anybody who saw this, it was absolutely awesome, strategic and precise. It almost made me think, “Is this real?” President Xi showcased China’s new weapons and demonstrated the modernisation of the PLA, with hypersonic missiles, stealth drones, underwater drones and long-range, nuclear-capable missiles. He was joined by 25 foreign Heads of State and Government. They came from Asia, Africa, Latin America and eastern Europe. Western nations were hardly represented.
However, there were two high-profile guests. President Xi was flanked by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and the leader of North Korea. Traditionally, there is little brotherly love lost between Russia, China and North Korea, and the three leaders had not appeared together in public before they did so in Beijing. Bilateral meetings between China and Korea and North Korea had not been uncommon. Similarly, Russia and China have regular contact. But Putin’s first foreign trip in his new presidential term was a state visit to Beijing, and they had met in the margins of the SCO at the 2024 summit in Astana in Kazakhstan. What made this different was that it was the first time that the three leaders had appeared together in public. In less than a week, China, Russia, North Korea and India had come together. Arguably this was the moment which demonstrated that Russia had accepted China’s dominance and a challenge to the hegemony of the United States of America. In Xi Jinping’s words, his country’s rise is “unstoppable”, or, to quote the Chinese Foreign Minister’s words after the summit,
“the monopoly of global governance by a few countries must not continue”.
We are used to talking about threats and how we will meet them, but I want to take a completely different stance and to reflect on how the world is changing, how western democracies have to respond, and how the multilateral institutions which we have created and developed since 1945 are out of step with what is happening around the globe. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989; in 1991, the Soviet Union formally dissolved; in 1992, Francis Fukuyama predicted the “end of history” and the “last man”. Going back to the deep European traditions of Hegel, he reasoned that history is linear and that, ultimately, it will culminate in a rational free society—if we only allow things to develop, everywhere will become a liberal democracy.
There was a period when it looked a bit like this. In 1997, the British Government set up DfID. We no longer used international or overseas aid as a national policy tool; it was for poverty relief. In 1999, Tony Blair’s speech to the Economic Club of Chicago talked about “the international community”. The Canadian Government published their report The Responsibility to Protect following the failure of the international community to intervene in Rwanda. There was an extraordinary period of idealism, and we were not alone in this. The German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, foresaw in 2007 that Russia would be so intertwined with the EU’s exceptional role model of international co-operation that it would inevitably get like us. It was Steinmeier who helped the Russians join the WTO in 2011. The German phrase was “Wandel durch Handel”. The world would change because we would trade with them and, because we would be so intertwined through trade, they would all become like us—liberal democracies. I know some noble Lords are starting to wonder where I am going with this little history lesson. Even centralised states such as China were beginning to think that only by becoming a liberal democracy could they be economically successful.
The global financial crisis of 2008 changed all that—then, even the capitalist liberal democracies were seen not to be in control of capital flows. The World Trade Organization is now in the position that virtually everyone is either a member or has observer status. I think the only three countries that are not are Eritrea, Kosovo and North Korea. Its institutions are completely dysfunctional and the dispute-resolution process is not working. Curiously, while Russia completely ignores the WTO, China takes a very different approach. It has a twin track of co-operating and being quite rule-compliant, in some ways.
I wanted this debate so that we would reflect on two things. First, the world around us is changing, whether we like it or not. If all we do is simply continue to identify what we think are threats, without defining what we think the world should look like, we will only ever be responsive to other people’s actions and, I suggest, will be losing. Secondly, given that it is close to Trafalgar Day—I declare my interest, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, on the other side, as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy—I will take the liberty of quoting Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, who said:
“I owe all my success in life to having been always a quarter of an hour before my time”.
In other words, you look ahead. That does not mean some strange blue-sky thinking, but looking a step ahead to see what is coming. I suggest that there is a big battle coming that will determine the most dominant global power. That battle will be between America and China.
It is no good talking about enemies. This is about democracies, and democracies have to stick together. Economically, quite frankly, we cannot live for six months without China, but China can quite happily live for six months without us. I urge the Minister to consider whether we should define what “good” looks like and start moving away from economic indicators and have coalitions of democracies that work together, fighting for what they stand for and making it much clearer why it is worth fighting for.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, we often talk about the way in which liberal democracy is in retreat in the part of the world that we have just been hearing about, particularly in Russia. I wonder whether we have not put that question back to front. The Russian state was founded in 882. If we look at the period between its foundation and the present, we see that it has been an autocracy for 1,120 years. There was a little moment of constitutional monarchy in 1905; there was the period between February and October 1917; and then, if we very generously count the early Putin as well as the Yeltsin years, we can come up with 23 years in which Russia has adhered to something that we would recognise as the rule of law and representative government. That is not a whole lot of democratic muscle memory to fall back on.
The point I want to make is that this is very normal. One way of explaining the rise of Putin is to look at what happened in all the other ex-Soviet states—what happened when the USSR suddenly broke apart and, in almost every case outside the Baltics, went into some kind of autocracy. What was it that all those strongmen had in common—the Karimovs and Aliyevs and so on? Was it charisma? Was it some demotic connection with their people? Was it intelligence? No. They just happened to be the Soviet officials who were in charge of the Uzbek SSR—or whatever it was—at the time when the break-up came. They suddenly found themselves in charge of sovereign states and they very quickly set about ensuring that their grip on power would be unchallenged and there would be a kind of one-party state.
That is the norm. That is the sobering thought. We in anglophone western democracies are the exception. It is not the Putins and the Karimovs who are extraordinary but the Washingtons—the people who do not try to set up hereditary dictatorial power. That should make us aware of the fragility of our model and of the constant need to defend it, by being ready not only to deploy arms proportionately in defence of freedom but to defend it intellectually and culturally at home. This is where the challenge of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation comes from. It is a fundamentally illiberal alternative model, and it is growing; it is popular. All these new countries are adhering to it because that autocratic way of government appeals to something very deep in the human psyche. It is how we administered ourselves for the 10,000 years between the discovery of agriculture and a couple of hundred years ago, at most—an eyeblink in evolutionary terms.
That is why this matters. It is not because of the strategic importance of the region—every region thinks it is strategically important, including central Asia. When I was a new MEP, my noble friend Lord Callanan and I were put on the central Asia delegation. As an MEP, if you were a goody-goody federalist they gave you the Caribbean or South Africa. We were critics of the single currency, so they gave us central Asia, and I am very glad they did. I got to know the region pretty well, and I loved it. I visit it still; I have friends there. But with the best will in the world, it is not of great strategic importance to us—not as a maritime country. Sir Halford Mackinder used to say that it was the inventor of geostrategy, the key region, the heartland:
“he who controls the heartland controls the world”.
Barely had he said that than the First World War came along and disproved him, as did the Second World War. It may have had some tangential strategic relevance to us at the height of the great game, when Stoddart and Conolly were murdered in Bukhara in 1842, but it is a stretch to say that it matters to us now, as an archipelago at the western tip of the Eurasian land mass.
This matters not for reasons of direct geostrategic interest but because there is this cultural challenge—this alternative way of running our affairs—which appeals to people, including in the west. The reason that India, Pakistan, Iran and all these places are adhering to organisations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation —the clue as to who runs it is in the name, by the way—is that they think that our system is in decline. One reason they think that is because we keep telling them. We have become so ready to dismiss and distance ourselves from our own past. We have this extraordinary lack of self-confidence. If our children get any history at all, we tend to present it as a hateful chronicle of racism and exploitation.
I would be prepared to defend the proposition —I cannot prove it—that almost any child in a primary school in this country would be much more familiar with the names of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King than those of Lilburne, Locke, Wycliffe, Wilkes, Milton or Millar; and that is just the Johns. We are not teaching them our own history of freedom and personal responsibility, of the elevation of the individual above the collective and of the importance of the rule of law. That, it seems to me, is our challenge as legislators. We need to emphasise that we are inheritors of this sublime tradition, that it is better than the alternative and that it raised the human race to a pinnacle of wealth and freedom. Keeping that heritage going means teaching the next generation about why it is special, why they are lucky to be the guardians of this sublime patrimony, why they will hold it—as we do—on a repairing lease and why they, too, will have a commensurate obligation to pass it on intact to those who come after.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
No worries. My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, for securing this important debate and for her clear introduction, which rightly highlighted Francis Fukuyama, who was always bizarrely hubristic with his end-of-history thesis and indeed now looks very far into the past.
My contribution will have two foci. The first is to urge that we consider the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in the context of the behaviour of its second-most powerful member, Russia, and its allies in the continuing attack on Ukraine, and of other organisation members, including Iran and Belarus and, of course, China. My other focus will be somewhat in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, on one aspect of what has been described as the “Shanghai spirit” and one particular part of it: the so-called respect for the diversity of civilisations.
To return to my first focus, I wish to report to the Committee a little of my experiences last week when I travelled with fellow parliamentarians—with financial support from British companies, which I will be appropriately declaring in due course—to Ukraine as part of a delegation from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Explosive Weapons and their Impact. The focus was on the clearing of mines and unexploded ordnance, something that the Ukrainians have to deal with at a totally unprecedented scale, at least in the form of risk. Some 29% of their nation, or 174,000 square kilometres, is at risk of being affected by mines and unexploded ordnance. We visited the State Emergency Service of Ukraine and the Mines Advisory Group and Halo Trust projects.
We also saw the crucial efforts to treat those who have fallen victim to the mines at the charities Superhumans and Unbroken. We saw the human cost of the continuing Russian assault. We also saw close up the vicious, and sometimes internationally illegal, weapons that the Russians and their allies are using against civilian populations. Holding a submunition, a cluster bomb—obviously, once it had been rendered safe—and seeing a children’s storybook booby-trapped with explosives was an acute demonstration of the sheer difficulties that the Ukrainians face and the nature of the actions of the Russian-led alliance, many of whose members were in Tianjin.
Understandably, in the face of the horrors of the Israeli assault on Gaza and the desperate desire to get the Israeli hostages home, the media and even the political focus have not always been on Ukraine. However, I want to stress the importance of continuing to provide the Ukrainians with practical support and moral support, both directly and through projects such as that of BBC Media Action, which is assisting in the vital task of explosive ordnance risk education. Behind that must be a strong, determined delivery of the message from the international community—or as much of it as we can bring together—that there is a principle that larger countries cannot simply decide to take chunks out of their neighbours. Further, that there are rules of war and breaking these must not just be called out, but must have genuine, long-term, serious consequences for the regimes responsible. The human race has a long way to go. It was back in 697 that the law of innocence was promulgated by Gaelic and Pictish nobles at the Synod of Birr. It extended what had been protection for monks and religious male figures to women and other non-combatants. That is a very long time ago and we still have failed to deliver that, as I saw in Ukraine.
I come now to the to the second part of my contribution today, which is around the term “civilisations”, which, as I noted, is described as part of the Shanghai spirit. This language is increasingly penetrating many international settings, frequently from the influence of China. I note, for example, that on 7 June 2024 the UN General Assembly adopted 10 June as the international day for dialogue among civilisations. I agree with the words of the US representative during that debate that we should instead be talking about cultures. The US representative then urged vigilance over how words such as “civilisation” are used.
This is a term in the form of western civilisation that we are hearing increasingly in your Lordships’ House, and I would ask those who are increasingly using it to consider how they are playing into the hands of dangerous forces which are using it in places such Xinjiang. Making claims of exceptionalism, of the purity of one historical cultural formulation over another, is playing into the hands of the narrative that we are hearing from China and other countries that needs to be challenged, not accepted.
I am pleased to say that there a growing reaction against that, against the idea of discrete, distinct civilisations, an international shedding of civilizational thinking. I note that on display today in your Lordships’ Library is the cover of Josephine Quinn’s excellent book How the World Made the West which addresses this issue. She notes Polybius’s remark that the Romans were a multicultural melting pot willing to substitute their customs for better practices from elsewhere. There is no such thing as pure Roman civilisation or indeed western civilisation. This book explicitly takes aim at Samuel P Huntington’s influential 1996 clash of civilisations thesis, which is effectively being adopted in this debate. It is deeply dangerous and a framing for a great deal of Islamophobic and other xenophobic rhetoric and action. Challenging this claim is an urgent task.
Responding to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I point out that democracy and democratic elements have a very long history going back, of course, as is often cited, to ancient Greece, but much further than that to a millennia before in ancient Assyria.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her discourse on the Ukraine war. My position is known on that. As for the rest of it, I have more sympathy with the spirit of the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, than I have with that of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan.
I may have a closer connection with Tianjin than any Member of either House having gone to school there nearly 80 years ago. I hope this will not in itself cause me to be thought of as a security risk. I agree with the noble Baroness that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation poses challenges to the international order. I accept that, and I think we all do, but we need to be clear about the nature of the challenges and of the order being challenged.
The challenges referred to by the noble Baroness arise from the fact that power in the world is shifting. The clout of the NATO world is shrinking while that of the non-NATO world is growing, and accommodation of the international order to these shifts in the balance of power is absolutely inevitable. That has always happened throughout history, and the question is whether it will be peaceful or violent. The numbers are striking—the noble Baroness mentioned some of them.
In the late 1980s, the countries later to form the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation accounted for only about 5% of global output while western nations produced well over 50%. Today, the SCO’s member states generate 23% of global output while the western share has shrunk to 30%. To take demography, whereas in the late 1980s the west still represented close to a quarter of the world’s population, today the SCO countries account for 42% while the NATO world has shrunk to about 10%. If we take BRICS-plus, the scale of the shift is even more dramatic, with 56% of the world’s population, roughly 40% of the world’s global output, being controlled by this non-western grouping. So we should find nothing surprising about the Tianjin summits initiative. They are designed to insert a large group of countries into the structure of global governance, from which they felt they have been excluded. That is the essence of it.
Shifts in global power always hard to accommodate peacefully because we do not have a world Government —we cannot simply vote out one lot of people and vote in another lot. The reason why we in Britain find it so hard to accept the current shift is that we mix it up with morals. We claim to stand for a set of rules, institutions and power arrangements which are or should be morally binding on everyone. We therefore interpret any challenge to that order as, ipso facto, immoral and to be resisted, if possible by war.
The view from Tianjin is of course very different. President Xi calls the western rules-based international order a cloak for the “bullying behaviour” and “hegemonic ambitions” of the United States. China, we need to recall, had most of its coastline divided up between colonial powers. Tianjin, where I went to school in 1948, had just emerged from extraterritorial status. So, multipolarity is also a moral position, not just an assertion of power. It is also a moral, anti-imperial position. Properly interpreted, it means the quest for peace through agreement between powers with different value systems; that is the only way we will get a peaceful world. It means we in this country have to accept domestic policies we find abhorrent, accept the notion of spheres of influence, accept as legitimate the use of soft power by China and others to influence opinion in this country without becoming paranoid about it, as I think we tend to be.
It is our highly negative attitude to multipolarity which has caused it to spill over into economic warfare—I mean both economic sanctions and tariff wars. Can our rulers not see that it is the policy of economic sanctions which has led to the world dividing into economic blocs? That is not an inescapable tenancy of multipolarity but it comes out of the union of geopolitics and economics—economics used as an instrument of geopolitics. In addition, except for very small examples, sanctions have never deterred or stopped behaviour of which we disapprove. What they do achieve is to divert trade in money and goods away from their comparative advantage to protected areas, which therefore makes the world poorer, and that is what is happening today.
We must accept the reality of a multipolar world, and we must reform the institutions best fitted to govern it. The noble Baroness referred to one or two of them. The UN Security Council, the IMF and the WTO have to be reformed. China needs to be a partner in this process, and that means accepting China’s right to share in the governance of the world. We have not done that so far, and the importance of this debate is to draw attention to that fact.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, not least because I am in complete agreement with the last point that he made. It is a central one in this debate.
We face a new world order in which diplomacy is adapting, somewhat slowly, to the characteristics of populist government. A populist, social media-driven world is inherently less stable, less predictable and more dangerous. Against this background, the SCO and the western-led liberal orders offer very distinct frameworks for international co-operation and governance, which will need to adapt to these changes.
As highlighted by the 2025 Tianjin summit, the SCO emphasises collective security, counterterrorism and regional stability, valuing sovereignty and non-interference by the West. The western-led liberal order prioritises free market economics, democratic governance and human rights. The SCO, primarily centred on Eurasia, with key members such as China, as we have heard, Russia and India, fosters regional alliances. The western-led order is global in scope, with institutions such as the UN and the World Trade Organisation seeking to play central roles, while populist leaders in the West condemn their ineffectiveness and outdated irrelevance. How should the British Government respond?
First, I argue that we need to update our analysis of UK policy in the region to take account of fast-moving post-SCO meeting events. New objectives must be redefined through engagement opportunities. The UK could and should more vigorously engage with SCO countries to enhance trade ties and collaborate on security issues, particularly in combating terrorism and drug trafficking. With the western-led order, we should continue and strengthen participation which supports our economic interests and growth through bilateral and global trade, while reinforcing but not seeking to impose democratic values and human rights.
We must be more sensitive to the fact that change takes time, so the macropolitical message from Tianjin for us is to evaluate which partnerships align most with our long-term national interests. We must engage in dialogue and definitely not disengage with both SCO and western-led countries. We must explore mutual benefits and seek a balance between promoting democratic values and securing economic interests. We should forget calls for cultural imposition and the forceful use of unequal power dynamics: they lead years of work in building co-operation and respect down an abrupt cul-de-sac.
There is certainly a case for more active diplomacy and fewer public shouting matches, so we should be leveraging diplomatic, economic and cultural tools to influence and engage with SCO member states through bilateral dialogue, multilateral platforms and cultural, sporting and educational exchange programmes. We must rediscover the might of soft power. Above all, we should encourage UK businesses to adopt responsible trade practices that emphasise ethical standards, seeking through diplomacy and respect to influence human rights and to reach out for global action on global challenges such as climate change, where equitable co-operation is vital. It is such a platform that allows for the most effective advocacy for human rights and fair governance, with support for like-minded NGOs that we can fund and support in their work towards human rights and fair governance in SCO countries.
I will give one example of how we can put this approach into practice in countries of the SCO and, in particular, in Uzbekistan. The relationship between the UK Government and Uzbekistan is currently marked by a spirit of co-operation and growing engagement. With a growing economy, young population and active foreign policy, Uzbekistan serves as a key for transportation, logistics and cultural exchange in Eurasia. From a purely strategic point of view, Uzbekistan can be seen as a potential world-class provider of rare earth minerals. Keen to develop its significant and mostly untapped resources, Uzbek Government-led entities seek to form joint ventures, attract foreign investment and explore new projects, with a view to becoming major global suppliers for high-tech and green energy industries.
Uzbekistan and the UK have already signed an ambitious co-operation programme for 2025-26, covering politics, economics, education, energy and climate change. Frequent visits and meetings between senior Ministers support regular strategic dialogue and promote trust. The UK’s involvement in Uzbek higher education is a central pillar of this relationship, and the UK actively supports Uzbekistan in ensuring governance reform, economic development and human rights.
Collaboration on border security, training and climate resilience reflects a broadening agenda beyond trade. Uzbekistan is critical to security in the region and beyond, not least with its shared border with Afghanistan, and that is an important part of our national security. We should be more active on the front foot with Uzbekistan. For example, an invitation to the President is long overdue, in my view. At the very least, we should continue to build on the significant strengths of countries such as Uzbekistan, whose focus on pragmatic multivector diplomacy means that we should strengthen the relationship with the country as a valued partner, to act as a balance to the somewhat less advanced relationships with some other members of the SCO.
For all the concerns that have been expressed, the outcomes from the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Tianjin are an opportunity for careful engagement, while always being aware of the potential risks and challenges. In the new world reality, we would be unwise not to identify and pursue these opportunities, fully respecting and understanding the differences that separate us.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on Tuesday I was at Oxford University, where the head of the presidential administration of Uzbekistan was presiding at the launch of the Uzbek language and cultural centre at the university. Indeed, this month, the University of Cardiff opened a campus in Kazakhstan, so we are active.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, on this debate, which is very sparsely populated. It needs to be taken to the Floor of the House, because it is crucial that we think through what is going on in the world and how we respond to it. However, I slightly resist one or two of the comments that implied that this change is inevitable and we just have to adapt to it; I do not accept that. We have to have a dynamic role to interact with it and possibly try to help it move in a slightly different direction from what they may intend. I do not mean that in a destructive sense, but we need to engage.
It is interesting that, at the moment, the Government do not seem to know what their relationship with China ought to be. So, today, the head of MI5 said that China is a threat, but the Government are saying that we do not want to upset them. We need to think it through. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the presentation of the SCO. I say in passing that the photo at the end of it was of 15 men—they were all men—of which 14 were autocrats. There is no doubt at all that this is a different organisation from ours. It is in some way inimical to us, but it exists.
On the figures, it is worth pointing out that the strength of those numbers depends an awful lot on India—and, of course, China, but China is at the core of it. India is a democracy, the one country that is, so that, clearly, is a basis for us to engage, if ever there was one. That is not to say to India, “You shouldn’t be doing this”, but to say, “You are a democracy and they’re not”. It is really important that we have an open channel through and with India on that basis.
I also want to talk about the influence of Russia and China in Africa. China’s belt and road initiative across Asia and Africa is pouring massive resources and potential dependency into countries in Africa, reinforced by what was the Wagner regime, now the Africa Corps, from Russia, whose objectives are not benign. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, we should expect the SCO to use its soft power, but it is a bit ironic that it is doing so just as we are dismantling ours. It seems to me that this is a good pause for us to think about how we use all our influences.
Earlier today, the Minister said, quite rightly, that this is not just about aid. I accept that; it is about all the resources that characterise what we stand for: trade, investment, culture, the British Council, the BBC and aid. It is about all those things, and we need to promote them much more vigorously.
We have to recognise that China is a major player. People sometimes express surprise that China has emerged in this category but, if you look at the history of the last 2,000 years, China was a major power for most of it. It is hardly surprising that it is now, and it has numbers, capacity and strength. Engagement is clear, but we have to decide what our interests are, what our security is and how we will deal with that. China needs to understand that, while we are willing to engage, trade and co-invest, we are not going to compromise our security any more than China would compromise its own. That is where we have not got it right, right now; we look a bit confused and unclear, and we need to sharpen that up.
The other problem is where the leadership is coming from. The current leadership of the West—the United States—is causing us a lot of difficulties. It does not seem committed to the values that we talk about. President Trump is very happy to talk about his friends in Hungary and Slovakia who are undermining most of our principles, but he is okay about it. He likes strong men—autocratic men, as far as I can see—and is less interested in the rule of law and human rights. He seems a bit cavalier about them, so we cannot rely on the United States to be the leading champions of this.
That puts a role on us to be clearer—if we are sure about our values—about how to assert them much more emphatically than we have done. The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, was right at the beginning that we are at a pivotal point. It has been going on for a long time, but it is only just dawning on people how pivotal it is. We need to assess that.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that we need to improve our relationships with our own continent. We may have differences of view—unlike others, I believe that the exit from the European Union was both bad for us and bad for them; I would love to go back, but I am not pushing that point—but it is clear that we have to find common values. If we are to address this world order, we need to do it in common cause with like-minded parties and countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which share our values.
I congratulate the noble Baroness and plead for the Government to allow more time and space for these issues to be debated more widely, with inputs that may help the Government get a clearer handle on where we are. We cannot afford to walk away from China—I do not think we should—but we need to be sure, when dealing with China, that it knows where we are coming from and that we know where it is coming from. It needs to be much more open and clearer that we have a different set of values.
My final worry is that when there is a vote in the United Nations, all these countries in Africa, hardly surprisingly, tend to feel that the lead comes not from us but from elsewhere. If we do not do something soon, we will not win any votes in the United Nations.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, for securing this debate and to all the other fascinating contributions. There seems to have been a concentration, in this corner, from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Hannan, of talk about Uzbekistan—somewhat surprisingly. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, reminded us, when we were MEPs, we had the opportunity to visit that country on two or three occasions. It was fascinating, and we suffered from what was referred to as “terrorist hospitality”: on a number of occasions, food and drink was literally forced on us and we were unable to refuse, whether we liked it or not. It did, of course, have an appalling human rights record, at the time, machine-gunning demonstrators and boiling opponents in oil. This was a number of years ago; I hope its record has got slightly better recently.
Given the domination of China-related news in recent days, I am sure noble Lords will have arrived at this debate with the topic at hand already at the forefront of their minds. This is an extremely topical debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, must have had a vision of the future when she secured it. I hope that we can leave here after the contribution from the Minister feeling somewhat slightly less bemused by the Government’s approach to China. I also hope, however, that ongoing events have made them acutely aware the threat of the Chinese Communist Party’s growing global influence to international stability and order. As my noble friend Lord Hannan pointed out, the clue to who runs the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is indeed in the name, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, pointed out in her excellent introduction, the international order that has held since the end of the Cold War is fraying.
Out from under the threat of communism arose a liberal system that centred itself on the rule of law through robust yet unimposing international treaties and institutions—in no small part catalysed and maintained by this country—an order emerged that allowed states, both big and small to interact, to coexist freely and with their own sovereignty. Now, as growing economies begin to compete with the upholders of the prevailing peaceful order, new spheres of influence are cropping up to fracture the old and impose their authority on the new. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation—slightly misnamed in my view—and its component countries, has no small part to play in that.
The Russian Federation, nations that it engulfed under the Iron Curtain just half a century ago, India, Pakistan, Iran and China make up nearly half the global population and are using their strength and manpower to ally and to exert their influence in an aggressive and partisan manner. The last of those countries, China, has managed to influence and manoeuvre some of the most developed nations in the world—and we here are indeed a case in point. Imagine the free rein that they have with the more underdeveloped nations in search of a route to supposed prosperity. It may seem an attractive notion: rich and poor partnerships aimed at guiding countries to the promised land but the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. The belt and road initiative, coated as a benevolent partnership, has led to many countries in Africa and elsewhere becoming shackled to the Chinese by a collar of unshakeable debt, allowing their guarantor to exercise control and coercion with no repercussions whatever.
The SCO is the other side of that same coin but, rather than one nation, it is, as I said, a near majority of the globe acting to impress themselves into the international order. It is a danger under the guise of a developer. Let me just cover a few of the demonstrations that we saw from the organisation’s summit last month, when it announced, with no hint of irony, its global governance initiative. It pledged to promote democracy when leading members are explicit authoritarians. The interesting sole exception to that is of course India, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, pointed out. I struggle to see why it would want to be part of such an organisation. The SCO pledged to abide by the international rule of law, “equally and uniformly”, it says in its declaration, all of course while one of its members is waging an illegal war on Ukraine. It preaches multilateralism when decisions are made unilaterally and with force on smaller surrounding countries.
The SCO represents a clear worry to the peaceful system that has governed our relations for the past three and a half decades. The current Government, I say with sadness but not surprise, have not so far stepped up to this threat. The only place that I can begin is with a brief overview of what has unfolded with regard to China in the past few weeks. A prosecution accusing two men of spying on behalf of China was dropped on 15 September due to a lack of evidence, a decision followed by proclamations of astonishment and surprise from Ministers. The Minister of State for Security told the Commons that the decision had been entirely independent, before the DPP revealed that he had spent months asking the Government to release evidence before the case was dropped. The Education Secretary was then wheeled out at the weekend to do the media rounds, in which she changed the Government’s tune, claiming that the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser was not involved in “the substance” of the case, whatever that means, amid speculation as to whether or not he attended a meeting on whether a conviction would have negative economic and diplomatic effects. Then, on Monday, the Minister of State for Security once again took to attempting to convince the House that the National Security Adviser does not actually advise on matters of national security.
At PMQs yesterday, in the most explicit and unequivocal of terms, the Prime Minister affirmed that neither the National Security Adviser, the Home Secretary nor anyone at No. 10 made decisions about this case. The case is developing as we speak—there are more news releases all the time—but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, representing the Government today, can clarify how these two diametrically opposed courses of action can be modified.
In light of the SCO summit and its overt aims at securing more global influence at our expense, and this Government’s mishandling of our national security interests, it would be helpful for several steps to be laid out in the Minister’s response. What practical steps are being taken to compete with the economic opportunities that are offered to developing countries by China, thereby bringing more countries into our rules-based liberal system? Secondly, what is being done to counter the aggression of the Chinese Government towards Tibet and other nations surrounding the South China Sea? Thirdly, when will all the facts be released about the Government’s role in the failed prosecution? Lastly, given the information that has already come to light, will the Government now oppose a Chinese super-embassy in London in the interests of national security—although I just saw on my phone as I was standing up that a news release has just come out that the Government have now delayed yet again, for the second time, a decision on that embassy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
Apparently, I have nine minutes to deal with the whole of the global security situation.
I thank all noble Lords and Ladies who participated in this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, for what has turned out to be a very timely debate—I am sure she knew that when she called for it. Ministers like me are told to say it is an honour, and the speeches have all been brilliant. On this occasion it is an honour, and the speeches have all been terrific, so I am deeply grateful for that. I hope I can deal with the specific points that noble Lords have made as we go through, but if I run out of time, I will check Hansard and respond.
As noble Lords will know, the UK is not a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, but we respect each country’s right to choose its own path and its own partners, including which international groupings it associates with. The SCO serves as a platform for China and other member states to promote their interests and project leadership on the international stage—I will say a bit more about that in a moment. Our view is that all countries have the right to initiate new formats for multilateral co-operation.
Following the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Tianjin, China hosted its Victory Day parade in Beijing, marking the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Second World War, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, noted. While noting the military dimension of the parade, it is important to clarify that this event was separate to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit, and indeed, Prime Minister Modi did not attend. The UK recognises the significance of this anniversary for China and its people and respects their right to commemorate this occasion in their own history.
We will continue to exercise our own agency, including as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We remain strongly committed to the international rules-based system, which has supported peace, prosperity and co-operation for decades, and we will continue to encourage and call for China and other responsible members of the SCO to do the same.
The China audit has informed the UK’s consistent, long-term and strategic approach to China. As stated in the Statement made by the former Foreign Secretary, we will never compromise
“on our national security, recognising the complexity of the world as it is, engaging confidently, carefully and pragmatically, and delivering secure growth”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/25; col. 991.]
I know that noble Lords have asked for a very clear statement on our approach to China, but it is true to say that all speakers in this debate have acknowledged that we cannot have a simple or one-dimensional approach to the relationship with China.
I confirm we will continue to co-operate where our interests align, such as on climate change and global health, but we are prepared to challenge China where its actions undermine our values. Sometimes we will also compete with China for global growth opportunities, and we will continue to be vigilant against the full range of cyberspace and other threats from state and non-state actors, including those that emanate from China.
On the parliamentary espionage case, which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, raised, the Prime Minister said at PMQs yesterday that he had sought legal advice, and he has published the witness statements. The view of the Government remains that we are disappointed that the case did not reach full trial and that that was the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, acknowledged, this clearly has some way to go. There will be an Urgent Question on it, I think on Monday, but certainly next week, and noble Lords will have an opportunity on the Floor of the House to continue the discussion on that case.
On the question of China’s embassy application, as I think all noble Lords know, planning is quasi-judicial in nature. The case is before Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers for decision, and I do not think I should comment further.
The recent SCO summit was striking in its failure to mention Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew our attention to some of the tragic consequences there. Instead, the gathering was another example of China using its diplomatic engagement with Russia to reduce Putin’s isolation on the world stage. We consistently challenge China’s and other countries’ political and military support for Russia, which prolongs the war and is not in China’s interest. China remains the essential state in helping Russia continue the war against Ukraine. That is the Government’s view. The UK continues to call on China to use its influence to support peace and stability. That includes urging President Putin to end the war, withdraw Russian troops from Ukraine and respect international law. With regard to the observation by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the Government work closely with not only European but G7 partners to make common cause on that.
On the multilateral system, strengthening multilateral institutions, which a number of noble Lords mentioned, to uphold the global consensus against aggression and realise a just and lasting peace in Ukraine with full respect for the UN charter is critical. These groupings, such as the SCO—I think I am coming to the heart of the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, in raising this debate—provide China with a platform to promote alternative norms, often prioritising state sovereignty and non-interference over universal human rights and democratic governance. The noble Lords, Lord Callanan, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Moynihan, referred to that. The UK’s response to these initiatives—this is really the heart of my comments—is to defend and strengthen the institutions that matter and that represent the international consensus, including the institutions that many noble Lords have mentioned, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, and to help reform and revitalise them so that they are more inclusive, effective and resilient in responding to global challenges. That was the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, and I think it is important. We welcome China’s support for those institutions in which it is also an active partner. We are actively engaged in efforts to reform and revitalise key institutions through initiatives to reform the United Nations and our work with the multilateral development banks to ensure they are more representative, responsive and effective in addressing today’s global challenges.
I recognise the starting point of the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, that this is a changed world. China seeks to expand its global influence through the SCO and attempts to reshape the multilateral system to suit its own interests. Our response is clear. We stand firmly behind Ukraine, we defend the multilateral institutions that underpin global stability, and we are renewing bilateral partnerships of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about across the global South. We will continue to engage China in a principled and measured way, as many noble Lords have encouraged us to do. We will continue to support the values and institutions that have helped deliver peace and prosperity around the world, and we will do so with confidence and in the spirit of genuine partnership.
Fracture Liaison Services
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards establishing fracture liaison services across England, and what plans they have to meet their commitment to provide universal coverage by 2030.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, at the start of September the Prime Minister made it clear that his Government are now entering the delivery phase. I take him at this word and would like our debate today to focus on helping him to do just that, by setting out how they can deliver on three goals: reducing waiting lists and saving lives; boosting economic growth; and protecting the most vulnerable in our society, particularly the elderly. There is one simple way to deliver speedily on all three: publish the long-awaited bone plan before Christmas.
During the election, the Health and Social Care Secretary said, to his great credit, that developing the rollout plan for fracture liaison services would be one of his first acts in Government. Unfortunately, we are still waiting. In recent years we have had numerous debates on osteoporosis, resulting in clear commitments to move forward, but the truth is that, while their expansion has happened at pace in Wales, we have seen no progress at all in England.
The case for doing so is as strong as ever. Half of women aged over 50 and one-fifth of men will suffer disabling and potentially fatal fractures because of osteoporosis. There are effective medications that prevent fractures and preserve people’s independence, but, shockingly, two-thirds of osteoporosis patients are missing out on that treatment because this Government—and indeed the last one, I readily admit—have so far failed to match words with deeds. The end result of untreated osteoporosis is a broken hip, which results in a three-week hospital stay and kills one-quarter of people within a year. The majority of those who survive face a life infinitely smaller and consumed with pain. I know because I saw it with my own mum, whose latter years were dominated by agony and disability because her osteoporosis was not treated properly.
Campaigns run by two newspapers, the Sunday Express and the Mail on Sunday, have brought this injustice out of the shadows and achieved a consensus on the way forward. This is not a partisan issue; I suspect that we all agree on both the ends and the means. We just need to get on with it.
To turn back to delivery, during the election the Health Secretary made two commitments to people living with osteoporosis. The first was to increase the number of DEXA scans. I thank him and the Government for the £2 million for new scanners released to fulfil that first promise. That is a good start, but fracture prevention relies on more than just a scan. If heart disease patients got only ECGs but then no treatment, there would be outrage. If you want to prevent secondary heart attacks, you do not stop at a cholesterol test.
That is why the second commitment made by the Health Secretary is much more consequential. He promised to expand fracture liaison service clinics to all areas by 2030 so that we can prevent 74,000 fractures by that date, including 31,000 life-threatening hip fractures. Ministers have repeatedly given that commitment to Parliament and, thankfully, the policy is enshrined in the 10-year plan. Again, that is a good start but, despite those commitments, we have heard nothing about how or when it is to be implemented, hence this debate today. The time between now and Christmas is critical if we are to meet the Government’s promise. This afternoon, I ask the Minister to consider three reasons why publishing the bone plan is now extremely urgent.
First, the stakeholder community that will make implementation possible is ready and raring to go. It simply needs the starting gun to be fired. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has been in the vanguard, and I pay immense tribute to its tireless campaigning, but it is much more than one organisation. There is now a community of interest around fracture prevention, composed of 60 organisations with various stakes in women’s health, healthy aging, easing burdens on the NHS and keeping older employees in the workforce. On the medical side, that includes seven royal medical colleges along with the representative bodies for physiotherapists, radiographers, social workers and paramedics.
Leading business voices and the trade unions have called for nationwide FLS because economic growth is being stunted by older workers stopping or reducing work due to fractures. Last year, a dozen eminent societies formed a shadow implementation group to help Ministers deliver the FLS policy. An exemplar rollout plan and high-level recommended approach was submitted, but there has been no response from the Government. The current information vacuum is undermining confidence among these organisations. Unless the bone plan emerges by the end of the year, it will be impossible to maintain belief across the sector that FLS will ever become a reality.
Secondly, every year that we delay we see a cascade of preventable fractures, and that costs money, which we all know is in short supply. If we had rolled out FLS in summer 2024, by now we would have saved £60 million, two-thirds of the money needed to pump-prime every FLS across England up to break-even point. I sympathise with the Health Secretary’s comments, reported in the press last week, about “invest to save” initiatives such as FLS needing investment before savings accrue, but achieving the shift that he rightly wants to make from treatment to prevention must start somewhere. You will not find many other treatment models that break even within just 24 months and deliver £1.88 for every £1 invested. This is about replacing badly-spent money with sensible investment in prevention.
It is not just about the money that is being wasted. Every year that we delay the FLS rollout, another 2,500 people die following broken hips, which FLS clinics could have prevented. That’s 2,500 mums and dads, grandmas and grandpas.
Thirdly, the vacuum of information around FLS is in fact causing perverse outcomes which undermine the prevention of fractures. For the last 16 months, government spokespeople have consistently told newspapers that a national rollout of FLS is imminent. Ministers have given the same commitments repeatedly to both Houses of Parliament. That is great but it should therefore not surprise the Government that commissioners who would have acted on FLS independently have, as a result, paused their plans awaiting a national rollout plan and that, since the election, no new FLSs have opened. That is why I make this appeal to the noble Baroness and her colleagues: please publish the bone plan. You may otherwise be unintentionally harming the important cause of fracture prevention rather than advancing it.
A huge amount of energy and impetus have built up around this issue over recent years. Numerous organisations want to help Ministers, in good faith, to turn it into an example of NHS reform under this Government—serving all three of the strategic shifts that the Health Secretary wants to drive. But uncertainty is eroding that energy and good will, when it could so easily be harnessed for the public good.
I am sure that in her response, to which I much look forward, the noble Baroness will repeat the reassurances given repeatedly to Parliament that FLSs will be implemented by 2030. But I beg her to ask her colleagues, please, to fire the starting gun now by publishing the implementation plan by year-end. Everyone here today—I thank noble Lords so much for taking part, which shows how important this debate is—wants simply to get on with it. Let us make it happen by Christmas. For thousands of families and vulnerable individuals, it would be the best possible present they could ever receive.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the timer seems to have stopped. We will take a short break while it is being fixed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee has been suspended as a result of technical issues. We will now resume and finish at 5.16 pm. Will noble Lords please bear that in mind and maybe knock a minute or two off their speeches?
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his contribution, which was so stunning that it put the lights out. I will cut my speech short to allow others to get in, in the time available.
As people who know about the subject know, the fracture liaison service was pioneered in Glasgow in 1999. Other countries have picked up this model very successfully to the extent that we, in England at least, are in danger of falling well behind. More than a decade ago in New Zealand, for example, the Government set out to make fracture liaison services available to everyone, backed by targeted central investment. Today, 99% of New Zealanders have access to a fracture liaison service. It is a striking example of how clarity from central government, supported by a plan, can deliver universal coverage in a short time.
Japan offers another lesson. Faced with the oldest population in the world and a growing number of hip fractures, the Japanese Government introduced a simple FLS incentive scheme in 2022. In just three years, the number of services has more than doubled, and every region now has at least one FLS. It is a reminder that, when Governments set clear expectations, progress follows.
In the meantime, progress in England has stalled. Just over half of NHS trusts have an FLS, meaning that thousands of people are treated for a fracture each year but never investigated for underlying causes. The Government’s commitment is welcome and, more importantly, achievable, but commitments alone will not deliver the service. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, a delivery plan is now urgently needed to show how that goal will be achieved. That should be this year, preferably by Christmas; otherwise, we will be halfway through this Parliament.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador for the Royal Osteoporosis Society, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, on securing this important debate. Since the campaign for universal access to fracture liaison services was launched, I have seen osteoporosis evolve from an issue oft overlooked in public policy to one that now enjoys cross-party support, with the noble Lord a doughty and persistent champion. Every party endorses the importance of universal fracture liaison services: they are in Labour’s 10-year plan for health, the Conservative manifesto, the Liberal Democrat manifesto and even in the policies of the Reform Party.
However, despite this almost unique level of consensus meaning this should have been an open goal, yet somehow the ball has been lost in kerfuffle and confusion. The confusion is not about intent or even value. Everyone agrees that universal fracture liaison services will save lives and money, but communication between different parts of the system has broken down. The Royal Osteoporosis Society, Ministers, NHS England and local commissioners and indeed the extensive list of networks and organisations that we heard about earlier are all working towards the same goal, yet they seem to be doing so on different pitches. The proposal, for instance, to include fracture liaison services in neighbourhood health centres could one day prove valuable but, as an idea, it was poorly communicated and has just led to greater uncertainty. Commissioners are now unsure whether they should act locally or wait for a national steer and, as a result, progress has stalled.
We know that Ministers face multiple pressures and competing priorities, but a clear commitment was made, and those who fought for it need to see that it still stands. What we need now is to convert confusion into clarity so that we can harness the current consensus to drive change. Commissioners, clinicians and patient groups all need to understand what is expected of them and when. A straightforward statement from the Government that sets out responsibilities, timelines and how the FLS rollout fits within the 10-year plan and neighbourhood health centre programme would resolve much of the current uncertainty.
There is no shortage of evidence to support the case for universal FLS and no shortage of the will and expertise necessary to make it happen. The obstacle is obfuscation. A clear statement from government, followed up by collective action to get everyone on the same page would translate the current confusion into clarity. As we have heard, if the Minister can make that happen before Christmas, we could turn the broad agreement into real delivery.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black for securing this debate. We all share the same goal: all noble Lords speaking today and health leaders across the country want to see more fracture liaison services available to more people. Those who suffer from osteoporosis, with its distressing, painful and debilitating consequences, were given hope before the last election by the Government, who made a clear and welcome commitment to ensure that every part of England will have access to fracture liaison services by 2030, and it now forms part of the 10-year health plan for England.
However, I am fearful that we are not moving forward. No new fracture liaison services have opened, and 2030 is only just over four years away, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, mentioned in her speech. Of course, resources are tight, the NHS faces extraordinary pressures and new funding is difficult to find. If resources are holding things up, I ask the Minister to work with the Royal Osteoporosis Society, which has done so much to support and champion fracture liaison services over many years and again stands ready to help, working closely with the department, to develop a practical, phased rollout plan.
I welcome the media coverage a fortnight ago when the Health Secretary said that he wanted to develop a plan for delivery with the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Such a plan need not be perfect. I have been involved with the Royal Osteoporosis Society for many years, and I know that it is pragmatic and aware of the constraints and challenges faced by the Government. We are all hoping that a practical landing zone will be found for a policy that we are all championing.
I share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Black that a plan needs to emerge by Christmas. Given that a commitment was given to the media that this would be an early priority of the Government and that there is a need to maintain trust and confidence across the network and among partner organisations that this change will happen, let us get on with it and make it happen.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Black is, thankfully, a persistent person. The subject we are discussing today is one that he has brought before your Lordships with some frequency, through debates and Oral Questions. Those who suffer the pain and distress that osteoporosis brings have no more determined parliamentary champion than him. Evidence continues to accumulate in support of the action for which he has long called and which he has reiterated so powerfully today: the urgent need to establish fracture liaison services throughout our country.
For some years the Royal College of Physicians has charted a steady rise in the number of hip fractures. Its latest annual report, published last month, records yet another increase. It also shows, once again, how unevenly the services that could reverse this trend are spread across our country. Indeed, there could be no clearer example of that much-reviled phenomenon: the postcode lottery.
Curiously, there seems to be no figure for the total number of hip fractures in the United Kingdom. Scotland appears disinclined to share information. In the other three parts of the country the total now stands at some 70,000. Without the action for which my noble friend Lord Black is calling, the number will go on mounting remorselessly. Experts believe that it will double by 2060, bringing the total to 140,000. The bill will be crippling. Today each hip fracture costs the health and care services around £28,000. Total expenditure, which now stands at some £2 billion, is likely to reach £3.8 billion by 2060—virtually doubling the huge burden borne by our overstretched NHS.
The burden can and must be reduced. The key to this is to ensure that those who incur smaller, less severe fractures are correctly diagnosed as suffering from osteoporosis and are treated accordingly. That would cut the number of hip fractures dramatically, but it will not happen without the major change for which my noble friend Lord Black and others have long been pressing. At the moment, around half of those who break a hip have experienced an earlier, less severe fracture without being correctly diagnosed and treated. That means that tens of thousands of people are being discharged from hospital at severe risk of hip fracture and, in due course, some of them will suffer one. More than one in four of those who have a hip fracture will die within a year.
No one, I think, disputes that the most effective way this state of affairs can be remedied is through the provision of fracture liaison services which identify and treat people after their first fracture, helping to prevent a second. Yet, as we have heard, only around half of NHS trusts provide such a service. Like everyone —I think—taking part in this debate, I hope the Government, who have shown that they understand the need for urgent action, will publish before Christmas their plan to extend fracture liaison services throughout the country.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and to speak again in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Black. When the Government confirmed last year that they would deliver FLS across England by 2030, it was a real mark of genuine progress and warmly welcomed by all of us—not least, of course, by the noble Lord, Lord Black, himself, who has been asking for this for so long. But despite this, I share the concern of many about the slow rate of progress.
The Government have said that fracture liaison services
“are commissioned by integrated care boards, which are well-placed to make decisions according to local need”.
Now that should be the case, but it unfortunately always tends to be the neglected health conditions, such as osteoporosis, that are overlooked without national co-ordination and insistence—and, surprise, surprise, it is usually women’s issues that are overlooked most.
I was delighted to hear this week a lot on the radio about prostate cancer. However, where is the similar attention to those living with osteoporosis, two-thirds of whom will miss out on treatment? That silence is inexcusable. Luckily, we are in general living longer, but hospitals will not be able to cope with the spiralling numbers of hip and spinal fractures if we do not have that FLS to prevent these breaks. Over just the past two weeks, two of my friends have fallen and broken their hips. I do not know whether they had a particular predisposition but the pain that they are suffering, and the cost to the health service of patching them up, would probably pay for half of a local FLS in their area.
The Health Secretary recognised all of this when he committed to a national rollout of FLS by 2030. Indeed, before the election, Labour’s election platform singled out a small number of health conditions for targeted action and osteoporosis was one of them. We all cheered. I know and understand that a national plan tends to jar with the move towards greater localisation but, given that commitment to implement FLSs by 2030 —only five years off now—surely we can make an exception for that national initiative here. Rather like the pledge to end new HIV transmissions by 2030, which the 10-year plan says will be set out in a delivery plan, we need this for FLS. Let us have the same in this area.
Achieving these two targets on HIV and FLS would be a major boost in preventing ill health. We can help provide a better service for older people, particularly the half of women who are vulnerable. If they could all get a bone plan under their Christmas tree, I think we would all be very happy.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for his indefatigable championing of this crucial issue. I will not repeat the strong arguments that he and others have already made, but I pay tribute to his dogged determination to persuade the Government, as others have said, to turn the “What?” into the eagerly anticipated “How?” and “When?” Like him, I also pay tribute to the Royal Osteoporosis Society for its tireless campaigning on this issue. The rollout of fracture liaison services would strengthen the NHS. I also take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for Health for the action he has already taken on an issue that is currently waiting for the NHS.
Whenever we discuss the care of people with a bone condition such as mine, I am inevitably reminded of my childhood orthopaedic surgeon, to whom I owe so much. He came to this country as a teenage refugee from racism—abhorrent, toxic, genocidal racism—the sort of racism spouted by Dr Rahmeh Aladwan. How sad that in the 60th anniversary year of Labour’s Race Relations Act, we are seeing the repugnant resurgence of a racism that claimed the lives of all my surgeon’s relatives who came to wave him off as he left Nazi-occupied Prague, so I would be grateful to the Minister if she could convey my thanks to the Secretary of State for his commitment to reform the system governing the regulation of the UK medical register, and, to quote a departmental source, “to make it easier to kick racists out of the NHS”.
No one has an interest in allowing our NHS to be weakened by racism, and I am sure that my Jewish surgeon would have applauded the Secretary of State’s principled stand, but I am also confident that he would have urged him to detail the how and when of the rollout of fracture liaison services. He was dedicated to me, his patients and the NHS. The rollout of fracture liaison services would build on my surgeon’s life-enhancing legacy. It would change so many people’s lives for the better, as we have already heard, and it would strengthen our NHS. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, my thanks also go to the noble Lord, Lord Black, for this important debate, but most importantly for his persistence, which I believe has been instrumental in securing the Government’s commitment to deliver universal fracture liaison services by 2030—and I love his insistence on delivery.
It is essential that the FLS plan is delivered this year. I gently suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the forthcoming update to the women’s health strategy might offer the ideal opportunity to make progress. I understand, of course, that osteoporosis affects men as well, but it is one of the most common long-term conditions affecting women. Half of women aged over 50 will experience a fracture caused by osteoporosis. I, like many others, speak from a personal perspective. My mother had chronic osteoporosis, so I joined the Royal Osteoporosis Society, which has helped me enormously. I too pay tribute to it for its campaigning, for the information and support it provides for sufferers and for the support it provides for researchers. I am glad that the Government wish to work with it.
As we know, more than 2.5 million women in England are living with the condition, and most do not know until they break a bone. The last women’s health strategy focused on reproductive and gynaecological health, but the update offers an opportunity to address conditions that threaten women’s independence in later life. Including a rollout plan for fracture liaison services within that update would show that the Government mean what they say about taking action over words. I hope the Minister will relay that message to her department as it prepares the updated women’s health strategy.
We know these services work, yet the postcode lottery remains stark. A part of the country I know well, Gloucestershire, still has no fracture liaison service at all. A woman who slips and breaks her wrist in my area, the Forest of Dean, or in Cheltenham will be patched up in A&E and sent home, her osteoporosis undiagnosed and untreated. Yet just 40 miles away in Oxfordshire, where the noble Earl lives, the local FLS identified and treated more than 2,500 people last year. The contrast between these neighbouring areas shows why a national rollout plan cannot wait. Commissioning takes time. From approval to maturity, an FLS can take five years to establish, so the decisions made this year will determine whether the 2030 target can be met.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Black, I welcome the Government’s commitment in their plan on reforming elective care for patients to boosting the number of bone density—DEXA—scanners by investing in up to 13 DEXA scanners, six of which will replace existing machines. This would be brilliant as it would enable an extra 29,000 bone scans a year. However, it also requires radiographers to enable the scans to take place, so I ask my noble friend the Minister for her assurance that there will be an adequate number of them.
I would be grateful if the Minister could also tell me what consideration, if any, her department is giving to treating osteoporosis with MBST. This uses magnetic resonance therapy to stimulate bone regeneration and increase bone density. I understand that a neighbourhood health hub at the University of East London is providing MBST therapy—that experience could provide invaluable information.
Recognising osteoporosis as central to women’s health would fire the starting gun on delivery and give millions of women confidence that progress is finally being made.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the persistent, skilful and incredibly determined approach of the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, to achieve what is clearly needed—that is, the expansion of the use of fracture liaison services to 100% coverage by 2030. This commitment, contained in the 10-year health plan, is the right goal.
When we consider the issues around osteoporosis, we are discussing a public health crisis. Osteoporosis is a condition that is asymptomatic until fragility fractures strike. These fractures are painful. They can lead to social isolation and a significant loss of mobility and independence, and too often to mental health conditions such as depression. Osteoporosis-related fractures claim as many lives as lung cancer or diabetes. They rank as the second highest cause of bed occupancy within the NHS. We all know how expensive the occupancy of hospital beds is and we are aware of the dangers to many patients of being in hospital. These include the risk of infections, sometimes as serious as sepsis.
We need to try to act further to avoid fractures and the resulting stays in hospital. Fracture liaison services proactively identify patients aged 50 and over with a fracture, assessing their bone health and their falls risk to try to prevent what may be a devastating subsequent fracture. We have heard for many years about the laudable ambition of achieving 100% FLS coverage in England by 2030, but we may fail to achieve that target if we fail to heed the lessons from Wales, where they have achieved that goal.
The Government’s current commitment to action is not as rapid as that which has already been achieved in Wales. In February 2023, the then Welsh Health Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, issued a decisive national mandate. She instructed all health boards to establish fracture liaison services within 18 months, backed by pump-priming investment. By September 2024, the target was met and every acute health board in Wales had a functioning service.
The Welsh Government then committed to achieving international quality standards by 2030. That will mean ensuring that these services are resourced to serve at least 80% of the over-50s. The Welsh Government faced the same hurdles that England faces—the same financial pressures, the same workforce challenges and the same competing priorities—but the difference was urgency and focus. In England, without national co-ordination, commissioners are recognising the value of FLS, but they appear to be waiting for direction before committing scarce resources. The result, as we have heard, is that England now runs the risk of falling behind the rest of the UK in osteoporosis care. We must not let that happen.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black and other noble Lords for their valuable contributions, which appear unanimous. This is clearly an important issue, which speaks to one of the fundamental objectives of any Government, regardless of political persuasion, when it comes to health—namely that prevention is better than cure. Every £1 spent on prevention saves an estimated £5 in downstream NHS costs. This is money well spent and guarantees multiple returns on investment, which are the kind of words that every Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to hear.
In government, we committed to the goal of 100% FLS coverage and we welcome that the current Administration have taken on the baton to complete that by 2030. We know that there is already 100% coverage across Scotland and Northern Ireland, and it is crucial that we follow in their footsteps. Indeed, without successful intervention, research indicates that one in two patients will potentially have another fracture within two years. This is a serious problem: it creates an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer of at least £650 million over five years but, more importantly, it leads to a loss of independence within a year, which then leads to anxiety, isolation, depression and worse. This has further profound societal and economic consequences, which no one wants to see—as was so well highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
The challenge is to identify, to assess, to intervene and to follow up. That is a tried and tested road map that works and that should be provided by a well-oiled FLS. We might ask whether the Government have made an assessment of integrating fracture risk assessments into routine GP health checks for patients over a certain age. Is there an opportunity to improve sex and region aggregated data, so that we can better understand the scale and nature of the problem and the resulting strategies?
I focus briefly on prevention. Strong muscles lead to strong bones, and strong bones help to minimise the risk of fracture. It has been suggested by many research pieces that strength training can even build bone so, if the Government wish to succeed with their goals, when and how will they ensure that everyone understands the huge benefits of daily exercise and strength training, which would solve so many of the issues that we currently face, not just fractures?
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome action on this, via any specific measures that will address the situation. We ask the Government whether they will take guidance from Scotland and Northern Ireland on how they achieved 100% FLS coverage. A precedent has been set but, as many noble Lords have suggested, actions speak louder than words.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Black, on securing this important debate and thank all noble Lords for their significant contributions. I pay tribute to his personal background; it has brought such depth and strength of feeling to the subject, and I am sure many noble Lords have similar experiences. His persistence in carrying on with this is noted and welcomed. He is right to highlight the importance of reducing waiting lists, driving economic growth and safeguarding the most vulnerable members of our society.
We know that patients, including those with osteoporosis fragility fractures, are waiting too long for care and treatment, which needs to change, as I think all noble Lords have mentioned. This is why, between July 2024 and August 2025, the NHS provided more than 682,000 DEXA scans to patients across the country. As announced earlier this year, we are investing in 13 DEXA scanners to support improvements in early diagnosis and bone health and provide an estimated 29,000 extra scans a year once operational. I completely understand the points in the noble Lord’s speech about the need for follow-up action once the scans have been implemented.
I shall pick up the comments made by my noble friends Lady Royall and Lady Hayter. I think there is an enormous recognition of the need to focus on women’s health; that is an accepted aspect of all the work that we are doing. More generally, we want every person, including those with osteoporosis, to receive the highest quality compassionate care. In the past three years, two new drugs have been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, for example. Going back to women’s health, through our 10-year health plan and the women’s health strategy update, we are delivering our manifesto commitment that never again will women’s health be neglected.
The three shifts that I will go on to talk about—hospital to community, analogue to digital and treatment to prevention—are key aspects of the work that we need to do. Following from that, the 10-year workforce plan will ensure that the NHS will have the right people in the right places with the right skills to care for patients when they need it. That is a critical aspect. I will write to my noble friend Lady Royall with the more specific detail, if that is okay.
As the noble Lord, Lord Black, illustrated so powerfully, fracture liaison services can play a vital role in reducing the risk of refracture, improving the quality of life and increasing the years lived in good health. This Government and NHS England support the clinical case for services that help to prevent fragility fractures and support patients who sustain them. As we have heard, we are committed to rolling out fracture liaison services to every part of the country by 2030. As my noble friend Lady Hayter said, this is a genuine commitment. One of the early priorities of the 10-year plan will be a modern service framework for fragility and dementia. This is the first time that this has been introduced.
Going back to the 10-year plan, it is absolutely critical that we provide better care for people with osteoporosis, fragility fractures and other MSK conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, mentioned the problems with public health that we all know—as a former local government leader I know them only too well. Supporting the shift to prevention, the health system is working to prevent fractures occurring in the first place. Advice from NICE for clinicians includes information and advice on lifestyle changes a person can make to reduce their risk of fragility fracture, which the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, mentioned. These include increasing vitamin D intake, eating a balanced diet, drinking alcohol in moderation, stopping smoking if applicable and participating in a combination of exercise types. These are all absolutely fundamental in working towards the prevention agenda.
We are working to deliver the Getting It Right First Time MSK community delivery programme. The specific teams in this area are working with integrated care board leaders to reduce community waiting times and improve data, metrics and referral pathways to wider support services. Under the 10-year health plan, patients with MSK conditions will soon be able to bypass their GPs and directly access community services, including physiotherapy, pain management and orthopaedics, via the NHS app.
Our vision for a neighbourhood health service is also core to achieving the three shifts. The Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are working closely together to progress our commitment to shift to a neighbourhood health service. The 10-year plan includes fracture liaison services as a specific example of the services that neighbourhood health centres could host.
As we have heard, fracture liaison services are commissioned by integrated care boards, which we believe are well placed to make decisions according to local need. This Government are committed to giving integrated care boards the freedom and autonomy they need to focus on the job of meeting patients’ needs and improving the communities they serve. I am pleased to say that 41 out of the 42 ICBs have a women’s hub. We need to make sure that they are delivering in this space.
Officials in the Department of Health and Social Care are working closely with NHS England to consider a range of options to ensure the improved quality of and access to these important preventive services. We need to be honest about the scale of the action needed, the challenges faced across the health and care system and the fact that change will not be possible overnight.
I recognise that many are dedicated to campaigning for fracture liaison service expansion. I thank the noble Lord, other contributors to this debate and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Osteoporosis and Bone Health for its work. It is absolutely critical that we raise awareness of this vital issue and try not to wait until it is too late and a fracture has occurred. This is a very important aspect of the work that everyone is pulling together. I thank the clinicians and commissioning bodies that play such a vital role in delivering fracture liaison services.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, on this point, we talk about politicians, but over the past year, officials, including senior civil servants, have engaged on various occasions with the Royal Osteoporosis Society on fracture liaison services, and they will continue to do so.
I do not have time to respond to all the comments, but I will pass on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, to the Secretary of State. I thank him for his very clear exposition of his experience. I also undertake to pass on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.
I close by simply restating the Government’s commitment to ensuring access to care where and when it is needed. Once again, I thank noble Lords for today’s discussion on such an important topic.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure we all thank the speakers for their brevity in reaction to the technical issues.
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before Oral Questions, I have a short Statement to make.
I have served as Lord Speaker since the House was kind enough to place its trust in me in 2021. As you may be aware, the election for my successor to the post was due to take place in July next year. However, for reasons I will explain, I wish to announce to you today that I will step down from my post a few months earlier than that. Some years ago, my wife Joan was diagnosed with Parkinson’s. Since that time, I have combined my parliamentary work with my responsibilities at home. During this period, and indeed throughout my career, the support of my wife has been essential to my service in Parliament. It was Joan who encouraged me to return to education and to become a teacher after I left school with no formal qualifications. She selflessly supported me in my work as MP for our home town of Dumbarton as well as in this House, so I have now taken the decision that I must in future spend the majority of my time at home supporting my wife.
I have informed the Leader of the House that my final day in this post will be 1 February 2026. House officials will make the necessary preparations for an election to select my successor in time for an orderly handover.
It has been the honour and privilege of my life to serve this House as its fourth Lord Speaker, and in the remaining months of my tenure I will continue to do my utmost to fulfil my duties diligently. My work has been made easier and more satisfying by the friendship and support I have enjoyed from so many of you across the whole House. I have been ably supported by the excellent and dedicated team of Deputy Speakers, and I have benefited each and every day from the superb work of the staff of the House, in particular the exceptional team in my own office, so I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all noble Lords and to the staff of the House for the unstinting support that I have received.
Stablecoin Ownership
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ranger of Northwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of proposals for limiting stablecoin ownership.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, in light of the Lord Speaker’s Statement, let me be the first to thank him for his outstanding service. I look forward to the following months of working with him. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I refer to my registered interests as a NED for the ALICE Group and co-chair of the Digital Markets and Digital Money APPG.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, stablecoins stand to play an important role in driving innovation in digital assets. It is important for the UK to position itself as a competitive global destination for digital assets, including stablecoins, while also addressing relevant consumer protection and financial stability risks. The Bank of England is engaging closely with the digital assets sector on its proposals for the regulation of systemic retail stablecoin.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
I thank the Minister for that response, but I want to press him a little. Stablecoins and their usage are growing across the world. At the beginning of this year, $200 billion-worth had been issued—by September this year, it was $280 billion—pushed by the emergence of the GENIUS Act in the US and MiCA in Europe. These regulatory frameworks have enabled corporates to take advantage of being able to move money with agility and confidence, and real-time liquidity. How are we looking to keep up with the pace of the rest of the world as the use of stablecoins looks to reach $1.9 trillion by 2030, providing a distinct competitive advantage to businesses and industry in other geographies?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Before I answer him directly, perhaps I may also pay tribute to the Lord Speaker. He has been a friend to me since I first joined this House when he was an MP. I pay tribute to his outstanding service as Speaker of this House.
The noble Lord is correct to say that stablecoins have huge potential to play a significant role in both retail and wholesale payments. We are already seeing the benefits that stablecoin can provide in cross-border payments; for example, by reducing costs and improving efficiencies. He is absolutely right that it is important for the UK to harness these opportunities for the ongoing competitiveness of the UK financial services sector.
However, I do not think it is fair to say that the US is going any faster than the UK. Reading media coverage, we may conclude that, but the reality is that the US passed legislation for the regulation of stablecoin in the summer. US regulators will publish their regulatory rules in mid-2026, with a backstop date of January 2027 for the US regime to go live. In the UK, the Government published draft legislation in April, with final legislation due before the end of the year. Alongside this, the FCA is at an advanced stage in its consultation on the details of its regime, with a view to finalising its detailed rules and requirements in 2026. This will allow firms to be authorised and running in the UK regime by 2027.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, let me join in paying tribute to the Lord Speaker. I do not know whether to congratulate him, or say it is with great regret that he is in a situation in which he needs to stand down. We have all appreciated his service so much. A great deal more will be said on future occasions.
Stablecoin is not just an issue of digital payments and the efficiency of the pipeline, although you might think that from listening to the conversation. The move towards a global rollout of dollar and renminbi stablecoins has huge implications for monetary sovereignty. A sterling stablecoin has implications for the gilt markets and, hence, the public finances. Does the Minister begin to understand my concern that neither the Government nor the regulators have a grip on this and are considering the issues only narrowly—frankly, at a snail’s pace; I am astonished at the comments that he made just now—which means that we risk acting too late to protect our own national interest?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not accept what the noble Baroness says. There are, of course, financial stability and other considerations associated with stablecoin, but these need to be balanced against supporting innovation and ensuring the UK positions itself as a competitive global destination for digital assets. As I set out in my Answer to the original Question, I do not accept that the UK is in any way moving too slowly. The Government will bring forward final legislation to create a financial services regulatory regime for crypto assets this year, which will include issuing qualifying stablecoin in the UK. This will provide crypto asset firms the regulatory certainty needed to invest and help drive innovation in our financial services sector, and at the same time ensure that customers are protected from the worst harms when they make use of crypto asset services.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, digital assets cover a multitude of products and being the first mover is not always the advantage that some claim. UK politicians and regulators seem to speak with very different levels of enthusiasm about digital assets as a whole, including stablecoins. Who is going to prevail?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The UK Government recognise that facilitating stablecoin innovation is important for UK competitiveness. The Bank of England is the independent regulator for systemic stablecoin and can design its regime as necessary to manage the associated risks. However, it is a matter for the Government to decide whether to recognise firms as systemic and then bring them into the Bank’s regulation. The Treasury and Bank of England maintain a close and ongoing dialogue on the legal and regulatory treatment of stablecoins, in support of the Government’s objective to make the UK a global destination for digital assets.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, in the interests of pushing back the frontiers of ignorance, can the Minister explain, in simple words for the benefit of the House, what stablecoin actually is and whether I can receive my old age pension in it—which I am due to start getting from today?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I wish my noble friend a very happy birthday— his question allows me to give him a good present. It is fair to say that, right now, he cannot receive his state pension in stablecoin, but the fact that there is potential for that to evolve highlights the importance of the issues raised in this Question and of having exactly the right regulatory regime going forward.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I also want to thank the Lord Speaker for all he has done for this House.
Although popular with some young people and tech entrepreneurs, most of us have little idea of what cryptocurrencies entail, their benefits or disadvantages—despite this week’s speech by Sarah Breeden, the Bank of England Deputy Governor. To return to my recent theme of financial education, will the Government take steps—perhaps by issuing a discussion paper—to ensure that all of us, from schoolchildren to pensioners such as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, are better informed about them?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
There is definitely something worth considering in that. I have learnt a lot in preparation for this Question. I know very little about the subject, but much more than I did when I started. The noble Baroness raises an important question, in terms not only of financial education—obviously we should look at what she proposes—but of keeping consumers safe. The FCA financial promotion rules require promotions to be clear, fair and not misleading, with risk warnings displayed prominently, especially for high-risk investments. Firms must ensure promotions accurately reflect benefits and risks and consider the target audience, to help consumers make well-informed decisions. The FCA has also been cracking down on unlawful financial promotions by influencers as part of the regulatory regime being developed. The Treasury is working closely with the FCA to set conduct standards for firms.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I thank the Lord Speaker for all his service—a good fellow Scotsman and football fan. I also ask the House to note my interest as chairman of S&P Global. Does the Minister agree that stablecoin is like most other financial instruments: it depends on what is backing it and what is behind it? The important thing is not pace but the right regulation that creates the right environment for the UK to succeed and that ensures that people are protected by making sure that the assets that back stablecoin are there, available, and understood by consumers and businesses that use it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with every word that the noble Lord said. Absolutely, getting the regulatory regime right for this is important. As I said, we will bring forward that legislation by the end of the year.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Crypto and Digital Assets. Does not the Bank of England’s announcement that it plans to regulate how much stablecoin an individual can hold—I say for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that a stablecoin is simply a digital currency linked to a fiat currency—send a terrible signal to people who want to base their crypto businesses in the UK? Will he ask the Bank of England to publish its modelling? Its reasoning is based on the idea that unlimited holdings of stablecoins might lead to a run on bank deposits.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I am sure that, as chair of that group, he could help educate very many of us in this House. As I have said, the Government recognise that facilitating stablecoin innovation is important for UK competitiveness, but it is a matter for the Bank of England, as the independent regulator for systemic stablecoin, to design the regime it sees as necessary to manage the associated risks. As I understand it, in November 2023, the Bank published a discussion paper on its proposed regulatory regime for systemic payment systems using stablecoin, seeking industry feedback. Following further informal engagement, the Bank will formally consult on its systemic stablecoin regime in the coming months.
Telegraph Media Group: Ownership
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Twycross on 16 September (HL10228) and following media reports in August of Redbird Capital Partners’ formal notification to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to acquire Telegraph Media Group, when they will update Parliament on action they are taking to resolve the Telegraph’s ownership and ensure compliance with Chapter 3A of the Enterprise Act 2002.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Noble Lords may have seen press reports that the department has received a formal request from RedBird IMI to progress the sale of the call option to own the Telegraph. Thorough due diligence will be conducted on the proposed transaction, and should the Secretary of State have reasonable grounds to suspect either public interest or foreign state influence concerns, she will intervene. The Telegraph Media Group remains protected under pre-emptive action order. The Secretary of State will inform Parliament when regulatory decisions are made, as is consistent with standard practice.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that the formal bid has been received and that during this phase of scrutiny the existing protections for the Telegraph remain in place. I very much hope that the Secretary of State will soon be able to say that she is minded to involve the CMA and Ofcom in the scrutiny of this bid. That will be important, should she decide to give it the go-ahead, for our future confidence in the Telegraph’s editorial independence. Meanwhile, can the Minister please confirm that the regulations to prevent multiple 15% equity stakes from state investment funds will be laid before the end of this month and applied to this case? Will she also make clear—and confirm, I hope—that the 15% is an absolute cap, and that any financial arrangements such as debt or earnout on top of a state investment fund’s proposed 15% stake would go against the intention of those regulations?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her engagement, not least with me, with the Secretary of State and with officials, which has enabled us to get to what I hope everyone agrees is a better place than where we were previously. I would like to reassure her that we still intend to lay the regulations preventing multiple foreign state-owned investors owning an aggregate of more than 15% of UK newspapers by the end of this month. This cap will apply to any live merger at the time it comes into effect. The cap means that state-owned investors can own up to a maximum of 15% of the total shares or voting rights in a UK newspaper, provided that their investment is passive. We are absolutely clear that the overall intention of the policy is that a foreign state should not have any control or influence. This is what the Secretary of State considers carefully when she looks at the details of each case.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with all the comments about the Lord Speaker—or, at least, with all those that we have heard so far.
As we know, a fund with Abu Dhabi money, and probably Chinese money, is acquiring what in global terms is a small media player. It is relatively small, but the Telegraph is significant in the UK, and the best explanation of their motives that I can come up with is that they are buying influence. With that in mind, will the Minister commit that her department will investigate any prima facie breaches of the orders protecting the Telegraph from influence by RedBird—breaches that may already have occurred? Will she commit to publishing the investigation’s findings?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any live merger case, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware. Under the Enterprise Act this is a quasi-judicial process, and it is for the DCMS Secretary of State alone to exercise her statutory powers, based on the evidence and following the established regulatory process. As for publication, I will write to the noble Lord to clarify the points he raises.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, do we not need to review the whole issue of ownership of newspapers in the UK? Bearing in mind that papers such as the Express and the Mail are nothing more than propaganda, do we not need some balance in a democracy, to make sure that people who are rich do not influence our politics too much?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point. The ownership of our media is an interesting area. The tradition of having a broad church of opinions expressed through our media is important, and is one of the cornerstones of our democracy.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister for some clarification? She talked about a 15% limit for a foreign state having an interest, but what if a number of foreign states got together and each bought up to a maximum of 15%? Is that also being considered by the Government?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord’s point is exactly the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has been raising with the Government. It will be addressed by the statutory instrument that is intended to be laid by the end of the month.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, will the Secretary of State, as part of her consideration, keep open the possibility of invoking the National Security and Investment Act in this case, given the indirect involvement of China in the consortium bidding for the Telegraph?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s consideration is for her alone. However, noble Lords will be aware that it is possible to have cases of this nature considered under the National Security and Investment Act if the transaction is deemed to raise national security concerns.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we know from the witness statements released overnight that the Deputy National Security Adviser considers that China
“presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”,
but also that the present Government are
“committed to pursuing a positive economic relationship”
with it. Given that, and not in relation to the case under consideration but in general terms, can the Minister tell us what sort of percentage stake in a British newspaper the Government would be comfortable with a Chinese state investor obtaining?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will not go into hypothetical examples. All the instances raised would be examined on a case-by-case basis. The noble Lord will be aware that we are deeply disappointed that the case he referenced has not gone to trial; we really did want to see prosecutions.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I will ask the Minister a more general question. Are the Government considering whether 15% may be too high?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We have settled on 15% as the cumulative amount, and this House had the opportunity to debate it at some length in July. Whether that is one FSI, one state-owned investor or a number of state-owned investors, it will not exceed 15%. The Competition and Markets Authority has been clear that it does not consider that a material influence would be likely to occur below 25%, so 15% is well within that limit.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, on the topic of media ownership, can the Government please clarify why the Senedd is not having a say on the appointment of the chair of S4C?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will need to write to the noble Baroness on that matter, as it did not come up in the preparation for this Question and I do not want to give an incorrect answer.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Further to my noble friend Lord Newby’s question on whether China is part of the consortium, and given what the Deputy National Security Adviser said about China being a threat, why would this not automatically trigger a referral through the provisions under the National Security and Investment Act?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There are no specific rules relating to the media merger regime on hostile states, but the bar for intervention within the regime is low. I would like to reassure the noble Lord that any sale of the Telegraph will be subject to the regime. As I stated earlier, it could be considered under the National Security and Investment Act if the Secretary of State deems, in her considerations, that the transaction would raise national security concerns. As I said earlier, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a live merger case; this is a quasi-judicial process, and it is for the Secretary of State to determine the matter.
Youth Unemployment
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce youth unemployment.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, too many young people are at risk of being left behind without the right skills, opportunities and support to thrive. This Government are committed to changing that, which is why the Chancellor has announced a job guarantee scheme for young people on universal credit who have been unemployed for over 18 months. This is a key part of the Government’s youth guarantee, and further details will be set out in the upcoming Budget.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer, and I hope it all works. However, earlier this week, the ONS published the latest jobs data, which the Daily Telegraph reported by stating:
“Young workers are taking a particular beating in the jobs market, with a slump in graduate vacancies, and drops in hiring particularly in the retail and hospitality industries which often offer workers their first roles”.
Given this appalling backdrop, can the Minister explain why the Government, who say they are committed to this, have rejected my amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, which is universally supported by employers, and which would mitigate the effect of day-one unfair dismissal rights? That policy, if enacted, will obviously reduce employers’ willingness to take risks in hiring young people.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am always pleased to hear the views of the Daily Telegraph on issues around young people’s employment. I hope that the Telegraph, as well as the noble Lords opposite, will get behind this Government’s efforts on the youth guarantee and on cutting the unacceptably large number of young people who are currently neither earning nor learning. On the Employment Rights Bill, the Government aim to protect employees from arbitrary dismissal, including those early in their careers. A statutory probation period will be introduced with light-touch standards for fair dismissal based on performance and stability, and that approach appropriately balances worker protections with the need for employers to assess new hires confidently.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that a major factor in the persistence of youth unemployment is that 32% of 16 year-olds failed to achieve a grade 4 in English and Maths at GCSE in 2024? Does she also agree that the ongoing curriculum and assessment review, led by Professor Becky Francis, must reunite knowledge and skills in the school curriculum—they are two sides of the same coin—and provide routes for pupils to remain in education or training as a foundation for their future working lives?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that the opportunities that young people have throughout their lives are dependent on the standards, quality and success that they experience in schools. That is why we have already taken action to ensure that new routes are available for young people post-16—for example, through foundation apprenticeships—and why we have increased the support available to young people in colleges to get the qualifications in English and maths that are so important for them later in life. It is also why, through both Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review and the Government’s post-16 skills and education White Paper, we will have more to say about how we ensure that there are clear, successful routes for all our young people post-16.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am disappointed to hear the Minister, in discussing youth unemployment, mention universal credit and other such things. I ask the Minister to consider whether—as I would have thought—one of the basic ways of reducing youth unemployment is to encourage and introduce more apprentices. If only we had people who were encouraged financially by the Government in plumbing, electrical work and all the trades that people need; instead, we are using people from overseas because we are not training anyone. Are the Government giving financial incentives to the plumbers, electricians and so on to train the tradespeople for the future?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that we are indeed doing that. He is right that the fact that there has been a 40% reduction in young people starting apprenticeships over recent years is a shocking indictment of the previous Government’s approach to skills and the training of young people. That is why one of the measures we have introduced—just this August—is new foundation apprenticeships to support young people into employment in a range of different areas important both for them and the economy. Incidentally, they include a £2,000 incentive for the employer to take on those young people for training. We will have more to say about that and the opportunities for young people when we publish our post-16 White Paper.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, by way of illustration, I cite the example of my 23 year-old granddaughter, who has a first-class degree from the University of Birmingham in physics. She applied to over 200 potential employers and did not even get a reply from any of them. Can the Minister encourage such potential employers at least to have the courtesy of replying to the young?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about how employers should recognise the efforts that young people put into applying for those roles. We recognise that some graduates face challenges in getting jobs. However, it is still the case—and I hope the noble Lord’s granddaughter will be reassured by this—that UK graduates continue to have strong and above-average employment rates. If she or other graduates need additional help as well as comprehensive jobseeker support, graduates under 24 benefit from all of the tailored jobcentre offer available to all young people on universal credit.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister has been doing brilliant work on this agenda for decades, so it is great to see her in her place. Following on from the brilliant question from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, a moment ago, will the Minister tell us how many apprenticeships are provided in each government department? Will the Government set a commitment to increase that number, because I know that it is not high enough? Will the Government also place a duty on local councils to increase the number of apprenticeships that they provide? Will the Government consider requiring organisations and companies in receipt of public funds, such as housing associations or charities, to provide apprenticeships in return for receiving that support?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I do not have at my fingertips the numbers of apprentices employed in each of the government departments. He makes an important point about the role of the public sector, procurement and ensuring that we are linking government spending with the development of skills. That is certainly something that we are doing across government. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer about the significance of enabling young people to gain higher-level skills alongside the excellent opportunities provided by our universities, in setting, as he has done, a clear ambition for the Government to deliver for two-thirds of young people the opportunity of higher-level apprenticeships or higher technical qualifications or degrees. The Government will now get behind that ambition.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the curriculum review has been mentioned. Would not the Minister agree that it is really important that the curriculum is reset to reflect a well-rounded education? The arts have been diminished in schools in recent years, and the creative industries will be hugely important for our young people in terms of employment in the future.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Earl is right that, as part of the curriculum and assessment review, Becky Francis is considering the large amount of evidence that has been provided, and she has been clear in the challenge that the Government have set her, and that she has set herself, that maintaining a strong knowledge base within our curriculum is fundamentally important but so is providing the space for teachers and others to enable young people to develop their creativity in the very widest sense. I am sure we will hear more about that when the curriculum and assessment review is published.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, building on the answer that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Bousted, can she confirm that schools value all the various ways in which young people can move from education into further and higher education and into employment, and do not unnecessarily downgrade the virtue of, for example, BTECs and other forms of vocational qualifications, which I think historically has been the case?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think there have been improvements in careers education in recent years, something that this Government are determined to build on. One of the key points, as my noble friend says, is how we provide young people with information, advice and guidance on the whole range of opportunities available to them, both in academic routes through A-levels and in technical routes through T-levels and apprenticeships, which we are determined to support for younger people. We will have more to say about all that in our post-16 White Paper soon.
Police: Vetting, Training and Discipline
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the BBC Panorama documentary Undercover in the Police, what plans they have to change law or practice regarding police vetting, training or discipline.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The scenes in the documentary were simply unacceptable and deeply concerning. The Home Office supports the commissioner’s drive to root out those unfit to serve the public. The Government must improve standards nationally. That is why, earlier this year, the Government made changes to discipline and vetting, and we are intending to introduce further measures later this year to strengthen suspension arrangements and to put police vetting standards on a more robust legislative footing.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend the Minister. I gave him advance notice of a case of a 68 year-old man convicted in Guildford Crown Court just last week of a string of pretty horrific paedophile offences. During the trial, it emerged that he had served as a police CHIS spy for many years in the environmental movement. Of course, we subsequently legislated under the last Government to give advance criminal immunities to such people. Is it time to look again at whether the system is robust enough to protect in that necessarily shadowy area of police practice?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the conviction last week. Quite simply, it is unacceptable that individuals are involved in that type of behaviour while serving as police officers, undercover or not. She will be aware that there is a long-standing undercover policing inquiry, which is examining issues and will report to the Government as soon as practicable. I am expecting to be able to respond to those recommendations once they are produced.
In the meantime, and this is the important point for the House as a whole, the Government have improved vetting and are committed to strengthening police vetting. The measures that we have brought forward this year and also in the Crime and Policing Bill, which coincidentally is before the House today, are ones which will strengthen to ensure that we root out individuals who are not suitable to hold the badge of honour of a police officer in the United Kingdom.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, is it not possible to accept that what we have got is a situation, which nobody seems to want to address, where we have a class divide in the police force? We have a situation where people from the working classes join the police force and, unless we move around and start bringing in more middle-class people, we are always going to be running into problems caused by the class division of the police force. I have noticed this over many years.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As somebody from proud working-class stock, I do not accept that individuals who are from working-class stock are more substantially susceptible to committing offences and not being good police officers. I do not know whether that was what the noble Lord intended in his comments, but I will robustly defend police recruiting from all sides of the community, and social mobility, so that people who join the force as working-class officers can one day end up as chief constable. We will ensure that we have proper vetting in place to ensure that people are tested and supported. Ultimately, we have to have a police force that reflects the whole community. That means one that holds proper standards and I commit that to the House.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, while vetting and training are clearly important, perhaps more important is the authority and supervision of those who are in control and authority over a station, unit or wider area.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Viscount is absolutely right. It is very important that we have training and professionalism of those who are in a position of influence and power in smaller units within the police force. Obviously, the particular case in front of us related to one particular police station in central London, and the undercover reporter revisited that police station to find that there was not an improvement in behaviour. Ten officers have been referred to the IOPC. Their behaviour is on camera but, self-evidently, local leadership should have spotted those issues in the first instance. That is something that the Metropolitan Police itself will be reviewing in its review once the IOPC has determined what action should be taken against the officers in question.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, what we saw on our TV some weeks ago just goes to show that, since the Macpherson report came out, talking about institutional racism, nothing much has changed. We have talked about it over the past 30 years, but we are still talking about the same thing now. When are we going to find that police officers begin to respect the community that they are policing, and the community has respect for them? Unless we do something within government, nothing is going to change. What has the Minister to say about that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, and she knows more than anybody else in this House how important it is that the police have the confidence of the community and that the community has confidence in policing. It is essential for public confidence that strict standards are upheld. I reassure my noble friend that we have taken action in the past 12 months to include new vetting standards, but, if she looks at the proposals for legislation in the next 12 months, she will see that that will put in place a range of measures to ensure that incidents to do with misogyny, racial hatred, sexual orientation and other transgressions by officers are dealt with speedily and effectively by the police. It goes back to a range of issues, but I hope that, this time next year, I will be able to give my noble friend greater confidence that the police have competence to deal with these issues.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the “Panorama” exposé and the 17 deaths in or following police custody last year cast serious doubt on the independent custody visitor scheme. Evidence shows that it neither influences police nor ensures robust oversight. Does the Minister agree that the scheme requires urgent reform, needs to be totally independent and should not remain the responsibility of police and crime commissioners?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will look at the points that she has raised. It is an important issue. I happen to think that it is important that there is an inspection regime of police custody. She has raised some particular concerns today. I will reflect on those and discuss them with my colleague the police Minister and respond to her in due course.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I was about to say that I share the sentiments being expressed here today. The issue, I feel, is one not of legal adequacy but of management oversight, training methods, accountability and, indeed, discipline. Speaking as somebody who spent over 30 years in a once very disciplined organisation, I ask the Minister whether he shares my disappointment that there is little evidence of progress being made in recent years in these areas, particularly within the Metropolitan Police? What further action is the Home Office taking to ensure that senior officers, from the very top down, are effectively holding their officers to account, and to improve public confidence in the police?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. Going back to the question from the noble Viscount, leadership—understanding performance and showing leadership—is extremely critical. The Home Office is this year funding the College of Policing to look at ongoing support for police leadership, and we have given £2.6 million this year to do that. We have also set, and are examining still with the College of Policing and with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, national leadership standards. We will continue to work with the college to ensure that we improve standards of police training. That goes from chief constables down and I certainly endorse the comments that the noble Lord made.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, first, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made an interesting point and, although I support the Minister’s response about class, to get more people from different classes to aspire to be police leaders would be helpful, because that is not often the answer we receive from children and other people in the working-class group. Some appalling behaviour was seen. In the review that has been suggested, one of the important things is, obviously, to get rid of these people as quickly as possible, which the commissioner has said that he wants to do. Would the review please take seriously the option of changing from a constable status to that of an employee? Police employment regulations, which are secondary legislation, frankly delay everything and put lawyers into the system, which slows it down, and then they still have an opportunity to access an employment tribunal, should they be able to allege improper prejudice. Will the Minister please take seriously the option of having employee status, as they do in New Zealand?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an interesting suggestion from the noble Lord, who has great experience in this field, given his previous role as Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I can assure him that the 10 officers involved in this incident are having an expedited hearing. I think the evidence is very strong. I cannot determine the outcome: that is for the IOPC. Ultimately, I will examine his suggestion again. I think the key thing is that, if incidents such as this occur, they are expedited as quickly as possible and lessons are learned, but also that strong messages are sent that the type of behaviour in the “Panorama” exposé is simply not acceptable in the 21st century from any police officer.
Middle East
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, when the Lord Speaker told me last night of his decision to retire early, I was overwhelmed by the sense of his love for his wife of 56 years that led to the decision. There will be another time for tributes, but I would like the Lord Speaker to know how much he himself is loved in this House, and he and Joan will be in our thoughts and prayers in the time ahead.
Everyone in this House will welcome the wide acceptance of the US-led plan, and I congratulate all those regional and world leaders who played a decisive role in helping the stage 1 ceasefire become a reality. It represents a significant breakthrough, on which we all hope a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza and a better, peaceful future can be built.
Let us be clear: the unique personality and drive of President Trump have moved the dial in a way that very few, until a very few days ago, ever believed possible. He deserves the highest praise for that. Frankly, how foolish those such as Sir Edward Davey, who boasted of boycotting the President’s state visit, must now feel.
But having moved the dial, we now have to move mountains. Ending permanently a crisis of long decades, comprising hatreds intensified in war and death, will be a monumental challenge. Yet it can and must succeed. The release of the hostages, who should never have been taken, taunted, tortured and abused, brings to their families and all the people of Israel a joy and relief that we all share. But now, Hamas must end its sick games with the families of the hostages it murdered in those hundreds of miles of dark tunnels on which it squandered international aid. None of us can ever comprehend how the families of those lost people must be feeling. All the bodies of the deceased hostages must be returned for proper burial, as the Prime Minister has emphasised. Does the noble Baroness have any further information on this?
When we hear some of the comments prophesying failure of the international initiative when it has barely started, and see continuing antisemitic demonstrations on our streets, even on 7 October, many of us must ask ourselves whether some people actually want the prize of peace. The noble Baroness must be absolutely assured of our support for the Government in all they have done and can do in the future in helping to carry forward the international plan.
It is true that we believe that the Government’s action in recognising a Palestinian state while Hamas was still in control of Gaza was a serious error. Secretary of State Rubio had said it was unhelpful to finding a sustainable end to the conflict, and we agree. We support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people; but will the noble Baroness assure us that the UK Government, on this and other matters, will now proceed in lockstep with the Sharm el-Sheikh plan? Does she agree that if the Palestinian Authority is to have an expanded role, it needs to implement the most significant reforms in its history, including to its welfare and education policies—and, of course, it must demonstrate democratic progress? Can the noble Baroness tell the House how the British Government will be assisting in that? Can she also update the House on the latest position in respect of our role in getting humanitarian assistance into Gaza, whose people have suffered so long and so much? Can she say how we will ensure that aid does not go into the hands of the murderous thugs of Hamas?
The barbaric sight of Hamas lining up and filming bound Muslims being shot publicly in the back of the neck is something that even Stalin thought best hidden in the cellars of the Lubyanka. It was a micro-image of the terror that Hamas has inflicted on its own people, in addition to its never-to-be-forgotten atrocities of October 7 against the State of Israel and people who had committed no crime except to be born Jews. Hamas has no regard for human life or human dignity. Do the Government agree that Hamas must be erased absolutely from the political map of Gaza for ever, its terrorist infrastructure completely dismantled, and the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism confronted everywhere across the world and here in our own homeland? Has the noble Baroness any update for the House on the formation of an international force to provide security in Gaza, as the international plan envisages?
Finally, I welcome the tone of the Prime Minister’s Statement and also that of the Home Secretary on the evil of antisemitism and the mania of libel against Jews. We condemn any assault or threat to anyone on the basis of their faith and beliefs. The outrage at Peacehaven has no place in Britain. The Home Secretary was refreshing in her frankness—not always heard from within her party in recent years, as some in this House can very well testify—that Islamist terrorism and its twisted ideology are our greatest domestic threat, and that antisemitism is on the march across communities, in our schools, universities and even the NHS, and threatening Members of your Lordships’ House as they try to come and go to and from this place. The Government will have our fullest support for decisive action in those areas, as the Home Secretary has promised.
Can the noble Baroness say whether any of the measures foreshadowed by the Home Secretary can be included in the crime Bill, which is before us today? It is good that protection for Jewish institutions is being stepped up, but we need to return to a society where no Jewish person feels that they have to be protected. We must aspire to a world where all the children of the Middle East are educated not in hate but in harmony, and where that great region—the cradle of so much that is good in the history of humanity—spends its inestimable material and human resources not on guns but on growth; and where all their ways are gentleness and all their paths are peace.
Yes, it will be a giant task to bring the international plan to fruition, but we must all put our shoulder to the wheel, and every step that our Prime Minister takes to help make it happen will have our strongest support.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I too thank the Lord Speaker for his work in this House, his decades of public service and the very personal nature of his statement, which highlighted the sacrifice that many of our loved ones and family members make when we carry out our public duties. We look forward to hearing tributes to him and his role.
I preface my remarks, as I did in my first comment as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House, by calling for a Statement from the Government on Sudan and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and I repeat that to the Leader.
I wish to start my remarks on the Middle East by condemning the horrific incidents of antisemitism that we have seen in our communities. Alas, the most recent has not been isolated, and we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our Jewish community is not only safe but feels safe in our country. In too many situations, it is and has not. Also, too many young Muslims are fearful of Islamophobia, and even if we see the sustaining of the ceasefire and the eventual peace that we all hope for, we must be aware that one of the likely legacies of this war will be seen in our communities for years to come. We must be prepared for that.
The excruciating and sometimes performative press events that we have seen in the last few days, while children without shelter continue to suffer, mean that healing is going to be important. These too frequent political stunts, when there is a humanitarian crisis continuing, should be very sobering for us. The hostage returns are extremely welcome and an enormous relief for the families—it was a reprehensible war crime for Hamas to have held them in the way that it did—and the return of the bodies of those who, sadly, lost their lives may mean some healing for those who have suffered.
The scale of the recovery is going to be enormous, in both physical and mental terms. Eighty years on, in this country, we collectively recall the Blitz and the damage and trauma it inflicted on London. During the Second World War, 20,000 bombs were dropped on London—a terrifying figure. In Gaza, geographically a quarter of the size of London, 70,000 tonnes of bombs have been dropped in two years. The level of destruction inflicted on London then resulted in over 2.7 million tonnes of rubble needing to be cleared, which literally took well over a decade to complete. In Gaza—remember, a quarter of the footprint of London—the scale of the bombardment has resulted in 60 million tonnes of rubble, more than 20 times that of the Blitz on London.
My first question to the Leader is: what role will the UK play in the enormous task of the scale of the recovery that will be necessary, including rubble clearance and the commencement of reconstruction? We will have to operate at scale, and therefore I appeal to the Government again to move towards restoring our commitment on international development assistance. The reduction to 0.3% by the current Government, with the Opposition now stating that it will reduce it to next to zero, is not right. We need to step up our humanitarian support for the reconstruction of Gaza, not leave the room.
The impact on civilians is well reported: the starvation, the denial of anaesthesia for operations on children, and the creation of conditions that have seen Hamas gangsterism continue. Yet the underreported but grim task—with the likely thousands of corpses that will need to be identified under the rubble—is only now commencing.
When I visited the Gaza border last year, I was struck by the constant nature of the explosions, fire, jet aircraft howls and the dull but persistent sound and sight of drones. Imagine our children not having a single night when this has not been ever present for two years. The psychological and mental scars are deep: an entire generation of children are traumatised. Also, we know that Israeli youngsters, who did not want war or had any role in the policy of having a war, have had their national service and served their nation, but they have gone through hell in the process. Two sets of communities are deeply scarred. So when we talk about peace, we need to understand fully what it will mean, because the trauma will be present—and it is deep.
Therefore, I close with a specific appeal to the Leader, which I have raised previously, on what role the UK can play. We need clarity from the Government on what level of support they will provide to the Palestinian Authority, which is likely to be the transitional authority, and what practical measures the UK will be providing. The UK has excellent experience of post-conflict reconstruction, and we have professionalism and good relations—how are we going to exploit that?
What relationship will the UK have with the emerging stabilisation force? As I saw in the work I carried out in north Iraq after Daesh had occupied Mosul, the UK can play a very important role in restoring education and child trauma support, especially the psychosocial support that is needed. Recovery from the horror must be immediate, intensive and accessible, and the UK can play a direct role in having immediate pop-up education and child trauma centres constructed immediately. This should not be an add-on to the process. There is no mention of education and child support in the 20-point plan from the United States. I hope the Leader may be willing to meet me and some colleagues with regard to ensuring that, if we talk about peace, it is for the long term, not just an immediate ceasefire.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I will briefly make a comment about the Lord Speaker. He is a personal friend, and I first met him in about 1984, because we were both candidates in the 1987 election for the first time. The reasons why he is standing down go to the heart of the integrity of the man. We will miss him, but we will enjoy working with him as he finishes his term before he stands down.
I thank both noble Lords for the comments they made and their tone, and particularly the support to the Government for the work we are undertaking. This is not a party-political issue: across the world, parties have come together and countries are coming together to take part in the process of the ceasefire and what comes next. We all know from experience that, when you have a plan to move forward, there are times when the next step forward is imperfect, sometimes inadequate and difficult, but that step-by-step approach takes us to a place where people can be safe.
We have seen over the past two years, when the hostages were first taken, that there are things that cannot be undone. We cannot unsee the images we saw on our TVs when we saw those hostages being taken, or when we saw children starving in Gaza and houses bombed, but neither can we unsee the joy and the relief of the families who have seen their loved ones returned after the horrors they went through. The noble Lord is right to talk about releasing all the hostages. It is a tragedy that some are now being returned as bodies to be buried, but, for their families to be able to grieve, they must see all the hostages returned. I hope that international efforts can be brought to bear on that.
The noble Lord said he felt the recognition of the Palestinian state was the wrong thing to do. I would challenge that. I think all these things are process, and the only way forward for genuine peace—with a secure, stable and confident Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state—is to have that two-state solution. The recognition of Palestine, along with other countries, as we saw, was very important in that. It is interesting that, after the other countries and the UK recognised Palestine, we saw the Arab countries also condemn Hamas, which we had not seen before. I say to the noble Lord that the path to peace is often an imperfect one, but it has to be taken to ensure the safety of people.
Both noble Lords asked about next steps. The path to peace is going to be difficult, which is why the Wilton Park conference on reconstruction, identifying the ways forward and the role different countries can play will be so important. More detail on that will become available as the conference progresses. I also say that the role of Sir Michael Barber as the UK envoy for Palestinian Authority governance will be crucial in all of this. The noble Lord, Lord True, for the Opposition, asked about issues such as education and the health service in reconstructing Gaza. There is not a viable state there, in the sense that it does not have the public service infrastructure. Dealing with that, and the point he made about the support needed for young people, particularly in the trauma centres, is all going to be part of having a viable state: you have to have a viable public sector that can deliver the services that people need. The work that he will be undertaking, which is also part of a reform agenda, to strengthen the capacity for delivery and improve the service provision, will be essential for the Palestinian Authority to be able to build an effective State of Palestine and take on the full responsibilities there. We need to empower and help form that Palestinian Authority.
On the other point, about how you ensure this, there will now be more agencies on the ground, and it will be important that we see journalists now having access, so that there can be reports back and public awareness. I can easily restate that there is no role for Hamas in the Government of Palestine. I think the Prime Minister has been very clear on that. It is absolutely crucial that Hamas decommissions its weapons, and that is a precursor to seeing a genuine, sustainable and lasting peace as well.
Both noble Lords made comments on the rise in antisemitism in the country, which alarms us all, but one of the things that alarms me most is the blatant voicing of that—people seem to have a new confidence in expressing antisemitism. I think that goes alongside the rise, but it is equally important to address it. There can be no acceptance of antisemitism or Islamophobia in this country. When our Jewish community does not feel safe, that damages us all. The Government have provided about £80 million funding for CST, and that will continue, but I think all of us have to call out antisemitism, even in its most minor forms, as and when we hear it. It can never be tolerated and it is never acceptable, and we will be failing in our duty to our Jewish community if we do not call it out at each and every opportunity we are called to do so.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps inevitably, there is rather little detail in the Statement. However, it does say—I think that this was endorsed by my noble friend the Leader of the House just now—that
“a viable Palestinian state is the only way to secure, lasting peace for the Middle East”.
Can my noble friend say what discussions the Government are currently having with President Trump and his senior colleagues on how to prevent further illegal settlements on the West Bank, which will surely prevent a viable Palestinian state?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right on that, and it is important that there is a viable Palestinian state across the West Bank as well. She will be aware, as I mentioned in my answer, of the reconstruction conference taking place at Wilton Park, which will bring all countries together, including the US and the UK. At the heart of that discussion are how we bring a lasting peace to the region and what reconstruction, support and action are needed. There is also the 20-point plan—it is called a peace plan, but it is a route to a plan in many ways. Those are very much items that are key to the agenda of the summit.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, there should not be any doubt that the Palestinian Authority is riddled with corruption from the top to the bottom. It uses formal and informal security forces to intimidate opposition and has been involved in the murder of opposition individuals. It uses its system to promote death against Jews through its education system—the latest books are outrageous. It gives pensions to people who kill Jews. What reforms are the Government going to press upon the Palestinian Authority, which is despised by most Palestinians, to ensure that it can participate in the peace process?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Across the region, it has been clear, including from President Abbas, that there needs to be change in the Palestinian Authority. One of the roles of Michael Barber is to shore up the Palestinian Authority and ensure that, where there is corruption, it is rooted out. We have to have a reformed state. Unless we have security in Palestine and security in Israel, there will not be a lasting peace. That does not mean that anybody is saying that things are working well or could work well easily; it means there are several challenges, and he has outlined some of those. Unless we make some progress and get some capacity into that state, working across the world—I come back to the Wilton Park conference, in which I think that is absolutely crucial—we are not going to see the progress. There has to be a viable state and the credibility and confidence of the people of Palestine as well.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, disarming Hamas will be extraordinarily difficult, but the task will be much harder if, in the meantime, Iran is surreptitiously seeking to rearm it. I would not expect the noble Baroness the Leader to go into detail, but can she reassure the House that sufficient attention will be paid to the potential for further malign Iranian influence in the tragedy of Gaza?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord makes a valid point. We are talking about quite a wide issue and other players in this have made it more difficult to resolve the problem. He can be assured that that is very much on the agenda and is taken note of in all the discussions taking place.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel and make a plea for the people of Gaza. We have talked about all the things that can happen in the long and even medium term but at the moment, with the removal of the IDF from areas of Gaza, people are taking rampant action to terrorise the people of Gaza, with the continual help of Hamas. What are our Government and Governments in the region doing to produce a force which will police Gaza and protect the people of Gaza from anybody trying to destroy the reconstruction of the area? It needs to be done sooner rather than put on the back burner.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that anything is being put on the back burner. The conference and the discussions that have taken place show how much at the front of the agenda this is, with not just the UK and American Governments but all those countries taking part. He talked about the urgency of the issues. We had the conference last week and discussions are going on at Wilton Park. It is about how quickly we can get the support and the protections in. I can assure him there is no suggestion whatever that any of these issues will be on the back burner. I am sure he did not mean to suggest that. The priority is very much getting aid and support in, and dealing with those who do not want peace. The priority has to be a sustainable peace, with reconstruction that brings lasting peace but with a kind of normality. We need to have the health service, the education system, and all these public services up and running for the people in Gaza. It is on the front burner, definitely not the back.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, the release of the hostages and the peace in Gaza were greeted with enormous joy in Israel and Gaza. It was a remarkable event. We know it is the first step, but what surprised, and angers and frustrates, me is that there were men and women marching on the streets of the UK, wishing that the peace had not happened. They were supporting Hamas. They wanted Hamas to continue to kill Israelis. What can the Government do to prevent the spread of such malign messaging? It is not simply support for the Palestinians and the two-state solution—which, incidentally, I am fully in favour of. We must stop this malign messaging. What can we do?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord hits on something particularly tricky. I can only utterly condemn those who did not support the process and did not share in the joy of the ceasefire. Marching on the streets of this country in support of Hamas is completely and utterly wrong, and should never happen or be tolerated. He will have heard the words of the Home Secretary on these issues. Let us be clear: the only way forward is to have tolerance, understanding and a demand for peace. Those who try to thwart that are wrong, and we will have to look at how it can be dealt with. There is no place at all for support for Hamas and no role at all for Hamas.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, from these Benches, I join others in expressing deep appreciation and thanks to the Lord Speaker for his service to this House and assure him of our continued support in the coming months. Noble Lords may be aware that efforts are under way to rebuild the Al-Ahli hospital, managed by the Anglican diocese of Jerusalem. It remains the only hospital in operation in the north of Gaza, but most of its buildings are in ruins following multiple airstrikes earlier this year. Hospital staff have remained in place throughout the conflict. They are now in urgent need of medical supplies to continue to deliver life-saving treatment. I ask the Minister to bring her influence urgently to bear to ensure that financial support and medical supplies reach the hospital so that it can continue to serve the people of north Gaza.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments on that and about the Lord Speaker. He is absolutely right that healthcare, particularly in hospitals, is an acute issue. Some of the support that the UK has already announced is specifically for healthcare and given to UK-Med as well. Healthcare and education are those building blocks of life, without which Gazans cannot flourish or even start to lead a normal life that leads towards a long and lasting peace. I can assure him it is at the forefront of the discussions that are taking place.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to recognise those Hamas officials and operatives acting within the Palestinian state so they do not try to rebadge themselves as Palestinian Ministers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is a valid point. We have made it clear there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state or in the governance of Palestine. Part of the work at Wilton Park will be to say how we identify that and how we manage this. We have seen it happen in other areas as well. We have to ensure that there is full decommissioning and a state that has the confidence of the people of Palestine and the region, because the region as a whole has to be secure. Israel has to feel safe and secure, as does Palestine.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent)
My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords to speak, so we will go to the Liberal Democrats and then to our colleague from the Cross Benches.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I am president of Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine. I absolutely accept what the Leader of the House just said about Hamas. It is coming up a lot that Hamas has no place in any future governance of a free and independent Palestine. I think everyone agrees on that. The tributes to the Arab and Muslim countries, which have been vital and instrumental in bringing this about, have been very well placed. I am particularly pleased that Turkey’s President Erdoğan has played such a key role, as was emphasised by President Trump, to put pressure on Hamas to agree to this deal and to all the conditions on it to disarm.
We are now in a very fragile moment between phase 1 and phase 2. Phase 1 is clear now: the urgent need is for aid to come in. The Rafah crossing is still closed.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I am being heckled, and I am going to continue. I am not going to be bullied by Conservatives. There is an urgent need for aid and there has not been enough emphasis on that. The Rafah crossing is still closed, aid is not getting through and people are still suffering. Medical aid has not got through. There are 20,000 orphan children, at least. What special emphasis will be placed in the discussions on all those children who have nobody, who are orphaned and need special protection? I ask the Minister, as my noble friend did, about the protection for children, particularly in Palestine.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There were a number of items in there, particularly on the aid being delivered—the noble Baroness asked about the Rafah crossing. It was opened briefly, then closed again; my understanding is that preparations are now being made to reopen it. Though airdrops are clearly a useful way of getting aid in, it has to get in through lorries. I saw either yesterday or this morning that Tom Fletcher was out there working on that as well.
The noble Baroness makes a particular point about the children of Gaza, and she is absolutely right to do so. The traumas many of those children are going to feel from what they have been through will be enormous. Looking at the reconstruction conference taking place at Wilton Park, and the work that Michael Barber is doing as the UK envoy in Palestine, one of the issues has to be looking at the services that are available and how they could be provided at pace, and ongoing. You need recognition that life is not going to be normal; it is not a ceasefire followed by life as normal the next day. The infrastructure of the country is in a dire state. We have heard from the right reverend Prelate about hospitals and schools being destroyed. There is so much work to be done, but the efforts should be in ensuring that those young people growing up now will be part of the future of their country. They can do that only if the right support is in place now and the traumas they have been through, and the tragedies they have suffered, are also dealt with in a way that allows them to play a full part in being the future of their state.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, there will be a different assessment of the role of the United Nations through this conflict. Some will point to the way in which the organisations strive to get aid in; others will point to the many mistakes and failings. But do the Government recognise that the UN has fundamentally lost the confidence of key agents in the Middle East, not least the United States, and Israel itself, and therefore will they commit to working to restore that confidence, including by extensive reform of the institution in key areas?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is important that there is confidence in those institutions, and I think changes have already been made, particularly to UNRWA. But it is agencies on the ground that have experience and infrastructure that will be the ones that will be the best at getting that aid in. So we will take that support to get aid in from those agencies with experience. But, yes, there has to be a building of confidence across the whole region, in all the institutions. I come back to the point that we have not seen journalists in Gaza, and I think part of having that public reporting will also be very important going forward.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with a coalition of oil states having agreed to contribute to Gaza’s reconstruction—and it is inconceivable they will do so if Hamas threatens their potential investment—is it not possible that a population tired of conflict will now want to organise for that reconstruction by seeking to exclude the men of violence? To help that process, can we all support the fostering of a new civil and military authority that promotes that agenda, while at the same time avoiding action that accelerates the movement into the West Bank of those identified as committed to violence, where, if we fail to secure movement on an independent Palestinian state, they are likely to regroup in furtherance of their campaign? And can I personally pay tribute to the Lord Speaker, on his retirement notice, for the service he has given Parliament over the 40 years I have known him? Thank you.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, and his comments about the Lord Speaker. I am not sure I fully understand his question, but it is quite clear that those who have been involved in violence, including Hamas, cannot be part of the future going forward. I think that is absolutely clear and should remain the position. There will be no change to that. There will be a temporary, transitional Government—a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee—and that is the way to go forward.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that rabid antisemitism is being taught in Palestinian schools, which is reminiscent of the narrative of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, and that this is actually in part financed by the British taxpayer?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, any promotion of antisemitism, wherever it takes place, is always wrong. The key thing in the education systems of both Palestine and Israel is that they should promote dialogue between the two countries and also promote peace and collaboration between them.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
The noble Baroness made a couple of references to the importance of the press. Could she update the House on exactly where negotiations are about letting in companies such as the BBC, the Times and the New York Times?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have not got any more specific information for the noble Baroness. We have made it clear that journalists should be allowed back in, because it is reporting: it is the disinfectant of sunlight, in a sense, is it not? Information is the best disinfectant and more information would be very helpful. We are committed to that and we are pressing for it at all times.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
It is worth remembering that there are five refugee camps in Gaza alone. Those refugee camps have been there for five generations. Around 90% of people in them have never had a job in their life. The hatred in those refugee camps is immense. It is going to take 50, 60 or 70 years, at least, before we enable normal relationships between Israelis and those living locally. Can the Minister do something about it?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
All of us will do our best. The noble Lord makes an important point, which is that the path to peace is a process. It is never a moment; it is something that is ongoing. Members of the House will recall the process of bringing peace to Northern Ireland: it was not easy. At times, the steps that are taken forward are imperfect, inadequate and unsatisfactory. But they are steps forward. At each stage, we have to recognise where the goal is. The prize of peace, for people in that region, has to be the greatest prize ever for the children, the young people and the old people. Just think about it: people going about their lives saw their loved ones snatched and taken as hostages, and people trying to live their lives in Gaza saw their homes, their hospitals and their schools destroyed. So the path will be difficult and rocky. I do not know whether I recognise the timescale the noble Lord offered, but each day forward when people are not being killed is progress, and that is what we aim for.
Crime and Policing Bill
Thursday 16th October 2025
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 June 2025 - (18 Jun 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to disappoint anybody, but I am not my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint; it would not be a very convincing impersonation, not least because he is sitting next to me. Noble Lords will all have the pleasure of hearing from him later on.
This Bill reflects not only our manifesto commitments but demonstrates the careful stocktake we have made of the important parts of our criminal justice system and our determination to improve the law where needed. It aims to keep citizens safer and more confident in the daily lives of all of us and I am proud of our proposals. They are fair, proportionate and add to the law where needed.
As part of the Bill’s driving force, which is to make people and communities safer, it will build on what we have done already in the past year to rebuild neighbourhood policing. We are restoring public trust in the criminal justice system through the delivery of our safer streets mission and aim to halve—yes, halve—knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade.
For too long, neighbourhood policing has been neglected and downgraded. That has ended. We are already delivering on our commitments, with 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of the Parliament, backed by £200 million in new funding this year. Alongside this investment, the Bill brings in new respect orders to tackle persistent offenders who engage in the anti-social behaviour that blights our town centres. There are also enhanced powers to tackle the anti-social use of cars and off-road bikes. The police will now be able to seize these without first having to give a warning.
Everyone should feel safe when they are at work. This Bill delivers stronger action to protect shop workers. Assaulting a shop worker will be a bespoke criminal offence with a presumption that the courts will, on conviction, impose a criminal behaviour order on offenders. We are also repealing the provision that treats low-value shop theft as a minor offence. Shoplifting is not minor, and we are sending a clear message that all shop theft should be taken seriously. I know both these measures will be particularly welcomed by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
Part 2 of the Bill brings in Ronan’s law. We are clamping down on dangerous knives and weapons on our streets by introducing a duty on retailers to report bulk sales of knives and offensive weapons, increasing the maximum penalty for offences relating to the sale of knives to children and strengthening the age-verification requirements for the online sale and delivery of bladed products and crossbows. We are also delivering on our manifesto commitment to hold senior managers of online platforms personally liable for failure to take action to remove illegal content relating to knives and offensive weapons.
I turn now to violence against women and children. The prevalence of violence and abuse against women and children defiles our society. We need more effective enforcement action against perpetrators and better protection for victims. To this end, the Bill strengthens stalking protection orders and the management of registered sex offenders, including preventing them changing their names on official identity documents where they pose a risk of sexual harm.
The Bill also creates a new offence of administering a harmful substance, including by spiking, to make it absolutely clear that such behaviour is illegal and encourage victims to report such incidents.
Recognising how dangerous online material is in perpetuating the growing epidemic of violence against women and girls, we will bring forward amendments in your Lordships’ House to criminalise pornography that depicts acts of strangulation and suffocation. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her tireless work culminating in the pornography review which recommended that action be taken in this area.
Child sexual abuse and exploitation are among the most despicable crimes imaginable. It is estimated that half a million children every year experience some form of child sexual abuse. Alongside the new national inquiry recommended by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, we are pleased to be pressing ahead with the implementation of some of the key recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
As a result, the Bill creates a new duty to report child sexual abuse, backed up by strong criminal sanctions for those who seek to cover up such abuse by preventing or deterring a person from carrying out the duty. It makes grooming a statutory aggravating factor when sentencing and removes the three-year time limit for civil personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.
Part 5 of the Bill also helps to tackle the rising levels of online child sexual abuse. In particular, the Bill provides for new criminal offences to stop—and we mean stop—AI-facilitated child sexual abuse and hold accountable those who commit or enable these vile crimes. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her earlier advocacy of the new child sexual abuse image-generator offence.
The Bill also provides enhanced protections for children and vulnerable adults against their exploitation for criminal purposes. First, it provides for a new offence of child criminal exploitation, where an adult intentionally uses a child to commit criminal activity. To complement this new offence, the Bill also provides for child criminal exploitation prevention orders to help prevent the criminal exploitation of children occurring. Secondly, the Bill introduces a new offence to tackle the practice of cuckooing, where criminals take over the home of a vulnerable person for the purpose of illegal activity, such as drug dealing. Thirdly, the Bill creates a new offence to combat coerced internal concealment, or plugging, where children or vulnerable adults are coerced into concealing drugs or other items in their body for criminal purposes, typically as part of a county lines operation.
We also recognise how dangerous online material is in perpetuating the growing epidemic of violence against women and girls. We committed in the other place to criminalising pornography that depicts acts of strangulation and suffocation in this Bill, and we will shortly bring forward an amendment to that effect.
I turn now to children who are victims of child sexual abuse. As noble Lords will be aware, 10 years ago the Street Offences Act 1959 was amended so that the offences of persistent loitering or soliciting in a public place for the purposes of prostitution no longer applied to children. Parliament was right to do that because it recognised that children, because they are children, involved in such conduct are not criminals but the victims of sexual exploitation. I am pleased to say that we will bring forward amendments in this House to introduce a new disregards and pardons scheme for anyone convicted or cautioned as a child for these offences.
I now turn to policing. We will address the need to rebuild trust in policing. In some serious and worrying cases, public confidence has been undermined by atrocious criminality and misconduct by a very small minority of officers. Deterrence and punishment of such misconduct is a priority for this Government, as it is for the police. A key strand of the Government’s safer streets mission is to increase public confidence in policing and the wider criminal justice system.
Since 2017, the College of Policing has operated a police barred list—an advisory list which ensure that those officers who are dismissed by a police force in England and Wales are prevented from just joining another force. Such individuals have no place in policing. The Bill extends this approach, ensuring that officers dismissed at disciplinary proceedings from the National Crime Agency and other specialist police forces cannot be re-employed by another force.
It is vital that the system of police accountability commands the confidence of both the public and the police. As a society we rely on the professionalism and bravery of firearms officers who put their own lives at risk to keep us all safe. Thankfully, the occasions where the police have to use lethal force in this country are few and far between. When they do so, it is entirely right that officers are accountable for their actions. But those accountability arrangements must be proportionate, timely and fair to all concerned. Regrettably, this is not currently the case. Measures proposed in the Bill will improve the timeliness and appropriateness of investigations by the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the rights of victims. That said, if firearms officers are charged with offences relating to and committed during their duties, the Bill will protect them from violent reprisals by establishing a presumption of anonymity in criminal proceedings up to the point of sentence.
The public rightly want to see crimes solved and offenders brought to justice. To do this, the police must have the necessary tools to do their job. If someone has their mobile phone stolen and the victim can trace its whereabouts, the Bill ensures that the police have the powers to enter premises quickly and, if necessary, without a warrant, to recover electronically tracked stolen goods.
It is also vital that police powers keep in step with the march of technology in other respects. Evidence of criminality is no longer routinely stored on a computer hard drive; it is instead held remotely in the cloud. The Bill clarifies the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies can access such information, subject to strong safeguards, as they investigate offences ranging from child sexual abuse to fraud and terrorism, thereby protecting the public and our borders.
The Bill also ensures that law enforcement agencies have the necessary powers to combat other forms of technology-enabled crime. We are banning the possession and supply of SIM farms, save where there are legitimate uses such as in broadcasting. We are giving the police and others the power to suspend IP addresses and domain names used to commit fraud or other serious crimes, such as the so-called pimping websites involved in commercial sexual exploitation.
I turn to protests. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to our vibrant democracy, but in facilitating peaceful protest, the police also have a duty to uphold the rights of others not to be harassed or intimidated and to go about their daily lives without serious disruption. The Bill ensures that the police have the powers they need to protect places of worship from intimidatory protests and protects specified war and other memorials, including the Cenotaph and the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square, that have been the target of protest action. A new targeted offence of concealing identity at designated protests will strengthen police powers to require the removal of face coverings at protests where violence or other criminality either has occurred or is likely to occur.
The precious right to engage in peaceful protest and the equally precious entitlement to freedom of speech do not extend to threatening or abusing others, all the more so where those threatened or abused are emergency workers. The law already recognises that racially or religiously motivated threats and abuse should attract tougher penalties, but these currently do not apply where the behaviour takes place in a person’s private home. When the police, firefighters and ambulance staff attend someone’s home— for example, in response to a 999 call—they have no choice but to remain and to act. The Bill closes the loophole in the law so that anyone who threatens or abuses an emergency worker because of their race or religion within a private dwelling will be liable for the higher maximum penalties such hate crimes would attract where the conduct took place in a public place.
I now turn to counterterrorism. We must also make sure that counterterrorism powers reflect evolving threats, ensuring that operational partners have the tools they need to keep the public safe. Part 14 of the Bill delivers on several recommendations made by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC. He has identified the need for a new diversion order in response to the increasing number of young people who are the subject of counterterrorism investigations. The youth diversion order provided for in Part 14 will be a new civil order that will enable the police to intervene earlier to prevent young people engaging in terrorism and divert them from the criminal justice system.
Finally, in addition to the three new measures that the Government will seek to add to the Bill to which I have already referred, we will table amendments to apply various further provisions in the Bill to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. These amendments are being brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government and the relevant Northern Ireland departments.
This Government were elected to deliver change: change that will reverse the decline in neighbourhood policing; change that will tackle the epidemic of violence against women and girls and the epidemic of knife crime. The Bill will help deliver that change by cracking down on anti-social behaviour, making our town centres safer, building trust in the police, clearing our streets of knives, protecting our children from sexual abuse, criminal exploitation and online harms, and safeguarding women and girls from stalkers and sexual predators. These are the purposes behind this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that we on these Benches broadly support the Bill, because large parts of it are a copy-and-paste job from the previous Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill. From the provisions on anti-social behaviour to the new offence of cuckooing, the duty to report child sexual abuse and the new protest and public order offences, this Government are continuing the work we were doing to strengthen the criminal justice system. This is, of course, very welcome, but it does not mean that all is plain sailing.
The feeling among the British public is that crime has been increasing, even though overall rates of crime have fallen since 2010. The Crime Survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2025 shows that there were 9.4 million incidents of headline crime. Although this represents a 7% rise from the previous year, the ONS states that this is due entirely to a 31% increase in fraud.
Undoubtedly, a significant factor in this overall feeling of pessimism is the increase in more visible crimes that impact people’s daily lives. Shoplifting, phone theft, graffiti, vandalism, fare evasion and drug use are highly visible crimes that leave people feeling unsafe in their daily lives. Shoplifting, for example, has risen by 20% in the year from 2024 to 2025.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has pointed to an estimated £1.2 billion shortfall in police funding. The chair of the NPCC has said that the funding settlement in the spending review will “cover little more” than police pay rises. Chief Constable Paul Sanford has warned that the Government will find it “incredibly difficult” to meet their neighbourhood policing pledge with the funding settlement. The Metropolitan Police has already announced that it will have to cut 1,700 staff, scrap its dedicated anti-social behaviour officers and close down half of the front desks in stations across London.
This strikes at the heart of a wider principle. Is this Crime and Policing Bill, which runs to over 200 clauses and over 20 schedules, actually going to reduce crime on the streets of this country? In some ways, it might, but in many others, unless coupled with serious improvements in enforcement and police action, it may very well not.
To turn to the Bill, the Government have committed three crimes of commission and two crimes of omission. I will start with the crimes of omission. The Government’s 2024 election manifesto promised to introduce new respect orders with the aim to
“stamp out issues such as public drinking and drug use”.
The Government come armed with a noble cause, but all it takes is to scratch just below the surface to see that these respect orders are little more than smoke and mirrors.
The Bill inserts a new part before Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, creating respect orders. It then converts what are currently anti-social behaviour injunctions into youth injunctions. Rather than giving the police, local authorities and the courts tough new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, as the Government claim, they are instead simply renaming the currently existing injunctions and creating new orders that are the same in all but the name.
The anti-social behaviour injunctions were introduced as part of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead’s efforts to streamline the powers available to authorities to deal with criminal and challenging behaviour. As she noted at that Bill’s Second Reading, under the previous Labour Government, over nine anti-social behaviour laws were passed, creating 19 separate powers. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 consolidated those into six powers. That had a purpose. I cannot see what this Government’s new respect orders will add to this arsenal.
Secondly, on the repeal of Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, this provision states that shoplifting of goods with a value of less than £200 is to be tried only summarily in a magistrates’ court. There has been much misinformation about this provision, which was brought forward by the last Conservative Government. The Labour manifesto called this an “effective immunity” for some shoplifting—a line that has been parroted by Labour Ministers ever since. However, the Government’s policy paper on the Bill, published on GOV.UK, calls it “perceived immunity”, and I think that sums up the bizarre nature of the criticism.
I want to be absolutely clear: anyone claiming that trying low-value shoplifting in a magistrates’ court is granting criminals immunity is wrong and misleading the public. There is absolutely no reason why theft under £200 cannot be tried summarily. I need not remind the House, full of eminent lawyers as it is, that a person can still be sentenced to up to six months’ imprisonment and issued with a fine if found guilty in a summary trial. Six months’ imprisonment is clearly not immunity.
What this does is clear the already clogged-up Crown Court and let the police prosecute more serious cases. That does not mean that thefts under £200 from shops do not impact on shopkeepers, or that they should not be investigated, but there is nothing wrong with having a bit more summary justice in this country. It permits cases to be tried and discharged more quickly and efficiently, rather risking long and drawn-out Crown Court cases that last for months if not years. If the police are not investigating such offences, that is an issue with the operation of policing, not the law.
Clauses 107 and 108 were inserted into the Bill on Report in the other place and, as such, have not had as much scrutiny, perhaps, as they ought to. The 11th report of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has drawn attention to these clauses for the uncertain scope of the new offences and the use of highly subjective terminology.
Clause 107 creates the new offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards an emergency worker that are racially or religiously hostile. Clause 108 creates the offence of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour that are likely to cause an emergency worker harassment, alarm or distress. These offences are very similar to the existing offences under Section 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The key difference is that these new offences can be committed in a private dwelling, whereas those in the Public Order Act cannot. It is understandable why the Government might wish to press ahead with these new offences—we all wish to see our emergency workers protected—but it is far from certain that creating two new speech-related offences will offer emergency workers any greater protection in reality.
Clause 107 involves the criminalisation of insults and Clause 108 uses the term “distress”. Both are highly subjective, thereby leaving people open to prosecution on undefined terms. We already know that this an acute problem in this country. There exists a litany of cases where people have been arrested and prosecuted for speech offences. The continual misuse of non-crime hate incidents, and the probably irresponsible policing of tweets and online comments, have had a chilling effect on free speech. If anything, we should be reviewing and removing barriers to freedom of expression and speech, not expanding those limitations. I therefore echo the comments of the Constitution Committee in relation to Clauses 107 and 108 and call on the Government to heed its advice that these clauses should be drawn far more narrowly.
I am sure much of the debate on the Bill will comprise what noble Lords deem to be omissions and missed opportunities. I have time to mention only a few of those, but I give notice to the Minister that in Committee I will be raising many more. Given that this Bill, in many ways, mirrors the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, it was surprising to see there has been no inclusion—bar two clauses—of the measures to end and replace the Vagancy Act. The previous Government planned to repeal the Act and replace it with a new framework around nuisance begging and rough sleeping. If the Government are to commence the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, but not institute further powers to replace it, there may be a gap in the law. I would appreciate it if the Minister could perhaps comment on why the Government have not included these measures in the Bill.
Furthermore, the Bill does not include the previous Government’s plans to impose tougher penalties on those convicted of shoplifting offences on more than three occasions. Those provisions would require the court to impose a community order, including a curfew, exclusion or electronic whereabouts monitoring condition, or a combination of such conditions. Given the Government’s tough talk on bearing down on retail crime, it is more than a little confusing why they have not included such measures in the Bill.
I will end where I began: criminal justice is not simply about laws this Parliament passes. We can continually create new criminal offences and we can pass as many new laws as we like, but until we get to grips with the enforcement of those laws, we will never tackle the scourge of criminality. The Government have been talking tough on crime, but this must now be met with corresponding action.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and I am grateful to the many organisations that have provided briefings. In too many areas of crime and policing, we are failing the people who most need protection: children and vulnerable adults exposed to predators, shopkeepers bearing the cost of unchecked theft, farmers shouldering the consequences of criminals stealing expensive farm equipment to order, and traumatised women who hesitate to report assaults, fearing that the justice system will only compound their suffering.
Much of this comes down to resources. Although the Minister often states that Labour is investing an extra £1.2 billion in policing this year, the reality is that little of this will reach front-line services. The National Police Chiefs’ Council notes that a quarter of this sum will be returned to the Treasury through increased employer national insurance, with the rest already committed to fund pay awards and service debt. A decade of underfunding has forced police to borrow just to maintain their dilapidated buildings and antiquated IT. Already, gaps in children’s services, mental health and social care force police into roles they are ill-equipped to fill.
In scrutinising this Bill, we have to ensure that we do not set the police up to fail. Take drug testing: the Bill expands the range of triggers for police to be able to test someone for drugs but makes no provision at all for more drug testing centres or forensic resource. That must change because drugs are deeply intertwined with serious violence and linked to more than half of all homicides. Drug-related deaths have doubled since 2012, and about 70% of thefts and cases of domestic violence are driven by addiction. Yet more than 27,000 suspected drug suppliers remain on bail or under investigation, largely because we lack enough trained forensic specialists. If these delays, and the patchy availability of treatment programmes, are not addressed, the measures in the Bill will become irrelevant.
In a similar vein, there are a number of provisions in the Bill that are welcome in principle but need careful scrutiny in practice. Among those are new offences—such as assaulting retail workers and the proposed respect orders—which, while well-intentioned, risk duplicating existing laws and further straining a justice system already operating way beyond capacity.
Liberal Democrats have long argued that neighbourhood policing is the most effective way to address these problems before they take root. The role of local beat officers is crucial: they know where the domestic abusers live, where kids are left home alone, and where the drug dens operate. Effective neighbourhood policing depends on familiarity, consistency and trust—qualities that can only be built over time. We cannot keep parachuting in new officers and expect these relationships to flourish. That is why we have proposed legal minimum resourcing to ensure that neighbourhood policing teams are maintained at the level necessary to sustain long relationships and a sense of safety among communities.
That sense of safety is especially important for young people. At the moment, one in three young people reports that they do not feel safe in their communities. The dangerous and often tragic result is that they carry weapons. We therefore back proposals to tighten the rules around the online sale and delivery of weapons and we will bring forward amendments to give legislative life to even more of the Clayman review’s recommendations.
Turning to police and criminal justice reform, very few people realise that 90%—yes, 90%—of crime is now digitally enabled. That means that chief constables must be given the flexibility to decide the right mix of traditional police officers and specialist staff needed in their forces, because digital skill is very often now more highly valued than physical prowess, and recruitment should reflect that.
Meanwhile, training has to move with the times. One-third of all police officers now have under five years’ experience, but inspection after inspection exposes serious flaws in the training provided. Poor professional development, combined with infrequent updates on new laws and procedures, means that many front-line officers have outdated skills, leading to uneven standards and a workforce that lacks confidence to use its powers. With 94% of reported offences unresolved, new laws mean little if officers are not equipped to enforce them, so we will push for the first national review of police training since 2018.
However, reforming policing alone is like fixing a lock on a door that is completely rotten. It simply beggars belief that at the end of March 2025 there were 310,000 cases outstanding in magistrates’ courts; that serious offences such as rape are taking more than two years to come to trial, with offenders back out on the streets on bail, tormenting their victims; and that perpetrators who are convicted of crimes often pass through prisons without any kind of rehabilitation.
I shall highlight some serious concerns on civil liberties. In Clause 138, the move to give police automatic access to driving licence data for any law enforcement purpose, not just driving offences, marks a major expansion from current practice. The Home Secretary need only consult police, with no full parliamentary oversight, when drafting these regulations. While the Bill does not mention facial recognition, and Ministers say that there are no plans to use DVLA data this way, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, in a written submission to the Home Affairs Committee, stated that police chiefs are seeking access to the DVLA database for facial recognition searches, and proposals by the previous Government would have enabled this. To do this would put more than 50 million innocent people in a perpetual digital line-up, which poses profound risk, particularly for people of colour and minority groups. Big Brother Watch found that in the UK in 2023 89% of police facial recognition alerts wrongly identified members of the public as people of interest. We shall vigorously press the Government to ensure that DVLA access is necessary, proportionate and set out clearly in primary legislation, restricted to tackling serious crime or public safety threats.
It is about not just facial recognition but a whole range of biometrics, some of which are only now in development. I am particularly concerned about the need to future-proof the Bill against tomorrow’s technologies. New digital tools such as remote data extraction, advanced surveillance systems, predictive analytics and wearable sensor technology will soon reach the UK market. The Bill must be capable of evolving this technology, ensuring that protections for citizens remain robust as new digital tools appear.
In conclusion, public confidence in policing is at an all-time low. This may not be fair—I do not think it is—but it is the reality. New duties imposed by Parliament must therefore be matched by new investment. We must deliver policing that keeps people safe without edging towards a surveillance state. The Bill gives us a great opportunity to strike that balance, but more power without resources or safeguards risks serious consequences. Let us ensure that the Bill empowers the police, protects freedom and prepares the service for a fast-moving technological world, because only then will it truly deliver safer communities.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I broadly support the Bill, as there is an awful lot in it to be commended. I would not agree with everything that the Liberal Democrats have said about access to more data, certainly not facial recognition, but I think that there are some steps in the right direction. Of course, the nature of a Second Reading is to highlight the things that you would have preferred to be in the Bill rather than things that are in it.
My first point is about what I feel is a missed opportunity to set out a strategic direction, partly for the criminal justice system and certainly for the police. We have not embedded anything about prevention as a strategic direction in the way that fire brigades have. We have not said much about police professionalism and how that might be developed. Finally, there is the use of technology, and how we set a strategic framework in which that will develop. That is a genuine missed opportunity.
Of the four areas that I want to highlight and which I shall push in Committee for recognition, the first concerns firearms officers. First, I acknowledge that the development around the anonymity of officers is welcome, although I confess that on occasion I have thought that actually they should be named, because accountability is very important. But this development is a good one, and I support it. This group of brave men and women, 3,500 of them, who protect 69 million of us, who are the only ones who can go forward on our behalf and deal with the people they have to deal with, are, I am afraid, not receiving a good deal at the moment.
This week, the officer who shot and killed Jermaine Baker in 2015 was told that he had no case to answer in a misconduct process—after 10 years. He was never at risk of a criminal charge, but 10 years later—that cannot be right. So there is something about timeliness there, but the law also ought to offer more generosity and sympathy to the officer in the first place. We do that for householders who protect themselves and kill someone in their home; they are in a unique group—so why does this unique group not have any similar protection? It is about having a higher bar before prosecution is considered, not immunity. No one is arguing for that—accountability is essential. But something must happen in that area, and as yet it has not.
My second area is cycling. I have tried to get some amendments into this Bill, because it is time that cyclists have more accountability too. Insurance would not be a bad idea, along with the opportunity to have points on their licence, if they have a driving licence, should they commit offences, and registration marks to identify them—and even licences for the people who ride bikes. The Public Bill Office tells me that it is out of scope, but I cannot understand that, because obviously there are measures on dangerous cycling that the Government have brought forward, which I support. But it will be no use having them if you cannot identify the person who did it—so I suggest that there is a possibility to consider future developments in this Bill.
My third point is around the suicide of police officers. The Police Federation is concerned that the number of police officers and staff committing suicide over the years is increasing, but it is having real difficulty getting hold of the data, either about those who have committed suicide or those who have attempted it. It recently had a survey in which only 41 forces replied; two of the biggest forces in the country, including the biggest, did not reply, so the federation is struggling to get hold of the data. It would like to see a legal duty to ensure that the data is collected, first, and then if there is a problem how big it is and where the themes are that might enable more prevention to take place.
My final point is about the indirect consequences in terms of historical offensive weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has done some work on this, but there is more to do to make sure that those who have historical weapons are not captured under the offensive weapon debate. The couriers who carry these things are now withdrawing from the market, meaning that very few people are carrying weapons or things such as scissors—and that means that we will have a real problem soon if we do not consider that indirect impact.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I commend this Government’s mission to achieve safer streets and applaud particularly the aim of halving both knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade. The Bill touches on a wide range of complex and important issues, and I will raise just a few.
Reporting of child sexual abuse and the decriminalisation of abortion are of particular interest to my colleagues on these Benches. Indeed, noble Lords may have seen the Church’s statement in response to the debate in the other place on the decriminalisation of women seeking abortion.
Fundamental reform to this country’s abortion laws ought to merit its own parliamentary process, we would say, and we on these Benches are keen to continue engaging with government to ensure that care-filled, careful consideration is given to support all those facing such a painful decision.
I declare my interest as chair of the board of trustees at the Children’s Society, and I am proud of its unwavering commitment to protect children from harm—including child sexual abuse—and to enable them to flourish. I am pleased that the Bill includes a stand-alone offence of child criminal exploitation, or CCE. I welcome the Government’s commitment to define CCE for police, but also support calls to bring forward a statutory definition of CCE on the face of the Bill that is directed at all organisations supporting children, to be supported by a robust, comprehensive implementation package with adequate funding and training.
I note that the Bill before us risks criminalising children forced or coerced into criminal activity. I think we need to take care that children are exempted in the work of the Bill from any offence of “cuckooing” or coerced internal concealment, recognising here, as elsewhere, children as victims, not perpetrators. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester is also following this Bill and is unable to be here today. With her, I will make the case for recognising so-called honour-based abuse as an aggregating factor in sentencing; introducing a new offence where victims die of suicide following sustained patterns of coercive control and abuse; introducing statutory defences for victims and survivors of domestic abuse who are accused of offending; and removing the parental rights of individuals convicted of child sexual offences.
We have been reminded today that recent terrible events mean that many are fearful when approaching a place of worship—indeed, going about their everyday lives. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who cannot be in his place today, wishes to engage with elements of this Bill offering practical guidance for police to enable expressions of public protest while also preventing intimidation and harassment. He also looks forward to working with noble Lords to ensure that this Bill offers stronger safeguards against the discriminatory treatment of Romani, Gypsy, Roma and Irish Travellers.
Noble Lords will be aware that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield has recently been nominated to chair the Orgreave inquiry into the events of 18 June 1984. My colleagues on these Benches and I will continue to engage with the Government on public order policing measures.
Finally, I welcome the principle of youth diversion orders for those under 22. This Bill will need to strike a delicate balance. Overzealous restrictions on movement and social contacts under such orders may lead to yet more disenfranchisement and distrust.
This is a challenging time and the obstacles are real. I therefore commit myself and those on these Benches to work with noble Lords to think creatively, compassionately and constructively in our collective scrutiny of this Bill.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, yet again we are being asked to digest a lengthy criminal justice Bill which covers far too many diverse areas of conduct. Churchill might have said that this Bill has no theme. Before the Bill began its progress through the other place, the Government proclaimed that it contained 35 headline measures. Andy Slaughter, the chairman of the Justice Select Committee, said the Bill introduced 27 new criminal offences. I think he was congratulating the Government.
Had I been discussing the Criminal Justice Bill—that is to say, the Bill that my noble friend Lord Davies referred to, which fell at the last election—I would have said of that what I now say of this Bill. It covers too many subjects. It makes criminal activities that are already criminal. It has 430 pages, 203 clauses and 21 schedules. Just look at it: it is like a telephone book. It is a catalogue, in my view, of Early Day Motions rather than a practical answer to the problems it seeks to identify. It reminds me of the Criminal Justice Act 2009, which included provisions for, among other things, the appointment of senior police officers, prostitution and lap dancing, the supply of alcohol to children, gang-related violence, aviation security, border controls and extradition, and more besides.
I am sure that many of the measures in this Bill are, on their face, worthy, and, assuming they are not already criminal offences, no doubt good measures are taken from the Criminal Justice Bill. But passing laws is not of itself a solution to an actual or perceived problem. Movement is not productivity. Too often, Governments of all political persuasions think that sounding vigorous is a substitute for action.
Between 1815 and 1914, remarkably few laws—about 15 or 20 statutes—were passed that affected the criminal law. Several of them are still in force, in whole or in part. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, between 1997 and 2007, more than 50 criminal law statutes were enacted. The Criminal Justice Act 2003—another doorstop of a Bill—even repealed earlier sections of earlier Acts of Parliament passed after 1997 that had not even been implemented. I tabled Written Questions in the other place, asking how many criminal law provisions had been implemented, how many had been repealed before implementation, and how many had been brought into force. The answer I used to get was roughly one-third had been implemented, one-third had not been implemented and one-third had been repealed before implementation or soon afterwards. I am not making a politically antagonistic point: I am simply pointing out that the early 21st century legislative equivalent of Dreadnought building is ineffective unless the Government—any Government—do more than pass laws and pat themselves on the back.
The court system is under strain. The police are under strain. Our prisons are under strain. Yet we blithely pile more and often repetitive legislation on them for political effect, without calculating whether the new provisions already exist or can be managed within the present creaking criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor recently promised 1,250 new Crown Court sitting days. With the Crown Court trial backlog leading to serious criminal trials now being scheduled for 2028 or 2029, and with literally hundreds of courtrooms unused, 1,250 additional days is insignificant. A senior Crown Court judge recently told me that he could use those days in just his own court centre.
The Home Secretary’s Second Reading speech in the other place in March amounted to empty jargon interrupted by loyal Back-Benchers reading out interventions drafted by her spads or by Government Whips, and by the Opposition complaining that she was ignoring the previous Government’s achievements or claiming that they were her own. This is not a satisfactory way to amend the law, still less to create new law.
Of course, this Bill will—either in this version or some other version of it—pass into law, and the Government will proclaim its enactment as one of their great achievements at the next election. In the meanwhile, the IPP scandal continues, despite the heroic efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, and other noble Lords from across the House to release the ghastly grip of its talons around the lives and hopes of those hundreds of prisoners still in prison well beyond their tariff. Governments and Ministers say a lot. The voters watch carefully and remember what they actually do.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister has so clearly set out, there is much to welcome in this Bill to improve the law where needed and to make us safer. I look forward to following it closely. To the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, I say that I also look forward to following the implementation when it is an Act. It will have a profound impact on the lives of many, including the most vulnerable. I particularly support the clauses relating to countering violence against children, women and girls.
Following the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, the IICSA, I welcome the abolition of time limitations in historical cases of child sexual abuse with Clause 82. The importance of this clause was brought home to me by a very courageous survivor, who, following years of sexual abuse by his priest, has lived a life with incapacitating mental illness, of which the origin was that trauma. The last Government refused to act on this specific issue, so I am proud that this Government have conceded the fundamental legal principle. However, as drafted, it has limited benefit to those who have fought for the change and whose sufferings make it necessary to fight. I ask the Minister to discuss this with me further, together with survivors.
The IICSA recommendations should be adopted without change or qualification. However, the clause adds a new “substantial prejudice”, especially for historical cases, which creates uncertainty, delays and an extra hurdle for survivors. As I understand it, the IICSA’s final report did not include any changes regarding the introduction of “substantial prejudice”. Its inclusion in the Bill could be interpreted as reintroducing the status quo. The impact of narrowing the court’s focus to a fair trial, with the burden on defendants, should make out-of-time CSA claims easier overall, but ambiguity remains around what count as “claims arising”.
New Section 11ZB(3)(b) and (c), introduced by Clause 82, introduce the novel legal idea of “substantial prejudice”, adopted from Scottish legislation, but they are unjustified, as there is no provision for relitigation in these cases in England and Wales. I suggest that if cases fail in civil courts then the legislation has failed in its aims, and these new paragraphs should be removed.
The testimony of witnesses to the IICSA shows institutional discouragement and the extended, often ineradicable psychological harm of abuse, underscoring the need for these reforms to remove barriers. One witness said to me, “Attending the IICSA was the second most dramatic thing in my life and the trauma of it has lasted seven years so far. If subsection (3)(b) and subsection (3)(c) remain, then preparing for a court case which could be dismissed on these grounds would be as traumatic as that, and with little personal benefit”. While survivors are relieved that, through this legislation, time limitations in historical cases of child sexual abuse will be abolished, the “substantial prejudice” clauses need to be deleted for better access to justice.
The clauses on the management of sex offenders are hugely important for the victims of violence against women and girls, and I am delighted, with my long-term interest in countering stalking, that the Government are seeking both to implement their manifesto commitments and to respond to the invaluable super-complaint made by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Following discussions with those most concerned, I will wish to probe Part 6. I also know from campaigning on doorsteps that the new offence of cuckooing will be of great benefit, especially to those living in social housing.
Finally, I wholeheartedly support Clause 191 on the removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion. I pay tribute to my colleague, Tonia Antoniazzi.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on disorder in public places and spaces, which is having such a detrimental effect on our lives. In doing so, I will concentrate on Clauses 37 and 38, which create a new stand-alone offence of assault against a retail worker and build on the aggravated offence contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I support the two new measures in the Bill: I want to see violence against someone doing their job dealt with seriously. No one should be subject to random attacks while at work, and I should declare that, as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Customer Service, I do not want people who care deeply about giving great customer service to leave their jobs, or to deter anyone from taking up this kind of employment, which is essential and valuable to us in so many ways. I will say more about how in a moment.
First, however, the Institute of Customer Service tracking survey shows that violent abuse against all front-line service workers continues to rise. That means public transport workers, those who work in the hospitality trade, people who work in post offices and banks, delivery drivers and even utility engineers working on the streets. That is why the aggravated offence in the 2022 Act covers anyone, not just retail staff, providing a public-facing service or doing a public-facing job. I ask the Minister to say, when he comes to wind up, why the Bill’s stronger measures cover retail workers only.
All the people who do these public-facing jobs matter, not just because we need the services they provide but because, more often than not, they are the responsible person in charge of public spaces and places, so they need not just protection but our support to uphold our common standards, which are so important to maintaining good order and a civil society. That means that we must show respect for the authority of their roles in public settings, whether their authority in such situations is formal or informal. We need to give the people who do these jobs the recognition they deserve so they discharge their responsibilities well.
If we are to prevent violent criminal behaviour in public spaces becoming normalised, we must work together to tackle the low-level disorder and disrespect that we see on our streets, on public transport, in shops and elsewhere, which cause us to feel so despondent: litter dropping; feet on seats; watching videos or listening to music on our phones without headphones; queue-jumping; fare dodging; graffiti. Police presence on our streets is important. Rapid response from the police to actual crimes is vital, but we cannot keep creating new criminal offences and expect the police to deal with everything that has gone wrong in society. We as leaders, whether political, religious, business, public service or union, must use our authority to set, promote and honour the standards we know are vital for a healthy society, yet too often now treat as unimportant.
I would support expanding Clauses 37 and 38 to more than just retail workers for the reasons I have given, but I ask all the businesses, unions and trade bodies, which understandably want more legal protection for their workers, to think about what I have said. Likewise, we as legislators must do more than the easy bit of making new laws, as my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier said. Tackling crime and disorder through better policing and stronger sentencing is important, but on its own it is not enough. We need to share and promote what the good citizens of this country want and expect from each other in our shared spaces. That is how we will create the right conditions for people to support each other and together make it harder for people to behave badly and do wrong.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, this Bill has the potential to transform how we protect children from the devastating crime of child sexual abuse. I welcome mandatory reporting. It will be a historic step, made possible thanks to the survivors who bravely shared their testimony with the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Too many children have been failed because adults in positions of trust and institutions that employed them protected themselves over children who needed them. But I fear that mandatory reporting will not be enough to create the culture of safeguarding this country so desperately needs.
All those who work with children—teachers, healthcare professionals and social workers—have a responsibility to keep children safe from harm, but they must feel confident and have the skills to do so. In 2020, the national review into child sexual abuse within the family environment highlighted that many practitioners lacked the knowledge, skill and confidence to talk about sexual abuse with children. That is why Barnardo’s, in which I declare an interest as vice-president, and many other children’s charities are calling for the introduction of clear guidance and training to accompany this essential new duty. Mandated reporters must be confident in their responsibilities and clear on what they should do if they suspect abuse, so training will support professionals to identify and act on the signs and symptoms of abuse, as well as to respond effectively in cases where children do disclose. Otherwise, we risk more children falling through the cracks and abuse going unrecognised.
There must also be accountability for both professional and civil mandated reporters who fail to report, as well as criminal convictions for any individual or institution that deliberately conceals abuse. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, which was hosted by Barnardo’s, has highlighted how such cover-ups have served only to increase a survivor’s sense of betrayal. Never again should institutions be allowed to put their reputation ahead of the safety of the child. They must be held accountable for failures to protect children, whether due to concealment, poor safeguarding or a lack of proper recruitment and training. This duty must be backed by a strong inspection regime so that children are never again left unprotected by systemic failure.
Protecting children is now more vital than ever, both offline and online. This means ensuring that the messages and images that shape young people’s understanding of relationships and content are not harmful. The BBFC found that one in three users of pornography had seen violent and abusive content online on numerous occasions. A poll by the Children’s Commissioner found that 44% of young people had viewed material online which portrayed sexual violence as normal. Content involving strangulation, incest and, worryingly, adults dressed as children, as well as content involving trafficking and torture, is rightly illegal offline, yet these images and videos are widely accessible online. This inconsistency is harmful, especially to children, and many find themselves victims.
In 2023, during the passage of the Online Safety Bill, I raised the extremely concerning issue that the laws on pornography are regulated differently offline from what is permitted online. The independent review by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, Creating a Safer World - the Challenge of Regulating Online Pornography, which I strongly support, is now also calling for online pornography to be regulated in line with offline pornography. If we do not act, we risk legitimising a culture where children continue to be sexualised and young people grow up with a distorted understanding of healthy relationships. No child should grow up in a world where abuse is normalised or their safety is undermined for profit, so let us ensure that every child’s lifetime is free from abuse, fear and silence, because childhood lasts a lifetime.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, it is almost absurdly challenging to try to speak on a Bill of 427 pages, 203 clauses and 21 schedules in four minutes. The Bill is extremely wide. It ranges across multiple offences, creating multiple new criminal offences, and we will need to determine inter alia whether they have sufficient clarity, whether they disproportionately limit our fundamental freedoms and whether they may lead to unintended consequences. Clause 185(3) is a case in point. And we will need to consider the very real resource implications of what we propose.
I want to concentrate on Clause 191, though there are many others I would want to talk to. This clause was passed after only 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate in the other place. It was not a manifesto commitment. It constitutes a very significant change to our law on abortion. It carries with it enormous risks to women who might consequently think that aborting a baby up to birth will be safe in these circumstances, doing so without medical help.
Dr Caroline Johnson MP explained in the other place that she works as an NHS consultant paediatrician and has cared for and held babies in her hands from 21 weeks and six days gestation right through to term. She said:
“I am very aware that babies from, say, 30 weeks upwards have a more than 98% chance of survival”.
She went on to explain how an abortion is achieved in the later stages of pregnancy, saying that taking abortion pills intended for early pregnancy is not a suitable or safe medical intervention in later pregnancy. She said:
“If one has a termination later in pregnancy, it is done by foeticide. Essentially, an injection of potassium chloride is administered to kill the baby, and then the baby is born in the usual way, but deceased. That is why it is important to know what the gestation is—because the termination offered under the law is done by a different route, to make sure that it is done safely. We know that the later in pregnancy a termination happens, the more a woman is at risk of medical complications”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/25; col. 309.]
That is the essence of the challenge we face here. We must scrutinise a clause that, under current law, would enable a woman who has secured medication to end a pregnancy under the pills by post scheme—which is supposed to be used only up to 10 weeks—to take this medication right up to birth in a non-clinical setting where she would have no professional medical support, despite the fact that, as Johnson said, she is at greater risk of complications. The clause does not give her any protection other than that against prosecution—but prosecution is the least important issue. What is profoundly important is the woman’s safety.
Even at earlier stages of gestation, there may be need for surgical intervention to remove a dead baby. How might a woman achieve an abortion in the later stages of pregnancy? Essentially, as I understand it, it will be by taking abortifacient medication which is neither suitable nor safe, or by acquiring potassium chloride by some means. But how could the potassium chloride be administered? It has to be injected into the baby’s heart, using ultrasound guidance, to cause cardiac arrest and death to the baby. That is not the end of the process; the baby must be delivered. During childbirth, specific drugs are administered and offered for pain management and the prevention of things such as haemorrhage and other complications. None of these would be available to this mother.
Most women who have experienced miscarriage or childbirth will probably agree that, if proper medical help is not available, it is terrifying. Things can go so terribly wrong: for example, babies can get stuck in the birth canal, which will eventually lead to the need for an intervention, whether by caesarean section, forceps or vacuum extraction. There is a serious risk that a mother whose baby gets stuck may die if the baby is not removed. At the very least, she may suffer terrible pain or multiple serious consequences to her own health and her future childbearing capacity.
We are left, then, with a situation in which your Lordships are being asked to legislate for abortion to birth without medical help, because any medical practitioner who helped would be subject to prosecution. If this provision is passed, women will think that aborting their own babies will be a safe thing to do, simply because it is lawful. This clause is redolent with danger to women. Can the Minister tell us exactly how the Government think women might seek to end a full-term pregnancy, and how they might be protected against the potentially catastrophic consequences of aborting and delivering a baby without medical help? This clause is too dangerous to women to remain in the Bill.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, the policing Bill stands as an important framework for how we, as a society, respond to acts that cause harm and undermine our shared values. Among its many provisions, one issue demands our urgent attention: the failure to treat racist comments and abuse as crimes when they go unreported or unchallenged.
When racist comments are dismissed as “harmless” or “just words”, their impact is underestimated. In truth, silence allows prejudice to grow. Communities subjected to racism feel unsafe, unheard and excluded. This erodes trust between not only neighbours but the public and the institutions meant to protect them.
If racist acts are not reported and addressed, they normalise intolerance, creating an environment where discrimination can escalate into more serious violence, such as the racist murder of my son, Stephen. I do not want to see this repeated in years to come, with families forced to go through what my family has in the past 30-plus years. There has been an increase in knife crime since Stephen’s death. This needs to be addressed urgently to stop parents like me suffering the trauma of losing a child.
When racist behaviour is recognised, reported and challenged, it sends a powerful message: everyone—regardless of their background—belongs and deserves protection under the law. Within a school environment, racist name-calling must never be ignored, as it can escalate into more serious forms of harm and violence. If such behaviour is not addressed early and documented properly, it risks developing into more dangerous attitudes and actions as individuals grow older.
The Bill must therefore ensure robust measures that empower individuals to report racism, support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. Only then can we strengthen community cohesion and safeguard the dignity and equality that are the foundations of our society. For these reasons, I firmly believe that the abolition of the recording of non-crime hate incidents should not proceed, as doing so would risk silencing victims, undermining trust in law enforcement and weakening our collective ability to confront and prevent hate in all its forms. I thank the Government for their commitment to addressing crime on our streets.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, this is a very large Bill—as my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier said, it is too large—but for present purposes, I am going to focus exclusively on Clause 191, the clause that allows a mother to abort an unborn child right up to the moment of birth. This clause is wrong in principle and should be removed from the Bill. Your Lordships will note that this provision was incorporated into the Bill late during the parliamentary process, on Report. The debate lasted for some two hours. So far as I am aware, there was no pre-statutory consultation.
I have always taken a very libertarian view on abortion. I am a strong supporter of the 1967 Act. I agree that abortion raises serious issues of morals and faith, but I have always taken the view that that is a matter for the mother and, on the whole, not for Parliament. However, Clause 191 goes far too far. I find it very difficult to distinguish in principle between a child who has just been born and a child who is about to be born. If the child were killed immediately after birth, its killing would be an act of homicide; so, I suggest, is the killing of an unborn child immediately before its birth. There is very little distinction in principle.
Of course the law and common sense have always recognised that some acts of homicide are lawful. For example, reasonable defence is lawful; so, for example, is abortion when the health of the mother is at risk, long after the 24 or 26 weeks. But such is not the case here. The arguments advanced have relied very largely on the distress of vulnerable mothers—mothers who, incidentally, could have had an earlier abortion under the provisions of the 1967 Act.
I accept, of course, that there may be very distressing cases, and I hope that the prosecution authorities would consider carefully in any individual case whether the public interest required prosecution—very often not. I also hope that if a prosecution occurs and leads to a conviction, the sentencing judge will give serious consideration to the mitigating factors and impose as lenient a sentence as possible. But these considerations are not the same as decriminalising an act of homicide. Society as a whole, and Parliament as an institution, have a duty of care to an unborn child capable of being born alive. It is an obligation which reflects the value that we place on human life. This clause, if passed, would flout that obligation, and I do not think we should allow that to happen.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in this Second Reading debate. I am particularly pleased to welcome my noble friend the Minister to her place and her first Bill—the first of many, I hope. My two noble friends on the Front Bench know that they have my support for the Bill.
Following the remarks from my noble friend Lady Lawrence, I was struck by the Government’s commitment in the Commons to introduce an amendment to make hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability aggravated offences. I look forward to its introduction in due course and offer my support to my noble friends the Ministers on it. As a Labour and Co-operative Peer and a former USDAW member, I also welcome that the Bill addresses retail crime.
In this debate, I intend to address Clause 191. I profoundly disagree with the two speakers who have spoken before me on this. On 5 June, MPs voted to insert the clause into the Crime and Policing Bill by 379 to 137 on a free vote. The clause would disapply the existing criminal law on abortion from women acting in relation to their own pregnancies, bringing the law for women in England and Wales into line with the changes that Westminster already made to abortion law in Northern Ireland in 2019, which works well and was debated at some length and agreed in this House.
The proposal to repeal the provision was led by my honourable friend Tonia Antoniazzi MP. In recent times, contrary to the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, we have seen a substantial increase in the number of investigations into and prosecutions of women in England and Wales under abortion law dating back to 1861. That has included women who were victims of domestic abuse, suspected victims of human trafficking and exploitation, and girls under the age of 18. Clause 191 is a simple, principled stance that reflects the strong position of cross-party MPs, and I strongly support it as it is.
Notwithstanding the words of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Viscount—as well as the hysteria from those outside our gates this morning—the Abortion Act 1967 will not be changed by this clause. However, a number of technical issues remain, which I and others believe it is our job in this House to consider as the legislation proceeds. They concern the lifelong impacts of investigation into, and convictions for, relevant offences. The change in the law under Clause 191 applies only to offences committed after the Bill receives Royal Assent. There are a number of women whose pre-existing cases remain under investigation where decisions have not been made, so the House needs to consider an amendment to halt ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions for repealed offences, to pardon women with criminal records and to expunge the records of those investigations.
If a woman is convicted of these offences, it precludes her from certain employment opportunities for life due to the DBS check. It also includes women who have not had a commitment, because that also stays on their record as part of a DBS check. In line with the Turing pardon for the criminalisation of same-sex activity and similarly outdated laws, an amendment that pardoned women with a criminal record for a repealed offence and expunged those records would be relevant.
Finally, notwithstanding the introduction of Clause 191, I note that a number of offences have been brought against women under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. It is therefore important that we ensure that the law is in step on this matter if we want to decriminalise abortion in these circumstances.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Government have pledged to halve serious violent crime, rebuild public confidence in policing and strengthen our criminal justice system. In my judgment, the Crime and Policing Bill represents a significant step toward these vital goals.
Reflecting on the Bill, I am reminded of my early years as a young beat constable in Jarrow during the 1960s. At the age of 20, fresh from training, I patrolled a town area. There were no radios or mobile phones, only public telephone boxes to contact the police station. I still remember, all those years ago, a warm summer’s night, when at 2 am, at the back of the Jarrow shopping centre, I saw a chink of light. It was two men carrying a till from the back of a shop. The shops were surrounded by a large wall with an opening for delivery vehicles. Fortunately, on seeing me, the men separated—otherwise, I believe I would have been sunk.
I tackled the one with the till, who dropped it. We both fell to the ground, and I lost my helmet and torch after a struggle. He broke away and, fortunately, he ran into a builders’ compound, which was a cul-de-sac. He was trapped, because it had barbed wire at the top. He turned and threw a four-foot-long piece of cast-iron guttering at my head. Had I not ducked, I would not be here today. I even remember thinking, “They didn’t tell me about this at the training school”.
I tackled him again and, with the liberal use of my truncheon, he was arrested. I remember being splattered by his blood. That moment illustrates how risky, demanding and dangerous lone night patrol could be, yet it helps develop resourcefulness and resilience—qualities that are essential in policing. As the service has evolved, today’s officers face even greater complexity and risk. They do so with dedication and courage, and they deserve our respect and support.
The Bill commits to recruiting 13,000 additional neighbourhood police and support officers, focusing especially on town centres. Their visibility is key to reducing anti-social behaviour and the alarming rise in violent shop thefts.
Another issue the Bill tackles is the lack of police visibility. People frequently say that they never see a uniformed police officer any more. This is not just about appearances: visibility fosters trust, provides community reassurance and helps to gather local intelligence, preventing and detecting crime.
The devastating decision to cut 20,000 officers during austerity must never be repeated. That mistake drained the service of experience, especially sergeants and inspectors, with those officers being so vital for mentoring and guiding young officers. These are the supervisors who might have spotted the red flags, such as Sarah Everard’s killer, PC Wayne Couzens, and serial rapist PC David Carrick. The Bill rightly empowers forces to raise standards, sack miscreants very early and restore trust. I include in this the disgusting recent behaviour of the Charing Cross 11.
In the UK, we police by consent. That principle is foundational to our system and must never be taken for granted. To uphold it, we must recruit the most honest, capable and resilient individuals and support them through strong leadership and accountability.
I firmly believe in the broken windows theory: early action on minor anti-social behaviour prevents escalation. This demands visible and engaged officers and intelligence-led, proportionate stop and search, used judiciously, with public support. If these are used wisely, we can enhance policing, public safety and community confidence. I include in this modern facial recognition cameras. To those who object, I ask a simple question: what is the difference between a member of the public telling me that Man A looks like a rape suspect published on “Crimewatch” and an image produced from a technical camera telling me the same thing? The reality is that, in both cases, it simply points the police in the right direction and cannot be used simply to convict.
Finally, I wholeheartedly support the Bill. Let us stand firmly behind the men and women who risk their lives daily to protect us all and give them all the training, leadership and support that they need, and let us all work together to restore public confidence in the idea that the maintenance of law and order is the bedrock of a just, civilised and democratic society.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot in the Bill that I welcome, although I have some sympathy with my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier about how we keep creating law upon law. One answer to that is that, when Governments lose rulings in the courts, often the only way to try to tackle what Governments perhaps thought was in place is to introduce new primary legislation, to make sure that the will of Parliament can be put in place in how we govern our country. To that end, there are a number of issues where I am concerned that, on some elements, that this Bill is now going too far, or indeed, on others, may not be going far enough.
It was Richard Graham, former MP for Gloucester, who first raised the issue of spiking in the Commons several years ago, and it has been taken up by Joe Robertson, the Member of Parliament for Isle of Wight East. Where he is in difficulty or dispute with the Government is in his concern that the threshold for prosecution is concerningly low. We have discussed already this week when you prosecute on spying: when you prosecute on spiking is what my honourable friend wishes to address. In particular, he wants to talk about—and I will continue to do this with others in this House—reckless behaviour that could, instead of just being intended to annoy, actually be prank spiking, which can have serious consequences.
We report fraud through either recorded crimes or surveys. The crime that people fear the most and experience the most in this country is fraud, yet Part 8 is quite light, although perhaps this is a case of how we need to try to make sure we get more resources in the police focused on the crime that is considered to affect most people in this country, rather than more statutory duties. Nevertheless, this is something that needs tackling right across the country, and not just by online reporting to somewhere in the City of London Police, perhaps never to be seen again. At the moment, of course, the banks will pick up the bill by refunding victims of fraud, but that cost goes across all of us who have bank accounts, and that is something to be considered.
Quite rightly, there is a lot of debate about reporting. We talk about children under the age of 16 having sex, getting treatments or getting the morning-after pill. It is a long time since parents were basically blocked from learning about this activity, even though it is their child who is involved in underage sex. I would be interested to explore during debate on the Bill the fine line about what is right for the child but also where the parent has the primary responsibility for looking after their child.
I think of Luke 17:2. I appreciate that the Bishops are not present in the debate at this moment, but I am concerned about Clauses 72 and 79 when it comes to the confessional, and I would be interested to discuss this further with the Minister, perhaps outside the Chamber.
In terms of reporting, the BBC has asked me to raise a particular issue regarding Schedule 8(2)(d). It is very keen to ensure that undercover journalism is seen as a reasonable excuse, rather than having their journalists inadvertently criminalised.
In terms of the other aspects of this Bill, it has been well trailed already that Clause 191 is probably the most controversial, brought in at the other end. A lot of the prosecutions that have been referenced already are due to “pills by post”, which ultimately was passed in the House of Commons by 27 votes a few years ago. It is very difficult—in fact, it is impossible at the moment—to get any statistics. We do not record how many pills by post are issued. We have not yet been able to get the abortion statistics, primarily because the ONS is not able to capture them at the moment—the whole use of HSA forms and similar. However, I think we need to consider this further and in much more detail, including what further changes the Government intend to make to the law to cover those who provide abortion services illegally.
I am sorry to go on about the 1861 Act, but I am afraid that it is the basis of lots of charges brought in this country—murder, use of chloroform, lots of different things. To try to say that it is an out-of-date Act is irrelevant to the reality of how we use our laws today. For this, I am looking forward not just to further comments from the Minister today but to debate during Committee.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I very much appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, although I see more value in this this Bill than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was prepared to admit. I agree with what they each said about hard topics that this Bill might usefully have tackled but did not.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced another of its helpful and focused reports. I agree with the committee that the difficult issue of concealing identity at protests may need to be better calibrated. I agree with it also on the issue of universal jurisdiction, which was debated in the Moses Room on 9 September. To bring our law into line with our neighbours and allow perpetrators of the gravest international crimes to be prosecuted here would involve nothing more complicated than removing the requirement of citizenship or residency in the International Criminal Court Act 2001. I look forward to supporting proposed amendments along those lines.
The Constitution Committee raised two issues in addition to that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower: the widening by Clause 4 of the categories of people who can issue on-the-spot fixed penalty notices—now of up to £500—and the need for parliamentary scrutiny of statutory guidance to the police on the child sex offender disclosure scheme, Sarah’s law. Like many constitutional issues, they may seem mundane, but I hope they will not escape our attention.
Turning to national security, I support the youth diversion orders, which will be used to disrupt, at an early stage, young people who are believed to be involved in low-level terrorist offending, such as the possession and dissemination of material, often online. The idea is to divert them from the criminal justice system for their benefit and for ours. As noted in my recent report, Lessons for Prevent, their availability might also help to increase the rate of consent to Channel interventions, which is currently running at about 75%.
Polygraph testing is to be extended: I should like to know more about how rigorously the use of this technology has been assessed, and with what result, since it was rolled out for sex offenders in 2014 and terrorist offenders in 2021.
Finally, Clauses 130 to 137 of the Bill extend police powers following the seizure of electronic devices to access information accessible from such devices but stored on the cloud. The logic of that extension is not hard to understand, but its sheer scale requires us to think about safeguards. That is so particularly in relation to Clause 135, which concerns the no-suspicion powers to search and to question that are exercised by counterterrorism police in ports and airports under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the National Security Act 2023. The utility of those powers has not been doubted by any of those who have been tasked with the close examination of their use, but the latest of them, Jonathan Hall KC, was moved to ask this week what will prevent excessive data from being extracted and copied, how journalistic and legally privileged material on an online account will be protected, and—given the quantity of personal data that members of the public hold on the cloud—whether merely travelling through a port or border should be considered a sufficient reason to surrender so much private data. Senior courts have expressed a degree of disquiet about the existing power, and a further case is under way. Nobody wants a regime of pointless box-ticking, but we need to rise to the independent reviewers’ challenge and satisfy ourselves that, if this strong and intrusive power is to be further extended, it is accompanied by the right safeguards.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, crime and disorder have reached such levels in this country that we certainly need more effective and meaningful policing, but it has to be done in a way that retains confidence, does not damage fundamental freedoms and keeps the criminal law clear and easily understood—or, rather, stops the law becoming ever more complex and harder to understand. I will not dwell on that point, as my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier has made it eloquently, but I am sorry that the Bill continues down the road that the previous Government took of creating specific offences for things that are already crimes—for example, the offence of assault on a shop worker. Speaking as somebody who has been very critical of the way the pandemic and the lockdowns were handled, I cannot help seeing some irony in the fact that, four years ago, it was an offence to attend a demonstration without a face mask, and soon it will be an offence to attend one with one. Nevertheless, I am generally supportive, and in the time available I want to register two concerns briefly.
First, I note the Government’s intention, which we have heard about and which the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention expressed in the Commons, to expand the scope of so-called hate crime offences by making all existing strands of hate crime aggravated offences. Given the way so-called hate crimes have recently, in practice, been used to chill freedom of expression and freedom of speech, I have quite a lot of concern about this; it seems to be going in quite the wrong direction. Rather, as a society, we ought to be going in a different direction, which is to begin to remove the concept of hate crimes from the statute book, and particularly to abolish the entirely illegitimate category, in my view, of non-crime hate incidents. An amendment to that effect was put forward in the Commons and did not succeed, but I hope and expect that it will be tabled again; indeed, I may propose my own amendment on that subject.
Secondly, as others have done, I register the deepest concerns about Clause 191. If this becomes law, it would be the biggest change to abortion legislation since the Act was introduced in 1967. As has been said, the permanent extension of the pills by post scheme, with no requirement for an in-person consultation, has made it possible to try to end a pregnancy at any point beyond 24 weeks. At the moment, that is still a criminal offence, and this clause would mean that it no longer was, provided that only the mother was involved. It is foreseeable that, in practice, this will make abortions up to birth more common, endanger more women because of the medical risks of termination after 24 weeks, and create pressure for a similar decriminalisation for medical practitioners themselves. People will argue, “How can it be illegal for a doctor to help with something that is not in itself illegal?” or they will say that doctors need to be able to perform late-term abortions to avoid the risks of terminations at home. It is the beginning of a slippery slope.
There is no demand for this. Polling shows that more than half the public favour keeping abortion after 24 weeks a criminal offence and only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth—and, in passing, 70% of women support a reduction in the time limit from 24 to 20 weeks.
The clause would remove one of the few remaining legal protections for the unborn. In our country, if children are born prematurely after 24 weeks, the medical system will do everything it can to save them, and it is often successful. Yet this clause will make it possible to try to end the life of a baby after 24 weeks without criminal consequences. It is simply inconsistent, not just with current abortion law but with current law around maternal and child health more broadly. This clause had a wholly inadequate couple of hours’ debate in the Commons. Its proponents really should be embarrassed to legislate on life and death in this fashion. I hope it will get a lot more debate here, and I hope noble Lords will reject it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, in introducing a Bill described as challengingly broad. It is not easy, however, to identify an overarching theme, so I shall speak rather generally about children who are the subject—or, if you like, object—of much of the Bill.
I declare an interest as a trustee of Safer London. We—not me; I pay tribute to the professionals in the organisation—work with young Londoners and families caught in cycles of violence, exploitation and trauma. We help them escape harm, heal, rebuild and believe in brighter futures. That may sound naive and flowery, but it is hard-headed and hard work.
An effective response is often rooted in safeguarding, not the imposition of punishment. Young people caught up in child criminal exploitation, for instance, are frequently significantly affected by trauma—seriously adverse childhood experiences—before this happens. Alongside this, Safer London is finding that about a third of its clients are neurodiverse or have special educational needs. Allowing for those undiagnosed, this may actually mean about 50%.
So many are so vulnerable. Grooming often involves quite small gifts—so called—followed by, “Now you owe me, and if you do not do as I say, you will see what is coming to your sister”; a sort of debt bondage. It takes skill to work alongside, advocate for and help a young person effect change, to see beyond behaviour to what leads them to where they end up or are in danger of ending up. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me mention resources. When support services have lost funding, anti-social behaviour has increased. The first inquiry of the House’s Justice and Home Affairs Committee three years ago looked at alternatives to short custodial sentences and heard a lot about the need for more investment in treatment as the response to crime. This applies to children as well as adults. It is hard for a child with a criminal record to find employment when they need an economic future outside criminality. On top of this, I am told there is a racial element as black children do not get diversionary sentencing to the same degree as others.
Of course, this skates the surface and I share the frustration of other noble Lords this afternoon. I may express through amendments concerns about polygraphs and whether there are gaps in the mandatory reporting provisions. Those are just for instances. On a different, broad point, how much new law are we loading on the police, who have to prioritise and get their heads around the detail of new offences, when, as other noble Lords have said, an activity has been covered by an old law? But I recognise that sometimes we do need to update, as with cuckooing, which I welcome specifically, and with the late addition of halting the criminalisation of women in England and Wales under abortion law dating back to 1861 to bring us into line with changes that noble Lords across the House—and I have been reminded I was among them—voted into Northern Ireland law in 2019.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, Clause 191 proposes an extremely radical change to abortion law. It was added on Report in the other place without due consideration and with only 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. It is unnecessary, badly drafted and will harm women. We already have one of the most permissive abortion laws in the world. Even David Steel said he never intended the Abortion Act 1967 to enable termination to be treated like a form of contraception. The presumption in the Act is that deliberately ending the life of a child in the womb is a criminal offence unless it is signed off by two doctors who decide in good faith that one or more of the specified grounds are met.
The change in the law is not because there are women who cannot get abortions or because it is too difficult to get a doctor to sign off, but because of an ideological commitment to presenting abortion as a form of healthcare, like the removal of a tumour. The humanity of the baby in the womb is ignored. A wanted child is a baby and should be protected; an unwanted child is a foetus—an othering word, if ever there was one—and can be removed and disposed of. I simply do not believe the degree to which a mother wants or does not want her baby changes the moral status of the child and think we need to have a national conversation about this.
I may be in a minority in this House when I speak on this issue, but I suspect that the removal of abortion from the ambit of the criminal law for the mother is something that makes many people uncomfortable because abortion is important. I think we all instinctively know we are dealing with the termination of a human life. We cannot just allow a free for all; there must be limits. Even though prosecution of mothers for unlawful abortions is incredibly rare, the existence of a criminal law framework for abortion sends a vital message that ending the life of an unborn person is a serious matter. This is reflected in the way the law is framed, and that is what the majority of the public appear to want.
A poll of over 2,000 adults found that more than six in 10 respondents agreed that abortion should continue to remain illegal after 24 weeks; just 17% disagreed. Clause 191 disapplies the law from a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy. No matter how she ends the life of her unborn baby, no matter how late in the pregnancy, no matter how painful for the child, no matter how distressing for whoever finds the remains, she would be beyond the reach of the law; whereas any doctor or nurse who is complicit would be committing a criminal offence. The Member for Gower gave an interview to Times Radio. She was asked whether she was comfortable with any woman ending a pregnancy at any time; she said she was. That is what Clause 191 will enable.
Janice Turner of the Times, a supporter of abortion, wrote that she was “aghast” at this “glib, careless and amoral” clause. In her words,
“it cannot be that killing a full-term baby in the birth canal is legal, but smothering it outside the womb is infanticide”.
The Times editorial also raised the issue of pills by post, which was passed in the dead of night in 2022 without proper debate, or an impact assessment, and indeed the amendment was a disorderly one which had to be amended by the department.
There can be severe complications with abortion pills, especially when they are taken late in pregnancy. These include haemorrhaging and excruciating pain. The traumatic situations in which these women have ended up is as a result of pills by post. It enables women to have dangerous, late-term abortions at home alone without any medical supervision. Yet activists are now using the failings of pills by post to push for even more extreme laws.
In conclusion, Clause 191 will only make the situation worse, increasing the number of late-term abortions, and putting more women in danger. If we really care for women, we need to reinstate in-person appointments: proper, sensitive, skilled medical assessments where experts can assess how far along a woman is, whether there are any complicating factors that put her in danger, or whether she is being coerced. We already have unfettered access to abortion: Clause 191 is an embarrassment to supporters of abortion and a stain on our reputation as a country that claims to care for pregnant women and their unborn children.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, Tony Blair had a pronounced interest in reducing crime. Two decades ago, as his strategy advisor, I spent two and a half years working with gifted teams of officials, looking at patterns of crime and offending, and how the many organisations within the criminal justice system were responding. Two decades on, however, the crime picture has changed fundamentally. On the plus side, a combination of forensic science, the extraordinary ubiquity of street cameras, including in doorbells, and the data obtainable from suspects’ mobile phones has seen highly professional police clinically solve the worst crimes, particularly murder.
We are, however, failing miserably to organise effectively in countering other types of offences, which each of us now experiences either directly or through friends and family, all the time and to an unprecedented extent, and which mostly go unrecorded. Staff at my local supermarket tell me they witness shoplifting with impunity at least once every hour. Watch thieves stalk the streets of Soho. A visitor to a fifth-floor flat in my apartment block had his £5,000 bike stolen, all captured clearly on CCTV and shared with the police. Two days later he saw his bike for sale on eBay, but they refused to help him reclaim it.
The BBC’s “Scam Interceptors” programme scams the scammers: listening in, catching them in the act, chiefly frightening older people unversed in technology into parting with some or all of their life savings. The scammers operate with impunity on an industrial scale out of identified buildings in India. The BBC recently tracked down a scammer facility in Nigeria which tricks naive British teenagers into selling sex pics, then blackmails them. In one instance, tragically, this triggered a suicide.
We should be ashamed—sitting here in the nation’s Parliament, in the Borough of Westminster—that we are cited as the street crime capital of the UK, with mobile and other theft rampant. Yes, the police have finally mounted an ambitious operation, but each of us will know someone who has had their mobile snatched, who has immediately located it at a specific house in Hackney or elsewhere using the “find my phone” facility, only to be told by police that no action will be taken.
In our city centres, warrior e-bikers bomb along, some at souped-up speeds, sometimes at night without lights, ignoring red lights and zebra crossings and going the wrong way up one-way streets—all with impunity, confident that they will never be stopped. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, tellingly identified other forms of wholly unwelcome and ever-increasing anti-social behaviour on our streets.
Knife crime has doubled in a decade with over 50,000 annual offences and 200-plus deaths; it is now the most common method of murder. The current inquiry into the horrific Southport massacre by a 17 year-old has produced chilling evidence of just how easy it was for him to purchase outrageous weaponry online—in his case, a black panther kukri machete with a 16.5 inch blade.
I do not dispute the value of most measures in this Bill, but I suggest that nothing in it addresses the need for the police and other agencies massively to raise their game and to attack every kind of crime that has a material impact on our everyday lives, whether on the internet or on the streets. I conclude by asking the Minister if the Government will step back and frame a bold and transformative strategy to tackle head on the plague of everyday crime that we are living with today.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest declared in the register as chair of the College of Policing.
For our police service, founded on the principle of consent, to be effective, the trust and confidence of the communities they serve is essential. But the proportion of the public who believe the police are doing a good job has fallen precipitously in the last few years. There are multiple causes, but I believe this Bill and the Government’s focus on rebuilding neighbourhood policing will be a very important step towards improving confidence.
We place immense demands on the police service. In recent years, there has been a shift of priorities and resources towards dealing with crimes of harm and important issues such as violence against women and girls—issues which simply were not on the agenda before. Combined with funding and other pressures, we have seen in some forces a failure to attend to the basic standards of service which the public expect, such as action following shoplifting, burglaries or mobile phone theft. It is, I believe, the failure to attend to these basics which exacerbates criticism of the police for overreach, for getting involved in things we do not want them to be doing and in particular in relation to police action which it is felt intrudes upon free speech.
Non-crime hate incidents have become a kind of lightning rod for criticism of the service, and a number of high-profile cases of ill-judged police intervention have undoubtedly damaged confidence. NCHIs were born out of the landmark Stephen Lawrence inquiry as a means to support police to monitor incidents linked to hate or hostility, with the purpose of preventing future crimes, supporting investigations and protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. Recent events, such as the horrific attacks on the Manchester synagogue and the Peacehaven mosque, should remind us that dealing with hate crime remains as vital in 2025 as it did over a quarter a century ago.
It is essential that policing continues to have the ability to monitor hate and hostility within our communities. What could not have been envisaged at the time of the Lawrence inquiry was the growth of the internet, the advent of smartphones and social media, and how these have transformed how people interact with each other. The rapid expansion of the online space, coupled with increasingly polarised public discourse, has resulted in forces grappling with the challenge of balancing free speech with monitoring community tension in both physical and online spaces to prevent crime and protect people from harm.
Not all perceived hate reported to police requires a police response or police incident record. The requirement to record should be shaped by necessity, proportionality and legality. There have been high-profile instances where policing has struggled with all three. That is why I called in this Chamber for a rebalancing of the system. At my instigation, the college, together with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and with the support of the Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Government, set up a review of the entire system of non-crime hate incidents. The review has found that the current approach and use of non-crime hate incidents is not fit for purpose, and there is a need for broad reform to ensure that policing can focus on genuine harm and risk within communities. The recording of hurt feelings and differing views should not continue. A report has just been sent to Ministers, and I am sure that they will respond in due course.
But while I believe change is vital to restore public confidence and ensure that free speech is protected, I would counsel against laying all the problems of policing at the door of non-crime hate incidents. The police are not spending all their time policing tweets. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has pointed out that non-crime hate incidents account for 0.05% of the calls they respond to. A number of the high-profile and controversial cases about the policing of social media comment relate to hate crimes—offences that Parliament created for good reason. If we want to revisit those criminal offences, then that is a debate that we should have here, but in the meantime the police have a duty to uphold the law.
We can and should expect that the police will act proportionately, without fear or favour, and use common sense and professional judgment in the investigation of crimes. That judgment was obviously lacking in some recent cases. Therefore, a second key initiative that I and the college’s chief executive, Sir Andy Marsh, have instigated will be new guidance on the exercise of that discretion, so that we can ensure that common-sense decisions are taken and that confidence in the police service is not undermined.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill, especially measures to tackle anti-social behaviour and shoplifting. I thank my noble friend Lord Hanson for visiting Brixton just before the summer, where he met with local shop workers and local businesses. We were very grateful for his time.
I strongly support Clause 191, which seeks to decriminalise women who have to have an abortion. It was introduced by our colleague, Tonia Antoniazzi, who is with us in the Chamber today. It is not in the public interest for any woman to be prosecuted and given a criminal record in relation to her own body and her own abortion. In this day and age, we should not be vilifying and hounding pregnant women who often find themselves in deeply traumatic circumstances. I do not believe that any woman takes an abortion lightly, particularly at a very late stage. They need support, medical care and compassion, not the threat of prison. I will tell you what I find embarrassing: it is this conversation and the tone of this conversation; it feels like we are back in Victorian times. It is absurd and wrong that in 2025 we are arguing whether a woman should have the right or the agency to choose what she knows is best for her body and her health.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment to ending time limits on child abuse. At the moment, it is very difficult to bring a case if you are over the age of 21. This makes no sense and is a denial of justice, as it often takes many years before people who were abused as a child can speak about their abuse. However, the Government are proposing that this apply only to sexual abuse. I would ask Ministers to consider widening this to include physical and emotional abuse and neglect, which often accompany sexual abuse. This is the approach taken in Scotland, and I think it is right.
I hope that Ministers will also consult with victims of child sex abuse about how to make it easier to seek justice. We know from the grooming rape gang scandal how hard it is for young people to speak out and be believed, and of the devastating consequences of abuse. I very much agree with lots of the points raised by my noble friend Lady Royall. I also welcome what we heard from the Minister, who announced a pardon and disregard scheme for those girls caught up in the grooming-gang scandal. I know that is something that they have been pressing for, and they will very much hope that it will happen.
Finally, we know that much of the troubling increase in sexual violence and misogyny against women and girls is rooted in people, particularly young people, having unfettered access to extreme pornography. Some 90% of online porn involves acts of torture and barbarism against women. Some 44% of our children have watched rape scenes online. This is poisoning minds and leading to violence in real life.
So I very much support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, to better protect children from online pornography. I also appreciate the Government’s efforts to ban the depiction of strangulation. It is not right or normal to teach our children that sex means inflicting pain on a woman. That is what is happening, and we are allowing it to happen online, on screens that our kids have in their hands every single day. I hope Ministers can make some progress on these three issues through the passage of this Bill.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, there is much in this Bill that can be supported. Many of its measures were, as we have heard, part of the Conservative Criminal Justice Bill that fell at the time of the last election, so on many levels there should be consensus. But this is a very large Bill, with many specific headings, many of which would merit a stand-alone Bill in their own right. Our scrutiny will require time, as we have seen—when considered by the other place it required 15 Committee days—and we have been promised further amendments from the Government. I hope the Minister will encourage his Front Bench to allow sufficient time for the level of scrutiny of which we in this House are proud. These are all important subjects.
The Government have said that the Bill will deliver their safer streets mission. The early parts of the Bill address, inter alia, offensive weapons, stalking, retail crime and anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is complex and we often use it as an umbrella term—that is not good enough. As far as this Bill is concerned, the public and in particular the police need clarity in this area, where if anti-social behaviour is not dealt with at a low level then it can turn into much more serious criminal activity, and that becomes the norm. We have only to look at the more recent change in retail theft. It is not a new crime but one that has developed in a way that now requires us to afford stronger protection for retail workers with this Bill, in Clause 37 to 39. I hope we are able to deliver that.
Serious crime, knife crime and the sexual abuse of children need stronger enforcement. As we progress with this legislation, I hope we will hear more about how enforcement is to be delivered. It is a fact that, as criminality evolves, we legislators often find ourselves playing catch-up and somewhat behind the curve to keep up with the criminals. I have been here well over 30 years—not in this House, but in the whole building—and enormous Home Office Bills seem to be required in almost every Session. It is understandable why: we cannot afford to stay still. The criminals do not stay still and technology very often aids and abets them.
Like many others, I too am concerned about Clause 191. The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, just mentioned that a woman in this position would need many things, including medical assistance. From what I have heard today, I am not clear in my mind that, if this were enacted, medical assistance would be lawful. I hope we will give sufficient time to this clause, and that the Minister will make sure that we have the information we need when debating this to ensure that existing legislation already on the statute book is weighed against what is being proposed in this clause.
I support this Bill. I am sure there will be one or two bits and pieces on which I have issues, but this former Home Office Minister none the less wishes it good speed.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will talk about one specific issue in the Bill, which has been referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hazarika and Lady Royall, which is the limitation period for child sexual abuse claims. Child sexual abuse is abhorrent, and unfortunately it has been shown, over the past 20 or 30 years, to be much more widespread than was once believed to be the case.
It has always been possible for the victim of child abuse to sue the perpetrator or, more commonly, the institution where the perpetrator worked or to which they were closely connected, the limitation period being three years. However, there are exceptions, the most important and relevant of which is that time does not start to run until the claimant reaches the age of 18. Even after three years, there are various ways in which to extend the limitation period. The first is when a claimant did not have the necessary knowledge or awareness of the abuse, which is quite often relied on. But the most important extension was provided by Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, which gave the court complete discretion to disapply the limitation period. The section sets out in detail all sorts of sensible factors that guide the exercise of the discretion, but the discretion is in fact unfettered, so that other factors not listed can be taken into account. Although it is for the claimant to persuade the court, the courts generally disapply the limitation period as it happens, unless there are particular circumstances where it would be unfair for the case to go on.
Noble Lords might think that it would never be unfair for the victim of child sexual abuse to be able to bring a claim, and I have some sympathy for that, but the reality is that the claims are not against the perpetrators—they are against institutions, educational or religious, and those run by local authorities or government, where the abuse has taken place. The law on vicarious liability was changed by the courts so that an institution could not argue that the abuse was outside the scope of employment, with the result that compensation often had to be paid, sometimes even by the taxpayer or insurers, without any fault on their part.
I should make it entirely clear that I have a relevant interest to declare. Over the years, as a barrister, I have acted for institutions that have been sued for what is known as historic child abuse. I have also acted for victims and been involved in a number of cases that have reached the higher courts on the questions of limitation.
My query to the Government is essentially this: what was wrong with the existing law in practice, and how do the relevant provisions change it? My current view is that, if these provisions become law, there is a risk of satellite litigation just at a time when the law seemed relatively settled. There are some cases where it is simply impossible for there to be any meaningful trial. For example, the claimant’s own recollection may be very hazy; the perpetrators, or alleged perpetrators, of the abuse may be dead; there may be no records of any sort; and the relevant institution may have closed and any insurance may be untraceable. The intention presumably—and the way it is framed in the Bill is something of a compromise—is to make it very difficult for the defendant to defeat a claim on grounds of limitation, but what sort of cases would now be in time that would not be under the current law?
Some other features need to be raised in Committee, some already referred to: what is the proper definition of sexual abuse, and what about other forms of abuse that may properly be described as sexual? What if there are mixed abuse claims? There will also be uncertainty as to what constitutes “settled by agreement”. Does that include prelitigation settlements? What about claims that have been discontinued or settled informally?
My current view is that the law is fair to both parties. These changes will breed uncertainty and litigation—good for lawyers, but not a beneficial advance in the law. The proposed changes are not the result of a Law Commission report, nor of a large piece of legislation such as the Limitation Act. Rather, they seem to be the result of a general recommendation from the IICSA inquiry and a rather modest consultation. That is not a good way in which to make law; it will result in uncertainty and much litigation. In a wholly natural desire to help the victims of abuse, we should be careful not to make bad law.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the introduction of her Bill, which has much to commend it. Earlier this year, I indicated that I would retire in the spring. However, I am a politician, and I did not say which spring. I really do want to retire, but I have one last parliamentary task to deal with.
When I arrived at your Lordships’ House in 1992, one of my areas of expertise was in road haulage operation, including abnormal load movements. In the late 1990s, the late and much missed Lord Mason of Barnsley worked tirelessly on seeking to replace the police with the private escorting—or rather, self-escorting—of abnormal loads. This was because it was not a good use of police time, and in some cases the police were not very good at it—although forces such as the Met were, and still are, excellent.
A large part of the problem was police priorities causing abnormal loads to have to wait a long time for a police escort, which was expensive for industry. At this point I should declare an interest, as I operate a tank transporter for the REME Museum. I have given the Minister full details of this interest. We succeeded in about 2002, when the then Minister of State for policing, John Denham, changed UK policy, and thenceforth the police would not routinely escort abnormal loads unless they were particularly large, or traffic rules would have to be contravened. By and large, this policy change worked well and I am proud of it.
About three years ago, however, some police forces decided to take a very close interest in heavy haulage operations. It is not clear why, because my understanding, based on discussion at retired senior traffic commissioner level, is that operators who conduct heavy haulage work are generally regarded as responsible, compliant hauliers who want to do it right, despite the many challenges they face. There will, of course, be a small proportion of heavy hauliers identified who do not comply, just as there are always hauliers in all sectors who will not comply, but these are the exception and not the rule. With regard to the few forces involved, the most appropriate term would be “persecution and harassment”, even of the largest and most professional operators in the land. I have emailed a report to many of your Lordships about my investigations and I urge your Lordships just to read page 3.
Noble Lords often ask me what is driving this behaviour. The short answer is money. Often, the police officers who decide whether the load needs a police escort are the same ones who will pick up the overtime payments. Furthermore, over the last five years, the income for West Midlands Police, for instance, has increased somewhat: year one, £15,000; year two, £39,000; year three, £36,000. Are your Lordships sitting down comfortably? Year four, £855,000; and year five, projected using the 2023-24 figures, £1.1 million. So we have gone from £15,000 to £1.1 million. The income profile of many other police forces has remained steady, so, for other comparative police forces, you are looking at about £30,000 a year. Some police forces, such as Thames Valley, do not make any charges at all.
We have regulations about how much the police can charge for issuing a firearms certificate—and basically, we screw down the amount the police can charge, so they cannot do a proper job—but none about charges for escorting an abnormal load. There is NPCC guidance, but it is predicated on policing events such as football matches. The police forces involved are charging for a minimum six-hour shift but using the same team to escort several loads within that shift. This cannot be right. It should be noted that a lot of the money eventually comes from government-funded projects such as HS2. I will be tabling amendments about this, and quite a few others about abnormal loads, because relevant STGO legislation is no longer fit for purpose.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind words about the new offence with respect to child sexual abuse image generators and I take the opportunity to recognise the work of the specialist police unit that has worked alongside me on these and other issues. Working at the front line of child sexual abuse detection and enforcement is to come up against some of the most sordid and horrendous scenarios that can make you lose faith in humanity, so I want to put on record our huge debt to those in the unit for their courage and commitment.
I was also pleased to hear the Minister’s commitment to criminalise pornography that depicts acts of strangulation and suffocation. This is one of a number of concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, will speak to shortly, and I shall be supporting her on all her amendments. During the Recess, I chaired a meeting of extremely senior health professionals and the prevalence of young people presenting in clinical settings suffering from violence and abuse during sex was simply horrific, with outcomes ranging from fear and trauma to death itself. There is an epidemic of sexual violence, normalised and driven by pornography, and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will have the support of the whole House on this matter.
I have four further areas of concern and I am going to touch on each very briefly. First, this House successfully introduced amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Act to empower coroners to require technology companies to preserve data when a child has died. At the time, we proposed that preservation notices should be automatic and that statutory guidance should be developed, but this was refused. We now have the law, but bereaved families are still unable to benefit from its provisions, because preservation notices are not being used quickly enough, and nor are the powers fully understood. It is simply heartbreaking to see a parent who has just lost a child become a victim of a system that does not understand or use its own powers. I will be tabling amendments to make the new law work as was promised and as Parliament intended.
Secondly, we have all seen media reports of chatbots suggesting illegal content or activity to children. I remain unclear about the Government’s appetite to strengthen Ofcom’s codes or to resolve the differences of opinion between Parliament and the regulator about the scope of the Online Safety Act. Nevertheless, I will be seeking to ensure that AI chatbots that suggest or facilitate illegal activity are addressed in the Crime and Policing Bill.
Thirdly, as I have indicated, I welcome the CSAM generator offence in the Bill, but a gap remains and I will be tabling amendments to place clear, legally binding duties on developers of generative AI systems to conduct risk assessments, identifying whether and how their systems could be misused for this narrow but devastating purpose.
Finally, I am curious about youth diversion orders. I am by no means against them, but I would like to understand whether they are to be backed up by other support, such as autism screening and therapeutic support. Many at the front line of this issue say that there is a serious lack of resource, and I would be interested to hear from Ministers how young people are to be supported once diverted, and whether the Government have plans to look further at the responsibility of tech companies that deliberately design for constant engagement, even if extreme content is being used simply as bait. It is no longer possible to consider the online world as separate from any other environment and, if we do not impose the legal order we require elsewhere, we will continue to create a place of lawlessness and abuse.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, hers is never an easy act to follow but I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, so much for her work. I say to her: “Back at you”, as I will be supporting her work in this Bill as well. I also welcome the Minister to this House—what an asset she will be to it and the Government. I graciously thank her and this Government for the announcement around the criminalisation of depictions of strangulation. However, the law has to be well drafted, because the industry will find every loophole it possibly can. It is like water dripping through the cracks. It will already be thinking about it, because it is a very popular and profitable genre, so I would appreciate some back and forth on that to make sure we absolutely get it right. This is a big Bill, so we do not want to spend time arguing over things that we basically agree on.
Pornography has long existed, and it is not going anywhere anytime soon, but its scale, nature and impact have changed dramatically. As many noble Lords have already said, today, free and easily accessible content is increasingly violent, degrading and misogynistic. This is not a niche issue. Over a quarter of the UK population regularly accesses online pornography, a third of men say they watch it weekly, and the average age of first exposure is just 13. Technology such as nudification apps designed to sexually humiliate are still legal and very prolific.
This is not confined to pornography sites. Violent sexual content is now present on social media, X being the worst offender, and mainstream platforms. Homepages of major porn sites display material with titles including words like “attack”, “kidnap”, “force” and “violate”. Mainstream search engines very quickly get you to thousands of videos with harmful titles such as: “He overdid it and now she is dead” and “Lawyer strangled, bound and gagged in a van”—these are just the ones I can read out. I am pleased the little ones have gone from the Chamber. Content involving themes of incest and child abuse are also disturbingly prevalent. The free-to-view porn business model has driven this extremity. This is rewiring how young people think about sex, gender and relationships. We know that toxic masculinity is rising, and experts warn of links between viewing extreme pornography and committing sexual violence. Indeed, online porn has been described by one expert as
“the largest unregulated social experiment in human history”.
We discovered this during the review. The impact is far-reaching. Choking has now become a sexual norm. That is why the law needs to be changed, but it will take a while to reverse this. Some 38% of women under 40 say they have been strangled during sex. Nurses reported to us that they deal with sexually inflicted injuries on a very regular basis. Teachers reported pupils’ confusion over what constitutes sexual assault. Increasingly, there are reports of sexual dysfunction among men who find real-life intimacy less stimulating than online extremes, leading to many relationship breakdowns. When I met with Gisèle Pelicot’s daughter last month, she was adamant that online pornography played a role in her father’s crimes, and Dame Angiolini, in her inquiry, highlighted that Sarah Everard’s murderer had a history of viewing violent pornography.
Yet, despite the harm and the pace at which extreme online content has proliferated, legislation has lagged far behind. There is no external moderation nor proactive monitoring. There is no one government department with overall accountability or responsibility. Laws are patchy and rarely enforced. I am delighted that one recommendation out of 32 has been taken forward, but there is a lot more to do. In stark contrast, the world of offline pornography, such as DVDs, is regulated by the British Board of Film Classification, which my noble friend Lady Benjamin spoke about.
These amendments will absolutely do just that and will seek to reduce this imbalance in the law. It cannot be right that offline law refuses to classify material that promotes or depicts child sexual abuse, incest, trafficking, torture and harmful sexual acts. This has to change. These recommendations and amendments would ensure that not only the act of incest but also its depiction is banned along with material that encourages an interest in child sexual abuse. They would bring parity between material prohibited online and offline. They would also compel sites and platforms to verify the age and consent of anyone appearing on them.
This is not about ending pornography; it is about putting proportionate and necessary guard-rails back in place. I do not stand here naively and think that these amendments will solve everything overnight, but I believe these changes could bring good, workable and enforceable law that, at long last, is in step with technological developments and growing national sentiment.
To our daughters, it would say there is no industry or subculture that condones or excuses violence against them. To the porn industry and the ecosystem it supports, it would say that they can no longer avoid accountability or scrutiny. To our sons—who are also damaged in all this—regulating online pornography says to them that what they see on their screens is not normal, it is not acceptable and it is not inevitable. When we come to later stages, I urge noble Lords and the Government to support these amendments. I apologise for overrunning.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, should be congratulated for her extraordinary achievement in summarising more than 400 densely packed pages of legislation in 15 minutes. By my mathematics, that works out at summarising around 25 pages per minute, so she has set the bar pretty high and I know that her friends on the Government Front Bench will be looking very closely to see if they can follow that.
I follow my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, down the perhaps unpopular opinion in this House of legislation that the answer does not always lie in the statute book. Much of the anti-social behaviour-type issues that we have been talking about in the early part of this very substantial Bill are already illegal activities—they are crimes. The focus of my remarks will be much more on execution, delivery, performance and co-ordination than on the generation of new criminal offences—which are quite often activities that are already illegal.
I hope the Minister will accept that nothing I say today should be taken as a party-political point or a criticism of a Government of one flavour or another. My remarks are intended to address the performance of government as a whole, under various Administrations, and all the agencies involved, including the police. I certainly pay tribute to the police officers who protect us all. We are extremely lucky to have such a high-quality police force and, when there are failings—such as those we have heard about, including from the noble Baroness—they are even more extraordinary because the overall standard is so high.
Despite that, public confidence in local policing has continued to decline. One of the principal factors is that the public see overt offending not being properly prioritised or dealt with. The cumulative effect of the de facto tolerance of street crime means that the public feel powerless and disenfranchised, while lawbreakers are allowed to carry on without fear or sanction. We have heard about, for example, the extraordinary prevalence of bicycle crime. I understand that the clear-up rate is 1%; so, for 99% of the time, criminals are getting away with it. That is normalisation and tolerance of crime, and we cannot allow that to be the case.
We all listen carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on so many issues and I find myself very much aligned with his view: if we see people riding obviously illegally powerful e-bikes, how does that affect those who take the proper route of purchasing registered vehicles with number plates, insuring and taxing them, getting MOTs, and being prepared to take the sanctions should they break the law? I walk a couple of miles a day around the streets of central London and I have never once seen a policeman stop one of these vehicles.
There has been a lack of co-ordination, and accountability has fallen through the cracks between central and local government. As a final note, there are about 45 police forces; is that really a sensible number in our small group of islands in a modern digital age?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I add my welcome and thanks to the Minister for her introduction to the Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lady Doocey for setting out the Liberal Democrat stall so cogently both on policing more generally and on this Bill. On these Benches, we recognise the imperative to make our streets safer and to equip the police with the tools necessary to address modern crime. We support the elements of the Bill that tackle knife crime, combat online child exploitation and pursue criminal proceeds.
However, the foundation of our approach to public safety is our demand that new laws should be not just tough but fair and proportionate. We reject measures that risk the erosion of civil liberties or the criminalisation of the vulnerable. A core priority for me and my party is ensuring that our legal framework is modernised and future-proofed against evolving digital and online threats, as my noble friend emphasised. We support the new measures concerning the online supply chain of offensive weapons. We welcome the introduction of civil penalties aimed at strengthening accountability for businesses and online platforms involved in the advertising or selling of unlawful weapons. To enhance police intervention capability, we will, however, propose an amendment mandating a proactive real-time system for reporting under the new duty to report to the police bulk or suspicious sales of bladed articles.
The current cybersecurity landscape is badly hampered by outdated legislation. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is now 34 years old, stemming from a time before widespread internet access. It inadvertently criminalises legitimate cybersecurity activities such as vulnerability research, which are essential for national security. We call for the introduction of a statutory public interest defence within that Act to decriminalise the vital work of cybersecurity professionals and provide clearer legal protections.
Furthermore, to combat organised crime and address widespread online fraud, we want to see the creation of a specific criminal offence for digital identity theft. This new offence must target the unauthorised obtaining of personal or sensitive information, such as passwords or biometric data, with the clear intent to impersonate an individual for unauthorised activities.
We support new online child protection offences targeting AI-generated child sexual abuse material and enhanced Border Force powers to compel device unlocking for CSAM searches. On extreme pornography, we will strongly support amendments to be tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, following her review, extending the online definition to explicitly cover incest, pornography, and material depicting adults acting as or depicting children.
We want robust safeguards against the inappropriate use of intrusive technology. We oppose police use of live facial recognition—surveillance in public spaces without a statutory framework—given concerns regarding privacy and algorithmic bias. Deployment of LFR should be explicitly authorised by a judicial warrant and governed by a statutory code of practice, complete with an independent oversight body.
For antisocial behaviour measures, accountability and fairness are crucial. New respect orders must be subject to rigorous democratic scrutiny. Applications need to undergo full public consultation and should be approved by the relevant full council or its executive or cabinet before implementation.
We oppose the punitive increase in fixed penalty notices for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices from £100 to £500. This sharp increase risks intensifying abuses and arbitrary enforcement against the most vulnerable individuals. We will continue to protect the fundamental right to peaceful protest.
On these Benches, we will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that it is rooted, online and offline, in accountability, proportionality and the protection of civil liberties. We must ensure that this legislation is fair, effective and fit for the future.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I also support much of this Bill. The Home Secretary introduced the Bill to drive her Government’s safer streets mission and to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, so I welcome the tightening of the law in Clauses 84 and 85 around voyeurism and criminalising exposure intended for sexual gratification or humiliation. Despite the Supreme Court disallowing biological males from using women’s changing rooms and spaces, this still happens in many contexts. Not all are motivated by voyeurism—which is already a crime—or because someone wishes to expose themselves for sexual gratification or humiliation, but we should not turn a blind eye to these possible motivations; consideration should be given to them. Can the Minister confirm that the new law will protect women and girls while everyone catches up with the Supreme Court ruling?
Clause 147, which seeks to extend polygraph testing to more offenders, including those posing a risk of committing certain sexual offences, should shore up protection against predation on women and girls. If technology helps us manage sex offenders more smartly, let us use it.
However, as we have heard much today, Clause 191 cuts across the Bill’s protections against predation. Despite risks to women, this clause, intended to transform our societal approach to abortion, was appended in a rushed, emotive way in the other House. There is a pattern here. Safe access zones around all abortion clinics were also hurriedly appended to the Public Order Act in the Commons. That was despite testimonies from women now with grown-up children whom they were very glad they decided not to terminate after talking to caring and compassionate people outside clinics. Once such measures appear in legislation, they acquire unassailability on the grounds of care and compassion for women seeking abortions.
Clause 191 repeats the same pseudo-virtuous stitch up: a short discussion in the other House on Report of a Bill that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, with the assumption that all fair-minded people should agree to it. Those who do not can just be dismissed as reactionaries, because abortion is treated as an unlimited good in our topsy-turvy moral universe. Whatever we individually think about abortion, the laws of this land and a wide range of other considerations are being ignored or twisted out of shape to meet the insatiability of extreme bodily autonomy. Safe access zones sacrificed freedom of speech on that altar.
Clause 191 shreds a woman’s criminal responsibility and, with it, a vital protection for her against a partner or family member coercing or predating on her to have a late-term abortion. Bringing about her own late-stage termination of a baby that has been kicking, hiccupping and otherwise moving in utero will leave a long tail of effects on her life. Decriminalisation is only caring and compassionate in a very narrow and short-term way. This House will discuss ramifications of allowing terminations up to birth, but the only fit place for Clause 191 is the cutting room floor.
I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, for not being here today. She will table amendments against trafficking for sexual exploitation, to outlaw lucrative UK-based pimping websites which enable traffickers to advertise their victims easily and ply this vile trade.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, having nodded along to those who complained about the length and diverse nature of the Bill, I am going to propose five modest additions to it, which in their entirety would take up less than an extra page to add to the 400 that the Bill already contains. These measures are related to the review I carried out in my capacity as the Government’s former independent adviser on political violence and disruption. The review had such a profound impact on the last Government that the Prime Minister called a general election 24 hours after my having published it, so this is the first legislative opportunity to enact some of these measures.
This is a timely moment. The Prime Minister rightly stood up after the Heaton Park synagogue murders and said that he would do whatever it takes to keep the Jewish community safe. There are a number of measures in the Bill that will help protect vulnerable communities and individuals, such as Jewish people, in this increasingly dangerous and intimidating environment and better balance the right to protest, which is indeed fundamental, with the wider rights of communities and individuals to live their lives free from disruption.
But it must go further in a number of key ways: first, on cumulative impact, where the focus of the Prime Minister and Home Secretary is welcome, looking at the harm that has been done to Jewish communities in particular from the repeated, weekly marches that have taken place, which have made many areas seem unsafe for Jewish people. The commitment made so far, which is to add cumulative impact into Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, already exists—unless the Minister can explain to me how it will be extended. The important thing is to add cumulative impact into Section 13 of the Act, which enables the police to recommend to the Home Secretary that a procession should not go ahead on particular days. Simply amending the precise route or the timing is not going to be sufficient. I do not want to go over my time, so let me race through the other measures.
Secondly, on protecting police resources, the Government should consider adding into Sections 12, 13 and 14 the difficulty of police being able to resource repeat marches and the effect that this is having on other key areas.
Thirdly, on protecting our democracy, places that are central to the functioning of our democracy, such as council offices and MPs’ offices, should have their protection strengthened, alongside the very welcome strengthening of the protection of places of worship.
Fourthly, there should be enhanced powers to tackle extreme protest activity. However anyone comes down on the recent issue of Palestine Action, it was a nonsense that it took five years of it being able to carry out crimes and advertise them for it to reach the terrorism threshold. I hope the Government will consider my proposal of an extreme protest activity order.
Finally, there should be clearer statutory measures to prohibit public funding going to bodies such as Kneecap, which received a public grant that could not be taken back by the Government, despite its promotion of criminal activity and its undermining of democratic governance.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I will use my time to focus on the protection of women and girls. The first issue I wish to raise is honour-based abuse—a crime motivated by the perpetrator’s perception that an individual has somehow shamed or may shame a family or community. These crimes, which include devastating honour-motivated killings, female genital mutilation and forced marriage, have happened in the shadows for too long. It has been pointed out that there is a lot in the Bill, but honour-based abuse is not currently mentioned. I am not suggesting a new offence, but I want to ask the Minister whether he will incorporate a statutory definition of honour-based abuse in the Bill, with language strongly supported and agreed by survivors and the groups and charities that work with them, alongside issuing formal guidance to ensure understanding and consistency across agencies.
Offences related to honour-based abuse continue to have the lowest conviction of all flagged crimes, and it remains hidden, misunderstood and underprosecuted. Far too often, cases are misidentified or inaccurately recorded, which obscures the true scale of the problem and limits the protection available to victims. Collective and family involvement is not consistently recognised in investigations, and courts are left without a clear framework to identify and address honour as a motive. A survivor-led and sector-backed definition has already been developed, which recognises the role of collective perpetration, honour-based motivations and the powerful silencing effect of shame. This definition would provide a consistent basis for identification, recording and intervention, and effective protection for those at risk.
I also intend to raise whether the Government will consider adding honour as an aggravating factor in sentencing, which would ensure that honour-based motives are formally recognised by the courts and better reflect the gravity and broader societal impacts of these crimes. The announcement in August that the Government intend to introduce a definition and accompanying guidance was hugely welcome, and this change has been campaigned for for many years by many people, including Yasmin Javed, whose daughter Fawziyah was so tragically murdered in the name of honour. The Bill provides the earliest legislative opportunity to act on that commitment, so I hope that the Minister will be positive in his response.
On other issues relating to women and girls, I fully support my noble friend Lady Bertin’s work on regulating online pornographic content and hope that the Government will take the opportunity to deliver many of her recommendations in her powerful report, Creating a Safer World. I also support my noble friend Lady Owen in her ongoing work on image-based sexual abuse.
Finally, I turn to Clause 191 on the decriminalisation of women in relation to abortion. Noble Lords will have received much correspondence on the subject, and I want to use this time to clarify what Clause 191 does and does not do. Clause 191 removes women from the criminal justice system, meaning that they will no longer be investigated or prosecuted for having an abortion. What the clause does not do is make abortion legal up to birth. There is no change to the 24-week limit. There is no change to the 10-week limit on telemedicine. Abortions would still require two doctors’ signatures to be legally provided, women would still have to meet one of the grounds laid out in the Abortion Act 1967 and, importantly, non-consensual abortion would remain a crime at any gestation. Abortion outside these limits remains illegal, and anybody, including a medical professional, who assisted a woman in obtaining an abortion outside this law would be liable for prosecution.
The reason this clause has been introduced is because more than 100 women, many of them vulnerable and abused, have been investigated by police in recent years, and these investigations have taken many years. Those investigations themselves can prevent women getting the healthcare, mental health support and referral to appropriate support services that they need. I appreciate that noble Lords will want to discuss this clause in more detail in Committee, and I very much welcome that. It is supported by leading medical organisations, and I encourage interested noble Lords to read what they have to say.
I also highlight that decriminalising women in relation to abortion is not unusual. It would bring England and Wales in line with Northern Ireland and 50 countries worldwide, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and over 31 European jurisdictions—and, indeed, the United States, where women can never be prosecuted for having an abortion. Those countries have laws that criminalise those who provide an abortion, and that will remain the case here.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint on securing the considerable legal services of my noble friend Lady Levitt. The Government are very lucky to have them both steering this supertanker. There is much to commend: its focus on several vulnerable groups, including exploited children, victims of stalking, cuckooing and so on. I hope to speak to these parts in Committee. There is further scope to innovate in other areas genuinely to improve criminal justice.
I still have some concerns about an arms race begun over 30 years ago and escalated by some parts of this measure. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—some noble Lords are too young to remember—began raising public expectations that Governments could legislate their way to a harmonious society. Politicians purported to do this even in times of austerity, amid real-time cuts to living standards, in the justice system, and to youth, mental health and addiction services. Continued rhetorical attacks on the judiciary and fiscal attacks on legal aid have left swathes of ordinary people thinking that the law is not for them. It will arrest and prosecute them for a growing array of crimes and misdemeanours but rarely protect them from abusive employers, landlords or unaccountable corporations. That is why I welcome the imminent Hillsborough law.
The disillusionment can be disastrous. Knee-jerk politics fights the alligators but never drains the swamp. I fear that we have been breeding alligators in a swamp in which only populist far-right politics thrives. We see this long shadow in compromises to due process rights, the unregulated deployment of technology at the cost of personal privacy, and always more police powers; every year, yet more powers—broad, vague and never mirrored by measures improving police vetting, training and discipline.
In 1994, it was the end of the right to silence, suspicionless stop and search, and restrictions on gatherings featuring music with a repetitive beat. Now, and for years, the target has been non-violent protest. I share the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner’s concerns about our existing public order statute book; and now we have the measures proposed in this Bill, and those trailed as likely new government amendments to come in Committee, to restrict cumulative protest. Protests against asylum hotels make me very anxious. But I would no more ban them than those against job losses, benefit cuts, environmental degradation, war crimes, or racism and antisemitism. What would blanket bans on face coverings at protests mean for dissidents outside the embassy of an authoritarian foreign power? With all its churches, restrictions on protesting “in the vicinity of” places of worship could render our capital an extremely un-British protest-free zone.
Recently Ministers have warned, rightly, of the existential dangers of a far-right Administration. We must never write, let alone legislate for, a blank cheque for potential future anti-democratic abuse. While today is one for broad brushes and four-minute speeches, I hope noble Lords will come prepared for line-by-line forensic scrutiny of Bill and amendment text in the vital weeks to come. The other place may invoke the will of the people, but here we read the small print.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the clerks, the Whips and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for allowing me to change my place in the running order. I declare my interest as the UK chair of Common Sense Media, a US not-for-profit that campaigns for children’s safety on the internet. I had to step out of the debate briefly because I wanted to take part in a debate on music education in the Moses Room, which allows me to continue a tradition that I have set up for myself to always shoehorn the arts into any debate that we have here.
I echo to a certain extent the excellent sentiment behind the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. There is an interesting theme developing in this debate—an undercurrent coming from many noble Lords: do we need endless pieces of criminal legislation? Do we narrowly focus on the specifics that happen to exercise the public mind—or the political mind, perhaps—today and miss the big picture? I have long campaigned on the importance of the arts in the criminal justice system and, of course, the importance of the arts in our society in helping people to find interests and ways of expressing themselves that contribute to a harmonious society. I completely agree with the noble Baroness that this is impossible to legislate for. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, does so much incredible work as Prisons Minister and, in a previous life, in promoting the use of the arts in this way.
I was very struck by the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, which set this tone about constant recourse to legislation. I was reminded that, when I first became the Arts Minister, I inherited the Digital Economy Act and the new legislation to prosecute people who downloaded illegal music. I thought then that going after teenagers in their bedrooms was a fool’s errand; there would be a technology solution. The music industry found a solution by using existing legislation; it used the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to prosecute the big websites that were ripping off music makers, and in that way we started to get things more on an even keel.
It has long been a slightly bizarre obsession of mine as to why we do not have a criminal code in this country—one piece of paper, as it were, that lists the criminal offences—which would allow the Government of the day to do exactly what my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier was speaking about: cross-reference whether the offences that they are now bringing into law already exist or whether there are existing offences that could cover the current passion. For example, I bow to no one in wanting to defend retail workers from attacks by increasingly aggressive shoplifters, but I want to prevent everyone being attacked in this way. Do we need a specific offence for retail workers, or does this merely clog up the system? Indeed, to a certain extent, legislation such as this misses the big picture. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to the merger of police forces, which is long overdue, and we have referred in this debate to clogged cases.
Having said all that, of course, let me now do a complete reverse ferret—channel my inner noble Lord, Lord Walney, if you like—and say that I also wanted to speak in this debate to offer my unequivocal support to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. She and many other noble Baronesses and noble Lords have done incredible work in bringing the criminal statute book up to date in terms of the way that technology has fundamentally changed how pornography is used and has fundamentally impacted the lives of young people. I will support anything that can make that more coherent and allow us to have greater powers to crack down on this great technological scourge.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, there are a great many aspects of the Bill with which I agree, and my understanding of it has been greatly enhanced by today’s debate. However, I am uncomfortable with Clause 191. Decriminalising abortion up to birth for women clearly marks a significant shift in the law on abortion in the UK. Over the coming months, we will hear many arguments about Clause 191, drawing on the diverse expertise of this House, but I wish to focus on three points: parliamentary procedure, unanswered questions, and the Salisbury convention.
On the first point, it should be noted that Clause 191 has received precious little parliamentary scrutiny. By way of comparison, consider the level of scrutiny that both Houses have given the assisted dying Bill. That Bill had more than 100 hours of debate in the other place; in contrast, Clause 191 had just a few hours. That Bill has an impact assessment of over 150 pages; in contrast, Clause 191 is not covered in the Crime and Policing Bill’s impact assessment, and up-to-date information is not published on how many abortions take place through the pills by post scheme. If the assisted dying Bill has not been sufficiently scrutinised, as many have suggested, clearly the scrutiny of Clause 191 is insufficient.
Secondly, decriminalising abortion raises a plethora of unanswered questions, and when questions have been asked of the Government, they have often received weak replies. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee—who is not in her place, sadly—tabled the following, pertinent Written Question on 6 October, which is worth quoting in full:
“To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential risks to vulnerable women, including those who may be subject to coercion or abuse, if abortion were to be decriminalised; and what safeguarding measures they plan to put in place to protect them”.
That is a very sensible question. Sadly, the Government’s response on 10 October did not inspire much confidence. It began simply:
“No assessment has been made”.
I question how we are meant to vote on or, indeed, debate Clause 191 when no assessment has been made of the consequences. It clearly needs much more scrutiny than it has received thus far.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Salisbury convention does not apply to Clause 191, because this proposal was not included in the Government’s manifesto last year. This omission is perhaps unsurprising, because it does not command the support of the public. Polling from Ipsos earlier this year indicated that 63% of people support the status quo of 24 weeks, and polling from Whitestone Insight in May showed that 62% of voters agree that having an illegal abortion should continue to be a criminal offence.
In this House, we rightly pride ourselves on our commitment to scrutinising legislation clearly and effectively and providing the necessary time to challenge how it will be implemented. I know that noble Lords will be tabling amendments to Clause 191 in Committee; I will be looking closely at them to ensure that the clause receives the level of scrutiny it merits for the profound impact it would have on society.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, economic crime, in particular fraud, is now the leading form of UK crime and, together with money laundering and bribery, costs the UK billions of pounds each year. It also undermines public trust, public confidence and economic growth. The good news is that enforcement against these economic crimes and associated confiscation of assets, while complex, generates substantial receipts—some £566 million per year currently. Yet, while we entrust the police and other law agencies with more and more tasks, mostly both difficult and vital, the very agencies responsible for securing these funds from criminals face acute resource challenges, particularly in recruiting and retaining specialist staff, updating skills and modernising ageing IT systems and capabilities, as a number of other speakers across the House have referred to so powerfully today.
I suggest to the House—and not for the first time—that those enforcing the laws we so carefully create and pass here must be properly resourced. An obvious means of doing this would be to use the confiscated criminal assets via a ring-fenced fund to resource the agencies concerned. There are two existing schemes in this area. The economic crime levy is an annual charge on UK businesses regulated under the money-laundering regulations. This private sector contribution could logically be matched by greater reinvestment of enforcement receipts. The current asset recovery incentivisation scheme, ARIS, is subject to the curiously named “annularity rules”. This means that money not used by the year end, which is sometimes just weeks away from when the money is obtained, is lost. A ring-fenced fund would enable stronger agencies, which would then deliver greater asset recovery and confiscation which, reinvested into the fight against economic crime, would establish a virtuous circle of self-financing investment and effectiveness.
Beyond the obvious capacity and effectiveness benefits from such targeted resources, a ring-fenced fund would demonstrate to working people that the Government are exploring all avenues to crack down on economic crime. There is a certain fiscal poetry here—not a phrase one hears very often, I believe—in that this would all be achieved without adding to anyone’s tax burden, but by making the criminals pay: a form of “polluter pays”, if you will.
In the House of Commons, an amendment to the Bill was put down to require the Government simply to investigate the viability of such a ring-fenced economic crime fighting fund using a proportion of the assets I have referred to. This cross-party proposal secured broad parliamentary support. It was signed by 28 MPs from Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green parties on Report. Unfortunately, there was insufficient time to debate the amendment, but there were productive conversations with the relevant Ministers.
To underline again, the amendment did not suggest, and I do not suggest, that the Bill is used to establish such a fund, simply that its viability is investigated. I have already shared these ideas and, indeed, a draft of the amendment with the Minister. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this subject when he winds up this debate and would also welcome a meeting to discuss it with him.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, we live in an age where pretty much all of us carry in our pocket the means to access pornographic content so extreme that it would be illegal for any shop to sell it to any adult, anywhere in the country and, until very recently, children have had ready access to this extreme content. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said—it bears repeating—44% of children see depictions of rape in pornography before they turn 18. I think everyone in this House would accept that, since the early 2000s, there has been a huge change in who sees pornography and what pornography they are seeing. However, by and large, the regulatory framework has not changed. It is not designed for the digital age or the smartphone age, and it is certainly not designed for the age of AI, where anyone can generate a pornographic image in seconds.
Our legislation must catch up. The provisions in the Online Safety Act and the Data Act are an important first step, but more is needed. While running the No. 10 Policy Unit for Rishi Sunak, I pushed for an independent review to look at the problems associated with online pornography and to advise the Government on what could be done. That review was established in 2023 and my noble friend Lady Bertin was appointed lead reviewer.
I am extremely glad that the current Government shared our concerns and continued to support the work of the independent review, which, as we have heard, published a comprehensive and shocking report earlier this year. It is thanks to my noble friend Lady Bertin and her team that we now have a much clearer understanding of what is happening online and the impact it is having in the real world. As she set out in her speech, our failure to regulate online pornography has facilitated an industry that is
“increasingly violent, degrading and misogynistic”.
It is an industry that directs users towards ever more extreme content, and in doing so it is changing attitudes and fuelling violence towards women and girls. Indeed, almost every month seems to bring fresh evidence of the damage being done to children, to women and to those viewing this harmful content—content that goes unchecked because we have failed to apply our existing, settled laws and regulations to the online world.
In the pre-internet age, we had a broadly effective mechanism for regulating pornography through classification. We balanced the rights of consenting adults with the need to protect society. For over 40 years, legislation has ensured that pornographic videos are regulated by the British Board of Film Classification. Depictions of illegal activity such as rape, and harmful activity such as violent sexual activity, are banned. However, this regulation has never been extended to cover online pornography. There is nothing rational about a system that says content is illegal and harmful when watched on a DVD, but legal and permissible when watched on the internet. If we still believe that it is wrong and harmful for adults to watch depictions of incest on video, Blu-ray or DVD, how can we believe that that content should be readily available online?
In this Bill, the Government have a chance to act decisively, and I am extremely grateful for the commitment to bring forward an amendment to ban depictions of strangulation and suffocation in pornography. That is an important start but, during the passage of the Bill, I hope the House will agree to go further. My starting point is that we should apply the same standards to films that are distributed online as we already do to those that are distributed offline. It raises legitimate questions of enforcement and regulatory capacity. Those are valid concerns and I hope that we will debate them in Committee. However, I do not believe it should raise concerns about freedom of expression: after all, I am simply proposing that we apply and enforce our existing standards consistently—unless, of course, some would like to argue that our current laws for offline pornography have been stifling our freedom for decades and should now be relaxed, in which case I look forward to debating that, too.
I know that regulation in the digital age is not straightforward. Having spent many years in government, I have every sympathy for the current Government, who may well think that this is simply too hard to do. It is hard to do. But I would say to them that it is too important not to do, which is why I will be supporting the amendments in this space, including those from my noble friends Lady Owen and Lady Bertin.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I wish to address three issues. The first is the long-awaited duty of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. This is a key recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, but with a strengthened and more encompassing base, and a key issue supported by the NSPCC.
This mandatory provision is born of tragedy: it reflects too many cases where children found the courage to speak but nothing was done. But, while the principle is right, the drafting is too narrow, too timid and risks being ineffective in practice. The duty to report is triggered only when a disclosure is made or abuse is witnessed. Yet most abuse is not disclosed, and rarely is it seen first-hand. Professionals in health, education and faith settings often encounter warning signs, not confessions. The duty must extend to situations where there are reasonable grounds to suspect abuse.
Secondly, the Bill currently imposes no real sanction for failure to report, and a law without consequence is not a law that can change culture. There should be a clear offence of deliberate failure to act when a child’s disclosure is known.
Thirdly, there is a risk that the present wording could sweep in minor consensual activity between young people or undermine trust in health services. That must be corrected because the duty should target exploitation and coercion, not teenage relationships or confidential medical advice.
Fourthly, implementation matters, and we will need proper training and triage mechanisms to prevent overreporting and resources for local authorities and police to respond swiftly and sensitively.
The second issue is that we need to introduce a penalty for the intention to conceal. All too often, the orthodoxy is for individuals to feel a pressure to protect the organisation they serve—too big to fail. Individuals are too scared to report. Individuals who are protecting their institution must risk penalty.
My third issue is that when I served in the Home Office I had the privilege of introducing and funding the “ugly mugs” scheme. The principle behind it was not controversial. When a sex worker experiences violence or a threat, it enables them to report it anonymously so that others are warned. That information is their only line of defence, and since it was introduced it has saved lives, prevented repeated attacks and encouraged people who would never otherwise go near the police to start trusting them again.
New Clause 1, as tabled in the Commons, directly implicates online platforms and intermediaries that currently help sex workers publish adverts or manage listings. That is one of the main ways that the ugly mugs scheme engages—through alerts, listing of known bad actors and facilitating reporting. It has been truly successful in helping protect sex workers from dangerous clients. Whatever one’s view of prostitution, no one should be assaulted, raped or murdered for the work they do.
Ugly mugs was never about endorsing prostitution; it was about reducing harm and preventing homicide. The evidence is clear: where harm-reduction schemes exist, sex workers are better able to report violence, share intelligence and access justice. Where they are removed, people go underground. It is a dangerous illusion to think that, by abolishing the tools that keep people safe, we abolish the reality of prostitution. We do not; we simply make it more dangerous.
The duty of any Government, whatever their moral stance, is to protect life and prevent violence. Ugly mugs does precisely that, quietly and effectively, at very modest cost. Closing it would not advance women’s safety; it would imperil it.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, there are necessary provisions in the Bill but there is also window dressing. While we all deplore assaults on shop workers, we do not need this new measure. There are good laws of theft, robbery and assault. What we lack are the resources to arrest and prosecute. Last night, the Metropolitan Police announced that London will be left with just two police stations with front counters operating 24 hours a day—10 more are set to close under cost-cutting measures. That is not good enough.
Today’s Times reports that family drug and alcohol courts face closure, yet each such court case saves local authorities £58,000 in care costs and £15,000 in legal costs. Instead of chasing headlines, the Government should be funding the police, the CPS, those on legal aid and the courts properly. The Ministry of Justice has been starved of money by the previous Government—I accept that—and it is not being helped by the current one.
Clause 39 is well intentioned. It will show shoplifters who regularly steal low-value goods that this may be treated as a serious offence, triable in the Crown Court. But it is really important that only the prosecutor and not the defendant can go on to elect a Crown Court trial. If not, our Crown Courts will be overwhelmed. Backlogs are already years long.
I welcome the measures in Part 8, which are directed at electronic devices to steal cars. These are necessary and overdue. The measures to address so-called SIM farms are also to be welcomed.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said about the changes proposed under Clause 82 to the law of limitation. These are unnecessary and will be unhelpful.
Finally, I turn to Clause 191—the decriminalisation of abortion. I make it plain that I am not in principle opposed to abortion, but there was no prior scrutiny of, or public consultation on, this. The intention, which I accept is benign, of not criminalising a woman who aborts her own child risks new evils. Without the safeguards of the current law, women may be harassed into abortion, and a woman will be permitted, without medical advice, to abort a baby right up to due birth date. Just think about that; on any measure, it is a human being at that stage. What if the baby survives but is damaged? Will they sue the mother?
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell has had to say about this provision. We must look at it very carefully. Such an important change to the law regarding human life should be based on proper inquiry and evidence, and then, if necessary and appropriate, made through measured change in measured circumstances to the Abortion Act 1967.
To wind up, 240 seconds to debate 400 pages is not very much. We must be allocated proper time in Committee. It is likely that more baubles will be added to the Christmas tree.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I welcome the Minister to her role. She introduced this large Bill with admirable clarity.
The need to address the mandatory reporting of abuse of children is urgent, but the Bill should go wider than sexual abuse, because the criminal exploitation of children is associated with all types of abuse. As physical abuse occurs, the abuser initially tends to use the loophole to claim it is “reasonable chastisement” and avoid action being taken, yet this is linked to increasing violence, sexual abuse and emotional exploitation.
Such abuse and the driving of children to crime can happen within the home. The perpetrator grooming and using and abusing a child is not always from outside the home. The child, deeply disturbed, is pushed into criminal activity that escalates with frightening speed from relatively minor offences to very serious crime. There is an urgent need to ensure that children are protected from ongoing exploitation.
These children are subject to significant threats, such as them or their family being killed. Some have acid or heat burns and some are scolded or stabbed—all as ways of intimidating. Some 90% of these children do not disclose who is abusing them. The child is terrified; they cannot protect themselves.
Many struggle with the idea that the child is both a victim and a perpetrator at the same time. When it comes to the use, earlier on, of this loophole of claiming “reasonable chastisement”, it is important to remember that bruises do not show on skin of colour. Children need equal protection from assault and battery, just as adults have. That loophole needs to be closed.
The prevention of the exploitation of children with the criminal exploitation of children protection orders is long overdue. These will provide protection of the child, allowing services to intervene earlier and disrupt the business model of criminal gangs that control these children, at times even operating from inside prison. The perpetrator’s defence of reasonably assuming that the young person is over 18 leaves the door open to victimising teenagers without protection. We must not think that we will be adequately protecting children by only requiring the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse.
On a completely different subject, if we are to protect all on our streets, we must lower the drink drive limit to 20 milligrams per hundred millilitres of blood. To leave it as high as it is leaves lives endangered every day.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I am deeply concerned about the process—or lack of it—around Clause 191, which was tacked to the end of an unrelated Bill via a Back-Bench amendment in the Commons, with just 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. Many MPs wanting to speak were unable to; this is not a responsible way to make law.
As many other noble Lords have said, I fear there would be an increase in the number of late-term abortions with no medical supervision whatever, particularly as women continue to be able to obtain pills through the post without an in-person consultation. That came in during the special circumstances of the pandemic, but it has not been rescinded as it should be, even though we are no longer in such a health emergency.
Recent figures show that 54,000 women were admitted to NHS hospitals in England for the treatment of complications arising from the use of such abortion pills—a 50% rise from the figures before the pandemic. Analysis of accredited official statistics published by NHS England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that one in 17 women self-managing their abortion at home were subsequently admitted for hospital treatment. This clause will scarcely improve that.
I fear two things: first, that we are creating a modern-day equivalent of back-street abortion and, secondly, that it will assist the coercion of women into late terminations by coercive and abusive partners. They could just argue that this is legal now.
The clause would also remove the vital protection for unborn babies mature enough to survive outside the womb. There is no popular demand or pressure for this form of infanticide. If the public were made fully aware of this, I am sure the great majority would regard this clause not as progressive but as barbaric. I am profoundly worried about this clause and will seek to address it in Committee.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill presents a unique opportunity to close long-standing accountability gaps in the UK’s universal jurisdiction laws and will ensure, if the amendments are received, that perpetrators of the world’s most serious crimes can be brought to justice on British soil. The House has heard me on a number of occasions advocate for a review of the universal jurisdiction laws as they operate in this country.
Many noble Lords may ask what universal jurisdiction is all about. UK courts can prosecute certain international crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction, a legal framework that allows states to pursue justice for the most serious offences committed abroad, even when the case has no direct connection to the UK. These crimes include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture. Universal jurisdiction reflects the global consensus that such crimes are so grave that they demand accountability, wherever they occur.
However, there is a certain problem here in the United Kingdom, in that our organisations that are involved in human rights have seen, over and again, ways in which prosecution fails to take place because we require residency and nationality, so that a person who is present in the UK—sometimes coming to speak at a conference or to find a university for one of their children—cannot be prosecuted because they are not a British national and do not perhaps have residency in this country.
At a time when the number of such crimes—grievous crimes—is rising globally, reform is necessary. It would uphold the rule of law, enhance national security and help build safer communities both at home and abroad. We are renowned worldwide for our commitment to the rule of law—Britain probably leads the world—yet there is this serious gap. At present, the UK’s ability to prosecute grave international crimes under universal jurisdiction is severely limited, as I have just said.
The International Criminal Court Act declared that prosecutions could be brought for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity only where the suspect is a UK national or resident. It means that individuals accused of serious international crimes enter this country and do not face justice—and we can give you examples of that having happened. It is illogical, because we can prosecute internationally renowned torturers under the torture convention and the law that we used to introduce that as a domestic crime, but we cannot prosecute those others for the crimes that I have listed—war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and sexual crimes that have been weaponised as weapons of war.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I sit, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, published two reports this year, one relating to this Bill and another to Daesh/ISIL and people who have returned from criminal activities abroad. Both those reports recommended that there should be a review of the universal jurisdiction laws in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, pointed out that it was illogical that we can prosecute for torture but we cannot prosecute for all these other grievous crimes. The example that I wanted to give briefly was that of a Rwandan general, James Kaberebe, who has been known to have committed many crimes and come to this country yet not been in any way detained or prosecuted.
I strongly recommend that the House considers this issue in the fullness of time, along with the many valuable recommendations made in other speeches.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a president of the Local Government Association and chair of the Duke of Edinburgh awards.
While I broadly welcome this Bill, I have a number of reservations—but I strongly support the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on tackling pornography. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe is not in his place at the moment, because I support the fervour with which he wishes to improve cycling safety.
I shall concentrate my comments on the mandatory reporting of child sex abuse—I have a Private Member’s Bill on this topic; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for responding to me on that at Second Reading. Tom Perry, who previously worked with Mandate Now, has said:
“Among the 82% of countries in the rest of the world that mandate prescribed personnel to report child sexual abuse, none employ such a dilute approach”.
The impact assessment for this Bill says that there will be an increase of only around eight extra reports per annum per police force—hardly ground-breaking.
In April 2025, the Home Office published a progress update on tackling child sex abuse and found that the scale of child sexual abuse was “truly staggering”. Children are 20% of the population but are the victims in 40% of all sexual offences. The Local Government Association estimates that only one in three children who are sexually abused by an adult tell someone. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies estimates that 85% of child sexual abuse goes undetected and unreported.
While the Home Office update states that the Government are committed to tackling child sex abuse and will respond to the report from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, a system that requires abuse to be disclosed by the child, witnessed by the reporter or confessed by the perpetrator before a report is mandated is far too weak. What His Majesty’s Government propose falls short of the recommendations made in IICSA; the recommendation from IICSA is for anyone in a position of trust, whereas the scope of the proposed Bill is much reduced. This Bill excludes leadership and supervisory roles from the duty to report. Furthermore, only disclosed and witnessed abuse is covered. No criminal penalties are proposed for a failure to report, meaning that suspected child sexual abuse may continue to go unreported with no repercussions.
Lastly, the confidentiality duties for religious and medical sectors remain open to interpretation or to possible future exemption. The IICSA report shows that international evidence supports the view that England and Wales ought to introduce mandatory reporting laws to enable the police and local authorities better to identify children in need of protection. We must learn from other areas where mandatory reporting has been implemented, such as female genital mutilation, and endeavour to ensure that we have a clear, comprehensive and effective law. Our children deserve better.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her new role, and I very much look forward to working with her. I further welcome the clarification that this Bill brings to the law on spiking and the new offence of taking non-consensual intimate images. I very much look forward to supporting my noble friend Lady Sugg on her amendments on honour-based abuse and my noble friend Lady Bertin on her amendments on online pornography. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lady Bertin on her brilliant review and thank her for her tireless efforts pushing for comprehensive law on online pornography.
I turn now to the new taking offence. I greatly welcome the implementation of the Law Commission recommendation to update the pre-existing voyeurism and upskirting offences and implement a single taking offence. I am very pleased to see that it is vitally a consent-based offence, removing the unnecessary burden of having to prove the motivation of the perpetrator, which has featured in previous iterations of image-based abuse offences. However, it is vital that we further strengthen this offence, by increasing the time limits prosecutors have to bring forward charges, so that victims are not inadvertently timed out by the six-month time limit of a summary offence.
In February, the Government gave me an undertaking to extend the time limits for the non-consensual creation offence in the data Bill after it was highlighted by the campaign group #NotYourPorn. The extension of the time limit here means that, for the creation offence, victims have three years from when the offence is committed or alternatively from when the CPS has enough evidence to prosecute. Given that we have already achieved a legal precedent for extending the time limits on image-based sexual abuse, I would be grateful if the Minister, in his summing up, could commit to extending the time limits available in both the new taking offence and the pre-existing sharing offence, to ensure that all image-based abuse offences have parity within the law.
I was pleased to see the updating of the Sentencing Code to reflect the new taking offence and to clarify that photograph or film to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded as used for the purpose of committing the offence. However, I am keen that we look into further ways to ensure that this content is not kept by perpetrators and remains offline in perpetuity. Further, I will continue my work with survivors of this abuse and charities to explore ways in which this content can be removed from the internet as rapidly as possible.
Additionally, I was concerned that there does not seem to be a sufficient definition of what it is to “take” an image or video in the offence, and I would therefore also be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the definition of taking will include screenshotting. In the 2022 Law Commission report on intimate-image abuse, the example was given where a person may consent to being in an intimate state on a video call but not consent to the person screenshotting them. The Law Commission concluded that taking a screenshot of a video call should fall under the definition of taking, because this conduct creates a still image that does not otherwise exist.
I turn now to the issue of spiking, which my colleague in the other place, Joe Robertson MP, has highlighted, alongside the campaigners Colin and Mandy Mackie, whose son Greg tragically died after a spiking incident at university. While the clarification of spiking in this new offence is very welcome, I echo the point made by my noble friend Lady Coffey that there is concern that the intention element might be too narrow and that it might not allow for cases where a person has been spiked that do not fall into the categories of injure, aggrieve or annoy. This Bill is a positive step, and I look forward to working with the Government and noble Lords to strengthen it.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and I congratulate her on the campaigning work that she has done on some of the issues that we are addressing in this Bill. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on opening the Second Reading of this juggernaut of a Bill—she is a welcome addition to the Front Bench.
As other noble Lords have said, there is much to welcome in the Bill, but we must also recognise that there are deep concerns too. Non-governmental organisations that I hold in high regard, and across a wide spectrum, have expressed deep reservations. Therefore, it is vital that the Government get the equation right and ensure that there is a balancing of rights and protections. The opportunity, as other noble Lords have said, to widely address concerns and omissions will be in detailed Committee work. I eagerly await amendments that will be introduced by the Government to make all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence. I will also address omissions in relation to the needs of the Traveller, Gypsy and Roma communities.
Hate crime continues to rise and therefore government action is to be welcomed. Those who encourage and promote hate crime, whether online, in print or on the streets, empower the thugs who ultimately take violent action. The litmus test of any civilised country is that we all enjoy the equal protection of the law and the universal freedoms and obligations that are basic human rights. Yet online hate crime increases and is, sadly, often defended by those who should know better, Elon Musk among them. People are routinely grossly misrepresented, defamed and victimised because of their religion, their belief, their disability, the fact that they are transgender, lesbian, gay, bisexual or gender non-conforming, because of their race or more. To attack and denigrate such people and portray them as a threat to others is, in my opinion, to debase the very society in which we live. Freedom of expression is not the freedom to incite violence. Whoever incites hate or violence, or carries it out, should be held accountable and the law must be applied equally; therefore, I have no hesitation in encouraging the Government in their attempts through the Bill to create a better and more equal society.
Like other noble Lords, I have concerns, not least in relation to the Bill’s public order provisions, and I share reservations expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well as the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. The right to protest is an essential freedom. Protests often offend and often discomfort, and that is a price, I believe, worth paying in a democracy. And to counterprotest is not un-British; it is how protests are undertaken and conducted that matters. I am one of 16 Members of your Lordships’ House who voted against the proscription of Palestine Action because the case was not and has not been made. All restrictive actions by the state must be open and transparent and the evidence for such decisions clear for all to see.
In conclusion, if the Bill helps to make our country safer and stronger, then it is to be welcomed, but it must strike the right balance in protecting the essential freedoms that underpin democracy, otherwise it will do more harm and create further division. I associate myself completely with the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. We need to return to being a country where we are more comfortable with one another, where we respect difference and celebrate somebody else’s right to disagree with us. No one has anything to fear from equality, the equal protection of the law and the equal obligation to abide by the same laws. That is the litmus test of any decent, civilised society. It is not defined by draping oneself in a flag, the proclamation of patriotism, the defining of Britishness by the claim of some right or another, or how and when we make our voices heard. The essence of a civilised society is defined in its treatment of the most defamed, the most disfavoured, those shunned and misrepresented. Britishness is when we return to being a better, fairer, more generous country. If the Bill can help us move in that direction, it is to be welcomed.
Lord Hannett of Everton (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Minister, particularly on her skill in introducing such a wide-ranging Bill. My interest is parochial in the sense that, while there are many subjects here that require appropriate attention and scrutiny, as a previous general secretary of a retail union and somebody who has been involved in the issue of retail crime for many years, I want, in the short time available, to bring the impact on retail workers into this Chamber.
Some months ago, I introduced a debate in this Chamber on retail crime and there were many speakers—in fact, there was universal support; why would there not be?—on the subject of the abuse of workers. There are nearly 3 million workers in retail. In 2003, I had the responsibility and the pleasure to introduce the Freedom From Fear campaign in retail in my union. It sounds dramatic but it was born out of necessity, when there was such systematic verbal and physical abuse. One of the criticisms of many retail workers was that politicians were not listening. Of course, politicians cannot resolve the ills of society with one clause, but the message Ministers have sent out by this stand-alone clause is significant. The attention it has received in my union says that politicians not only make speeches but conclude actions. For me, it is a conclusion of hard work.
I could give many examples to bring to life the effect of verbal and physical abuse, but time does not allow, so I shall quote just a couple. Before I do, I want to say that verbal abuse might seem a victimless crime and just something that people do when they can or when they do not get their way in a store, but it is demeaning. We have heard of it in many other contexts in this Chamber. The right to go to work and be safe is fundamental in the workplace. This has never been an adversarial campaign. Retailers have supported it. The British Retail Consortium and many of the big retail companies were with us on this. In fact, when it started, all the recording was about the theft in the stores, not the reality of the impact on the employees. That day is gone. This decision by this Government sends the right message that abuse will never be tolerated.
Of course, one stand-alone clause does not in itself solve everything and we will monitor its impact in due course. There will be calls for an extension of it to other front-line workers, but we must not let that negate its importance. One of the best recruitment opportunities I had as a leader of a trade union was when we introduced this campaign and people who had never have wanted to join a union in the past liked the idea that they had somebody speaking up for them who was prepared to discuss with the companies, the stakeholders and politicians. So, whatever reservations there may be about specific clauses, the Government should be congratulated on this one. This is extremely important.
I will give two examples. A store manager, who had been assaulted three times, gave his job up. He could not face returning to the workplace. A young woman who had two children and was the only earner could not face coming back to the workplace. I know that is trying to draw a degree of emotion into this, but these are real people. Some 70% are receiving verbal abuse, and behind that statistic are individuals. So I applaud the Government for the Bill and I look forward to watching it work its way through and to contributing.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the inclusion of the cuckooing offence in this Bill. Unfortunately, across the country as a whole, vulnerable people are being exploited, threatened and manipulated in their own homes by criminals who take control of their property for their own purposes. Communities are also suffering terribly from this anti-social behaviour as a consequence. We call it cuckooing, which sounds a bit odd, but it is because of the similarity to the behaviour of the cuckoo bird, which imposes itself into another bird’s nest, expelling the rightful offspring and manipulating the adult birds into caring for it. It was 2021 when I first proposed the criminalisation of cuckooing. This was prompted by expert research by Justice and Care and the Centre for Social Justice. I was concerned that the existing laws were inadequate to address the exploitative nature of this predatory behaviour.
I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on bringing forward this offence. I also thank him for his response to my correspondence regarding the victims who are too afraid to verbalise their lack of consent and young people who may be compelled to engage in cuckooing by others who are exploiting them. I hope these issues will be addressed on the record during later stages of the Bill. The cuckooing offence treats this activity with the seriousness it deserves and will give the police the tools they need. I look forward to seeing it brought into force.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Big Brother Watch. I welcome the earlier comment by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, that the non-crime hate incident regime is not fit for purpose. This Bill has much to recommend it, but four minutes is nowhere near enough to do it justice, so I will focus on just two concerning aspects.
Until recently, our country was an exemplar of how government and other institutions could be held to account by citizens through peaceful protest. However, in 2022, the previous Government gave us the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which handed senior police officers and Ministers powers to impose extensive constraints on protests. Then, in 2023, the Public Order Act further enhanced police powers to restrict and criminalise protest activity. As a result, in just two years, 712 protests in England and Wales were subject to police conditions, 95% of them in London.
Now it seems the Government want even more powers to restrict protests. Clause 124 will enable police to ban protests in the vicinity of a place of worship. Whatever “in the vicinity of” means, it will certainly include Parliament Square and most urban centres. Clause 118 will have a chilling effect on some people’s willingness to engage in protest. Furthermore, the Government are promising additional clauses to enable the police to ban repeating protests—which is, of course, most protests.
Protecting the right to protest is vital to maintaining a healthy, vibrant democracy where power is questioned and balanced by the collective will of citizens. The cumulative effect of more and more restrictions on protest is one of the reasons why our country is sliding down the world’s free speech league, and this trend needs to be reversed.
I turn to an astonishing omission from the Bill. The collection of DNA, how it is retained, examined and used as evidence, and its eventual destruction, are quite rightly controlled by several Acts of Parliament and detailed regulations, all overseen by a statutory regulator. However, when it comes to the relatively new facial recognition technology, none of these protections and none of this oversight exists—nothing at all. Facial recognition is far more intrusive than DNA; it is as if citizens are walking around the streets with a barcode on their foreheads that police can read from a distance to identify them. It drives a coach and horses through our time-honoured right—with limited exceptions—to withhold our identity from the police. When this technology is incorporated into this country’s vast network of CCTV cameras, as it surely will be, it will be possible to track us wherever we are, going about our lawful business. Since the technology was first used in south Wales in 2017, police forces have reluctantly had to cobble together their own rules and mark their own homework, falling foul of the courts in the process.
So we would assume that the new Government would seize the opportunity of a major Bill on policing to introduce the long-overdue statutory regulation of facial recognition technology. But if you thought that, you would be wrong. The Bill does nothing to urgently fill the black hole where the essential regulation should be—the black hole that is crushing our privacy. Instead, the Government are presenting a Bill that says nothing about facial recognition, other than in Clause 138, which seeks to make the technology even more intrusive by linking it to the DVLA database. This extraordinary regulatory vacuum must be filled by amendments during the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I know that many on the Labour Benches do not want to hear this, but this Government are actually more authoritarian than the previous one. Not only have the Labour Government accepted all the draconian laws of the Conservative Government, but they continue to add to them. I have been here for only 12 years, but how many times in the past 14 years have the Labour Benches spoken against laws clamping down on protest? But now they are supporting them, defending them and even adding to them. The values of liberty and democracy and a passionate defence of the right to protest—it all sounded great in opposition, so why did Labour drop them when it came to power?
The desire to quash effective protest is the aim of this legislation. Of course Governments do not mind if protest changes nothing. The bulk of laws in recent years have been aimed at the kind of non-violent direct action protests that stop big corporations from, for example, setting up damaging fracking wells in our countryside, or support people trying to stop an ancient woodland being cut down to build a destructive new road.
A lot of those protests were successful and led to policy changes, either locally or nationally—like the direct action protests a few years ago that led to the passing of the climate emergency Act. The oil and gas industry does not like countries switching to renewables, insulation or net zero. So it paid a think tank to come up with laws clamping down on effective protest, which the last Government passed and this Government have kept. That is why we need to enshrine a legal right to protest, and I intend to bring an amendment to that effect.
I have spent 12 years in this House warning about this country being on the path towards a Big Brother state. A combination of laws against effective protest while using digital ID will enable a future Government to carry out repression with a biometric link. The police are already using facial recognition without any proper regulation or legal restraints. With the proposed rules against face covering and the rollout of digital ID, just being seen on a protest against a future Government could see you losing promotion, or your job, or state benefits. It has already happened to dissenters in Hong Kong and other repressive countries.
The Government can blacklist people, just as the UK building industry did to trade unionists, in conjunction with the police. We have to allow people to disrupt, make a noise and get noticed. That is democracy. The police should, of course, be able to arrest for serious infringements, and people should still face legal consequences—but not the very severe punishments of recent years that labelled protesters as terrorists. The proscription of Palestine Action was another nail in the coffin of democracy and dissent. The new powers for the police to ban repeated protests are the state trying to shut down the people who are putting a spotlight on the Government’s complicity in the genocide in Gaza. After all, when you are supplying military intelligence to Israel and exporting arms to a country that wants to ethnically cleanse people from a land that it wants to settle, those are actions which could land you in an international court.
My noble friend Lady Bennett, who cannot be here today, will engage on the issue of Travellers’ rights and abortion law at a later stage. So I just have a few questions for the Minister to answer. I will cram in as many as I can. Does he suspect that the proscription of Palestine Action has discredited the use of anti-terror laws? Will the Government look instead at the case for proscribing members of the Israel Defense Forces living in or visiting this country? These are people who have taken part in potential war crimes, and who have murdered and terrorised thousands of women and children in Gaza. Finally, does the Minister really feel it is a priority for the police and security services to waste their time enforcing this unpopular and largely pointless proscription when they have real terrorists to track down?
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as ever, I declare my interest as a teacher in a state secondary school in Hackney—a place that my noble friend Lord Birt was rather unfair about earlier.
This is an extensive and wide-ranging Bill—you know you are in trouble when they have to treasury tag it rather than bind it—but there are many good things about it, including Clause 191. As Professor Ranee Thakar, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said:
“Abortion is an essential form of healthcare and should be subject to regulatory and professional standards like other medical procedures, not criminal sanctions”.
Clause 78 is also good, as it seeks to preserve the right of child confidentiality in some circumstances. Barnardo’s and the NSPCC, among others, stress its importance for services such as Childline. Many noble Lords have talked about making illegal the AI image generators used to produce child abuse material.
But there are issues. The Children’s Society feels that the offence of child criminal exploitation does not go far enough. Any child can be at risk of exploitation. Indeed, perpetrators are now looking for so-called “clean skins”: children who are not known to the police or involved with the local authorities, so the exploitation can go undetected. Many of these young people are from affluent backgrounds. The Children’s Commissioner has concerns about parts of Clause 40. She states clearly:
“When an adult exploits any child”
to engage in criminal activity,
“that should always be a mandatory criminal offence, regardless of the child’s perceived age”.
I welcome the Government’s mission to halve knife crime and get knives off our streets, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, so movingly spoke about. The Ben Kinsella Trust reports an 81% increase in police-recorded offences involving a knife or sharp instrument in the 10 years to March 2025. Our school lost a child, who was killed in a knife attack last year. Do we need zombie hunting knives and other overly aggressive styles of knives? Surely some are just too dangerous.
According to the Youth Endowment Fund, in 2024, 50% of murders that were carried out with a blade used a pointed kitchen knife. The organisation calls for a ban on pointed knives altogether. The catering fraternity might object, although studies have shown that there is no culinary effect of a knife having a point. Would the Minister support such a ban?
We also get to equal protection. Does it go in this Bill or should we try to get it in the children’s well-being Bill? With over 65 countries, including Wales and Scotland, already having legislated to protect children from physical punishment, how much longer can England justify standing still? The NSPCC does not describe this as a “smacking ban” but talks about “equal protection”. This is not a call for the creation of a new offence, just for the removal of a legal defence in order to make equal the law of assault for both children and adults. This is about giving children the best possible start in life, not criminalising parents. Deliberately causing pain to a child, for whatever reason, has to belong to the last century. There are much better and safer ways to respond to a child’s behaviour than the use of physical force, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, to the Front Bench to supplement the efforts of the indefatigable Home Office team on the Front Bench in the Lords.
I wish to speak about Clause 191, which decriminalises abortions for women ending their pregnancy at any stage to birth. The clause does not change the existing time limit of 24 weeks, after which an abortion will be a criminal offence, except under special circumstances, for medical professionals and for those who provide an abortion or assist a woman to procure one for herself. What will change is that the woman herself, who takes the steps to end her pregnancy at any stage up to birth, will not face criminal charges.
I am against such a change on three grounds—one procedural and two substantive. First, a private Member’s conscience amendment has been used to amend a government Bill, bringing the weight of the Executive to a matter of conscience. Moreover, by this procedure, a matter of great significance may be allowed to slip through, tagged on to the Crime and Policing Bill, avoiding the full national and parliamentary scrutiny that such major changes in a law require.
Secondly, it is selective in the application of the law in a way that goes against the very principle of law. It is bad in principle and practice to count some action as a crime for some people but not for others. In Clause 191, it is accepted that aborting a baby over 24 weeks old is normally a crime and that those involved should be punished, except for one—the pregnant woman who is the instigator of the action. Part of the very principle of what it is to be a law is that it is applied universally. There can be special factors, such as coercion, which relieve someone of criminal responsibility in particular circumstances, but not a blanket exception.
Moreover, there could be no greater denigration of pregnant women, and indeed all women, than to deny them the most basic right of all: to be judged morally and, when they have committed a crime, judged criminally. Abortion over 28 weeks is accepted as a crime by all. To say that pregnant women can commit it so long as they do so against their own children or own child—but nevertheless they are not criminals—is to treat them as less than fully human adults.
Baroness Mattinson (Lab)
My Lords, I want to start, as lots of people have done today, by echoing the comments about this excellent Bill. I know very well the impact that its many measures will have in many communities around the country. I also want to echo the congratulations to my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on her hugely impressive debut in introducing a very complex Bill.
I will talk in favour of Clause 191 because I believe very strongly that women, often very vulnerable women, should not be criminalised for ending their own pregnancy outside the law, which often results in years of investigation and a custodial sentence. Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, talked very eloquently about what is and is not contained in Clause 191, so I am not going to go through that again, but there are a couple of points I want to make.
The other place voted to repeal this antiquated law, bringing us in line with many other democracies around the world. It also brings us in line with public opinion. Some 52% overall oppose criminalising women in these circumstances, while only 21% support it. That is men and women—fair-minded people, if you like. Unsurprisingly, women feel this most strongly: just 16% of women support criminalising women in this way. When we look at women under the age of 40—namely, the women who are most likely to be directly affected by the law—that drops down to just 13%. So the data is very clear.
For me, the most powerful and persuasive argument comes directly from some of the women who have been treated barbarically by this law. Take Sammy, who went into premature labour at home and, as she attempted to resuscitate her own baby, seven police officers were searching her bins for evidence, even before the paramedics had arrived. She was then interviewed under caution for suspected illegal abortion and had her phone and her computer seized. She was not allowed home for a week, as it was sealed off as a crime scene, and she was left just in the clothes that she had attended hospital in. She was also not allowed to contact her partner. Despite providing forensic samples that did not show the presence of abortion drugs, she remained under police investigation for a year and was allowed only limited supervised contact with her baby, who had survived the traumatic birth—probably because of her intervention. Sammy is now a very active campaigner against this law, a law that was passed before women even had the vote. We have a chance now to end the suffering it causes, and we must do so.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, there is a great deal of interest in this Bill, so I shall confine myself to talking about something that is not in it but should be. The research we have done over the last five years shows that, of the 42 million vehicles on UK roads, 10 million of them are non-compliant: uninsured, unregistered, untaxed or without MOT. That is an astonishing figure, but it should not surprise us. If you do not enforce a law, you get an upsurge in people breaking the law. As this Bill deals with shoplifting—I am delighted that it does—so it should deal with vehicle non-compliance.
With non-compliant vehicles, there is something that we can do without cost to the Treasury, because we are dealing with people who are easier to locate, who owe money anyway and who are in possession of a substantial asset. That produces a set of circumstances where we can devise a system of enforcement that does not cost the Treasury anything. If any other noble Lords are interested in this problem, please correspond with me. In the Commons, it has been most actively pursued by Sarah Coombes MP, who has now been brought within the Government and therefore cannot campaign for it actively. This is very much a cross-party issue—a national issue, not a party one.
I intend to propose amendments to this Bill to allow a pilot to help us reach a self-funding solution to the problem. My amendments will enable local authorities and other enforcement bodies to identify high-risk vehicles and intervene, starting with things such as warning notices and text messages, targeting the worst persistent evaders, those using cloned number plates, foreign registered vehicles and those without DVLA keeper details. There are a lot of them. The pilot can be delivered at zero cost to police or government. It will end up supporting overstretched police forces, denying criminals the use of our roads and reducing vehicle-related antisocial behaviour. The pilot proposals have been developed in consultation with those representing the interests of roads, policing, local government and trade associations. This is very well thought through—I take no credit for it; I am just a spokesman—but none of this can happen without government support and legislative change. This Bill seems to me to be the place for that.
Rather than embarking on something wholesale, which would raise all sorts of questions about people needing to be consulted, a pilot is much more limited. If it falls over, we will all have learned something without the Government having to pay for the lesson. If it succeeds—and I am most optimistic—it will drive lasting reform and make UK roads safer for us all. I very much hope that the Minister will be agreeable to a meeting with him and relevant officials to present this initiative in more detail, alongside industry experts who have helped to shape its development.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister on an exceptionally comprehensive introduction to what is, by any measure, a wide-ranging and ambitious Bill. In the time available, I will confine my remarks to three aspects of the Bill: the Government’s manifesto commitment to extend aggravated offences to all strands of hate crime; the continuing discussions around the recording of non-crime hate incidents; and, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, as a London cyclist, I am very interested in the new provisions around cycling.
First, I welcome the Minister’s commitment, made on Report in the other place, to introduce a government amendment at Committee in this House to make all existing strands of hate crime aggravated offences. The framework for race and religion has made a real difference: it has given prosecutors the tools to reflect the gravity of hate-motivated crime, ensured higher sentences where hostility is proven and given victims confidence that the law recognises when they have experienced such an offence. These offences send a clear message about who we are as a society and what we are prepared to confront. For disabled people, the same clarity has never existed; hostility is too often treated as an afterthought, with incidents instead recorded as ordinary assault or public order without recognition of the prejudice behind them. Extending aggravated offences to disability would bring long overdue parity and show that hate in any form will be met with equal seriousness. For LGBT people, too, the gap in protection remains; while cases can be charged as hate-motivated, they still fall outside the aggravated framework. I hope that the Government’s amendment will close that gap once and for all. I look forward to working with Ministers on this.
I note the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, on the recommendations to stop non-crime hate incidents. I believe that seeing a spike in incidents can help police forces and, crucially, communities take action. For example, an increase in antisemitic incidents in an area can signal growing tensions. I accept the recommendations of the National College of Policing, but I am interested in how police forces and communities can still consider signals and measures of community cohesion and take proportionate and measurable action to prevent escalation.
Finally—perhaps the most controversial thing I will ever talk about in this Chamber—I welcome the provisions on cycling now included in the Bill. I cycle in London and I do something that sometimes feels rare: I stop at red lights, I indicate when turning and I wear a helmet. Anything that deters dangerous or careless cycling is to be welcomed, and it is time our laws reflected how we travel in our cities today. I must confess, however, that I enjoy an e-bike. Although I have no financial interest in Lime, it certainly has a financial interest in me. Reducing the maximum speed of hired e-bikes would be a simple way to make them safer. They simply go too fast, and they evoke an adolescent abandonment of safety and conscience in a way that I am totally ashamed of. Riders must behave responsibly, but providers also have a part—an easy part—to play in protecting everyone.
This Bill covers a great deal of ground, and the issues I have touched on all point to the same principle: the law must be fair, proportionate and responsive to the world as it really is, not how we wish it was. I look forward to working with the Minister and noble Lords across the House as the Bill progresses.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a lot of today’s speeches have been on abortion, which is weird in a Bill boasting that its aim is to make our streets safer. I support Clause 191’s aim of disapplying the criminal law for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies, but I do not think this Bill was the right vehicle for such an important law change. I have some sympathy with the public backlash about a lack of debate on the issue. You can see how it happened: the Bill is so disparate and unfocused that even the Government keep adding to it. Ministers introduced 90 amendments, 66 new clauses and four new schedules at Committee and on Report in the other place, and apparently there is more to come here. But where does all this chopping and changing leave us? Recent tensions over our scrutinising role have led to accusations of filibuster and time-wasting, but how can we keep on top of what the Government intend when it is so scattergun and expansive? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, explained so well, the Bill exemplifies the trend of excessive lawmaking as a substitute for enforcing laws that we already have.
We have heard a lot today about the Bill creating a specific offence of assaulting retail workers. Well, call me old-fashioned, but I have always been opposed to assaulting retail workers—as far as I knew, it was against the law. Now we are creating a new law which avoids crucial questions: why has there been a shocking increase in attacks on shop workers, often accompanied by mass shoplifting, and why has this not been dealt with by the police? Inevitably, other workers say, “What about us?” For example, in an unlikely outbreak of consensus, the RMT, National Rail and the Rail Delivery Group are united in demanding that there should be a specific offence of assaulting or abusing transport workers. To counter lots more special pleading, perhaps the Government should use their energy in ensuring that assault laws lead to prosecutions.
Another worry is that the public’s civil liberties and free speech are being carelessly jeopardised by this trend of criminalising ever more aspects of everyday life. For example, in relation to Clause 118, the Joint Committee on Human Rights warns that criminalising all forms of identity concealment could unjustifiably interfere in the right to protest. Yet again, the police already have powers to require individuals to remove such face coverings. Maybe the Government should investigate why the police do not use that power when, for example, dealing with pro-Palestinian marchers chanting Jew hatred behind their keffiyehs and balaclavas. No, it is far easier to ban all face coverings instead. As Big Brother Watch notes, there are many law-abiding individuals who might want to conceal their identities on demos. Topically, why do we think Hong Kong dissidents cover their faces on protests? Here is a hint: their own authoritarian government agents are watching. These proposals are made against a backdrop of other attacks on privacy, from facial recognition technology to digital ID.
Then there is Clause 4, which many civil libertarians are concerned about. First are those much-vaunted respect orders. It seems the epitome of technocratic governance to imagine you can tackle the breakdown of social respect, so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, by creating a new civil order called a respect order. These are almost a duplicate of the overused, discredited and ineffective anti-social behaviour injunctions, which will continue, but respect orders will have criminal sanctions of up to two years in prison but only use the lower civil standard of proof, and recipients will not even be told when they are put on an order. Meanwhile, the proposed increases in penalties for breaching the misnamed public spaces protection orders and CPNs from £100 to £500 is pettily punitive but, outrageously, they are predominantly issued by private enforcement agencies which are paid by the state per fine.
I am afraid too much of the Bill will continue this trend of eroding our everyday liberties. I will be working with groups such as Manifesto Club and Justice to ensure that we focus on keeping our streets safe, but what are not safe with this Bill are our civil liberties and our free speech.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, and I welcome the noble Baroness the Minister to her first Second Reading. I welcome elements of this new portmanteau Bill and the Minister’s assurances at the beginning of this debate of the focus being on fighting basic crime.
The Bill addresses legislation seen as obsolete, incomplete or needing amendments or improvement; I see a further golden opportunity in the Bill to remove hate crime law, which was first put on the books in 1965, addressing race hatred. Since then, hate crime law has proliferated—indeed, metastasised. It has proliferated in which protected characteristics it covers—now up to five in the UK, seven in Scotland; in the triviality that can now incur the police’s attention; in political agendas being pursued, with some hateful beliefs allowed to flourish but less politically modish views cracked down on; by uncoupling hate crime from actual crime, with police intimidating and harassing individuals for the absurd and near-oxymoronic concept of non-crime hate incidents; and in the many new organisations claiming to unearth hate crime and hate speech, funding false narratives of hate crime, dividing the nation further but with no reduction in hate crime. Hate crime has crystallised as the useful tool of left identitarians, dividing and conquering by inciting grievance within the identity groups whose votes they seek to capture.
Set against this is free speech. In this country, we traditionally do not believe in thought crime. Our first Queen Elizabeth famously said she had no desire to look into men’s souls, but now we have policemen saying, “I need to check your thinking”. Free speech advocates see the need to tolerate it when people say disgusting things we do not like. Only ordinary criminal law, not hate crime law, should be deployed in such circumstances, and only then if there is intent to incite imminent violence.
Criminalising hate speech did not prevent the hateful marches that occurred immediately after 7 October, before Israel could even react. Nor did it stop the continuation of those marches after the ceasefire had been achieved. In my view, those marches quickly, over the months, rose to the standard of criminal incitement after 7 October, yet nothing was done about that month after month. Is there any evidence that the invention of hate crime has reduced the number of attacks on minorities? Try asking Jews in Manchester that question, or Muslims in Bethnal Green.
Meanwhile, hate crime law has led to the police being confused, overstretched, badly led and distracted from fighting actual crime. Not one burglary was solved in 48% of English and Welsh neighbourhoods in the past three years. The police’s soft target now is to pursue the unthreatening middle-class tweeter rather than shoplifters, phone muggers, burglars or drug dealers. To redirect the police, we need to get hate crime off the statute book while ensuring that we have adequate provision within the criminal code for the punishment of any crime driven by the intent to intimidate, persecute or marginalise any group of citizens of whatever identity. Police could then focus on the numerous actual crimes that are committed daily so that our police forces can return, as they say, to policing our streets and not our tweets.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, while I broadly welcome this Bill, I do not welcome how large it is. Its scale and complexity were referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and even the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, with whom I find myself agreeing. It is in, a sense, a testament to how many of our public bodies live in silos and have inconsistent, changing leadership, and how much they have a selective interpretation and enactment of regulation or guidance. In some senses, this Bill is well intended, but it is also a manifestation of a systemic malaise and testament to our continuous failure, under Governments of whatever colour, to enact and/or enforce existing law or regulation and guidance.
I was at a dinner last Monday for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Armed Forces and a very impressive gentleman, who is in charge of all of our cybersecurity, talked about the appointment of Mr Rupert Pearce as the National Armaments Director to try to sort out once and for all our rather lamentable track record in major defence procurement. If I ruled the world—which unfortunately is not a hereditary role—I would be tempted to appoint the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as the national joined-up government director, as his wonderful father, Sir John Timpson, created the concept of upside-down management. So many areas of our governance would benefit from focusing on the people at the bottom, who are the subject of all sorts of things happening to them, and working upwards to find out how to remove the blockages which continuously fail to remedy what repeated laws and new regulations fail to do.
At the beginning of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, that I would be all over the first part of the Bill like a rash. I make the same promise to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for this Bill, because there are many areas of interest. I will work closely with the office of the Victims’ Commissioner—the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, regrets that she is unable to be here today—on a variety of amendments to try to make more sense of the attempts to deal with anti-social behaviour. I shall continue work with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and others on stalking. I will work with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and others on trying to deal with the difficult issue of exploitation of children, because there is a difficulty that we have in differentiating between the individual as a victim and the individual as a perpetrator. If you are a child, you can be one and the same thing, and it is very complicated to try to deal with that.
I shall deal with mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, again to try to make that more forensic and efficient, and with AI-generated child sexual material. I shall, of course, support the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on all her amendments around pornography. It is a tribute to the women in this Chamber—how often it is women—who speak up about these issues. I am afraid that not enough men do. I thought it was very interesting that a large number of men have commented on the rights of women and what they do with their own bodies during the course of this debate, and rather fewer women. With that, I will sit down.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, much that is valuable and important has been said by many in this Chamber this afternoon, particularly about the risks of criminal law creeping too far into the conduct of everyday life—the law should not be a code of conduct—and the problems of unenforceability when law becomes overcomplex. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, made an important suggestion, which I hope is debated in Committee.
I will speak to Clause 191, which has profound implications for the lives of some children. Those in favour in the Commons spoke of a recent increase in investigations and prosecution. They spoke of women abused and pressured into abortions, and of unreasonable behaviour by the police and the CPS. They used harrowing cases to make their arguments. A number argued that abortion should be considered only as a healthcare matter. But it is not hard to unpick these arguments, and to see on what shaky foundations this decision was taken.
It is blindingly clear that abortion is a profoundly difficult issue, because the rights attaching to two different lives conflict: this is why it figures in criminal law. I do not stand with those who argue for absolute priorities in either direction, but I have worked for years in areas where adults and children’s rights unavoidably conflict. I know how easy it is for campaigners to be blinded by such conflict of rights by their perceptions of their own rightness. This is how some can see giving women an unqualified right to kill their own children—even the day before birth—as merely a progressive modernisation of the law.
For abortion, there is an uncomfortable asymmetry: unlike their mothers, unborn children are helpless and voiceless. We should therefore reject the argument that abortion should be considered purely as a healthcare matter. Of course women’s healthcare matters, but to make healthcare the only consideration is to deny a vast and important ethical debate. Both lives in question matter very much. Clinicians and support services naturally want to be kind to the woman in front of them, to whom they owe responsibilities, and of course it is easier for professionals if the law removes any possibility of repercussions for them from a self-induced late abortion.
Furthermore, decriminalisation, even in the interests of kindness, is not always a social good. To give one example, Oregon has had to reverse its disastrous policy of decriminalising low-level drug possession and usage.
Next, if there are cases of police or CPS overreach or malpractice, primary legislation is not the right way to correct that. It is shocking when someone proves to have been wrongly convicted, but do a few cases of wrongful conviction justify decriminalising rape, for example, lest any man ever be unfairly accused and investigated?
Finally, Parliament should not succumb to emotional blackmail. The old saying is that hard cases make bad law. Domestic violence charities see dreadful cases, and abused women deserve kindness and consideration, but not all women are angels without agency. There are women who are not abused, but who neglect and maltreat their own children—ask any social worker. There is clear moral hazard here. For example, a woman who forms a new relationship mid-pregnancy may be tempted to eliminate the baby that she thinks could be an impediment to that relationship. As far as I know, despite the red flag of increased investigations in recent years, no systematic review has looked at whether telemedicine for abortion is having an undesirable consequence of enabling greater numbers of women to conceal their stage of pregnancy so as to attempt late abortions.
For all these reasons, I believe that noble Lords should be concerned about this clause, the fact that it was inserted without any national consultation showing a clear balance of public opinion in support, and that it was not informed by a full review of the impact of permitting abortions by telemedicine. I will therefore be proposing amendments to delay its implementation until such a review and consultation have taken place.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, this comprehensive Bill, so well introduced by my noble friend, brings our treatment of crime up to date to fit new kinds of offences and some hitherto unrecognised. In the time available, as my experience in dealing with crime is limited to my time as a magistrate in the past and my current membership of the Sussex Police diversity advisory board, I will focus on two areas I am particularly concerned with: the new provisions on county lines, and the surprising omission of dealing with the High Court decision that Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 breached human rights.
I declare interests as president of the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers and of Friends, Families and Travellers, to which I am grateful, as ever, for expert briefing, together with that of the Traveller Movement. The new offence of coerced internal concealment and associated provisions will enable those forgotten children or vulnerable adults who have been excluded from education or who have slipped through the net in other ways to be found, rescued and protected.
The abhorrent practice by organised criminal gangs of recruiting these young people by force or deception into carrying drugs, illicit money and SIM cards away from the centres where they were stolen or dealt with has mushroomed in recent years. It exploits many who have been virtually abandoned by society and its institutions, instilling fear which estranges them from their family and community networks. The reinforcement of the civil prevention order is helpful and further support from the £42 million county lines programme is a sensible broadening of the approach to include positive elements of safeguarding and rehabilitation. I warmly welcome this set of measures.
My other concern is that our Government have missed an obvious opportunity to end discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers created by the Conservative Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. That small minority of Gypsies and Travellers who live in their traditional way in caravans on sites and have to make do with unauthorised ones can be imprisoned and their vehicles, which are their homes, impounded even if there are no authorised sites for them to go to—under circumstances found by the judge to be discrimination. The case followed formal recommendations by our Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and UN treaty bodies to repeal these measures.
They were not welcomed by our police either. The majority of police forces and police and crime commissioners responding to the initial Home Office consultation on criminalising staying on unauthorised encampments, rather than the previous definition of trespass, opposed it. Some 93% of police bodies called for better site provision as the solution to unauthorised encampments. Of course, it is the paucity of these that is the real problem, as the judge commented, not the desperate search to find somewhere to put the caravan home.
Meanwhile, the Government are under a solemn obligation to remedy the incompatibility with our human rights law. That is, they must restore to these fellow citizens who do not live in bricks and mortar that small measure of security they had to be able to live and send their children to school without fear of being driven out unreasonably, having their mobile home impounded or being sent to prison. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will not default on this obligation. Surely this Bill is a suitable vehicle.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union.
I intend to table an amendment to the Bill scrapping non-crime hate incidents. A non-crime hate incident—NCHI—is an incident or alleged incident that involves or is alleged to involve an act that is perceived by the intended victim to be motivated wholly or partly by hostility or prejudice towards one or more of their protected characteristics. This definition is hopelessly subjective, relying as it does on the perception of the complainant.
NCHIs have been recorded against a woman who said she thought her cat was a Methodist, a man who whistled the theme tune to “Bob the Builder” and former MP Amber Rudd, who had an NCHI logged against her against after a speech at the 2016 Conservative Party conference in which she called for British jobs for British workers. She was Home Secretary at the time.
The reason the police are logging these incidents is because in 2014 the College of Policing instructed them to record all hate crime reports that, on investigation, turned out not to be crimes, as NCHIs. That explains why, according to the most conservative estimate, 130,000 NCHIs have been recorded in the last 11 years.
The police should not be put in the invidious position of having to record what are often vexatious, politically motivated complaints. As the High Court judge said in 2020 when he found for Harry Miller, an ex-policeman who challenged an NCHI that had been recorded against him:
“In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi”.
Noble Lords may ask why it matters if an NCHI is recorded against someone’s name. It matters because they can show up in an enhanced DBS check and stop someone getting a job as a teacher or a carer. Why should the fact that someone has committed a non-crime prevent them from getting a job?
NCHIs are a breach of a sacrosanct principle of English common law: unless something is explicitly prohibited, it is permitted. The behaviour recorded in NCHIs is, by definition, not prohibited by law; it is non-criminal, so why are people being punished for it?
Recording NCHIs is also a colossal waste of police time. In a report published last year, Policy Exchange estimated that recording NCHIs takes up 60,000 hours of police time every year.
It is not just free speech lobbyists such as me who think that NCHIs have to go. His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Andy Cooke, has called for their abolition. Earlier this year he said:
“We need, at times, to allow people to speak openly without the fear that their opinion will put them on the wrong side of the law … I’m a firm believer … that … non-crime hate incidents are no longer required”.
Sir Andy is not alone among senior and ex-senior police officers in his opinion of NCHIs. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, will be co-sponsoring my amendment.
The Minister said she hoped that the Bill will restore public confidence in the criminal justice system. Scrapping NCHIs, which risk turning the police into objects of ridicule, is a vital first step.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
Your Lordships’ House has, over the years, taken a very serious role in defending our free speech, freedom of assembly and right to peaceful protest. Just this afternoon, we have heard powerful speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—probably the first time I have ever agreed with her—and from the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Clement-Jones.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out something I have noted too. Out of power, political parties defend those rights very vociferously, but once they are in power as the Government, they are very tempted—as we see in this Bill—to introduce legislation to restrict protest more and more. In the 25 years I have been following this, I have noticed that successive Governments have increased not only legislation about protest but also the severity of the penalties for those protesting or organising protests. What especially concerns me is the cumulative effect of all those Acts.
I can accept that sometimes legislation is a proportionate response to emerging social issues, and I am sure that is something we will explore in Committee, but too often it has been the easy way for successive Governments to limit dissent against their policies. As we look at this Bill, with more curbs on protest, it is shocking to think—and this is something I especially want noble Lords to bear in mind as we go through the Bill—that international bodies have found that the UK has moved from being a champion of free speech and assembly to a nation where protest is a risk.
For example, the UN rapporteur for human rights and the environment, David Boyd, warned of the chilling impact of recent legislation on democratic rights. Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the Public Order Act 2023 was “deeply troubling” and incompatible with international law. Michael Forst, the UN rapporteur for environmental defenders, condemned the harsh sentencing of climate protesters as
“not acceptable in a democracy”.
We have to take those as very serious criticisms.
On that last point, some of the sentences handed down to protesters are truly shocking. Even a short sentence can disrupt your life a lot. It can affect the jobs you can apply for. It can disbar you, for example, from going to the United States. In my case, that would be a very severe penalty as so many of my family live there. That is a massive disincentive to stand in protest, so there is a real chilling effect. I am fortunately quite old, so I think I have had my fill of protests—that is not to say that I would not feel like protesting some more, but I at least have a voice here now.
The reason I am speaking today is that I have heard the anger and frustration of the young. They need to make their voices heard on the issues that will critically affect their future. In this case, I am particularly thinking of environmental issues and climate change. Our job in this House is to enable those voices, not to crush them, not to frighten them into submission and not to chill them until they are frozen out.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I believe—well, I hope—that there is one thing that all Members of this noble House agree upon: that none of us wish to see the rise of the far right or of any political movement that feeds upon public fear and the failures of our institutions. Yet that is precisely what is happening in the UK today.
I have come here today to address what is not in this Bill, which I believe is a missed opportunity to address some of those most significant and pressing issues of our time. The public have lost faith in the even-handedness of policing and the moral courage of those in authority. When people see double standards—or two-tier standards—resentment grows, and trust dies. This Bill is a chance to restore that trust, to ensure that the criminal justice system in Britain is not captive to ideology and not paralysed by fear any more.
I commend much in the Bill, but so far it fails to address the underlying causes of what is known by the public and by our media as two-tier policing. We are failing to confront too many uncomfortable truths, and we have seen where that fear leads. In Rotherham and Telford, thousands of children—and we are still counting, by the way—were abused while officials looked away. The Jay and Casey reviews both record that professionals were nervous about
“identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist”.
One police officer put it more bluntly—that it was “safer to do nothing”. Let me repeat that: it was safer to do nothing. That single sentence should haunt us, and I hope that that sentence will hang over this House while we scrutinise and look to close the gaps in this Bill.
What a time to have a debate about introducing a definition of “Islamophobia”. I remind noble Lords that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her efforts, was voted “Islamophobe of the year”. It is not right that those who have the courage to address these issues are attacked and accused of being racist for that. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, will take these issues seriously, and I hope that we can work together to address them.
The same paralysis has cost lives in honour-based abuse. The murders of Banaz Mahmod and Shafilea Ahmed are just two examples. Both young women sought help and both were dismissed as family disputes—and both were killed. The Government have promised to define honour-based law, and that is welcome, but definition without duty is not protection. We will need clearly spelled-out statutory obligations to act, report, share intelligence and intervene—likewise with grooming.
I am running out of time. Even as the police have shrunk from appalling crimes, they have continued to prosecute non-crime hate incidents—I support everything that has been said on that. It is part of the same issue, and we need to show the courage that this country needs so that we do not end up driving voters into the arms of something less savoury. Why, in the current climate, would anyone do what the Casey or Jay reports urge? The very definition of two-tier policing is that fear has dictated who is protected and who is silenced.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the matters in this Bill and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, to the Front Bench. She is obviously used to dealing with gargantuan matters, such as those to do with my profession and the RICS, in her previous capacity, and I wish her well in her endeavours in chewing through this 400-page Bill.
My first point relates to anti-social behaviour. In my experience of inter-neighbour matters, the distinction between perpetrator and victim is seldom absolute—a point made by my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. When I encounter instances of an ASB order made in such terms that normal life is actually impeded—and then the so-called victim proceeds to indulge in exactly the same sort of behaviour that has been prevented for his neighbour—I know that something is not right. There needs to be a better balance and there need to be order-making powers, and enforcement ought to be subject to better rules, competence and oversight.
My second point relates to Clauses 72, 79 and 80, principally regarding the duty to report suspected sex abuse of children. I fully support that duty, particularly in so far as it is applied to the persons listed as being under the duty to report. It should have consequences for those who culpably fail to report or who obstruct that duty.
This follows the prima facie principle that victims should be heard and believed and that a report of a matter involving a commission of a crime, as defined by law, should be so recorded unless there is credible evidence to the contrary, particularly in the context of young people. Once on a record in the system, the matter then demands attention and conscious process, including, one hopes, some support to the victim. That is until such time as additional verifiable information dictates otherwise. Outside that recording system, there is nothing—no practical form of subsidiary watch-list or anything like that—so spotting a trend, pattern or commonality in the data, outside a formal record, seems to me to depend on chance recognition by an official.
So far so good, but then Clause 80 proceeds to start unravelling things by effectively deferring to the balance-of-probabilities, evidence-based approach inherent in police procedures and Home Office counting rules. I believe this is incompatible with the intent and aim of Clauses 72 and 79. Suspicions, which is what we are talking about reporting, almost inevitably lack hard evidence. If, say, the recording officer of police does not happen to be satisfied as to the evidence, and therefore does not believe it can be reliably stated to be a crime that has been committed on his or her balance of probabilities test—as suggested in guidance or as directed by the senior officer—it may not get recorded. Not only does this court perversity, because recorded crime is related to police performance, but it risks repetition of precisely the outcomes of the Bradford child sexual exploitation case, when vulnerable young people were not believed and criminal enterprise went unchecked. In my view, Clause 80 requires a rethink or simply deleting. I note that this may have wider implications for the way in which crime is recorded and acted upon.
My final point relates to Part 9. Other noble Lords have made impassioned comments, so I am not alone in sensing that there is a degree of tendency to administrative overreach—even a politically thin-skinned reaction at times—in the cumulative measures eroding the right to demonstrate. I very much relate to the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Cash, and I hope that, between us, we can get a better balance of what we actually mean by allowing people the necessary freedom and opportunity to vent their emotions and campaign and demonstrate safely.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on her excellent presentation. When you are speaker number 65, it is probably best to adapt your speech a little, so I will save a bit of time by saying that I agreed with every word that the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin, Lady Owen and Lady Sugg, said—end of. I have been a supporter of Liberty and its predecessor, the NCCL, for 50 years. I also had the privilege of leading Sir Chris Bryant’s Private Member’s Bill in this House on increased protection for emergency service workers. It became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. You could therefore argue that I have had a foot in both camps.
I want to make a brief point about police employment issues—not strictly speaking part of the Bill—but then move on to the issue of aggravated offences. I appreciate that the employment issue is not a direct part of the Bill. However, as a former chair of ACAS and a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, I want to make a point about the importance of retaining skills and experience in the police force. When you cut back a police force by 20,000, it has a devastating effect: you lose literally hundreds of years of experience. It might mean you lose some bad habits, but you also lose the institutional memory and there is a reduction in on-the-job training capacity.
If you reduce a service to the bone, as the last Government did, you have a demoralised workforce and a stampede for the door when the opportunity for a retirement package arrives. Those with a grievance are the ones forced to stay. Practicality says that the police will then prioritise their work and leave other things undone. Dealing with attacks on lesbian, gay and trans people is a long way down the list, and it might explain why retail theft and attacks on retail workers are so serious as we speak. It is this kind of short-termism that makes the issues of powers and responsibilities of the police rather secondary. My plea to the Minister is for adequate resources and for active management planning, which allows the police to do their job.
Nevertheless, I support fully the attempt by Rachel Taylor MP to extend aggravated offences to include attacks on gay, lesbian, trans and disabled people, and I congratulate the Government on their commitment to include this in the Bill. Can the Minister say a little more about the likely content of that amendment? The Law Commission report on hate crime laws in 2021 recommended
“that aggravated offences be extended to cover all existing characteristics in hate crime laws: race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity”.
As has already been said, it was also in the Labour Party manifesto of 2024. One can only wonder why this has not been on the statute book for years in this day and age, but I look forward to our consideration in Committee.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, while I agree with so much that has been said so eloquently today, I want to focus on three areas close to my heart: the inadequacies of enforcement of the criminal law; how to deal with the Wild West of e-scooters and cycling; and the best way to reduce shoplifting. Although this is not declarable as an interest, my son is a detective in the Met, and I think he would agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, has just said about the need to retain skills and experience in the police.
In a long career in and outside government, at the top and on the front line, I have discovered that enforcement of the law is as important as the rules and regulations themselves. As Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States, said, the laws of the country must be enforced. There is no substitute for law enforcement, and that is why, in March 2024, we the Conservatives ensured that police numbers were at their highest ever. For this Bill to be effective, they need to rise further, and the resource needs to be focused on the right things: away from the obsession with online harm, prosecutions for tweets and non-hate crime, and into neighbourhood policing.
The truth is that we have moved away from the founding Peelite principle that police need to be part of the community they serve. They are increasingly a wholly separate organism, usually absent from our streets and town centres, and sometimes appearing to want to control our thoughts. Part of the problem has been the huge increase in bureaucracy, with energetic police men and women weighed down by paperwork requirements and the inefficiency of the police, CPS and court interaction and its supporting and less than compatible IT systems. My noble friend Lady Coffey has drawn attention to the burden of yet more reporting requirements in the Bill. To my mind there is an enforcement crisis, and I ask the Minister what he is planning to do about it.
I am very pleased to see Clause 106, introduced in the other place, which creates new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. I also like Clause 8, which makes it easier to seize an e-scooter being driven anti-socially—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, actually wants to go further. As noble Lords know, I have been horrified by this Wild West of scooters and cyclists, especially speedy electronic versions, dashing through lights, driving routinely on pavements and spreading terrors among mothers with pushchairs, the disabled, the infirm and sometimes me. I have been knocked over myself. The truth is that this lawlessness in London has got worse; the results can be seen in A&E admissions.
However, there is no need to wait for the new Act, as cycling on pavements is illegal. Current laws must be enforced. I ask the Minister to consider a hotspot policy, perhaps by the Transport Police, to crack down on bad behaviour by cyclists and e-scooterists. We know that this sort of enforcement works. When I worked at Downing Street in the 1990s, the Met got burglary down with Operation Bumblebee and, more recently, we have seen the successful crackdown on mobile phone thieves at Oxford Circus.
My final plea for better enforcement relates to shoplifting, which has also exploded recently. I know from my time at Tesco how this ruins honest endeavour and allows free-riders free rein. It is so difficult for the staff and there is a wider impact. I remember women putting large jars of Nescafé and beef fillet down their trousers to sell and fund their drug habit and I remember the drudgery and cost of adding security tags to every valuable item. The Bill rightly responds to USDAW’s long-standing campaign and creates a new offence of assaulting a retail worker. Clause 39 seeks to tackle the ridiculous situation whereby so-called “low-value theft”—under £200—tends to go unprosecuted. However, I note that the Opposition have concerns about how this is achieved. We would also like to see tougher sentences on shoplifting where there have been more than three occasions of theft.
In conclusion, I return to Sir Robert Peel. He not only founded the Met but gave officers clear guidelines on expected behaviour, so establishing a highly visible and positive relationship with the British people. In this respect, it is time for us to revisit our roots.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, in seeking to intervene in the gap, my intention is to bring about the minimum of delay as we reach the most important stage of Second Reading, namely the winding-up speeches. I unhesitatingly begin by entirely endorsing the words of my new noble friend Lady Levitt—to whom much welcome—when opening this debate. Yes, neighbourhood policing has been neglected. Yes, we need to pay much more attention, for example, to the awful offence of child sexual abuse. But, in the steps of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, although in rather stronger language, I have to say that this Bill is a monster.
Indeed, I am holding it in my hand and I have to put it down because it is going to crash any moment and it is causing all my notes to go in a mess. In its 422 pages it seeks, if my arithmetic is correct, to amend no less than 44 previous statutes going back to the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Limitation Act 1980. In some cases, the amendments are extensive. For example, for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, if you look at Schedule 16 to the Bill and pages 316 to 323, you will see no less than seven pages of amendments. We cannot change this in this Bill, but we should be aware of what we are doing. Not only are we imposing on ourselves in Committee, doing our job properly, the task of putting in front of ourselves all 44 of these statutes while seeking to amend them, but what about this Bill becoming law? How are the police and everybody else involved in enforcement going to cope? When in Committee, we must do our duty, however long it takes. Fortunately, we have in my noble friend Lord Hanson the nicest of Ministers who has ever-enduring patience—but he is going to be tried out.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, although this Bill is extremely wide-ranging, as has been pointed out, and plainly lacks focus, we have had an interesting and diffuse debate and we can discern something now of the Government’s central aims: first, to help halve violence against women and girls; secondly, to protect children from criminal exploitation and abuse, on which my noble friends Lady Benjamin, Lady Hamwee and Lady Featherstone, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Cash, and others spoke so compellingly; and then to cut street violence, particularly knife crime, to reduce anti-social behaviour and to increase neighbourhood policing and public confidence in the police. On these Benches, we support all these aims. However, as it stands, the Bill risks many unforeseen and undesirable consequences.
Broadly, we will seek to ensure that the Bill does not unjustifiably reduce citizens’ rights and liberties; that it should not unnecessarily create new or duplicatory offences; that it will keep the law up to date with new technology, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones explained; that it will enhance police effectiveness and community confidence, and will not increase pressure on the police or local authorities; and, generally, that it will not make managing the criminal justice system more difficult, either by increasing court backlogs or making it harder for courts to handle their workload effectively and justly, or by increasing the prison population when our aim is to reduce reoffending, reverse sentence inflation and rehabilitate more offenders in the community.
I can make only a few points. The detail we will leave to 11 days in Committee, and we may need even more for proper consideration of the many expected amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, predicted.
I turn first to the protection of citizens’ rights, particularly the right to peaceful protest. Whatever our differing views on the horrors in the Middle East, many have been frankly shocked that the Terrorism Act was deployed in the proscription of Palestine Action, whether or not that was sanctioned by the legislation. Many hundreds of protesters face prosecution for offences labelled as “terrorist” for taking part in protests in an entirely non-violent way. Such prosecutions may prevent them finding employment or travelling to the States, as my noble friend Lady Miller pointed out, or indeed the EU when the European travel authorisation scheme is launched next year. These are not groundless scare stories; they are points made by the Government and senior officers to deter attendance at these protests. We will be seeking stronger statutory protection for the right to peaceful protest and a review of the threshold for so-called “terrorist offences”.
I am concerned that the generally very clear and helpful opening by the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt—for which I thank her—revealed on these issues a lack of balance in government. The speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and my noble friends Lord Strasburger and Lady Miller, and numbers of others, provided a welcome counterweight.
We also worry about the indiscriminate use of live facial recognition, as my noble friend Lord Strasburger explained. While it may have uses—for example, in connection with retail theft, car break-ins, bag snatches and other street crime—I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, and others that its use needs careful review and control. Unsafeguarded access to DVLA information, or electronic information on which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, spoke, presents similar risks. So, while agreeing with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, we do not always go along with his approach to police access to personal information. However, I suggest that the concept of stewarded public interest data trusts—introduced, for example, in Canada, Australia and Belgium—offers balance on these privacy issues and deserves serious consideration. We must not slide inadvertently, carelessly or by stealth towards being a surveillance state.
The respect order proposals are not risk-free. Although making these orders will be for the courts, applications for them will be largely for our underresourced police and local authorities. How confident can the Government be of their usefulness? Will not the financial and administrative burden of securing these orders, organising their supervision and then policing and punishing their breach, outweigh their effectiveness in reducing crime and anti-social behaviour? Are the procedures robust in respecting citizens’ liberties? Before respect orders are made, there must be wide consultation on the guidance and an independent review of existing powers.
The Bill will create many new offences. I started in preparation to count them but ran out of steam. A number of them duplicate existing offences and will make the criminal law more complicated. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, pointed out, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, so graphically described, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Russell of Liverpool and others, other provisions increase existing penalties.
This mixture is generally not helpful. More prosecutions for complex new offences will tend to clog up the courts and exacerbate the appalling backlogs we so desperately need to clear. More and longer prison sentences will do nothing to reduce reoffending or its massive cost to society. We already imprison more people and for longer than other countries in western Europe. Our prisons are still overcrowded, understaffed and in many cases dilapidated, often serving more as academies of crime than as centres of reform. We should be reversing sentence inflation, relying on more and better community sentencing and focusing on rehabilitation and training. The Sentencing Bill will cover these issues, but this Bill betrays a lack of co-ordination across criminal justice issues
While opposing unnecessary new offences, I will relay the amendment I proposed to the Domestic Abuse Bill, to criminalise psychotherapists who exercise controlling or coercive behaviour over their patients, often vulnerable young adults. When I moved this amendment in 2021 with all-party support, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who is now in a stronger position to influence these matters, argued that we had made a powerful case for change and said that he hoped the Government would, as he put it,
“set out a pathway to remedy this undeniably serious problem”.—[Official Report, 10/3/21; col. 1776.]
I hope to hold this Government to his word.
Finally, on police effectiveness and public confidence, and on pressure on the police and local authorities, my noble friend Lady Doocey rightly said that pressure on the police largely comes down to resources—for example, on drug testing and law enforcement. This Government, like the last, persistently understate both the shortage of resources for policing and the pressures on the police, which diminish both police effectiveness and public confidence. Public confidence means community confidence, which requires a genuine commitment to neighbourhood policing, which was addressed by my noble friend, and to ending racism and hate crime, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others spoke. We will seek progress on these issues.
I add one final point on policing and police resources. The prevalent minimum, or zero, response to so-called minor crime undermines public confidence. It is said that minimal response is acceptable for crimes that are low-level and low-value. But, just as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, described, crimes such as bike theft, car break-ins, shop theft and mobile phone, watch and bag snatches are committed on an industrial scale. Such offences may often be low-value in isolation, but these are not isolated incidents; they are largely the work of multiple repeat offenders and professional gangs. Concerted efforts to ensure they are policed more effectively would do much to restore public confidence in our policing.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I first extend my thanks to all noble Lords for their contributions to this Second Reading debate but in particular to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, for the clarity of her opening, for which I am sure we are all grateful.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier opined, correctly, that passing laws is not a solution. That reflected an observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, about the plague of everyday crime that already exists. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also made the point about the need for neighbourhood policing. It might be observed that, in the period from 2010 to 2023, neighbourhood crime in England and Wales fell very substantially. That progress was hard won through local policing, prevention and firm sentencing, rather than the creation of new laws.
Of course, many of the measures in the Bill will not be effective if police funding, police numbers and police priorities cannot keep pace. The National Police Chiefs’ Council recently observed that the Lord Chancellor’s plan for police funding will result in a shortfall in England and Wales of £1.2 billion. Police forces have had to rely on borrowing to achieve the necessary delivery of services. Rather worryingly, it has been estimated that the cost of debt servicing in respect of these liabilities is projected to rise by 50% in the next three years, so we are creating a snowball of underfunding. No additional funding is available to manage the potential increase in the number of offenders coming on to our streets as the result of early release or the reduction in spending on in-prison education, all of which is liable to impact and increase recidivism.
All that said, we welcome and support many of the provisions in the Bill. This Bill follows the Criminal Justice Bill, which was introduced by the previous Government and fell after the last election. Indeed, about one-third of the clauses in the current Bill are essentially the same as those in the previous Bill. Unfortunately, this Government have left out much and introduced a watering down of much of the previous Bill’s intent, and that is what I will address.
I will begin with those provisions that should have been added back to the Bill and were the subject of proposed amendments in the other place. The Government claim to be tough on crime but have consistently resisted amendments in the other place that sought to bolster the Bill’s provisions. They are reluctant to put into statute more robust sentence guidance and have rather ducked responsibility by referring repeatedly to their proposals for a review. In particular, the Government are unwilling to introduce tougher sentencing in respect of persistent retail crime offenders; a number of noble Lords addressed that in the context of it being a social blight in many areas today. In the other place, amendments were proposed to introduce mandatory sentencing for courts dealing with repeat retail crime offenders and to introduce the requirement for the electronic tagging of repeat offenders. The response from the Government in the other place was that
“sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary”.—[Official Report, Commons, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 3/4/25; col. 211.]
With the greatest of respect, I believe that that response is as empty as it is true.
Further, the Government will not commit to introducing appropriate penalties to protect farmers and tradespeople, a point that was touched on by some noble Lords. In the other place, we moved an amendment to the equipment theft Act, to ensure that fines made under the Act reflected the cost of replacing equipment stolen from farmers and tradespeople. We also proposed an amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to make the theft of tools from tradespeople an aggravating factor. Why should it be aggravating? That is because of the double loss. The tradesman not only loses his tools; he loses the means to carry on his trade. Can the Minister explain why such provisions will not be the subject of this Bill? It indicates an unwillingness by the Government to address these issues head on, while they instead talk of a review.
Furthermore, the Government in the other place would not commit on the maximum penalty for possession of an offensive weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence, despite their manifesto promise to reduce knife crime substantially. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, particularly in the wake of the Southport attack, argued that the proposed sentence of four years was far too low, and yet, in the other place, the Government have resisted a proposal to raise the maximum penalty for such heinous crimes from four years to 14 years. The Minister said in the other place that they will “conduct a review”.
Further, the Government have resisted an amendment to make child murder a stand-alone aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines. They have once again ceded responsibility to a separate body, rather than taking any action. In this instance, they suggest that there should be a review by the Law Commission. Perhaps the Government will then review the reviews. Normally, we expect to find that a review is a message that something is going to be placed in the long grass. It appears that, so far, the long grass is becoming unduly crowded.
I move on to some of the more pragmatic options that were recommended in the other place in order to address the issue of crime. It had been proposed that there should be an expansion of police powers of stop and search, but again that was resisted by the Government in the other place. I find this difficult to reconcile with their manifesto promise to crack down on the knife crime epidemic. The proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was to lower the threshold required for stop and search, albeit it would still require a perception with regard to violence. I ask the Minister to explain the logic of not embracing that simple step in order to attempt to address the knife crime epidemic.
Furthermore, in the other place, the Government were presented with two pragmatic amendments to crack down on the issue of tipping offences. That would have involved, first, making a third party responsible, where there is vicarious liability, imposing statutory guidance that the cost of removing the fly-tipping should be reflected in the penalty and that, in some instances, it should be possible to impose driving points on those who engaged in the fly-tipping. The Government’s response was to say that they would consult with Defra—I thought Defra was a part of the Government. It does not seem to me that in this instance the Government are really willing to face up to the hard need for appropriate penalties in respect to these crimes. I invite the Minister to explain why the matter should be deferred in that way.
I turn to the need for police action. In the other place, an amendment would have required that there should be regular reporting on police presence, on stop and search, and on live facial recognition in areas with the highest levels of serious crime. I regret that the Government should have resisted that, because if the public are meant to have faith in these proposals, they are surely going to be interested in knowing whether they are actually working. I invite consideration of that matter by the Government as we go on to Committee.
Some of the issues around sexual crimes and sexual abuse were touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It was proposed that, with regard to the offence of spiking, which is so obviously related to sexual offences, there should be a test of recklessness rather than intent. When you consider the nature of the crime, it seems perfectly sensible that recklessness should be the appropriate test. The Government have argued that adding recklessness to the relevant statutory test would create confusion. I would welcome the Minister’s explanation as to what confusion he anticipates that simple amendment to the test would create. Those are the matters that we must immediately consider for amendment going forward, if we are to introduce proper teeth to these proposals.
Finally, I will address a further matter that should be removed by virtue of this Bill. It has been touched on already by the noble Lord, Lord Young: non-crime hate incidents. They have a chilling effect on free speech. They divert precious police time away from tackling very real crimes. Indeed, it is reported that over 13,000 of these non-crime hate incidents are now being logged each year, consuming an estimated 60,000 hours of police time. It is time, in my respectful submission, for that to be properly addressed, not by a review but by a proper consideration of the policy that lies behind this. We find ourselves in line with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Young, that this should be addressed in the Bill.
This Bill is intended to be a step forward in addressing crime and policing. Unfortunately, it also risks being two steps back. The Government should not persistently avoid hard and necessary decisions by deferring to wide, non-specific powers of sentencing or the wish for review after review. We can act now to significantly improve our means to tackle crime and to determine specific policies on punishment, as the original Conservative Bill intended. I hope that we can raise the present Bill to that necessary standard. The Bill has much to commend it, but it has much more to improve.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the almost 70 speakers in today’s debate. I start by declaring an interest on my own behalf. I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and have been for 46 years. That will obviously have an impact on my view of the measures on shop theft and assaults on shop workers.
I am pleased tonight to have the broad support of HM Opposition and, indeed, the broad support of the Liberal Democrat Benches—with some caveats from both. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord’s amendments in Committee. I cannot give him a response tonight on those details, but we will have plenty of time to discuss that. In saying that, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Fox of Buckley, and others mentioned the length of time for debate and the size of the Bill. Indeed, so did my noble friend Lord Hacking. We will have time for that, and it will be discussed through the usual channels. I look forward to a full and frank debate on this matter in due course.
The Bill deals with a number of key issues, and Members have talked about a theme in it. There are several themes in this Bill: making our communities safe, strengthening child sexual abuse prevention, tackling anti-social behaviour and knife crime and, dare I say it, supporting free speech—while at the same time ensuring that we have some measures on protests. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Vaizey, and indeed my noble friend Lord Hacking said that there is a mixture in this Bill, that it does not have a theme and that it is very large. It is a government programme, much of it based on a manifesto commitment. As my noble friend Lady Levitt mentioned in her excellent maiden speech from this Front Bench on a Second Reading debate, it is a manifesto commitment from the Government to do most of the things in this Bill, and therefore we are going to do most of the things in it, with the support of this House and the House of Commons.
A lot of issues in the debate have been about legislative proposals, certainly, but we have touched on neighbourhood policing, courts, speeding, police presence, speeding up justice, police numbers, et cetera. My noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate mentioned that. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, talked about delivery, which is extremely important. Those things are not in the Bill, but they are extremely important matters that are before us today.
I shall concentrate, if I may, on what is actually in the Bill and the points that have been debated by noble Lords today. Let me start with respect orders and youth diversion orders, which were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Respect orders are a substantial new power that gives police and authorities effective levers to deal with anti-social behaviour. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, made some criticism of them and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, challenges them as well. We believe them to be an effective tool, and we will have a chance to debate that in due course in Committee.
Youth diversion orders are an important measure. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, that we will come back to them, but they are designed to help prevent terrorism and prevent people drifting into terrorism.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey, Lady Stowell, Lady Hazarika and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Herbert, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Davies of Gower, all raised the issue of shop theft. Shop theft is extremely important, and something we should not tolerate. That is why we are removing the £200 threshold, are putting a focus on it with policing and have encouraged police forces to tackle it. The measures that we are removing will send a signal. It is still for judicial discretion, but it will send a very strong signal—as will, on the issue of mobile phone theft, giving tracking powers for officers to be able to visit a premise straightaway. I look forward to debating them, but it is important to take action.
The issue closest to my heart in this Bill is that of retail workers and attacks on retail workers. The noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell, Lady Doocey, Lady Thornton, Lady Browning and Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton contributed to this debate. This is a long-standing campaign, which is why I declare my membership of USDAW. When in the House of Commons I moved amendments on this issue over many years, and I appreciate very much the support of my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton and the members of USDAW, along with the businesses—the Co-op, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and others—that have raised this issue. The new offence will put in place an obligation to ensure that those who uphold the law—which is what colleagues do in shops on solvent abuse, cigarette sales and alcohol—are also protected by the law. I hope that will have good support.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Before the Minister moves on, will he respond to my question? Why have the Government decided to legislate only for that group of workers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The argument I will put to the noble Baroness now is that shop workers are upholding the law on solvent abuse, alcohol, cigarette sales and other things. There will be representations on other areas, and we will examine those representations, but I really want to get this over the line after a long campaign. I hope that the noble Baroness will support those measures, whatever amendments she may bring forward.
There has been considerable debate around civil liberties from the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Doocey and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, my noble friend Lord Cashman and others. We are making some changes, and we will bring some further changes forward, but the principle of this is that we are trying to ensure that we have freedom of speech and the right to protest, but that we also have the right to ensure that protest is managed in an effective way. There are responsibilities in protest as well as the right to protest.
We have looked at the question of the Vagrancy Act; the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned that in particular. The Government have been clear that no one should be criminalised, which is why we are repealing the outdated 1824 Act. We are committed to a repeal of the Vagrancy Act once a replacement can be determined. I hope that clarifies that for him.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, among many other issues that I will come back to in a moment, raised the issue of policing and suicide. We are working closely with the National Police Wellbeing Service to examine that.
There has been a major debate from noble Lords and noble Baronesses on the question of child exploitation, child sexual abuse and the IICSA implementation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Hamwee, Lady Royall, Lady Benjamin, Lady Kidron, Lady Cash and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Faulks, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others all raised and discussed that issue. We are going to have a big debate on this. We are trying to meet the IICSA recommendations. The Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, stretches us a bit further. We will have a discussion around that. I hope that this Bill, at the end of its process in this House, will have achieved an improvement in child protection services as a whole.
We have also had a discussion around the big issue of abortion, raised by many Members: the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman, Lady O’Loan, Lady Coffey, Lady Mattinson, Lady Hazarika, Lady Thornton, Lady Lawlor and Lady Monckton, the noble Lords, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, Lord Jackson, Lord Frost, Lord Farmer and Lord Hampton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. There are different pressures on that: some want that provision taken out and some want it maintained. The Government will remain neutral on this matter and facilitate whatever Parliament agrees and settles on in the end. We will look at those issues, and the Government will have a free vote on that matter as a whole.
The issue of police misconduct and police vetting was raised very strongly by my noble friend Lady Lawrence, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, and others, particularly in the light of the “Panorama” investigation we touched on in Question Time today. There are a number of measures in the Bill to support strengthening police vetting, and I very much welcome those and hope they will be looked at positively in the future.
Knife crime was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Birt, and my noble friend Lady Lawrence. Again, the measures in the Bill are designed to regulate the supply of knives by people who wish to use those knives in a way that is not conducive to good behaviour and that causes death, misery and injury. We have to take those actions, and I think it is important that we do so.
There has been a lot of discussion around the issue of hate crime. First of all, I want to touch on the issue raised by my noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lord Cashman and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green: the aggravated offence. It was a Labour manifesto commitment at the general election. We are carefully considering now how best to amend the law to ensure the protected characteristics have that fairness. We will set out our conclusions later, during the passage of the Bill, but that commitment has been given and we will examine that in due course.
That leads me on to the question, a live issue for noble Lords, of non-crime hate incidents. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, indicated very strongly what has happened in relation to the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and I am grateful to him for his support in giving the review on this matter. We have recently had discussions from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and others in the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Young, about this matter, and we are going to have a debate about it, but I am hoping that the review that the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has instigated will help colour whatever amendments are brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned it as well. It is important that we have that debate and discussion, but I want it to be influenced by the review from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, if noble Lords think that is appropriate.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the pornography review, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, in particular for the work she has done on that. The noble Baronesses, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, Lady Kidron and Lady Sugg, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy all made contributions today on the pornography review. We are committed to taking any necessary action following consideration of the noble Baroness’s recommendations. We have committed to criminalising pornography that depicts acts of strangulation and suffocation in this Bill, and we will bring forward an amendment to that effect. Where we can, in relation to the recommendations of the noble Baroness’s report, we will take early action to undertake that as a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned honour-based abuse, and I am grateful to her—I was looking for her, and she was there when we started but has now moved over there. She called for a statutory definition of so-called honour-based abuse, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. We will work closely with the honour-based abuse sector to develop that statutory definition. We have given that commitment. I agree that it is vital that all professionals with safeguarding responsibilities have the right framework to identify victims and perpetrators, and I will be looking at that during the passage of this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, mentioned spiking. It is an important measure and, again, I will reflect on the points she made in this discussion.
I was pleased by the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, for the measures on cuckolding—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Cuckooing, not cuckolding. Sorry, it has been a long day in the Chamber today—apart from a very quick 20-second call of nature, I have been in for the whole day. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for that measure as a whole.
We have also had a range of new ideas for the Bill, and I look forward—honestly—to developing and arguing and having a discussion around the amendments during the passage of the Bill.
I am happy to meet any Members, if I can, who are going to raise those issues. I have firearms and cycling from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. Historical weapons were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, takes an interest in that. I have had measures on child abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I have transport issues from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, deceased children from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the chatbot issues. I have new proposals on cyber-digital from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, The noble Lord, Lord Walney, raised a number of issues to do with the terrorism review.
I have universal jurisdiction from my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I have the cumulative impact issues from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. I have facial recognition from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. I have vehicle non-compliance from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I have fraud from the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Birt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Coffey. On all those things, I am happy to meet and discuss. Let us look at what is tabled, let us look at what is put down, and the Government will reflect on it. We may disagree at the end, but let us have that discussion as a whole.
On the fraud issue, from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in particular, I am the Government’s first Fraud Minister—Anti-Fraud Minister, really, but is called Fraud Minister for the purposes of the discussion here today. I have a challenge from the Government to produce a new fraud strategy. We are in the process of working on that. By January or February of next year, there will be a three-year fraud strategy, which will cover some of the points that the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Birt, and others mentioned.
I know that facial recognition issues are important to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and I want to ensure that we examine those.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, and others made representations about the stalking measures in the Bill. I hope they will welcome those, but we will have a debate around that in due course.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker argued for the repeal of the provisions on encampments in Part 4 of the Police Act. We are aware of the High Court ruling and of the points made there. We will consider how best to respond in due course and will do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, again mentioned the recording of offences of intimate images. I am not sure we are going to agree on some of these issues, but at least I look forward to the amendments in due course if they are brought forward.
I also note the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, which I will reflect on and look at in due course.
This is indeed a very large Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act and the implementation of that for farmers. We are looking now at when we can implement that and trying to bring the necessary regulations later this year—so I can give him the answer and support on that.
Although it is very rushed, I think I have covered every point raised by every Member who has spoken in the debate today. I may not have satisfied every Member, but I hope I have recognised that—
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Can I make the briefest of interruptions? That is a terrific to-do list and I congratulate the Minister on a spectacular summation. The one thing that has not really been touched on, which I think almost all of us spoke about, is resources. How are we going to pay for it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, the Bill covers a range of legislative options on a range of matters. In parallel to that, there are two other aspects of work. We will produce a policing White Paper very shortly, which will look at some of the issues in policing and how we can improve efficiencies. With the National Police Chiefs’ Council and colleagues and police and crime commissioners, we will look at how we can get better value and better focus on the key policing issues that Members have talked about today.
The very point that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others have mentioned—about delivery, about use of resources, about focus and about asking what the police do on particular issues—is extremely important. It is absolutely vital that we focus the police on government priorities. Aside from the police White Paper, we have issues with police funding and budgets. We have given £1.2 billion extra this year to policing. There is a challenging settlement, but our job is to get better value out of that. But I think there is commonality between all of us in the Chamber today that the issues that matter to people are anti-social behaviour, shop theft, violence against women and girls and child sexual abuse. Although there are many policing priorities, those are things that this legislation is dealing with. Therefore, we are hoping that the resources and focus will follow the legislation. The work we have done already—putting an extra 3,000 neighbourhood police on the ground and focusing on neighbourhood policing—means that over the next two to three years we try to increase the number of forward-facing neighbourhood police officers on the ground.
Nobody expects that there will be no challenge in all this, but the purpose of this Bill is to give legislative framework to government manifesto commitments. I think it meets a number of important objectives. There will be debate between Members; there will be differences; there will be votes; there may not be a meeting of minds on certain issues. But I am hopeful that, when this process is over, this Bill will pass, that it will be put into effect and that Members of this House and the House of Commons will hold the Home Office to account for making sure that we reduce crime, increase confidence in policing and make sure that there are fewer victims in the future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 2, Clause 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 55, Schedule 5, Clause 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 65, Schedule 7, Clauses 66 to 72, Schedule 8, Clauses 73 to 84, Schedule 9, Clauses 85 to 96, Schedule 10, Clauses 97 to 117, Schedule 11, Clauses 118 to 122, Schedule 12, Clauses 123 to 127, Schedule 13, Clauses 128 to 136, Schedule 14, Clauses 137 to 139, Schedule 15, Clauses 140 to 145, Schedules 16 to 18, Clauses 146 to 164, Schedule 19, Clauses 165 to 186, Schedule 20, Clause 187, Schedule 21, Clauses 188 to 203, Title.