Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to today’s business, I wish to make a brief statement. I previously indicated to the House that I intended to take specialist legal advice following the collapse of the prosecution of two individuals accused of espionage for the Chinese authorities. Members will be aware of my continuing disappointment about what has happened in this case and my desire to explore all possible options for action. I inform the House that I have taken that advice, and it appears that there are no other legal routes to be pursued by the House in these cases. No doubt others are considering whether options remain open to them, and if we can help, I am sure we will. I know that future allegations will be dealt with under newer legislation. I also take this opportunity to remind Members of the updated security guidance issued last month.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I know the whole House is united in condemning the dreadful attacks on the LNER train from Doncaster to London over the weekend, and our thoughts are with the victims, their families and their friends. This is also the period in which we mark remembrance. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ceremony in opening the garden of remembrance for constituencies this morning. We will wear our poppies with pride, and we will remember them.
In September, we published our Government’s new defence industrial strategy, backed by nearly £800 million in funding. We are making defence an engine for driving economic growth. We are backing British jobs, backing British industry and backing British innovation.
Sarah Russell
I recently visited Avocet, an innovative manufacturing company based in Holmes Chapel in my constituency. It is looking to grow its business by diversifying into supplying components and materials for drone battery production. However, it has expressed to me the potential for improved support and guidance from the Government in order to break into and thrive in this competitive international market. What steps is the Department taking to support British manufacturing businesses such as Avocet? Does he agree that helping these organisations will unlock vital opportunities for economic growth?
John Healey
I do indeed, and my hon. Friend is right. Firms such as that in her constituency hold the future of our security and our economic growth. That is why we have set up UK Defence Innovation and ringfenced it with at least £400 million in the Budget this year, with fresh freedoms. We have also doubled to £4 billion the amount of money that we will invest in British drones and autonomy over this Parliament.
Gurinder Singh Josan
A key ingredient in strengthening the industrial base is the innovation that our companies bring to the table. A&M EDM Ltd in my constituency is a specialist engineering company working with aerospace, automotive, Formula 1 and other industries. When I visited recently, it was testing a drone engine that it had designed and built, with most parts being produced in house. What routes are available to companies such as A&M EDM Ltd to bring that innovation, specialist engineering capacity, and research and development ability to the defence industrial supply chain?
John Healey
UK Defence Innovation has been set up to transform defence’s innovation system. One of its priorities is to foster collaboration with small and medium-sized firms in fields beyond defence, just like A&M EDM Ltd in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have set out my determination to see Britain become the best place to start, grow and invest in new defence companies.
Antonia Bance
It is always good to follow another Member for the Black Country. I was recently very pleased to meet with Babcock International, which is based in Walsall, just over the M6 from my constituency, where it makes armoured cars. Can the Secretary of State comment on future opportunities for defence manufacturing in the Black Country and the wider west midlands?
John Healey
The west midlands has a very proud tradition of being at the heart of British invention and engineering, and it has huge potential for the future of defence engineering and invention. In the last year, the Ministry of Defence has spent £1.7 billion directly into the region, which is the highest level for the last 10 years. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), met with the Mayor of the West Midlands just last week to discuss what other opportunities there may be for firms such as that and areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) in the west midlands.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
As the Secretary of State knows, I have brought a company over from Ukraine to show us what it can do with drones. Us getting hold of that technology from Ukraine helps us to supply Ukraine, as well as ourselves. However, the key issue I want to ask about is that of rare earth minerals. They are normally discussed in a business context, but they are critical to the defence of the United Kingdom, and having a supply here in this country, directly owned by us, must surely be a critical issue. Has the Secretary of State looked at this issue, talked to his colleagues in Government and said, “We need a supply that we produce in our own country and use here”?
John Healey
The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that that we are doing so with close allies. We are also doing so with Ukraine. The right hon. Gentleman has been one of the voices in this House that has pushed us to do more with Ukrainian industry, and I know he will welcome our groundbreaking agreement with Ukraine, through which it will share for the first time with another country its intellectual property for the critical interceptor drone called Octopus. We will develop that further, manufacture those drones at scale within weeks and months, and return thousands to Ukraine to help its fight against Putin.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Ministry of Defence spent £1.2 billion with SMEs in 2024-25. Sadly, though, only 2.5% of that spending went to SMEs in Scotland, which report extreme difficulty in accessing those MOD contracts. This is an inevitable consequence of the MOD spending more in one region of England than it spends in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland put together. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is an undesirable outcome, and what steps will he take to increase SME expenditure by the MOD in Scotland to at least Scotland’s per capita share, which is what it contributes to the cost of defence?
John Healey
The first useful step, of course, would be for the Scottish nationalist Government to lift their bar on any support for defence and associated firms. One of the biggest problems for SMEs in the defence field in Scotland is that they cannot get any support from their own Government, despite the big contribution that those SMEs make to jobs, opportunities and security, not just for Scotland and the UK.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
As the Secretary of State said, the defence industrial strategy promises to boost British export success, British businesses and British jobs. As such, I am sure he is as excited as I am about the Aeralis bid to replace the Red Arrow Hawk aircraft, which would deliver around 600 skilled jobs at StandardAero in my constituency. Will he ensure that there is an early decision on the replacement of the Hawk aircraft, and that that decision fully reflects the opportunity that exists to create high-value jobs, drive exports, strengthen British sovereign capability, and enable the United Kingdom to design and build its own aircraft?
John Healey
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Like her, I am very excited about the defence industrial strategy, and she is right to urge me to ensure we take an early decision about the replacement of the Hawk trainer. We will, because that is a long-overdue decision that should have been taken years ago by the previous Administration and the previous Defence Procurement Minister.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the appalling attack in Huntingdon over the weekend.
We all know that the Government cannot deliver a strong defence industrial base without seriously boosting defence spending, yet multiple media outlets have very recently reported that the Secretary of State’s Department is asking the armed forces to make cuts of £2.6 billion this financial year. Very simply, can he tell us what will be cut to find the money?
John Healey
Quite simply, we have boosted defence investment. We have done so by a record amount since the end of the cold war, and three years earlier than the Conservatives’ unfunded plans proposed. Since the election, we have signed over 1,000 major contracts, 84% of them with British firms. We have brought £1.7 billion of foreign direct investment into defence, and we have won major export deals that the Conservatives never managed. On Monday, the Prime Minister and I signed an £8 billion deal with Turkey to buy 20 British Typhoons, which will help secure 20,000 jobs in the wider supply chain for the years to come. I would like to hear Conservative Members welcome that.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
We are making the most significant commitment and change to armed forces housing in 50 years. Within six months of the election, we acted to end the worst-ever Tory privatisation. We brought 36,000 military homes back into public ownership, and now we are making a £9 billion investment over the next decade to bring those homes up to scratch. At the same time, we are supercharging the building of new housing on surplus defence land. These plans are set out in our new defence housing strategy, which we published today, and a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House.
Mr Rand
In the week of Remembrance Sunday, it is important to restate that supporting our armed forces and their families is something we should be committed to every day. Over the past decade, two thirds of armed forces service family accommodation was allowed to fall into such disrepair that it was deemed not fit for purpose by the Defence Committee. How will our consumer charter for armed forces families ensure that we do provide homes fit for heroes?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to recognise remembrance as a time when we recognise not just the service of those in the past, but those who serve today. We make demands on them that none of us would have to meet. We ask them to deploy at a week’s notice to the other side of the world, and we ask them to move with their families every few years around the UK. The very last thing they should worry about is whether their wives, husbands, partners or kids are living in cold, damp and leaky homes. We are ending what my hon. Friend says is the Tory scandal of unfit forces housing, and we are getting Britain building the homes that we need on surplus defence land—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Secretary of State will want to catch my eye for his own questions. He should not use up all his ammunition just yet.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I welcome the £9 billion investment in military housing, but can the Secretary of State reassure Members, those serving and their families that responsive repairs will not be put on hold in the hope of a new bathroom, kitchen or heating system?
John Healey
The introduction earlier this year of a new consumer standard has not just raised the required standard of those repairs, but the response when they are needed. Over the first year of this Government, we have seen the number of complaints about forces housing more than halve from the high under the previous Government. There will always be complaints; there will always be problems. We cannot fix these problems overnight, but I am determined that we will fix them. I am determined for this to be a nation where we say proudly that we provide homes fit for our heroes.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The role of west midlands SMEs in support of our armed forces is vital for our national security. The Ministry of Defence has just published our regional breakdown of defence spending in the west midlands, where we spend £1.7 billion. That is the highest on record, supporting 7,900 jobs, but it is not enough. We will spend an additional £2.5 billion extra with SMEs by 2028, helping to reinforce that defence can be an engine for growth.
Sonia Kumar
In Dudley, we have the Pensnett estate, one of the largest industrial estates in Europe. It is home to nearly 200 businesses, including a variety of SMEs, ranging from plumbing to steelworks. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that SMEs in Dudley have the time and the space to bid for contracts? Will the Minister agree to hold a roundtable on defence on the Pensnett estate?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the time that my hon. Friend spent talking to me about SME potential in Dudley and across the west midlands last week. There is a huge opportunity to direct more of the increasing defence budget at British firms, and in particular SMEs. There is huge potential with the skills base in the west midlands. I would be happy to take my hon. Friend up on her offer of visiting Dudley and getting those businesses more involved in the defence supply chain.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Minister has heard what an amazing set of mid-sized and large businesses we have in the west midlands supporting defence, but we also have some amazing research universities. What more is the MOD looking at doing to work more closely with our universities, getting them geared towards supporting our move to rearming this country?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the important role that universities play. In the defence industrial strategy, published a few months ago, we set out our ambition to create a defence universities alliance, bringing together the very best cutting-edge research that is being done in our universities. We are working with Universities UK to put that together, and there will be further announcements in short order, but I hope that the universities on the right hon. Gentleman’s patch will participate so that we can grow our economy and keep our nation safe.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
As we move towards warfighting readiness, the Government are investing more of our rising defence budget in new technologies and innovation, and the need for more innovative solutions to address emerging challenges is paramount in these darker and more dangerous times. On 1 July we launched UK Defence Innovation, a £400 million fund, and we will spend 10% of the equipment budget on innovative technologies that will deliver for defence.
Sadik Al-Hassan
What pathways and training programmes are Ministers establishing to ensure that young people, such as those in my constituency, can develop the specialist skills that they need in order to become the defence innovators of the future? Is the Minister working with local colleges, universities and defence industry employers to create hubs of apprenticeships and career opportunities?
Luke Pollard
As a fellow south-west MP, I know just how important it is for us to invest in defence skills in the south-west and across the United Kingdom. The defence industrial strategy includes the £182 million package that we will deliver via defence technical excellence colleges with our colleagues in the Department for Education, but we need to go further, encouraging all our defence businesses—big and small—to invest in skills so that we have the workforce of the future, able to deliver those cutting-edge technologies. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what more we can do in Somerset.
Noah Law
While I greatly welcome the focus on innovation, cyber-warfare remains one of the areas in which the lines of responsibility may at least appear to be less clear. Given the threats that are proliferating—both abroad, for instance from Russia and the Sahel, and closer to home, even in many of our own in-trays—will the Minister specify where that responsibility for cyber-warfare really lies?
Luke Pollard
Keeping our nation safe in the air, on land and at sea requires cyber and space capabilities. Defence was attacked 90,000 times in the cyber domain, which amounts to roughly 250 attacks a day. That is why we are investing not just in the National Cyber Force but in the defence cyber and electromagnetic force that we are setting up, working with our colleagues in the private sector, to enhance the ability of defence not only to repel attacks on the defence infrastructure but to harden UK resilience in the private and public sectors. There is more work between the MOD and the Cabinet Office in that regard, but we need everyone to step up to defend our country in the cyber space, and we can all do something by simply updating our operating systems, which will make everyone who does so safer and more resilient.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
May I first associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the attack on the train at the weekend?
Last week the Ministry of Defence announced the launch of Project Fairfax, which will see a defence technology cluster established alongside RAF Wyton in my constituency. I thank the Minister for his support in bringing the project forward; it has been warmly received not only by industry but, crucially, by my constituents, who are excited about the opportunity presented by specialist defence careers and increasing regional growth that will be delivered best via option E of local government reform. What steps could he take in giving Huntingdonshire the opportunity to create a wider defence ecosystem to meet the eligibility criteria for consideration for funding from the Defence and Security Accelerator?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he spoke to the nation about the attack that took place in his constituency. He should feel very proud of the first responders from his area who responded to that attack. As for the opportunities that exist in his constituency, I was very pleased to meet him and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) to look into how, on a cross-party basis, we can seize a real opportunity at RAF Wyton, supporting activities with local government in order to do so. The defence industrial strategy sets out the framework for delivering that opportunity through local and national Government working together with our armed forces and the private sector, as well as academia. We will continue those discussions, but the opportunity at RAF Wyton is real, and I am happy to be helping the hon. Gentleman to deliver it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can the Minister describe what he is doing within his own Department so that his own officials actually reward, recognise and engage with innovation? The acquisitions system in the MOD is notoriously bureaucratic, incredibly risk-averse and makes it impossible for small companies, in particular, to engage with innovative projects in the Department. What is he doing to get a wholesale transformation of the culture within his Department? Otherwise, all this money will just be wasted.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s critique of the system that we inherited from the previous Government, which frankly was not good enough. We do need to see procurement contracting times reduced, which is why in the defence industrial strategy we set out our ambition to reduce six-year procurements to two years, two-year procurements to one year, and one-year procurements to six months. We are using innovative technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to help speed up that transition, and we are opening our office of small business growth at the start of next year, which will enable more SMEs to access defence contracts directly.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The UK is playing a leading role in stepping up support for Ukraine. This year we are spending the highest ever level on military aid to Ukraine through the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which I chaired last month. In this year alone we have managed to get £50 billion-worth of pledges of support for Ukraine from the 50-nation-strong group. Tomorrow I will join Defence Ministers in the Joint Expeditionary Force coalition in Norway, where we will confirm a new partnership with Ukraine to strengthen our support further.
Andrew Cooper
I strongly welcome the Defence Secretary’s continued leadership on Ukraine. I visited Estonia in early September, just prior to the incident in which three MiG-31 Russian fighter jets entered Estonian airspace and stayed for 12 minutes, in a further dangerous escalation of tensions in the region. Even before that incident, the sense I got from the Estonian politicians I met was that they were very much on the frontline, and there was deep concern that, if Russia succeeds in Ukraine, they will be next. What assurances can the Defence Secretary give that contingency plans are in place to support our NATO allies in the face of continued Russian aggression?
John Healey
I commend my hon. Friend, and Members on both sides of the House who have visited Ukraine. That can give an important sense of support and confidence to those fighting in Ukraine. He is right; Putin’s incursions into NATO airspace are reckless and dangerous, and serve only to strengthen the unity of NATO. NATO responded swiftly to those incursions, and I recently extended the UK’s Typhoon contribution to that Eastern Sentry exercise until the end of the year. The UK remains the framework nation for the forward land forces in Estonia—we have almost 10,000 UK troops in Estonia. That strengthens NATO’s deterrence, which is something I will be discussing with JEF Defence Ministers this week in Norway.
Paul Davies
I welcome the commitments made by the coalition of the willing on further military support for the protection of Ukraine’s airspace. However, Ukraine continues to endure daily aerial attacks targeted at civil infrastructure, as Russia seeks to use the approaching winter as a tool of torment. Can the Minister clarify what specific air defence capabilities have been pledged to safeguard Ukraine’s skies and protect critical infrastructure?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right; Putin’s aerial bombardment of Ukraine is cynical, illegal and targeted at civilians. That is why we have stepped up our efforts to reinforce Ukraine’s air defences. This autumn we have delivered more than 200,000 rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition and hundreds of air-to-air missiles. In September we announced a first-of-its-kind joint programme for the new interceptor drone, the Octopus, which will be produced in the UK and manufactured at scale. We aim to deliver thousands a month back into Ukraine to help defend its skies, defend its cities, and defend its energy infrastructure.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As we build up towards Remembrance Sunday, does the Secretary of State agree that it is appropriate for us to remember the circumstances in which two world wars began, when democracies were relatively weak in the face of armed autocracies? Therefore, does he agree that the help we give to Ukraine is the best possible guarantee that aggressors will not be emboldened to attack other countries as well?
John Healey
I do indeed. If big countries believe that they can redraw international boundaries by force and get away with it, then no democracy and no state is safe. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a secure, sovereign Ukraine is central to Europe’s security in future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Reports in the newspapers indicate that 150,000 new Russian soldiers are being prepared for an onslaught in eastern Ukraine. I do not doubt for one second that the Secretary of State, the Labour Government and this Parliament are committed to doing something, but reports seem to indicate that other countries are slowing down on what they give. Has he been able to encourage other countries to ensure that they replicate what we give?
John Healey
The answer is yes, through the Ukraine Defence Contact Group—50 nations that have committed to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Together, we have secured £50 billion of pledges of military aid to Ukraine in this year alone, and I am proud of the way that the UK has stepped in, alongside Germany, to lead that group. It is part of what we are doing, with others, to step up support for Ukraine, which will be needed even more in the months to come.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
The very reason that I left the military was because the lessons from Ukraine, particularly around uncrewed systems, were not being learned within our military. The drone architecture was exceptionally limited, despite our watching a revolution in the character of conflict for about two years. Since then, the strategic defence review has stepped in, with £4 billion for autonomous systems and a new defence uncrewed systems centre. Training, tactics, procedures, doctrine and concepts are all changing to inculcate uncrewed systems.
Nick Timothy
I thank the Minister for his answer. The biggest drone manufacturer in Ukraine, Ukrspecsystems, is investing £200 million in Britain, opening a factory in Mildenhall in the west of my county and creating 500 jobs directly and through the supply chain. However, like all manufacturers, it is facing rising energy costs and a tax bill that is likely to go up. If the Minister wants greater drone capacity in Britain, what conversations is he having with his colleagues in the Energy Department and the Business Department to ensure that the whole Government are pulling in the same direction?
Al Carns
The uncrewed centre of excellence is trying to pull all of Government together to make the system easier to deal with for small and medium-sized enterprises. I pay tribute to Ukrspecsystems, which has been providing drones to Ukraine for the past three years. They have been used to very high effect in that country.
Paul Holmes
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Minister may be aware of Domo Tactical Communications, a drone manufacturer in my constituency that I have raised in written questions before. Will he uphold the visit that was due to take place by his predecessor before the reshuffle? What proportion of drones purchased for UK armed forces are procured from UK-based drone manufacturers, and what can be done to increase that proportion?
Al Carns
I have been reassured that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to have a look at the factory. From my perspective, we have increased our production of drones for Ukraine—up to 100,000 this year alone—and we are increasing the procurement of drones into the British military by thousands.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I am very proud that the Government have supported Ukraine through the provision of drones. I recently visited Radio Design, a company in Saltaire in my constituency that is at the cutting edge of radio frequency, which is essential for fighting the rapidly developing threat from drones. Can the Minister assure me that procurement processes are agile enough to allow innovative smaller businesses with specialist technologies in radio frequency, such as Radio Design, to access new defence contracts in order to help us deliver on the strategic defence review?
Al Carns
It is not lost on anyone in the House that the first 100 pages of the strategic defence review are all about industry, about ensuring that SMEs can dock into the defence enterprise far more effectively, and about ensuring that we start procuring weapons and systems—and not only for our defence, but for our overseas partners. My hon. Friend will also be aware that we procured 10,000 drones in 2024. The figure has now gone up to 100,000, which are going to Ukraine to support our ally in its fight against Russia.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
We have all witnessed the devastating effect of mass drone attacks, and MPs could see for themselves the sinister looking Iranian Russian drone that was here in Parliament only last week. What measures is the Ministry taking to develop a strategy in this country to defend ourselves from such a mass drone attack?
Al Carns
I recall that a quadcopter landed on the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth when she set sail several years ago, and since then investment in taking out uncrewed air systems has been relatively limited. However, in the strategic defence review we have pledged £1 billion to integrated air defence here in the UK, and my hon. Friend will see many procurements moving forward in the defence investment plan.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
According to their own written answer, the Government ordered only three drones for the British armed forces in their first financial year. At June’s Defence oral questions, I suggested that Labour could find the money to buy drones at the scale we need by scrapping the crazy Chagos deal. They rejected my proposal then, but given that the Secretary of State has just failed to deny £2.6 billion of cuts at the MOD this year, is it not even more urgent that they scrap their crazy £35 billion surrender and spend every penny on the uncrewed revolution for our own armed forces?
Al Carns
The irony! The Conservatives started the deal and they processed the deal. When Labour came into government, we finished it and we put it into place, supported by our allies—both the US and multiple others. Not only did we finish that deal, but we have started and finished an India deal, a US deal, a Europe deal, a Typhoon deal, a Norway deal and a Germany deal.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Defence is an engine for growth. The defence industrial strategy, which we published in September, sets out how we will reform procurement, cut contracting times, spend more of our rising defence budget with British companies, invest in frontier technologies and skills, crowd in private capital and support regional development.
Laurence Turner
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB, a defence manufacturing trade union.
Defence is an engine for growth, but skill shortages remain. What steps are being taken to increase the number of high-quality apprentices? If I may, Mr Speaker, can I also ask the Minister to join me in congratulating my constituent Andy De Comyn, whose design has just been chosen for the proposed national memorial to all members of the parliamentary community who have fallen in conflict?
Luke Pollard
I join my hon. Friend in thanking his constituent for his creativity and work.
Defence is one of the largest apprenticeship employers in the country, with over 24,000 apprentices. The Navy is No. 2 and the RAF is No. 4, and I am proud that the Army has been named the No. 1 apprenticeship employer. We are doing even more than that with £182 million going into skills, and we are working with our trade union colleagues—from both the GMB, of which I am proud to be a member, and Unite—alongside industries big and small, as part of the Defence Industrial Joint Council, so we can motor our economic development and create more jobs in defence.
Sally Jameson
How can the defence sector make better use of underutilised MOD land and assets to contribute to innovative models of business such as the community energy projects that, alongside initiatives such as the South Yorkshire growth deal, can contribute to local SMEs and energy security?
Luke Pollard
As a very proud Labour and Co-operative MP, I know just how important it is to use community energy to create good renewable energy and cut energy bills. I would be very happy to speak to my hon. Friend about that. We are looking at the 1% of Britain that we own as a Department to see how we can not only deliver defence outputs and build more houses—with 100,000 houses identified in the defence housing strategy—but support environmental output and greater industrial opportunities for the private sector. I am very happy to meet her to discuss that further.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Minister rightly promotes our world-class maritime sector in the south-west, where considerable private investment is being made, including a new resilience factory opening in my constituency next week. Such innovative young companies live or die on the pace of Government contracting, but we continue to wait for the latest defence investment plan. How will the Minister reassure the new tech companies in my constituency that the pace of their private investments is matched by the urgency of MOD contracting to ensure that economic growth through defence becomes a reality?
Luke Pollard
I thank my constituency neighbour for raising issues involving the south-west. I am actually opening that factory in the hon. Member’s constituency next week, and I look forward to seeing her there to make the case further for it. The defence investment plan, which will be published later this year, will set out what we are spending our money on. Let us be very clear: we are delivering the strategic defence review, and we are piling more energy and more of the money that we have been allocated from the Treasury into British businesses. I want to see more SMEs benefit from that, and in that respect we are delivering the defence industrial strategy at pace, but I am very happy to discuss that further with her.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The south-west, as the Minister has already confirmed, is home to major military assets. The defence sector supports over 60,000 jobs in the region, including many in Glastonbury and Somerton. The area is uniquely positioned to drive forward the Government’s industrial strategy ambitions. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the defence industry is an engine of economic growth in Somerset?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the opportunities in the south-west. There is a huge skilled workforce in the south-west region and a huge amount of economic activity already present, but we want there to be even more. That is why we are working with local government, and with regional government where it exists, across the south-west, as well as our colleagues in the private sector, to look at how we can boost skills and direct more of the rising defence budget at British companies in the south-west and in every other region and nation of the country, so we can deliver for defence and create more jobs.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
The UK and its allies must be ready to deal with the most demanding of circumstances, deterring and preventing a full-scale war by being combat-ready. I can assure the hon. Member that low-flying training plays an indispensable role in achieving and maintaining our war fighting capability, and that it is spread throughout the whole of the UK to help minimise disturbance to the public.
Steff Aquarone
Dozens of my constituents have contacted me to express their frustration with the training patterns of both RAF and American fighter jets over North Norfolk’s towns and villages. It makes it hard to work, it traumatises pets, and in the case of one of my constituents it has left them with permanent hearing damage. They and I recognise the importance of training, but carrying out continuous manoeuvres over populated areas when we are so near to the North sea baffles them. Can the Minister assure me that he will review the training patterns in our area and take steps to reduce the impact on my residents?
Al Carns
I can assure the hon. Member that those increased training missions are to support an increased deployment across Europe, highlighting the issues, but I will meet the Minister to talk through those issues and see if we can make some slight changes.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
As announced in the strategic defence review, we are working to deliver a 30% expansion of in-school and community-based cadet forces by 2030. The campaign is backed by £70 million of new investment and will increase our cadets by an estimated 40,000 across the UK, providing the opportunity for many more young people to enjoy the fantastic benefits of the cadet experience.
Danny Beales
I recently had the honour of visiting the RAF air cadets in Uxbridge, where I was shown at first hand the amazing experiences that the cadets offers to young people. As well as being a route into the armed forces, they learn new science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, travel the UK and get their Duke of Edinburgh award, and some also pick up a musical instrument for the first time. This is why it is vital that we expand the cadets through the 30 by 30 initiative. To enable that to take place, what consideration has been given to how we enable more people to volunteer to run cadet forces and to how they can access funding to expand their facilities?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am delighted to hear about the fantastic opportunities given by the air cadets in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I can assure him that delivering the 30 by 30 expansion programme requires a detailed assessment of key foundational areas, including cadet growth, the adult volunteer proposition and the cadet estate. Planning is under way to ensure that the activities yield maximum gain and that the fantastic benefits of the cadet experience are available to more young people across the country.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Northern Ireland Universities Air Squadron is based in Aldergrove in my constituency. Can the Minister reassure me that any support for cadets will be expanded to every cadet and every base across the UK?
Louise Sandher-Jones
As a big proponent of the cadets, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that all the benefits of the cadets are available across the country.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
We have been very clear in the strategic defence review that we are committed to growing the Army. Under this Government, we have driven improvements to the recruiting process, stripping out outdated medical policies, reducing the time it takes to receive candidate medical records and widening cross-Government data sharing. The Army is now sending conditional offers of employment within 10 days and provisional training start dates to eligible candidates within 30 days. Those measures, alongside targeted recruiting and a restructuring of the Army’s recruiting organisation, are delivering results. Year on year, the Army’s soldier intake numbers are up by 13% and officer numbers are up by 10%.
Lee Anderson
I share the Minister’s concerns over Army recruitment. Could she please explain to me why a young person would even consider a job in the armed forces if they may get a knock on the door in 50 years’ time to be charged with an offence when they were simply doing their duty?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that serving in the armed forces is a fantastic career for any young person. The experiences and skills that one can gain from a career in the armed forces are second to none; I for one am deeply grateful for all the opportunities I had when I served, and I would urge all young people to consider such a career. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government are committed to renewing the contract with those who serve. As a veteran, I can assure him that our No. 1 priority is to defend and protect those who serve this nation.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the remembrance service we had this morning. It was hugely emotional, and made me think of those from my constituency who gave their lives for our freedom 80 years ago. What will my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister do to continue to champion the servicemen and women who protect this country? We should celebrate all of them, no matter their ethnicity, religion or nationality.
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right that we must celebrate everybody who contributes to our armed forces, no matter their gender or other protected characteristics. The commitment of this Government to protecting and serving those who serve this nation is total.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As General Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, said at the weekend,
“if potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their government will stand by them when performing their duties in a lawful manner, why risk joining at all?”
He was speaking about Labour’s new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which could see Northern Ireland veterans, without whom there would never have been a Good Friday agreement in the first place, in the dock again by next year. The Minister called opponents of this “naive”. What is her response to the former head of the British Army and the brave soldiers he led—were they all naive, too?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Seeing as the right hon. Gentleman is attacking me for something I did not say, I can only assume that he cannot attack me—
Louise Sandher-Jones
He is very welcome to check Hansard, where he will see that I was very specifically referring to people spreading misinformation. He will be able to see it there in black and white in Hansard.
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is in Hansard, absolutely—I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reread it to see the full quote.
This Government are committed to protecting those who serve. Our first and foremost priority is to protect and ensure the welfare of those who have served, just as we have done for many people who have served in our armed forces across multiple conflicts. I can only say again that the commitment of this Government to our veterans is total.
Mr Francois
The former Labour Security Minister Lord West said recently that we “shouldn’t be doing” this. Lord Glasman, the founder of Blue Labour, said:
“We must reverse it as soon as possible.”
The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) said that
“to continue this against one side makes no sense.”
With a Labour rebellion clearly brewing, and given that many Northern Ireland veterans were initially recruited from red wall seats, why are Labour Ministers insisting on driving their Back Benchers into the Division Lobby just to do Sinn Féin and their old comrades in the IRA a favour?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember the really serious issues that are at stake here. The priorities of this Government, as we have shown repeatedly, are to do right by the families of more than 200 British service personnel who were murdered in Northern Ireland and to ensure that we have protections and appropriate measures in place to defend our veterans; we have five protections in law and a sixth that we have control over ourselves. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman again that the Government’s commitment to veterans is total.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
May I begin by associating myself and my party with the sentiments reflected by the Secretary of State about the terrible events in Huntingdon at the weekend?
The Secretary of State’s ambition to reverse the outflows from our armed forces is absolutely right, particularly considering the damage the last Government did to our military, but it is far from clear that the Government are doing enough to achieve the necessary changes. There continue to be more service personnel leaving the Army year on year than are joining. In order to strengthen our defence, we need to give more people better incentives to join the armed forces. Will the Minister consider accelerating recruitment properly and tackling outflow rates by backing Liberal Democrat proposals for a £10,000 signing bonus to attract new recruits?
Louise Sandher-Jones
In addition to the measures I have outlined to speed up recruitment, we are looking at expanding novel ways of entry into the armed forces, such as direct entry in the cyber stream. We are hugely focused on retention, and this is a very personal mission for me, having left the forces in 2020 and knowing what measures might have helped retain me in service for longer. We are utterly dedicated to addressing the reasons that people give for leaving, not least with our multibillion-pound investment into fixing forces housing.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
As an Army veteran, and indeed a female Army veteran, this mission is deeply personal to me. More work must be done to improve service life for women in our armed forces. The two remaining recommendations from the Committee’s report—the launch of the veterans strategy and the publication of the tri-service sexual harassment survey results—will be completed this month. The report was a very useful catalyst in holding the Ministry of Defence to account on many initiatives through the Raising our Standards programme.
Charlotte Cane
Our servicewomen urgently need investment in female-specific tactical equipment, particularly bras and body armour. What steps is the Minister taking to provide funding for research, development and implementation of kit for the female anatomy and to ensure that fitting services and task-appropriate provision are standard across the forces?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Member makes a good point, and as someone who had to wear the body armour, I am fully on board. Progress is under way to address the very points she mentions.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck committed suicide after being sexually assaulted and failed by the military. Can the Minister explain what is being done to ensure that women serving in our armed forces are protected from abuse and that complaints are handled with independence, compassion and the seriousness that they deserve?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend raises an important case, and I am sure that everybody who read the report into Jaysley-Louise Beck’s death would agree that it was a hugely tragic and deeply saddening case. There is a duty on me—one which I feel very deeply—to make sure that we do everything we can to address the behaviours my hon. Friend mentioned. The Raising our Standards programme is addressing cultural behaviours to strengthen leadership and ensure that when complaints like this are made they are dealt with appropriately. We are also establishing an Armed Forces Commissioner to make sure that where any investigation into these types of behaviours is taken out, we can have full trust in the service to do right by any service personnel, whether they are at the lowest ranks or the highest.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Last week, I was in Turkey with the Prime Minister to sign Britain’s biggest fighter jet export deal in a generation. The £8 billion contract for 20 Typhoons is a win for European security, the British economy and 20,000 UK workers. It comes just weeks after we won the biggest ever warship deal—a £10 billion contract with Norway that will secure 4,000 jobs over the next decade. These deals demonstrate defence as an engine for growth. Today we go further and publish our defence housing strategy, in which we plan to upgrade 40,000 forces family homes and build 100,000 new homes for military and civilians alike. This plan is backed by a £9 billion investment over this decade—more than double what was in the Tory plans. This is a Government delivering for defence and for Britain.
Phil Brickell
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Turkey deal last week? A year on from his signing of the Trinity House agreement with his German counterpart, can he outline what progress has been made on implementing that deal, in particular to boost industrial collaboration and drive greater investment into integrated air and missile defence?
John Healey
Indeed, we are a year on from the Trinity House agreement, and our co-operation over the next year will only deepen further. Within weeks, we will have German P-8s flying out of Lossiemouth. We have a new cyber programme to conduct joint activities. We have accelerated work on a new 2,000 km deep precision strike missile, and a new £200 million bridging deal to support the British Army. I have to say that this agreement is more important now than when we signed it a year ago.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
In the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review statement to Parliament on 2 June, he said that the defence investment plan would be
“completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.]
Will he keep that promise?
John Healey
The SDR quite rightly said that further decisions on investment plans were central to delivering the SDR. We are doing that work thoroughly at the moment so that we will no longer have what the hon. Member’s Government left: a defence programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to meet the threats that face us.
James Cartlidge
The Secretary of State did not answer the question. I am afraid the worry is that it is yet another delayed defence Command Paper. That prompts the obvious question: what exactly are the Government delivering for defence except delayed defence Command Papers? Is not this the truth: they are putting the British Army back in the dock, they are surrendering Diego Garcia for £35 billion, and all the while—they have not denied this today—they are cutting £2.6 billion from the frontline this year? Don’t the men and women of our armed forces deserve better?
John Healey
The hon. Member’s figures are wrong, and his characterisation and description are wrong. We have put £5 billion extra into the defence budget in this, our first year, and we are raising defence investment with the highest increase since the cold war. But the public expect us to manage better the budgets that we have got, so we are managing those budgets, which he failed to do. Alongside the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan, we are already acting and have let over 1,000 major contracts, 84% of them to British firms. Today, we are putting £9 billion into defence housing for the future.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We want to direct more of our increasing defence budget at British companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to see how we can encourage her business to win more defence contracts and to feed back on how we can be better in allowing SMEs to access the defence funding that we provide.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
We have already heard about the sentencing last week of Warrant Officer Michael Webber for the sexual assault of Gunner Jaysley Beck, and I am sure that all who heard them were deeply moved by the dignified words of Jaysley’s parents as they described how that abuse and the failure to address it contributed to her death five months later. Will the Minister for Veterans and People, whose personal commitment to these issues is not in question, update the House on the implementation in full of the Atherton report’s recommendations, and specifically on creating a fully independent complaints procedure and providing access to civilian courts for sexual abuse offences?
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
As the hon. Member will be aware, the Ministry of Defence accepted 33 of the Committee’s recommendations, partially accepted a further four recommendations and noted 13 points that were conclusions rather than recommendations. There are three recommendations that we are not implementing, but it must be stressed that we are instead taking action to address the underlying concerns of those recommendations in other ways. The remaining 33 recommendations have been addressed through both Defence and single service activity delivered over the past two years.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Louise Sandher-Jones
It was without doubt a huge honour and privilege last week to attend the unveiling of the Etherton memorial, commemorating the life and legacy of the late Lord Etherton. We have now paid £20 million in total to veterans under the LGBT financial recognition scheme, and I can assure my hon. Friend that, to me, the monument stands not only as a memorial to what has gone before but as a firm anchor for where we must go in the future.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
The scale of the problem is truly gigantic. We have re-bought 36,000 homes. Nine out of every 10 homes will be refurbished and 14,000 homes might be completely rebuilt. We have already started on the first 1,000 that need modernising, and once that is done we will move on to the next.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Louise Sandher-Jones
We have significant processes in place before exit to ensure a smooth transition, particularly to manage personnel who are wounded, injured or sick, and the Valour initiative should help us take steps to better co-ordinate support for veterans. I can assure my hon. Friend that improving how service personnel leave the services is a key priority for me.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
John Healey
No one word can sum up a country as significant and as complex as China, but our experience tells us that China is certainly an economic threat, as well as an opportunity in many areas.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Research shows that women in the Army are up to seven times more likely than men to suffer musculoskeletal injuries, and 10 times more likely to experience hip and pelvic fractures. Given these stark disparities, can the Minister tell the House what steps she is taking to ensure that women veterans receive appropriate gender-specific healthcare and rehabilitation support as they transition into civilian life?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the particular struggles faced by female service leavers, and I would like to assure her that, through Operation Restore, there are specific pathways for veterans, including those who need musculoskeletal support.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that the troops are there to monitor the ceasefire. A small handful of British forces personnel have been deployed to the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre at the request of the US, and it is the US that is leading that work.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
Recent reports show that Babcock is having to recruit hundreds of overseas welders because of a skills shortage in Scotland. This is the direct result of decades of under-investment in further education and skills in Scotland. Can the Minister outline what the UK Government can do to ensure that my constituents can access the apprenticeships and skills that defence jobs depend on?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If only we had a Scottish Government who were investing in defence skills rather than one who dither on defence. The Scottish Government did not invest in the welding centre in Glasgow; it required a Labour Government in the UK to step in and invest. We are delivering for defence. The Scottish Government are dithering on defence, and they are letting jobs slip out of their hands as a result.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Louise Sandher-Jones
We will shortly start our single living accommodation review to address exactly those points—the sometimes shocking state of such accommodation and what we can do to support the people who live in it.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
My constituency has a proud military history, and the defence sector continues to thrive at sites like Castlemartin and Cawdor barracks. Does the Minister agree that the defence growth fund should be used to bring direct benefits to communities like mine, as well as to strengthen our national security?
Luke Pollard
There is a real opportunity in Pembrokeshire and across Wales as we implement the defence growth deal for Wales to create more good, well-paid and unionised jobs that provide great opportunities. My hon. Friend is a real champion for the opportunities in his constituency, and I am happy to meet him to work out how we can advance opportunities to create more decent jobs across Wales, particularly in Pembrokeshire.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right: the continuation of the Scottish nationalist Government in Scotland is a threat to our security and to future prosperity and jobs in that country.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the multitude of security threats that we face, especially in the grey zone of cyber-attacks, it is abundantly clear that we need to accelerate investment in defence, but the Government are just not able to move fast enough. Our German friends, renowned for their fiscal prudence, have relaxed their fiscal rules just for their Defence Department. In the run-up to the Budget, what discussions has my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary had with the Chancellor on relaxing fiscal rules for the Ministry of Defence in order to meet the moment?
John Healey
We have the increase in the budget this year; we have the increase in the budget over the Parliament. Our job now is to ensure that we can deliver value for money for that increased investment, and use that increased investment to drive economic growth across the UK. It is thanks to that increased investment that we have been able to announce and launch our defence housing strategy today.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising the case of her constituent. If she writes to me with the details, I will look into exactly why it has taken that long.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
North-east industry has always supported our nation’s defence, yet we now have the lowest MOD spend out of every single region, leaving our potential untapped. Will my hon. Friend meet me and the North East Regional Defence and Security Cluster to redress that?
Luke Pollard
Yes, I am very happy to do so. I am meeting north-east colleagues about how we can drive more jobs and opportunity. As we look at establishing not just growth zones but defence technical excellence colleges and the six new munitions and energetics factories, there is a strong case for the north-east to receive some of that defence investment.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Now that the Secretary of State has warmed up a bit by calling the SNP a threat to our national security, will he have another go and say whether China is a threat to our national security?
John Healey
I have nothing to add to what I said in response to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who asked the same question. What a waste of a question.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Government’s Op Valour pilot programme and the Minister’s commitment to improving support for our veterans. However, I am disappointed that Portsmouth—home to the Royal Navy and one of the largest veteran communities—is not part of the programme. Can the Minister reassure me that councils like Portsmouth city council will be encouraged and supported to join Op Valour and look after the veterans who live in our city?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment. Valour is a £50 million programme that will bring together a network of regional hubs to ensure that there is a physical location where veterans can go to seek help. I urge every region of the UK to get involved.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
EKA Ltd in my constituency is a supplier to Ministry of Defence service recovery vehicles that have to be deployed with our tanks, but an issue that it and other service personnel have highlighted is the absence of the provision of robust spare parts in the event of a breakdown or damage. The Government are spending millions on these assets but leaving them completely unprotected. Is the MOD reviewing the provision of spares as part of its procurement, and would the Minister meet me and EKA Ltd to discuss the matter further?
Luke Pollard
I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this further. The last Government, I am afraid, left not only our weapons stockpiles almost empty, but far too many of our parts stockpiles as well. We are looking at investing in that as part of our defence investment plan, but I am happy to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
Two giants of the Labour and anti-nuclear arms movement would have been 100 this year: Tony Benn and Mick McGahey. I never had the pleasure of meeting either, but I think they would have recognised that an industrial strategy based on militarism is flawed. The defence sector is less than 1% of the UK workforce, so militarism is not a UK-wide industry and it serves war, not peace. What happened to choosing welfare over warfare, and to choosing jobs in sectors that will promote real economic growth and actual social benefit?
Mr Speaker
When I bring you in on a topical, it is meant to be short and punchy, not a “War and Peace” question!
John Healey
I have to say that my hon. Friend is wrong on this. Over 400,000 jobs are supported—directly and indirectly—by defence, and almost 70% of the defence investment we make in this country is outside London and the south-east, right across the UK.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
People’s experiences of medical discharge from the armed forces vary significantly, and too often it fails those who need the support most. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the discharge process, including improving consistency across units?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point. Making sure that service personnel who leave under the medical discharge are fully set up for success in their post-service life is fundamental and a huge priority for me.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Last week I had the honour and privilege of attending the dedication of the new LGBT+ armed forces community memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum in Alrewas in my constituency, alongside His Majesty the King, proud veterans and members of our armed forces. Will the Minister join me in commending the unveiling of this important memorial, and does she agree that it will serve as a lasting reminder of the injustice and discrimination suffered by LGBT+ service personnel and as a powerful symbol of our commitment to equality and respect for all those who serve?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It was clear to see how much that event meant to the LGBT+ veterans, many of whom had suffered terribly under the ban. Many said to me that they never thought this day would come. I hope that the event itself and the memorial will serve as a lasting reminder of our responsibilities going forward.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The F-35 Lightning II aircraft is a cutting-edge system, the helmets for which come from my constituency, but the Public Accounts Committee has the MOD in missile lock over the cost of introducing the new nuclear freefall bombs with the F-35A. Can the Minister give the House some reassurance that the decision to bring in tactical nuclear weapons is not going to cost us a bomb?
“Soldier F” Trial Verdict
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we begin, it may be helpful for me to remind the House that the trial of Soldier F in relation to the events on Bloody Sunday is no longer sub judice and that it is the focus of today’s urgent question. There remain live cases in respect of other soldiers. On 14 July 2025, I granted a waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings related to historical troubles-related deaths. However, references to live cases should be limited to the context and to the events that led to the cases, but not to the detail of cases themselves, nor to the names of those individuals involved.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the verdict in the trial of Soldier F.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The trial of Soldier F concluded on 23 October with a not guilty verdict. The Ministry of Defence rightly provided him with legal and pastoral support. I and the Secretary of State for Defence have, of course, noted the judgment, but I do not think it appropriate to be drawn on the particulars of these independent legal proceedings.
The House will recognise that it was also a difficult day for the families of the 13 people shot dead on Bloody Sunday, in circumstances that the former Prime Minister Lord Cameron described as “unjustified and unjustifiable”. I am sure that the sympathies of the whole House remain with them.
We all understand the continuing pain felt by families and communities in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom as a result of the troubles. The Government remain committed to establishing a legacy process that can provide answers for families who are still seeking to find out what happened to their loved ones. We will always remember the dangers faced by our brave soldiers, police, and others who served during the time of Operation Banner and who tried to keep people safe, and will always remember, especially at this time of year, those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Their service will never be forgotten, and we owe them a profound debt of gratitude.
It is, however, important to note that the case of Soldier F of course involved no role for either this Government or the last one. The independent proceedings were ongoing before the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and they were not halted by that legislation. Decisions by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland are always taken independently, in the light of facts and circumstances, and we should all respect that independence. A prosecution can only ever be brought when the evidence presents, in the view of prosecutors, a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and when it is in the public interest to proceed.
I also recognise that all those affected by the troubles, including veterans, want a system that is fair, balanced and proportionate. That is what the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is seeking to put in place, with a new legacy commission and strong protections for veterans that were not included in the last Government’s legacy Act. That act offered a false and undeliverable promise of immunity to our Northern Ireland veterans. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans commissioners have called for—not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.
Alex Burghart
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I, too, begin with a thought for the families left bereft by the events of that day in 1972. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who, 15 years ago, said to the House that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both “unjustified” and “wrong”, and
“on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.”——[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.]
He did so, of course, after the publication of the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and cost in today’s money about £325 million. Even after such an extensive inquiry, there has been no conviction. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that the evidence fell well short of the standard required. He said:
“A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.
That goes to the heart of what my party argued when passing our legacy Act.
As time goes by, it becomes vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions. The 1998 agreement was 27 years ago, and the ceasefires were 31 years ago. That of course has implications for the Government’s troubles Bill, which will reopen many cases where there is no prospect of resolution, only a prospect of ongoing legal process. Under the Bill, there is almost no possibility of bringing terrorists to court, but it ultimately leaves open the likelihood of ever more vexatious complaints against our veterans. We are talking about claims like that thrown out by the High Court in Belfast last month; the judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from reality”, although not before a former special forces soldier had to endure four years of investigation.
Last week, it was reported that a similar case, from 53 years ago, may soon go to trial. No wonder that on Friday, Special Air Service veterans published a letter in the Financial Times, in which they said that
“‘legacy’ has become an industry that keeps wounds open while rewriting history.”
We ask the Secretary of State to think again.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to the Saville inquiry. That long-running inquiry finally brought some truth and justice, in the eyes of families of the 13 people shot dead, and led the former Prime Minister to make his apology. The hon. Member is right when he says that, given the passage of time, it is “vanishingly difficult”—I think that was the phrase he used—to obtain convictions. Most of the families—not all—whom I have met and who lost loved ones recognise that fact. However, he also has to acknowledge that the legacy Act, with its offer of immunity—
Hilary Benn
As I say, the legacy Act’s offer of immunity in return for statements that the legacy commission regarded as truthful and credible could have given immunity to terrorists. That is why the immunity that the last Government sought to put in place was rejected by victims’ and survivors’ groups in Northern Ireland, was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and was found by the courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Therefore, as I have said to the House before, and I have said to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), the Act was no basis on which to try to help those families find the answers that they are looking for. That is why we need a different approach—building on the establishment of the legacy commission, I grant him, because I took the decision that we would not abolish it but reform it. That is what the Bill that we will debate shortly seeks to do, and I look forward to it being scrutinised by the House.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Many people impacted by the troubles continue to live with the pain, trauma and grief of war. The previous Government’s approach to legacy was rendered essentially useless because, as the Secretary of State just said, it was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to carry all the people of Northern Ireland with him on his approach to legacy?
Hilary Benn
Having promised the House in two statements since the Government were elected in July 2024 that I would bring forward proposals, I did so when the Government published the Bill on 14 October. Since then, I have met political parties and organisations representing victims and survivors, and this week I will again meet the victims and survivors forum that I met on the day that the agreement with the Irish Government was published. As I acknowledged to the House when I made my oral statement, no proposals put forward will be greeted with approval by everyone, but I have been much struck by the fact that those I have met and talked to have said, “Well, we will need to consider the detail.” I believe that the proposals provide a basis for moving forward, and I hope that the House will recognise that.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. We welcome the resolution of this trial and the clarity that the law has afforded. The Liberal Democrats extend our deepest sympathies to the families who still seek justice and answers. The legacy Act of 2023 may have been driven by the instinct to protect veterans, but it fails to comply with our international legal obligations and, through its conditional immunity, created a false equivalence between those who valiantly served in the British armed forces and those involved in acts of terrorism. That approach was both morally wrong and offensive to veterans and victims alike. The violence carried out by terrorist organisations during the troubles caused deep suffering across Northern Ireland, and we believe that the need to uphold the rule of law must apply to all without exception, but prosecution should never become persecution. This case focuses our attention back on the Government’s new attempt to deal with the legacy of the past. Is the Secretary of State absolutely confident that the Bill will deliver strong enough protections for British veterans? What has he done to try to secure support from veterans’ organisations? What has he done to ensure that victims and families can finally access the truth and justice that they deserve?
Hilary Benn
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says and his characterisation of the immunity provisions in the legacy Act. Nick Pope, the chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, said that the confederation welcomes
“the development of the safeguards that have been put in place to offer protection to those within the armed forces community who are affected by legacy issues.”
We drew those up having spoken to veterans. I hope that when people look at them and see how they work, they will recognise that we have acknowledged our particular responsibility to treat veterans fairly in the process. That is the right way to proceed.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Some 53 years after the events of Bloody Sunday, and 15 years after the report of the Saville inquiry, it is becoming clear that future criminal cases will be few and far between, but every single day, this issue sits with the families who have lost loved ones. It affects every day of their lives, be they the families of military personnel or of those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that they will remain absolutely central to this work, going forward?
Hilary Benn
All those families, including military families, are at the centre of what we seek to do. What are the Government trying to achieve? We are trying to create a legacy system that more people in Northern Ireland can have confidence in. The last legacy Act failed to command sufficient confidence from the people in Northern Ireland; that is a fact that no one can dispute. I agree with my hon. Friend that prosecutions are increasingly unlikely with the passage of time—I think the judgment and the judge’s summing up in the case of Soldier F made that extremely clear—but even where they are not possible, we want to put in place arrangements, and to be able to provide information about what happened to the families.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Whatever the wrongs committed on that day, does the Secretary of State understand that it beggars belief that a former IRA man can, in his old age, be lolling on a sofa, despite all his torturing, kneecapping and executions? I am thinking of Captain Nairac, who was abducted, tortured and killed; his perpetrators were never brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State realise that this whole process is deeply wounding to the morale of the British Army? He can take refuge in independent prosecution, but he can give his own opinion and say that it is surely time that Northern Ireland moves on into a better age.
Hilary Benn
We all want Northern Ireland to be able to move on into a better age and a better future, but we have a responsibility to those families who are still searching for answers to put in place a system that will help them to get those answers, including in the cases that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I simply point out that it is estimated that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries served sentences of imprisonment during the troubles for a wide variety of offences, including murder. If he looks at the cases currently awaiting trial, he will find that most of them relate to former paramilitaries, not to our armed forces.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks about the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces, and the role that they played in Northern Ireland and across the UK. What discussions has he had with veterans, as well as the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People, about the new protection in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Is he or one of the Defence Ministers prepared to speak to veterans in Cornwall on this matter?
Hilary Benn
I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Ministry of Defence will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. The protections in the legislation that has been brought before the House are the result of extensive discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence, the armed forces Ministers, and veterans’ organisations.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Front Benchers have rightly referred to the pain of the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday. We all share their sympathy, but nothing justifies the persecution of innocent people, particularly innocent veterans. The judge in the trial said:
“The evidence presented by the Crown falls well short of…the high standard of proof required in a criminal case”.
Nevertheless, in two weeks’ time, there will be another case involving another soldier from 53 years ago, which has already been reviewed for four years by the Director of Public Prosecutions and ruled as “no case to answer”. Despite that, with no evidence whatsoever having been provided since that time, that man is being put through misery and persecution now—a 78-year-old man sitting in anxiety in his home, waiting to be prosecuted for a case that should never have been brought. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that this is injustice? Wrap it up however he likes, it is injustice, and his legislation will mean that many more such cases will occur.
Hilary Benn
The legislation that the Government have put before the House will make no change at all to the basis on which decisions about any potential prosecutions are made. Indeed, that system will remain as it has been right through the course of the troubles and in the 27 and a half years since. [Interruption.] It is the case. Decisions about prosecutions are taken independently by prosecutors, and it is not for us to gainsay the decisions that those prosecutors make, because that is the absolute bedrock of our independent judicial system.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Some quarter of a million people served in Operation Banner, and the vast majority did so with great distinction and huge bravery, leading to the peace that we see in Northern Ireland today. The number of prosecutions of Army veterans is vanishingly small, so will the Secretary of State join me in thanking those veterans for their service and condemn the rhetoric that at times is coming from Conservative Members, which is unnecessarily stoking fear among those veterans?
Hilary Benn
I have already expressed the Government’s thanks in my answer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and I think those sentiments are felt right across the House.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome the clear and just verdict delivered by Mr Justice Lynch, which rightly found Soldier F not guilty on all charges—vindication for a man who served his country with honour and distinction. Does the Secretary of State agree that this case again exposes the disgrace of vexatious prosecutions of aged veterans, pursued where there was never evidence capable of meeting the threshold for conviction, and that it is time to end the witch hunt once and for all?
Does the Secretary of State further agree that around 90% of all deaths during the troubles were caused by terrorists, and that of the 10% that involved the security forces, the largest proportion occurred while engaging terrorists who were engaged in murderous and criminal activities? Sinn Féin’s historical revisionism, exemplified by the First Minister’s comments following the verdict, is therefore defamatory. To equate murderers with those who defended democracy is an attempt to smear our veterans, and it should not be allowed.
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Member that 90% of those who were killed during the troubles were killed by paramilitary terrorists, which is why the vast majority of those who have been prosecuted and convicted have been paramilitary terrorists. However, I do not agree with her when she uses the phrase “vexatious prosecutions”. There are no vexatious prosecutions. [Hon. Members: “What?”] There are no vexatious prosecutions, because if the hon. Member is arguing that a decision to prosecute is vexatious, she is criticising the independent prosecuting authorities, which make their decisions on the basis of whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. We should be extremely careful about trying to undermine an independent judicial system.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Many IRA murders on UK soil have never been solved, including the targeting of soldiers and their families in the M62 coach bombing in 1974 and the Warrenpoint massacre in 1979, the deadliest attack on the British Army during the troubles. Does the Secretary of State agree that by shutting down investigations—including into the deaths of more than 200 Operation Banner soldiers—without an adequate alternative, the legacy Act failed many families and victims of the troubles?
Hilary Benn
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about what happened as a result of the legacy Act, but I welcome that two of the cases she mentioned—the M62 coach bombing and Warrenpoint—are currently being investigated by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, because members of their families have chosen to refer in those cases. I want more families to have more confidence in the commission, which is why I am seeking to reform it so that they too feel able to refer their cases in.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and the whole premise of his case is that it is somehow in the public interest for people in that community to carry on trying to find people to blame and prosecute on both sides of the argument. Is the real case here not that it is not only an extraordinary injustice for people to be prosecuted for having done their duty as members of Her Majesty’s armed forces, but it does not serve the interests of peace and reconciliation to allow and encourage people to carry on reopening wounds, when so much time and money has already been spent on trying to explain what happened to their loved ones? Nothing must detract from that sympathy, but it is a monstrous injustice that people in the line of duty who bear the scars of that conflict are paying the price for this almost politically correct process, instead of drawing a line.
Hilary Benn
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept the characterisation he used at the end of his question. This is not a politically correct process; this is about trying to find a way forward for those families. The honest answer to the fair point that he raises is that each family deals with the loss of their loved one in their own way. Some do not come forward. They live with their grief silently, alone. Others have campaigned. If it had not been for the campaigning of the Bloody Sunday families, there would not have been a Saville inquiry and we would not have got to the point where the former Prime Minister stood at this Dispatch Box to apologise for the killing of their loved ones.
Having said that, in the vast majority of cases, no one is likely to be held to account through a judicial process, and that is why one of the focuses of the new commission will be on fact-finding and the new body for information retrieval, using all the means at our disposal to try to provide answers to those families. It will then be for them to decide how they come to terms with what happened. We owe it to them to leave no stone unturned and to put a better system in place.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
As someone who served in Northern Ireland, I just remind the House that this was the most peculiar operation that we could ever expect soldiers to do—patrolling streets in this United Kingdom, defending people against terrorists here in the UK, against a very strict rules of engagement booklet. They had to make complex decisions in a split second. Some of them were 18 years old, on the streets, petrified. In that context, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he talks of equivalence, but more than 700 British soldiers in Northern Ireland were killed by paramilitaries. Not one single paramilitary has been arraigned and taken to court for any of those murders that were committed against the British Army and the British forces. The Secretary of State talks of equivalence, but this is not equivalence, because it is those soldiers who will be persecuted for the rest of time, and not one single member of the paramilitaries, who kept no records, will ever go in front of a court. That is not fair.
Hilary Benn
I apologise if I have got this wrong, but I do not remember using the word “equivalence”. What I said was that independent prosecutors would make decisions on the basis of the evidence that they had before them. The current legacy commission is able to refer cases for potential prosecution, and the new legacy commission will be able to do the same. If there is evidence that will allow paramilitaries to be prosecuted, it will be for the prosecutors to decide whether to bring a case, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the convictions that there have been since the Good Friday agreement, he will find that most of them have related to paramilitaries. As I said a moment ago, most of the trials that are currently being awaited relate not to the armed forces but to paramilitaries.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the Secretary of State not understand that, given the judge’s comments that the evidence fell well short of the standard required, veterans do consider that that was a vexatious prosecution? They do consider that the prosecution of Soldier B is a vexatious prosecution, and they do feel utterly betrayed by this Government’s repeal of the legacy Act.
Hilary Benn
The legacy Act offered a false promise of immunity. It was found to be incompatible with our obligations, and it had no support in Northern Ireland. At some point, Opposition Members must recognise that it had no support there. How can Northern Ireland move forward if the basis of the last Government’s legislation lacks that support? In those circumstances, it is for prosecutors to make decisions, and we need to respect that. People may agree or disagree, but we need to respect a system in which prosecution decisions are made independently, because there are other countries in the world where that is not the case.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State envisage any circumstances in which an IRA terrorist could be prosecuted after he had received a letter of comfort, and if so, what are those circumstances?
Hilary Benn
I would cite to the right hon. Gentleman the case of Mr John Downey, to whom I have referred in the House before. He received one of those letters, and as a result his trial for the Hyde Park bombings was halted by the judge, but the public record will show that Mr Downey is currently awaiting trial for two murders committed during the troubles, in which case the letter that he received cannot—I repeat, cannot—be said to have granted him immunity from prosecution.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I greatly welcome the “not guilty” verdict on Soldier F, but has the Secretary of State no empathy with Soldier F, a man who has lived through years of turmoil and torture while awaiting prosecution, in circumstances in which it was patently obvious that the evidence was never going to stack up? As a lawyer, I am absolutely astounded that this prosecution got as far as it did, because it relied entirely, in terms of what was relevant, on the word of two individuals, both of whom had by then been depicted as liars and perjurers, and neither of whom could be cross-examined—yet our so-called independent prosecution service persisted with the prosecution. Is that not the very essence of what is vexatious, and does the Secretary of State agree that those who campaigned for this persecution of Soldier F should accept the verdict that he is not guilty, and leave the man to live out his years in peace?
Hilary Benn
It is a fundamental principle of our legal system that we accept the verdicts of the courts, even if we may not agree with them. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and he expresses his views regarding the basis of that prosecution. The only point that I am making is that that decision is made by independent prosecutors, not by any of us.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Fifty-one years ago this month, 21 people were murdered and 200 people were injured in the Birmingham pub bombings. Last week the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), issued a statement saying that he would not be recommending a public inquiry and that, instead, the Justice for the 21 campaigners could pursue justice via the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which the Secretary of State has referred to. But BBC Northern Ireland is reporting that, because there has been an inquest into those bombings, it would not be in scope for the commission to look into the Birmingham pub bombings. Could the Secretary of State, at the Dispatch Box, confirm to the families in Justice for the 21 that it would indeed be possible for the commission to look into that?
Hilary Benn
It would indeed be possible for them to refer the case to the commission.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I will first declare an interest: I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Ulster Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years.
This ruling was expected, as there was no additional evidence and it was twice held to be not fit for prosecution, as others have mentioned. It is hard to understand how they could pursue something without having the criminal investigation and the evidence sorted in advance. It is clear that the Secretary of State must address the way forward and provide certainty for those service personnel who know that they served honourably in impossible conditions, and yet who live with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, waiting to have their service used as a tool by republicans to make it seem like they were fighting a dirty war, when quite clearly they were not.
Will the Secretary of State send the message today that he will not sign off on the narrative that our troops—the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment—were ever anything other than honourable men and women putting their lives on the line for us, and that they will be protected as honourably as they protected us? How does the Secretary of State intend to protect them better than we are doing right now?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the protections that we have put into legislation following the discussions that we have had with veterans, which I referred to earlier. I join him in again paying tribute to the extraordinarily brave service of all those who served during the time of Operation Banner in trying to protect the people of Northern Ireland from the terrorists. I will make a point that I know the whole House will agree with: while some people argue that there was no alternative to that terrorism, there was, and we saw it in the signing of the Good Friday agreement and what happened thereafter. There was always an alternative. That is why we should always support those who did their duty honourably.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Secretary of State baulked at the word “equivalence”, so I will have a go with another one. Does he believe that Northern Ireland terrorists should be treated equally to Northern Ireland veterans? If he does, why does he not issue letters of comfort to those Northern Ireland veterans?
Hilary Benn
The letters of comfort—or the on-the-run letters, however one wishes to describe them—had their origin in the time after the Good Friday agreement, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, but, as I explained a moment ago in answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), they did not give anyone immunity from prosecution. That is an extremely important point to make. Anyone who gives the impression that they gave immunity from prosecution is, I am afraid, causing people unnecessary worry when the facts do not support that.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
As we approach Remembrance Sunday, many of those who served in Operation Banner will reflect on comrades whom they lost, comrades who were injured and comrades who still suffer mentally as a result of their deployment in that operation—the British Army’s longest continuous deployment. The Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box that his Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will bring strong protections for veterans. It does not; it brings the same protections for everyone under that Bill, including those who possibly perpetrated murderous acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. So what can he actually provide regarding continuous support for veterans—something set out on the face of the Bill, rather than something that is not in the legislation but is promised by Government?
Hilary Benn
The protections were put in place for veterans after consulting veterans, and they are not unimportant: the ability to stay at home and give evidence; the protection from repeated investigations; and the right to seek immunity in a hearing of the commission—people already have the right to seek that in a coroner’s court. There are, of course, two other protections: the protection from cold calling and the right to be heard through the statutory advisory group that will be established, working alongside the commission, which will have representation from a member of the armed forces or a police force. Those are very practical changes that we have made, which, as I said earlier, are not contained in the current legacy Act.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to say that this Remembrance Month underlines the debt of gratitude that we owe to those who serve our nation, but many in my constituency feel that that stands in stark contrast to the fundamental failure in our nation’s duty of care to veterans of Operation Banner. The Secretary of State suggests that the troubles legacy Bill will not increase the risk of veterans being dragged through the courts, but veterans feel that the reality is different. In the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to, they call it “lawfare”. They say that there is a legal conveyor belt of several actions that are taking place. Is it not time for a time limit on civil actions relating to historical military operations?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Member raises an important point. It is, however, very important to distinguish, as I know she will, between potential criminal prosecutions, which are the result of decisions of independent prosecutors, and civil cases. One of the other things that the courts found was that the ban on civil cases was incompatible with our human rights obligations. I point out that there has already been a civil case in relation to a paramilitary, which found against that individual, and it is a fundamental feature of our system that people are able to bring civil cases. Decisions about how those cases are disposed of is rightly a matter for the courts.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
My thoughts today are with the families of the Bloody Sunday victims and with the people of Derry, who have carried the burden of grief, truth and justice for more than five decades. What happened on Bloody Sunday is not up for debate; the Saville inquiry established in painstaking detail what the Parachute Regiment did to peaceful civil rights demonstrators on the Bogside. Can the Secretary of State explain how it was determined and who determined that Soldier F qualified for Ministry of Defence funding, and what precedent this decision was based on, particularly given reports that he received double the financial support typically afforded to a single defendant? If he was eligible for legal aid, that avenue was open for him. Instead, £4.3 million of public money was spent defending a man who, in his own evidence to the Saville inquiry, admitted his lethal role in the state-sanctioned murders on Bloody Sunday. Does the Secretary of State believe that this represents an equal and impartial application of justice, or a two-tiered system designed to shield the British state from accountability?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Member that the Saville inquiry report made for very sobering and distressing reading for all of us. Like many Members present, I was in the House to hear the former Prime Minister, Lord Cameron, make that apology to the families—something for which they had campaigned for years and years when justice was denied to them. I will always remember the photographs of the fists that came out of the window in the Guildhall in Derry/Londonderry as people heard what the Prime Minister at the time had said from the Dispatch Box.
On the hon. Member’s first point, it is right and proper that the Ministry of Defence provides support to any veteran who is facing a criminal justice process. I think we would expect nothing less.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is important that we in this House remember that terrorists killed Members of this House, including Airey Neave only a few hundred yards from where we stand today. The Secretary of State on previous occasions has indicated that something like nine inquests could now restart. He has said that Loughgall, an exemplary special forces operation in which brave men stood up against terrorists and nullified them, will be one of those. He has not said which other eight will be reopened. Can he take this opportunity to do that here today?
Hilary Benn
I will do so when we have been able to inform the families in those cases. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is only right and proper that we inform the families first, and then I will make a list available. On the reason for the Loughgall inquest, he will be aware that the former Attorney General said on 23 September 2015:
“Following careful consideration of a huge amount of material I have come to the decision that new inquests into the Loughgall deaths are justified.”
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Can the Secretary of State tell the House how it is compatible with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to give the Irish Government an official role—effectively, a veto—over the new framework that the Government propose? Is he confident that the Irish state itself will do everything it can to ensure that its agents are held to account for any collusion that may have happened in atrocities carried out by Irish nationalists during the troubles?
Hilary Benn
The Irish Government do not have a veto. I stood next to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and I made commitments on behalf of the British Government and he made commitments on behalf of the Irish Government. All of us in the House who wish families to get the answers for which they have been searching for so long should welcome the fact that the Irish Government are prepared to move from where they are now, because they oppose the legacy Act too, to a place where they will give this their fullest co-operation. In the course of that, we all hope to provide more information to give more families answers. That is what we are trying to do, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the two Governments are working together on this, because it will help the families.
David Davis
During his responses today, the Secretary of State has said two things: on the one hand, he said that letters of comfort do not give immunity; and on the other hand, he accepted that letters of comfort stopped the prosecution of Mr Downey for the Hyde Park bombing. It seems to me that those two statements are inconsistent. What way is available to him to correct Hansard and put one of them right?
Hilary Benn
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What I said was absolutely accurate, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. On the circumstances of the trial of Mr Downey in relation to the Hyde Park bombing, the reason why the judge called that to a halt was set out. But subsequent statements made it quite clear that those letters of comfort did not constitute immunity, as the subsequent events—not least the impending prosecution of Mr Downey—demonstrate.
Huntingdon Train Attack
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before the Home Secretary makes her statement, I must advise the House that charges have been brought against a named individual and the matter is now sub judice. Members should take care not to say anything in the House that might prejudice a criminal trial. I therefore urge Members to avoid speculating about the guilt or innocence of an individual, or the motive for the attacks. The Home Secretary may wish to make factual statements for the record. Members may wish to ask about the emergency services, the response to the attacks, the support for victims and families, and connected matters. However, I urge the utmost caution in avoiding any remarks that might prejudice a future trial.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the horrific events that took place on the east coast main line on Saturday evening. I am sure that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that my thoughts today are first and foremost with the victims, their families and their friends, and all those who experienced this terrifying attack.
My deepest thanks go to the emergency services: the British Transport police, Cambridgeshire police, Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, and the East of England ambulance service. The speed of their response, as well as their skill and professionalism, was exemplary.
I also pay tribute to the breathtaking bravery of those on the train itself, including the heroic acts of the passengers and train crew who intercepted the attacker. I draw particular attention to one member of the onboard crew who ran towards danger, confronting the attacker for a sustained period of time, and stopped his advance through the train. He put himself in harm’s way, suffered grievous injuries as a result, and remains in hospital today in a critical but stable condition. On Saturday, he went to work to do his job—today, he is a hero and forever will be. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
There is now a live investigation into what happened on Saturday night and the events that led up to it. I am therefore limited in what I can say today without putting a successful prosecution at risk. I am sure that all here agree there must be one priority right now: bringing the person who committed this horrific crime to justice. However, I will share what facts I can.
At 7.42 pm on Saturday evening, police were contacted about an incident on a train travelling from Doncaster to London, with reports of several stabbings onboard. The quick thinking of the driver saw the train diverted to Huntingdon station. Within eight minutes of the first 999 call, police had boarded the train and brought the attack to an end. Ten people were taken to hospital by the ambulance services, eight of whom had life-threatening injuries, and a further individual later self-presented at the hospital. Three have now been discharged, while eight remain in hospital. I know that everyone in this House wishes them the swiftest and fullest recoveries possible, and I would like to thank the staff at Cambridge University hospitals NHS foundation trust for their lifesaving care.
I can confirm, as was reported over the weekend, that Operation Plato, the national police identifier for a terrorist attack, was declared; however, it was rescinded once the incident had been contained. The British Transport police remains the lead force in this investigation. It stated yesterday that while Counter Terrorism Policing was initially involved, it has found “nothing to suggest” this was “a terrorist incident”.
At the scene, the police made two arrests. Since then, one man has been released who we now know was not involved. As of this morning, the other—one Anthony Williams—has been charged. In relation to the events in Huntingdon, he has been charged with 10 counts of attempted murder, one count of possession of a knife, and one of actual bodily harm. He has also been charged with a further count of attempted murder and possession of a bladed article in relation to events on a docklands light railway train in the early hours of Saturday morning, at London’s Pontoon Dock. Cambridgeshire police has, in the last few hours, reported additional earlier sightings and possible further offences. As is standard practice in these cases, it has now referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct for independent scrutiny of its handling of these reports.
For now, there is little I can say about this man and his past, beyond confirming that he is a British national and was born in this country, and that he was not known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. I know that this House, and the public, will have many unanswered questions today about who this attacker was and about the events that led up to the attack. Those questions will be answered, but it will take time—the police and prosecutors must be allowed to do their work.
Since Saturday’s attack, the British Transport police has increased its presence at key points in the transport network. It should be noted, however, that its operational assessment of the risk posed on our trains has not changed, as this was an isolated attack.
This was also, of course, a knife crime. This Government are committed to halving knife crime within a decade, and progress has been made this year. We have taken 60,000 knives off our streets, banned zombie knives and ninja swords and seen a 5% fall in all knife crimes, including an 18% reduction in homicides by knife.
I know that ideas have already been suggested as to how policing should change in response to this event and, once the facts are known, we must examine what more might have been done to stop this horrific attack ever occurring and whether there are measures we must now take to better protect the public on our streets and on our trains. However, that must be done when all the facts are available to us.
The thoughts of the whole House today are with the victims of this horrific crime, their families and friends, and all affected by what happened on Saturday night. The sickening act of the man who committed this crime was the very worst of humanity, but the actions of those who responded and who ran towards danger to save the lives of people they did not know were the very best of us. I know that we all share in paying tribute to their extraordinary bravery today. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
Our thoughts are with the victims of this appalling attack and their families, as the Home Secretary rightly says. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services who responded so fast and the brave interventions by members of the public and the train staff that prevented an even worse tragedy from occurring. They are truly heroes.
This attack has horrified and shocked the whole nation. People simply travelling by train were indiscriminately attacked. The horror the passengers experienced will likely stay with them forever.
Anthony Williams has now been charged. As the Home Secretary says, he had been involved in previous incidents in Peterborough and, in the early hours of Saturday morning, was also allegedly involved in an attack on the docklands light railway in London. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, as I have been told, police in London knew Williams’s identity following that attack, and if so, whether Cambridgeshire police were informed so that they could track him down? In essence, I am asking whether there were any opportunities to prevent this attack from occurring.
The Home Secretary says that Williams was not previously known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. Can she tell the House whether Williams was previously known to the police more widely or to mental health services?
This all comes just weeks after a murderous Islamist terror attack on a Manchester synagogue and just days after the horrendous murder of Wayne Broadhurst by an Afghan asylum seeker, both using knives. Although homicide has thankfully fallen by about 15% since 2010 and, as the Home Secretary said, knife crime has fallen in recent years, every homicide and every knife attack is one too many. The Minister for Policing and I saw the grief it causes at the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam, who was murdered in Croydon just over two years ago.
Speaking in general—not in relation to this incident—does the Home Secretary agree that knife crime and knife homicide figures are still too high, and that we must do yet more? Does she agree that more knife crime offenders should go to jail? This is important because when offenders are in jail, they cannot attack the public. Does she agree that we must ensure that more people who carry knives, especially where they use them to threaten others, are jailed? Of course, there is pressure on prison places, but by deporting more of the 10,000 foreign nationals in prison, we could create more space.
We also need to take more knives off our streets, which means we have to dramatically increase the use of stop and search. A study this year by Professor Lawrence Sherman, the Met’s former chief scientific officer, found that raising stop and search levels in London to 2011 levels would lead to a one-third reduction in knife homicide. Some complain that stop and search is used disproportionately in relation to some groups, but, when measured in relation to the offending population, the disproportionality disappears, as was set out in a recent Policy Exchange study. We should triple the use of stop and search to get knives off our streets, and we should introduce year-round surge policing in the top 5% of high crime hotspots, which will include many train stations.
We must also use technology more. I know that there is work under way at the Home Office on scanning for knives at a distance, and it is hoped that it can distinguish knives from keys or mobile phones. This could help police rapidly identify those carrying a knife in a public place. I wonder if the Home Secretary could provide an update on the development of that work, either straightaway or in writing later if she would prefer. I really do think that it could make a big difference.
Finally, retrospective and live facial recognition can identify wanted criminals, including those involved in knife crime. In Croydon town centre—the borough that the Minister for Policing and I represent—in the last couple of years around 200 wanted criminals were arrested using live facial recognition, including two wanted rapists and others guilty of knife crime who would not otherwise have been caught. Crime in Croydon town centre, including knife crime, has gone down as a result. The images of innocent passers-by are immediately and automatically deleted, which addresses civil liberties concerns. I really hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing agree that rolling out this technology nationally would make a dramatic improvement to public safety, and they will certainly have my full support if they choose to roll it out.
I know that everyone in the House wants to see knife crime eradicated—today more than ever before, I am sure—so I hope the House will also support the tough steps needed to eradicate knife crime. We owe the victims of these appalling crimes actions as well as words.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, in particular his opening remarks; I know that the bravery of all those who faced this attack on Saturday has unanimous support across the House, and I thank him for the spirit in which he reflected that.
As I said in my statement, the events in Peterborough are now the subject of an IOPC investigation. It is important that I do not say anything that seeks to get ahead of that, but I am sure all those questions will be answered in the fullness of time. It is standard practice where there has been contact with police in the run-up to an event like this that those matters are referred to the IOPC to investigate and consider.
The shadow Home Secretary will know that I also cannot say anything that relates to the suspect who has been charged and any prior history, or indeed mental health issues. They would be facts that are material to any future court proceedings, so it would be inappropriate for me, or indeed anybody else in this House, to comment or speculate on those matters today. I would ask that Mr Speaker’s words at the opening of the statement be remembered as questions are posed today.
I agree with the shadow Home Secretary that knife crime is far too high. This Government are impatient to do everything we can to eliminate knife crime. It is why we have set ourselves an ambitious target. We are pleased to have made some progress, though I agree that there is much more to be done. Instead of playing politics across the House, I hope that where there is consensus we are all able to work together to bring down the scourge of knife crime in our country. As I say, the numbers have gone in a positive direction. I hope the shadow Home Secretary will welcome that and work with us as we seek to make more progress.
The shadow Home Secretary referred to sentencing. I have to say that it is disappointing when Conservative Members do not reckon with the scale of the crisis in our prison system. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse, and it has meant difficult decisions ever since we entered office in order to prevent the country from running out of prison places entirely. This Government have deported more foreign national offenders since entering office than the previous Government did.
Despite deporting record numbers of foreign national offenders, the scale of the crisis in the prison system means that there are still more prisoners coming into the system than there have been places. It is important that the sentencing reforms are seen in that context. The majority of those who have been in possession of a knife and used it in a threatening manner do attract reasonably lengthy prison sentences. When we know more about the circumstances of this particular case, we will know if there are other lessons for us to draw and other areas of policy for us to consider.
The shadow Home Secretary referenced stop and search, and I think—I hope that I am not putting too much of a spin on his remarks—lamented issues about disproportionality. I gently remind him that it was a former Tory Home Secretary in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament who first started speaking about the disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers and changed the rules to reflect the disproportionate use of that power. That was the record of the previous Government. I hope he will recognise that the police already have the power to use stop and search indiscriminately, where the intelligence suggests that that is required. That is an operational decision for police chiefs. Of course, the decision as to whether to stop and search someone, when there are reasonable grounds and suspicion, is an individual operational decision for police officers. This is a well used and well understood power. It is an important power in our arsenal for tackling criminality, and the Government fully support its lawful use.
The Government will soon consult on a new legal framework to underpin the use of live facial recognition. The shadow Home Secretary will know that when his party was in power, that was left to individual police forces. I believe that South Wales and the Met were the first to roll it out, and they faced lots of legal challenges as a result thereof. The Government then did not change their policy, but this Government will consult on a legal framework so that all police forces across the country can use live facial recognition technology, confident that they will not find themselves defending those decisions in courts in the future. I have also supported the roll-out of 10 specific live facial recognition units across the country, and we will look to do more in the coming months.
In relation to scans for knives, there is much more that we can do to use new and emerging technology to help us tackle this type of criminality. I am happy to write to the shadow Home Secretary about our current plans, but I will set out more on our broader position in the coming weeks.
Knife crime is a terrible crime that claims far too many lives in our country. It is important that we keep doing everything we can to bear down on the damage that it causes and to provide pathways for those who get caught up in the carrying of knives. That is an important bit of policy that we will continue to work on. However, in relation to the attack that we are primarily talking about, I urge the House to wait until more of the facts are known before drawing broader policy conclusions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for all her remarks and the Secretary of State for Transport, who is also in her place, for her comments in the media this morning. I share, as all hon. Members of the House do, their concern for the victims and their families and the recognition of the heroism of so many in the tragedy on Saturday.
On behalf of my colleagues on the Transport Committee, I pay particular tribute to all the staff of Avanti West Coast and Network Rail, who responded so quickly, and in particular to the train driver who reacted so promptly to get the train to Huntingdon in order that the emergency services could meet it and the on-board staff member who is in hospital after protecting passengers.
I know that people may be nervous of travelling by train now. I thank the Government and the police services for their work to ensure additional police presence at rail stations, as I saw at Waterloo on my way here earlier. As the Home Secretary said, British Transport police has said that its operational assessment of the risk posed on our trains has not changed, given that this was an isolated attack, so will she assure me that any long-term changes to security on our rail services will be considered very carefully once the full facts of this incident are known and that there will not be a rush into changes without considering potential downsides that may impact on the ease of travel by train?
Shabana Mahmood
It is always about balance between ease of travel for millions of people every single day and making sure that people are safe, and of course the Transport Secretary and the rest of the Government will ensure that any arrangements—whether we remain with the current arrangements or make any changes—always strike the right balance. That is the most important thing. For now, based on our current understanding of this attack, the risk assessment has not changed, and although we are providing more reassurance to people so that they feel safe getting on trains in the aftermath of this attack, there are no proposals to go further at this point. We will of course review that once more when the facts are known.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This attack has left 11 people in hospital, one of them a member of the train staff, who is in a critical but stable condition. My party’s thoughts are with all those affected: the victims, their loved ones and everyone who witnessed such a shocking event. We also want to thank the emergency services and rail staff for their swift response, as well as the passengers who intervened to prevent further harm.
After this sort of incident, it is vital that the police are given the time and space they need to establish the full facts. That is ever more difficult due to the rapid spread of disinformation online in the immediate aftermath of such attacks. Within hours, social media was flooded with speculation over the ethnicity and race of the perpetrator, inciting racist and Islamophobic comments. While communities were still reeling from the horror of the attack, certain political figures on the hard right, including members of the Reform party, were already seeking to exploit the incident for political gain. Desperate to involve themselves in the tragedy, they reached for their dog whistles. They threw around baseless opinions on levels of crime when facts were available, shamelessly trying to turn this tragedy into yet another excuse to whip up fear and sow division.
The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today also veered into that realm. Never is an opportunity to blame foreigners missed—that is beneath contempt. At moments like this, those who aspire to leadership must calm fears and attempt to unite, not to inflame tensions. Does the Home Secretary share my view that while knife crime must be tackled forcefully, it is important that all of us must respond with arguments grounded in fact rather than trying to stoke fear?
Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government hold data on violent incidents involving knives or sharp instruments where three or more victims were harmed in a single incident? If so, what is the trend over the past two years, or over any other timeframe the Home Secretary has data for? Finally, she has said that the individual was not known to anti-terror police or Prevent, but when the facts are known, will she confirm that proper lessons will be learned about individuals who may pose a risk, be it as a result of mental health issues, an obsession with extreme violence or other relevant factors?
Shabana Mahmood
I deplore the ease with which so many armchair warriors feel the need to speculate and spread misinformation on social media. It is important that the police and all our emergency services are able to proceed with their investigations not only at pace but transparently, so as to calm any tensions that might arise as a result of misinformation that spreads, particularly across social media. In terms of how other people may or may not have reacted, I tend to think that at moments of such crisis people normally reveal their true colours. I will leave my remarks about other individuals there.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that knife crime must be tackled forcefully. As I said earlier, we have seen an 18% decrease in murders by knife, and I will make sure he receives the further stats that he mentioned. As I have said, the data in relation to knife crime is going in a better direction, but like others in this House, I am impatient to see more change happen more quickly. I hope he will work with us on a cross-party basis on all the measures needed to achieve that. Of course, when all the facts around this case are known and understood, I will ensure that any lessons that there are to be learned will be learned and acted upon.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the first responders, the police and everyone on the train who put their lives at risk to protect others? So many people from the communities I represent in both Peterborough and Huntingdonshire have written to me today in absolute fear, shock and confusion at how this could have happened so close to home, particularly after we found out this morning that the charged individual is from my constituency. Constituents have also been worried and alarmed about reports over the last few hours that the offender may have been involved in further incidents in Peterborough and London. Will the Home Secretary join me in calling for community cohesion following this incident, and ensure that a full investigation takes place into those possible other offences?
Shabana Mahmood
I can only imagine how terrifying it must have been for my hon. Friend’s constituents and those in neighbouring areas to hear news of this horrifying attack. He will know that I cannot say any more at the moment about other potential incidents—they are the subject of further investigation. As more facts are confirmed by the police, we will be able to say more and, of course, the IOPC must be allowed to do its work.
When we know more about the facts of this case, we will know whether it relates to community cohesion or to wider community issues. I encourage Members to wait until more facts are known before we draw those broader conclusions, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary that we reassure communities in his constituency and across the country. That is why there is an increased police presence across the transport network and why this Government will ensure that, as we know more, where there are lessons to be learned, they will be learned and acted upon.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
This has been a difficult and challenging weekend for Huntingdon. My thoughts are with the victims of this terrible tragedy; with the LNER crew member whose heroic and selfless actions, placing himself in harm’s way, saved lives at the cost of his own safety, and who remains in a critical but stable condition; with the other four victims who remain in hospital with stab wounds; and with the four who were discharged yesterday, as well as those who bore witness to the attacks and will still be processing their own experiences.
I would like to place on the record my praise for the emergency services’ response: to Cambridgeshire constabulary, whose unarmed response officers and firearms officers were able to place Anthony Williams in custody within eight minutes of receiving the 999 call; and to Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, our air ambulance services, and the East of England ambulance trust for their incident response and for getting the casualties to Addenbrooke’s hospital. I also praise the train driver, Andrew Johnson, and the signalling staff, whose speed of thought in moving the train on to the suburban line from the high-speed line meant that the train could make the unscheduled stop at Huntingdon—a decision that curtailed the attack by several crucial minutes, that allowed the police to apprehend the suspect and that undoubtedly saved lives.
The swift action of all those involved prevented a horrific attack from being far, far worse. I am sure that the Home Secretary, and indeed the whole House, would wish to share in my sympathies for those impacted by this horrific attack, and in my pride in the conduct, leadership and professionalism of the responders and railway staff.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for both his question and for his own work over the weekend. He was very quick to arrive at the scene. I thought that he handled himself with great honour and that he responded in a measured way to such a horrifying incident in his constituency. The way he has handled himself is a credit to him and to the people he represents. Of course, I agree with his remarks about the bravery of all those who were responding, the speed of the response and the bravery of those inside the train. Let me assure him that myself and my officials stand ready to work with him and others locally on the ground to ensure that all lessons are learned as we move forward.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments about sympathy and empathy for the victims of this attack? The names of Peterborough and the town of the constituency of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) have flashed across the news here and around the world this weekend because of the terrible events of Saturday night. I do not want my constituency to be known just because of the acts of a single perpetrator, so may I put on record my tribute to the police, the train staff, the first responders and others who stepped forward when actions were needed? I pay particular tribute to my constituent, train driver Andrew Johnson, and his ASLEF and RMT colleagues on LNER, who went beyond the call of duty on that evening.
They showed the best of British values, and the true face of the county I represent and its people.
We do not know all the information yet, but there is great anxiety in Huntingdon and Peterborough, and this is also a national issue. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we will go the extra mile to tackle knife crime and ensure that our streets and public transport remain safe for everyone for years to come?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He made contact with me and my officials very quickly after the attack came to light, and, like other Members, he is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I am sure that he will do everything he can to stand up for the people he represents and ensure that the wider area is not tainted by the actions of the attacker. He is absolutely right to remind the House that we should remember the acts not of the attacker, but of those who responded; they put themselves in harm’s way to protect people they had never met before, and they are the very best of us. I pay tribute to all the staff on the train, because they were faced with something utterly horrifying, reacted with immense bravery, and undoubtedly saved countless lives.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and associate myself with the tributes to the emergency services and the train crew. Our thoughts are with the victims.
When we have more information, I am sure that my Home Affairs Committee will want to consider what happened and learn lessons from it. I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to our inquiry on new forms of radicalisation. If things come out of the investigation that are relevant to my Committee’s inquiry, I ask that we ensure that we learn from them, and ensure that they are included in the inquiry as soon as possible.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for those points. I look forward to working closely with her as we learn more lessons, once all the facts of the case are known. She is right that, more broadly, we are seeing many new forms of radicalisation in this country and across Europe and North America. It is important that we always stress-test and challenge the Government response to those new forms of radicalisation. Longer term, we will need a change in our understanding of what motivates serious violent behaviour. I am sure that she and her Committee will continue their work, and I pledge to work with them as we try to tease out more answers to these problems.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the powerful tributes to the train driver, staff and members of the public. The incident demonstrates the importance of having more than one staff member on trains. The train guards play a vital role in protecting passengers.
My constituency is home to Vauxhall and Waterloo—busy mainline stations. In under six weeks, millions of people will travel home for Christmas on the public network. They need to be reassured that train travel is an efficient and good way to travel across the country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned that there will be additional resources across the network for the next few weeks. Will that go on into the busy Christmas period?
This issue is also covered by the Department for Transport. As transport geeks will know, the British Transport police has a strange funding mechanism: it is funded by the industry, not by the Home Office. As we take on more control of the public network and train services, responsibility for funding will fall to the Government. Will the Home Secretary and Transport Secretary consider that, and ensure that the British Transport police is fully funded to protect people on public transport?
Shabana Mahmood
Thankfully, incidents like the one on Saturday are very rare, and our train system is generally very safe—millions of people use it every day without incident—so we have a strong base to build on. Of course, given what has happened—the horrifying nature of the attack, and the indiscriminate way in which victims were stabbed—the British Transport police’s decision to increase the police presence across the railway network is important. How extensive that increase is, and how long it goes on, is an operational decision for British Transport police, but we have a good working relationship with it, and I have been impressed with its response to this attack. We have been working closely with it over the weekend, and I pay tribute to it and all its officers. I will be led by British Transport police on the operational decisions that it is making. On the wider policy questions raised by my hon. Friend, as more of the network is nationalised, I will of course pick up those conversations with the Transport Secretary.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
More generally on knife crime and on magistrates, is there a disconnect between the fact that under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, someone can be given a custodial sentence of 51 weeks, and the presumption under the Sentencing Bill that a 12-month custodial sentence will not be required? What might the Home Secretary do to get around that and ensure that magistrates have more sentencing powers? Possession of a knife is not use of a knife, but sadly one so often leads to the other. There is clearly a legislative disconnect, and I hope the Home Secretary will look at that.
Shabana Mahmood
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the average sentence for threatening with a knife is more than a year—it is around 15 months—and it would not be caught by the presumption in the Sentencing Bill. Also, the Bill creates a presumption against, not a blanket ban on, sentences of under 12 months; there is still discretion for judges in all cases. The Bill sets out the circumstances in which that presumption can be overridden, and that will always be a matter for the independent judiciary, based on the facts of the case in front of them.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I join other Members in expressing sympathy to all those who have been affected, and in thanking the emergency services, members of the public who got involved, and of course the train crew, who acted heroically to protect their passengers. Given the developments today, and the Home Secretary’s statement on the incident in east London and Pontoon Dock in my constituency, there is a great deal of anxiety and fear among my constituents in West Ham and Beckton, and I place on record my thanks to the police for their engagement with me this afternoon. What assurances can the Home Secretary give my constituents about safety on public transport, particularly in east London, where there are a lot of smaller, unstaffed, open-access docklands light railway stations, which are essential to the daily life of my constituents?
Shabana Mahmood
As my hon. Friend will know, I am limited in what I can say, given that this is a live police investigation. The police have obviously confirmed some of the facts, but their investigation must be allowed to continue without further speculation. He makes a good point, and I well understand why people in his constituency, or those who regularly use that station, will feel concerned. That is why BTP has increased patrols to provide additional reassurance to the community. Nothing at this point suggests that this was a particular location of interest, and I hope that reassures my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I echo tributes to the train staff and emergency services, and to the Home Secretary and her team, who I am sure were working flat out all weekend. The case is being investigated, but given the events of Saturday and in the run-up to Saturday night, can I urge her to bring together police chiefs to talk about information sharing and any further resource that they require? I am happy to admit that we should not have diluted stop and search, but can I urge her to look again at that? Northern Ireland is much more permissive, and section 60 needs to be reviewed.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. My experience over the weekend regarding the different police forces and emergency services who responded to this attack is that they work together very well, and I was pleased to see that level of co-ordination, especially when different forces are responsible for different things. At the start of this incident, counter-terror police were supporting the investigation. They were stood down, but if they had needed to be stood up again, that would have happened almost instantaneously—as soon as the request was made. My initial experience and impression of the collaborative working has been positive, and I pay tribute to everyone involved in it over the weekend.
I will take away the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on information sharing and reflect on what he said. When such a huge incident takes place, with lots of information going out in different forms, it is important that we ensure complete co-ordination. If he has any specific concerns in relation to this incident, I will be happy for him to write to me, and I will respond, but I will pick up that conservation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and others as well.
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I think that stop and search is a very valuable tool for the police. I will always want to see it used, wherever that is appropriate. My understanding from my conversations with the police so far is that their powers work quite well from an operational perspective, but I will always be open-minded and willing to look again at any of these issues, should there be a change in the advice from police or in our experience of how the powers are used.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I associate myself with the many tributes given to those people on the train who tried to prevent the attack, the staff and the responders. As the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, I use the Doncaster to King’s Cross service most weeks. Many of my constituents and people across Doncaster are deeply shaken by this appalling attack, but that service is an indispensable part of our lives. Will the Home Secretary set out the immediate steps that she has taken to reassure passengers who use that line, and the best way for us to communicate that message, so that passengers have peace of mind as they travel on the trains over the next few days?
Shabana Mahmood
We should all take confidence from the speed of the emergency services’ response to the attack, which has drawn justified wide praise from across the House. The speed of the response meant that the attack was brought to an end as quickly as possible, and many lives, I believe, were saved as a result of that response. While the incident is deeply shocking, and I can fully understand that people who use the service regularly will feel shaken by the news, we should all take confidence and pride in the fact that our emergency services were able to respond so quickly. The British Transport police has increased the police presence across the network to provide more reassurance to people. Thankfully, in this country, incidents of this nature across our transport network are very rare, and everyone in this House will want to work together to ensure that remains the case.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I join the Home Secretary and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), in sending my thoughts to the victims and their families. I pay tribute to Cambridgeshire police, Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, the East of England ambulance service, the staff at Addenbrooke’s hospital, the train crew and the passengers for their response on Saturday evening. While respecting the ongoing investigation and the Independent Office for Police Conduct process, will she assure the House that the extraordinary bravery and professionalism demonstrated by all those involved in containing the incident and providing lifesaving care will be properly recognised in due course?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with everything that the hon. Member said in praise of all those who responded to the attack. Once we are through the court proceedings and the full facts of the incident are known, I will ensure that there will be a moment to thank all our emergency services and the brave passengers in an appropriate way, when the time is right.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the LNER train crew and the train driver for their bravery. Their swift action and their extensive training in responding to emergencies was undoubtedly critical to saving many lives. Railway staff will be deeply concerned that this terrible incident has taken place against a backdrop of year-on-year increases in violent assaults on rail staff. What conversations is the Home Secretary having with colleagues at the Department for Transport about the resources and support needed to keep rail staff and passengers safe on our railways?
Shabana Mahmood
I know from my conversations with the Transport Secretary over the weekend that these issues are very much on her mind. There is crossover with those of us in the Home Office, but the responsibility sits primarily with the Transport Secretary. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a fuller response to her question, but she should rest assured that this Government recognise that assaults on any of our public sector workers are unacceptable, and the Government will do everything they can to stamp them out.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
May I join in with the tributes of my fellow Cambridgeshire MPs? In her statement, the Home Secretary indicated that she was receptive to the deployment of facial recognition at railway stations. Can she clarify, on the current timeline, the earliest date on which that would be deployed more widely? Given some of the early lessons coming out of this case, what scope is there for the Government to accelerate that timeline?
Shabana Mahmood
The consultation I referred to in my earlier remarks around the legal framework for much wider use of live facial recognition will be in the next few weeks—it is all but upon us. I referred to the funding for 10 new mobile units that has been made available. The British Transport police is preparing a pilot of live facial recognition technology at selected railway stations in London, which will run for a period of six months. The exact dates will be public in due course, and I will ensure that we write to the right hon. Gentleman with them when they are decided.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
With LNER headquartered in my constituency, I have written to David Horne, the managing director, to offer my support to him and pass on my best wishes to his crew. I put on record my thanks to the signallers, also based in my constituency, who made it possible to shift the train on to the other line. Last summer, I sought to amend the Crime and Policing Bill with an amendment to provide greater protections for transport staff in the light of the increased risks they face. With the Bill about to enter Committee in the House of Lords, will the Home Secretary look again at my amendments and ensure that we provide those protections for transport staff?
Shabana Mahmood
I will happily discuss with my hon. Friend the content of her earlier amendment. Even if it is not acceptable for that Bill, I will ensure that the policy question she raises is picked up by our colleagues in the Department for Transport.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We are running out of time, so I ask for questions, and answers, to be shorter.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
May I put on record our best wishes to the victims and our thanks to the emergency services and railway staff, who did a remarkable job? I know that the Home Secretary cannot comment on this particular case, but one concern I have is around the speculation and disinformation that is rife on social media. Can she make it her job to have a conversation with the social media companies? That kind of speculation does no service to the victims or to the police pursuing this issue.
Shabana Mahmood
The most important thing is that official sources of information are able to be transparent as quickly as possible so that the vast majority of this country that does not just get its news from social media knows what is happening. There will be a role for the Online Safety Act 2023 in the future as well.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for bringing it to us so promptly. I use LNER every week to come to this place; I always knew that the staff were great, but I did not realise that they were heroes. The response we saw from both the staff and the public on the train really was the best of Britain, but the response on social media was absolutely shameful, if I am honest—it shames us as a country. LNER connects Edinburgh South West to destinations north and south, and I am sure my residents will be really pleased to hear that we are looking at facial recognition on the transport network. That is incredibly important, but I will talk about knife crime more generally. In June, the Government gave a commitment to look at the manufacture and sale of round-tip knives and hopefully mandating them. Is the Home Secretary able to give us an update on that? I am sorry for putting her on the spot.
Shabana Mahmood
We will publish a knife crime strategy very soon. I understand the reason why some people think that round-tip knives are part of the solution, and I will consider all the evidence, but in the end millions of normal kitchen knives are available. We have to do a much better job on all the other areas, such as prevention.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I will be very brief. When the Home Secretary undertakes lessons learned and recommendations for the future, will she look into the question of whether there is any protective equipment, or even disabling equipment of a non-lethal nature, that could be issued to staff for use in such an emergency?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman will know that tasers were deployed on Saturday to bring this incident to a close. However, I can assure him that even if that is not part of the wider lessons learned from this case once all the facts are known, I will take his points into consideration.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this brutal attack, and of course I pay tribute to the amazing courage and bravery of the train crew, as well as the first responders. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have serious concerns about the funding arrangements for the British Transport police. Can I encourage my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to work with the Secretary of State for Transport and her Department to make sure that BTP’s funding arrangements are good going forward?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend about the BTP’s hugely important role. Its funding for this year is actually 6% higher than previously, and I am sure the Transport Secretary will do everything she can on the funding front.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
My thoughts and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues are with everyone affected by this appalling attack. They are also with the train driver, the crew and the staff, whose quick thinking and decisive action helped protect many from the worst of outcomes. Will the Secretary of State join me in expressing gratitude for their bravery, and for showing us all how crucial the presence of officers and sufficient staffing are to our public safety? Surveillance can help catch criminals, but staff on the ground save lives.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and it is undoubtedly the case that the staff on the ground during this incident saved lives.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)
I echo the Home Secretary’s comments and the tributes that have already been paid in the House. She will know, though, that the British Transport police is facing an unprecedented funding deficit that threatens safety on our railways. There is currently a shortfall of £8.5 million and a threat to nearly 300 jobs. Will the Home Secretary therefore meet the Transport Secretary to discuss how we can fully fund the BTP as a matter of urgency?
Shabana Mahmood
I repeat that the BTP has been awarded £415 million for the year 2025-26, which is an increase of almost 6% on the previous year. I am sure that the Transport Secretary is considering the wider funding issues.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I also pay tribute to those who were on the train, the staff and the first responders, as well as members of the public. Can I ask the Home Secretary to consider the comments made by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) about the new methods of radicalisation? The previous Home Secretary referenced them at the Dispatch Box, and I would be very keen to hear the current Home Secretary’s views on them.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of the wider forms of radicalisation that we are now starting to see in this country. She should rest assured that even if they are not relevant to the specific lessons that are drawn from this case, they are very much on the minds of all of us in the Government as we seek to meet the scale of the new challenge we face.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I fully support the remarks made by Stuart Cundy, deputy chief constable of the British Transport police, that the “heroic” actions of the LNER staff member undoubtedly saved lives. At a recent meeting with representatives of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, they raised concerns about policing budgets and the unique pressures facing the British Transport police. What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury to ensure a fair funding settlement, one that safeguards the BTP’s operational capacity and ensures the continued safety of passengers across our network?
Shabana Mahmood
I repeat the earlier answers I have given in relation to funding. My hon. Friend should rest assured that we are discussing these matters with the Department for Transport.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
In the review, will the Home Secretary undertake to look at the very serious problems of some trains operating without any staff on them at all, some very busy trains having insufficient staff, and hundreds of stations all over the country having no staff at all, particularly in the evenings, when the travelling public are obviously vulnerable and at risk? Can we pause driver-only operated trains and look at the issue of safety for the public as a whole?
Shabana Mahmood
We will be led by the operational assessment made by the British Transport police as to what is required. The right hon. Gentleman should rest assured that where the Government have a role to play in keeping people safe on the transport network, we will do so.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Of course, my first thoughts are with the victims of this horrific attack. The RMT union has called for urgent meetings with the Government, police and the industry to ensure that we have the strongest resources and procedures in place to protect staff and passengers. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Department for Transport and the Home Office will facilitate those meetings as soon as possible?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Transport Secretary and I will be discussing all and any lessons to be drawn from this incident, and there will be a cross-Government response that meets the scale of the challenge that we face.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the Home Secretary share my deep concern that when incidents such as this occur, certain political commentators and, sadly, certain politicians race to set the narrative behind such attacks as ethnicity-based, faith-based or, ideally, both, rather than focusing on the key crime indicators, such as socioeconomic deprivation, the disintegration of youth services, addiction issues, lack of funding for our police forces and lack of mental health support facilities? Does she agree that those factors matter much more than ethnicity, faith or the migration status of the perpetrator?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member is getting rather ahead of the facts that are currently known about what lay behind this particular attack, so he will understand if I refrain from making broader conclusions about the motivations. I think it is important, learning the lessons of what happened after the Southport attacks, that the Government and the police move quickly to make all shareable information available to prevent the spread of disinformation and potential public disorder.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. That is the end of the statement on the response to the Huntingdon train attack. I will give the Front-Bench teams a few moments to shuffle over.
Points of Order
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask that the record be corrected? I inadvertently mentioned Avanti West Coast. I must have been thinking of the derailment, and not the tragic incident, which of course was on LNER.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member. The correction is now duly on the record.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Jim Shannon
You will tell me whether it is or not, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my constituency, a young man was killed in Portavogie today in a knife attack. I think it would be in order to mention that there and perhaps the House would join me in prayers—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is very important, but we cannot continue the statement, which has concluded.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the Home Secretary may have misheard me during my question. I was saying that I was not concerned about the disproportionality of stop and search, because when we compare its use with the offending population, there is no disproportionality. I was encouraging further use of the tactic. I wanted to make sure the Home Secretary had heard and received that message.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The shadow Home Secretary has most definitely got that on the record.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I come to the Bill, I put on record in this House my own tribute to the police, to the first responders and in particular to the heroic actions of the driver and members of staff on board the Doncaster to London train, where such a vile and horrific attack took place this weekend. We all share in the revulsion at this shocking incident, but there is no doubt that their collective action—their brave action—saved countless lives. I know that the whole country is grateful for that.
Thirty-six years ago, 97 men, women and children went to a Liverpool football match in Sheffield—it was an FA cup semi-final, an occasion of joy—and they never came home to their families. I invite the House just to reflect on that simple statement of fact and what that might feel like.
Nearly 15 years ago, when I was the Director of Public Prosecutions, I met many of the Hillsborough families during the independent panel led by Bishop James Jones. I will never forget what they told me in their testimony—painful to tell, painful to hear. It included the testimony of Jenni Hicks, who told me how she and her husband drove their two teenage girls to the game that day. They had to drive back later with an empty back seat. Every single story, every single experience is painful to the core—unimaginable to the core.
So before I come to the contents of the Bill, I want to begin this debate with a simple acknowledgment, long overdue, that the British state failed the families and victims of Hillsborough to an almost inhuman level. But those victims and their families—their strength, their courage, their refusal to give up; and their determination, no matter what was thrown at them, to fight for people they will never know or meet, to make sure that they never go through something like this again—they are the reason why we stand here today with this Bill, they are the reason why it will be known as the Hillsborough law, and they are the reason why we say clearly again what should have been said immediately: that their loved ones were unlawfully killed and that they never bore any responsibility for what happened in Sheffield that day, and we say it from this Dispatch Box today because the entire country knows what happened next.
We often call Hillsborough a tragedy, but it is more than a tragedy, because the disaster was not down to chance—it was not an accident; it was an injustice. And then further injustice was piled on top when the state subjected those families to enduring, from the police, lies and smears against their loved ones, while the central state, the Government, aided and abetted them for years and years and years. It was a cover-up by the very institutions that are supposed to protect and to serve, and it is nothing less than a stain on the modern history of this country.
And yet, can we truly say that Hillsborough was an isolated example? No, because there are also the Horizon scandal, Grenfell Tower, infected blood, the grooming gangs, Windrush, and more besides. We should also be blunt about the fact that there is a pattern common to all these scandals: time and again, the British state struggles to recognise injustice because of who the victims are—because they are working class, because they are black, because they are women and girls. That is the injustice that this Bill seeks to correct, and I hope that it commands the support of the whole House.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a couple of things are missing from this otherwise excellent Bill? The first is an acknowledgment of the role that the media played in covering up many of the wrongs that happened, and the second is a national oversight mechanism which would ensure that when recommendations are made, they are carried out.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for that intervention. Of course we must acknowledge the role that the media and others played in this—it was a cover-up at so many levels. As for an oversight mechanism, I do not think that the Bill is the place for it, but I do agree with the proposition that when there are inquiries, there needs to be a better way of ensuring that they are followed through.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Prime Minister has listed a litany of scandals where there have been cover-ups. Will he reflect on including the Chinook disaster, in respect of which there have been repeated attempts to cover up the truth—the state of the aircraft that was sent out that night, in which we lost so many valued members of our intelligence service? Is that not a wrong that now needs to be righted?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that. This Bill is obviously intended to deal with all the situations in which there needs to be a duty of candour, with consequences if that is not adhered to.
The Prime Minister
I will make some progress, but I will take further interventions later.
Let me now turn to the Bill itself, and first of all to the duty of candour. There are three parts to this, and the first is a new statutory duty of candour. At the Hillsborough independent panel, Bishop James Jones found that over 100 statements made by junior police officers had been deliberately altered to remove evidence unfavourable to South Yorkshire police—100 statements had been deliberately altered. I do not think there is anyone in this House who could possibly disagree that we must never let anything like that happen again. It is a disgrace, and the Bill before the House will tackle it.
Jim Shannon
I commend the Prime Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward. I think it heartens us all to see its contents. Does the Prime Minister not agree that, with the rise of social media, there is more public scrutiny than ever before and less trust in our institutions? As he has outlined, the Bill is an opportunity to begin that journey of restoring public trust, but we must be mindful that nothing less than accountability can be acceptable. The public understand that mistakes can be made, but they cannot and should not forget when cover-ups take place.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Bill includes legal provisions to ensure that this can never happen again as a matter of law, but I have been clear—I have said this to the families on a number of occasions—that it is also the culture that has to change. The Bill is the architecture, but the culture of the state has to change.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Charlotte Hennessy, whose father Jimmy Hennessy was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, has had conversations with the Prime Minister in which he has assured her that the law does not need to be watered down and will be delivered in its entirety. She is in the Chamber today. Will he make that promise in this House today?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. I looked the families in the eye and made that promise, and I meant it. I say it again from this Dispatch Box: this Bill will not be watered down. This is such an important re-orchestrating of the relationship between the state and its citizens. It will not be watered down. I am very pleased to be able to affirm that from this Dispatch Box.
The Prime Minister
I will take one more intervention and then I will press on.
Ayoub Khan
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most powerful lessons from Hillsborough, and indeed from the Grenfell Tower and Post Office scandals, is that truth delayed is justice denied? And does he agree that, while this Bill rightly places a duty of candour upon public authorities, it must also compel Ministers themselves to uphold that same duty when addressing this House, so that accountability begins at the very top? That includes the misleading information that was given from that Dispatch Box by his Minister last week in relation to the hooligan Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.
The Prime Minister
I really think that, with the Hillsborough families here in the House with us—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I was trying to pay close attention, but I may have missed it; we do not accuse each other of giving misleading information at the Dispatch Box. One should be mindful of the language that one is uses.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also think that we owe the families a better debate than this descending into party political point scoring. I hope we can continue the debate in that way.
This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
As a sponsor of the private Member’s Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), I fully welcome this Bill’s introduction, and I welcome that the protections include criminal offences of misconduct in public life. Can the Prime Minister assure me and others that those new offences will be able to be applied retrospectively?
The Prime Minister
No, they will not be able to, but that is not a deficiency of this Bill; it is a long-standing constitutional rule. This will be about offences moving forward. But I will just make the point—because I do think it is important—that these measures will apply across the United Kingdom, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the devolved Governments for their collaboration on this.
I can also announce that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment to extend this duty to local authority investigations in England, which will make sure that when an inquiry or investigation is set up by a local authority—for example, the Kerslake inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombings—there can also be that duty of co-operation and candour in the search for the truth.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internally within their organisation any information that may be of use to an inquiry or investigation. Will he give some thought to how the Government might develop a concept of what then happens to that information, about which the Bill is broadly silent? He will understand that many will be concerned to ensure that when information is reported internally within the intelligence agencies, it none the less finds its way to those who should have it, in order to give reassurance about what the Government are seeking to achieve more broadly in this Bill.
The Prime Minister
Obviously, a lot of thought has been given to the particular issue of the security and intelligence services. The Bill is clear that the duty applies, but has a different way of applying it. I think that gets the balance right, and obviously there are various national and public interests to protect in so doing.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and thank him for bringing forward this Bill, which represents an epic struggle by the Hillsborough families, who are to be much admired and praised, but this will extend beyond Hillsborough, as the Prime Minister has said. I thank him on behalf of the families of Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, who suffered great loss under the auspices of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS foundation trust, which lacked a duty of candour when those terrible tragedies struck. I hope that he can give consideration to a full, judge-led public inquiry, because the families are in search of truth, justice and accountability.
The Prime Minister
To reassure my hon. Friend, the House, the families and all others affected by such scandals, these are clauses in a Bill that will soon be sections in a piece of legislation, but they are more than that: they change the nature of the relationship between the state and its duties to its people. That is so important. Yes, this Bill is the legal architecture, but something much bigger than this has to be put in place.
The Prime Minister
I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention, then I will come to my right hon. Friend.
Tessa Munt
I welcome this Bill. Will the Prime Minister reassure me and my constituents that organisations that are contractors for public authorities and public bodies will also be covered the provisions of the Bill? It is important that where responsibilities are deferred to other bodies, they too are captured by the clauses in this Bill.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady anticipates my next point, which I will make before taking an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). We have to recognise that in some scandals, such as the Post Office Horizon scandal, the boundaries between the public sector and the private sector are complicated. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, clause 4 of this Bill applies the duty to some private bodies, particularly those delivering public functions and those with relevant health and safety responsibilities, as well as relevant public sector contractors—in the Post Office case, Fujitsu—for that very reason. We have to recognise that the boundaries are blurred, and we need to make sure that the duty extends appropriately.
Maria Eagle
The Prime Minister knows that, for over two decades, the legal system failed to provide truth and justice to the Hillsborough families, and it was only a non-legal process—the Hillsborough independent panel—that finally set things right on the road to truth, justice and accountability. Does he see any prospect, therefore, that we will include in the legislation at a later stage provision to ensure that a Hillsborough independent panel-type process can be offered to families involved in future disasters, to try to circumvent the long-standing failure of the criminal justice system to offer truth and accountability to families quickly?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her work and campaigning on this issue over many years. She makes a powerful point about the independent panel. I first met Bishop James Jones 15-plus years ago now, and I genuinely think he was among the first to listen properly—knowing what listening means—to those who were giving evidence to his panel, which is why the report that he made was so well received and respected. We will certainly give consideration to whether panels like that can serve a useful purpose in future.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is being very generous in taking all our questions. I congratulate him on introducing this Bill, but can the duty of candour be applied fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries? Does he agree that the command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge, not simply with the institution?
The Prime Minister
This does apply to non-statutory inquiries, so my hon. Friend’s point is covered in the Bill. I will press on.
The second part of the duty of candour is a professional duty of candour for all public servants, because the Nolan principles of public service—honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership—are not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself. Every public authority will now be legally required to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on those principles, and to set out consequences for staff who do not comply, including disciplinary sanctions up to and including gross misconduct.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
The Bill is a huge step forward for accountability and transparency for families who face what must feel like the most impossible of circumstances. Some families living in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Corby are still trying to get clarity about the possibility that dumped toxic waste and contaminated land have caused health complications. Could the Prime Minister spell out how the Bill will ensure that any public official who abuses their power and tries to cover it up will be held accountable?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm that. I want to emphasise the point again, because it is so significant, that out of the most unbelievable suffering, these families—these victims—have pushed for a change that took far too long, but that will now benefit and safeguard people whom they will never meet and never know. I find that kind of campaigning humbling, and we thank them for it.
The Prime Minister
I will just make a bit of progress, and then I will take further interventions.
Finally in relation to the duty of candour, it is underpinned by a new criminal offence of misleading the public, which is aimed squarely at public servants who wilfully mislead the British people in a reckless, intentional or improper way. In cases such as Hillsborough, lies and dishonesty from the state grievously harmed the very people it was supposed to serve, and that must never happen again.
However, the Bill is not just about the duty of candour, because anyone familiar with how justice failed families and victims must also recognise that the lack of parity in our legal system played a significant role. I remember Margaret Aspinall—I met her many years ago now, and she is with us today—telling me that she had to scrape together every last penny for legal representation, including the money paid out by insurers for the death of her son James, who at the time was pretty much the same age as my son who comes to football with me. That is what she had to do, and we have to recognise that injustice piled on the other injustices.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I join others across this House in welcoming this important Bill, and I welcome and align myself with all the points the Prime Minister has made. Will he join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his tireless campaigning to push for this law to reach the statute book? The Prime Minister is absolutely right that grieving families have faced the might of the state alone, and were forced to crowdfund lawyers while public bodies hired whole legal armies. Does he agree that, by guaranteeing legal aid at inquests, we can finally end those David and Goliath battles for justice once and for all?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely extend that tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who I think was at the game and who has campaigned tirelessly in this place and beyond to help us get to the position today where we can introduce the Bill. I do pay tribute to him and I am very pleased to do so from this Dispatch Box, as we introduce this important legislation.
The Prime Minister
I will just make some progress and I will come to the hon. Member.
On the question of parity, what happened and what happens in so many cases is that families either have to scrimp and try to find the money for legal representation, or they have none. And what are they met with—the Hillsborough families were met with this—at inquests and inquiries, the working people who have had to save for justice? They have been met, time and again, by armies of state-funded lawyers; the deep pockets of the state—taxpayer money—has been harnessed for the explicit purpose of fighting against justice. The Bill aims to correct that inequality so that justice and the state serve all, with a new duty on public authorities to engage lawyers at inquests and inquiries only where necessary and proportionate, and to ensure that their representatives behave with the sensitivity and respect that victims and their families deserve.
The Bill will also ensure that no bereaved family has to face an inquest alone, with the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade granting access to free legal aid for all inquests where the state is an interested party, so that working people like Margaret and the Hillsborough families will never again be faced with such inequality on legal representation, or, as in many cases, simply left with none.
I will take the intervention I promised.
Carla Lockhart
I thank the Prime Minister. He is speaking very powerfully about families and about human stories. I commend him for the number of human stories he has talked about today in this place. Will he agree to meet the families of the Chinook disaster, when 29 lives were lost and two pilots wrongly blamed? The families have been consistently refused even a meeting with Ministers, officials and Prime Ministers who have gone before. Will he do the right thing and meet them, and ensure that the Bill also covers them?
The Prime Minister
I think there may have been meetings. If not, we will get meetings set up. [Interruption.] I am being told that there will be one, but I take on board what the hon. Lady says. I will make sure that there are the appropriate meetings, and will update her on exactly what form they will take and when they will take place.
The rebalancing of legal representation is a fundamental change in the balance of power in our justice system, and I genuinely hope that the whole House will support it.
Taken together, the measures in the Bill can be a landmark piece of legislation. I am determined—as I said in an intervention, having given my word to the Hillsborough families and having worked in partnership with them on this legislation—that the Bill will not be watered down. When it is in statute, it will rank as one of the great Acts of this Labour Government, a moment when the tireless campaigning of working people to right a historic wrong was finally recognised in this place and made our country better. That is all the campaigners have ever wanted. This has never been just about Hillsborough and those families; it has always been about everyone.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if they were to come down to this Dispatch Box—I won’t extend the invitation, because I suspect they readily would—I know, because I have heard them many times before, what they would say. They would say, “You must keep going. This is not done until it is done.” I want to therefore put on record in this House my deep gratitude to everyone who has worked with us on the journey to this point: Hillsborough Law Now; my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool West Derby, for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who were all at the game; so many hon. Members from across Merseyside, past and present, as well, of course, as the Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester, all of whom have never stopped fighting for this Bill; Inquest, which facilitated so much of the engagement so we could be a Government who listened; Bishop James Jones, who chaired that crucial Hillsborough independent panel; the countless other campaigns that this issue touches on, many represented in the Gallery today; and, most of all, Margaret, Steve, Charlotte, Sue, Jenni, Hilda and every single member of the families affected by Hillsborough. I know that what they really want is not thanks or acclaim; they want change and they have waited 36 long years for change.
It is my honour, as Prime Minister, to bring the Hillsborough law before the House and to open today’s debate. It should never have taken this long, but we are here now and we must get it over the line: a legacy of justice, change and national renewal for the 97. That is what we are here to deliver today.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Today is the day that, first and foremost, at the front of our minds will be one group of people, some of whom join us in the Gallery: those harmed by the state, those misled by the state, those lied to by the state. But those same people refused to accept that and would not take no for an answer. Those people knew the truth—the truth of what happened to them and to their relatives—and fought on to make sure everybody else knew it as well. The movement towards greater accountability and transparency in public life owes everything to them.
The Hillsborough disaster stands as the example that many of our constituents will perhaps think of first. Ninety-seven lives were lost on 15 April 1989, and many others were profoundly affected, as the Prime Minister so powerfully articulated. As the Prime Minister also pointed out, among them was a Member of this very House. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) was 16 years old at the time and was a spectator at the match. He has been an unrelenting advocate for those who shared with him the horror of that day and what happened afterwards.
As if the tragedy of those events was not enough, what followed served only to compound it over generations. In the decades that followed, despite multiple inquiries, reviews and inquests, the truth of what happened remained obscured by lies—by a cover-up. We would all wish to be able to say that this is the only example of institutional defensiveness, of covers-ups and of the reputation of organisations being prioritised over doing what was right, but as this House sadly knows, it is not.
Between the 1970s and early 1990s, thousands of UK patients contracted HIV and hepatitis after receiving contaminated blood, blood products and tissues. Reflecting on the findings of his inquiry into the matter, Sir Brian Langstaff said quite simply that:
“People put their faith in doctors and in the government to keep them safe and their trust was betrayed.”
Experimentation, deception, cover-up. And there are more examples. We have all been shocked to hear about the trauma and experiences of our postmasters and their families, as they were ruthlessly pursued by the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service over many years, with the failure of successive Governments to exercise their oversight to protect them. We have seen other failures in healthcare, policing and housing, some well known and others not so well known. But whether 97 lives are lost or just one, the impact on families is lifelong and severe.
The themes have been consistent: the resistance of the state to accept its wrongdoing; the aggressiveness of the state in responding to challenge; and the willingness of individuals working for the state to put themselves first over the people they are expected to serve. Again and again, David and Goliath battles are played out as the resources of the state, in all its forms, have been deployed against innocent people, innocent victims.
As we reflect on the proposed measures before us, it is sensible to consider the changes that have been made in this area. On legal representation, the means test for legal help and representation at inquests for applications to the exceptional case funding scheme has been removed and we have seen a steady number of applications over recent years. Measures were introduced to promote candour in policing, when the offence of police corruption was created in 2017. In the health service, the duty of candour was introduced following the Francis inquiry into catastrophic failings in health at Stafford hospital. Through part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we legislated for the creation of an Independent Public Advocate, whose role is to ensure victims and bereaved families are properly supported and represented after major incidents.
However, a desire to do more has remained. Bishop James Jones’s report, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, reflected on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and set out key lessons for public bodies. It called for the bereaved to have “proper participation” at inquests where public authorities are represented, and identified other key areas for reform; alongside work by the Law Commission, it provided a key basis for the Bill before us. It should be noted, however, that Bishop James emphasised that legislation alone is insufficient. As mentioned, a statutory duty of candour already exists in parts of the public sector, particularly in the NHS, but question marks remain over the success of its implementation. The lesson is clear: legal change must be accompanied by cultural change.
In principle, we welcome the aims that underpin the Bill and which we are asked to consider on Second Reading. It is, however, always incumbent on this House to reflect on and consider whether the legislation we pass is as good as it can be, no matter how laudable the aim, and to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences.
It is no secret that despite a very long-standing commitment on the Labour Benches to bring legislation of this nature forward, the Government themselves wrestled with how to do so appropriately. This Bill should be one that Members scrutinise closely. Members and our staff are quite rightly on the extensive list of public servants who will be in scope, under schedule 4. We will be able to look at the implications of the Bill and reflect on how it might interact with our work, where contention and disagreement are often at the heart of our decisions. As such, there are a number of questions and points for consideration that I would like to raise with the Government.
First, are we sure that the language in the Bill will provide the necessary legal clarity to underpin its successful operation? The Bill makes use of terms like “reckless” and “seriously improper”. It also states, for example, that the Act is designed to
“ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…in the public interest”.
How often do we disagree in this House on what constitutes the public interest? How often do we question the truth of what is being said?
Although superficially it might seem obvious—in the examples we have considered today, which are at the forefront of our minds, the failure to act in the public interest is clear and unquestionable—in other situations, we might be left with conflicting views as to what the public interest is. How will we differentiate between interpretations of the public interest in a way that does not allow individuals to escape the measures being proposed in the Bill? We have seen Government decisions that the Government consider to be in the public interest challenged repeatedly, and often successfully, in the courts. Individual public servants will also have their own views on what is or is not in the public interest; we will need to consider that, too. Further, how will the Bill be utilised by campaign groups that wish to legally challenge the Government in support of what they consider to be in the public interest? That is not to say that we cannot make the Bill work, but we need to consider its terminology carefully.
Part of the Bill deals with misconduct in public office. This represents one of the most significant changes to the way in which we hold public officials to account. Under the proposals, the common law offence of misconduct in public office will be replaced with two new statutory offences: seriously improper acts, and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. This follows recommendations by the Law Commission, which suggested that the current offence be replaced with a clearer statutory provision that is both less broad and easier to interpret.
The Opposition fully recognise that this is an area of the law in need of clarity, but, for all its many imperfections, the common law offence has at least provided flexibility as a means of addressing serious misconduct that might not fit clearly into an approach based on specific statutory offences. I would be grateful for the Government’s reassurance on that point. Will the Government also share their view on the reduction in the maximum penalty from life imprisonment, as available under the current common law offence, to between 10 and 14 years’ imprisonment under the statutory offence? Misconduct in public office strikes at the heart of public trust in Government and the rule of law, and we must ensure that the penalties available to the courts reflect that seriousness.
The area where I would most welcome assurance is in considering whether the measures in the Bill will fall most squarely and most strongly on the right shoulders. In its critique of the existing legal framework for misconduct in public office, the Law Commission said there was
“a concern that it tends to be used primarily against relatively junior officials, rather than more senior decision-makers that members of the public might more readily expect to be held criminally accountable.”
Of course, public servants, no matter how junior, are accountable for their actions, but how can we be sure that these measures will ensure that accountability goes all the way to the top? We all know that influence and power can be exercised over junior staff without there ever being an email, written instruction or any other proof. Junior staff in an organisation with the wrong culture can come to understand what is expected of them and that there are consequences if they do not comply, regardless of what we might be able to readily prove in court.
I know that this Bill will be deeply welcomed by campaigners and Members who have long called for its measures. I mentioned one particular Member at the start—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—but I know that Members across the House, across different causes and across different constituencies have challenged these issues. The principle of what the Government are trying to do—to stop the voice of the state and public bodies drowning out the voices of our constituents, whether through use of resources or misconduct—is the right one. We all know the fallibility of the state and the ways in which the wrong people take the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons: for their self-interest, to protect themselves or to protect their organisations. No Bill alone can guarantee against that, and perhaps there are ways in which this Bill can be improved. However, the Opposition welcome the start of its consideration, and we stand ready to play a constructive role.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
This is the first time that any Government have brought forward legislation to tackle what went wrong at Hillsborough. It is a fulfilment of a Labour manifesto commitment and a commitment by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, and I congratulate him on it.
I rise to support the legislation. The duty of candour with effective sanctions and equality of arms are all good, and will make a difference. However, I think that the Bill should also seek to boost the powers and capabilities of the office of the new Independent Public Advocate, and I want to explain why.
I was first elected to this House in May 1997, and I have been making speeches about the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath ever since. The disaster happened a full eight years before I was elected more than 28 years ago. As a trainee lawyer in Liverpool, I got to know some of the bereaved families only a year after the disaster, in 1990, as they sought to recover damages for nervous shock, which was a way of reaching a legal finding of culpability against the police. The bereaved families did not want to make money; they wanted the police to accept the blame that they should have accepted. This was one of a number of legal actions ongoing at the time. I worked on some of those cases at the direction of my principal, who was on the steering committee of solicitors conducting that civil litigation, and while I did not have conduct, I was familiar with matters and met some of the families at the time.
Some of the bereaved families became constituents of mine when I was elected in 1997. Indeed, some of the very first meetings I had with constituents after my election were with members of the executive of the Hillsborough Family Support Group—Trevor and Jenni Hicks, Hilda and Phil Hammond, and Doreen Jones, who between them lost five family members at Hillsborough. Four of them were my constituents, and three of them still are all these years later.
I think that my long and close involvement with some of the families gives me some insight into what went wrong, and I have some observations. My first observation about the disaster, as I have alluded to already, is that the legal system—the entire justice system—showed itself to be totally unable to deal properly with the aftermath or even to fulfil its basic functions in the face of a national disaster. This disaster unfolded live on TV at a very high-profile national event; we all saw what happened. There was a large appetite in society to get to the bottom of what had happened.
Within four months of the disaster occurring, the interim report of the public inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor had correctly identified the loss of police control as the main cause of the disaster, excoriating South Yorkshire police for its attempt to evade responsibility for what occurred by trying to blame Liverpool fans and telling the force to modify its behaviour. That is where truth and accountability could have been established. But South Yorkshire police simply ignored the findings of the public inquiry and used all subsequent legal proceedings—all paid for with public money, with expensive lawyers doing the job—and most notably the first inquest, to redouble its efforts to evade responsibility.
Eight years of legal action had failed to get to the truth by the time I was elected in 1997. There was no justice for those involved, and particularly for those who, as we now know, were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. There was not a sniff of accountability for those whose gross failings had led to the disaster or those whose subsequent behaviour in blaming the victims and survivors led to so much anguish over so many years for so many families and survivors. That is despite the fact that every possible kind of legal action had been undertaken in that time—none of them worked. Once the justice system gets it wrong, and appeals and judicial reviews do not succeed, it is almost impossible to get it right subsequently using the same system.
It seemed like the truth did not matter to the justice system. The system was content to settle on a lie, with inquest verdicts of accidental death and no criminal or disciplinary proceedings for those at fault. It was content to allow the perpetrators to peddle the appalling falsehood that the disaster was caused by Liverpool fans being drunk, late and ticketless. This was a South Yorkshire police cover story, and what they aimed at establishing as the truth through the systematic changing of police statements. That effort failed spectacularly at the public inquiry and was repudiated within four months of the disaster, but the justice system allowed the perpetuation of this mendacious false narrative by those who had been identified as at fault: senior South Yorkshire police officers.
The first inquests allowed ongoing reports in the newspapers for over a year about the inquest proceedings, firmly to establish in the public mind that the false narrative was true. It was as if the public inquiry and its findings had never happened. Those who had caused the disaster were retired early on enhanced pensions. Society got the impression that the disaster was about football hooliganism, and the unlawful killings were said to be just “an accident”—despite the findings of Lord Justice Taylor in the public inquiry.
That is where the justice system, and the lawyers and judges, got us to. The way I see it, the justice system might properly be said to have failed in all respects and at every turn in this most appalling miscarriage of justice imaginable. The legal system failed. Multiple lawyers, judges and causes of action failed: failed to get to the truth, failed to do so in a timely fashion and failed to make those responsible accountable. The system failed the bereaved families, it failed the survivors and it failed those who died.
To the extent that this Bill suggests that more lawyers and an equality of arms before the law is enough to guarantee truth and justice, I say it is not enough. That, to me, is one of the main lessons of Hillsborough, and I say that as a lawyer, because I am indeed a lawyer. It is a good thing that an equality of arms is to be set up in legal proceedings, and it is a good thing that families can get the help that they need. I support that, but it does not guarantee truth, justice or accountability.
I have met many families bereaved by public disasters—not just those affected at Hillsborough but the MV Derbyshire families, the Alder Hey organs scandal families, Manchester arena bombing families—and they all want pretty much the same thing. They want the truth, and they want it as quickly as possible. They want accountability for those at fault, not official cover-ups. They do not want any other families to go through what they have endured; they all say that—they want lessons learned and what went wrong put right for the future. That is simple. It is not too much to ask. Those are the three tests by which I judge the adequacy of legislation that sets out to learn the lessons of Hillsborough, including this Bill.
I was a sponsor of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, introduced in 2017 by Andy Burnham, which was the precursor to this legislation. I can see nothing wrong at all with having a duty of candour in statute. It helps get across to public officials subject to it the importance of telling the truth to inquiries and investigations and that their functions should be carried out with candour, transparency and frankness. I would have hoped that they would all have known this anyway, but apparently some of them need to be reminded.
I note that this legislation takes up more rather more pages establishing a duty than the original 2017 Bill, but I have no doubt that these changes and their import will be fully scrutinised in Committee and we can understand the intention fully. I know that there will be significant interest in the legislation, not only in this House but in the other place.
Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report—“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, which is about the lessons learned from Hillsborough—recommended, along with his 24 additional points of learning, enacting Andy Burnham’s Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. However, lying liars are going to lie, and although I am not convinced that, had this legislation been in place at the time of Hillsborough, the cover-up would not have been attempted, I am gratified to see—this is certainly the case—that there would have been more opportunities to punish those caught lying when they were caught. The more serious punishments in the Bill for breaching a duty of candour are a good thing, but would this have stopped the cover-up or the long years of agony endured by families and survivors? We have to take this opportunity—it will be the only one—to enact legislation that has a chance of achieving this.
I have spent the last few years trying to tackle the way in which we deal with the aftermath of disasters from a slightly different angle. Since 2016, I have been introducing to the House an independent public advocate Bill, which I have worked on with Lord Wills in the other place. He has been introducing it there since 2014. It was drafted after work we did with some Hillsborough families and those affected by other disasters. It arises out of the following insight. The legal system has failed repeatedly in the aftermath of disasters, but the Hillsborough independent panel succeeded spectacularly. It was established in 2009 by the Labour Government of Gordon Brown after the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, and it reported in 2012, under the Conservative Government, who allowed it to complete its work despite the era of austerity, thanks in large part to Theresa May.
Finally, the truth that the South Yorkshire police had tried to cover up for all those years was established in the public consciousness. The fans were not at fault. The police caused the disaster. Many of those who died could have been saved had they received timely medical assistance. The police engaged in an appalling cover-up, and set out to deflect blame from themselves on to fans, including by attempting a wholesale revision of police witness statements to better reflect the cover-up story, and to erase any statements that seemed to point the blame at senior officers. They also took blood alcohol readings, even from the children who died—the youngest was 10, let us remember—to try to smear them as somehow being at fault.
There were shocking revelations in the report, and it led to an immediate re-appraisal of the public view of what had occurred. It led to an apology to the families by David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the day, and a striking down of the accidental death inquest verdicts, which were eventually substituted with unlawful killing verdicts—but not before South Yorkshire police had again tried to tell its cover-up story, over an agonising two-year legal process, in the second inquests. This was a terrible ordeal for families, and it only concluded in 2016.
The Hillsborough independent panel was not a legal proceeding. It was about the transparent release of documents, freedom of information, and a narrative account arising out of the study of the documents. Lawyers were not involved. The Bill that I keep introducing to the House would enable a public advocate to assist families in getting to the truth much sooner, in the event of a disaster, because it would replicate that same process at a much earlier stage in the disaster’s aftermath. I believe that would promote the telling of truth at a much earlier stage. Shining the light of transparency on the activity of public officials in the aftermath of a disaster will torpedo cover-ups before they can get very far—and at a significantly lower cost to the public purse and faster than our justice system has shown itself able to.
The Hillsborough independent panel did in two years what the justice system had failed to do in 24 years. This kind of proceeding has the potential to enable families to side-step the years of overlapping legal actions that they get caught up in after public disasters. I think it would be a useful addition to the armoury for families who want the truth and accountability quickly, and who want lessons to be learned. Families bereaved by public disasters should have the option of asking for such a process at a much earlier stage in the aftermath, and that should be up to them.
A version of the Independent Public Advocate was brought in by the previous Government towards the end of their time in office, and an appointment to the office has been made by the current Government. However, I do not believe that she has sufficient powers or resource to do the job that my Bill envisaged being done. I may well try to explore in Committee, where it is in order, what can be done about that. I believe that provision for an independent public advocate would increase the range of options for bereaved families in the aftermath of public disasters like Hillsborough. It would mean that families had a greater choice of how to take forward their efforts. It would be a good addition.
The truth, quickly; accountability, not cover-up; justice for those affected; and lessons learned and swiftly, and implemented so that nobody else has to suffer the same way—that is what families want, and this Bill must be judged on how well it promotes those aims. I think it will do so very well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so when I get to Back Benchers, speeches will be limited to six minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). I thank her for her impassioned speec,h and for shining a light on a broken system since 1997. Today is her day, as much as it is the day for all those campaigning for change.
On 15 April 1989, fans of Liverpool football club undertook what everyone assumed would be a routine pilgrimage to watch their team play Nottingham Forest in the FA cup semi-final; it would be anything but that. As everyone will know, that match at Hillsborough stadium was to descend into carnage and commotion, causing a mass crush in the fenced sections housing Liverpool supporters. It led to 97 fatalities and hundreds of injuries, as well as immeasurable trauma for the families and friends of the victims, and left a dark mark on our nation’s history. The Hillsborough disaster is now talked about in schools, but it is not just a moment consigned to our history books; it has served as a catalyst for change, which we finally see brought here today.
Immediately after the disaster, questions were asked about how and why such a tragedy could occur, and immediately the path to truth was blocked by people in positions of power and trust. It is abundantly clear now that a system was in place that allowed the narrative to be filled with lies, aimed at protecting the public bodies who bore responsibility for the safety of those fans attending the match. In the days and weeks that followed, blame was pinned on the Liverpool fans—the victims—by sections of the media. Stories were fed to journalists by those who were ultimately found responsible for the disaster, which undermined inquiries into the events. The false allegations of drunkenness and hooliganism painted a dark stain over the victims and their families, which hindered their attempts to grieve and seek justice, and prevented any meaningful learning from the tragedy for many years.
Conditions on the public bodies and in the justice system provided the perfect environment for a co-ordinated cover-up, designed to absolve South Yorkshire police of blame and all them to protect their own. Their actions led to decades of delayed justice. Families were denied the truth, and individuals whose failures had caused the tragedy remained in power.
The tireless and heroic campaigning of the victims’ families and the survivors of Hillsborough has slowly uncovered the truth that the stadium’s dangerous design was well known, and that the police made catastrophic decisions on the day that cost lives, but it has been an uphill battle. Ordinary people with limited resources were forced to push back against state institutions, fighting with the odds stacked against them at every turn.
I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance over 36 long years. Their efforts have brought us to the point at which we can begin to level the playing field for countless others affected by miscarriages of justice, be it the Post Office scandal, infected blood, Grenfell, nuclear weapons testing, pelvic mesh, LGBT veterans or any of the many others. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries. Those scandals have been uncovered, despite the best efforts of public institutions to keep them buried. Institutions that should have been transparent and accountable instead used public money to protect their reputation and deflect blame. Every single victim deserved better.
The Bill is long overdue, but it will finally allow basic values of fairness to be restored within our justice system. A duty of candour, providing a basic but essential level of transparency and fairness, and a duty for public officials to act with openness when dealing with public investigations, are vital steps supported by the Liberal Democrats and hon. Members across the House.
The Bill also offers a crucial opportunity to push for cultural change in public organisations that are outside the legislation. It marks a shift away from defensive, inward-looking approaches that prioritise reputation over responsibility, and a move towards an open, learning culture that puts the public first and learns from mistakes, rather than concealing them. Public bodies should welcome these reforms as a means of rebuilding public trust and avoiding the drawn-out, costly legal processes that have so often characterised past scandals.
The two new statutory offences—one for those who fail to fulfil the duty of candour, and the other for those who mislead the public while in office—are welcome and necessary additions. They will serve as consequential reminders for those in public office that their primary duty is to the public, and that they must go beyond self-interest. The introduction of provisions on proportionality and cost-effectiveness is a welcome step that will not only increase fairness but ensure that taxpayer money is never spent silencing victims.
The extension of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests is also long overdue and greatly needed. For too long, the system has been weighted against ordinary people seeking justice. Those seeking to bring these scandals into the light have faced well resourced and highly motivated public bodies intent on protecting their reputations. Ending the need for large-scale public fundraising will ensure that everyone, regardless of wealth, has an equal opportunity to be heard.
However, the Liberal Democrats believe that there are gaps in the legislation. We will, of course, engage with the Government collaboratively and constructively throughout the Bill’s stages. On legal aid, we are concerned that the measures are too limited, as they support only the families of bereaved victims. Those who are seriously injured, or who, as in the Horizon scandal, have lost their livelihood and cannot afford legal challenges are not supported by the Bill, and will still face burdensome legal aid tests. There are precedents from the infected blood scandal and the Post Office scandal for extending legal aid support beyond the bereaved families.
There are also instances of misconduct that should be captured in the Bill. Officials who are not actively engaged in wrongdoing, but who are turning a blind eye to it, should be held accountable. The Bill also fails to address day-to-day decision making outside formal settings. We have seen an increasing number of cases in which communications on services such as WhatsApp have gone missing prior to investigations. An example is the covid inquiry. That represents a major gap in accountability. These communications must be included in future investigations, as we are moving into a world where we use such services more frequently in working life.
Many of these scandals have come to light because of the brave work of whistleblowers—individuals who have shared information at great personal risk, while standing up against entrenched power structures. The Liberal Democrats have long called for the strengthening of whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing in organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice. We therefore call for the UK’s whistleblowing framework to include anonymous reporting, legal representation funding and a statutory duty on organisations to foster a speak-up culture. As in our manifesto, we call for an independent office for the whistleblower, which would be transformative in enforcing standards in whistleblowing cases.
We would also like the Bill to be implemented immediately after Royal Assent. Campaigners such as those at Hillsborough Law Now have fought for years to ensure the enacting of these changes, and victims should not have to wait a moment longer for them to be introduced.
Finally, we have a concern, which I think is shared across the House—it has been reflected in the opening speeches—about the lack of redress from the media. In many of the scandals that we have discussed, the amplification of falsehoods and the blaming of victims has been a recurring issue. In the case of Hillsborough, The Sun conspired with South Yorkshire police to spread the lie that the fans were responsible. Media regulation remains largely unchanged since the original Leveson inquiry, despite its recommendations. The second part of that inquiry, which would have examined the relationship between the press and the police—precisely the issue in cases like Hillsborough—was never completed.
The Government call for integrity, and Labour has promised Leveson 2 in the past. Much more needs to be done to strengthen accountability, transparency and openness, including within social media companies. The Molly Rose Foundation, which campaigns on suicide prevention, has correctly pointed out that despite recent powers on disclosure targeting social media companies, those organisations have significant commercial and reputational incentives to delay and obstruct investigative proceedings. We support the calls for an amendment to the Bill that would extend the duty of candour to social media companies, so that those organisations are held to account in the same way. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed whether that was in the scope of the Bill.
We are all familiar with the many failings at the heart of public institutions that have, in recent years, been brought to light by brave individuals who are prepared to speak out against organisations that should have been trustworthy. Many of those campaigners are here to see the law finally progress today. It is to their credit that the legislation will bring improvements in public standards, accountability and transparency that will spare others from suffering what they had to endure. I thank them. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill further and ensuring that it delivers for our public services and our citizens.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a privilege to be here today debating a Bill that has been decades in the making. Before I begin, I want to join those who have already spoken in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of the Hillsborough survivors and those who lost loved ones in the disaster. They have been through an unimaginable ordeal spanning decades, but throughout they have shown remarkable courage, dedication and tenacity to deliver justice for their loved ones. Even after the truth about the tragedy emerged, the families have not stopped campaigning. They have long called for a systemic change to prevent anything like this from happening again. We as a country owe a great debt of gratitude to their efforts, because without them we would not be debating this Bill today. As someone who grew up in a part of the world that has lived under the shadow of Hillsborough, I know how much this means to my constituents, and not least to the families of those that have lost loved ones, so I am proud that we have acted on the pledge that we made to implement this law.
The Bill addresses the key problems that we have identified time and again. How will we ultimately judge whether the Bill is a success? Two words: never again. That is the standard against which the Bill must be held. Never again should victims be wrongly blamed by the state for their deaths. Never again can we allow public bodies that are meant to protect us to lie in order to protect their own reputations. Never again must ordinary people fight tooth and nail against the seemingly endless resources of the state just to get to the truth.
As we have heard, Hillsborough is by far not the only example of the scandals and cover-ups that have emerged in recent years. The well-rehearsed list gets longer every year, and it includes infected blood, the Post Office, Grenfell, nuclear test veterans and many others that we have debated in this place. The test is that we do not add to that list, and that when tragedy strikes again and serious mistakes are made, truth and accountability are on display immediately. Let us be clear, legislation is only the starting point for this. As the Prime Minister said, a culture change is also required.
Establishing a legal duty of candour that requires bodies to act proactively, promptly and with full disclosure to assist inquiries, inquests and other investigations is a huge step forward, but it has to be delivered in practice, and that is the real challenge that we face. All too often—we have seen it in this place, have we not?—institutions act defensively, obfuscate and focus on protecting themselves when placed under scrutiny. With the guidance provided by codes of ethics and the threat of criminal sanctions, bodies and those working inside them should be forced to refocus and to put the public and their safety as their No. 1 priority, not to lie, and to actively support investigations and inquiries. That is what the public expect institutions to be doing already. While it should never have been required, this Bill will enshrine that basic principle into law at long last.
As we have seen in the NHS, however, that is easier said than done. It is nearly 10 years since the freedom to speak up guardians were introduced, but from what I can observe, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the good intentions behind that initiative are truly embraced across the board. Only in the past week I have been contacted by several people currently working in the NHS who believe that their concerns have not been listened to, or that they have been on the end of mistreatment because they have spoken out. Legislation is one thing, but culture is another, and I would suggest that changing the culture is something that needs leadership and buy-in from every single person across every single part of every single organisation.
I want to say something about equality before the law. Victims must no longer be browbeaten by lawyers in their quest for the truth, but I have some concerns about how that will work in practice, because when a public body is looking at something serious under this Bill, which it inevitably will, it will want the most senior representation it can get. If a public body can afford hundreds of pounds an hour for its lawyers, it will instruct them, but such fees will clearly be well in excess of existing legal aid rates. In that scenario, who is going to tell the public body that it has to choose cheaper lawyers? How will true equality before the law be achieved, especially if authorities only have to “have regard” to these principles? We need an overarching, independent way of monitoring this and of ensuring that recommendations from inquests and inquiries are effectively publicised and their implementation is monitored and delivered, ideally with progress reports to this place.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Clause 6 relates to the intelligence agencies, and there is an exemption for those who handle material that falls within the definition of security and intelligence. Our constituents will want to be certain that these organisations have oversight, so would the hon. Gentleman agree that this could be an additional power for the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Justin Madders
That is an interesting suggestion. I think a lot of Members are concerned about how this will relate to the security services, because we have had many examples in the past of where they have done things that we would rather had not happened. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, there will be some good dialogue about an appropriate way to deal with those difficult balances that have to be achieved.
I also want to raise a couple of concerns about clause 11 and the offence of misleading the public. The requirement for there to be “harm” to a victim could significantly reduce its effectiveness, which aims to deter cover-ups and obfuscation. In addition, part 2 of the Bill goes on to define who is included within the definition of a public body, and it specifically excludes the devolved bodies and both Houses of Parliament. I know that is because of the long-standing convention that Parliaments deal with their own affairs, but I am concerned that this sends out a negative message about our responsibilities in this matter. Parliament has in the past allowed other bodies to become involved in the way it does business with, for example with the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, so there is precedent there for us to look at that again.
We should all be treated equally before the law. When trust and confidence in our institutions are at an all-time low, it is hard to underestimate the impact of the changes this Bill can deliver, but it should apply to everyone equally. Repeated examples of scandal and state cover-up are corrosive to trust and only serve those who want to sow division, so we have to get this right. This moment can mark a stark change in the way we deal with these issues, but we have to deliver it. Once it becomes law, we have to be consistent and vigilant to ensure that the Bill’s good intentions are delivered. That will mean a profound cultural shift. Hopefully the Bill will restore trust in our democracy and our institutions, so that when in future we say that something should never happen again, we can be confident that it will not.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On Saturday 15 April 1989, I visited my grandfather. I was a 15-year-old boy, and he had been taken into hospital a week or so before after a heart attack. He was a former chief constable in Wiltshire police. His immediate and clear response to what had happened that day was to say that the police were at fault. Two days later he died and we never followed it up, but that conversation had a profound effect on me. Over the years since, as I aspired to come to this place, I have seen what has happened. It is truly lamentable that the British state failed to come to terms with what happened. I have listened to the speeches from the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) with a degree of humility at their determination to change what has happened in this country over many, many scandals.
I want to make a small contribution this evening to reflect on my exposure to the infected blood scandal when I was in office as a Minister until last year. I also want to pay tribute to my successor, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who has done an excellent job in taking forward what was required in the spirit of the cross-party consensus that exists on this issue.
I completely support the principle of the legislation before the House this evening, and I am totally clear about the inadequacy of the existing mechanisms for holding public officials to account. Over 18 days I visited 40 groups who have been affected and infected as part of the infected blood scandal, and every one of those people I spoke to had had a negative experience with officialdom at some point during their time seeking justice for themselves or their loved ones. It was profoundly depressing to think that, despite all the apparent determination of Government after Government and Minister after Minister, we were still dealing with this 40 or 50 years after the scandal occurred. It is a tragedy that we can no longer rely on common law offences and have to move to a statutory regime that codifies expectations, but I do believe that this legislation will bring greater scrutiny and interrogation of the acts and omissions of public bodies.
I want to make a point about public inquiries. They have grown significantly in number in recent years. As of last month, a record 25 public inquiries are open. Between 1990 and 2025, 87 public inquiries were launched, compared with just 19 in the previous 30 years. Despite their proliferation, inquiries often fail to deliver timely justice or to prevent future tragedies. In fact, they are taking longer than ever to conclude. I do hope that, as part of the response to those facts, we collectively examine what we think should happen in public inquiries.
Public inquiries cannot be shut down by accountable Government Ministers; they rely on the chair to shut them down. I was looking at the infected blood public inquiry, and I am not casting any doubt over the integrity of the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, but upwards of £150 million has been spent on that inquiry. I feel that it is wrong that we in this House, sent here to do a job of work in whatever area of Government, have got into the habit and practice of delegating more and more responsibility for resolving matters to arm’s length bodies and public inquiries in the belief that it will create a more virtuous, correct and timely outcome.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Member agree that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to stop the cover-ups and save the public purse money?
John Glen
I absolutely do, and I sincerely believe that it is likely to achieve that, but we must not miss the opportunity to reflect on what is going wrong with this principle of not taking more proactive responsibility for wrongs that have happened.
My exposure through the infected blood compensation scheme taught me that over 40 years there had been deliberate attempts to slightly change the emphasis in responses, to give a concession of a little bit of compensation here or there. The truth is that those delays—most importantly—made things massively worse for the victims, but they also cost the public purse enormous sums of money. I welcome this legislation, but I ask the Minister to address that point when she responds.
Bishop James Jones referred in 2017 to:
“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.
What a powerful phrase, and one that should humble all of us and help us all to ensure that whatever provisions, whatever definitions, and whatever “candour, transparency and frankness” means, the legislation is enforceable and meaningful and that we can avoid some of the absolutely appalling outcomes, which have been so horrendous in undermining the general public’s confidence in this place and in our Government.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Today is the culmination of over three decades of determined advocacy and persistence by a dedicated group of campaigners in search of social justice, many of whom are in the Gallery and were referred to by name by the Prime Minister. I wish to put on the record my thanks and admiration to all those who, in many cases, have put their own lives on hold in their search for justice—a justice denied for so long to so many people. It should not have taken this long, and we are still not quite there yet. But a significant milestone has been reached, and I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment today and his commitment to ensuring that the Bill will not be watered down, and I thank the ministerial team as well.
The time has arrived to deliver on the promises made to the families and friends of the victims of so many scandals that have damaged the integrity of so many of our institutions. Put simply, those institutions involved in cover-up, disingenuity, duplicity, deceit, manipulation, artifice, contrivance and silence, among other descriptors, have been found wanting, to say the least. Hillsborough, the Post Office, infected blood, Grenfell Tower, Windrush, Orgreave, the Manchester arena, and no doubt many others, have dishonoured those institutions but not necessarily, of course, all the many dedicated people who work in those institutions. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has also given his commitment that the Bill will not be watered down. I am pleased that Ministers have given a commitment to work with families to improve the Bill as it goes through Parliament.
The Bill is not an end in itself, per se. There will, of course, be the drafting of the code of practice for public officials, which will need input from families to ensure that the provisions of the Bill will be built upon. That has been referred to by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright).
It is fair to say that after so many years of disappointment and disillusionment, campaigners have every right to be guarded, cautious and possibly sceptical as the process runs its course, but I know that many Members in this House and the other House will examine the Bill closely with commitment and passion.
I started by putting on the record my thanks to the campaigners, and I reaffirm that. I would like now to put my thanks on the record to other campaigners, including lawyers, associated professionals and so many others who have been there all the way.
As a blue, I rarely, if ever—in fact, never—thank a red for anything. But as long as we keep it in this Chamber and it does not go public, I will make an exception or two. First, my red hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) has, along with another red, the Liverpool metro Mayor Steve Rotheram—I am getting a bit anxious now—worked to push this process along in partnership with the families, but I know the input and guidance from a blue, Manchester metro Mayor Andy Burnham, has been invaluable. Dare I say it? Liverpool 2—Everton 1, but it is still not full time.
It goes without saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) has been a long-standing advocate for this legislation. Her contribution was witness to that tenacity, as her work has been over decades in this House on this matter.
Liverpool FC’s legendary manager Bill Shankly said,
“For a player to be good enough to play for Liverpool, he must be prepared to run through a brick wall for me then come out fighting on the other side.”
The survivors and the families of the victims of those scandals I mentioned and others have faced and broken through so many brick walls and are here, remarkably, still playing. I hope that their fight has now, at last, come towards an end. I hope that this legislation will be a living monument to all those who have lost lives, livelihoods, loved ones and freedom. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to all the campaigners to whom we owe so much.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
That day in September 2012 remains vivid in my memory: the day the independent panel, chaired by Bishop James Jones, finally confirmed that public officials had hidden the truth about the Hillsborough disaster. It was a day the families had waited for so long for, a day they had worked tirelessly to bring about. It was the first day that their persistence prevailed, the first breakthrough in what would become a chain reaction that has led us here today.
During that time, I was a councillor in Liverpool. I remember knocking on doors that evening and being met by absolute relief on people’s faces—the tide was starting to turn. The families came that day to speak to the council. The emotions in that room were among the strongest that I have ever experienced. For the first time, the families felt that power could be held to account and justice might one day be served.
However, to this day, no one has been held accountable for the Hillsborough disaster. The 97 and their families are still living without the justice they deserve. Yet the families remain selfless, motivated by the greater good, working to protect others in the future—people unknown to them. Their campaign has continued for three decades, but it must have felt like a lifetime. The truth has taken so long to be uncovered that key campaigners like Anne Williams, Phil Hammond, Rose Robinson and Barry Devonside are sadly no longer here to see the legislation come before the House, but their fortitude and determination were nothing short of astounding. They have mine and the nation’s utmost respect.
To be wrongly and publicly shamed, smeared and blamed for a tragedy of such scale is something that no one can imagine experiencing. Then to face the institutions of state in court, without the means to navigate the law and our complex legal system professionally, is nothing short of devastating. The fact that public bodies that can effectively silence citizens, who must find millions of pounds to stand up against them, is simply unacceptable. To not only endure but passionately oppose lying, victim-blaming, delays and denials for years takes unwavering strength.
What the fans and their families endured is all too familiar to many others across this country. The Bill is not about only one place or one group of victims; it is about how we can hold power to account. Those who have suffered, both directly and indirectly, from the state-driven scandals that have been mentioned are familiar with the feelings of powerlessness, grief and justified anger. The infected blood scandal is just one example of unimaginable suffering—people endured not only physical harm but haunting social stigma and lasting damage. Children as young as seven were told that they would die. Some lost multiple members of their family, only to be left in social isolation. That is not to mention a serious lack of transparency and years of delays, and many victims dying before justice or compensation even began. Sir Brian Langstaff rightly called the delays for the blood scandal victims
“an injustice all of its own.”
No Government can be allowed to act on serious state failures behind closed doors, without a legal duty of candour. People who bravely seek justice must no longer be ignored and pushed aside by successive Governments. It is admirable that those affected by the multiple tragedies since Hillsborough have continually come together to fight for prevailing and lasting change. The Hillsborough Law Now group is a formidable force. Yet it should not be that way. People should not have to sacrifice their lives to see change. Successive Governments should not be pushing back and dragging their feet at every turn.
This Bill should have been introduced to the House far, far earlier than the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough. If it had been in place 36 years ago, all the pain, trauma, repeated legal proceedings and investigations would never have happened. I join the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, Inquest, the Law Society and numerous other groups that have expressed their relief about this law finally being put in place. Although compensation for those scandals is crucial, victims and the British public want to see justice and change. That is why the Bill is a victory for sufferers of all the state-caused scandals in our recent history. It is owed to each and every one of them.
Although we must all ensure that the Bill retains its strength during its journey through Parliament, more can be done. We can push for stronger whistleblowing protections, robust enforcement mechanisms, non-means-tested legal aid for survivors, and a Leveson 2 inquiry to hold the media to account. The Bill will ensure that silence in the face of wrongdoing no longer prevails. Public organisations will no longer be able to place reputation management above the truth. The Bill will be a legacy for the 97 who never came home, and their families, who will never walk alone.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
This has been a long time coming. We finally have before us a Bill that is, in the eyes of those who matter—some of whom are sat in the Gallery today—worthy of the name “Hillsborough law”. That is a huge achievement and, as others have said, it is the result of a lot of hard work and campaigning by a lot of people.
The fact that victims have had to fight so hard just to get to this point shows exactly why the Bill is needed. Nobody should have to fight the state for truth and justice after the death of a loved one—nobody. The way the Hillsborough families have fought for so long is inspirational, but the fact that they have had to do so is unacceptable. They should never have been put through it.
I was just nine years old when Hillsborough happened. I vividly recall the news and images coming through that day. I can remember seeing the TV reports and the national newspapers in the days and weeks that followed. Most of all, I remember the shocking speed at which completely false allegations were invented and deliberately spread about the victims and the ordinary fans who tried to help them. I remember the lies that were told about innocent men, women and children who simply went to watch a football game. Those lies were told, encouraged and believed by people in positions of power—including in this place—whose duty was supposed to be to protect ordinary people. Those lies stuck. They piled insults and further harm on top of unimaginable pain, grief and loss.
It has taken 36 years to get to this point—to have the Prime Minister introduce a Bill in this place, with a Government so clearly committed to delivering this law and a worthy legacy for victims not just of Hillsborough but of other scandals such as Grenfell, the Manchester Arena attack, Orgreave, the infected blood scandal and so many others—it would take the rest of my available time to mention them. By doing so, we pay tribute to the victims, survivors and families not just in words but in action, to better protect ordinary people now and in the future.
I have met and known families who were affected by Hillsborough, including the Aspinall family. Margaret Aspinall is in the Gallery today, and her daughter Kerry is a lifelong friend of my wife. I have seen the impact that it has had on their family. They live and breathe it to this day.
Time and again, innocent ordinary people have been treated appallingly while at their most vulnerable. The state, which should be there to protect them and serve them, has too often deliberately got in their way, obstructed justice and protected itself instead of the victims. I have always said that I cannot and will not support anything called a Hillsborough law if the Hillsborough families did not feel that it was worthy of that name, so I am delighted that they support the Bill before us. I am also pleased to hear that, so far, all the talk has been of strengthening the Bill, not watering it down.
However, the Bill is not perfect, and the Hillsborough Law Now campaign group— many of whom are in the Gallery—has identified areas in which we can improve and strengthen it. I have known one of that group’s members, Debbie Caine, who is not here today, for many years. She has campaigned tirelessly for years to get us to this point, and I thank her for everything that she has done. The campaign group want to ensure that the duty of candour applies consistently to all public authorities, including the security and intelligence services. They ask for certainty about the commencement of the Bill, and insist—not unreasonably—that it should come into force upon Royal Assent, not at some unspecified later date. They ask for enhanced whistleblowing protections specific to disclosures made under the new duty of candour. They also have concerns about the current wording on “harm”, which is limited to an identifiable victim. As we know from numerous shameful examples, public deceit can cause institutional or systemic harm rather than individual injury, and we need clarity on that.
I am sure that those and other issues will be the subject of some debate in Committee. I want to be clear that, from this moment, the process must result in a stronger Bill, not a weaker one. Too many people have had to fight too hard for too long just to get to this point. We must see this through and get it right. This is no time to be timid. We were elected with a mandate to deliver this law and to do so properly. The victims of Hillsborough and too many other tragedies deserve nothing less.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I echo many other Members across the House in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families. I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland, but I have to confess that I am a red. We heard of their plight and took that plight on as our own.
I cannot see up to the Gallery, but I say to Margaret and everybody else up there: we are thinking of you and hold you in our hearts today. This is your day. What you have managed to do has reverberated not just throughout Liverpool and the whole of the United Kingdom, but throughout the world. You have set the gold standard—a price that we should never have expected you to pay.
To lose family members at any time is extremely traumatic, but to lose them in the way that you lost your loved ones, and the subsequent cover-up—as other Members have mentioned today, this is not simply about statutory organisations and their response; it is also about the role of the press.
Last summer, whenever this Parliament sat for the first time, the Prime Minister said that this would be a Government of service, and I really do believe that this legislation is the best example of that so far. This Bill is all about service to people and service to community. When I entered Parliament last year, I found a kindred spirit in my friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). This subject is personal to me and my constituents, because many people in Lagan Valley and Northern Ireland were impacted by the infected blood scandal; some of those families are my constituents. This is about a pattern and, as others have referenced—I will say it out loud for the avoidance of doubt—there is also a strong element of class within this. People do not understand. If you have been brought up and raised by the state, for want of a better word—reliant on it for financial and other support—if you are pregnant and someone tells you to take a pill because you have morning sickness, you take the pill and believe that you will be okay. And when people start to ask questions, you don’t ask why.
So many women across the UK took that pill: Thalidomide, Primodos, sodium valproate, aggressions against women as they were labouring, the Ockenden report—so many issues littering across our culture and our United Kingdom. And the pattern is always the same: transgressions against people who sometimes do not even know how to raise the alarm. If you were to ask the person on the Clapham omnibus, “Do you know what the Public Interest Disclosure Act is? Do you know how to utilise your rights in regard to that piece of legislation?”, they are going to look at you; they are going to turn around and say, “I’m not gonna tout on the boss.” That is a cultural phenomenon, and it is one that persists because we have such inequality within this country—inequality in housing and in education. We can see a huge social gulf widening every day. Why should we be surprised whenever people who are done wrong by the state feel that they have nowhere to turn? They cannot even see themselves that they have been done wrong.
This matter transcends politics, and it has been heartening to hear that echoed across the House today. This is not a matter of party politics; this is about representing our constituents to the best of our ability. This legislation is so important because it represents the UK Government finally recognising that honesty and transparency are not optional virtues; they are the foundations of justice.
Today in the Northern Ireland Assembly, my colleagues have spoken about one of the biggest health scandals of our time: the cervical smear scandal in the Southern trust, which includes part of my Lagan Valley constituency. Some 17,000 women had their smear tests read incorrectly. Two of them have already passed away: Erin Harbinson and Lynsey Courtney, both young mothers. We are still waiting for adequate responses as to why that happened, and that is in just one part of the UK.
There is another reason that this is legislation is so important and personal to me: the experience of my Lagan Valley constituents, the Conroy family. I am really grateful to my friends and Members from Northern Ireland for mentioning the Chinook crash—the case of flight Zulu Delta 576. Twenty-nine people on board were killed and there were no survivors, but what happened afterwards should be considered, and is, a stain on the corporate body of the UK. It should not be materially relevant, but fact is that all those people on board gave their lives in service to protecting people. And they were repaid by the state denying justice and just saying that the four special forces pilots were wrong—that was it; nothing to see.
If were it not for the persistence of the families of Flight Lieutenants Rick Cook and Jonathan Tapper, the families would have walked away by today. It was not until over a year ago that a documentary aired and some of the families found out that, actually, the findings relating to the Chinook crash are sealed for 100 years. I understand that is because of information related to the people on board the craft, but we can get round that with a public immunity certificate. The families deserve answers, and if this Government are serious about this legislation, this should be the first test case.
Richard Foord
At present it is not obvious what public servants should do if relevant material cannot be disclosed because it is of an intelligence or security nature. Does the hon. Lady think that strengthening the reach of the Intelligence and Security Committee might help to bring some oversight of the sort that her constituents, and mine, would expect?
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
This moment carries immense weight for me and for so many others here today—for all those who have lost loved ones, those who carry the scars, and those who survived but never recovered from the trauma of being dragged innocently into a state cover-up. This Bill is not just about legislation, although that is vital; this Bill is about legacy. It is about truth, justice and accountability—three words that the establishment has resisted at every turn, and three words that we have fought to place at the heart of the Bill.
Let me speak briefly about why I have fought so hard for those words. Like so many, I was at Hillsborough in 1989. Like so many, I witnessed the cover-up unfold. Ninety-seven innocent men, women and children were unlawfully killed, and countless more lives shattered, but the tragedy was only the beginning. The cover-up that followed was deliberate—a calculated attempt to rewrite history and shift the blame on to the victims. Let us never forget what the chief constable of South Yorkshire police admitted in 2012, after the Hillsborough independent panel:
“In the immediate aftermath senior officers sought to change the record of events. Disgraceful lies were told which blamed the Liverpool fans for the disaster. Statements were altered which sought to minimise police blame.”
I saw that with my own eyes. I sat beside my dad, who was seriously injured at Hillsborough, in the Liverpool office of Elkan Abrahamson, who is here today—one of the architects of the Bill, along with Pete Weatherby—when he received his revised statement. The anger, dismay, and betrayal that he felt reading the lies written in his name is something that I will never ever forget, and it is why this means so much to me.
It took 23 years for South Yorkshire police to admit the scale of its cover-up, yet by 2020—31 years after Hillsborough—no public servant had been convicted, and no police officer disciplined. In fact, Norman Bettison, who was absolutely central to the cover-up, not only escaped sanction but was rewarded with a knighthood for his efforts—a title he disgracefully retains to this day. So yes, we got the truth, but justice? No. That is why we are here today. This Bill must be worthy of the 97 who were unlawfully killed. It must be worthy of all who have suffered at the hands of a state that covers up its failures.
I want to thank everyone who has helped us reach this point. There are so many to name; so many are sitting here today, so many will be sitting at home watching this on the TV, and some are no longer with us. I pay tribute to the campaign groups behind Hillsborough Law Now: the Hillsborough families and survivors; Truth About Zane; nuclear test veterans; contaminated blood campaigners; Post Office Horizon scandal victims; Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice; Grenfell United; the Fire Brigades Union; the Manchester Arena families; Primodos campaigners; and of course Inquest. All have faced the same wall of silence, the same institutional defensiveness, the same decades-long fight for truth, and the pain that that brings. That is why the Bill must not be watered down. It must include every strengthening measure promised by Ministers, including a duty of candour that applies to all inquiries including local ones, and parity of funding must be enshrined as a clear principle within it.
Time and again, grieving families have faced the full might of the state, armed only with determination, while public bodies deploy teams of lawyers to protect reputations and shield those responsible. The imbalance is grotesque, and absolutely deliberate. Let us be clear: the establishment will try to weaken the Bill. They will say it is too complex, too costly, too disruptive, but what they really mean is that it is too effective, because it threatens their impunity. The scale of state cover-ups should shame this House, but over the years this place has played a key role in their creation and concealment. That can change today, with this Bill. As it passes through Parliament, I and others will examine it line by line to ensure that it remains fit to bear the name Hillsborough.
While I thank the Government for getting us here today, I must raise a few issues that need to be addressed in Committee and on Report. The Bill rightly creates both corporate and individual duties, which are so fundamentally important when we look to avoid another Grenfell. Clause 2(5) requires the person in charge of a public body to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance, but it does not make the chief officer or executive liable. Without that individual accountability, the deterrent power of command responsibility is lost and the culture of cover-ups that we are trying to end may continue. I urge hon. Members to press the Government to strengthen that provision.
David Baines
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for all the work that he has done for years to help to get us to this point—it is incredible. I completely agree with him about the things that need to be done to strengthen the Bill, but does he agree that this is the start of the process—just another step on the journey—and not the end by any means?
Ian Byrne
My hon. Friend makes a fair point; this is a great start but there is a long way to go yet, and we need to keep our foot to the pedal.
The Government recognise the need for a statutory duty of candour to change the culture of cover-ups. Candour is not incompatible with national security. The duty to tell the truth must apply to everyone, including intelligence agencies. Carve-outs for individual officers undermine this Bill and, frankly, have no place in legislation about candour. Accountability would improve the performance of our security services and surely enhance our safety, not lessen it. The Government have been offered a simple amendment to fix this issue in the Bill, and to ensure that accountability, by the lawyers connected to Hillsborough Law Now. I urge hon. Members and the Government to support it.
Colleagues, we did not get here without a long, collective effort from so many, and we must continue that same collective effort to ensure that truth, justice and accountability are finally—finally—enshrined in law. The Bill must honour those already wronged by the state, those who fought for justice on their behalf and those who might come after us, but it must also mark the beginning of the end for the suffering of innocent working-class people dragged into the vortex of a state cover-up.
My message remains crystal clear: anything less than the Hillsborough law delivered in full would be a further betrayal of the 97, and indeed unworthy of the name Hillsborough. All of us in this place, and those watching, will carry on, relentless, until we get that legacy.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
This Bill certainly is long overdue. I previously contributed to the excellent debate in Westminster Hall that was secured by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has just made another fantastic contribution to the campaign. He has been a tireless campaigner for justice since the disaster in 1989.
The Scottish National party supports the Bill and we will work with the UK Government to change the culture of secrecy and cover-up, which for far too long has characterised too much of our public life. Scotland and the rest of the UK are well served by the exceptional dedication and commitment of our public officials, who work every day to keep our communities safe. However, it is right that we should be able to trust that those who serve in a public role fulfil very high standards of behaviour and conduct throughout their careers.
The sad reality is that when these failures were discovered, far too often the wagons were circled, rather than good-faith efforts being made to provide transparency and justice. So often in my own career in health and social care, I witnessed public bodies and senior executives responding to adverse events in defensive ways, declining to offer apologies to avoid financial cost and seeking to hide the truth to protect careers. But the buck stops in this place ultimately.
To reiterate, the SNP Scottish Government are supportive of the aims of the Bill and have been engaging closely with the UK Government on this legislation, including on how it may be extended to Scotland and which Scottish legislation will require amendment. If so, a legislative consent motion will be presented to the Scottish Parliament for debate. In the meantime, public servants are, of course, expected to continue to follow all existing codes, and professional and legal obligations, until the Bill is fully implemented. The SNP Scottish Government have already taken legislative steps to introduce a duty of candour in areas of public life in Scotland, but this Bill must now be the catalyst to change organisational culture across these islands for good.
I fully agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the Bill would benefit from the establishment of an office of the whistleblower. That has to be one of the outcomes of the eventual passing of this legislation. We fully support the measures dealing with enforcement and compliance, but the key question is: when will we see an end to cover-up, denial, obfuscation and defensiveness? This law must extend not only to intelligence services, but their individual officers. It must make it clear that there is a single, clear point of accountability for chief executives of public bodies and other leaders with command responsibilities. Some legal experts believe that the Bill’s wording on that may be weak, and there is a case for reviewing and strengthening this part of the Bill.
We welcome the proposed code of ethical conduct, and the extension of the law to private bodies with public service health and safety responsibilities. Clause 5 allows for a prison sentence of up to two years for the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour. That could be unduly lenient when one considers some of the more serious scandals.
The inclusion of the concept of “victim harm” in clause 11 may not be as helpful as it sounds, as it would potentially exclude those who, for example, simply falsify statistics, for whatever reason, and are not directly creating any specific victims. That wording could be reviewed. We welcome the commitment to equality of arms in court proceedings, and to ensuring that victims and their families have full recourse to legal aid. In the past, the absence of public funding has too often been an insurmountable obstacle.
On a further matter of detail, already mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester, the Bill makes no reference to newspapers or other media outlets, some of which were up to their necks in law breaking, as demonstrated by the Leveson inquiry. As hon. Members will know, Leveson 2 was meant to investigate the relationship between the press and the police, but it was cancelled by the Cameron Government. As a result, there is little or no accountability in this area. There is still deep hurt in Liverpool at the conduct of some editorial staff and journalists at The Sun newspaper all those years ago. There are other examples of misconduct and even law breaking. Will the Bill provide some solutions relevant to the media? If not, how do the Government intend to address this issue?
I alluded at the outset to devolved matters. There is a clear need to work proactively with devolved Administrations on legal provisions that will require amendment. There have been so many examples in recent times of an utter failure to consult, liaise or communicate with the devolved Administrations, but that cannot happen in this instance. I hope that we will see maximum co-operation on these matters. My party and I stand ready to make a constructive contribution as this Bill passes on to its next stages.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill. I start by thanking the Prime Minister for delivering on our manifesto promise to bring the Hillsborough law before the House. As a Liverpool MP and someone who had family and friends at Hillsborough—they fortunately all came home—I would not have accepted anything that was not accepted by the families, and I know that my neighbouring colleagues feel the same. I am grateful, as I know the families will be, to the Prime Minister for confirming that he will accept no watering down of the Bill during its parliamentary passage. I sincerely hope that those in the other place have heard that pledge loud and clear.
I pay tribute to my constituent Mark Corrigan, who is in the Public Gallery, along with many family members of the 97. Mark’s brother Keith McGrath was one of the 97 who was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. His parents, Mary and Joe Corrigan, fought all the way to the end for truth and justice, and demonstrated the strength, dignity and resilience of all the families.
Our city, on the banks of the Mersey, knows about solidarity, love and empathy. We have one another’s backs, and we know all too well that an injustice to one is an injustice to all. I can say proudly that the bonds that were forged in the fire of 15 April 1989 are as a strong today as ever. As I have said previously in this place, Scousers have long memories. We shall never forget. We will continue to mourn our lost loved ones, and we will always fight for truth and justice, opposing those who continue to spread the appalling lies about that fateful day with every fibre of our being.
On that point, Margaret Aspinall, who lost her son James at Hillsborough, has said:
“Today Hillsborough Law is finally debated in Parliament. But justice won’t be done until the S*n, too is made to answer for its abuses. The Prime Minister promised us that he would see this through. It is time for him to deliver the justice he promised, to build on today’s vital achievement by making Leveson 2 a reality, and ensure the media is held to account for its role in state failures and cover-ups.”
Appallingly, The Sun played a key role in the cover-up of the Hillsborough disaster by working with South Yorkshire police to spread lies about what happened and hide the truth.
The Bill before us does not contain any references to Leveson 2 or the role of the press and is exclusively focused on public officials and authorities. As welcome as that is, I would be grateful if the Prime Minister could update the House as soon as possible—I note that he is no longer in his place. Will he consider establishing a public inquiry into the relationship between the police and The Sun? Will he keep his promises by meeting with victims of press abuses and working with them to introduce further legislation to tackle press standards and corruption? If any small flicker of light can come from the darkness of Hillsborough, it must be protection for succeeding generations from the pain and anguish of the lies, the misinformation and the cover-ups that we witnessed and suffered from for more than three decades.
I welcome the fact that this law will ensure that families bereaved by public disasters are treated far better and do not have to fight for decades, and I welcome the duty of candour, although I can hardly believe that we must legislate for people to tell the truth. The fact that it has taken more than three decades to get to this point is a grotesque abdication of responsibility by those in this place to those whom we represent, those who do not pull the levers of power, and those with little resource other than their collective determined voice.
When we say “Never again” to Hillsborough, we are also saying “Never again” to Grenfell, the Manchester Arena attack, the Horizon scandal, nuclear test veterans, the infected blood scandal and so many more. If the law does not place itself on the side of ordinary, good and decent people, it will consign itself to being a hobby tool for the privileged and powerful in safeguarding their own interests.
We should never hear just the voices of those in this place; we should listen to the people who do not walk these corridors of power. Let us give power to them and amplify their voices. Anything less is an injustice. We need to pass this Bill in full for the families, the victims, and the survivors. Justice for the 97!
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my role as vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation?
The Bill places new obligations of transparency and frankness on public authorities and officials, leaving them nowhere to hide from public scrutiny of their actions. I absolutely applaud those aims. We have been offered the opportunity to strengthen the Bill, and I have a contribution to make that stems from more than a decade of listening to whistleblowers. The UK has no proper law on whistleblowing or for protecting whistleblowers. Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, gives a measure of protection from detriments to workers and employees who make what are termed “public interest disclosures”. However, that provision treats such detriments as essentially employment matters; it does not once use the words “whistleblowing” or “whistleblower” and does not extend beyond workers and employees. It is highly technical, puts all sorts of barriers and difficulties in the way of workers and employees who make public interest disclosures, focuses exclusively on the employment context, and rarely—if ever—leads to any wider investigation of the substantive matters about which the worker or employee makes a disclosure.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill misses an opportunity: it could and should have recognised the important role played by whistleblowers in ensuring accountability. The whistleblower is, or should be, the best friend of every chief executive officer, every board, and every Minister. Whistleblowers want to see an end to crime, corruption and cover-up; they do not want to be fired for raising their concerns. Almost everyone will recognise the major scandals in which whistleblowers have reported what was happening again and again but have not been believed or, worse, have been invited or forced to leave their role. The case against whistleblowers is all about protection of reputation and the imbalance of power, and I recognise entirely what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said.
Explicit recognition was given to the role of whistleblowers in the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on 9 July 2025, with the support of the Hillsborough victims. Clauses 2, 5(1) and 9 in that Bill would have been of huge significance in advancing the protection of whistleblowers. For the first time in legislation, the Bill gave explicit recognition to whistleblowing—a word which had hitherto not featured in the legislative lexicon. The ten-minute rule Bill sought to extend the concept of public interest disclosures beyond employment law; it would have extended whistleblower protection to all who blow the whistle, many of whom will be outside the scope of employment law. If that Bill had proceeded, whistleblowing as a legal concept would have broken out of the confines of employment law.
Clause 9 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill requires public authorities to publish codes of ethics. It would be easy for the Government to take into their Bill the provision from the earlier Bill requiring public authority codes of ethics to recognise the need to protect whistleblowers. It is deeply disappointing and unfortunate that it does not, and I ask the Minister to address that point and amend the Bill in her mission to strengthen it. If that were to happen, it would be a start, but further reform would still be needed. First, the provision would apply only when the potential wrongdoer was a public authority within the scope of the Bill. Secondly, such protection as would be given would arise only indirectly through the existence of a code of ethics. Thirdly, the Bill would lack teeth to deal with breaches of the code of ethics. Fourthly, there would still be no mechanism for investigating and following up the wrongdoing that a whistleblower might have uncovered.
There remains an urgent need to set up the office of the whistleblower, and to extend the Bill’s scope to include contractors in the private sector—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. May I remind the hon. Lady of the scope of this Bill?
Tessa Munt
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sought to pick up on the Minister’s and Prime Minister’s intention of ensuring that the Bill is as strong as it can be.
The Bill should cover contractors in the private sector as well as the public sector, as was mentioned, if it is to have real teeth and ensure that wrongdoing is fully investigated and that wrongdoers are brought to account. Will the Minister meet me and whistleblowers to explore the scope of this Bill?
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
That day in April 1989 will never leave us. Fans went to the match and never came home. They were not lost; they were unlawfully killed. Authorities protecting themselves; decades of denial, distortion, and lies; a press slandering the dead and the grieving; a cover-up and systematic failure of the state that cut deeper and lasted longer than anyone could have imagined—and still not one successful prosecution. That is why we are here today. That is why the families and survivors continue to fight.
We have all seen their courage and determination, and I cannot express what it means to be in this place with so many members of the Hillsborough families with us in the Chamber today. One of them is Margaret Aspinall, from Huyton. She has asked me to say some words on her behalf. She has repeated many times to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General that the group wants the Hillsborough law to be delivered in its entirety, with no changes or watering down. That will create a system that is so much fairer for families who have lost a loved one in a state-related death. Today, it is the perpetrators who get the help, while the victims get a massive cover-up. It must never again be a one-way system.
Delivering on that promise means delivering the Hillsborough law in full. That means imposing duties on chief officers, rather than corporate bodies. This matters, because the duty should have been on the chief constable, Peter Wright, rather than on South Yorkshire police. Requiring proof of harm makes the “misleading the public” offence impractical and ineffective.
Delivering the Hillsborough law in full also means bringing forward an amendment to deal with combined and local authority inquiries. Without such an amendment, the result could be the intelligence services failing to properly provide the full facts to inquiries. We must avoid what the King’s Counsel to the families of those who tragically lost their lives in the Manchester Arena attack called “institutional defensiveness” and a lack of candour from MI5. As this Bill progresses, the families and Members of this House will continue to watch, in order to make sure that the Hillsborough law is exactly what this Government deliver.
Margaret’s son, James Aspinall, died at Hillsborough aged just 18. She was forced to accept 1,200 quid, which was supposed to represent compensation for James’s life—1,200 quid for the life of her son. She was forced to cash it against her will because she could not find the money to pay her share of the families’ legal costs. As she has said,
“Making a mother, like myself, accept a pittance to fight a cause. The guilt of this has lived with me for years.”
Such practices have not stopped; since the Hillsborough verdict, other families have been made to beg for legal aid.
Charlotte Hennessy is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Sir Mark Tami), who as a Government Whip does not have the opportunity to speak today and tell her story. Charlotte was just six when her dad, Jimmy Hennessy, went to the match and never came home. Jimmy was 29. He was a plasterer, a man of morals, a mod—he looked good—and a respected family man. For 23 years, Charlotte was told that he died of traumatic asphyxiation. It was not until 2012 that she learned the truth. Her dad was found alive on that pitch. A police officer testified that he felt life and gave him CPR. Jimmy was carried to the gym, where he was supposed to receive medical support. He was declared dead, but he was not dead; he was still alive when he was zipped into a body bag, and he vomited inside it. The pathology report was false: Jimmy did not die in the crush, but from inhalation of his own gastric contents.
Can you imagine dying like that? Can you imagine knowing that your dad died like that? Charlotte has told me about the agony of living with an official lie, but she has fought to piece together her dad’s truth. She told me:
“A Hillsborough Law, with a duty of candour, is imperative. It must stop corruption and prevent any other family from going through”
the pain that her family went through.
It is right that the Government have attempted to match the courage of the families and to be bold, but Hillsborough is not a one-off. Again and again, the state fails those who need the most protection. There must be justice for the 97, but also for every family who have faced the same nightmare, or might face it one day. We cannot let them down. This Bill must be delivered in full, with no watering down. I look forward to the Minister promising, as the Prime Minister has from the Dispatch Box today, that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law—that it will be strong enough to protect every victim of state failure and finally deliver justice for the 97.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
In welcoming this Bill, I am very mindful of the tenacity and courage of the campaigners who got us to this point, both outside and inside this House. They can take some comfort from this Bill today. I trust that it is a Bill that will live up to its promise. As I mentioned in my intervention on the Prime Minister, I trust that it will bring justice to the Chinook families, for example, who have been treated to serial cover-ups in respect of that appalling incident.
However, there are issues with the Bill that I want to probe. It declares in its very first clause that:
“The purpose of this Act is to ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…(a) with candour, transparency and frankness, and (b) in the public interest”.
But will it be at all times? We discover in the Bill that the only criminal sanction applies to those who do not show candour, transparency and frankness to a public inquiry or a public investigation. In many such cases, there would already be the threat of perjury, so where is the commitment to ensure that there is candour at all times?
Jim Allister
If the Minister wants to make an intervention, I am quite happy to take it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments, but the Bill literally says that there is a duty of candour “at all times”.
Jim Allister
It does, and then it goes on to tell us in clause 1(2) how it imposes that duty. There are five ways in which it does so. The first is by
“imposing a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations and imposing criminal liability for breach of that duty”.
That is the only criminal liability that would arise from a breach of the duty of candour. The second way is by imposing an ethical code on public authorities. No criminal offence is committed if someone breaches that ethical code—none whatsoever. The third, fourth and fifth ways, in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), are by
“imposing criminal liability on public authorities and public officials who mislead the public in ways that are seriously improper”,
by
“imposing criminal liability for seriously improper acts by individuals holding public office and for breaches of duties to prevent death or serious injury”,
and by
“making provision about parity at inquiries”
about legal aid.
The Prime Minister told us that the Bill would apply across the whole United Kingdom, but sadly it does not. Clause 24, the extent clause, makes it plain that the last three paragraphs of clause 1, which I have just read out, do not apply to Northern Ireland or to Scotland. The Bill in its entirety applies only to England and Wales, meaning that clause 11, for example—which is an important clause, because it does create a criminal offence, that of misleading the public—does not apply anywhere other than in England and Wales. Why should that be? Why is this Bill not drafted in such a way that those clauses apply to the whole United Kingdom, after which the Assemblies of Scotland and Northern Ireland can deploy the mechanism of legislative consent?
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The hon. and learned Member may or may not be aware that in order for those sections to apply across the UK, the Scottish Government would have to agree to a Sewel motion—a legislative consent motion—that would allow this place to legislate for Scotland. Justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament—it has been since the Act of Union and before. That is something that is valued, so there would have to be that agreement. It is not something that can be laid at the feet of this Minister.
Jim Allister
That is exactly what I said. Why does clause 11 not apply to the whole United Kingdom on the basis of a legislative consent motion? Such a motion could be sought from Stormont and from Edinburgh, and in that means we could have uniformity across the United Kingdom. That is the mechanism for doing it, but the starting point is to make the clause applicable across the United Kingdom, and then to have the legislative consent motion that would enable it to be enforced. That is how Parliament works with the devolved institutions. [Interruption.] Members can shake their heads as much as they like, but I was a Member of a devolved institution and know that that is how it works—that emphatically is how it works.
Patricia Ferguson
The hon. and learned Member was a Member in Stormont. I was a Member of the Holyrood Parliament, where I was also the Minister for Parliamentary Business for three and a half years. It was my responsibility to take through legislation in that Parliament and to oversee the Sewel convention, and I can assure him that that is not how it happened.
Jim Allister
I disagree. Many, many times in the Stormont Assembly, Bills that were passing through this House, which included measures such as new criminal offences, were subject to a legislative consent motion. That then gave consent to proceed, and that mechanism could equally be used here. My question to the House is this: if this Bill is delivering the duty of candour by the five steps set out in clause 1(2), how can it do that for the whole United Kingdom if three of those steps do not apply throughout the United Kingdom?
Alex Davies-Jones
This is not a debate about the constitution; it is a debate about the duty of candour. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the intention is for all nations in the United Kingdom to be bound by this legislation. However, he will be fully aware of the devolved competencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland in this case. We are having positive engagement with both nations, and that is the intention of the Bill. I just remind him to perhaps bring the debate back to exactly what this Bill is about, with the families in the Gallery today.
Jim Allister
I therefore hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will indicate that, subject to legislative consent, she will indeed make this Bill apply across the whole United Kingdom, because my constituents are as entitled as anyone else to the same duty of candour that arises elsewhere.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. and learned Member is making a powerful point. The Minister referred to devolved competences. Does he agree that this Parliament is sovereign and has on many occasions intervened in laws in Northern Ireland that are devolved? It is therefore upon this Government to do the right thing and make all of this legislation applicable to Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
I agree absolutely, and such interventions have happened many times. If we are serious about saying there is a basis of equal citizenship across this United Kingdom, and that is what it is to belong to a United Kingdom, the duty of candour being given to England and Wales should equally be given to all of the United Kingdom. I welcome it for England and Wales, and I welcome it so far as it goes in Northern Ireland, but it does not go far enough. I am disappointed by the Government’s reticence to accept that this Bill, like any other, could be improved. A mighty step forward in improving it would be ensuring that it provides that duty of candour across the United Kingdom.
Jim Allister
I would give way, if I had not run out of time. I say to the Government, yes, let us go forward with this Bill, but let us make it a better Bill that gives the same rights across this United Kingdom.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I rise in support of this Bill today as the MP for Liverpool Riverside, as a very proud Scouser and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice. As we all know, Hillsborough stands as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen. This Bill is about a simple, powerful idea: truth and justice. Those two words should underpin our systems of power, but from Hillsborough to Orgreave, the Manchester Arena tragedy, the Shrewsbury 24, Grenfell and Windrush, we know that too often that simply is not the case.
For decades, working-class communities and the families who have lost loved ones have had to fight tooth and nail against institutions that were meant to protect them, only to find those same institutions closing ranks and themselves facing delay, denial and deceit. This Bill, and the Hillsborough law it seeks to deliver, are about ending the cycle once and for all.
Let us be honest, though: that progress did not happen by chance. It is down to the tireless efforts of families and campaigners who refused to give up. I pay tribute to those families and campaigners who were in the Gallery, and to those who fought very hard, but are no longer with us. They kept this issue alive when others tried to move on and bury it. I also want to say thanks and pay tribute to my good friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham for their work so far on bringing this Bill forward.
We know that this Bill, even with the best of intentions, may face obstacles. We have already heard about the possibility of it being watering down in the other place. We all know how things work in Westminster, and while it is welcome that the Government have brought the Bill forward, we are also being warned that it might be watered down, with its bite blunted and meaning diluted. It is on this House and all of us here to ensure that we fight back against that.
On that shocking day in 1989, 97 innocent people were unlawfully killed, but we must recognise that the injustice did not end that day. The real scandal began in the days, months and years that followed, when the machinery of the state turned on the victims and the families. Police statements were altered. Blatant lies were printed on the front pages, particularly by “The Scum” newspaper. Families were smeared and forced to relive the trauma for decades, just to prove what they already knew: that their loved ones were not to blame. That is why we need a Hillsborough law, with a statutory duty of candour on all public officials so that truth is not optional and cover-ups are impossible. If that duty had existed in 1989, those families might not have had to wait 36 years for justice.
If that duty had existed, perhaps we would not have seen the same play used again at Grenfell, or Orgreave, or with the infected blood scandal, the Post Office, Windrush and so many more that we have heard about in the Chamber this afternoon. We owe it to those families and to every family who has suffered injustice at the hands of the state to make sure it never happens again. That is why I want to take this opportunity to recognise the Cammell Laird workers, who were unjustly imprisoned in 1984 for standing up for their rights. Their struggle remains a stain on our history, and they are yet to receive justice. My good friend the former Member for Birkenhead is a staunch leader in that campaign, and I thank him for his incredible work. Their case, like Hillsborough, shows exactly why accountability in public office matters. When the state closes ranks, ordinary people pay the price.
This Bill must establish a legal duty of candour on public officials—a duty to tell the truth, to co-operate fully with investigations and inquiries and to act in the public interest, not for self-interest. It must ensure parity of legal funding for bereaved families, because justice should never depend on someone’s postcode or pay packet. The Bill must deliver real accountability with real consequences for those who lie, mislead or obstruct justice, because if we have learned anything from Hillsborough, it is that words without consequences are meaningless.
I am forever honoured to represent my home in this House. My city has lived and breathed this fight for more than three decades. It knows what institutional failure looks like and what courage, solidarity and persistence can achieve in the face of that failure. For the people of Liverpool, the fight for justice has never been abstract; it is deeply personal and born out of tragedy, betrayal and an unbreakable demand for truth. We are a proud city—proud of our history, our culture and, above all, our sense of solidarity. The campaign for justice after Hillsborough helped shape our modern identity, with a fierce refusal to be silenced, a stubborn loyalty to the truth and an unshakeable belief in collective action.
Liverpool has shown this country what dignity looks like in the pursuit of truth. Now it is time for this country to show Liverpool that it has learned the lessons. I urge colleagues from all parts of the House to support this Bill with the strength and integrity that the people of Liverpool and people across the UK expect from us. We must fight for every detail until it is over the line and passed into legislation. Let us make truth, justice and accountability not just passing words today, but enshrined in our Hillsborough law forever.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It has been a massive privilege to have all the families appearing with us today. Without their presence, this law would not be being passed. Let me also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), and all the Liverpudlian Members sitting behind me who have worked so hard over the years.
The failure to hold public officials accountable when they are at fault has been the foundation of innumerable scandals in our history. Just a few of them are Orgreave, Windrush, Grenfell, the nuclear test veterans, the infected blood victims and the post office workers. All those people have suffered at the hands of the state through no fault of their own, but, to our eternal shame, their suffering has been compounded by indifference, inaction and, in some cases, malice on the part of the very bodies that are meant to serve and protect them.
The need for change is clear. It is vital that we have a Hillsborough law worthy of the name, and I am very pleased that the Bill will meet that standard: I am certain that my colleagues on the Bill Committee and my colleagues in the other place will ensure that that happens. The introduction of a Hillsborough law was one of the most important manifesto commitments for me, if not the most important, and I greatly appreciate the Government’s affirmation that they will resist any attempts to water the Bill down. I believe that my colleagues and friends will do the same, and, as the Member of Parliament for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, I know that many of my constituents will strongly welcome that commitment.
On 15 April 1989, we were home to the country’s biggest sporting disaster. At the time, I lived just around the corner from the football ground, and I have never forgotten that day. I went out to buy a card for my best friend’s birthday, and I was walking down my street just after it had happened, when people were leaving the ground. At my local shops there was one telephone box, and there must have been 80 to 100 people queuing up beside it, in complete silence. Not a word was being spoken. As I carried on towards home, it became apparent that the people walking around in our community were completely dazed and traumatised by what they had seen happening on that day.
Gill Furniss
My neighbours and members of my community were opening their doors to people and giving them cups of tea, because they were clearly in shock, and also letting them use their telephones to tell their loved ones that they had survived. At that time, I was about nine and a half months pregnant. My daughter was born on 1 May, and every year when that date comes around I think of those who did not have a daughter at home, whereas I was lucky enough to have my baby. Today is a very emotional day for Sheffield, or at least for me, as I remember how it was—as I remember that that happened in the city where I was born and the city that I love. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for reminding me that the few little bits that we could do meant something to those people, and I will be ever proud of my constituents for what they did.
The Bill is long overdue, and I apologise to the people sitting in the Gallery for that, because we should have done better in the past. For a long time, public bodies have not considered themselves to be accountable, which is why the word “accountability” is in the Bill’s title. I think we are now bringing home to people out there—people who work in other areas—the fact that they have always been accountable. We are just reminding them, and ensuring that there will be consequences for those who think that it does not apply to them, including prison sentences. That is only right.
I feel today that we are putting right the wrongs that have been long with us in our society. I agree with those who have said, “This is having a go at the working class, because they do not know any better, they have no money, and they cannot easily get hold of legal aid”—which, indeed, does not even exist now. I should like to think that today is a celebration of the people who have campaigned tirelessly over the last 36 years, because without them, we would not be here. I say to them, “You guys were really tenacious as friends of the victims, and you have kept going and telling everyone what was wrong.”
I absolutely concur with what Members have said about The Sun. I would never buy a copy of that paper, and I never have after that day, because the part that it played in this tragedy should be subject to an open inquiry so that we can see who collaborated in ensuring that it looked as though people were drunk, people were out of their heads on stuff and people had caused the tragedy, when they already knew that it was their fault. Let us never, ever see another such episode. I believe that the Bill is the way we will get through this, and that today will go down in history as the moment when the truth became known.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it. It is the result of years of committed campaigning led by the families of the victims and the survivors of Hillsborough. Many of the worst corporate miscarriages of justice, from infected blood to Grenfell, would have been exposed years or even decades ago had it become law sooner.
The Bill requires the state and its agents to tell the truth about their misconduct, and gives rights to the victims, not least the right of representation on fair and equal terms in inquests and inquiries. Let us therefore celebrate a landmark piece of legislation which, like the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act under the last Labour Government, gives power to the citizen and makes the state accountable; but let us also look for ways to improve it by strengthening what is in it and adding what has been left out.
I welcome the duty of candour in clause 2, which requires public authorities and officials to act with “candour, transparency and frankness”. Clause 4 extends the duty of candour to bodies or individuals who are not public authorities or officials, but who had a “relevant public responsibility”. However, it requires
“a direct contractual relationship with the public authority”,
which means that subcontractors or subsidiary companies would not be caught by the duty of candour, and I think that is wrong.
Clause 11 introduces a new offence of misleading the public. It is a strong test, but the Bill also contains exemptions and caveats that may make it less comprehensive or effective. First, the “harm” test in the clause is unnecessary. The object of the clause is to prevent the public from being misled. That may cause harm to an individual, but it should not be a requirement. Preventing reliance on wrong information is an end in itself.
Secondly, the carve-out for the security services is too broad. Schedule 1 not only exempts legitimate safeguards such as national security, but gives a general exemption to intelligence officers at all levels up to and including director. Thirdly, clause 11 provides an exemption from the offence of misleading the public for acts done
“for the purposes of journalism.”
However, the scope of this exemption is unclear. For example, does it extend to individuals being interviewed as well as those conducting the interviews, or to public officials who also, for instance, publish news columns or host news programmes? We know all too well from Hillsborough that the actions of the media can lead to injustice for victims.
However, aside from that exemption, the role of the media has been overlooked by the Bill. South Yorkshire police defamed the Hillsborough families and survivors, but they did not do so alone. Their lies and smears were promoted by several newspapers, most notably The Sun.
It was the culture, and the connections between the newspapers and the police, that enabled this to happen, and there is no evidence that that has changed. Just as South Yorkshire police were protected by The Sun after Hillsborough, the Metropolitan police were responsible for astonishing oversights in the investigations into phone hacking at News of the World.
The culture of complicity was due to be investigated by part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Margaret Aspinall, who is here today, was among those due to give evidence to Leveson. Her son died at Hillsborough; he was only 18. Margaret has written powerfully in the Liverpool Echo today about the need for this Bill and for the press to be held to account.
I would like to voice my support for the expansion in legal aid for inquests that will be brought in by the Bill. The Bill provides that families will be eligible for non-means-tested legal aid if a public authority is an interested person at the inquest. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on how that expansion in legal aid will be funded. What is the estimated cost of providing representation at inquests and inquiries, and how will it be funded? Will it be, for example, from existing budgets?
Finally, I will mention a couple of provisions that I think should be added to the Bill. There is no mention of the Independent Public Advocate. It would be good to hear from the Government on how they think that office—for which the Lord Chancellor has just made an excellent appointment in the person of Cindy Butts—can work to support victims through the Bill.
There is also no national oversight mechanism provided for in the Bill, despite widespread support for one as a necessary guarantee of the successful implementation of public inquiries and prevention of future deaths reports. A national oversight mechanism, which has been proposed by the charity Inquest—which I know has been working closely with the Hillsborough families—would ensure that recommendations from inquests and inquiries were effectively publicised and that their implementation was monitored. Too often, the recommendations of inquiries sit on shelves and are not implemented, and no one goes back to see that they are. A national oversight mechanism is a major omission from the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point when she winds up.
I invite the Minister to respond to the points I have raised this evening. The Bill is an overdue, but no less welcome, piece of legislation that the whole House should wish to improve and enact.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Following the next contribution, I will reduce the time limit to five minutes—so, on a six-minute time limit, I call Abtisam Mohamed.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
As the Member for Sheffield Central, I approach this Second Reading debate with pride that we have finally got here, but with the deepest frustration and sadness at the time that that has taken. Many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), will be pleased that we are finally here, and I am sure that they will stand in complete solidarity with the families affected.
For over three decades, our city was part of a tragedy that repeatedly scarred families and communities who lived far beyond South Yorkshire. Not only were 97 lives lost at Hillsborough; those people were unlawfully killed—and instead of those lives being honoured and mourned, the families of the 97 had to swallow their grief and fight decades of institutional injustice, indifference and denial.
The failures were not limited to what happened on that day in April 1989. They continued for months, years and decades after: wave after wave of betrayal for families already living with the unimaginable pain of losing their loved ones; wave after wave of betrayal by those in leadership positions who just closed ranks; wave after wave of betrayal by the media, leading to cover-ups, delays and dishonesty.
With this Bill, we can say that this will never happen again—to anyone; because, while the bereaved families have sought justice for their loved ones, the cover-ups have continued. They include Grenfell, Horizon and the infected blood scandal, to name just a few. Time and again, families have watched as the same playbook is used to smear working-class communities and protect those at the very top.
It is right that the Hillsborough families have pushed hard for non-means-tested legal aid, because while those who covered up benefited from the public purse to fund their legal fees, families had to scrimp, save and borrow just to enter the legal system on the same footing.
I am pleased that this Bill will ensure that there is change, and that that change will start now. Fair access to justice means that no victim will be left to fight the state alone. With the duty of candour, public bodies must act truthfully, they must support investigations and they must behave in line with the Nolan principle of integrity. Now when things go wrong—when tragedy strikes—lessons must be learned, not buried.
This is the Hillsborough law, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for their tireless efforts to ensure that those lessons are protected through the Bill. Their legacy, and that of the bereaved families, is the one that will be remembered. Their tireless campaigning has resulted in change at the very top, and their relentless fight has forced the Government and public institutions to abandon a culture of cover-ups. There must be accountability, and there must be no dilution. At the bottom and at the heart of this, there must always be justice for the 97.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
On a five-minute time limit, I call Dame Nia Griffith.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Let me pay a huge tribute to all those who have fought so hard for this day: the Hillsborough families, who fought and fought and fought for 36 years. I pay particular tribute to Margaret Aspinall for her feisty and determined campaigning. It is hard to believe it has taken this long; in fact, it is scandalous. I also pay tribute to all those who fought against cover-ups and lies to get to the truth: those hounded and even criminalised by the Post Office Horizon scandal, and those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal.
I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, within just over a year of Labour taking office. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to seeing it on the statute book and will not allow it to be watered down in any way.
I remember finally getting the Conservative Government’s response to Bishop James Jones’s report back in December 2023—six years after its publication. I went to the briefing meeting, fully expecting the then Justice Secretary to say that the Government would be introducing a Hillsborough law, but I was bitterly disappointed to find Conservative Ministers talking about a voluntary charter. But my disappointment was nothing compared with the grief, anguish, frustration, anger, disbelief and despair that the Hillsborough families have been left feeling, time and again, at the cover-ups, the obfuscation and the procrastination.
In the cases of the contaminated blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, the cover-ups and the failure to listen to those experiencing the issues meant that there were new victims. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, people who need never have become victims—hard-working postmasters and postmistresses—were subjected to the appalling mental anguish of feeling that their beloved communities, and indeed members of their own families, did not believe them. We know how tragically that ended for some. With the infected blood scandal, there were people who need never, ever have been infected.
In brief, tragedies happen and mistakes are made, but a different culture, with a willingness to admit mistakes—a workplace environment that treats whistleblowers and those who speak up as constructive, critical friends, not troublemakers—and driven by an expectation of a duty of candour, could so often prevent further victims and suffering. Today we are finally welcoming a Bill that introduces a new duty of candour—a full Hillsborough law to force those in public office to co-operate fully with investigations, with tough penalties, including prison, for those who fail—and guarantees legal aid funding to enable those affected to challenge public institutions.
I was pleased that back in July, in keeping with another of our manifesto promises, the then Home Secretary announced the Orgreave inquiry. Can the Minister advise us whether this Hillsborough Bill will become law in time to be applicable to that inquiry? Further to that, amidst rumours of boxes of relevant police papers being destroyed, is there anything that she or her Cabinet colleagues can do, even before the Bill becomes law, to prevent potential evidence from being destroyed?
Colleagues have referenced that appalling front page of The Sun, headlined “The Truth”, which alleged that fans had stolen from the deceased and abused police officers, and put the blame for the disaster on the fans. The Sun knew perfectly well that what it said was anything but the truth; it was an outrageous attack on Liverpool fans and nothing short of a cover-up for the police. Although this Bill will introduce a duty of candour for our public sector workers—and I do not want to do anything to delay or confuse that in any way—we should nevertheless, sooner rather than later, address the fact that there is no duty of candour for the media.
For 36 years, The Sun has escaped all accountability for its contribution to the cover-up. Even today, there are no independently enforced standards for the press that would end the ability of parts of the media to conspire with the authorities to mislead the public. The fact is that the Independent Press Standards Organisation falls well short of Leveson part 1’s requirements for independent and robust press regulation. As a result, there is nothing to prevent a cover-up perpetrated by the press from happening again.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and my colleagues in Government on the Bill, but I urge them to heed the call made by Margaret Aspinall today: introduce further legislation to make good on Leveson 2, bring in tougher regulation of the press and stop certain elements of the press destroying innocent people’s lives. As we say in Welsh, “Nid da lle gellir gwell”: don’t be satisfied with the good if we can do better.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
This legislation is long overdue. Looking back at the scandals where the state has deceived the people, some of which go back to the aftermath of the second world war, we see a long list of how the great British state has let down the people it is there to serve. In all these scandals involving the state versus the people, it is ordinary people who had to fight long and hard to get justice. In the contaminated blood scandal, it has taken over 50 years. For nuclear test veterans, it goes back to the 1950s. In the case of Hillsborough, it took 36 years. The list goes on. All these scandals demonstrate that there is something wrong at the heart of our state—that the state places itself above the people, will not allow itself to be seen to be wrong and, worse, refuses to offer redress for its wrongdoing.
I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—addressing one of the worst examples the state deceiving people over many decades. At the start of his May 2024 report, Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, sets out the depth of the state’s deception—how the state knew as early as the mid-1940s the dangers posed by transfusions of plasma, and the consequences. The risk of spreading infections through transfusions was known in the early days of the NHS, yet this did not result in research or any attempts to ensure that blood was being sourced from safe providers. The state doubled down on its denial while continuing to use products that put people at greater risk. Sir Brian goes on to accuse the state of a catalogue of failings, deliberate lies and obfuscation. He exposes the scale of the deception and how the state failed to carry out research to make products safer, which could have saved lives and reduced infections. This in turn led to products not being HIV-free.
At Treloar’s school, pupils with haemophilia were given contaminated blood products as part of an experiment. That is probably the most chilling part of the whole scandal. The former pupils of Treloar’s have called themselves “human guinea pigs”; those are their own words. What is worse is that the pupils were told that they had glandular fever. Their families were told not to tell anyone that it was HIV. The lack of a duty to tell the truth allowed the state to ignore the needs of the victims and their families. They were offered no help, support or counselling. The silence allowed the state to avoid being held to account—something that we have seen again and again in the Hillsborough story, the Post Office Horizon story and all the rest. This has to stop, and the Bill will at last give a voice to victims.
Although candour in public officials is welcome, the Bill fails to impose a similar duty on our media. Time and again, we have seen a significant section of our national media collaborate with officials, which has obstructed justice, misled the public and led to harassment of survivors and their families. Perhaps the most devastating example is the role of The Sun in respect of the Hillsborough tragedy; the paper directly conspired with South Yorkshire police to accuse fans of causing the disaster. I hope that as the Bill passes through all its stages, we can address this omission.
I welcome the Bill. We MPs come here to speak truth to power on behalf of our constituents. Now our constituents will have the right to force power to speak truth to them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the campaigners, but I want to pay special tribute to the Scouse MPs, who in the last few months put their foot down and said that they were having nothing but the Hillsborough Bill. I thank them on all our behalf.
I want to raise a point about the duty of candour, transparency and frankness, and the duty to operate in the public interest. I would like someone to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that there is a duty to co-operate with the complainants or the victims in the pursuit of truth. I say that not about a historical event, but about an event that is happening today: the Mitting inquiry into the undercover operations carried out on a number of our campaigns. In that inquiry, the authorities, the police and the intelligence services are belligerently fighting not to tell the truth. I will explain briefly.
Twenty-eight years ago almost to the day, my constituent, a young Asian lad named Ricky Reel, went on a night out with his mates in Kingston upon Thames. He went missing and never came home. We now know that he was racially abused. A week later, we found his body in the river. The police inquiry was appalling, and we begged for police resources to be applied. They were applied, but we discovered later that they were applied to surveil our campaign. We had undercover police officers surveilling our campaign, not investigating the case. We were told, “Don’t worry, we weren’t really surveilling you. You were collateral damage.” It was a collateral invasion of privacy, we were told.
Then we met workers who were being blacklisted, so we set up the Blacklist Support Group. We discovered that the police and the intelligence services were surveilling those workers and providing information to employers. Some of those workers never worked again in their life.
Then, of course, we worked with the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. We discovered a hero: a police officer called Peter Francis, who was part of the unit that undertook the surveillance. He said what actually went on, and he blew the whistle. He is now giving evidence to the Mitting inquiry. My constituent Mrs Reel is also giving evidence, as are the Lawrences and other campaigners, but the police are refusing to attend. They claim to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They claim that they are so unwell that they cannot provide the evidence. As a result, we will not get to the truth unless there is an overpowering duty in this legislation that forces them to co-operate.
People have said that this is about class, but it is also about race. The Lawrence family were surveilled. Why? So that information could be provided to the media to discredit them. In the Ricky Reel campaign, it became farcical. We went to visit the Metropolitan police and said, “You’ve now admitted that you were surveilling us. We would like to see the documents about that surveillance.” We were each given our own copy, but it was redacted to such an extent that there was maybe only a sentence or a word visible. To be frank, we fell about laughing. We got up to take the copies out, but we were told that we could not, and the reason why was that we might have put them all together and made sentences. That is how bad the situation was. We have still not got to the truth—to the full files—and we are still calling for another investigation, so this Bill is highly relevant. We want a duty that is not just about telling the truth, but about co-operating with those who are complaining and the victims. Until we get that spirit of co-operation, I do not think that we will ever get to the point at which we can hold officials and others to account.
I am worried about the different way that the intelligence services will be treated. Surveilling the blacklisted workers involved a rare mixture of police, special branch and others. I would like to see the intelligence services held to account under this legislation. It almost gives them a private guarantee that even whistleblowers will never be heard in public in a way that allows us to expose what goes on. There will be a lot more to say about this legislation, and we will need to amend it.
My final point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). I remain angry about The Sun. I remain bitterly angry about its role and what it did. We were promised Leveson part 2, but we have dropped it, and I do not think there is any justification for that. If anything good comes out of today’s debate, maybe it will be the Government reconsidering introducing Leveson part 2 and legislation that prevents newspapers acting as The Sun did. I have to say, if social media had existed back then, can you imagine how horrendous it would have been?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Gordon McKee.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
On a sunny spring afternoon, Linda Howard watched her husband and son walk down the path from her house. Even now, decades later, she can recall the details of that morning with perfect clarity. Young Tommy pestered his dad to let him join him at the football match. His mum did not want him to make the trip to Sheffield, but she saw the anticipation in his eyes, and was unable to say no and break his heart. As she said goodbye and watched them walk down the path, Tommy turned to wave one more time. She did not know it in that moment, but it would be for the last time, because her husband and son were heading to a disaster. Their lives would be cruelly taken in a tragedy caused by a failure of care, control and courage, and an instinct not to act, but to look away, as the crisis deepened.
Ninety-seven people lost their life in the Hillsborough disaster, and thousands more lost trust because of the events that happened afterwards. The same instinct that led to inaction on that day led to deceit in the days that followed. The fans of Liverpool football club were smeared as a gang of drunks. The grotesque implication was that the dead were somehow responsible for their own demise, and grieving mothers, brothers, fathers and sisters were treated by the police not as bereaved family, but as accomplices to some indescribable crime. They were taken to a gym hall and forced to look through photographs of the dead to find out the fate of their family. Hillsborough was not just a collapse of a crush barrier; it was the collapse of trust. It was a moment when public officials saw their fellow citizens not as people to be protected, but as problems to be managed.
I am ashamed to say that this is not unique in our history. Just ask the grandmother who came to this country on a boat, and contributed for decades, only for the state to turn around and tell her she was no longer welcome in her own country; or the tenant who warned that their building was unsafe, but found their home engulfed in flames before anyone would listen; or the local businessman who held together a community, but who found that the output of a faulty computer system was treated with more deference by the authorities than his own word and honest reputation. These are not isolated stories; they are the same story. This was described by the Right Rev. James Jones in his report as the
“patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.
That posture has no place in a just Britain, because power without accountability is not strength, but corruption. In a true democracy, the state exists to serve the working-class widow on the Wirral just as much as the chief constable of a police force. The binding promise of justice in a democracy is that, together, we belong to a country to which we each contribute, and by which we are treated equally. It is the promise also of the movement to which I belong, which 100 years ago said that working men and women no longer required a patronising disposition; instead, they required representatives of themselves to bestow power on the powerless, and to impose on all of those who hold state authority a duty of candour. That is what the Bill does. It instils in the public contract an immovable commitment that the truth shall sit above all else, regardless of consequence. The people of this country do not demand perfection. They understand the inevitability of mistakes, but what they cannot accept is a state that obscures the truth from its own people.
We cannot bring back the victims of Hillsborough, and we cannot erase the years of pain or decades of denial, but we can make sure that no grieving family ever again has to fight their own Government for the truth, so that when the next mother watches her son walk down the path, she knows that if tragedy does rear its ugly head, her country will stand with her, not against her, in the fight for justice.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in support of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which so many of us know as the Hillsborough law.
This Bill was born out of a state-sponsored injustice against working-class people. It was forged from the courage and persistence of those families—ordinary working-class people—who refused to be broken by the weight of injustice. They did not have privilege or power on their side. What they had was solidarity and an unshakeable belief that the truth matters. For too long, people in this country have felt that, when the system fails them and when those in power get things wrong, sometimes with devastating consequences, no one is ever truly held to account, and families are left to fight for decades just to be heard.
This Bill begins to change that. The new duty of candour says to every public official, “You work for the people of this country, and when something goes wrong, you tell them the truth—no more cover-ups, and no more protecting institutions over people’s lives.” It will make honesty a legal duty and create criminal offences for those who mislead the public or obstruct investigations. That matters, because we have all seen the cost of denial—from Hillsborough to Grenfell, from the Post Office scandal to infected blood—and this Bill will help to end that culture once and for all. The extension of legal aid at inquests and inquiries finally levels the playing field, with no more families having to crowdfund or face state-funded lawyers alone in the fight of their lives. That gives ordinary people a fair chance, a voice and the power to hold the state to account. This is real accountability. This is democracy in action.
However, if we truly want a culture of honesty, we must protect those inside the system who dare to speak up when something is wrong. Whistleblowers are often the first to see the cracks, and too many have paid for their integrity with their career. Honesty should never cost someone their job, their home or their peace of mind. If we want this law to work, we must make sure that whistleblowers are protected, their concerns are investigated and their courage is valued.
When I think about what this Bill means, I of course think about the Hillsborough families standing year after year inside and outside Anfield, saying simply, “Justice for the 97”. This Bill honours their fight. It says that never again will ordinary people be treated as a problem when all they did was tell the truth. For working-class families across Britain, this Bill is a promise that truth will no longer depend on wealth, that justice will no longer depend on power, and that the voices of ordinary working-class people will never again be drowned out by the machinery of the state.
This is a Bill that finally says: no more cover-ups, no more lies, no more hiding—just truth, fairness and accountability. That is what the Hillsborough families fought for and it is what the victims of so many injustices have fought for. On behalf of those families, on behalf of every whistleblower who has spoken up, and on behalf of every working-class person everywhere who just wants a fair hearing and an honest Government, let me say that I am so very proud to support this Bill.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I thank the Government so much for bringing this much-needed, vital Bill to the House. It shows what a Labour Government can actually do, and how a Labour Government can effect change. It was really positive to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that there would be an absolute guarantee that the Bill would not in any way, shape or form be diluted.
That is really important to everybody.
It is not a day for celebration; it is a day far too long in coming. It is not just about history; it is about justice, it is about class, it is about the truth. The tragedies we have all lived through—the Hillsborough disaster, Orgreave, Windrush, Grenfell, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, plus many, many more—are not isolated events. They are symptoms of a deeper sickness: a system that protects power over people, reputation over responsibility, and privilege over truth. In each case, working-class lives were treated as expendable. Innocent people were pitted against institutions that closed ranks, denied wrongdoing and delayed justice, sometimes for decades. At Hillsborough, 97 Liverpool fans lost their lives, not by accident but because of institutional indifference. They were branded hooligans, not victims, by officers who held deep-seated prejudice against working class communities.
It is about legacy, truth and accountability. It is not just about the Bill today. It has been said today in this Chamber that this was like people turning a blind eye to what happened. It is not turning a blind eye, for heaven’s sake! It is about huge, detailed, organised and orchestrated deliberate cover-ups using billions of taxpayer pounds against ordinary working people.
It has been mentioned today that the chief constable got a knighthood. He has not received any form of discipline whatever. Ninety-seven people killed and not one person has been taken through the courts and prosecuted, but he was given a knighthood. What an absolute disgrace. It shows a huge disregard and indifference to working people. They were allowed to trample on the graves of the victims in the belief that they could do whatever they wanted, because they were the ones with the power and the influence.
That cannot be allowed to continue. We have to remember that justice means justice. Who indeed made these decisions? What police officer shut the blinds, put the coffee on the table and said, “Right, look, we’ve had 97 people sadly passed on, but we’re going to make out like it really wasn’t our fault”? Who then signed it off, because, by the way, I think every one of these injustices gans a lot further than just police officers and people in the public sector at the very top? It has got to have had ministerial sign-off, I am afraid, because it would not have happened.
I support the Bill in its entirety. No more delays. Justice for all. This is a long overdue Bill, which I fully support.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I am proud to support this important Bill and to pay tribute to the Hillsborough families, whose courage and determination have brought us to this moment. Their decades of struggle have changed our country and created a chance to ensure that no family ever again has to fight for truth alone. The Bill is about truth, fairness and accountability. It is about ending the culture of cover-ups that has marked too many national scandals, from Hillsborough to contaminated blood, and from Post Office Horizon to Primodos, whose families I have been honoured to represent and campaign for in this House for the past 13 years. I have stood here many times to raise that issue and to lead debates, because it is not a new story.
The Primodos scandal has been known about for decades. What has been missing is not information, but honesty. Primodos was a hormone pregnancy test given to 1.5 million women in Britain until the late 1970s. It was linked to miscarriages, stillbirths and babies born with life-changing disabilities, yet the families were met not with transparency, but with denial.
In 1967, Dr Isabel Gal published research in Nature showing a possible link between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects. Rather than being supported, she was dismissed and discredited. Both the manufacturer, Schering, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines knew of the risks. The committee issued a notice in 1975 warning of a possible link, and another in 1977 confirming that the link had been established, yet Primodos was not withdrawn until 1978 and the women who had already taken it were never told the truth. That was not candour. It was concealment.
Decades later, the pattern repeated. In 2017 the Government’s own Commission on Human Medicines established an expert working group, which concluded that there was “no causal association” between Primodos and harm—wording that was added later after pressure from senior officials. Families were shut out, evidence was excluded and regulators defended themselves instead of admitting failure.
Then, in 2023, the same families were forced into court against Bayer and the Government. Despite the independent Cumberlege review, which occurred after the 2017 expert working group, confirming that avoidable harm had occurred, their case still collapsed before trial when the families were threatened with £11 million in legal costs if they refused to withdraw. It was a David versus Goliath battle, with ordinary families facing the full legal force of the state and a global corporation.
This Bill could hope to change that. It establishes a duty of candour, a duty to assist investigation and the principle of parity of arms, which seeks to ensure that families are not denied justice because they lack resources. However, the duty of candour must apply fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries. Command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge and not with the institutions. The offence of misleading the public must not be weakened by the need to prove individual harm.
The Bill is really important. I hope it is not diluted. I hope that people like those who suffered because of Primodos will get due justice.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I start by saying that it was fantastic to have Hillsborough law campaigners in the Gallery today. I worked for them for several years before I was elected to this place on behalf of victims of the Ballymurphy massacre—one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. I am a relative of one of the victims of that massacre, Father Hugh Mullan, a Catholic priest who was unlawfully killed by members of the Parachute Regiment. It took my dad’s family 50 years to have the words “entirely innocent” put on the public record; in the intervening years, people tried to smear Hugh as a gunrunner, obfuscating justice. It is a pattern that we see repeated across so many of the stories we have heard today.
We should not forget why this legislation matters. All the campaigners and campaigns supporting the Hillsborough law are distinct: victims of Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, Grenfell and Horizon, the covid-19 bereaved families, victims of the Windrush scandal, the troubles and many more. These are events that span decades and involve different arms of the state in different parts of the UK; the circumstances and consequences of each differ greatly. However, after each event, when families began to seek justice, they often faced similar challenges and circumstances: first, the smearing of innocent victims as guilty; secondly, the closing of ranks among authorities, shutting off routes to justice; and thirdly, a legal system where the scales of justice are stacked in favour of the state. The human consequences are severe. Mr Kalia, a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal from Bromley, which I represent, found his own children mistrusting him after he was unable to clear his name. His marriage almost broke down and he contemplated suicide.
This Government have the potential to put an end to these obstacles and create a turning point in transparency, accountability and justice in public life to ensure that Mr Kalia’s experience, and those of so many others, is never repeated again. That means full parity of arms at inquests, putting an end to David versus Goliath battles in court, where the state, flanked by an army of lawyers, takes on families who have scraped together for a single barrister. It means a full duty of candour, with proper consequences for those who fall foul of it. It means creating an obligation for full disclosure, ensuring that public bodies are wired to help families to achieve justice, not to close ranks and protect their own.
I thank the Prime Minister today for his reassurance that this Bill will not be watered down and for his work and that of the Justice Secretary and the Attorney General in the other place in driving the Bill forward. I am also grateful for the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) in tirelessly campaigning on this issue.
Passing this Bill will lead to a rebalancing in the relationship between state and citizen. We will also have fulfilled the purpose of power—to give it away—and will have empowered families to pursue the settlement that they want. I again thank every campaigner and every family for their work on this Bill.
I will finish with an Irish proverb:
“Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine”—
it is in the shelter of each other that the people live. I know that what the Hillsborough families and many other families have done today is to provide shelter for others for many years to come.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Bill before us stands as a testament to the decades of campaigning by the Hillsborough families. I want to pay special tribute to them and to other families I have been humbled to work with, including Grenfell families and the family of Zane Gbangbola, who are still fighting for justice. They have backed this Bill because they do not want to see others endure what they had to.
I want to commend the tireless work of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who as Member of Parliament for Leigh helped drive a Hillsborough law from inside this House. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne)—my close friend—for all he has done over the years, before becoming an MP and now, to fight to get us to where we are today. Thanks are also due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and Steve Rotheram, Liverpool metro mayor.
As shadow Justice Secretary in 2017, I was proud to commit that a future Labour Government would deliver a Hillsborough law. In fact, it is almost eight years ago to the day since around 90 Labour MPs signed a letter co-ordinated by myself and the then shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member means to say the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney somewhere or other—apologies for not knowing.
Richard Burgon
She has been forgotten too many times in this place, but I will put that to one side.
The letter from the then shadow Home Secretary and I called on Theresa May to introduce a Hillsborough law in the aftermath of Grenfell. I commend this Labour Government for bringing forward this legislation. A duty of candour, new criminal offences for failing to uphold that duty, expanded legal aid and a parity of representation to end the David versus Goliath nature of inquiries—these are all big steps forward. There will be areas where the Bill can be strengthened, and I hope to play my part in ensuring that it is improved as it goes through this House, but fundamentally it is a good Bill and must remain so as it passes through the House.
On that point, I want to send a very clear message today to anyone hoping to water the Bill down as it passes through Parliament: do not try it. Far too often in this country politics has acted as a dam, holding justice back rather than helping it to flow. Class and power imbalances and, yes, racism have repeatedly denied people justice in the face of state abuses. We have seen the truth sacrificed to protect the powerful. Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, Bloody Sunday, Orgreave—these are all examples of times when the state used its immense power not to deliver truth and justice but to block it year after year. In all those cases, the state was accused of a cover-up by those affected. Distrust was sown, and justice delayed and denied.
We know that there are forces who did not want this Bill to get this far and who do not want it to go forward in this form—forces who do not want the scales of justice tilted in favour of working-class people. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that there will be no watering-down of this Bill, but if any civil servants, Members of this House, those in opposition and in the House of Lords, those in the media or others within the machinery of the state attempt to dilute or derail this Bill, they will have the fight of their lives on their hands. We will use every power at our disposal, including naming and shaming under parliamentary privilege, if we hear of any attempts to water down this fundamentally important Bill.
Let this be a rare moment when the House delivers legislation that we can all be proud of. Martin Luther King once spoke of how
“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”.
It has not felt like that for so many families. Let us make sure it does by supporting this Bill and making it law. It has been too long, and today is an important day.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Hillsborough law we debate today is not an historical problem; it is something that my constituents need right now. I have already spoken in this place about baby Ida Lock, who died after failings in her care, and the incompetent investigation and lack of transparency that followed.
Today I want to talk about another constituent of mine. Vicki had autoimmune diseases, and she had regular treatment for them, often needing steroids. In 2021, Vicki fell pregnant and had a flare-up, which was treated with steroids. Not long after she tragically suffered a miscarriage. Days later she was admitted to hospital with severe abdominal pain and an increased heart rate, and she began to deteriorate.
The differential diagnosis was either an infection or a flare-up of her autoimmune disease.
Vicki kept getting more poorly. She was treated with antibiotics but not given any steroids. Her care was fraught with errors: her lipids were scored incorrectly; the right tests were eventually requested but not carried out in a timely way; and a pharmacist spotted that she had missed crucial medication, but nothing was done. According to her family, the doctors got caught in a loop of circular thinking—they focused on sepsis and covid—even when there was another possibility, particularly with her history of autoimmune problems.
There is a rare but known complication of autoimmune disease called hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is a massive overreaction of the immune system that causes hyperinflammation, damaging vital organs. If the hospital had listened to Vicki and done a bone marrow test earlier, that HLH could have been identified, and it is possible that it could have been treated successfully. But once the decision to do the test—it gives results in only 10 minutes—was finally made, it took 18 hours for it to be done. The bone marrow test confirmed that Vicki had HLH. Twenty-four hours later, she died.
Vicki knew that she was having a flare-up, and she said so, but she was not listened to. From her hospital bed, she had written a letter of complaint to the patient advice and liaison service; then, just a week later, she was dead. Her family just want the truth to be recognised, because, in their experience, it has not been. Their experience echoes that of Ida’s parents. The pain is compounded because the family had felt that she was in the right place to be cared for. They trusted the hospital to get it right.
We know that no one goes to work in healthcare to do harm, but doctors and nurses are humans; they will make mistakes, and it is difficult for them to admit that they have harmed someone, so we need to create institutional cultures in which people feel able to speak up and raise concerns. Mistakes are often one-offs, but what is not is the institutional response to these tragedies. The institutional response of cover-up is part of a wider, long-standing pattern of poor culture and weak accountability. What harmed families tell me in the wake of these tragedies is that it is not necessarily the mistake itself that causes so much harm to them but the cover-up and the denial. Families, instead of grieving their loss, are forced to fight for the truth.
My hope is that the Bill will protect victims and their families—like Vicki’s, like Ryan and Sarah Lock and those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough—from this prolonged trauma. They deserve honesty, accountability and humanity from the very start, because that is how we rebuild trust.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I will focus on chapter 2 of part 2 of the Bill, which provides that public bodies must operate in accordance with the highest ethical conduct. That is very important to my constituents in Glasgow.
Shortly after I was elected, I met a mum and dad at one of my surgeries. They want to know how their beloved child died while being treated as an in-patient in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. They know that they cannot get their beloved child back; they just want to know that lessons have been learned so that other families do not suffer the same anguish every day.
This family wrote to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde two months after the death of their child; the first response was less than candid. They asked for proper investigations; one partial report was issued 10 months after their child’s death. The second report was completed over two years after their child’s death, and that report itself was concerning as the NHS could not identify one of the doctors involved in the child’s treatment and could not source two nurses involved, so they were not interviewed. How can it be that the NHS cannot identify three people who worked in a hospital on the day in question?
The family do not have answers even now, two and a half years after the death of their beloved child. I have tried my best to help them, and I have pressed the NHS to complete the long-delayed report and meet them. Despite that, I am afraid that this grieving family has been treated appallingly. I therefore welcome the provisions of chapter 2. They are seriously needed.
I am not the first to raise concerns about the transparency and openness of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde: my friends Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie have repeatedly raised serious concerns about institutional cover-up. I agree with them, and join them in their call for a radical change of culture and their support for Milly’s law, with a public advocate system.
I would like to ask a couple of questions about the Bill’s application in Scotland. It contains three criminal offences that are not replicated in Scotland. That is quite proper because, as we heard earlier, criminal law is a matter for the Scottish Parliament, not this place, but it would be interesting to know what the Scottish Government’s position is on this. Clause 18 and schedule 6 concern public inquiries, and the provisions are designed to ensure that the conduct of public authorities and their legal teams is fair and reasonable, in particular to ensure the equality of arms that we have heard described so eloquently today. The law relating to public inquiries in Scotland and England is broadly the same, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the schedule 6 provisions do not extend to Scotland.
Schedule 6 also makes provision for the expansion of legal aid and again, quite properly, this does not apply to Scotland, but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Scottish Government’s position on this. My concern is simple: a family in Glasgow should have the same broad rights as a family in Newcastle upon Tyne when trying to get the truth from public authorities.
I shall close by paying tribute to the Hillsborough families. They are the embodiment of the greatest of human qualities: immense courage in the face of the most terrible grief; determination to get to the truth; determination that every possible lesson is learned from Hillsborough; and determination that the law is changed to protect people they will never meet and never know. I admire them greatly. Each of us owes those families the greatest of debts.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I was nearly five years old when the Hillsborough disaster happened, less than half a mile away from my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency. My mum had just had my baby brother and was on maternity leave, and I vividly remember watching the coverage of the horrendous tragedy, transfixed by the screen. Meynell, the school where my mum worked at the edge of the Parson Cross estate, was near the ground. Seeing the horror of her realisation that some of her families might have been at the match was deeply upsetting. The images of the treatment of the fans by the police are etched on my memory forever. My baby brother is now a grown 36-year-old man: the measure of the lifetime it has taken to get the justice for the 97 fans who lost their lives at the Hillsborough disaster.
Today really is a historic day. I am proud to be stood here in this moment as a Sheffield Labour MP and as part of the Labour Government who are introducing the Hillsborough law to this House. I am proud, too, that we have a Prime Minister who has made making this law his personal mission. This landmark legislation will help to close this chapter of some of our nation’s darkest days.
The Bill before us will be transformative. As someone who followed closely the evisceration of legal aid—and, with it, access to justice—under the Conservative Government in coalition, I am immensely proud that the Bill includes the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade for bereaved families, providing non-means-tested help and support for inquests. The Bill contains criminal sanctions for the most significant breaches, including for misleading the public in a way that is seriously improper, under the new offence it creates.
Liam Conlon
Does my hon. Friend agree that this will be particularly important for people who have been disabled by public gross negligence?
Dr Tidball
I do agree. Alongside the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010 passed by the last Labour Government, we will have created a shield and a sword for those disabled people.
Trust in public life is a delicate and precious thing, and the duty of candour on all public services within this Bill provides the scaffolding for this to be held up. Public servants must always tell the truth about anything to do with their jobs or face the consequences. In requiring that they do so, the Bill will lay strong foundations to build cultural change throughout the public sector, placing public bodies under a new duty to promote the ethical conduct of their staff.
This law is for the 97 who lost their lives, but it is also for all those who fought for justice when they had been betrayed by the authorities that were meant to protect them. The changes that the Bill makes will ensure that truth and justice are never concealed again and that brave families will never again be left fighting endlessly for the truth. Anyone caught trying to hide the truth will face the full force of the law.
To Margaret Aspinall, the brave bereaved families and the hundreds of campaigners who brought us to this moment, thank you for the decades of work you have done. We all owe you a debt of gratitude. With my whole heart, I commend this Bill to the House.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill and commend Ministers for the work that has been done on it. In particular, I pay tribute to Merseyside colleagues, who have done so much to get us to where we are today.
This Bill is about restoring people’s trust in the people who serve them, whether that is in Westminster, Liverpool or Bolton—trust that the truth will be told when things go wrong; trust that when things do go wrong, those responsible will be held to account; and trust that Government at every level will work for them, not against them. When I speak to people in Bolton West, the impression is often the same: they are tired of people in public office covering up their failures instead of being held accountable for them.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the central reasons for public disillusionment and outrage is that there are no successful prosecutions, or very few, in cases of egregious state failure? Does he agree that unless wrongdoers pay a price and are seen to pay a price, this impunity may persist, and that the duty of candour and the two new statutory offences will help overcome this malaise?
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend speaks to the two new offences—clauses 5 and 11. It is vital not only that the Bill is passed, but that the authorities have the powers they need to ensure that the contents of the Bill are enforced.
When I speak to people, they want honesty and fairness, and for those in power to live by the same rules as everyone else. That is why this Bill matters. Behind it lie some of the darkest chapters in our recent history, which we have already heard about in the Chamber today: Grenfell, Hillsborough, the Horizon scandal, infected blood—the list is far too long. Each one of those cases represents lives ruined by not just a single mistake, but a culture of denial by institutions that closed ranks instead of coming clean.
Given the time constraints, let me turn to the contents of the Bill. It will create a landmark duty of candour on public officials, alongside a new and important offence of statutory misconduct in public office. Both will be vital measures in ensuring that the scandals of years past can never be repeated. Fundamental to the Bill is the new requirement for public authorities to have a code of ethics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned before me, which will start to rebuild the moral foundation of public service that too many people believe has been lost.
I put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has generously engaged with me on a number of points related to the Bill. I hope the Government will consider three small, novel but important changes I wish to propose as the Bill goes to Committee. First, the Bill uses two different definitions of what counts as a public authority. There may be a good reason for that, which the Minister can speak to in her wind-up, but for the duty of candour and misconduct in public office offences, elected representatives, such as local councillors, mayors and Ministers, are included as per part 2 of schedule 2, but when it comes to the requirement to have a code of ethics, it excludes them as per part 3 of schedule 2. That feels inconsistent, and I worry that it risks diluting the message that we are trying to send, which is that everyone, no matter their position, is held to the same standards. My constituents expect everyone in public life, from the Cabinet table to the council chamber, to live by the same principles of honesty and decency.
Secondly, may I gently suggest that we look again at putting the ministerial code and the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards on a statutory footing? This simple measure was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its 2021 report, “Upholding Standards in Public Life”.
That is a simple way of ensuring that the rules that govern Ministers today cannot be swept away by less scrupulous Governments tomorrow.
Thirdly, on the offence of misconduct in public office, will the Minister clarify why the Government have elected to set the bar so high? Part 3 is worded to allude to
“the nature and degree of any benefit obtained by the person (whether for themselves or another person) as a result of the act “.
Seeking to be corrupt is not better than successfully being corrupt, so I hope that the Minister will look afresh at the relevant clause. Indeed, the Law Commission has called for a definition along the lines of the intention to benefit. As I recall from more than a decade tackling corruption, section 6 of the Bribery Act 2010 uses the phrasing
“intend to obtain or retain…business, or…an advantage in the conduct of business.”
Aligning those definitions would make it easier for prosecutors to hold bad actors to account.
None the less, the Bill is a huge step forward in the Government’s mission to return politics to service. I am proud to support it this evening, and I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House to make it as strong, fair and future-proof as it can be.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a privilege to witness proceedings and to speak as this landmark Bill is given its Second Reading. As others have remarked, this day is a testament to the courage, resilience and awe-inspiring fortitude of the bereaved families of the 97 Liverpool fans who were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, who shall never be forgotten. I pay tribute to the many Members of this House who have been involved—those who sit here today and others whose time here ended before they were able to see this crucial legislation. I acknowledge in particular the campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) has seen through with such courage, and the powerful speeches that we have heard, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker).
It has been said that grief is just love persevering. The families’ pursuit for justice and truth, because of that love, has persevered through decades. The Bill will ensure a lasting legacy—on top of that which has already been built—for those who tragically did not return after simply attending a football game. It will also benefit us all, and we owe the families a deep debt of gratitude.
In straightforward terms, I see the Bill as providing in statute that truth can never be discretionary—it is an intrinsic and legal duty of being in public office and public service. It has not been an easy road to get to this point. I commend the Prime Minister for delivering on a promise that he made personally, regardless of any institutional resistance. We cannot let truth be concealed ever again. No future family should have to fight a system for answers or be retraumatised by a process that is fuelled by, as Bishop James Jones eloquently put it,
“the patronising disposition of unaccountable power.”
I welcome in particular the measures that go beyond the fundamental new duty of candour and offer assistance to families facing an inquest. That will ensure a parity of representation between them and the state, in cases in which a public body is to be legally represented. Let us not forget that, at the first Hillsborough inquest, families received no public funding for legal representation, while senior police officers were represented by five separate legal teams. Bringing an end to that imbalance of power will support the inquisitorial nature of any legal proceedings, and, I hope, offer protection against the efforts of a public body to obfuscate, intimidate or even withhold information.
I would like us to consider how we can best ensure that any learnings and recommendations from inquests or inquiries are implemented. The honesty and integrity that the Bill mandates will further help coroners to establish the facts and come to conclusions about what events or actions could or should have been prevented. Families want their painful stories to lead to change, but learning leads to change only if public bodies are made to act.
I will finish on a wider cultural point. I do not think anyone would deny that public trust in our politics and public institutions is at a very low level. Scandals have eroded trust, as bodies and public officials have misled people—and, frankly, hidden the truth—to protect themselves rather than the public. The Bill provides an opportunity to restate that public services are here to be on people’s side. My constituents, and all the communities we serve, deserve to feel safe and supported. To regain legitimacy, the public need to know that words and evidence from our public officials and bodies can be trusted. I hope that the Bill will lead to greater integrity and further person-centred reform to public services, which I know this Government are committed to building.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It gives me great pride as a Labour MP to speak in this debate on an incredibly important Bill that will further right historic wrongs—stains on our nation’s history. Although my constituents hold a range of views on many issues, they are united in expecting public servants and institutions to act with honesty and transparency. The Bill draws a line in the sand, signalling a landmark shift in the responsibilities placed on those who serve our communities. With the Bill we can finally say that when the state fails and public servants do not live up to their duties, the men and women of this country will not be left fighting for the truth.
The duty of candour is about truth telling when the truth is inconvenient—even incriminating—and it is about ensuring that the power of the state can never again be used to conceal wrongdoing, distort justice or silence ordinary people. As an MP representing a former mining community, the memory of the battle of Orgreave still looms large. On 18 June 1984, hundreds of striking miners gathered to picket peacefully. What followed was a ruthlessly planned violent confrontation between police and miners; 95 were arrested and charged with offences including riot and violent disorder. Many of the prosecutions collapsed when it became clear that the officers’ statements were almost identical and not credible, but still those men were vilified and for 40 years have lived with the scars—physical and mental—and felt the crushing weight, as the families of the 97 have felt, of justice denied.
In July the Government announced a statutory inquiry into Orgreave, to be chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield. That announcement was so welcome, but three months on many in our communities are desperate for news. Last week I and fellow coalfield MPs met the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, which reminded us that with many miners having shorter life expectancies due to the gruelling and dangerous work that they did underground, every day that goes by could mean lost testimony that would be crucial to the inquiry. As with Hillsborough, when it comes to Orgreave, a duty of candour could have prevented a generation of injustice, and could even have disincentivised a culture of cover-ups.
The same principle of truth, transparency and accountability applies just as powerfully to the press. This morning in the Liverpool Echo, Margaret Aspinall, who has been such a powerful figurehead for the Hillsborough families’ campaign for justice, said unequivocally that justice for the 97 will not be fully done until we have proper press regulation and accountability for the lies that were told by The Sun. She is right, and we owe it to everyone who has had their life torn apart by press intrusion or misinformation to take action.
I think of Paul Dadge from my constituency who became a symbol of humanity in the 7/7 attacks. Hon. Members may remember the harrowing image of a woman clutching a burn mask to her face, being guided towards an ambulance by a man. That man was Paul and, although he hates the word, Paul was a hero that day. But in the months that followed, Paul found that his phone had been hacked by News of the World journalists. We all remember the denials and warm words that were uttered throughout the public furore over the phone-hacking scandal. It has now been more than a decade since the Leveson inquiry exposed the corrosive culture of impunity in parts of the British press. The second phase of that inquiry would have investigated the relationship between the press and police, but it was shamefully abandoned by the previous Government. Instead, the big papers created their own regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which has never fined a newspaper and has found in favour complainants in only 0.3% of cases.
Now that we are 12 years on from Leveson and in an age of social media, action against press intrusion needs to look different, but the principle of an impartial, independent watchdog is perhaps even more relevant now than it was in 2013. I hope that is something under active consideration by the Government. Whether it is the families of Hillsborough, the miners of Orgreave, or my constituent Paul, we owe them meaningful, permanent change. The Bill offers us a chance to do that, and I hope and believe that it will be the start of much more to come.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I would like to start by paying tribute to the many hon. Members and campaigners who have never stopped fighting for truth and accountability. We have heard many powerful contributions today, outlining a painful litany of cover-ups and scandals, where individuals and families have been betrayed by the very institutions that were meant to protect them. This Bill is also for those who are suffering, but who only now we are beginning to see and to recognise.
My constituent, Jan Hall, is a diethylstilbestrol—DES—daughter. DES was an anti-miscarriage drug invested here in Britain and prescribed between 1939 and the late 1970s. It was marketed as a wonder drug, but even as evidence that the drug caused harm emerged in the 1950s and after it was linked to cancer in the 1970s, it continued to be prescribed to women. This is potentially one of the biggest pharmaceutical scandals in British history, and something upon which this Bill will, no doubt, shine a light.
Jan’s mum, Rita, was prescribed DES. She died of breast cancer at the age of 32, when Jan was still a toddler. Jan has suffered from health problems for her whole life, including cervical cancer, and now her daughters, Beth and Hannah, have had a series of gynaecological problems. We know that women who took DES face around 30% higher risk of breast of cancer. Their daughters who were exposed to the drug have 40 times the risk of rare vaginal and cervical cancers, and also face infertility issues. On top of that, their sons show increased risk of genital abnormalities and infertility. This is an intergenerational issue and we are now seeing grandchildren, like Beth and Hannah, suffering from complications, with research only beginning to uncover the scale of the inherited harm. These women have fought for decades for the recognition and justice that they deserve, but for too long they have been ignored.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has admitted that it misled the public for more than a decade. Imagine if a duty of candour had existed for DES victims. Imagine if the MHRA, the Department of Health and pharmaceutical companies had been compelled to disclose what they knew and when they knew it: generations of women might have been spared devastating illnesses, families would have been spared grief, and trust in our institutions might have been preserved. The Hillsborough law is not only a matter of legal reform, but a matter of trust. If the public cannot trust the state to tell the truth when things go wrong, then the social contract is broken. The Hillsborough law gives us a way to rebuild it.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to the issue and the reaffirmation that he will not water down the principles that give the Bill life. To all the families still waiting for justice—this Bill is for you. Let the Hillsborough law mark the moment when we say, finally and decisively, that justice delayed must never be justice denied.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
First, I would like to record the respect I have for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for all he has done on the Hillsborough law. His relentless campaigning on it is equalled by his dedication in fighting another political injustice—that of food insecurity. It is fair to say that his community, the Labour party and this place are stronger for him being in them.
What a catalogue of injustices, cover-ups and scandals our nation has seen. There are too many for me to mention in the short time that I have available, but the common theme is that working-class communities always seem to be the victims. Forty-one years on, people are still waiting for justice from the premeditated beatings handed out at Orgreave. Thirty-six years on, families and survivors who we have heard from today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, are still waiting for justice and accountability for what happened that day at Hillsborough.
Eight years on from Grenfell, the memory of the 72 victims, and their families and friends, still wait for justice. Incredibly, approximately a quarter of a million people will go to bed tonight in buildings with the same flammable cladding surrounding them. How on earth can we sit in this place and allow that to be the case? Because I’ll tell you: if it was not working-class people who died in those buildings, then a lot more than what has been done so far would have been done by now. Furthermore, the firefighters who attended the scene at Grenfell are now suffering from serious health consequences because of their incredible recovery efforts. They too deserve answers and justice, and—crucially—the protective equipment that will keep them safe from the carcinogenic materials that they are exposed to in the line of duty.
It is only right that my final comments are addressed to the Hillsborough families, both those here in Parliament today and those watching at home. You have waited so long for what is just; I am truly sorry that it has taken this length of time. You have shown that change is possible and that, more often than not, it comes from pressure applied by the general public, not this place.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the families of victims, and to the campaigners who have fought for decades, following the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, for this legislation. They have fought to prevent state cover-ups such as the one that they experienced. In the years since Hillsborough, far too many other families have not only endured the grief of losing people they loved, but had their grief compounded by injustice. Instead of answers, they got obstruction and obfuscation.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point about the obstruction that families and individuals still face. A family in my constituency have for the last 18 months methodically uncovered failings in the care of their father in hospital. He sadly died, yet the failings that they uncovered were ignored by the medical examiner and in the pathology report, and they were not adequately addressed by the hospital trust. As a result, the family have been unable to secure the accountability that they seek for their father’s death. Does my hon. Friend agree that the duty of candour that this Bill compels will begin to rebalance the relationship between individuals such as my constituents and public bodies?
Catherine Atkinson
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There are still so many families fighting for justice, and the persistence of families who have been fighting for justice has brought us to this moment. We all owe them our thanks and our action. I feel privileged to have so many colleagues who fought alongside them for so long.
I welcome the expansion of legal aid in the Bill; after years of cuts to legal aid, it is heartening to see the extension of legal aid to all families at inquests in which public authorities are involved. As a barrister, I have represented parties in inquests, including families, and I know how difficult inquests can be for families, even when they have legal representation and get answers that help them to come to terms with what happened. For too long, families have faced an inequality of arms when they have sought to understand and navigate the coroners court, and to secure the information and documents needed, and have sought the confidence to ask questions without legal representation. Meanwhile, they see the public authorities from which they are trying to get answers being supported by their legal teams.
This is not just about funding; it is about fairness. This Bill helps to correct the balance, so that families at least have representation. It gives them an advocate, a guide and a voice. That is not just compassionate, but essential to justice. I fully accept that injustice can still happen even when there are lawyers, but not having representation in those circumstances is an injustice in itself, and this Bill changes that. I also welcome the fact that the Bill introduces new statutory criminal offences. That sends such a powerful message that cover-ups will no longer be met with dismissal; they will be met with criminal sanctions. That is a vital deterrent and a long-overdue shift in accountability.
Mistakes are made, and humans err in the moment, but later on, there are choices. Are the errors acknowledged, or do people attempt to double down and persist in a false narrative? If somebody acknowledges the error, they may be sacked, but if they cover it up, they will not just be sacked; they will face going to prison. This Bill empowers the frontline of our public service to say no, and to report it if they are pressured to participate in a cover-up.
This Bill reflects the hard-won lessons of decades of campaigning. It will not undo the pain of the past, but it will help prevent future injustice by strengthening legal aid, empowering grieving families, and introducing meaningful criminal sanctions for cover-ups. This legislation begins to rebalance the scales. It sends a clear message that truth must come before reputation, and accountability must come before self-preservation, and it ensures that families will not be left to fight alone.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
This legislation is all about a fundamental rebalancing of power between the state and the citizens it is meant to protect and serve. We have heard powerfully today from many Members about the Hillsborough families and their enduring quest for the truth. Briefly, I would like to add the nuclear test veterans to that list of campaigners for justice, including my constituent, 88-year-old John Morris.
When John was stationed on Christmas Island in 1956, he was told that British troops were building a new runway. In reality, they were testing nuclear weapons, but the weapons that were intended to keep Britain safe from the Soviet threat were far from safe for the men who were out in the south Pacific—they were effectively treated like lab rats, with little or no protection from harm. John is one of 22,000 British troops who were exposed to radiation while on service in the 1950s, and who have campaigned for years about the cancers and other side effects they endured.
John’s son Steven died at just four months old from birth defects. For 50 years, John and his wife faced repeated indignities. They were wrongfully questioned on suspicion of having murdered their son, denied information about how and why their son died, and denied John’s own medical records. Finally, a coroner’s report suggesting that Steven’s lungs might not have formed properly was revealed. John himself has had cancer, and has had a blood disorder since he was 26 years old. He sent me a message today:
“Great news about the Hillsborough law…for us vets, it’s very positive”,
because it will
“make our lives much easier”
in getting the answers they demand. He is pleased that in September, the Prime Minister agreed to meet him to discuss the issue further, and he is looking forward to that meeting.
There is another Rochdale resident whose campaign will, I hope, also benefit from this new legislation: 83-year-old Sylvia Mountain, who used the pregnancy test drug Primodos, which has already been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends. She gave birth to her son Philip in 1963, but Philip died of birth defects just 22 days after he was born. Today is the anniversary of the day her baby died, 62 years ago. Sylvia was told by doctors at the time to stop being “hysterical”, and has been told that no medical records exist to explain her son’s death, but many other women who were prescribed Primodos suffered similar birth defects in their children, as well as stillbirths and miscarriages. Victims of the Primodos test are still waiting for answers. For more than half a century, these families have faced a culture of concealment—of suppressed evidence, misleading official conclusions, and denial of responsibility.
John and Sylvia—two Rochdale pensioners in their 80s, whose lives have been overshadowed by tragedy and loss in ways that are very different, but also very similar—personify the decades of injustice that this legislation is intended to prevent from ever happening again. I pay tribute to both of them for their resilience in the face of unspeakable tragedy and suffering, and am proud to have them as my constituents. John and Sylvia want the state to recognise its responsibilities before it is too late for them and others like them. It is in their name, and that of all the other victims of state power and cover-ups, that I welcome this landmark Hillsborough Bill today, a Bill that it has taken this Labour Government to make a reality.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the wind-ups. I call Mike Wood.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Bill is the result of decades of campaigning and struggle by families fighting for answers. The thoughts and hearts of all of us in this House, regardless of party affiliation, are with the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. The tireless work of those families is ultimately responsible for uncovering the truth about Hillsborough and delivering an element of justice for the victims, whose memory was tarnished by the unwillingness of some individuals in authority to tell the truth. The Bill is also testament to the valuable work done by Bishop James Jones and his independent panel, for which we are truly thankful.
The Bill is in no small part down to the effective campaigning of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); he has fought for those who joined him in going to Hillsborough on that terrible day in April 1989, but who lost their life, due to the terrible decisions made by the stadium operators and South Yorkshire police.
Hillsborough stands as one of the most obvious and harrowing examples of the British state’s failure to remain accountable, truthful and candid. Unfortunately, it is not the only such example in recent years. We have had the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, the families of pub bombing victims in Birmingham and Guildford denied justice following police misconduct, and the failure of the British state to properly acknowledge and tackle the rape and grooming gangs that have terrorised communities across the country. Each and every one of these failures undermines the British public’s faith in their Government, and each was a scandal made worse by institutions’ attempts to hide from responsibility, and to put their reputations and interests ahead of transparency and justice in the clearest possible examples of abuse of power. Calls for greater candour and accountability are legitimate and welcome; those of us in this place must always remember that our sole duty is to serve the interests of the British people and to do right by them.
I thank all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this Second Reading. I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that the Government will table an amendment to extend the duty of candour to cover local inquiries, which was a clear gap in the Bill as introduced. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) spoke about the often heard cry of “never again”. We must make sure that when this Bill enters the statute books, it turns that cry into a reality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) expressed legitimate concerns about the effectiveness and administration of some public inquiries, and I know those concerns are shared by some Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) spoke about the need for a change in culture that goes beyond legislation, so that taking responsibility, rather than covering up failings, becomes the norm, and not just a legal requirement. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) reminded us of the outrageous experimentation on disabled pupils at Treloar school and the lengths that authorities went to hide responsibility. Hopefully some of the Bill’s measures will be of some help to those pupils.
The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke movingly about how failings in the NHS were made worse by a lack of openness, and about families simply not feeling heard. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) reminded us of the long battle fought by nuclear test veterans.
As noble as this Bill’s intentions may be, we must be ever vigilant for the unintended consequences of well-intended laws. As this Bill proceeds through the House, we will scrutinise it closely to minimise the harms that may arise. In particular, we must make sure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a situation in which Government and public services can no longer function effectively, not because they are falling foul of the Bill, but because they fear that they may fall foul of it if its provisions are applied in ways that the Government did not intend. We must clarify how this Bill will interface with legal and disciplinary frameworks, including the civil service code. We must clarify how new standards of ethical conduct will interface with those and other frameworks, and we must have a clear definition of what it means to mislead the public.
Under the Bill, that charge of misleading the public carries a criminal sanction. We obviously recognise some of the safeguards that have been included, but they are not as tightly defined as they might be. If politicians are to be able to represent the public effectively, we must be absolutely certain that this definition is watertight, because otherwise the Bill may give rise to a situation whereby legitimate decisions made by Ministers are subject to politically motivated lawfare.
We rightly expect our parliamentarians, officials and Ministers to speak honestly, truthfully and with integrity, whether in the Chamber or outside, but clause 11(3)(a), by defining dishonesty in terms of
“falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise”,
risks leaving Prime Ministers, other Ministers and even constituency MPs at constant risk of vexatious complaints. We may differ about the adequacy, and even the accuracy, of some of the responses that the Prime Minister gives us at Prime Minister’s questions, but those disagreements must be a matter for the ballot box rather than the courtroom.
We must also have a clear definition of the public interest, which is the idea on which so much of the Bill rests. In our political system, the public interest is not for bureaucrats or judges to decide. The public express their will through the democratic process, and elect Members of Parliament to implement that will on their behalf. Can the Government be sure that the definition of the public interest in the Bill will not conflict with efforts made by future Governments to implement those democratic wishes? It would be profoundly dangerous for any single Government to attempt to define the public interest in a way that would bind future Governments without giving sufficient weight to the role that the public themselves play in determining and articulating that interest.
At their best, public inquiries offer opportunities to genuinely learn rather than to seek retribution; to establish what happened and how, so that action can be taken to stop such events being repeated, more harm being done to more people, more lives being lost unnecessarily, and more futures being stolen away, so that the oft-repeated words “never again”, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough spoke so well, can actually have some meaning. However, that can only happen with honesty, openness and a degree of trust—in short, with candour from all those involved. If this Bill can help to achieve that, it is well worth supporting. That is why, although we will work to tighten some parts at later stages to ensure that it operates properly, we will support it tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a genuine, true privilege to close this Second Reading debate on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law. The introduction of the Bill is a huge achievement, but I echo the Prime Minister when I say that it was not born here in Westminster; it was born out of heartbreak, out of unimaginable loss, out of the tireless courage of those who refused to be silenced. Some of those extraordinary people have been with us today in the Gallery, and to them I simply say, “Thank you. The whole country owes you a debt of gratitude.”
I want to pay particular tribute to Hillsborough Law Now. I pay tribute to Nathan, Pete, Elkan, Deb, Clare and Debbie, whom have all given their time, expertise and passion to this Government to ensure that we deliver the best possible Bill. I pay tribute to the family members who lost loved ones at Hillsborough and met us over the summer, who shared their pain and who have rightly held us to account every single step of the way: Margaret Aspinall, Charlotte Hennessy, Sue Roberts, Steve Kelly, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond.
I also pay tribute to the Members who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the family members: specifically, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friends the Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—my very good friend—who chaired the all-party parliamentary group on the Hillsborough disaster for nine years, and is now the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness. I know that it has been significantly painful for her not to be able to speak in this debate, but she is with us tonight, sitting on the Front Bench.
The genesis of this Bill is the fight of the Hillsborough families, but it goes much further. This Bill is for anyone who has experienced an injustice, anyone who has had to fight against the state to be heard, and anyone who has had to demand the truth when it should have been given freely. At its heart, this Bill is shaped by lived experience.
I also want to thank Inquest for its tireless work, and for holding that vital family listening day back in February with families from a range of campaigns. We heard from so many of them personally about why the changes in this Bill are so essential and the real difference that this will make in people’s lives, and why access to legal aid for inquests where the state is an interested person is so vitally important.
I thank the families of Ruth Perry, Matthew Copestick and Connor Sparrowhawk for sharing their experiences with us and highlighting the importance of this. I cannot thank enough Hillsborough Law Now, Grenfell United, the sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal, those affected by the infected blood scandal, Truth About Zane, and, sadly, so many others, for their time, or Inquest for the report that it produced. That has shaped not only this Bill but wider areas of policy, and that is why it is so important that the voices of victims and those with lived experience are at the heart of what we do in government. But this Bill is not only for the major scandals that have scarred our nation and made the news; it is also for individual families—we have heard many of their stories here tonight—and for the ordinary people who find themselves facing the full force of the state alone.
The Prime Minister has already set out why the expansion of legal aid is so important, but I also want to share a story that shows why this Bill is needed so urgently. In September, I had the pleasure of meeting Will Powell, a father who has been fighting for answers for over 30 years, and I am proud that he is with us today. He has been fighting since the death of his son Robbie in 1990. Robbie was just 10 years old when he died of Addison’s disease. After Robbie’s death, it became apparent that doctors had suspected that he had the disease and, without Will’s knowledge, a test to confirm the diagnosis had been requested but not completed. That meant that Robbie did not receive the treatment that could have saved his life. Will and his family have been fighting for the truth ever since. They have been fighting for the truth about what went wrong and why this happened.
Nothing can bring back Robbie, or those we lost as a result of Hillsborough, Grenfell, Horizon or infected blood, but what we can bring is truth. At the heart of every campaign and every struggle is love—love for those who families have lost, love that has become action and love that is determined to make sure that no one else suffers as they have and that there is lasting change.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I commend the Minister for paying tribute to William Powell, who has campaigned for justice for 35 years for his son, Robbie Powell, who died as a result of medical negligence. William Powell has done so much to secure this legal duty of candour, so it is right that he is acknowledged here in this debate, but he is still waiting for a public inquiry into his son’s death. Can the Minister say whether she believes that this case, which has been described as the worst cover-up in NHS history, meets the conditions for a public inquiry—something that has been called for by the former Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for introducing me to Will Powell earlier this year. I know that the Secretary of State for Wales has also met Will Powell. However, the hon. Member will know that granting an inquiry is a decision for the Welsh Government, and I know that he is having conversations with the Ministers there.
Every single life lost is someone’s whole world. I am so honoured to bring forward this Bill and to represent the families who have so tirelessly campaigned for it, but as we have heard, this is just the beginning.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will not, as I have quite a lot to get through.
As a victims Minister, I want to put on record my commitment to continue to listen to and provide a voice for victims. I will do everything in my power to make sure that when this Bill leaves Parliament, it does so as the strongest Bill possible. The Government will bring forward an amendment to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the duty will extend to local authority investigations that are intended to capture the likes of the local grooming gang inquiries, and the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack. We will utilise powers in the Bill to extend the duty to a range of ombudsman investigations, such as those by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and the Housing Ombudsman.
I will turn now to the points raised in today’s debate. First of all, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their support for this Bill. It is welcome and, as many have said, this Bill is long overdue. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), raised a number of potential issues with the Bill. She mentioned legal aid and said that the Liberal Democrats would like it to be expanded to those who are survivors, as well as the bereaved. I want to put on record that this is the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Bill provides for parity of representation, and will expand non-means-tested legal aid so that bereaved family members can secure advocacy at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, but it does so, as I understand it, only in England and Wales. Of course, justice is a devolved issue, but can the Minister confirm that, despite months of engagement with the Scottish Government on this UK-wide legislation, the SNP Government have failed to confirm that non-means-tested legal aid will be available in Scotland, resulting in Scots families still relying on charity to gain access to justice—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions need to be short.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, which gives me the opportunity to address some of the issues concerning devolution that were brought up in the debate. A number of hon. and right hon. Members talked about whether this Bill will apply UK-wide, and I can confirm that the duty of candour provisions will apply UK-wide. However, as hon. and right hon. Members will know, justice is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so the legal system does not apply there in the same way that it does in England and Wales, which is why some of the criminal offences do not apply. It is for Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland to request whether this legislation applies to those nations. Conversations have been positive, and we have engaged very closely with our counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland on this point. We hope that these measures will apply UK-wide, but we cannot mandate for other nations that are not in our jurisdiction.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) made an important point about legal aid. It is for the Scottish Government to determine whether they will apply the same provisions that we are providing for England and Wales. We are providing non-means-tested legal aid for any bereaved person at an inquest where the state is a represented party. It is for Scottish Ministers to determine whether they want to apply the same.
We have had a lot of talk this evening about how long this Bill has been in the making. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned that she was proud that it is a Labour Government, in just over our first year in office, who have brought this Bill to the House. The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about this issue, and they failed. The SNP Government in Scotland have had 20 years to do something, and they have failed. It is a Labour Government who have chosen to bring forward this Bill and to do something about this, to ensure that families get parity on legal aid and that a duty of candour applies across all our public services.
A number of speeches this evening addressed protection for whistleblowers. I reaffirm my commitment to hon. Members that the Bill does require all authorities to set out a process to raise concerns, and to ensure that procedures are clear and accessible for whistleblowers. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), who is vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, requested a meeting with me. I will happily meet her to discuss this matter further, because it is important that we address it.
A number of Members raised the issue of the media, but they will know that that is out of scope of this Bill. This Bill provides a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants. We will ensure that public service broadcasters operate within what they are permitted. However, it is important to note that since the calls for Leveson and Leveson 2 were introduced, the media landscape has drastically and dramatically moved on.
The public do not consume media in the same way any more. The vast majority of the British public consume their media via social media. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was on the Front Bench when these issues were raised. She has made a commitment, and she has already met some of the families of victims to discuss what more we can do to tackle disinformation and misinformation, particularly about disasters and issues that arise in public and are then put on social media. I will continue my conversations with her as the Bill progresses to ensure that we address that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) gave a fantastic speech about how we need to be reasonable, proportionate and fair. I want to assure him that, when it comes to legal aid and the parity of arms that is so integral to the Bill, coroners do have the powers to enforce what is considered reasonable and proportionate under the Bill to ensure that families are not faced with an army of barristers when they have a publicly funded lawyer advocating for them. That is not the intention, and we have put that in the Bill.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the definition of harm, and I want to reassure Members again that there is a very low bar for meeting this test. We have ensured that it does cover mental distress, and that that is not the only measure for a criminal offence. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) mentioned those who falsify statistics—crime statistics, for example—where harm would not necessarily come into play. If an officer falsified crime or other statistics to make himself or the police force look better, that would come under the offence of misconduct in public office, so they would be captured in another criminal offence in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about something that is very close to my heart. He made an excellent contribution on the need for inquest reform, and inquiry reform more broadly. I wholeheartedly agree with him, as do this Government, which is why the Cabinet Office is taking its time to get this right. It is looking at quite a substantial piece of work, and I will endeavour to keep him updated on it as we are actively developing our proposals.
I hate to have to admit it to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) but I am also a red, so I think it is actually Liverpool 3—Everton 1. I want to reaffirm my commitment to working with him and all Merseyside MPs—in fact, all Members in this House—and the families, as the Bill progresses, to ensure that it is the strongest possible Bill.
There were excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens North (David Baines), for Liverpool West Derby, for Knowsley and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who have been excellent advocates for the families of the Hillsborough disaster during their tireless campaigning. I am determined to work with all of them as the Bill progresses to ensure that there is no carve-out for the security services. Just to reassure the House, there is no carve-out: the duty of candour applies to everyone, including the security services and including individuals. However, what is different for the security services is the way in which they report such a breach—they must report it to a senior individual within the service to ensure that national security is protected—and I think we have struck the right balance in the Bill. However, I hear the concerns raised in this House, as there have been concerns raised outside it, and I am keen to engage in such conversations to see if there is anything further we can do on this point.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) mentioned the Chinook disaster. A commitment has been made to meet Members and families of the victims of the Chinook disaster, and I have made a commitment to be at that meeting to progress those issues.
There were fantastic contributions from Sheffield Members who, as well as the Merseyside MPs, have felt the urgency to bring forward this legislation and the pain of the Hillsborough disaster in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) said she gave birth not long after the Hillsborough disaster, and talked about how it has always stuck with her that her baby was at home while so many parents did not get to bring their children home.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
As a six-year-old, I remember the death of Joe McCarthy, who lived on my road in west London, so it is not just about those who lived in Sheffield or elsewhere. It affected everyone across the country, and this Bill is so important for that reason.
Alex Davies-Jones
Indeed, and for me that is a fantastic point. This law may bear the name Hillsborough, but it is a Bill for the entire country, and this Government have made that a clear commitment.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), the Chair of the Justice Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston, talked about the Independent Public Advocate. As the House will be aware, Cindy Butts has been appointed as the Independent Public Advocate. She is a fantastic individual who has just been appointed to her first role as the IPA, following the horrific attack at Heaton Park synagogue. I am due to meet her later this week to discuss how she has found being stood up for the first time following the introduction of the role in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, and her resource requirements and powers. I will, of course, update the House if we both feel, as the IPA and the Minister, that there is further to go in that respect. I am also due to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston and Lord Wills in the other place to discuss, as the Bill progresses, how we can work together further to look at the role of the IPA.
Andy Slaughter
I also mentioned the national oversight mechanism. Whether the Minister thinks it requires legislation or can be done by Government action, does she support having something that is shared, publicised and known about so that we are not constantly repeating things and we know where inquiries have got to? Will she do that in tandem with the Bill, if it is not part of the Bill?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, pre-empts my next point, which is on the national oversight mechanism. Again, a number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned that. As the Prime Minister stated in his opening remarks, there is a need for accountability here. We are looking at how we can do that. Work is being led by the Cabinet Office on inquest and inquiry reform, and the Ministry of Justice has already done work on ensuring that prevention of future death reports are published. I echo the Prime Minister: we do not feel that the Bill is the necessary vehicle to put in a national oversight mechanism, but we are looking proactively at what we can do to ensure that there is accountability and transparency so that these inquiries are never again left sitting on a shelf, with recommendations ignored or put to one side.
My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, and my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned an issue very close to my heart: Orgreave. Hon. Members may know, because I have talked about it with pride, that my father was there on that day. I am the very proud daughter of a miner and nothing has given me more pride than this Government announcing a statutory inquiry into Orgreave, which will be coming forward soon.
When the Bill becomes an Act, it will apply to inquiries that are ongoing. If an inquiry has started or is ongoing, the legislation will come into immediate effect and apply to all inquiries that are under way. I am really looking forward to the recommendations of that inquiry and to the truth we will get, because that, again, is long overdue.
There were concerns regarding the security services and whistleblowers. Hopefully, I have put some of those fears to bed this evening, but I look forward to debating all these issues in detail in Committee. I again extend the offer to meet any hon. Member to ensure that the Bill remains as strong as possible when it finally leaves this place and becomes an Act. I look forward to positive engagement with colleagues across the House.
Finally, the Bill will ensure that no other family will ever have to walk alone. I am immensely proud to commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill:
Committal
The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 11 December 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Regulation of houses in multiple occupation
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the uncontrolled growth and lack of monitoring of houses in multiple occupation across South Shields. HMOs are having a detrimental impact on our community, increasing antisocial behaviour and contributing to the erosion of family housing. Everyone deserves to have a place to call home, and everyone deserves to feel safe in that home. HMOs should not be allowed to be used as a substitute for good-quality, affordable housing.
The petitioners therefore request that:
“the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce new legislation to regulate and lessen the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation; and to ask that each local authority publishes their strategy and policies on HMOs.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South Shields
Declares that the uncontrolled growth of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) within the constituency is having a detrimental impact on communities, leading to overcrowding, crime, anti-social behaviour, parking pressures, and the erosion of family housing availability; notes that HMOs are subject to different licensing regimes under housing law, including mandatory licensing, additional licensing, and selective licensing; further declares that while these licensing schemes provide oversight of management and safety, the planning system remains the main safeguard against over-concentration; and further declares that without strengthened legislation, HMOs can proliferate unchecked.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce new legislation to regulate and lessen the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation; and to ask that each local authority publishes their strategy and policies on HMOs.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003124]
Care Leavers
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Today marks the first sitting day of National Care Leavers Month, and what a way to begin. I am grateful for the opportunity to come to the Chamber and talk about the challenges facing young people once they have left children’s social care, and I very much hope that this month Members from across the House can join together in the spirit of raising awareness of these challenges and working together to bring forward solutions. I welcome the fact that the Minister was the chair and author of the independent review into children’s social care over three years ago. I know that he feels deeply about this area and I am sure he will bring a wealth of experience to his role on the Front Bench.
The theme of National Care Leavers Month 2025 is “Rising as Me: Overcoming challenges, transforming, and finding your identity”. The ages of 16 to 25 are a formative time in the lives of many young people, and care leavers should have the same opportunities to enjoy and explore this period; instead, many face a cliff edge of support and services.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Care leavers need support; they need the state to deliver for them when family is sometimes not there in the way that it is for many young people. Does she agree with me and my Select Committee that we need to iron out the differences in support for care leavers across the country and that we should have a national offer for care leavers so that they can rely on support wherever they are in the country?
Sally Jameson
I completely agree. As we move through this debate today, I think a theme that will shine through is the need to get rid of what is often a postcode lottery for care leavers.
I want to recognise some of the good work that the Government have already done in this area. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill marks an important step forward in ensuring that support for care leavers endures beyond the age of 18. I welcome the requirement for local authorities to publish a full care offer for care leavers, which will offer clarity and direction. I know that there is already some good practice from my own council in Doncaster, with comprehensive offers of support, including the Staying Put and Staying Close initiatives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; I spoke to her beforehand. Does she agree that those leaving care may not have had the financial advice and instruction that they should have had and that many of us take for granted? It is imperative that they are taught how to be self-reliant and are able to manage their finances by themselves. Does she further agree that such classes should also teach these vulnerable young people, who do not have a family to help and protect them, how to protect themselves financially and physically from those who would seek to target them?
Sally Jameson
I agree. I think it comes back to the fact that the offer is very different in different areas, and that is something we all want to address.
Warinder Juss
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. We know that care-experienced people face distinct discrimination and challenges throughout their lives. As of September, 125 local authorities have passed motions to recognise care experience as a protect characteristic, which is an important step towards tackling inequality. Does my hon. Friend think that this might be an appropriate time for the Government to follow suit and recognise care experience as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010?
Sally Jameson
I do agree, and I am proud that my own council in Doncaster is one of those that has recognised care experience as a protected characteristic. The council also has a supported accommodation service, which includes a rent guarantee scheme and council tax reductions, and a care leaver guaranteed interview scheme. I also welcome the in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill the extension of the corporate parenting responsibility to all Government Departments to ensure a wider net of support and awareness when it comes to care leavers and the unique challenges they face.
Earlier this year I attended the all-party parliamentary group for care-experienced children and young people—along with Minister before he was in his current role—where I met Fay, Caelan and Caitlin from Doncaster’s children in care council. The recognising of care experience as a protected characteristic is due in no small part to the campaigning that young people like Fay, Caelan and Caitlin have led. It just goes to show that if these young people are given the opportunity to speak out, they will lead the way and show us what they need in order to thrive. It is pivotal that they are part of pushing the change we desperately need.
While we have seen some major strides forward, we must recognise the journey still ahead. The state has some responsibilities for care-experienced children until they are 25, but for many, when they turn 18, the support and relationships that have been available to them up to that point are hugely reduced.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
Leaving care can be extremely challenging. In Watford, Hertfordshire’s local authority provides support with housing, finance, education and training, health and relationships, and wellbeing, but does my hon. Friend agree that all these services have to work really well not just independently but harmoniously together to ensure that care leavers can take steps into adulthood in a properly supported way?
Sally Jameson
I do agree. Having a holistic approach that is the same across all local authorities is really important, especially because children in care often move around a lot and have to get used to new social workers, teams and support systems. We definitely need to move towards having one support package in place.
According to the charity Become, nearly 4,000 children nationally either moved home or left care during their A-level exams in the academic year 2023-24, and 60 of those children were in my home city of Doncaster. Accounts that have been sent to me from care leavers in Doncaster show the stark reality of life after care. Young people report losing weight, becoming ill, feeling self-conscious when going to a food bank, and being unable to access regular or healthy meals because they cannot afford them.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. One issue that came up in my life previous to becoming an MP, and that has come up since, is access to period products for care-experienced young people, particularly as they transition out of care. My hon. Friend has spoken about the postcode lottery, and not all local authorities necessarily provide that support. Although some can access period products through education, care leavers may leave education and not be able to access them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we move away from this postcode lottery and ensure that there is wraparound care, including for care leavers who are not in the education system?
Sally Jameson
I completely agree. Period poverty can often be overlooked when thinking about the whole system, but for young women in care and leaving care who cannot access those products, it can be debilitating to their ability to access all the other services that we are talking about.
One care leaver in Doncaster said:
“Even though I’m not homeless now and I’m safe and secure, it worries me that that will be the next step. It has happened before and it could happen again”.
Another said:
“I don’t think anyone who hasn’t experienced homelessness could understand how scared I was.”
Many in temporary hotel accommodation and still under corporate parentship have to face the choice between affording food or washing their clothes. One said:
“The government are my corporate parents, and they don’t act like it. Would a parent allow a child to go a week without washing their clothes? Would a reasonable parent allow their child to be homeless or not eat?”
The answer to that is no.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point in this debate, which she has thankfully secured. Last week, a group of Southampton care leavers came to Parliament, and raised housing and accommodation as one of the most urgent issues they want us to tackle. I have heard her welcome, as I do, innovations like Staying Put and Staying Close, but supported lodgings are another family-based option for care leavers where the young person gets not only a place to live but the practical help and relational support that she is using those young people’s voices to talk about so powerfully. The early evidence is positive, but does she agree that with too many care leavers living in substandard accommodation and without that support, initiatives such as Home for Good’s supported lodgings are also worth Government attention, particularly in National Care Leavers Month?
Sally Jameson
I agree; I will come later in my speech to a couple of local examples of supported lodgings, which, if applied nationwide, would have a transformative effect on the support that care leavers receive.
These young people often do not have the benefit of family support to help them find accommodation, or with rent and security deposits. Because of that, they are incredibly vulnerable not just to homelessness but to a whole raft of predators who see an opportunity to exploit them. Will the Minister work across Government Departments to increase the setting up home allowance, give priority to care leavers on housing lists in authorities where they have resided for over six months, reform universal credit so that care leavers are entitled to the over-25 weighting, and commit to work with the Department for Transport and regional mayors who have powers in the area to give free bus travel to care leavers up to the age of 25? While I am at it with the asks, can we also include free prescriptions for care leavers? In the context of wider Government spending on the population, the numbers are small, but I think everyone in the Chamber—that includes the Minister—knows that doing those things would make a huge difference to the most vulnerable group in our society, including the young people I have quoted and those on the minds of hon. Members in the Chamber.
There are other areas in which care leavers are often disadvantaged; I have seen them myself. When I worked as a prison officer, I was a single point of contact for care leavers in my jail. I learned that, shockingly, it is estimated that 29% of the prison population are care leavers, and they also make up over 50% of the youth estate. Young care leavers are also 10 times more likely to receive an immediate custodial sentence than young people who have not been in care. As a Government, and indeed as a Parliament, we cannot rest while that remains a reality for such a vulnerable group. Will the Minister work with the Prisons Minister in the other place to develop a national care leavers in custody policy, ensuring that support for young people—wherever they move to—is partnership based?
I will take a little time to pay tribute to an organisation in my constituency that has been mentioned previously. Doncaster Housing for Young People, which I am a patron of, provides tailored housing support in the form of supported lodgings with host families as well as floating support to help sustain tenancies. The organisation has shared stories of those who have had to leave foster places when they turn 18. One young woman in that position shared how she was not ready emotionally or financially to live independently, but, thanks to Doncaster housing for Young People, she moved into supported lodgings where she could build life skills, continue her studies and focus on her wellbeing.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Next week marks the first National Supported Lodgings Week. It will celebrate what those lodgings do in offering the wonderful opportunity of a safe, stable home to people who can then grow and have their independence. She and I are both patrons of Doncaster Housing for Young People, and we know that it has lots of experience supporting care leavers. It is going to go big on National Supported Lodgings Week. Does she agree that the Government should treat supported lodgings as part of the core offer for care leavers, and that we should always strive to make sure that that support is a lot more personal and is less institutional?
Sally Jameson
I agree completely.
The young person that I was speaking about just before my hon. Friend’s intervention said that they were not ready for their own place but that the supported lodgings made them feel less stressed so that they could relax and get on with what they needed to do. It is quite hard for people who have not been in that situation to imagine what it must be like to be on their own with no support network, no family and often no friends in an area where they did not grow up. When they are out there on their own, those supported lodgings are a lifeline for a lot of young people. I am sure that, when the Minister replies, he will discuss whether we can spread that provision more widely.
Other care leavers have shared how Doncaster Housing for Young People has helped them through linking them up with other agencies, and has offered support and help managing debts and finances. It is that holistic support that is so important to help young people leaving care maintain their confidence and transition into adult life. Doncaster Housing for Young People is one of many charities across the country that offer that tailored support; I thank them all for the work they do for young people. I of course invite the Minister to come to Doncaster to learn from Doncaster Housing for Young People, and to see for himself its incredible work.
Before I finish, I would like to reflect again on this year’s theme for National Care Leavers Month: “Rising as Me: Overcoming challenges, transforming, and finding your identity”. We should all remember that, at the heart of this month, there is a group of young people who innately have the same hopes, aspirations and potential as any of their non-care-experienced peers. They deserve to be ambitious about their future, to realise their potential and to become the adults they want to be.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Minister to his place. Just this morning on my way down here, I visited the Newcastle-under-Lyme jobcentre, where I met the brilliant staff who are supporting care leavers to find fulfilling work and the dignity that comes with it. Will my hon. Friend add to her list of asks for the Minister the request that we do more not just through financial support but through directing care leavers towards work that suits their needs and their skillsets, because that is important to give them the dignity to which she has referred?
Sally Jameson
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I have not touched on this in my speech, but the number of people not in education, employment or training in the care leaver population is higher than the average. That is a fact that we need to take incredibly seriously, because those people deserve to have the same ambitions for their future as everyone else and to be able to realise their full potential. I am sorry to say that just is not happening at the minute, and it is the job of the Government to make sure it does.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Tomorrow I will be hosting York’s director of children’s services here in Parliament to talk about York’s care journey, which has been phenomenal. It has enabled care leavers to co-produce services and to chair many committees. Does she agree that that is an exemplar that can enable young people not only to gain confidence and experience but to direct their future?
Sally Jameson
I agree. My hon. Friend’s anecdote and those from colleagues across the House show that there are many examples of good practice across councils and authorities around the country, but it is important to weave it all together to ensure that we have a national strategy and support package so that every care leaver knows what to expect and can access it. Because so many of them have experienced hardship and trauma in their young lives, they probably have—more than most—the drive, resilience and determination to overcome the obstacles ahead, but we need to recognise that the system is stacked against them.
Support and policy in this area are often not what grab the headlines. They are not on all the election leaflets and do not feature in the polls, but if we in Parliament, regardless of politics, cannot protect and improve the outcomes for this most vulnerable group of young adults in our country, we have failed. The Government have the opportunity to let these young people rise as themselves and fulfil their ambitions, so let’s take it.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and everyone who has intervened. I will keep my remarks even briefer than I said I would. We have already heard a huge amount about supported lodgings, and that is what I wanted to speak about briefly, as much as anything to highlight the cross-party support for what they represent, and the role that they can play for our care-experienced young people.
Supported lodgings—a family-based form of supported accommodation for young people aged 16 or over—play a vital role. They accommodate predominately care leavers, but also young people at risk of homelessness. In supported lodgings, a young person lives in the home of a host who offers not only a room but guidance, encouragement and belonging.
According to research from Home for Good, which runs the supported lodgings national network, 84% of young people say that supported lodgings feel like home, 89% had a positive relationship with their host, and 90% feel more confident about living independently as a result. As one young person put it,
“Being in supported lodgings allowed me to take the college course I wanted to take and ultimately the career path I wanted to follow.”
Supported lodgings can make a transformative difference. Further research from Home for Good found that when young people live in supported lodgings for six months or more, we see an average 44% decrease in the number of those not in education, employment or training. Supported lodgings also cost only a tenth of what residential provision costs, while delivering far stronger long-term outcomes for young people.
However, despite what we have heard this evening, awareness remains low. Only 30% of the public have even heard of supported lodgings, and most local authorities report difficulties in recruiting new hosts. That is why I am proud to support the launch of the first National Supported Lodgings Week, which takes place next week, during Care Leavers Month; over 60 local authorities and independent schemes are taking part.
My asks of the Minister are simple: I ask him to allocate dedicated funding to expanding supported lodgings; to reduce reliance on high-cost residential placements; and to improve national data collection, so that we can properly evidence the scale and impact of this vital provision. We are all agreed this evening that every young person, whether in care, leaving care or facing homelessness, deserves not just a place to stay, but a home where they belong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) for securing this debate at the start of Care Leavers Month. She brings to this place her insights from the prison system, in which she saw the tragic and avoidable over-representation of the care-experienced community.
There have been many excellent interventions and contributions by Members from across the House. I particularly want to mention the repeated mention of the important role that supported lodgings can play in our care system. I agree that they are underused—I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and others for flagging that. I will gladly work with all Members to improve outcomes for this group throughout my time in this role. On calls for a national approach to care leavers in custody, I can share that my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are looking at this, and will give Members an update by the end of 2025.
Let me start by making a point that may seem obvious: the disadvantage faced by the care-experienced community is one of the greatest social justice issues of our time. Ensuring that those who grow up in the care of the state have a shot at a good life is a collective obligation, and for too long, we have been found wanting when it comes to ensuring that the obligation is met. That is in part because meeting it is about providing assets that any Government or service would struggle to provide. These assets are so fundamental. They are the need for belonging—a tribe—and the need for something intrinsic to the human condition: lifelong, loving relationships. That is why, at the start of this first ever Care Leavers Month, I say plainly, as the Minister for Children and Families, that the creation and sustenance of those relationships must become the obsession of the care and leaving care systems in England.
When we fail care-experienced people in that endeavour, we leave them with lives that are more isolated, a weaker sense of belonging, and questions about their self-worth. The tragic consequences for some is a life cut short. Suicide and early death are, tragically, a part of the care experience for too many. To start to solve a problem, we must first confront it. That is why I have commissioned the Department for Education to review the shockingly high number of early deaths in the care-experienced community.
However, we do not need to wait to act, and this Government certainly have not waited. We have a comprehensive plan to fix the children’s social care system at every single level. That is core to the relentless focus of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on breaking down barriers to opportunity at every stage. Let me give the House a sense of the recent action that we have taken to improve support for care leavers. We have removed the local area connection test in social housing allocations for care leavers. That is crucial for those who have grown up in care and moved around between different local authorities. We have expanded corporate parenting duties to public bodies, especially the NHS. We have committed to expanding Staying Close and local authority offers of support for housing. We have disapplied the intentionally homeless test for eligible care leavers, meaning that they should no longer have to declare themselves homeless to their corporate parent in order to receive housing support. Very recently, the Secretary of State for Education automatically made care leavers able to get the highest level of maintenance support at university. Overall, we have doubled down on the Families First programme, which will see many more families stay together successfully, avoiding the need for the care system, including through much greater support for kinship care.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has outlined the vast range of steps that the Government have taken in short order to fix a very broken care system, but these things take time, and local authorities are under unimaginable pressure—they are at breaking point in many cases. What can he do in the short term to ensure that local authorities can continue to provide care for looked-after children and do not reach breaking point?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. As a country, we must reset the children’s social care system. We must move away from the crisis-led approach that the system has been stuck in for far too long, and towards earlier effective intervention for families. Local authorities need help and support to do that. They will have my full backing in making that transition. We are rolling out a national programme that will leave no local authority behind in the pursuit of that goal. I will speak to local authorities at the end of this month to set out more detail of how they will get the Government’s full backing to make those changes.
Further to that point, we must do much more to support the recruitment and retention of foster carers across our country. Much of what we see in the care system is a symptom of a fostering system that has been in decline for too long. Next year is the centenary of the fostering system in England, and I cannot think of a better time than now to reset how we do fostering.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Stoke-on-Trent has the second highest number of children in care per capita—second only to Blackpool. The items that the Minister has outlined are welcome for children in my city, but because we have that high per-capita number, the costs are such that more money is spent on children in care than can be found for those who are transitioning out of care. What is available to local authorities with acute demand that are in distress, so that as a vast number of young people leave care and go forward in life, we are able to put social support around them?
Josh MacAlister
I am in the unusual position of having been commissioned to do a review for a Government, and of then being in a position to start implementing its findings. One of the things I called for was additional spending to help local authorities that are in exactly the situation that my hon. Friend described get out of that vortex with additional spending, and that is what this Government are doing.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
One of my constituents came to my surgery to talk about her experience of being a care leaver. We discussed making care-experienced children a protected characteristic, and the discrimination that she felt in the education system. On local authorities, should we not do more to ensure that schools and colleges have the tools needed to educate our young people about the difficulties that people go through in the care system, so that discrimination is eradicated?
Josh MacAlister
I completely agree. I first came across these issues as a secondary school teacher, and I see fully the impact that teachers, schools, colleges, and universities can have when these issues are spotted in the classroom and acted on. We absolutely should do more on that.
I conclude by celebrating the extraordinary people who make up the care-experienced community in England. When I meet people who have grown up in care, I always sense a remarkable determination, and the special perspective that they have on humanity and relationships. It is often called a superpower by others, and we should do as much as we can as a country to tap into the incredible talents of that community—talents such as those of Tony Simpson, partner at Oliver Wyman; Meera Mistry, director of strategy at an NHS trust; Allan Jenkins, the award-winning former editor of The Observer “Food Monthly”; Ivor Frank, a barrister at Church Court Chambers; Jack Holton, a baritone opera singer; Lemn Sissay, author, poet, and former chancellor of Manchester University; Samantha Morton, Oscar-nominated BAFTA-winning actress; Kriss Akabusi; Fatima Whitbread; the noble Baroness Lola Young; the noble Baroness Floella Benjamin; and AJ, a young care-experienced person from Coventry whom I had the pleasure of meeting a few weeks ago. He is embarking on his first few months of adulthood with the support of his grandfather, who the care system managed to find and reconnect him with. He has a bright future ahead of him.
I will close with the words of Richard Henry Tawney:
“What a wise parent would wish for their children, so the state must wish for all its children.”
That is the spirit in which we should change the care system. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central for securing this important debate. We must all get to work for those in and leaving care.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The regulations were laid before the House on 16 September. I welcome the chance today to set out the action that this Government and the devolved Governments are taking to ban the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic across the UK. I am clearly not my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, the Minister who has had the most to do with taking this legislation through Parliament. She cannot be with us today, and I have stepped into her position to introduce the statutory instrument that she has done so much work to bring about.
The Government are committed to root and branch reform of the water system to secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment, and to restore trust and accountability. A key part of that is enabling pre-pipe drainage and wastewater solutions, including better management of our rainwater and preventing pollutants from entering the sewer network and our waterways. Banning wet wipes containing plastic is integral to that ambition.
Wet wipes containing plastic are a growing source of plastic pollution amd are often found in our natural environment, including in waterways and on beaches. They break down into smaller pieces when in the water environment, contributing to microplastic pollution, which may be harmful to human and animal health. Banning them will reduce plastic and microplastic pollution, as well as reduce the volume of microplastics entering wastewater treatment sites when wrongly flushed.
This action is part of a wider commitment to encourage more sustainable behaviours around the consumption of single-use plastic. Ultimately, we want to encourage a shift towards reusable and/or plastic-free alternatives. In a 2023 public consultation, 95% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed ban on wet wipes containing plastic. The ban is part of the Government’s all-round approach to moving towards a circular economy for plastics—a future where we keep our resources in use for longer, waste is reduced to accelerate the path to net zero, and we see investment in critical infrastructure and green jobs, which will help our economy to prosper and nature to thrive. We intend to publish the first ever circular economic strategy for England in the coming months.
The UK is leading the way by banning the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic, which is a huge step in the right direction. We encourage other nations to consider banning these products, but there may be legitimate reasons why some countries continue to allow the supply and sale of the products. We have been working closely across the UK to agree a joined-up approach to the proposed ban and a UK-wide Government response. We want to deliver a ban that is sensible and effective, while minimising the negative impacts it might have on business and individuals reliant on these products.
The statutory instrument provides for an 18-month transition period before coming into force. The ban will therefore come into force in spring 2027, which is intended to mitigate the economic impacts of the ban, including potential job losses, and to mitigate the risk of excess stocks of wet wipes containing plastic being sent to landfill or being incinerated. We acknowledge that, for some uses, plastic-free alternatives are neither suitable nor available. On that basis, we will provide a medical and a business-to-business exemption to the ban. Our policy on exemptions ensures that individuals and businesses with a genuine need for wet wipes containing plastic can access them until there is a viable alternative. We will periodically review the scope of the exemptions.
Trading standards or equivalent enforcement officers in local authorities will enforce the ban using a reactive intelligence-led model. The Government will soon publish guidance to make clear the scope and details of the regulations. That will assist businesses and regulators in understanding the changes brought in by this legislation to help ensure compliance.
I emphasise that a ban on the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic is necessary to reduce plastic and microplastic pollution, particularly in our waters. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I thank the Government for bringing these draft regulations to us today.
As members of the Committee will be aware, the Conservative Government set out their ambition to ban the most problematic plastic waste products in their 2018 resource and waste strategy for England. Action was taken to prohibit the supply of single-use plastic straws, plates and cutlery, plastic-stemmed cotton buds and drinks stirrers. In addition, that Government introduced a successful single-use carrier bag charge policy, which by 2024 had reduced the number of bags given out by the main supermarkets by over 98%.
The resource and waste strategy outlined that to ban products, it must be considered an appropriate action and there must be sustainable, plastic-free alternatives. It was under that premise that in April 2024, the Conservative Government announced their intention to ban wet wipes containing plastic, which were quite rightly identified as a significant contributor to plastic pollution in rivers and oceans, with harmful microplastics entering that environment. I note the Minister’s comments about the impact that that has on the environment and the animals and wildlife therein.
That announcement from the Conservatives was particularly welcome to me as someone who has long called for us to tackle the scourge of plastic pollution in our rivers and seas. In the last Parliament, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which shone a spotlight on the scourge of plastic waste through its specific inquiry and report into the matter. It recommended, among other things, the banning of plastic waste exports.
I pay tribute to the Conservative Environment Network, of which I am a member, which has long called for action on plastic pollution in our waters and which was instrumental in helping to shift the dial and lead us to where we are today. With the timing of the election last year, the previous Government did not have the opportunity to lay these regulations. I am pleased that the new Government have brought them before us today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney for her hard and concerted cross-party work in this area.
The regulations make sensible exemptions, including for medical and industrial uses, to ensure that where wet wipes containing plastic are necessary and there are no viable alternatives, they can still be supplied. In a 2022 article for the National Health Executive, Professor Jean-Yves Maillard, professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at Cardiff University, highlighted the medical reasons that plastic is still required in wet wipes. He said that if the plastic, which is loaded with detergents, cleaning agents and in some cases powerful disinfectants, is removed,
“you’re left with a less effective, less useful wet wipe”,
which has
“real-world consequences for patient care and patient safety in healthcare.”
The Government have noted that most manufacturers have already commenced the transition to producing plastic-free wipes. It is important that these regulations do not limit access to plastic wet wipes where they are still required. What assessment has been made of the effect of the regulations on the supply and cost of plastic wet wipes for medical or clinical environments and other settings where plastic wet wipes are still required due to there being no viable alternatives? We should still aim to become plastic-free, even in professional products, but we are not quite there yet. When do the Government anticipate that full transition will be possible? When will effectiveness in the medical, clinical and scientific environments no longer be affected?
I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on how the enforcement powers will work during the transition period. Will she confirm that the enforcement powers will not be used disproportionately? Will she confirm that the regulations are not intended to prohibit or penalise members of the public who have an existing stock of wet wipes at home and want to use them up? Will the Minister publish a table of enforcement action by councils, to provide transparency on how councils are interpreting and enforcing the regulations?
Given that the regulations have attracted criticism from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, what steps have been taken to address that Committee’s concerns? Although it is right that action is taken to limit unnecessary sources of pollution, we must avoid unintended consequences. I hope the Minister can provide clarification and reassurance.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak in this Committee, having campaigned for this legislation for four years. In the UK, over 11 billion wet wipes are used annually—that is probably a conservative estimate; actually, far more are used—and wet wipes cause 93% of sewer blockages and fatbergs. Anyone who has seen a fatberg will not forget it, but water companies have to see them a lot because they are the main blockages in our pipes. They damage pipes and our water infrastructure, and they add huge sums to our water bills because of the cost of clearing them up. Water companies spend approximately £100 million a year clearing fatbergs, and that goes on to our bills. Anything we can do to reduce the problem will be a good thing for our bills, and for our constituents.
As my hon. Friend the Minister and the shadow Minister said, huge damage is also caused to the environment and to marine life. The microplastics from wet wipes get into the systems of marine life and cause damage, especially to fertility and to feeding.
Recently, a wet wipe island formed in the River Thames in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. The island changed the course of the River Thames. It was the size of two tennis courts and at least a metre deep, and if you stood on it, you could feel its jelly-like texture. I am grateful to the Port of London Authority and to Thames21 volunteers for revealing the problem, and to the Port of London Authority for mapping the island with sonar from boats so that it could see the size of the island and see that it was growing. The island was removed this summer because the opening of Tideway has dramatically reduced the amount of wet wipes put out into the River Thames, and because this legislation was promised.
If there are fewer wet wipes with plastic in, fewer will stay forever—it is not known how long they will take to break down—in the banks of the River Thames. There is therefore a reason to clear the wet wipe island and ensure it is not refilled. That is good news. I also thank the Marine Conservation Society and Surfers Against Sewage. This campaign has been a team effort and, as the shadow Minister said, a cross-party effort.
For years, the Conservative Government promised to introduce this legislation, but they were not getting on with it, so in 2021 I introduced my private Member’s Bill. I did so again in 2022 and introduced a ten-minute rule Bill in 2022. In the meantime, I worked with water companies across the UK so that the campaigning on this issue would be less confusing. It was “fine to flush” in some areas and there were different campaigns by different water companies. Now there is a unified effort by all the water companies together to have the same public messaging. The threat of the ban encouraged Tesco and Boots to go plastic-free for all the wipes sold in their stores for any use—baby wipes, cosmetic wipes, cleaning wipes and so on. There really should not be all those wipes but those in Tesco and Boots have been guaranteed plastic-free since 2023.
The main message must be: do not flush any wipes. No wipes are fine to flush. Even the ones that can be broken down join with fat and cause blockages, so they should not be flushed. As has been mentioned, the issue is similar to the plastic bag ban and the change brought about by Government regulation as well as behavioural change by the public. There is a clear message that we should all send.
It is great that Wales is the first country in the world to legislate on this issue—the legislation is coming in very soon. Scotland has plans to bring this measure in soon, and in November 2024 the Northern Ireland Executive notified the World Trade Organisation of their intent to legislate. We look forward to the Northern Ireland Executive introducing their regulations as soon as possible, so that the whole of the United Kingdom is lined up on this issue.
The industry has said that it is great to have 18 months, but I know from talking to the industry that it will take less than 18 months because there are alternatives that can be brought in at the same cost. That will make a huge difference to the amount of plastic in our rivers and waterways. Plastic comes from fossil fuels and is very hard to get rid of at the end of its life. Extended producer responsibility remains an issue. The wet wipe companies are not paying for the clean-up, which is paid for by us through our water bills. That is a problem. We have to keep working on labelling, as well as single-use plastic. However, the regulations are a huge step in the right direction. I am enormously grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, for the amount of work that she has done on this. She came into office determined to get this measure through, and she has. She deserves huge credit for that.
I am very excited to be here today and working with so many people across the House and across the country on a small statutory instrument about a small item, a wet wipe, that will make a huge difference to our water bills and the environment. I am delighted that we have these regulations. I look forward to working with all the Members here and across the House to continue our work towards the circular economy.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I rise as Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I am pleased to report that this statutory instrument passed our scrutiny. We checked the legal drafting and whether the instrument is intra vires and going through the proper legislative procedure. We deal with 1,200 or 1,500 instruments a year, but this one passed with flying colours.
Measures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs do not always pass with flying colours. We produced a report last month showing DEFRA had produced 69 such regulations; 9% required further explanation, and three of them—4%—required us to request changes in drafting, which shows that this very obscure and unsung Committee does very important work to make sure that regulations such as these are properly elucidated.
I support the hon. Member for Putney and her injunction that people should stop flushing wet wipes down toilets. Unfortunately, this statutory instrument does not address that. I think the Minister could have taken the opportunity to impress upon the public that they must stop flushing wet wipes down into the sewage system. They cause incredible blockages, which cost millions of pounds to clear, put our water bills up, and pollute the environment. Even if there are no plastics in them, they will continue to cause that nuisance. We must not let it get into the consumer’s mind, “Oh, these are plastic-free, so I can flush them down the loo.” I put it to the Minister that that is a great danger.
Dame Angela Eagle
The hon. Gentleman has anticipated some of what I was going to say in my winding-up remarks—but he is right.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. They say that in Parliament you should never ask a question to which you do not know the answer, but I am going to ask one. I notice that the EU is also moving towards this kind of ban, although I do not know whether it is the same. In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government have already introduced a ban. Would we have been allowed to do this without the EU’s permission? Would it have been regarded as a restriction on the free movement of wet wipes if we had introduced it while we were still in the EU? I hope that moving forward with this measure, for which I commend this Government and the previous Government, in this country will encourage the rest of the EU to follow suit. I do not suppose that this falls under the definition of “reset” or “alignment” or anything complicated like that, but could the Minister explain whether we could have done this if we were still in the EU?
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for stepping in and for reviewing the outstanding contributions of previous Environment Ministers. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice for her work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for all her work on the issue over many years.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for sustainable resources, and as chair for Policy Connect on the circular economy task group, let me say that the draft regulations are very welcome; we look forward to further developments in other product areas as the circular economy task group reports. This measure follows the Welsh legislation and the Welsh Government’s move to ban these products, with a ban hopefully to come shortly in Northern Ireland and Scotland. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, the European Union is watching us very closely, as are other countries, to see how it will be implemented.
From the Conservative Environment Network to the Socialist Environment and Resources Association and Liberal Democrat environmental groups, there is genuine consensus that these are products that have reached the end of their lifecycle. We know that bioaccumulation is occurring in mammalian species. Autopsies of porpoises and other animals show an extremely high level of bioaccumulation, which then passes into the food chain and into human beings. We know that that has significant impacts in relation to cancer and other disorders. Further research is ongoing into plastics and their consequences in human physiology.
The 18-month transition period will allow companies to clear stock—I think that that is the ambition—and allow new products to be developed. As has been mentioned, many companies have already made the step towards being plastic-free. A secondary benefit will be a reduction in sewer blockages. However, it must be noted that any transition product might still have some impact, so that cannot be the primary reason for implementation. There has been some noted scientific research showing that it would be an improvement, because a more biodegradable product, such as a cellulose-based product, will disintegrate much more quickly than a plastic product. I am hopeful that our society can innovate to create products that disintegrate faster.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, talked about the NHS. The impact assessment states that the Government have already spoken to Kimberly-Clark, which has been part of the process from the start, and will continue to work closely with it. Although the hon. Member is absolutely right to raise those concerns, we are already speaking to industry professionals, and I am confident that we can come to a resolution.
All that remains is for me to thank the Minister and all colleagues for their contributions this afternoon. I look forward to supporting the legislation.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Thank you for allowing me to respond on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We have long been calling for a ban on supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic, and we are extremely pleased to see this legislation introduced. We have always been incredibly concerned about the environmental harm caused by single-use wet wipes, which block our sewage network and pollute our waterways with microplastics.
I add my voice to the tributes to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Putney, for her incredibly hard work over the past four years. She highlighted a particular issue in my constituency: the wet wipe island next to Hammersmith bridge. An estimated 5 million wet wipes have built up on the riverbed; I pay tribute to the selfless volunteers from my constituency who have dedicated their time to helping to clear that appalling build-up, and to the Port of London authority for taking action to remove 180 tonnes of congealed wet wipes. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the build-up changed the course of the River Thames and potentially harmed aquatic wildlife and ecology in the area.
The hon. Lady asked whether anyone had seen a fatberg. One of the UK’s largest fatbergs was excavated from under Kingston hill in my constituency about 10 years ago, so yes, I have seen one up close. I put it on record, by the way, that despite having wet wipe island and the UK’s largest fatberg, my constituency is still one of the most beautiful in London—indeed, in the country—and will remain so, thanks to this statutory instrument.
I am extremely pleased to support the draft regulations, but I call on the Government to do more to tackle microplastic pollution in our waterways and improve labelling to ensure that single-use wet wipes are clearly marked “Do not flush”, as so many hon. Members this evening have highlighted.
Dame Angela Eagle
We have had a small but perfectly formed debate on a measure that has gathered cross-party agreement, partly because of the power of the argument about the damage that microplastics do. I particularly compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Putney on her long-standing and very powerful advocacy in this area: she should be very proud of the effect that her campaigning has had.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park has sold the beauty of her constituency in a way that I have never quite managed. I look forward to a time when she can talk about the unalloyed pleasures of the nature and beauty of her constituency without having to get us all involved in contemplating 180 tonnes of fatberg caused by 5 million wet wipes, but I also observe that 11 million wet wipes, or possibly more, are used a year. That is two fatbergs a year, created by the kind of waste that we are talking about banning.
I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex pointed out, banning wet wipes that contain plastic will not stop the formation of fatbergs in our sewer system, because any wet wipe can contribute to that, as indeed can pouring oil down the sewer system. We therefore have much more work to do, not least on labelling and the “Do not flush” approach to the wet wipes that will remain even after the ban is brought into force. I compliment the hon. Gentleman for pointing out to me some of the issues with the Department, which I joined not so long ago; I will take those back so that future statutory instruments can get through his Committee unscathed. I note the points that he made about those that have not quite reached the standard of technical excellence of this one.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would have been able to introduce this statutory instrument if we had been in the EU. My information is that we would. The EU is not actually banning wet wipes at the moment; it is doing plastic versus non-plastic labelling. Perhaps the EU is beginning to go down the path that we have pioneered.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
She always gets excited when I mention the European Union.
Dame Angela Eagle
Of course, and that is why I will give way to my hon. Friend. I think that the EU is perhaps beginning some tentative steps along the same pathway that, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, we are pioneering.
Ms Creasy
I know that the Minister, like me, will want to reassure the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who has previously expressed grave concern that somehow working with our European counterparts would not help us to abolish taxes on tampons, for example. Let me reassure him that the single-use plastics directive, which was made in 2019—after we voted to leave the European Union, admittedly, but before we left—would facilitate this work. Indeed, the Netherlands and Spain are already progressing their own bans. The European Union is—as it always was—simply a springboard to making decisions at a local level. We are ahead of the curve here in the United Kingdom, but working with the European Union would not prevent us from doing this work. I am sure that that will entirely reassure the hon. Member.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am in awe of my hon. Friend’s detailed knowledge of EU directives that were passed after we left. I am sure that she remains in dynamic alignment with what is going on in Europe.
I want to spend a little time answering the questions of the hon. Member for Epping Forest. Enforcement will be proportionate. The 18-month transition period is pretty generous, as far as transition periods go. We are certainly hoping that with the signals that have been given and with the ban coming in, the industry will be able to adjust. We also encourage it to innovate so that we can get plastic out of the remaining wet wipes that, for the time being, the exemptions in the statutory instrument allow. It is a pragmatic statutory instrument, as the hon. Gentleman says.
The hon. Gentleman asked how enforcement would work. It will be on sellers and suppliers, not on individuals. There will certainly be no one knocking on doors and checking people’s pantries to see whether they have an old supply of wet wipes with plastic in. At least, that is not the Government’s intention; if anyone were on the receiving end of that treatment, it would certainly be an overreach not allowed under this statutory instrument. With all those qualifications, I hope that the Committee will agree to the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025.
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
Video Games: Consumer Law
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 702074 relating to consumer law and videogames.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the petitioner and to the nearly 190,000 people who signed the petition, demonstrating not only strong public concern but the enormous cultural relevance of video games to people across the country. It is not just a domestic issue; similar campaigns are ongoing in the EU, the United States, Canada and Australia. This is a global conversation, and the United Kingdom must not be left behind.
I come to this debate not only as a Member of Parliament but as a lifelong gamer. From my childhood through to university, games have been a constant: sometimes a way to switch off, sometimes a means to connect with others and sometimes a way to challenge myself. Even today, when I get the odd quiet evening, I can still be found planning new trade networks on “Victoria II”, optimising traffic flow in “Cities: Skylines” or returning to the timeless brilliance of the “Oddworld” series. For many of us, gaming is personal. It is not just simply entertainment; it is a memory, an identity and a community. That is why today’s debate matters. The video game industry contributes £7.6 billion to the UK economy and supports more than 75,000 jobs. We are home to world-leading studios, cutting-edge research and some of the most talented creative minds anywhere on earth. We should value the industry not only for its economic output but as a cultural powerhouse shaping stories, art, music and technology.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the Cambridge-based Ninja Theory’s work with neuroscientist Professor Paul Fletcher on the game “Hellblade”? It gives a really powerful insight into psychosis, and shows how game developers can work effectively with gamers for real social purpose.
Ben Goldsborough
This is the thing about gaming: it is not just about the creative arts; it is also about science and technology. Cambridge bats above its average not just within the UK but on the global stage. I am very proud, as an East Anglian MP, to have my hon. Friend’s constituency next door providing this for the future.
The nature of games has changed. Many modern titles are live services, constantly updated, server-dependent and with ongoing operational costs. That is not inherently a bad thing—live services have created vibrant global communities—but it has changed what it means to own a game. Gamers still feel the deep sense of personal possession, because they invest more than money; they invest time, effort, imagination and friendship. When a game shuts down without clear notice, that investment is lost and a shared world disappears. The Video Game History Foundation estimates that 87% of games released before 2010 are now critically endangered.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I received an email from a constituent explaining how his beloved video games have been rendered unplayable when the company decides to end server support. We do not accept our mobile phones being switched off whenever a company wants us to buy its new model, so why should we allow thousands of pounds’ worth of games to be made unplayable, just because new games have been introduced? Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we buy a video game, we own it to play it whenever we want, and we need regulation to ensure that? It is not an unreasonable ask of the multi-million pound companies producing these games.
Ben Goldsborough
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. What is it to own a video game? What is it to keep the background services running? Is it an interactive process going forward with multiple users, or is it just a single-access game?
When a game shuts down, it is not just a consumer issue but a cultural one. This debate is not just about keeping games playable; it is about preserving our cultural heritage. The National Videogame Museum in Sheffield already does fantastic work to document, curate and celebrate this history, but we need to support institutions like it further. I urge the Government to explore funding, partnerships and sector support to ensure that we maintain a library full of significant games—not necessarily the full playable versions, but assets, scripts, soundtracks and design documents. We would never dream of pulping every copy of Shakespeare, and we should not think any differently about video games.
We have seen what is possible when communities are empowered. When “Doom” was released decades ago, it sparked an entire ecosystem of mods, creativity and eventually genre-defining innovation. We also see it with ROM-hacking communities, especially around older titles such as “Super Mario World”. I am the first to admit that I cannot play “Kaizo Mario World” for toffee—those levels are punishing. But I do enjoy watching streamers such as BarbarousKing both creating the “Grand Poo World Trilogy”—this is the first time that Hansard has had to write that down—and playing it live. That highlights yet another modern element of gaming culture—streaming. Platforms such as Twitch have turned gameplay into performance art, commentary and community. People gather to cheer, learn, laugh and share. This, too, is culture, and it deserves to be safeguarded.
I want to be absolutely clear that this debate is not anti-industry. Running online games costs real money. Servers, hardware, maintenance contracts, security and teams of engineers all cost money. Requiring developers to define end-of-life strategies up front could stifle innovation and create unintended risks. But gamers deserve clarity. If a game is likely to go offline, they should be told that.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, as in many other areas, increasingly residents are finding that the video games that they thought they owned simply stop working when the online support ends, or that ownership is limited by the terms and conditions of the licence, which is deeply frustrating for consumers who have paid money in good faith. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should ensure that existing consumer protections keep pace with these changes, so that people are not left out of pocket when the digital services that they rely on are switched off, often without warning?
Ben Goldsborough
When we look at consumer law, we have to take into account the vast progress that has been made in some sectors. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to look into that issue in the future.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a great speech. On amending the law, what is required is a simple amendment to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to ensure that when a game requires online support, developers must allow the purchaser to continue receiving that support.
Ben Goldsborough
That is another really practical implementation that could go ahead, and I thank my hon. Friend for suggesting it.
If a game is likely to go offline, gamers should be told, and where possible, offline modes should be provided. When closures are unavoidable, there should be clear notice periods and, where appropriate, refunds. Where a game has no commercial future, studios should be encouraged or supported to preserve assets for cultural history.
Some companies are already showing leadership in this regard. Ubisoft offered refunds when “The Crew” was shut down and Valve released the “Team Fortress 2” source code to help to ensure its long-term preservation, so responsible practice is possible. What we need now is a collaborative code of practice developed jointly by industry, consumer groups, preservation experts and Government—not heavy-handed law, but clear expectations. We must also recognise that independent developers cannot realistically archive every unsuccessful project.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The hon. Member is making an excellent case. I represent the city of Dundee, otherwise known as the gaming capital of Europe. Given that we are the city that created “Lemmings” and “Grand Theft Auto”, and that we have the world’s first university degree in computing gaming, it should come as no surprise that the highest number of signatories for this petition came from Dundee. By not amending the law to protect the future for consumers and for those who create the games, we are putting our courses—for example, our degrees—and the jobs of those who work domestically in computer games, both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK, at risk.
Ben Goldsborough
This is the one time that I am quite jealous of the hon. Member’s constituency because, as he suggested, it is the constituency that has laid the golden egg. The cultural relevance of GTA is never-ending: when the next title in the series is released it will be bigger than any movie that has been released in the United Kingdom, if not the world, for many years.
I ask the Minister to work with studios and consumer groups to establish clear expectations around shutdowns and access, to support cultural institutions such as the National Videogame Museum and to help develop an industry-led framework to preserve our gaming heritage for future generations.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows he cannot intervene, having not been here at the start of Mr Goldsborough’s contribution. That is a House rule.
Ben Goldsborough
On that note, Mr Mundell, as I was about to finish: this is about fairness, responsibility, creativity and protecting a cultural legacy of which the United Kingdom should be proud.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I am sure that if Members make specific references to games and their various levels, they will share that information directly with Hansard.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.
There have been a number of instances in this place where I have had to come out: first as LGBT, then as Parliament’s biggest Swiftie, and today as a gamer. I have been playing computer games since I was a little kid. I remember waking up every morning before going to school to plug in the internet to download the latest bits for “The Sims”. It has been a staple of my life. As the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted, there are myriad reasons why people game—whether to switch off, unwind or make friends. It is a never-ending world of wonder for people who get into gaming, and I count myself as one of them.
The issue is what happens when a developer goes bust, shuts down or is gobbled up in a merger? In those instances, it is not clear who bears the responsibility of hosting or running servers for online gaming. Most of the games I play are not online, but I understand from those who play them that we already see servers going offline or timing out.
We only have to look at the recent gaming industry landscape: Electronic Arts has been bought up by a conglomerate, which includes Saudi Arabia and others, in a £55 billion deal. The acquisition will take it off the stock market and into private equity. We have also seen measures taken to replace developers with artificial intelligence. That puts a question mark on how long term and sustainable gaming on such platforms will be for consumers.
What I would like to see—and I am sure many Members across the House will also invite the Minister to do this—is clearer, more tangible responsibility from Government and protections for consumers.
Yasmin Qureshi
It is simply a matter of justice that if someone has paid for a product, either physical or digital, they should be able to use it for as long as they like. The fact that a company goes bust should not make any difference to that.
Tom Gordon
I completely agree. There has been a change in the way that people have been gaming—a silent, creeping approach over the years. When I started playing games, most of them were on CDs, which are now a thing of the past—we do not see those anymore, do we? There is a particular divergence between PC gaming, where it is easier to host servers remotely or privately, and consoles, where that is a little harder. I do not necessarily expect the Government to get into the weeds of that, but setting out some clear principles that gamers can expect would be a welcome first step.
I thank the constituents who got in touch with me to raise this important matter and everyone who signed the petition, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for their excellent speeches.
For millions across the UK, video games are more than just entertainment. They are a creative outlet, a way to unwind and a means of connecting with other gamers across the world. As a cornerstone of our creative industries, the UK is one of the largest video game markets in the world, with sales reaching nearly £4.3 billion in 2024. From Harry Potter and James Bond to British premiership football, some of the most popular games worldwide are rooted in British culture. I am delighted that this Labour Government are backing the sector’s continued growth, investing £40 million in start-up video game studios and expanding creative industry tax reliefs to incentivise further innovation and investment.
The Welsh Labour Government are also championing our creative industries through their dedicated economic development agency Creative Wales, which supports creatives across the country, including the brilliant Goldborough Studio, an independent game developer based in Lawrenny in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire.
Some of my constituents are concerned that consumer rights in this space have not kept up with advancing technology, leaving gamers in danger of losing out. As Members have set out already, the publishers of online video games can, at their discretion, shut down the servers that keep the games running. When that happens the games become unplayable, leaving consumers who have paid for them without access to the digital worlds in which they have invested their time, imagination and money.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, digital content must be as described by the seller. If the game is sold without clear information about its support, lifespan or potential server shutdowns, consumers are entitled to a repair, a replacement or a refund. A recent example is “Concord”, a game released for PlayStation 5 and Windows in August 2024. Following a disappointing launch, Sony Interactive Entertainment made a commercial decision to shut it down. To its credit, Sony refunded all purchases, but that is not always the case.
Members will agree that if publishers fail to make the lifespan of a game clear at the point of sale, they must be held accountable, which is why I welcome the strengthened consumer protections in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which came into force earlier this year. The legislation rightly requires traders to provide clear, timely and accurate information to consumers, including in respect of the longevity and functionality of digital products.
More broadly, my constituent Stewart Coombes raised an important cultural point. Video games are unique creative works that blend music, design, storytelling and interactivity in ways that no other medium can. They allow players to inhabit imagined worlds and engage with complex narratives.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing this important debate. As we are all making declarations, I should say I am a self-confessed fan of survival horror games. Does my hon. Friend agree that the evolution of video games over the years to include an online component has created a cultural product that is unfamiliar to us in other territories, which therefore presents potential problems in terms of the longevity of the online component as opposed to a game’s stand-alone playability? For example, would one expect to be able to revisit a concert 10 years after it had taken place, rather than simply playing the album of that music again?
Henry Tufnell
I agree with my hon. Friend about the extent to which games have a cultural identity, and that to take them down erases a cultural and artistic heritage that is vital to society and to the wider industry as well. As campaigners have rightly argued, if every copy of a book, film or song were destroyed, we would see it as a cultural tragedy. We should view the loss of video games in the same light, so I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. Does the Minister agree that video games are a vital part of our creative and cultural landscape? Will she commit to exploring how we can better protect consumers and preserve access to digital works even after commercial support ends?
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing this important debate, which shines a light on the growing disconnect between video game consumers and the companies that profit from them. The e-petition received nearly 190,000 signatures nationwide, and Colchester ranked among the top 20 constituencies for signatures. I thank those who signed it for standing up for fairness and for their digital rights. I should say that I am not a gamer—I feel rather in the minority—but, as a parent of gamers, I have made a solid financial contribution to the gaming industry over the years.
Colchester has a thriving video game industry of its own, based around the Innovation Centre, Knowledge Gateway at the University of Essex. The university offers a very respected BSc in game technology. The city also has a fantastic creative digital learning charity called Signals, which offers superb short courses to school pupils—very good for half-term recreation, as I recall—in animation, coding and other skills that underpin the industry.
I cannot resist saying that Colchester has another claim to fame in this space: it was recreated in “Assassin’s Creed Valhalla”, in which players are able to roam around our Roman and Anglo Saxon heritage. I do not know whether any other constituency can match that. It is another testament to our city’s huge cultural importance, and reminds us that games are more than entertainment, as Members have said. They combine rich and complex design, art, graphics and music.
What happens when that rich content is deleted? When publishers shut down servers or revoke access, consumers lose something that they have paid for, often with very little warning or recourse. That is not just inconvenient but fundamentally unfair. Other forms of cultural production—film, books, music and so on—live on, but we have allowed a situation to develop in the gaming industry whereby games are sold to consumers to play, but it is never quite clear when it is game over.
The Stop Killing Games movement highlights the growing frustration among players who see their purchases vanish. It is clear that digital ownership must be respected, and that publishers should look to provide routes for players to retain or repair games even if the official service support for products ends. I welcome the Government’s willingness to monitor the issue, not least because current laws such as the Consumer Rights Act clearly do not offer adequate consumer protections against digital obsolescence. I ask the Minister to review statutory protections in digital ownership and protect gamers in Colchester and elsewhere.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on opening the debate so aptly.
When I was elected last July, I did not imagine that one of my contributions in Westminster Hall would be on the subject of video games. It was not on my bingo card—or, more aptly, it was not in my inventory—but here we are. I am glad we are here, because although video games may not often feature in parliamentary debate, the issues raised affect far more than the gaming industry, juggernaut though it is. They go to the heart of consumer law, ownership rights and the path we are on in a digital age.
It is worth noting that I speak as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on consumer protection, so my arguments will primarily focus on that dimension. It is also worth saying that video games in their own right have been part of the public discourse many times since their widespread adoption as an entertainment medium. Like everyone, I have heard the common questions about their merits, their impact on young people and whether they cause brain rot or inspire violence. Although I would argue that they do not do those things—certainly not the last two—this debate is not about whether video games are good or bad. It is about something much more fundamental. It is about whether, when someone buys something, they should have the right to keep it.
I will be clear about my ask here. I am not demanding that publishers keep servers running forever. Campaigners are not asking for indefinite technical support. We are not asking companies to keep pouring resources into a game that they have finished with. What we are asking is fairly simple: that publishers should not be able to deliberately disable every copy of a game that consumers have already purchased, leaving them with nothing. I will talk first about the end of support, and what that means in this context.
Normally, end of support means that if something goes wrong, the customer is on their own. That is fair enough—it is perfectly reasonable depending on the context. An iPhone that someone bought 14 years ago no longer receives updates from Apple, but can still be unlocked and take calls. An old toaster can still toast bread, even if it does not have smart sensors and a touchscreen. A decades-old printer no longer receives updates from the company that made it, but it still prints documents.
What we are seeing with games is different. It is as if someone bought that printer, and then one day the manufacturer sent out a signal that deliberately stopped it from working at all, claiming it had reached the end of support. That is not support ending; it is obsolescence, which has an entirely different meaning.
Alex Sobel
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for mentioning “Grand Theft Auto”; the main developer for the new version, “Grand Theft Auto VI”, is Rockstar Leeds. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and I both have many constituents who work there.
On obsolescence, many people create private servers and play the games there. I am a big fan of “Assassin’s Creed”, and many of its versions have been made obsolete by Ubisoft, but the people involved can keep the private servers going if there is an end-of-service patch that allows it to carry on, so in effect there is not that built-in obsolescence. It is a very simple thing to do and should be part of consumer protection.
Mark Sewards
When the boundary review took place a few years ago, I was very disappointed that Rockstar Leeds was not drawn into my constituency, so I am very jealous of that. However, I do have constituents who work there and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s point—it is as though he has read on a few pages in my speech. People absolutely can have private servers that take care of the issue. It does not require the developer to keep things running or to put their own resources endlessly into a game to keep it alive. Consumers can do that themselves.
As I was saying, the publisher should have a duty to ensure that a game purchased and owned by a consumer remains playable in some way. That is not about burdening publishers or Government overreach. It is about ensuring that publishers do not have the right deliberately to disable products that people have already paid for. I suspect that if we were talking about mobile phones or any of the other things I listed earlier, this debate would resonate even more strongly, but the principle is the same. If we do not act now, the use of this model and the erosion of ownership rights may spread to other areas. History is littered with examples of Governments acting too late and finding out that what could have been fixed early, with minimal effort, has grown into a much larger problem. The warning signs are there in this industry and to act now would be far less painful than to wait until the practice has become entrenched.
As we know, consumers are noticing. Campaigns have started. We are here today because nearly 200,000 people in the UK signed a petition demanding action on this specific issue. The Stop Killing Games campaign, a consumer movement started by YouTuber Ross Scott, has shone a light on this issue, not just here in the UK but across Europe and beyond. The European citizens’ initiative on the issue received more than 1.4 million signatures. This is not a niche concern among a few people; a growing movement of consumers feel that their rights are being undermined.
My office has corresponded with Ross, and I am very grateful for the information he gave me ahead of the debate. He really is a champion of these issues. I have also done my own research, and would like to go through some examples, the first of which is “The Crew”. The game was released in 2014 and on average cost consumers between 40 and 60 quid. It sold about 12 million copies, but in 2024 it was shut down, with no way for people to play it. To its credit, Ubisoft offered refunds to recent purchasers, but certainly not to the original ones. Although largely an online game, it had a single-player component that was unplayable when the servers went down.
Another example, which Ross gave me, is “LawBreakers”—a game that I imagine would have been popular with certain Members of the previous Parliament. It survived for a year before it was shut down in 2018. In the case of “Babylon’s Fall”, there were no refunds, despite the game being unplayable less than a year after launch. It may not have been the best game, but the principle still stands. It was made, sold and then pulled, with no refunds.
Just this summer, it was announced that “Anthem” will no longer be playable from January next year—only a few months away. As of December 2023, it had sold 5 million copies and made more than $100 million in digital revenue. An additional $3.5 million had been spent on in-game purchases. All that money is now gone. Meanwhile, other games, such as “Guild Wars”, have been running for more than 20 years and are still going strong. The point is clear, even though the industry is not. There is no standard, no transparency, and no certainty for consumers.
In response to the petition, the Government have said that they have
“no plans to amend…consumer law”.
Although I respect the Government’s position, I cannot help but observe that what is happening in this space could be perceived as a breach of consumer protection under unfair trading regulations. Those regulations prohibit traders from hiding information that consumers need in order to make an informed choice, yet when consumers buy a game today, they are almost never told how long it will remain functional. Consumers are sold a one-time purchase, but the publisher reserves the right to terminate it at any time for any reason.
Manuela Perteghella
One of my constituents has written to me about feeling misled when the industry uses the word “buy” for video games that can later disappear from their digital library. Does the hon. Member agree that we need transparency, so that consumers know exactly what they are paying for at the point of purchase? We need clarity that “buy” means “buy”, and not “borrow until it is revoked”.
Mark Sewards
I could not agree more. That goes back to my earlier point: the fix in this area could be as simple as there being more transparency. When a consumer purchases a game, it should be crystal clear that the publisher could deactivate it at any point. However, I want to go further—we need to retain something and ensure that publishers make the game playable for consumers long after they have pulled support from it.
Going back to “The Crew”, the game did not need to be shut down. Ubisoft could have patched in offline play or allowed private servers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said earlier. Going forward, the ask from many consumers is simple: if the industry plans to kill a game, it should ensure that consumers have a reasonable option to continue using their products for a single-player experience or on private servers.
I promised one of my Leeds South West and Morley constituents that I would raise the fact that they, like other gamers, have waited years for certain games, including the remake of “Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic”, which I am told is one of the greatest games of all time. Saber Interactive plans to release the final version of that game at some point in the future, but let us imagine how devastated those gamers would be if Saber released it only to pull it a year later.
We are not talking about a small, powerless industry; we are talking about publishers that generated a combined total of $455 billion in revenue last year accounting for all types of gaming. By most industry measures, the global video games sector is now larger than the film and music industries combined. Analysts at Forbes say that gaming is now the dominant entertainment industry, so the costs of ensuring long-term playability are negligible when compared with the budgets of these major publishers. We are talking about tens of thousands of pounds—or sometimes nothing at all—set against budgets in the tens and hundreds of millions, and revenue in the billions.
To be clear: this is not just about video games. Our greatest fan across the Atlantic, Elon Musk, has already shown us with Tesla that features in cars can be remotely disabled even after the original buyer has paid for them. The technology already exists to remotely modify products in a way that the consumer may not have been reliably informed about at purchase. What is stopping the progression of those modifications to render purchases totally and utterly unusable? Do we really want to wait until our phones, fridges and cars are affected before we act in this small way, in what is a relatively small area?
My ask today is simple: I urge the Government to revisit this issue and meaningfully engage with the asks of the petition. It is not too late to change the law or issue guidance in some way on what should happen with games that go offline. If we fail to act, the future consequences for consumers, especially in the age of digital ownership, could be significant. This is about putting people first—a proud tradition of the Labour party, of which I am a proud member—and ensuring that consumer rights are protected not just today, but in the future. It is very clear that when consumers buy something, it should be theirs to keep, not just until the seller decides otherwise.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the 236 constituents from my constituency for signing this petition and, in particular, Haydn Shaw for spending quite a lot of time with me last month to explain the impact that this situation has on him and other gamers. I have to admit that it is not my specialist subject.
Video games are a vital part of modern British culture. Many parents think that their sons and daughters are locked away in their bedrooms playing alone, but for me, it turned out that my son Isaac was having great fun with people all around the world. Every time I heard a noise, it was him jumping off the sofa as he experienced the immersive video games he was playing. He was maintaining friendships after he went off to university, proving that video games can bring people together even when they are a long distance apart.
The artists, coders and designers who create such life-like images and develop such intricate stories for us to enjoy through our phones, computers and games consoles bring joy to millions and allow many of us to experience places, times through history—I recommend Colchester, as the original Roman capital of Britain, in “Age of Empires”—and alternative realities. My local college is now offering e-sports as a technical course, and Bournemouth University offers a degree in games design, which provides routes into other specialist fields that can unlock cutting-edge technology for the military. Virtual reality is providing new ways for medics to learn, and in Bournemouth children have been taught road safety skills through gaming headsets, thanks to the creativity and imagination of those in the sector.
When a game shuts down, it can feel like losing a favourite book or film forever. When a business is gobbled up, like a scene out of “Pac-Man”—that probably gives away a little about my early gaming experience—the purchaser’s rights should be maintained. A purchaser should expect transparency and fairness when making their purchase: clear, accessible information about whether a game requires online connectivity, relies on servers or is time-limited. As Alex told me, it is important that buyers know what the end of life looks like, or even whether there is going to be an end of life. The law already requires that such material information should not be hidden or omitted, but in reality, according to players like Haydn, it is very difficult to find this information, and many are led to feel misled or short-changed.
The UK already has strong consumer protections, which require that products, including digital products, are as described, that products are of satisfactory quality and that sellers must not omit material information. However, those protections are not well understood or well enforced, and they need to be kept under constant review as technology evolves so that consumers can exercise their rights.
We all understand that the ongoing support for titles that are no longer popular or have been superseded will eventually need to end, but to stop those that have been purchased being playable feels like the pages of a book that was once bought but is now out of print going blank after a period of time—sort of like writing in invisible ink—or the sound of a song that is no longer sold in record shops going silent.
There is an additional concern in relation to the creativity behind games—the creativity of the designers and coders for whom those games are their CV. Although control over the intellectual property has moved from designer to owner, creatives are concerned that content disappearing means not only that their work is being lost, but that it never existed in the first place.
Another issue to which my constituents have alerted me is the action of console operators in disabling their devices when counterfeit games are used, often innocently. Let us imagine that someone buys a second-hand game from a specialist retailer, charity shop or online marketplace only to find out that it is not genuine. They might expect the game to be disabled when they play it, and they would be within their rights to take that up with the seller, but the console companies are locking down the whole console so that it cannot be used for anything else. Unless they get permission from that console company, their games console, which might have cost them £500, is completely unplayable.
As we move to digital systems for music, games, literature, film and photos, it must be time to consider the risks to intellectual property in other sectors. The best way forward is not heavy-handed regulation but constructive dialogue between Government, players and developers to strengthen clarity for consumers, encourage responsible preservation and respect intellectual property. The goal needs to be a balance of protecting consumers and creators while sustaining an industry that contributes so much.
My constituent Philip said that he has an old gaming PC running Windows 7, which is now unsupported but still functioning. He asks what would happen if that issue was to extend to other types of software. As has just been mentioned, what would happen if future software companies decided to end support for something we use on a wider scale, whether in our companies or homes, or even in Government?
I ask the Minister not only to provide clarity for Members and our constituents, but to think about the issues of consumer protection, intellectual property, obsolescence and the classic David and Goliath battle so beautifully captured in the video game “DvG: Conquering Giants”. The individual must be buying something that they are buying.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the Members who have spoken passionately about this issue, in particular the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who led the debate, and to the people who signed the petition.
Video games are a significant part of the entertainment and creative industries and give pleasure to millions. As we have heard, they have a cultural relevance today that was perhaps not seen in previous generations. The lazy stereotype of a sector dominated by teenagers is far from reality: research has found that one in six adults in the UK regularly plays video games. If we include under-18s, there are currently 40 million gamers across the UK. Franchises such as “Call of Duty”, “FIFA” and “Assassin’s Creed” attract millions of players and have production values and graphics that earlier generations of gamers could barely dream of.
The UK can be proud of its video games industry, which is the largest in Europe. “Grand Theft Auto” and “Tomb Raider” are just two of the most significant examples to come out of the UK games creative industry. Some estimates suggest that the UK games market could reach £8 billion by 2027, which would be more than the UK film industry today.
That is why the previous Conservative Government took measures to support the video games industry and created the £13.4 million UK games fund, which supported the acceleration of growth in the UK games sector between 2022 and 2025. An independent 2025 review of the UK games fund estimated that overall,
“the current three-year iteration of the UKGF will generate in the range of £30m to £58m in productivity benefits for the UK economy due to salary uplifts for supported video game developers.”
The previous Government also set up the right economic environment to create the conditions for growth, including the announcement in the spring 2023 Budget that video games expenditure credit would be introduced from 1 January last year. VGEC is calculated directly from qualifying expenditure and has a credit rate of 34%, which provides a greater benefit than the earlier video games tax relief.
Turning to the issue raised by the petition, the Stop Killing Games campaign did a tremendous job of raising awareness of video games publishers disabling, discontinuing or removing access to parts, or in some cases the entirety, of their games. Some Members in this Chamber have a favourite video game, some of which we have heard about, and they in particular will understand just how frustrating and disappointing it would be not to be able to play that game again. In a perfect world, everyone would have access to their favourite games forever, but this is not a perfect world.
We need to strike a balance between consumer interests and the burdens on some video games producers. We need to tread carefully, and in particular avoid introducing changes that would increase the cost to successful video games companies of supporting older games with a declining number of players. That money might otherwise be spent on developing newer, better games. However, we have heard anecdotal evidence today of games being withdrawn without obvious reason, despite seeming to generate considerable profits and have a considerable number of consumers.
Tom Gordon
In my speech, I talked about the recent buy-out of EA. Part of the investment by the consortium is taking on large amounts of debt. Profitable games such as “FIFA” and other titles will now have to find money to service that debt. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that equity companies and capital buying up games might hinder the market?
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member makes a perfectly valid point with which I sympathise. It is certainly true that there are a number of different games providers and some are backed by large amounts of money and debt. We have to distinguish clearly between the variety of games providers out there; I will go on to say something about the smaller providers, but the principles that underlie this issue seem clear.
It is incumbent on games companies to make it absolutely clear to consumers when there is the possibility that their games may become unplayable after a period of years. I hope that the video games industry will be happy to accept that responsibility by using clear consumer messaging; I would certainly expect the two industry trade associations to ensure that that happens as a matter of course. As I noted, however, we must also bear in mind the cost to video game publishers of continuing the software; this could become an unfair burden, especially on games producers that are comparatively small, independent businesses, which are all already facing increased costs. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the industry generally that she is battling for the interests of the creative industries as a consideration in the forthcoming Budget that the Chancellor is in the process of writing?
The Government also have responsibility for evaluating whether the protections in place for consumers are both effective and sufficient—we cannot simply assume that they are. Consumers are predominantly protected by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The CRA ensures that if software on sale is not supported by the provider, that should be made clear—on product webpages and on physical packaging and labelling, for example. Does the Minister believe that existing labelling and consumer information are sufficient? As I said, we cannot simply assume that because the law and regulations exist.
We have had recent experiences in other fields—Oasis tickets and Ticketmaster, for example—where the Competition and Markets Authority found that consumers were not given sufficient information. If the number of games being disabled or deactivated is increasing, perhaps it is time to consider whether the existing information is suitable. If digital content does not meet the CRA’s quality rights, the consumer is entitled to a repair or replacement or, if that is not possible, money back up to 100% of the cost of the digital content. Those rights apply to intangible digital content, such as a PC game, as well as tangible content, such as a physical copy of the game. Has the Minister made an assessment of how successful consumers are at seeking redress from video publishers?
Consumer protection rights, which the last Government put into primary legislation, prohibit commercial practices that omit or hide information that the average consumer needs to make an informed choice, and prohibits traders from providing material in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. As with the CRA right to redress, does the Minister believe that the existing route—via Citizens Advice, trading standards, and, where appropriate, the CMA—is an appropriate avenue for consumers? Can the Minister update us on how many consumers have achieved compensation via those routes?
The Government have already confirmed that they have
“no plans to amend existing consumer law on disabling video games.”
That may be a proportionate approach on the basis of what we currently know. However, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 will give Ministers the power to add, amend or remove a description of a commercial practice that is, in all circumstances, considered unfair. Will the Minister be willing to use those powers in the case of video games, if the evidence suggests that the industry’s commercial practices fall short? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the disabling of games is monitored to determine whether it is increasing? Can she confirm that the CMA will look at the existing information requirements for consumers to identify whether it is adequate?
All said, the previous Government recognised the importance of the sector. I hope the Minister ensures that, while she considers whether more can be done to address this issue, any new measures do not stifle growth. Consumers must be protected, but we have a great UK video games sector. The Opposition want to see it go from strength to strength.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing this important debate, everyone who signed the petition raising this important issue, and all the contributors to the debate. It has been really interesting and thought provoking to hear the different perspectives and experiences. Some of the figures shared during the debate really brought to life the importance of the sector. It contributes £7.6 billion and tens of thousands of jobs to the economy, and, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned, millions of gamers up and down the country enjoy gaming daily.
The Government recognise that gaming makes a huge economic contribution and that it is a cultural powerhouse, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) spoke about the wider benefits of gaming. I am aware of the “Power of Play” report, which gives an insight into the social purpose of gaming. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) spoke about the vital importance of our creative landscape, and I will address his points on ownership and consumer rights throughout my speech, but I will answer his questions with a simple yes—it is important that we have effective advice and information. I am delighted to be a champion for the creative industries. I am indeed standing in for the Minister of State. This is not my policy area, but it is an area shared between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business and Trade.
At DCMS, we are very pleased to be championing video games across Government. The Government take their role in supporting video games, both as an industry and as an art form, very seriously. We are all aware of the economic power and potential for growth in the sector. That was highlighted in the creative industries sector plan and is why we have committed £30 million investment through our games growth package. Gaming’s place in culture is equally important, and that has really featured in the debate. For more than 40 years, video games have been entertaining audiences of all ages, and today, the vast majority of young people will grow up playing video games and making memories that they will carry with them throughout their lives. Video games, much like films and music, have become cultural touchstones.
With that in mind, the Government recognise the strength of feeling behind the campaign that led to the debate. The petition attracted nearly 190,000 signatures. Similar campaigns, including a European Citizens’ Initiative, reached over a million signatures. There has been significant interest across the world. Indeed, this is a global conversation. The passion behind the campaign demonstrates that the core underlying principle is a valid one: gamers should have confidence in the right to access the games that they have paid to play.
At the same time, the Government also recognise the concerns from the video gaming industry about some of the campaign’s asks. Online video games are often dynamic, interactive services—not static products—and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades. Games are more complex than ever before to develop and maintain, with the largest exceeding the budget of a modern Hollywood blockbuster. That can make it extremely challenging to implement plans for video games after formal support for them has ended and risks creating harmful unintended consequences for gamers, as well as for video game companies.
A number of Members have made points about ownership. It is important to note that games have always been licensed to consumers rather than sold outright. In the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms. Today, that happens when we click “accept” when buying a game on a digital storefront. Licensing video games is not, as some have suggested, a new and unfair business practice.
However, the video game industry has changed a lot over recent decades in ways that directly impact the way that these licences are sold under law. First, video game development today is more complex, and it is done at a much greater scale than 40 years ago. Secondly, the format of video games has shifted from physical to digital. As a result, the approach to protecting intellectual property has changed, including the “always online” functionality—the most relevant to this debate—which requires games to maintain a constant connection to an online server. For gamers used to dusting off their Nintendo 64 to play “Mario Kart” whenever they like—or in my case, “Crash Bandicoot” on the PlayStation—without the need for an internet connection, that can be frustrating, but it is a legitimate practice that businesses are entitled to adopt, so it is essential that consumers understand what they are paying for. Existing legislation is clear that consumers are entitled to information that enables them to make informed purchasing decisions confidently.
Under existing UK legislation, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that digital content must be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and described by the seller. It also requires that the terms and conditions applied by a trader to a product that they sell must not be unfair, and must be prominent and transparent. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 requires information to consumers to be clear and correct, and prohibits commercial practices that, through false or misleading information, cause the average consumer to make a different choice.
Points and questions about this issue were made by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). Points were made about consumer law and ownership. UK law is very clear: it requires information to consumers to be clear and correct. The Government are clear that the law works, but companies might need to communicate better. In response to a specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley, I should say that it is particularly important in cases where projects fail or games have to be pulled shortly after launch that the information provided to consumers is clear and timely.
Furthermore, I understand that campaigners argue that rather than just providing clear information, games should be able to be enjoyed offline after developer support has ended, either through an update or a patch, or by handing over service to the gaming community to enable continued online play—in other words, mandating the inclusion of end-of-life plans for always online video games. The Government are sympathetic to the concerns raised, but we also recognise the challenges of delivering such aims from the perspective of the video game industry.
First, such a change would have negative technical impacts on video game development. It is true that there are some games for which it would be relatively simple to patch an offline mode after its initial release. However, for games whose systems have been specifically designed for an online experience, this would not be possible without major redevelopment. Requiring an end-of-life plan for all games would fundamentally change how games are developed and distributed. Although that may well be the desired outcome for some campaigners, it is not right to say that the solutions would be simple or inexpensive, particularly for smaller studios. If they proved to be too risky or burdensome, they could discourage the innovation that is the beating heart of this art form.
Secondly, the approach carries commercial and legal risks. If an end-of-life plan involves handing online servers over to consumers, it is not clear who would be responsible for regulatory compliance or for payments to third parties that provide core services. It could also result in reputational harm for video game businesses that no longer officially support their games if illegal or harmful activity took place. The campaign is clear in its statement that it would not ask studios to pay to support games indefinitely. However, it is hard to see solutions to these issues that do not involve significant time, personnel and monetary investment.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly from the perspective of gamers, there are the safety and security impacts to consider. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, video game companies are responsible for controlling exposure to harmful content in their games. Removing official moderation from servers or enabling community-hosted servers increases the risk that users, including children, could be exposed to such content. Security threats could also be more likely if player data is no longer protected on official servers. Although the Government are, of course, supportive of businesses that are able to implement end-of-life plans voluntarily, we do not think that a blanket requirement is proportionate or in the interests of businesses or consumers. Our role is to ensure that those selling and purchasing games are clear about their obligations and protections under UK consumer law.
I will touch briefly on the subject of video game preservation, which is an important issue for the gaming community, and one that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk rightly spoke about. The Government recognise the cultural value of games and actively support initiatives that promote and support that, whether through cultural institutions such as the National Videogame Museum and London’s Science Museum, digital distribution platforms, or individual video game companies donating their games and hardware to preservation organisations.
We recognise that preserving games can be uniquely complex, in particular when they rely on specific hardware or software to function as intended. We welcome ongoing discussions between the industry, national museums, libraries and archives about developing standards for game preservation. We encourage video game developers and publishers to continue considering preservation efforts when developing, releasing and supporting their games.
In the Government response to the petition, we pledged to monitor the issue and to consider the relevant work of the Competition and Markets Authority on consumer rights and consumer detriment. We do not think that mandating end-of-life plans is proportionate or enforceable, but we recognise the concerns of gamers about whether information on what they are purchasing is always sufficiently clear. With that in mind, DCMS, as the lead Department for video game policy, and DBT, as the lead Department for consumer protection, have engaged the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. The institute maintains the Business Companion guide to businesses on complying with consumer law, including in relation to digital content. Following this debate, our two Departments will consider the case for asking the institute to develop guidance to help businesses to ensure that the information provided to video game consumers accurately reflects existing consumer protections.
It is vital to take into account the rights of consumers, while continuing to support the growth of our world-leading video game industry, with its benefits to the wider economy. I again thank all Members who spoke this afternoon, and everyone who signed and engaged with the petition to enable this debate to take place.
Ben Goldsborough
I thank all Members who took part in the debate and all the petitioners. Were the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) present, I could have said that every part of the United Kingdom was represented in the Chamber today—but we nearly got there. That shows the benefits of the video game industry to our economy and to our culture.
I was heartened by the Minister’s closing remarks about action to put consumers back at the heart of the process. This is an evolving situation; the video game industry is changing on a daily basis. Ensuring that consumers are at the heart of how the video game industry works in future is a heartening step to hear about. As I said, this issue will not go away. I hope that the Minister and her Department will work closely with all Members who have spoken today to secure the best outcome, which we all want.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I hope that a game out there has the hon. Member for Strangford as a character.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 702074 relating to consumer law and videogames.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
As Members know, on many occasions at the start of a session in the Committee Room, a pro forma notice is given about the possibility of a Division. Today, in view of the business in the House, it is entirely possible that there will be Divisions. If there is one, we will adjourn the Committee immediately for 10 minutes.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Monday 3rd November 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeTobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-III(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2025)
“(4A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for and in connection with a streamlined process for granting personal and premises licences to businesses that—(a) both have an alcohol premises licence and are a personal licence holder, and(b) have not been subject to enforcement action in the last 12 months for actions that a licensing authority would judge as inconsistent with conditions set out in regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to acknowledge that the majority of retailers selling tobacco products and vape products do so responsibly and have robust policies in place to prevent sales to children and to prevent the sale of illicit or non-duty paid products.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak on the Bill for the first time—not because of a lack of interest, but because it clashed with other Bills going on at the same time. I declare my interest as chair of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, known as PASS, which looks to provide age verification in the form of a PASS card—currently it is a physical card, but I hope it will be digital—for those wishing to access shopping, nightlife and alcoholic drinks to prove their age.
I will say at the outset what the purpose is and why there is a need for Amendment 30. I am grateful to the Association of Convenience Stores for helping me prepare and draft the amendment. The ACS has 50,000 local shops and its membership would be greatly affected by the Bill, if this amendment is not carried. The explanatory note helpfully sets out the purpose of the amendment, which is to acknowledge that the majority of retailers selling tobacco and vape products do so responsibly and have robust policies in place to prevent sales to children and to prevent the sale of illicit or non-duty-paid products.
The Bill proposes the creation of a new licensing system for the sale of tobacco and vaping products, which will require thousands of existing retailers to transition to new administrative processes. Local authorities will also have to handle a significant volume of licensing applications. I omitted to say that I also chaired the ad hoc committee of your Lordships’ House that looked at the review of the Licensing Act 2003 and which reported in 2016-17.
Without a proportionate transition system, the Bill may create unnecessary burdens for both businesses and enforcement bodies. There is an established precedent for a proportionate approach. I referred to the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, dealing with alcohol, which allowed grandfather rights that gave responsible existing licence holders permission to transit to the new framework in a streamlined way. With Amendment 30, I propose the creation of a fast-track application route for retailers that can demonstrate existing robust controls and compliance. The process would not remove scrutiny or licensing requirements but recognise that many retailers already operate under strong regulatory expectations. Eligible businesses would be those that hold an alcohol premises licence, are a personal licence holder and have not been subject to enforcement action in the last 12 months inconsistent with the conditions set out in the regulations.
Why does this matter? The majority of retailers act responsibly, uphold age-verification policies and do not deal in illicit products; for compliant retailers, we should freeze enforcement capacity to target bad actors and high-risk sellers. Also, a proportionate transition would reduce significant administrative strain on local authorities and businesses.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friends Lord Kamall and Lord Howe on their Amendments 35 and 42 in this group, but I end with a request for information on how retailers such as convenience stores and others are expected to have enough time to train and prepare their staff for the provisions of the Bill and particularly for a transition phase. That is key. With those few remarks, I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
I support this group of amendments. It is absolutely right that we have a thoroughgoing licensing scheme. Many people would be very surprised to find that we do not have a licensing scheme for tobacco, as we do for alcohol. It is unregulated, so I welcome the proposals to have a thoroughgoing licensing scheme. It should be streamlined; we need to recognise that the vast majority, as has been said by my noble friend, comply with the law and are fully responsible.
In developing a licensing scheme, we need to look at the experience of other, diverse countries that have a licensing scheme—Finland, Hungary, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada and Singapore, to name some—because there is a lot to be learned from them. I urge the Minister to have a good look at what is happening elsewhere.
A vaping licensing scheme is particularly welcome. Currently, vapes are prolific on our high streets, in markets and at counters in nail salons, and so on. They are unregulated, and that must change to protect people and hold those that are responsible to account. I very much welcome the move to have a licensing scheme here, and I associate myself with what my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has just said.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from whom we will hear later, address the details of a licensing scheme, which could, I believe, be better worked out during consultation and are better put in regulations than on the face of the Bill.
I think there are problems with the suggestion that there should be a joint alcohol and tobacco products licence—as superficially attractive as that may sound. This is for two reasons. The first is practical; there are plenty of retailers who sell both ranges of products, but there are plenty who do not, including some small shops and specialist vaping retailers. Let us not overcomplicate this by having several kinds of licence: joint and single.
The second reason is even more serious, because the objectives of the two schemes are not the same. The objective of the tobacco and vapes licencing scheme should be public health. Indeed, that is the main justification for the generational ban and other restrictive aspects of this Bill. On the other hand, public health was not the objective of the design of the original alcohol licence, and things are set to get worse—which I will come to. Therefore, there are issues about putting the two together.
On Amendment 35, there is a case for restricting the density of tobacco and vapes licensed premises in a local area on public health grounds. Local authorities already have the powers to limit the density of fast-food outlets in certain areas, such as near schools, on the basis that the food they sell is often high in fat, salt and sugars, and is energy dense. Why should local authorities not have the same powers for the density of shops selling tobacco and its various products? Therefore, I oppose Amendment 35. Density is better decided by the local licensing authority, which knows and understands its own area. It is not something that should be on the face of the Bill but something that should be considered in consultation.
I turn now to Amendments 30 and 42. The Government have recently launched a rapid consultation on alcohol licensing, led by an industry task force that would see “growth” incorporated as an objective of the revised scheme, rather than public health. Its recommendations have been warmly welcomed by the Government, but I would advise caution, especially in the light of calls for joint tobacco and alcohol licences today. It is true that hospitality outlets can be important for people’s well-being and community cohesion and often provide economic benefits to local communities. However, many of them rely nowadays more on the sale of meals than on just alcohol and provide an opportunity for family outings. The implication by the industry in the recommendations of the task force is that people cannot enjoy themselves unless they are consuming alcohol. That is, of course, a nonsense suggestion. By the way, each of the three working groups was led by a senior member of the industry and there was no representation on the task force from the Department of Health and Social Care or public health bodies, despite public health acting as the responsible authority for local licensing committees.
The task force report defines the core purpose of licensing as economic enablement and sets out a series of mechanisms to promote that approach. The foreword in the Government’s response, written by the Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, not only describes licensed hospitality as “foundational” to the UK economy but as selling “happiness, creating lasting memories”, and providing
“the glue that binds us together as a society”.
This is language that, if used in alcohol marketing, would probably breach the industry’s own code of conduct.
The task force’s recommendations would undermine the powers of elected local authorities in several ways: first, by the creation of a quasi-statutory national licensing policy framework to direct local decision-making; secondly, by the automatic addition of off-sales permissions to all on-sales licences; thirdly, by the enhanced powers for unelected licensing officers to override decisions of elected officers on licensing committees; fourthly, through the
“Requirement to link licensing to economic development and culture policies”;
fifthly, by a blanket “amnesty” on licensing conditions deemed to be
“outdated in the modern world”—
deemed by whom, I ask—and, finally, by the imposition of a higher evidential bar for objections to licence applications, with adherence determined solely by licensing officers.
That is why there should be no attempt to link alcohol licences under such a regime with tobacco retail licences. There are other ways of helping the hospitality industry rather than undermining the very foundation of the alcohol sales licensing regime by attacking local democracy in this way.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 35 and 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I will also express my strong support for Amendment 30, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All the amendments in this group are guided by an important principle. The success of a new licensing regime will depend not only on the strength of the associated enforcement powers but on the fairness, proportionality and practicality with which those powers are exercised.
Amendment 30 is a sensible and fair proposal. It acknowledges that the vast majority of retailers selling tobacco and vape products do so responsibly and already operate under stringent regulatory regimes. Many of those businesses hold alcohol premises licences and are personal licence holders, and as such as are meticulous in complying with the rules and standards legally in force to prevent under-age sales and the supply of illicit goods.
Clause 16 will impose new licensing obligations, checks and costs. Taken together, for many small independent businesses they will represent a significant administrative and financial burden. My noble friend’s amendment simply asks that the Government recognise the existing history of compliance by allowing a streamlined process for those that have already demonstrated that they meet high licensing standards elsewhere. This would embed efficiency and fairness into the enforcement system and reward good practice. It would save time and cost for retailers and allow enforcement resources to be focused where they are most needed, on those who persistently flout the rules.
Amendment 35 turns to another crucial point of principle: fairness and proportionality in how licensing powers are applied. As drafted, Schedule 1 would allow licensing authorities to impose proximity or density restrictions, in effect preventing a licence being granted simply because a premises happens to fall within a designated zone or is near other retailers that sell similar products. That is an extremely broad and, frankly, concerning power. It risks punishing businesses not because they are non-compliant through choice or negligence but simply because of where they are located.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This group of amendments deals with the details of the forthcoming retail licensing scheme.
Let me say in opening, in response to all of these amendments, that our intention in this regard is very much what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just spoke about: to support legitimate businesses that stick to the rules while deterring and being able to deal with rogue retailers. We want the scheme to minimise the burden on retailers and local authorities as far as is possible—again, a point that was rightly made by a number of noble Lords.
Let me first turn to Amendment 30, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I hope I can reassure her that the Government are carefully considering the design and implementation of the licensing scheme. In respect of her opening comments, we look forward to continuing to work with the Association of Convenience Stores and other important and relevant groups. Considering the design and implementation of the scheme will include the interaction with alcohol licensing.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we are working closely with the Department for Business and Trade as well as the Home Office. However, as she recognised, ultimately, our objectives and motivations are different; they may be complementary, but they are different. For example, on alcohol licensing, the focus is on supporting resilience and growth of on-trade venues that provide safe and regulated spaces for people to socialise. With tobacco and vape licensing, as I said, it is about ensuring that we support those who abide by the rules and act as a deterrent to those who do not. Of course, we have a public health objective.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about pressures on enforcement, which is a very reasonable question. Local authorities will be able to use the licensing fee they collect from retailers to cover the cost of running and enforcing the licensing scheme. That will assist local authorities and will ensure that the scheme is implemented and sustainable. I believe the noble Baroness also asked if there would be enough time for training and development. Again, that will be part of our discussions that will follow from the call for evidence and the consultation after that, which I will come to very soon.
I want to pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, made about looking to other nations. We are aware of several international examples where this has been very successful, including some cities in the United States, Finland, Hungary, France, Italy, Spain and Australia. We have much to call on and will absolutely be considering what works best in the development of our own scheme.
Noble Lords will recall from earlier discussions that we have recently launched a call for evidence, which closes on 3 December. That is on a whole range of issues, including questions about the process for granting licences and implementation more generally. That will inform a subsequent consultation on the detail of the scheme. The points being raised today are all important and they will be considered through both those actions.
I turn now to Amendments 35 and 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Amendment 35 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State requiring licensing authorities to consider the location and/or density of tobacco and vape retailers when they make decisions on the granting of licences. The call for evidence asks for feedback on how licensing authorities should make decisions and whether and how much factors such as the ones the noble Lord rightly raised, location and density, should have a role. However—I am sure many noble Lords would agree with this—there are certain places where it would obviously be inappropriate for a tobacco or vape shop to be located. For example, I have not heard a call for vape shops to open next door to children’s nurseries, so there are some obvious points. As our aim is to stop children and young people smoking and vaping, it is absolutely right that we consider factors that might have a role, such as the location and density of retailers. I am very much looking forward to the feedback on this through our call for evidence.
Amendment 42 would require the Government to consider the benefits of combining tobacco and alcohol licensing into a joint scheme. I certainly understand the noble Lord’s very good intention to learn from existing licensing schemes and to avoid unnecessary burdens on retailers—something I have already associated myself with. We recognise that alcohol licensing is established and familiar to a lot of businesses, and that we can learn from alcohol licensing when designing the new scheme. That is why the call for evidence includes detailed questions on the design, and why we have to consult. It is the right thing to do, but it will also meet the intentions of the amendments before us. This process will allow us to consider where we can make use of existing systems and practices, as noble Lords have called on us to do. We share the view that the minimisation of additional costs and burdens, as far as possible, is the right thing to do, while ensuring that the new licensing scheme achieves our aims on tobacco and vapes.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when he said that the current lack of a licensing system for tobacco is a major gap in enforcement. Therefore, I am glad that the introduction of this new retail licensing scheme is strongly supported by retailers and the public alike. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to have had a debate on this small group of amendments. I am also grateful for the support from my noble friend Lord Bourne. I took great comfort from the fact that this has been achieved in other countries, so we can perhaps follow their good practice. I also thank my noble friend Lord Howe.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, misunderstood what I am trying to achieve here. I am trying to set out similar grandfather rights to those awarded in the implementation of the original alcohol licensing Act, as applied in 2005. These rights would allow those businesses already selling the products to continue selling them, but under a process I have set out. I hope that is something she might support going forward.
This is intended as a probing amendment, and my noble friend Lord Howe made the point that we are looking for fairness, proportionality and practicality. I hope that will be a red line running through this process. I hope we can return to this at a later stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kamall
“(5A) Draft regulations under this section must be published before the end of the period of six months from the passing of this Act.”
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in some ways this group will follow on from the last; some of the comments I will make now could be applied to the previous group of amendments.
Noble Lords will be aware that, as discussed in the previous group, the licensing regime the Bill sets out is complex. Many of the Bill’s provisions are yet to be determined in regulations, meaning that businesses across the country are faced with something they dread: uncertainty. Some retailers have told me they already see this on top of the double whammy of increases to employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage, and they have had to face that doing business is more difficult, as is taking on new employees.
We all know that the large retailers have public affairs teams, legal teams and compliance teams, all helping them navigate the complexities of changes in legislation. For them, the sale of tobacco and tobacco products counts for a small proportion of their total revenue stream. However, the situation could be very different for small, family-run businesses, staffed by two, three or four people, often working from dawn to dusk—staffing the till and the counter, and sorting out bills and expenses. For many other people, just managing half this workload would be a good day’s work. Imagine, on top of all this, having to find the time to understand, and make changes to abide by, these new regulations.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, just to clarify on the previous group and to quote myself, I advised caution about the idea of combining the two kinds of licences, specifically because of the strong possibility of fundamental change to the remit of the alcohol licences.
On this group of amendments beginning with Amendment 32 in the names the noble Lord, Lord Kamal and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, it is important that the Government do not delay unduly in laying out the details of the new licensing scheme. That is only fair to retailers who need to respond to it. However, it is also important to get it right, and it is a highly technical issue. There will be a lot of noise about the workability of elements of this Bill without adding to that by getting the licensing scheme wrong, and I am sure the Government are aware of that. However, I am also aware that the Government have already issued a further call for evidence on the technicalities of the scheme, which I hope will help them to iron out any problems. I hope that they do not hang about over this, as they did with putting the Bill into your Lordships’ Committee—which we awaited with bated breath; it took a long time—but I do not support rushing such a technical process. Therefore, I do not support putting these amendments with their specific timescales on the face of the Bill. I look forward to the consultation.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group.
I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, is not in his place to speak to his amendments, but I will just touch on them briefly, if I may. Basically, his amendments seek to require licensing regulations to be made within three months of the relevant provisions in the Bill coming into force. The amendments would also extend the existing retailer register in Northern Ireland. I emphasise that, of course, the Government share the noble Lord’s desire to move as quickly as possible to implement the licensing scheme. That is why we have recently launched the call for evidence on the range of issues that we have laid out, including questions on the design of the retail licensing scheme. The feedback received will be absolutely critical, and we want to get on and launch this as soon as possible. However, it is also important that the Government have sufficient time to ensure that the regulations are properly thought through. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, when he hears the discussion, will be reassured and understand that three months is not sufficient time to run a consultation, analyse the feedback received and prepare well-considered regulations. That is as much as I shall say on his amendments.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I hope to give him the reassurance that he seeks, as we discussed in last week’s Committee, that I understand these particular concerns. His amendments would similarly require Ministers to publish draft regulations implementing a retail licensing scheme for England and Wales within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent. The Government are committed to ensuring that those impacted by regulations and those with expertise have the opportunity to contribute their views. We want to minimise additional costs and burdens as far as possible, while ensuring that the scheme is a success and achieves our aims of supporting legitimate businesses as well as tackling those that disregard the law. Again, the recently published call for evidence seeks input on a range of topics, including the implementation of the retail licensing scheme. As I have said, this will inform the consultation, which we will launch as soon as possible.
To respond directly to the noble Lord’s comments, our call for evidence also asks about the implementation of the scheme and how long will be required to implement the policy. We will, of course, work through the appropriate channels to ensure that businesses have the necessary guidance to implement the changes. I cannot emphasise enough that this is for all businesses, regardless of their size or the organisations that represent them. We want to make sure that we get that message out loud and clear, so that they have confidence that their views will be regarded with the same importance as all those who contribute to the policy.
I note the noble Baroness’s comments about making sure that we get this right, so we cannot be beholden to specific timeframes on the face of the Bill. We all acknowledge that this is a complex policy and, while we want to move swiftly, it is important that there is enough time to ensure that the policy is properly thought through before developing regulations. I repeat that requiring the Government to publish draft regulations before adequate consultation may risk creating a flawed policy. For the reasons that I have outlined, bringing together previous comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate on this group of amendments. The intention was always that these would be probing amendments; whether it was three months, as from my noble friend Lord Mott, or six months, as from us, we wanted to get some certainty and find out whether, at this stage, any thought has been given to an outline timetable. This is so that the retailers that will have to face this new licensing regime can understand the different stages—the Minister laid out some of the consultation stages—and the overall timetable. Here we are, getting towards the end of the 2025, and they are wondering, “When will this new licensing regime be in place? Will it be sometime in 2026 or in 2027?” That is the sort of outline assurance they want.
It was very helpful of the Minister to mention some of the consultation stages, but it would also be helpful if, perhaps in writing, she could give us a timetable that relates to real dates in the next two or three years—and, in doing so, avoid “in due course” or “as soon as possible”—so as to reduce the uncertainty for those retailers that will have to prepare for this measure. I also welcome the acknowledgement from the Minister of the importance of consulting small retailers—that point has already been made in our debates on previous groups—as well as her understanding of the role that these small retailers play. The burden for them is very different and disproportionate as compared to that for some of the larger retailers.
In general, we welcome the tone from the Government and understand that there must be consultation stages. However, we are asking for some sort of outline timetable in writing, if possible, on when the Government envisage the licensing regime being in place—with the usual caveats, perhaps, depending on what comes back from the consultation. Some certainty would be really welcome at this stage.
Having said that, and having reflected on the comments from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe.
“Prohibition on supply of cigarette filters in England and Wales(1) The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must make regulations having the effect of prohibiting the supply of cigarette filters or cigarettes containing cigarette filters, whether by way of sale or not, in the course of a business.(2) Subsections (6), (8), (9), (10), (10A), (10B), (10C) and (10D) of section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under that section.(3) The notice required under section 140(6)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as applied by subsection (2) in relation to the regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must be published no later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(4) In this section—“cigarette filter” means a filter which is intended for use in a cigarette, whether as part of a ready made cigarette or to be used with hand rolling tobacco or other substances to be smoked in a cigarette.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make regulations which would prohibit the supply of cigarette filters or cigarettes containing cigarette filters.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 33 in my name, I will also speak to the related amendments in this group.
Amendment 33 has a very simple aim: to ban filters on cigarettes. I must start by saying that this is healthwashing. Filters on cigarettes have no health benefits. They were developed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s as a response to growing public concern over the link between smoking and lung cancer. An exposed internal note from the tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris stated that they are “an effective advertising gimmick”. They were deliberately developed to turn from white to brown in order to increase the perception that they filter the cigarette smoke; in reality, smokers simply inhale more deeply, drawing more smoke through the cigarette butt and even further into their lungs. The more recent trend of white filter tips, as compared to the older orange ones, reinforces this message with consumers. The evidence shows that young people, in particular, perceive cigarette packs with references to filters as containing cigarettes that are significantly less harmful than those contained by packs without such references.
Yet this is still not widely known. Look at the communications power of these merchants of death versus the health messages—of course, the merchants of death have a lot more money to put into the messages they are putting out. I acknowledge the support provided to me by Action on Smoking and Health in bringing forward this amendment; noble Lords who have received its briefing may well have noted that it strongly backs this amendment. Only one in four adults realise that filters do not protect smokers, so 75% of people still think that, because the filter is allowed to be there, it is sending a message of health: “There must be some health benefit, surely, or else why would the Government allow it?” That is my Amendment 33.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 34 in this group, which is on cigarette filters and health warnings. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley for their support. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision
“prohibiting the manufacture, supply, or sale of … plastic filters intended for use in cigarettes, and … cigarettes containing plastic filters”
through regulations that must be laid before Parliament
“no later than the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
This amendment is required. It is a practical, necessary and long-overdue measure that I hope to show enjoys widespread public support. Implementing it would strengthen our commitment to environmental sustainability and corporate responsibility while having minimal impacts on those who choose to smoke cigarettes with filters.
As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, discarded cigarette filters are one of the most common and prevalent forms of public litter. It has been estimated that 90% of all cigarettes smoked in the world contain non-biodegradable filter tips and that, in the UK, some 3.9 million cigarette butts are discarded daily. On a constituency basis, that is 6,000 cigarette butts, or 2.2 million thrown away each year. Every year, billions of cigarette butts are discarded across the UK, which is a staggering amount.
As they degrade very slowly, they release microplastics and many harmful chemicals, which are a danger to nature and to aquatic life in particular. Only one in four smokers even realise that filters are not biodegradable; most assume that they already are. Eighty-six per cent of adults support this change in the law, including 77% of the smokers asked. Cigarette butts are a bit like ants. The power of their pollution is caused by their very small nature, their frequency and the fact that they are discarded so widely. It is very difficult to clear them up, even if we wanted to.
As we have heard, they are made from cellulose acetate—a non-biodegradable form of plastic—and take up to an estimated 10 to 15 years to break down in the natural environment. I question one figure from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which seemed to be for plastic filters, not biodegradable filters. I do not recognise the figure she gave. Yet, despite this harm, plastic filters continue to be widely used. This and other Governments have made progress on banning other forms of everyday plastic pollution, but no progress has been made here. For these reasons, regulatory action is now required. Fortunately, perfectly workable alternative solutions are available and are widely recognised within the industry as being fit for purpose and working with manufacturing processes.
Across the world, there has been a move to work on these issues. The World Health Organization supports a ban on non-biodegradable cigarettes as part of the global plastics treaty and the EU is also looking at these matters. If the Government accept this amendment, the UK could become the first country in the world to pass legislation on these matters. Biodegradable cigarette filters made from natural fibres such as paper, hemp or bamboo would degrade much more quickly and cause far less harm. They would eliminate unnecessary plastic waste and give people the option of having a filter on a cigarette if they want one.
I do not argue that filters in any shape or form make cigarettes healthier to smoke; they clearly do not. I know that tobacco companies have falsely put them forward in this way in the past. However, they make smoking more pleasant for those who want to smoke. If an alternative exists that would deal with the plastic pollution, we should not unnecessarily ban these items. My amendment is about trying to find a way between having the plastic pollution we see now and a complete ban.
Turning to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that banning filters would not resolve the problem because people will continue to smoke. They will smoke cigarettes without filters. They will dispose of the butts of those cigarettes without filters on the ground. Indeed, in many cases, they will end up burning their fingers and dropping them in places they do not want to, which could become an increased cause of wildfires, which are becoming an ever more prevalent problem. The litter will still exist and the nicotine in the cigarette butts will still exist. I do not buy the argument that removing filters would improve health outcomes in any way at all. I find it hard to see that a cigarette without a filter is in any way healthier than a cigarette with a filter. It may not make any difference, but I certainly cannot see how it can be argued to be in any way better.
My amendment is well argued and supported. I am open to working with the Government around the timelines that I would put in place. It might be that the Government feel that those timelines are too short. On reflection, maybe I should have allowed for a bit more time for it to take place.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 141 and 143 would require the Government to consult on introducing health warnings on each individual cigarette by printing them on the cigarette papers. These amendments are necessary because the Government have not yet committed to consulting about these warnings, let alone insisting on them, as I believe that they should.
Warnings on individual cigarettes, also known as dissuasive cigarettes, were recommended by the APPG on Smoking and Health in 2021 and in The Khan Review—Making Smoking Obsolete in 2022. The Government should take heed of Dr Javed Khan’s report in particular, which was commissioned by the previous Government to examine how we could get to our smoke-free target by 2030. Canada has already seen remarkable success with this approach and Australia has just followed suit with regulations coming into effect in July this year.
Research commissioned by Health Canada into the appeal and attractiveness of cigarettes with health warnings showed that these cigarettes were perceived as less appealing than cigarettes without health warnings. The converse is, of course, also true. Cigarettes that did not have health warnings on were viewed as being less harmful. The impact was particularly notable among young people, who reported that when they were offered single cigarettes in social situations, they were not exposed to the warnings on the cigarette pack. With warnings visible on every cigarette, this would no longer be the case. Cigarettes may not be able to be sold individually, but they certainly can be handed out individually to others at parties and social events.
It is very welcome that the Government are introducing pack inserts, for which I have long argued and which signpost smokers to quitting information inside the packets. But I find it ironic that it is the tobacco industry, which of course shortens the lives of half its customers, that warns that there may be dangers from the ink printed on the cigarette papers. These papers would, of course, be printed with non-toxic ink and would discourage people from taking up this habit, which proves fatal and damaging to so many people.
We do not want to make smoking any more harmful. We want fewer people to take up the habit, and we want to help the majority of smokers, who are struggling to quit as most are. So, I urge the Minister to consider this additional complementary and necessary measure. It may help those people who need to be deterred from accepting a cigarette offered from someone else’s packet and who may then begin a habit that shortens the lives of half the people who take up that invitation to become a smoker.
Some people, particularly those in the tobacco industry, still suggest that, at this point, we all know all about the harms of smoking. However, the evidence is clear: the more strategies we use to inform consumers, the more chance we have of preventing people starting smoking or of helping people quit, as most smokers try to do repeatedly. My late noble friend Lord Ashdown frequently told me that he gave up smoking three times a day. He found it, as most smokers do, highly addictive and very hard to give up. We need to know that what is compelling for one potential smoker may not be workable for another smoker. So, given how lethal tobacco is, we need to use every tool at our disposal to deter smoking and to help people quit.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 141 and 143, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
This Bill is a world-leading piece of public health legislation. It is comprehensive in the powers it takes to regulate tobacco products; flexible; and, we hope, future-proof. This subject is dear to my heart because my father died of lung cancer, having been a lifelong smoker since he started at the age of 12; my older sister died at 67, also of lung cancer. So smoking has had a profound effect on my family, as it has for so many across the Committee.
The flagship policy of raising the age of sale every year is, as we know, projected to reduce smoking rates among 14 to 30 year-olds to zero by 2050. That is an extraordinary achievement in our sights. However, there is a real risk that the Bill’s very success may lead to the perception that the job is done. We must not be complacent. Instead, we should ensure that we use the powers in this Bill to continue pressing every lever available in the fight against tobacco. I just mention that my father told me that, when he was 12, he was not looking at packets of cigarettes but was being offered single cigarettes.
One such opportunity for us lies in the introduction of health warnings on individual cigarettes, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others have recommended in these amendments. As the noble Lord outlined, this measure has already been implemented in Canada; it represents a practical and, potentially, powerful next step. As the noble Lord said, we know that the design of cigarettes affects how they are perceived; and that this can act as a form of marketing. Research shows that slim or thin cigarettes tend to be more appealing to women, while using white paper for cigarettes implies cleanliness and purity. Studies have also shown that the little golden ribbon that marks the start of the filter means that a cigarette is perceived as being more attractive, of a higher quality and better tasting than those without.
Evidence from Canada, which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, has shown that cigarettes without health warnings are perceived as less harmful than those carrying them. Dissuasive—a word I have only recently learned—cigarettes help, therefore, to align consumer perception more closely with the reality of the serious harms caused by smoking. Alongside printed warnings, it may also be worth exploring whether changes in cigarette colour and removing that little gold band could enhance this further.
I anticipate that my noble friend the Minister may say that the powers to introduce dissuasive cigarettes already exist in the Bill; and that a specific amendment is therefore unnecessary. I accept that point. However, I know that noble Lords are keen to hear more from the Government about how the range of powers in this Bill may be used in future; this feels like a fruitful area. A mechanism for outlining this could be publishing a five-year tobacco strategy, setting out how and when the Government intend to use the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and what targets are being set for future smoking prevalence. This will provide welcome clarity and vision, although I understand that my noble friend the Minister has already ruled out publicly publishing a strategy.
New data on smoking prevalence are due to be published tomorrow. I hope that they bring the good news that smoking rates continue to fall. Let us be clear, however, that this does not happen by chance: continued progress requires vigilance, ambition and creativity.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I have never smoked. Having said that, I was for some 15 years in marketing and advertising. I do not think that the proposal here is at all practical. Cigarettes are very narrow so to read something in six-point type—which is what we are talking about—will be difficult and will have next to no effect at all. We have proper health warnings on the pack itself. We should concentrate on those and do more work on how well they are being communicated; that may take us further forward. Amendments 141 and 143 are, frankly, for the birds.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I worry that this group of amendments indicates that, in the name of public health, state overreach can get completely carried away with itself. I ask that we take a step back and consider the state’s ability to interfere in the manufacture and R&D of legal products, which is completely disruptive to those products’ manufacture and design; if the state is going to do that, there needs to be a very good reason.
I want to look at some of the reasons that we have heard in relation to either a ban on or alteration of the use of filters. There seems to be some confusion as to whether this is an environmentalist issue or a public health issue. Is it litter, or is it plastic? What is it? This is a debate about tobacco and vaping, so let me concentrate on that. There is an idea that one in four adults does not know that filters are not healthy. As a long-standing smoker, I have to say that, while there are arguments about filters, I have never heard a smoker say, “I use a filter because they’re healthy”. There are a whole range of discussions about the use of filters—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. By way of correction, in case I was not clear, 75% of smokers do not know that filters do not have any health benefits; the stat is the other way round.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The point I am making is that it is true that the majority of smokers do not sit around and discuss whether filters have a benefit to their health. I am quite sure that, had you asked me in that survey, I would not have had a clue. You would then say that I was being conned into using a filter. However, I would be indifferent because that is not the basis on which people smoke, either with or without filters. I am particularly bemused by the idea that, as a woman, if I saw a white filter, I would immediately think “purity” and be forced to smoke a white-filtered cigarette. I mean, goodness me—have we all gone mad?
I want to talk also about the idea of health warnings on actual cigarettes, which, again, is completely disruptive to product design and so on. It is completely petty. Sometimes, I feel as though the public health people have done everything and anything they possibly can and have run out of things to do, so they are now down to the narrowest possible thing: the cigarette itself.
It is interesting that this idea is aimed especially at young people who might be given one cigarette at a party; and that people seem to be saying that, if only such people saw that written warning, it would be enough to stop them. Were we ever young? Were we ever at a party? Did we ever read anything on the side of a cigarette that stopped us? The point I am making is that, as it happens, the majority of young people know that smoking is bad for you; many young people even give adults like me lectures on how smoking is bad for you. The idea of a written warning is not, I think, very helpful.
I just wonder what the health warning would say. Would it say, “Tobacco kills you”? What is it going to say? I have had an idea. Public perceptions on the difference between smoking and vaping are at their all-time worst. Only a minority of current adult smokers—29%—are able to recognise accurately that vaping is less harmful than smoking. So I have an idea: if we are going to have a message on the side of individual cigarettes, perhaps we could say, “Vaping is cheaper and less harmful than smoking”. That is a good message. Why do we not say that? We could even say, “Vaping is good for you”. The point I am making is that that is not where we should be putting messages; we have heard confused messages in this Committee so far.
My final thought is on the success of Canada and Australia in dealing with smoking, which has been cited and thrown into the conversation. Let us look at what is actually happening and today’s front-page headlines in Australia. The only success of Canada and Australia has been the huge growth of a black market in cigarettes and vapes. It is a disaster. Many people in public health are now saying, “Maybe we went too far”. So, before we start emulating them, maybe we should take different lessons. The front page of the Australian newspaper The Age today is about the fact that people are panicking about what they have inadvertently done. This group of amendments is the kind of thing that could lead us in completely the wrong direction.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have added our names. I declare an interest as the president of the Local Government Association. I thank ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—for its briefing, in which it laid out these amendments clearly. It supports the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, though not the one in my name; however, it raises some really interesting points around what we are trying to do and how far we need to go.
It is important to raise the issue of greenwashing and to look at better solutions than the one we currently have. Although this amendment does not go as far as some want, it is a step forward. I came to this amendment, which looks at the equivalent number of plastic straws that are in each cigarette—it is two plastic straws—because I worked on the impact of the ban on plastic straws on disabled people. Disabled people were vilified for daring still to want to use plastic straws, whereas people who smoke do not seem to have that same level of pressure against them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, always makes really interesting speeches and asks really interesting questions. Are we doing this from the point of view of public health, the environment or littering? I would say, “All of them”. As somebody who has never smoked—I question how interesting any of the parties I went to as a teenager were—I presumed that filters were safer. It is only when you do the research that you realise that people have been deceived into thinking that they are safer than they actually are. The number of butts that are littered worldwide—4.5 trillion—is absolutely horrendous; it is the equivalent of 1.69 billion pounds of toxic trash. Look at the impact on the UK: a minimum of 3.9 million butts are littered every day. I am also interested in the fact that cleaning up these cigarette butts costs local authorities around £40 million a year; I think that that money could be spent far better in different ways.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The point I am making is slightly different. If I had my way, I would ban cigarette sales completely, but I know we are not going to get that far in a hurry.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the filters are made of cellulose acetate that is converted into plastic. They are promoted as a health benefit in the sense that people think they filter out harmful tar, nicotine and carcinogens, which they do not. They are of no benefit. Filters also make people more addicted, because they make the cigarette smoke temperature lower and feel smoother, so I am told. People therefore take deeper breaths and become more addicted to the substances they inhale, because there is a higher concentration of them. They are actually more harmful, despite being promoted as less harmful than just cigarettes on their own.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 34, which I support in principle, but I am interested to hear the Government’s response to the points about practicality, apart from anything else. There is a real issue here. Fundamentally, people are pointing to a very real issue that needs to be tackled, either through the approach in Amendment 33 or a variation on Amendment 34. I am interested to hear how the Government think they should tackle it.
I am picking up on one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made when she was talking about whether the intention is about littering or health. I have no objection to joined-up government, and it is a good thing to be doing that. I will speak later today on the Planning Bill urging planning to take account of health; health should also take account of environmental impacts of things in this way.
To conclude, I have one question with three parts for the Minister. Do she and the Government recognise and accept that filters have no positive impact on health and—as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just said—possibly have a negative impact with people breathing in harder? Does the Minister accept that most people who smoke do not know that filters have no impact and, indeed, think that they may be saving themselves to some extent? The third part is: if the Government believe those things, it seems to be something they should be tackling in some way within their tobacco plans and I am not aware that they are. I leave those questions with the Minister.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, first on Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I was the first Health Minister to propose the health warning on cigarettes back in 1980. Those 45 years seem quite a long time to wait, and we have been pipped at the post by Canada, but I hope that this is a suggestion that will find favour. My noble friend Lord Naseby said that the font would be very small; on the other hand, it would be very close to the eye, so fairly easy to read.
When talking about her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that the word “filter” is a misnomer. I am not sure where trading standards are on this, because it filters absolutely nothing; there are no health benefits at all. I have listened to the debate about banning just plastic filters. I went to a meeting last month of the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health addressed by Dr Boots. He made the point that all filters are bad for the environment; there is no such thing as a totally biodegradable alternative to filters. As has been said before, 75% of smokers litter their butts. Dr Boots also made the point—one which we have just heard, and it worth emphasising—that the presence of a filter on a cigarette gave the impression to 75% of smokers that it was safer, and they therefore inhaled more deeply and did more damage to themselves than if the filter had not been there.
My final point is about how filters circumvent the tobacco flavour restrictions with flavour capsules. I went on Amazon a few minutes ago and found
“Bulk 1000 Flavoured Crushball Capsules for Cigarette Infusion (10 Flavours Available)”.
This gets around flavoured tobacco, which was banned in 2020. However, as I have said, it is still possible to buy blue ice menthol-flavoured capsules. They do not seem to be subject to the existing restrictions, so a ban on filters would deal with that. In any case, perhaps the Minister can explain what she proposes to do about this obvious ban on the restriction on selling flavours to go with cigarettes.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments, it is clear that the very word “filter” is the most misleading of epithets. It leads many people to believe they make smoking safer. I would take a lot of convincing that people are not led to believe it is safer by the use of that very misleading epithet. It is not the point that filters do not make smoking more dangerous—incidentally, some of the early filters actually contained asbestos, so there were certainly some at an early stage that did make smoking much more dangerous. Leaving that on one side, the whole point is that people are misled into believing that smoking with filters is safer. That is the reason for Amendment 33.
There is a logic to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that I find compelling. The fact that we can do something in relation to the environment as well as to health is not a reason for not acting; it is a reason for acting. The suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the state has no role here or only a qualified role and should not be entering this area, I find staggering. There is every reason we should be doing so in my humble opinion. Therefore, I strongly support Amendments 33 and 34.
On Amendments 141 and 143 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, there is unimpeachable logic in putting a warning on something if you are trying to deter people from using it. I do not think it is sufficient that it is on packets; there are many people who will have a single cigarette proposed to them. They will see the warning there, and there will be publicity given to that warning. It is not just the warning on the cigarettes; the fact the Government are doing that will mean it is more widely known.
There is a great logic, and I urge the Minister to be bold. It is not sufficient that we are having this generational ban, important though that is. There is a reason for moving more quickly and forcefully in relation to the amendments, and an unimpeachable logic to trying to iron out the position on filters, which are indeed a giant fraud.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell and Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard. I will also rehearse arguments in favour of Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for the consideration of the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, suggested there is some confusion about why people might want to ban filters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that a ban is about both public health and environmental considerations.
It has been clearly shown that filters of all kinds have no health benefits whatever. Indeed, I maintain that they are actively harmful to health, but I will come to that later. They are also very costly to public authorities and bad for wildlife and the environment. Filters have been called, by a Back-Bench Member of the government party,
“the deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/25; col. 1043.]
because they were formerly advertised—when cigarette advertising was still allowed—as being safer and less harmful to health than cigarettes without filters. This lie has had a long tail because even now only 25% of people understand that they have no health benefits.
As a result of the false perception that the filter—because of its very name as pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Bourne—removes some of the tar and other harmful tobacco chemicals, evidence shows that smokers of filtered cigarettes inhale deeper and more frequently. Proof that filters were invented to deceive is the fact that they were deliberately made from a white substance which turns brown when heated, adding to the illusion that they were removing some of the harmful elements from the tobacco smoke. This was deliberately to mislead the smoker.
Filters of all kinds are bad for the environment. The plastic ones in particular contain thousands of toxic substances, including microplastics and nanoplastics. They take up to 10 years to break down in the environment, releasing all these microplastics as well as the 7,000 toxic chemicals from the on average five millimetres of tobacco that remains attached to each butt. These are washed into our soils and water systems and damage marine life, other wildlife and our drinking water.
Microplastics are ubiquitous. They have been found from the top of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. They cause cancer, including colorectal, liver, pancreatic, breast and lung cancers, and the levels of them found in human brains—causing who knows what effects—have increased by 50% since 2016, according to pathologists. Even the so-called biodegradable ones contain microplastics in the glue and in any case take a very long time to break down. I deliberately put one in my compost heap, and it was still there a year later. In any case, they, too, always have some tobacco attached. They have zero health benefit and lead to a false sense of security.
The environmental damage is also very costly. We all pay to clean them up when they are discarded through littering; as has been said, local authorities spend £40 million every year, money paid by taxpayers—you and I—which could be better spent on public health and other services. Some 86% of the public and even most smokers believe that manufacturers should switch to fully biodegradable filters rather than plastic ones, but, frankly, I think that is not enough to fix the problem, for the reasons I have outlined.
The killer fact, to coin a phrase, is that there is a strong epidemiological link between the rise in the prevalence of cigarettes containing filters and the proportionate rise of a kind of cancer called adenocarcinoma, while other lung cancers have fallen along with the reduced prevalence of smoking overall. A paper by Min-Ae Song et al published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in America in 2017 analysed 3,284 citations in scientific literature and internal tobacco company documents and concluded thus:
“The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers. Thus, the FDA should consider regulating its use, up to and including a ban”.
Indeed, such a link had originally been suggested by the surgeon-general as far back as 2014. Therefore, I am inclined to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but at the very least I hope the Government will accept Amendment 34 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell.
On Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard, I hope the Minister will see the sense of consulting on this. Not every cigarette smoked by a child or a young person or an adult smoker comes immediately out of a packet bearing health warnings. Many children, when they start illicit smoking, share a packet among themselves and many never get to see the packet at all. That is why the principle, already accepted by successive Governments, that a health warning on the packet should accompany tobacco-containing products should apply to individual products and not just the packaging. I am aware that the Government plan to make sure that there is an insert in each packet signposting smokers to cessation services and products. This is a welcome positive measure to accompany the deterrent measures of health warnings, but it is not enough. I am sure the first thing many will do is throw away the insert and never read it, as people sometimes do with pills. They cannot throw away the paper that wraps the cigarette. That is why it would be the most effective place to put the warnings.
If you believe that the health warnings on packages work and deter, how much more effective would it be to reinforce that message every time a cigarette is removed from them? A consultation and a review of the evidence of the ban in other countries would be a good idea, and I recommend it to the Minister.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing the amendments in their names.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for all of the contributions on this much debated set of amendments. I understand the concerns that have been raised.
I begin with Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Let me turn first to the health arguments that have been put forward. We know that cigarette filters have historically been marketed incorrectly as making smoking safer, and that smokers perceive cigarettes with a filter as being more enjoyable and of lower risk. These points were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Patel, Lord Bourne and Lord Crisp. However, as with all regulations—I know that noble Lords will understand this—it is important that any measures are based on evidence, are fully considered and do not create unintended consequences. Obviously, that will be a theme throughout the Bill, particularly as we discuss these groups of amendments.
We acknowledge that there is some limited evidence on the health harms of filters, but we are not currently aware of any clear evidence—that is what is not in place—to show that a ban on filters would lead to a reduction in smoking rates; of course, that is the focus of this Bill. When it comes to encouraging existing smokers to quit—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly highlighted this area—we are prioritising investing in local stop smoking services, delivering smoking cessation campaigns, delivering access to nicotine replacement therapy and introducing positive, quit-themed pack inserts. I was glad to hear support for such measures from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. On that point, I want to refer to effectiveness, particularly as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made the point that such inserts might simply be discarded. The modelling suggests that, in terms of increased effectiveness because of themed pack inserts, there would be 150,000 additional attempts at quitting. Over two years, this would result in 30,000 successful quitting scenarios, which would reduce the incidence of smoking—exactly what we are focusing on.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the concern that filters allow for flavoured crushballs to be added. I hope that it is helpful for me to say to your Lordships’ Committee that this Bill gives the Government the power to regulate flavoured tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, as well as any product that is intended to be used to impart flavour; this could include flavoured accessories, such as filters.
I turn now to the environmental concerns raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley. It is the case that cigarette butts are the most littered item in the UK. They are a blight on our streets and our communities. They take a long time to degrade, and they leach toxic compounds into the environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the role of local authorities and the pressure on them because of this littering; again, I certainly take her point. Local authorities have a range of powers to tackle littering, including fixed-penalty notices for some £500. I also see the challenge that the littering of cigarette butts presents to local authorities.
However, ultimately, the most effective thing we can do to tackle tobacco litter as well as protect people’s health is, clearly, to reduce the prevalence of smoking. It is worth referring to the powers available to Defra, which would enable the Government to limit the damage to the environment caused by filters. Although we do not plan to take action in the short term, I assure noble Lords that we will certainly continue to monitor the evidence and keep this under review.
On Amendment 34, we do not believe there is sufficient evidence at present that banning plastic filters will lead to better environmental outcomes, although I absolutely understand the wish for this. Evidence suggests that filters labelled as biodegradable or plastic-free, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, can still take a very long time to degrade in the natural environment and leach harmful chemicals. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them. We are therefore concerned that a ban on plastic filters could have unintended consequences and undermine attempts to reduce littering, if people incorrectly believe that plastic-free filters somehow do not damage the environment.
Lord Crisp (CB)
Before the Minister moves on, can I ask a question that I asked earlier? If she recognises that 75% of smokers think that filters reduce the risk—indeed, they may increase it—does she not think the Government should be doing something to counter that belief, perhaps more actively than they are doing at the moment?
Earl Russell (LD)
Before the Minister rises, I welcome the response to this amendment, but the point is that most people still litter their fag butts in any case and believe that they are already biodegradable, so I press the Government to take further action in this area.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the issue is about depth of evidence and how action, if it is to be taken, gets the right result. I went over the unintended consequences several times for my own benefit and I can see the potential for this not producing what we want. I take his point, but it is about how, when and what the evidence and the effects are. That is why it is not possible to accept the amendment.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said about the 75%. I am not in a position to comment on that, but I refer back to what I said—it is about getting the right evidence. The challenge in this group of amendments is that the evidence is not complete and taking us to the right place, but we will certainly keep this under review. I say that in respect of some of the other amendments too. Noble Lords will be aware that there are various powers in the Bill that allow changes to be made as things develop.
Amendment 155, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, would add cigarette filters to the scope of Parts 5 and 6. Those parts apply to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. Those products have been included in the scope of the Bill as they cause harm in and of themselves. “Tobacco related devices” are also included in the scope of Part 5, so that we have the ability to regulate them in a similar way to vape devices. We are not convinced that the position with filters is the same.
While we agree that filters should not be advertised in a way that promotes smoking, which is partly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the Bill’s ban on advertising and sponsorship already covers any advertisement with the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product, restating existing provisions. The Advertising Standards Authority has rules on filters which state that marketing communications for filters should not encourage people to start smoking or to increase their consumption.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I asked how long the Government think they will need for evidence from Australia and Canada before they will be in a position to judge whether those health warnings have been effective. Can the Minister answer that either now or in writing? Secondly, do the Government have any evidence on what wording is most effective for health warnings? Once again, the answer could be in writing.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will gladly add to the brief points that I am going to make to the noble Lord. I was just about to turn to international comparisons. Sometimes, I feel the answer is “How long is a piece of string?” However, quite seriously, we constantly keep international comparisons under review because we are keen to learn and see. The challenge, which I will come on to, is to draw exact comparisons, for a range of reasons, including on what we are already doing.
On the point about international comparisons, it is important that we recognise that the UK already has some of the most stringent regulations in the world on tobacco packaging, which already emphasise health harms. This includes the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packets. As I have already referred to and noble Lords have discussed, we have announced that we will be introducing pack inserts to cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I understand the motivation for these amendments, but we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes at this time. We will continue to monitor the evidence.
We are implementing many of the recommendations of the Khan review. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. For example, we are majoring on the smoke-free generation policy, which is a major shift. Not only are we implementing many of these recommendations but we continue to keep them under review.
My noble friend Lady Ramsey asked about targets. Again, they will be kept under review. Unsurprisingly, our real target is delivering the Bill and designing the regulations so that they work. Some of this is also about where we can make the greatest impact in the quickest way, which is why we are focusing on the inserts rather than looking for additional things to do at this stage.
I hope that this is of some interest and reassurance to noble Lords and that they will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this rich, full and powerful debate. The political breadth around this Committee showing concern and calling for more government action is notable. I thank the Minister for her contribution and her full answers.
I specifically want to address the questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about so-called biodegradable filters. I understand why the noble Earl thought the figures for these and plastic filters sounded similar; that is because the figures are similar. I can quote to the noble Earl an article on this area from Waste Management in 2018 titled, “Comparison of cellulose vs. plastic cigarette filter decomposition under distinct disposal environments”. That basically comes up with plastic filters taking 7.5 to 14 years to disappear and biodegradable ones taking 2.3 to 13 years, so the figures are similar. The Government are drawing on similar figures.
The Minister said both types are harmful to the environment and the natural world. There I will point to a study published in Environmental Pollution in 2020 titled, “Smoked cigarette butt leachate impacts survival and behaviour of freshwater invertebrates”. I have now referenced all the evidence in that space that the noble Earl might like to go away and look at.
This has been a hugely rich debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for giving us the irony story of the day about tobacco companies being concerned about toxic ink on their products. I think we probably should have a cartoonist in the Room at this point. We have had a great deal of consensus across the Committee about the need for action; the one stand-out different position was taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. However, I do not share her concern about the welfare of cigarette manufacturers or the purity of their product design. Like the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Bourne, I think public health should be a matter of government policy, and I am delighted to have signed the noble Lord’s amendment in the planning Bill later so we will be back together on that one.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, who very bravely brought before us two family tragedies to illustrate that, in the end, we are talking here about human lives, people’s parents, people’s children and the suffering that comes from the merchants of death. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, brought his medical expertise, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, cited an important academic study that I hope the Minister will take a good look at in terms of action.
The response from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Young, was that the Government could regulate. I am afraid that what we would like to hear and what these amendments are seeking is for the Government to take action. I suggest that “could” is not good enough in these circumstances. It is worth saying that we are not talking about an either/or here. I am sure everyone very much welcomes the smoking cessation efforts that the Minister referred to, but people will continue to smoke, and we want to reduce the health and environmental harms that result.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Young, made an important point about cigarettes being close to your eyes and the small print. I point out that most of the people we are targeting here are young people who will not, as I do, have to get the bifocals at exactly the right line to be able to read seven-point print. I think that covers all that has been said here.
One thing I will add is that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to my amendment and others as probing amendments. I am afraid that is not my intention. I am obviously going to withdraw the amendment now, but I have full intentions of bringing it back. I hope the Minister might be open to discussions beforehand. In your Lordships’ House we have medical experts and people with real expertise, and we might be able to tease out some of the issues raised today in terms of the health damage being done by filters. What would it be like if we got rid of filters?
My final point, in responding to the Minister, is about the limited evidence of the harm of filters. We have strong evidence, established over decades, that there is no health benefit from filters. In the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, we are seeking to follow the leadership of Australia and Canada in putting markings on individual cigarettes, but perhaps we could be the leaders in banning filters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
“Prohibition of distribution of tobacco products etc in England without a licence(1) An individual must not do any of the following things in the course of business in England, except under the authority of and in accordance with a commercial distribution licence—(a) distribute relevant products to any person;(b) possess relevant products for the purpose of their distribution (by the individual or another person).(2) A person must not in the course of business use or permit the use of premises in England for any of the following except under the authority of and in accordance with a premises distribution licence—(a) the storage of relevant products for the purpose of their distribution (by the person or another person);(b) the supply of relevant products to businesses or wholesale purchasers.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations create exceptions to the prohibition in subsection (1) or (2).(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for and in connection with the grant of commercial distribution licences and premises distribution licences.(5) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult any persons that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.(6) Schedule (Distributor licensing scheme: England) makes further provision about regulations under subsection (4).(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(8) In this section—“commercial distribution licence” means a licence granted by a licensing authority that authorises a business to do the things mentioned in subsection (1);“distribution” means the supply of products to retail businesses, wholesale distributors, and other forms of non-retail supply;“grant” includes variation or renewal;“licensing authority” has the meaning given by paragraph of Schedule (Distributor licensing scheme: England);“premises distribution licence” means a licence granted by a licensing authority that authorises the use of premises for the purposes listed in subsection (2);“relevant products” means—(a) tobacco products;(b) herbal smoking products;(c) cigarette papers;(d) vaping products;(e) nicotine products;“supply” includes despatch;“wholesale distributors” are businesses that offer goods for sale that are sold to persons for resale by them or for processing and resale by them, to members of the general public for their use or consumption.”
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments starting from Amendment 39 and ending at Amendment 212—apart from Amendment 119, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe—are an attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who cannot be in his place today, and myself to provide a framework for regulating the wholesale and distribution element of the supply chain for tobacco products.
For the sake of transparency, the development of this framework has been led by the UK’s largest online vaping retailer, Vape Club, which is a founding member of the UK Vaping Industry Association and operates independently of any member of the tobacco industry. The creation of the proposed scheme involved consultation with multiple key industry stakeholders, including trading standards and the Association of Convenience Stores, excluding representatives from the tobacco industry. I am aware that it is in the interest of these organisations to do everything possible to tackle the illicit market.
This set of amendments would require businesses distributing or storing tobacco, vaping and nicotine products for commercial purposes to obtain and operate under a valid licence. It outlines offences and penalties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; Scotland has its own system.
These amendments deliver two key benefits. They would help to tackle the rise in youth vaping and to curb illicit trade in tobacco products, although we are aware that the number of illicit cigarettes smoked in the UK has declined by 90% since 2000. I also accept, as the Minister has often said, that the best way to eliminate the illicit market in tobacco-containing products—I use that phrase carefully—is to eliminate demand, which is the objective of this Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, before turning to the amendment in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Howe. They propose the establishment of a new licensing scheme for the distribution of tobacco, vape and nicotine products in addition to the retail licensing scheme already provided for under the Bill.
While I understand the rationale behind these amendments, I am sure it will come as no surprise that we have some concerns. My noble friend Lord Howe and I have already shared concerns about the impact of the regulatory framework of this Bill and the burden it will place on legitimate businesses, especially small retailers and distributors, which are already subject to extensive compliance requirements under existing law, and which will be beset with further regulation under the proposals outlined in the Bill.
However, we understand the underlying concerns behind these amendments about the illicit market, so we believe that they are helpful in probing the Government to understand where they believe there are enforcement gaps and whether they have evidence of gaps in enforcement at the wholesale level of the supply chain. I am, therefore, grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Our understanding is that there are concerns over enforcement in relation to illegal imports at the customs level and illicit point-of-sale activity. These amendments give noble Lords an opportunity to ask the Minister where the Government believe the enforcement gaps are, and whether they currently exist.
In addition, if the Government have identified these gaps in enforcement at the wholesale level, do they believe that they could be best tackled by having a new, separate distributor licensing scheme, or do they share concerns over creating a second, parallel system operating alongside the retail one? My noble friend Earl Howe and I are concerned that such duplication risks adding unnecessary administrative complexity for local authorities, trading standards and legitimate operators alike. We also have concerns over how these two systems would interact, and whether businesses operating both wholesale and retail functions would be required to hold multiple licences and pay multiple fees. We are interested in the views of the Minister about our concerns.
Amendment 190, in my name and that of my noble friend Earl Howe, would require the Government to prepare and publish a national illicit tobacco and vape enforcement strategy within one year of the passing of this Act. This is a probing amendment—we have suggested one year; it could be slightly longer or shorter. We believe that this is a practical proposal which chimes with the intentions and ambitions of the Government on this Bill. Indeed, it is a concern that has been raised by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. All noble Lords are concerned about illicit sales of tobacco and vapes, wherever we sit in this Room.
While we entirely share my noble friend Lord Bethell’s concern about the rise in illicit trade, we believe that the Government need a far more comprehensive view of how products enter, move through and are sold within the United Kingdom. They must develop an overall strategy to cover the stages of the supply chain from the point of import to transportation within the UK and, ultimately, to the sale of these products on our streets and online. In short, we need a coherent and strategic plan of enforcement that gives an overview, rather than one which tries to attack certain bits. Once we have the overview, we can look at where the gaps in enforcement exist and seek to plugs those gaps.
The trade in illicit tobacco and vape products is a serious and growing concern. We have heard throughout Committee that the introduction of a generational ban and other prohibitions in this Bill may, if not properly managed, risk pushing more activity underground into the illegal market. No noble Lord wants this to happen. No one benefits from a thriving illegal market but criminals and those that seek to circumvent the law. It undermines legitimate businesses, deprives the Exchequer of revenue and exposes consumers—often young people—to unregulated and potentially dangerous products.
That is why we believe it is essential for the Government to set out clearly how they intend to meet this challenge, and to explain who will lead, how the agencies will co-ordinate, what resources will be allocated and how success will be measured. We have attempted to be careful and sensitive in drafting this amendment; it does not demand an immediate response but sets out a reasonable and deliberate timetable. It gives one year, or perhaps a bit more, for the Government to prepare, consult on and publish a coherent strategy. That would give Ministers the time to review the evidence, engage with enforcement agencies and draw together the different strands of policy that are already being developed across departments.
If this Bill is to succeed in its wider aims, it must also be accompanied by a credible and co-ordinated plan to tackle the illicit market that so often undermines those very goals. This probing amendment simply seeks to understand how the Government intend to develop a strategy to tackle the illicit market, and whether they intend to take an overall and strategic view.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions in this debate and for these amendments, which rightly highlight the need to take a systematic approach to the illicit market. Having said that, we do not believe them to be necessary; I will gladly set out the reasons why in my remarks.
First, I am grateful for Amendments 39 to 41, 53, 54, 58 to 62, 123 to 125, 133 to 138, 206 to 208 and 212 from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am sympathetic to the aims contained in these amendments; the Government certainly share the aim of strengthening enforcement throughout the supply chain and ensuring that only legal products are on the UK market. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill provides powers for the Government to implement a licensing scheme for tobacco and vape retailers. The focus on retailers is to ensure that illicit products do not reach members of the public where they pose a risk to public health. The retail licensing scheme will enable conditions to be imposed on retailers as part of the terms for obtaining a licence. We expect all retailers to comply with the law and not sell illicit products; doing so will risk their licence being revoked.
In addition to the licensing scheme, the Bill provides powers for the Secretary of State to develop a new registration scheme for the products covered by the Bill. This will require all tobacco, vape and nicotine products to be registered before they can enter the market, meaning that wholesalers will be unable to supply illicit products to retailers as only compliant products should be available. The powers provided by the Bill also allow for the testing of products to ensure that they are what they claim to be. This will make it easier for enforcement officers to identify illicit products and to clamp down on both those who do not register products and those who seek to mislead.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about spice vapes. I have a couple of points to make here. Vapes containing controlled drugs, including spice, are obviously illegal; naturally, this is a matter for the police and Border Force. I am sure that it will be understood that the regulation of controlled drugs is not a matter for this Bill. However, the measures in it will create a simpler and clearer regulatory environment, which will assist enforcement agencies in identifying and taking action against non-compliant vapes. Border Force is taking action to detect and seize supplies of vapes laced with drugs at the border and is following law enforcement to dismantle the criminal gangs that attempt to smuggle illicit commodities into the UK. It is of course worth noting that the import, production or supply of a class B drug such as spice carries a maximum sentence of up to 14 years of imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.
As well as the new measures in the Bill, there are already policies in place to manage products through the supply chain. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked questions and made important points about the role of HMRC. For tobacco, HMRC already operates the tobacco “track and trace” system, which tracks the movement of all tobacco products, whether manufactured in or imported into the UK, through the supply chain all the way up to retail.
Also, the vaping products duty will come into force on 1 October next year, taxing vaping liquids at 22p per millilitre. To support the implementation of the duty, HMRC is introducing a range of measures, such as a duty stamps scheme to support the identification of non-duty-paid products, as well as investment in more than 300 additional enforcement officers. Vaping duty stamps will be in a hybrid digital and physical format, which will allow product tracing and authentication. Together, these schemes will better support a compliant market and weed out illicit products, as we all seek to do.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 190, which seeks to publish a strategy to deal with illicit tobacco and vapes. I understand the concerns that have been raised regarding illicit sales, but this amendment is unnecessary given that the Government already publish a strategy on illicit tobacco sales.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his comments and to the Minister for her response. The very fact that there is an illicit market is an indication that there are gaps in enforcement. This group of amendments is an effort to control that illicit market or, at the very least, to deter illicit supply by way of the size of the financial penalties proposed.
The Minister mentioned vapes laced with spice, which are often obtained online by young people from websites with a very poor level of age restriction. Many of them do not even know what they are getting because many of these products claim to have THC, the active element of cannabis, in them and do not mention spice at all. Perhaps that leads us to reconsider the earlier amendment that proposed a ban on online sales, because it might get rid of that problem.
However, I accept that the Government are keen on controlling the illicit market. That the strategy will be based on the illicit tobacco strategy will help, because it will be based on lessons learned, I hope. So I am content for the moment to look forward to the increased powers of HMRC and increased funding for enforcement. I will not press my amendments any further.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I feel it is appropriate that we should have at least a short debate on Clauses 35, 36, 129 and 130, partly because they raise concerns that are very similar to those I had intended to flag when responding to the group of government amendments that were, in the event, not moved. Our debate on that group of amendments must remain a pleasure in store.
However, these clauses together confer on Ministers the power to take over the enforcement and prosecutions of local authorities or other enforcement authorities, either for individual cases or entire categories of cases. The inclusion of these powers in the Bill needs explaining, first, because they appear to go much further than is necessary or appropriate and, secondly, because they raise a number of important questions about the relationship between central and local enforcement and about accountability.
At present, the Bill rightly places day-to-day enforcement in the hands of local weights and measures authorities, which have the expertise, local knowledge and operational independence needed to make these judgments. Under these clauses, however, the Secretary of State or the devolved Ministers could simply direct that those functions are to be discharged instead by Ministers centrally. There is no statutory test to be met before that happens, no requirement for the local authority to have failed or refused to act, and no mechanism for consultation, appeal or review.
By any standard, that is a very wide power to exercise over democratically elected local authorities. In effect, it allows central government to displace local enforcement at will. Inherent in the exercise of this power is a risk that enforcement decisions become politicised. Local authorities act impartially and are guided by the evidential tests and the public interest. One can imagine a situation in which a future Government—I am not saying this one—choose to intervene and adopt an approach of their own when taking over investigations or prosecutions. How will we safeguard the impartiality of decision-making? How will the basis of any decisions be scrutinised or, indeed, challenged?
There is the added issue of proportionality. If these are intended as reserve powers for exceptional circumstances, the Bill should say so. At the moment, there are no thresholds, no published criteria and no requirement even to lay a Statement before Parliament when such powers are used.
We have tabled these stand part notices to probe the Government on several points, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions. First, why does the Secretary of State need these powers at all, given the enforcement architecture already in existence and set out elsewhere in the Bill? Secondly, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage using them? Is this a genuine power of last resort or something that might be used more routinely? Thirdly, what safeguards will there be for local authorities whose functions are overridden? Will they be consulted, or have the right of challenge? Fourthly, how will accountability work once a Minister takes over enforcement? Will there be a published direction, a report to Parliament or any means of scrutiny? Finally, how do these powers sit with the devolved authorities?
We all want effective enforcement of the law, and there may be rare cases where national co-ordination is required. However, I think we need some further and better particulars from the Minister.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid I do not support the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to delete Clause 35 and its associated clauses. I do not believe that the backstop, which enables the Secretary of State to take over enforcement from trading standards, is a power grab; it is necessary in case a local authority goes into administration and cannot fund trading standards. Similar measures to protect social services in the case of a local authority going into administration can be found in the Care Act 2014, amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 recognise that there may be situations where it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to act rather than local weights and measures authorities.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, in responding to these comments from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain further the clauses relating to enforcement powers, which I think is what he is seeking from these amendments, and to look at the opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that Clauses 35, 36, 129 and 30 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 provides a power for the Secretary of State in England or Welsh Ministers in Wales to carry out the investigation and enforcement of a particular case or a particular type of case instead of local authority trading standards. Similarly, Clause 36 provides a power for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to take over the conduct of any legal proceedings relating to an offence under Part 1 or under any regulations made under Clauses 13 or 14 regarding the display of products or prices. Clauses 129 and 130 serve a similar purpose in relation to Part 6, which makes provisions on advertising and sponsorship. Clause 129 provides a power for the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make a direction about the enforcement of the Part 6 provisions. Clause 130 provides a power for the appropriate national authority to take over the conduct of any legal proceedings within their respective jurisdictions relating to an offence under this part of the Bill.
These clauses replace and are based on existing legislation. Trading standards operate in all local authorities, and it is standard practice that they would undertake required local enforcement action and pursue legal proceedings. However—this is referring to the comments made by the noble Earl—these powers provide a useful safeguard for the unlikely situation in which a local authority is unable or unwilling to take enforcement in a particular case. These powers reflect the landscape in which tobacco control measures operate. Individual local authority trading standards departments might not have the resources or willingness to take enforcement action and legal proceedings in cases where this action involves or has significant implications for large multinational companies. In instances such as these, these powers may be used to ensure consistent, strong and effective enforcement.
The noble Earl raised the devolved Administrations. Health is a devolved matter and the Bill builds on the existing legal frameworks of all four of the nations. This means that there are some differences in the provisions between each nation. I think we have outlined how the accountability of these powers will be managed through the different existing arrangements.
The noble Earl also raised the specific matter of scrutiny. I hope I have covered the points throughout the comments that I have made.
I hope noble Lords are reassured that these are necessary clauses based on existing legislation. Together they ensure effective enforcement and therefore should stand part of this Bill.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of a clause stand part debate at this stage of the Bill is to ask some questions. There is no implication that the clause should be deleted. I simply wanted to ask those questions and to ensure that some answers are placed on the record, and I am very grateful to the Minister for doing just that.
I welcome her explanatory comments; it is right, in the light of what she said, that Ministers should have the tools they need to ensure effective enforcement where the public interest demands it. However, I remain concerned that the powers set out in these clauses are unqualified, and I would like to think about that further. I recognise that it is possible to conceive of circumstances where ministerial intervention might be justified—for example, where a case raises genuine national issues or where there has been a manifest failure to act for whatever reason. However, that is precisely why I felt some form of conditionality ought to be built into the legislation.
I appreciate that there is precedent for provisions of this kind, and I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. Between now and Report, I will consider whether the Bill could be improved with the addition of some clear thresholds, safeguards or procedural tests. For now, I am content to move to the next group of amendments.
Adult Prison Estate: Support for Young People
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to mitigate the reduced support for young people moving from the Youth Custody Service into the adult prison estate.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
Transition from the youth to the adult estate is a critical time and needs to be managed with care and thought for the safety of the young person. The transitions policy framework is a guide for all practitioners to ensure that the transition is focused on the needs of the individual, so that when they arrive in the adult prison estate it leads to a safe and positive outcome.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am encouraged by his support for rehabilitation and for reducing reoffending by young offenders. The state helps to look after looked-after children until they are 25, recognising that the effects of every young adult’s immaturity are amplified by adversity, family trauma and intense relational insecurity. Young adults in custody often face very similar challenges. Without excusing crime, how could boys’ entry into the adult estate be more trauma-informed to mirror how girls are treated? Also, could genuinely supportive relationships—such as peer-to-peer buddy schemes, including from the very good staff who were at the YCS—be maintained until they fully transition, to help young adults navigate the relational jungle that is the adult estate?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord does amazing work in this area and I appreciate his focus on it. The trauma-informed approach is well established for the transition of women within the justice system. Stephanie Covington and others have been great on training staff. We now need to train more in the youth estate for boys and the male estate for men. That is where the Enable programme comes in. It is rolling out now; it is in five prisons at the moment and it will be the basis of training a trauma-informed approach.
It is also important to understand the complexities of young people. As someone who was brought up in a foster family with lots of young people with challenges, I know that how they transition to adulthood and the adult estate is really important. Synaptic pruning, with the connections between brain cells and how they change through adolescence, is important, as is attachment theory. Peer mentoring when someone moves from the youth estate to the adult estate, with officers following them through there and someone who meets them at the gate and makes sure they are settled in well, is equally important.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme plays a significant role in the transition the Minister has spoken about. Can he tell us a bit more about the role that that very well-respected awards scheme plays?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
As someone who did a little bit of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme many years ago, and not very well, I would say that it is great to see it working well in prisons. It has been going for some time in the youth estate, but it never followed through into the adult estate. However, since 2020 it has expanded to the estate for those under 25 and is now operating in 38 adult establishments. It improves young people’s confidence and teamwork and their relationships with fellow prisoners and the adults who take them on. The volunteers who work on the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award are fantastic. If noble Lords go to Wetherby, they may well see young offenders working at local food banks, litter picking and at the Boston Spa church, all under the Duke of Edinburgh scheme.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, since the 2022 policy framework, decisions on the actual age for transition from the youth estate to adult prisons appear to have been made largely on grounds of prison capacity rather than individual need. Should not transition planning be based largely on the need for continuity of courses and vocational training? Can the noble Lord say what plans there may be to ensure flexibility in the age of transition and the timing of transfers, to meet young people’s individual needs for training and programmes?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important question, because the transition from the youth estate to the adult estate can be a point of great concern, both for those who work within the secure establishment and for young people themselves. We have a complex case panel, which works on the best solution for that individual, including how we manage the risks and the opportunities for them. Sometimes, children stay beyond 18 for a few months, if they need to finish off various courses or if probation officers feel it is the right thing for them to do. But another important thing is that we have enough capacity in the adult estate to ensure that, when it is appropriate that they move into the adult estate, we have a suitable prison for them to go to.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the recent briefing from the Alliance for Youth Justice highlights that there is at present no clear rationale or effective policy for young adults moving into the adult estate, and that transitions are not being handled on a case-by-case basis. Can the Minister explain what immediate plans the Government have to improve the transition policy framework and to introduce a more structured, needs-based transition process, so that over-18s leaving youth custody receive the support they require in the adult estate?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord is right to raise the transition point, because complex case panels work on where the best place for that individual to go is, but, when they arrive in the adult estate, it is also about who looks after them to ensure that the transition is successful. We have some young adults in prison who have been there from the age of 14; they have very long sentences, and to move to an adult prison can be traumatic and could lead to a big deterioration in their behaviour. That is where it comes down to training and making sure, through the Enable programme, that we pilot and push through how we teach and train staff to manage that transition carefully, because there is more work to be done. We also need to learn from all the academic research that is coming through, while working with organisations such as Switchback and the Transition to Adulthood alliance, which do fantastic work, because we need to keep learning from their expertise.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted that this issue is being taken so seriously and that the developments are so positive, but can the noble Lord comment on whether there is a small proportion of people who should go from youth services to special hospitals, because of mental health issues, rather than straight to an adult prison?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Let me take the example of the female prison population. Young adult women aged 18 to 25 make up 12% of the female prison population, but they account for just under 50% of all instances of self-harm. For me, that is a very distressing figure. What was clear from going round women’s prisons, as I have done recently, is that I saw a lot of young women there who I believe are very ill, and it is about how we support them. It may be that prison is the right place for them, but it may be that we need to support them in a secure hospital environment that will help them manage their issues as well.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for all his answers so far. Is he aware—I am embarrassed that I was not—that people can still be remanded in custody, even pending trial for a non-custodial offence, for their own protection? This has a disproportionate effect on children and women. Will the Government consider abolishing that provision?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. I am not aware of the detailed numbers of young people in that position, but I do know that the number of children in prison has fallen considerably over the last few years. There are 461 children in prison today: just a few years ago, we had over 1,000. But we need to make sure that we always have a place in prison for those people who need to be there and that, where we can divert young people away from prison, we do so.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, the age when young people transfer from the youth system to the adult system is precisely the age when they are most trying to identify themselves and understand their faith and spirituality. Prison chaplains do an excellent job across the youth estate. Could the Minister give us some hints as to how they might be better supported and resourced to prepare young people at that time of transition, both in their lives and in the prison estate?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will be pleased to know that only last week I met up with the head chaplain of the Prison Service to talk about a very similar topic. The role of prison chaplains in a prison or custodial environment is very widely spread. The time they have to talk to people, often one on one and in a very confidential and safe place, is important. I have met and employed a number of people from prison who had their lives turned around by a chaplain. It is important that we get more opportunities for chaplains and other members of religious groups to speak to prisoners when they are there.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the Minister’s great commitment to this subject and appreciate his comments on the fact that young people do not mature at the same age—it has nothing to do with their calendar age—and on the needs, vulnerability and learning problems of these children as they face the cliff edge of going from youth custody into adult prison. Can the Minister comment on the introduction of behaviour management systems? Much has been made of this, but intense violence is one of the aspects that intimidates young offenders and young prisoners and sets them right back.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Some 68% of children in custody are there for serious violent offences and 11% are sentenced to life. So we are dealing with what experts tell me is an increasingly complex and violent group of young people. That is why, unfortunately, we have had to add PAVA spray as one of the options to protect staff from prisoners and prevent serious injury and even loss of life in our prisons. However, I can assure your Lordships’ House that the staff who work in our youth estate are passionate about helping children turn their lives around.
London Boroughs: Financial Support
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bailey of Paddington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to provide further financial support to London boroughs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we will deliver fairer funding for all local authorities, including in London. This financial year, we made available up to £13.35 billion of core spending power for London. The spending review provides over £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services that communities rely on. More details on the upcoming multiyear settlement and the Government’s response to the fair funding review will be published later this year.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Due to rising demand, London boroughs have overspent on children’s social care by £150 million annually for the past two years, yet the Government’s proposal for funding reforms assumes that London’s share has dropped by 40%. This could leave boroughs with a £1.5 billion cut, despite London being the region that uses emergency borrowing the most. Given that the fair funding review aims to match resource to need, will the Minister commit to correcting the children’s services formula or delaying its implementation until a proper review can be carried out?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important issue around social care. He will know that the Government are committed to delivering reform to children’s social care and breaking the cycle of late intervention so that every child is safe and can thrive. We have already invested £500 million from the transformation fund to bring total funding over the spending review to more than £2 billion, and we are updating the formula to assess the need for children’s social care. The new children and young people’s services formula is based on the latest available data, has been developed in partnership with academics and is supported by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I know that there are various factors driving the reductions in need share for some London boroughs. We will support local authorities by making sure that there are transitional protections in place if they see their funding fall as a result of the fair funding reform.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does Westminster City Council in particular need additional support when a band H house worth £60 million in the borough carries a council tax of £2,100 a year, while a similar band H house worth £300,000 in Cumbria, in my former constituency, carries a tax of £4,600 a year—double Westminster’s? Worse, how can a band C local authority house in Cumbria’s Keswick pay more in council tax than that same £60 million-worth house in Mayfair? The system is discredited. We need new higher tax bandings and a fairer distribution of the burden.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend has illustrated why we are setting about this fair funding review. It is for local authorities to decide at what rate they set their council tax. Of course, it has to reflect the service needs of each area, taking account of other sources of income and historic council tax decisions made over the decades. We want to make sure that we make this a fair funding review, which is why we have been consulting on it and looking at the formulas to make sure that they operate effectively. I am sure my noble friend would not expect me to comment on the new higher council tax bands in advance of the Chancellor’s next fiscal event—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That has to be done at the next fiscal event. The Government remain committed to keeping all taxes and elements of the local government finance system under review.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have relevant interests as a councillor. The recent statistics published by the Government have pinpointed the areas of the country that suffer from immense deprivation. The current funding formula does not properly recompense those councils with the highest levels of deprivation. Do the Government intend to redistribute in order to help the councils across the country, including in London, that have the highest levels of deprivation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope the work we have done so far will illustrate to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that we are committed to improving how we assess need to make sure that central government funding is distributed fairly to the places that need it the most. Our proposals use the best available evidence so that we can more effectively capture variations in demand for services. A particular bugbear for me over the years—I am sure the noble Baroness will have heard me say this—is that we need to identify in local authorities pockets of high deprivation within generally more affluent areas. We continue to explore and review the new data that comes forward on measures of deprivation, and a final decision on the inclusion of the 2025 index of multiple deprivation will be made in the autumn, when we set out our funding plans for local government.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. This Government have said that their priority is growth. The previous Conservative Government incentivised councils to grow their local economies through a share of business rates growth and the new homes bonus, which many councils use to support economic growth. The new homes bonus has already been removed, and now this Government are resetting business rates, causing a severe financial squeeze on high economic growth councils. Are this Government no longer interested in growth?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The exact opposite is true. We are supporting our councils, which is why we have increased the overall spend on local authority funding, providing over £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services, including economic development services. The other work we are doing alongside that, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which we will debate later today, lays the foundations so that local authorities have a clear run to improve the economies of their local areas.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, there is an unacceptable level of social deprivation in all parts of our country, and even more so in the north of England. The city of Liverpool has 12,764 households on its social housing waiting list. It has just five—yes, noble Lords heard correctly—so-called additional social rent dwellings, as local authorities have been starved of resources. Can the Minister explain what targets the Government have set for poverty reduction and for funding local authorities to increase the social housing stock?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope my noble friend has been in the Chamber when I have spoken before about the £39 billion investment that our Government have made into social and affordable housing. We look forward to working with our partners in local authorities to deliver that housing. I hope that that, along with other adjustments that we are making, including changes to right to buy, will help to improve the situation for those who are currently sitting on housing waiting registers.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think the general feeling in the House is that funding for local government is in urgent need of reform but any reform will take some time. I suggest to the Minister that an option that could be available in the shorter term is to use the fact that there are huge pension fund surpluses in local authority pension schemes as a reason to have an employer contribution holiday or significant reduction in the £10 billion put into these schemes every year, so that some of that money can be redistributed to the urgent needs of the local populations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is much to be done in looking at local authority pension funds—I agree with the noble Baroness on that. We are working through that process. Of course, there is a balance to be struck between how you might use that for capital spending, which would be an investment that there may be a return on, and using it for some of the pressures that we are experiencing on revenue spending, which is the real pressure for local authorities at the moment. It would not be a long-term solution for that, but the noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are exploring what more can be done around the pension funds and using that money for local spend.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the reply given to my noble friend about transitional relief, if, as is widely forecast, there will be substantial losses in the London boroughs, can the Minister guarantee that in any one year no London borough will have to reduce its expenditure by more than 5% to safeguard essential services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord will have to wait for the announcement of the funding for local government, because that work is still under way. We have done extensive consultation and, as I said, we are keen to make sure that, where there is a need for transitional relief, it will be paid for by additional funding for those local authorities suffering from that.
Public/Private Partnerships: Shares
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in consulting on, revising and updating public/private partnerships with shares open to the public.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, the 10-year infrastructure strategy set out our approach to private finance and infrastructure through a variety of available models and approaches. Public/private partnership models are one mechanism available to bring in private finance to infrastructure projects. The strategy set out the circumstances in which the Government will consider PPEs. The Government will always consider carefully which model is most appropriate for a project on a case-by-case basis to ensure value for money.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, since I tabled this Question, my noble friend Lord Livermore has been appointed Labour’s national campaign co-ordinator for next year’s elections. I am sure that everyone would wish to congratulate him on that, even in his absence. He is now, of course, in a unique position: not only is he campaigning but he is within the Treasury. If he can spend a little time on looking more at the public/private partnership models, and if we could revise, update and extend them to include individual citizens’ contributions and people’s investments in them, rather than it simply being large capital investment, I think that he would find that they would attract greater interest. As he comes to campaigning, he could advance in Scotland a major PPP project, one in Wales, and one for every county and shire around the country as part of this programme.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question and I will pass on his good wishes to my Treasury colleague, whose full attention is on organising for next year’s elections but also on his duties in the Treasury. As I said, the Government will always consider carefully which model is most appropriate for a project on a case-by-case basis to ensure value for money. Matching the right private finance models to projects ensures that the project benefits from efficiencies. Investment trusts already open the door to retail investment in private assets such as infrastructure, but we are going further. By moving the long-term asset funds into the stocks and shares ISA from April next year, the Government will give more people access to long-term investment opportunities and the higher returns they can bring.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that where public/private partnerships have gone wrong is in there not having been people in the public sector with the procurement skills and knowledge to get a good deal, and the private sector has run rings around them? If we are going to go ahead, can we look at the way in which we carry out procurement and bring in the expertise required to match that in the private sector?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord and accept his point of view. There have been a lot of benefits from public/private partnerships in the past—they have invested in many schools and hospitals, where pupils and patients have benefited—but we need to look at how we reform public/private partnerships and make them fit for the future. Obviously, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, which was set up in 2020, has a great part to play in that.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, first, we on these Benches join in the commiserations with the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. Does the Minister agree that for a successful PPP, in addition to the key point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, not only is an educated public sector negotiator is required but clearly defined projects that will not undergo variances, and financing, in essence, set out up front and not used as a back-end bargaining tool? Does he agree that these and the other lessons that we learned before mean that there are relatively few projects that will meet the criteria for a public/private partnership?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We will look at public/private partnerships in the future. We are looking at them in a limited way for neighbourhood health centres, for example, and public estate decontamination projects, but we need certainty over future funding, which is why we have committed over the next decade at least £725 billion of investment in infrastructure so that we can ensure growth.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I have had some experience of this, given that my union was involved when BT was privatised in 1984. That was a successful public/private partnership; it is a shame that today there is such scepticism. Of course, it requires the Government to be capable of ensuring a successful negotiation, but it also needs to ensure that the people involved—in my case, it was the union members—get a good deal, and they did get a good deal: for every share they invested, they got two shares back. The reaction from Eurostar is interesting. Virgin Trains is trying to run another train service through the tunnel. What is the reaction of Eurostar? It is to find every legal means possible to oppose it. It does not seem to me to be a good approach. As long as we are going to benefit, and as long as we are going to get growth and productivity, it seems to me that public/private partnerships are a good idea.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question; it is very good of him. As I said, we will look into how we ensure that public/private partnerships work in the future for the benefit not just of customers but of the Government and the taxpayer. We need to ensure that we move forward on this so that everybody is part of the success story, which I think they can be if it is done right.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am somewhat confused by the dissonance between the Minister and the aforementioned noble Lord, Lord Livermore. When I questioned the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, on the same subject, he said that the Treasury was working on appropriate contract models. The Minister seems much more reticent about the future role of public/private partnerships. Is the Treasury in favour of them and actively seeking ways of making them work for the public, or is it sort of waiting for them to come along?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank my noble Lord for that question. I think I will leave off there; obviously, we have the Budget in three and a half weeks’ time and other announcements will be made then. We want to make this a success for the public, and that is why from next April we are going to open up stocks and shares ISAs to long-term asset funds so that everybody can benefit.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, there is a shortage of capital for public projects, so permitting the public to provide some more of that capital is very sensible. The recently opened Thames Tideway tunnel is a very good example of a public/private partnership: it was on time and on budget with a good independent board. However, the shareholders were companies such as Dalmore Capital UK and foreign investors, and not individuals. Will the Government work up ideas drawing on this and on overseas success to allow us to attract more public finance from a larger number of corporate and individual UK shareholders? Might that include the type of populist share sales beloved of Baroness Margaret Thatcher?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I was agreeing with some of that until it got to the very end. I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Obviously, we need to look at this closely. We want to open up public/private partnerships, where they are to happen, to investment from consumers and shareholders, but we need to wait until the Budget to find out exactly what is going to be done.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, all the best for the task he has in hand—it is going to be a very difficult one. In terms of public/private partnerships, what lessons can be learnt from what happened in Sheffield with the tree debacle? Will the Government use that as a case study of how not to go about a public/private partnership?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We will look at all avenues to improve any potential public/private partnership. There are obviously lessons from the past that we can draw on. I do not know the specific case that the noble Lord mentioned, but Ministers will look at this in the round. They are advising potential organisations on public/private partnerships and looking at legacy PFIs and what more they can do to help those PFIs to be managed, so there is a lot going on. We all want this to succeed and we need to draw on lessons from problems we have had in the past.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, where the Government have to bail out the private sector, they should seek to get a stake in shareholding so that they can be paid back at an appropriate time? Too many private sector companies have enjoyed lots of money from the public but have never paid it back.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting question. I am sure that is something the Treasury will look at in the next few weeks before the Budget and after.
AI: Workforce Training
Lord Evans of Rainow
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to accelerate AI training for the United Kingdom’s existing workforce.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, we want to ensure that people have access to good, meaningful jobs. That is why the Government are supporting workforce readiness for AI through a range of initiatives. The new AI Skills Hub, developed by Innovate UK and PwC, provides streamlined access to digital training. This will support government priorities through tackling critical skills gaps and improving workforce readiness. At the same time, we are partnering with 11 major companies to train 7.5 million UK workers in essential AI skills by 2030.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Artificial intelligence training courses already exist and, as the noble Lord said, there are many of them. British history provides a template to achieve a greater take-up for the wider population. In 1969 Harold Wilson established the Open University, a distance learning model to reach people who could not or would not attend residential courses. BBC broadcasts made it part of the national conversation. Now is the time, perhaps, to replicate that success with artificial intelligence courses for the 21st century, perhaps calling it “Open AI for all”. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for reminding us of the great work of our former Prime Minister Harold Wilson and the Open University. The Government support modern, flexible learning to cater to diverse learners right across the UK. Many universities already offer fully online postgraduate courses in AI. To expand this, we are also introducing the lifelong learning entitlement, LLE, launching in January 2027, which is designed to help people study in ways that fit their lives, especially mature learners looking to retrain or upskill. We are also working with stakeholders, including the Open University, which the noble Lord mentioned, to shape policy and raise awareness. The LLE will make it easier to access education throughout life, wherever and whenever it is needed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real challenge to get the workforce in the 5 million or so SMEs to embrace the advantages of AI while obviously understanding the pitfalls as well. What are the Government doing to make sure that SMEs do not get left behind in the technology race?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for highlighting the many challenges faced by SMEs. The Government are actively supporting SMEs in adopting AI through Innovate UK’s flagship programme, BridgeAI. This initiative targets sectors with low AI adoption but with high growth potential, including construction, transport, logistics, warehousing, agriculture and the creative industries. BridgeAI provides SMEs with funding, expert advice and support to address technical and commercial skills gaps. To build trust, we have also published the AI management essentials, which help SMEs assess and strengthen their AI governance. This guidance is being updated to better meet industry needs and will serve as a practical tool for responsible AI adoption.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
The Communications and Digital Select Committee, in its report on media literacy, said:
“Ofcom is not the appropriate body to coordinate or deliver a nationwide media literacy programme”.
It pointed out that
“the Government has failed to fill”
the “leadership vacuum” in this area. What are the Government going to do about that?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for that. At the end of the day, the fact is that AI is now central to the UK’s growth strategy. The results are very clear: UK AI companies deliver some £11.8 billion in gross value added, revenues are up 68% and over 86,000 people now work in the sector.
As for the question itself, the point here is that we need to address the skills gap. AI is already changing the way we work, and we need to support everyone in this country in adopting AI skills. We also need a plan to tackle market challenges and ensure that people right across the UK are ready for the future.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant at DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. This year the Government have chosen to devolve responsibility for digital boot camps, which in previous years have helped thousands of participants develop new digital skills. There is a new technical funding guide, but what guarantee of funding for future years do providers and local authorities have, and what consistency of procurement is there? For instance, what core requirement is there for the essential AI training content to be carried? At the very minimum, it should include AI literacy and understanding and critical thinking skills.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord made several points there; I will address the point about AI gaps in the workforce. The Government are actively assessing AI skills gaps and taking action to close them. My department regularly reviews the AI labour market and has commissioned new research, due to be released later this year. We are working with the Department for Education and Skills England to map pathways into AI roles. We recently announced a joint commitment with industry to upskill some 7.5 million workers.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as a director of Lumi Network, as set out in the register. Whether someone is building or using AI, it is far from clear that there is a finite set of teachable skills that keeps them productive in the workplace, or even employable, particularly given the pace of change of the technology itself. In light of the rapid evolution of skills requirements, can the Minister set out some of the Government’s thinking on how to create and maintain an AI workforce on an ongoing basis?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Viscount has asked the same question that I answered when I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We will be upskilling some 7.5 million workers right across the country. I can also share what we are doing with public sector workers: across the department we are working on AI adoption right across government. We back the Government Digital Service’s AI playbook and its 4,000-strong community of practice, which is helping teams use AI effectively and efficiently. We are skilling up early exemplars, such as AI tools for probation caseworkers and tax investigation, to demonstrate how AI can enhance services. A new £42 million fund will support frontier AI exemplars to boost productivity in HR, finance and policy. Through i.AI—the Incubator for Artificial Intelligence—we are also building reusable AI tools and upskilling civil servants right across the country.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I am very much behind AI training and the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in his supplementary question. Having benefited from exemplary instruction from a senior research scientist at one of the world’s leading AI companies, I can see how powerful they are. But the noble Lord talked about growth, and AI skills are not the only contributing skills. Creators have been forced to watch as the Government strike deals with the very tech companies that have used their copyrighted work without permission or payment. Can the Minister explain the rationale for sacrificing one of the UK’s most productive and globally respected industries in favour of another that offers fewer jobs and less revenue and whose major beneficiaries are not in the UK but offshore?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the work that she has done in this area. The Government are not sacrificing the contribution made by the creative sector. AI offers significant opportunities, including for creators, who are already using it to enhance their work. I know of designers and artists using AI to support their work. However, we acknowledge the concerns about how AI models utilise creative content; of course that is a concern. That is why we are working closely with artists, rights holders and the tech sector to get this right. We have launched expert groups, are engaging with Parliament and will publish an update this year, and a full report in March 2026. Reform is urgent but it must be balanced. We are committed to protecting creators’ rights and ensuring that AI supports innovation and fair growth right across the creative and tech sectors.
Gaza and Hamas
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, when even Qatar, which plays host to the Hamas leadership, has acknowledged breaches of the ceasefire by Hamas, we know that the situation is getting serious. Taken alongside horrific videos of summary executions of fellow Palestinians, armed fighters patrolling the streets, the killing of several Israeli soldiers and the looting of aid convoys, it is clear that Hamas is determined to continue in a governance role in Gaza, despite the promises it made in the peace agreement. Can the Minister say what discussions the Government have had with Arab and international partners on any multinational peacekeeping force that could restore law and order to Gaza? If that does not happen, I fear that the current uneasy truce will not last very long.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is right that this is an uneasy truce, but it is a truce all the same. My feeling is that we have to stick with it for as long as we possibly can, notwithstanding the deeply troubling events that he has seen. We all shared the joy and relief at the hostages’ release. We all wish this peace process well and will do everything we possibly can to see it sustained.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, with continuing Hamas terrorist violence and the regrettable civilian deaths of Palestinians, it seems that phase 2 of the agreement might now be some way off. Given the terrible devastation in Gaza—which, as I have said in the Chamber before, is 20 times that of the scale of the Blitz in the Second World War, and on an area a quarter the size of London—it beggars belief that the hoped-for 600 trucks a day, as set out in the agreement, are not getting through. The latest reports say that less than 100 are getting through, and $50 million of aid is still waiting to get into Gaza. What practical steps are we in the western community taking? We were all happy to be with President Trump at the signing of the agreement, but it now seems that little action is being taken to get the desperately needed aid to civilians.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This is a real problem, and we are working to try to persuade the Israelis to allow the opening of as many crossings as possible. We want to see Allenby Bridge and the Rafah crossing reopened. As the noble Lord said, limited aid is getting in through Kerem Shalom, which is causing congestion. There is no shortage of money or aid for Gaza, but there is a real problem with access, registration and dual-use regulations—all things we have been grappling with for too long. There has been some improvement, which we welcome, but we very much want to see the right volumes and type of aid getting to where it is so badly needed.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, amid all the other things that have been going on in Israel and Palestine in the past few weeks, would my noble friend the Minister like to comment on the vote in the Israeli Parliament—which passed by 71 to 13—to annex the West Bank and incorporate it into the State of Israel? Can she impress on colleagues in Israel that that will make the possibility of a Palestinian state just the opposite—an impossibility? Does she agree that, while it may be possible, although I doubt it, to eliminate Hamas, no one will eliminate the totally legitimate worldwide support for an independent Palestinian state?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are against the annexation of the West Bank, and we feel, as I suspect my noble friend does, that it would do nothing to secure the safety and future prosperity of the State of Israel. That is one of the reasons why we took the decision, in the time around 25 July, to recognise the state of Palestine.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to support the Palestinian Authority in its programme to reform governance procedures, with a view to the PA becoming an electable, credible alternative to Hamas?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This is an incredibly important piece of work. As the noble Baroness will know, we have been working for some time to strengthen the Palestinian Authority, because as far as I can see, right now it is the only viable alternative to Hamas. We have been doing training, and it is getting direct support from Michael Barber to try to strengthen the possibility of a democratically elected leadership. For now and, as far as we can see, into the future, the Palestinian Authority is really going to be our best bet in terms of finding the right kind of leadership for Palestine.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, the last three functioning ICU beds in Gaza are in the Al-Ahli Anglican Hospital. In a time of transition, as we see, I hope, the elimination of Hamas, that will of course get rid of the Hamas-run health ministry. How can we ensure that health services are protected and indeed improved during any transition?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That speaks to the immediate humanitarian problem of getting aid to the people who need it. It speaks to the system-strengthening work we have been doing with the Palestinians. It speaks to the ability to get medical equipment into Gaza, which we are having difficulty doing, notwithstanding the heroic work of many medics who have worked throughout this war to support people and save many lives; and to the work our NHS has done in enabling some critically unwell young children to be brought to the UK for the treatment that they need.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the ceasefire is to remain in place, it is absolutely essential that the stabilisation force and the transitional authority be put in place with all possible speed? In so far as the Government have influence in these matters, it is to those objects that they should be directing their attention.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We do have to direct our attention to that and to many other elements. We have a senior military presence within the Civil-Military Coordination Center, and we are supporting it practically, because we will do whatever we can alongside our partners to try to make sure that this ceasefire holds and that we can move on to the next phase.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Hamas is looting humanitarian aid and executing its enemies in the streets of Gaza? These are both contrary to international humanitarian law. The Government have recognised the state of Palestine, which was welcomed by Hamas and has deprived them of any lever to force Hamas to behave properly. From what the Minister has said in the last few minutes, there still does not seem to be a government, fixed boundaries or any elements of a functioning state. How, therefore, can Britain exercise any influence at all?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and it should have no part in the future running of Gaza. That is why it is so important that we work alongside the Palestinian Authority and alongside the structures being put in place as part of the 20-point plan to try to make sure that the peace we have, such as it is, can be sustained.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the West Bank was mentioned. I speak as a friend of Israel who wants to see a secure and recognised Israel, but in the West Bank we are seeing appalling settler violence and an erratic and inconsistent approach by the IDF. Palestinians are unable, inter alia, to harvest their olives. Are the Government making any representations to the Israeli Government about this issue?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is a very important issue. As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, the olive harvest is a particularly dangerous time. I visited the West Bank a few months ago and was able to meet with families who have been displaced many times and forced to rebuild their homes because of settler violence. We deplore this and we have taken steps, including sanctions against some of those who are responsible. As she would wish, we make representations about this at every opportunity.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding the fragility of the ceasefire and every effort the Government are making to support it, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are starving now. What more can the Government do to open up the access routes the Minister has referred to, in order to get more aid in and therefore have a more equitable distribution in Gaza?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is completely right. We have spent almost £100 million already this year on aid for Gaza. The serious frustration we have is our inability to get that aid where it is needed. The Israeli Government control this, and we use every lever we have, alongside our partners. There has been some progress, but clearly not nearly enough. We are hopeful that we will see a change in this very shortly.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Monday 3rd November 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2025)
18:55 - Division on Amendment 34 - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 227 - Amendment 34 disagreed.
Baroness Brinton
“Mandatory referral for age assessment in criminal proceedingsWhere an individual who claims to be under 18 is charged with an offence of illegal entry or facilitating illegal entry under immigration law, the Home Office must—(a) make an immediate mandatory referral to the relevant local authority for a comprehensive Merton-compliant age assessment, and(b) ensure that no prosecution proceeds until an assessment has been completed and the individual’s age is confirmed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that individuals who may be children are required to have a comprehensive age assessment before any criminal proceedings for immigration offences can proceed, ensuring they are properly assessed and safeguarded in line with child protection principles.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being able to take part on this Bill at an earlier stage. The second amendment in this group, Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, addresses the issue of age assessment of young asylum seekers who may or may not be under 18, and we continue to support these amendments. My Amendment 27 deals with a more specific part of the age-assessment process. It seeks to introduce an immediate mandatory referral for a Merton-compliant, social work-led age assessment before any criminal proceedings can be taken against the individual. I thank the Home Office for issuing its paper on abbreviated age assessments earlier in the year, which clarifies its position on this sensitive issue of issuing criminal proceedings against an asylum seeker who says they are under 18, but who officials believe to be over 18. From these Benches, while it is a helpful clarification, it does not change the core position that this amendment wishes to remedy.
At the heart of the government note is an abbreviated and expedited process now led by National Age Assessment Board—NAAB—social workers. We still argue that this process needs to be carried out by local authorities and not by NAAB, because NAAB is answerable to the Home Office and, of course, to its Ministers. Any age-assessment process must be independent of the Government and their staff, who have often already decided that the individual is probably over 18. I therefore have some questions for the Minister.
The considerably shorter abbreviated age-assessment process has turned the premise of how old an individual is into trying to determine that somebody could be under 18, as opposed to establishing their actual age under the Merton-compliant system; whereas the full assessment uses age ranges in much more depth. In January 2022, the Kent intake unit tried an abbreviated process with an investigation half way between a full age assessment and a brief inquiry, which was found to be unlawful in the courts. Can the Minister say how the abbreviated system will be different from the previous Kent intake unit case? Can the Minister also confirm that, if someone is in a hotel saying that they are a child, then they are potentially a child in need in that area, and therefore the local authority needs to respond, given that the case law makes it abundantly clear that it has to take a view that is independent from the Home Office? It would be a miscarriage of justice if the Home Office tells local authorities, who think they are children, that they are not children. That must remain the role of local authorities. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities will still play this key independent role?
This amendment is laid because concerns continue that the National Age Assessment Board uses a hostile approach to the age-assessment process. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit has investigated the experiences of children who have been assessed by the NAAB and found that it:
“Operates according to the Home Office’s political agenda, which is felt by the children being assessed … Carries out assessments that do not follow established age assessment guidance, and therefore make it difficult for children to engage meaningfully in the process … Causes distress, retraumatisation, mental health crisis, and ongoing trust issues for children”.
One young person said to the Greater Manchester Immigration Unit:
“From the first time, you feel that they are against you. This is their intention, to end with the report that you are an adult”.
This is not a safe human rights approach to making a decision about whether a young person and child could be deemed to be over 18, then treating them as such, without the safeguarding protections afforded to under-18s in our court system. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 57, in my name and those of other noble Lords, to whom I am grateful for their support. I am also grateful to the Refugee Migrant Children’s Consortium for all its help and to my noble friend Lady Longfield, who cannot be in her place but who has written to my noble friend the Minister in support of the amendment, drawing on her experience as a former Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for finding the time the other week to discuss some of this with some of us. I should make clear my support for Amendment 27 and everything that has been said so far.
This amendment is focused on the age of assessment of children at the border. It would create safeguards for asylum-seeking children whose age is in dispute and would set limits on the use of scientific or technological age-estimation methods, which I believe the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee, will cover. It would also provide for an annual report to Parliament.
To recap the case very briefly, as we have heard, the Home Office continues to assess incorrectly as adults a significant number of asylum-seeking children arriving in the UK based on a quick visual assessment of their appearance and demeanour. This has serious consequences—some have already been outlined—which include significant safeguarding risks when children are placed in accommodation with adults without appropriate safeguards, including the oversight of child protection professionals.
Concern has been expressed about this by the Children’s Commissioner, Ofsted, the British Association of Social Workers and, just last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee, which called it a “serious safeguarding issue”. Yet the Home Office appears to be more concerned about the potential risk of an adult masquerading as a child being housed with children even though child protection professionals will be present in those circumstances.
The Select Committee made it clear that it did not share the Home Office director-general of customer services’ confidence in the current system. In his recent inspection report, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration highlighted that over a decade of concerns around the Home Office’s “perfunctory” visual age assessments remain unaddressed, and that questions about policy and practice “remain unanswered”. He noted that
“inspectors were surprised at the lack of curiosity from individual officers and corporately about decisions that were subsequently disputed and overturned, and at the view that there was no learning to take from the later assessments”
made by local authority social workers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted all the chief inspector’s recommendations and that they are working to improve the data, which have been woefully poor hitherto.
I simply draw attention now to what the chief inspector described as his “overall message”, namely that the Home Office
“should look to work more closely and collaboratively with external stakeholders”,
among which he included NGOs,
“as much as possible in designing and delivering its processes”.
Thus, his first recommendation was that the Home Office should:
“Produce a stakeholder map and engagement plan that takes full account of the practical and presentational value of involving external stakeholders”,
including non-governmental organisations,
“in the development and delivery of relevant policies and best practice, including but not limited to input into and implementation of each of”
each of his other recommendations.
How does my noble friend plan to respond in practice to this recommendation? Will he agree to the establishment of a task and finish group that includes NGOs, notably members of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, to work with officials on taking forward the chief inspector’s recommendations? I understand that such collaboration has existed in the past but was ended about 10 years ago, so it would not be setting a precedent. I know it would be warmly welcomed by stakeholders, especially if provision were made to hear from those with direct experience of age disputes. The proposal was also supported by my noble friend Lady Longfield in her letter to the Minister.
I have made it clear to my noble friend the Minister that I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote. However, I will be very disappointed if he is not able to agree to this very modest proposal, which does no more than embody the spirit of what the chief inspector has recommended.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will not speak for very long on this, I hope. I also hope that the Minister does not feel that this is becoming a pattern—I am largely on the same side as him on this issue—and that I can bring a little bit of balance to the debate. Both noble Baronesses have mentioned the chief inspector. I looked carefully at his very balanced report. There are points on both sides. It is worth putting some of them on the record that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did not.
The chief inspector made the point that accurately assessing the age of young people is undoubtedly difficult. It has always been very difficult. It was difficult when I was the Immigration Minister between 2012 and 2014. The same debates that take place now took place then. It remains difficult. One of the reasons it is difficult is because there is an incentive in the system because, rightly, we treat children differently from and more generously than we treat adults. If you are not careful, adults game the system and say that they are children when they are not. That is a problem: first, because you are putting adults in an environment with children, which does present a child protection risk; and, secondly, it enables adults who have entered the country illegally and inappropriately to try to avoid the consequences of their actions. That brings the system into disrepute, which is not good for anyone.
The inspector makes the point that the Home Office gets some of its initial age decisions wrong and that it would be helpful if both sides accepted that. That is a point for the Minister to recognise: it is difficult and the Home Office does not always get it right. Importantly, he also said that the debate would be better if the Home Office and its critics could agree that some migrants lie about their age and that not to attempt to make some form of initial age assessment—which both noble Baronesses have criticised—risks incentivising more to do so. There is a balance to strike here.
I am pleased that these two amendments will not be pressed to a vote because I would not be able to support them. Amendment 27 seeks to put a bright-line rule in place which will strengthen the incentive for anybody to claim that they are a child because it would mean that they went automatically into the process and were treated as a child until it had been shown that they were not a child. That would make the Home Office’s job, on behalf of us all, to have a functioning immigration system even more difficult.
My concern about Amendment 57, given today’s fourth Oral Question and the pace of technology, is that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause does not specify how we should use technological methods of age estimation, including facial age estimation, saying that they must not
“be used as the sole or primary basis for determining age, or … override the presumption”
that someone is a child.
My problem is that the pace of that technology is such that I do not think we should be ruling out its use as the determining fact in statute. My understanding—I am sure there are AI experts in the House who can correct me if I am wrong—is that this technology can get somebody’s age within a few years of the true age. I accept that that is quite important when a person is on the boundary between being a child or an adult, but the point is that that is pretty accurate and who knows where that technology will have gone in a few years? If we had a very accurate method, perhaps with other things, of determining somebody’s age, I would not want there to be something in primary legislation which ruled that out, given all the complexities around that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I understand very well what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is saying, but one of the problems, it seems to me, is the differing maturity of children in different parts of the world.
Several years ago, I went to the charity Safe Passage, which has a drop-in centre in north London. I met two Afghan boys who were both truly identified as 16; Safe Passage was absolutely satisfied they were 16, and they actually had some papers to prove it. One of them had a beard and the other had a moustache. Anybody who did not know about different maturity in different parts of the world would take it for granted that they were over 18. There is an added problem here: we need to recognise the differing maturity of children from different parts of the world.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 57, to which I have added my name. I too thank the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium for all the help that it has given us. I also support Amendment 27.
For very good reason, and not for the first time, Amendment 57 would introduce statutory safeguards for individuals whose age is disputed. To the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I say: we do not suggest that we should prohibit visual assessments at the border. What Amendment 57 would ensure is that those assessments comply with child protection principles, especially the benefit of the doubt standard established in case law and international guidance. This principle requires that where age is uncertain, the individual should be treated as a child unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. That is the principle which I believe we should stick to.
The amendments align with recommendations by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has already said. Crucially, the amendment also addresses the Government’s proposal to use AI-based facial age estimation. I feel that I am a broken record on the subject of facial age estimation, and indeed on age estimation in general. We have had to contend with the proposal to use X-ray systems to determine age, and time after time we have argued that not only is it inaccurate—a point made clearly by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—to use teeth or wrists for X-rays but it is unethical to expose people to unnecessary radiation and that X-rays should be used only for the benefit of the people concerned. We are delighted that the present Government are not proposing X-rays among their scientific methods, and we are also immensely grateful to the Minister for having conversations with us on this subject.
However, the AI systems suggested are not foolproof either. Indeed, independent evaluations show that these systems have error margins of between two and four years, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, and they exhibit demographic bias, which is exactly what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has said—particularly, it turns out, for younger ages and minority ethnic groups. Academic research confirms that children’s faces are harder to assess accurately and that claims of near-perfect accuracy remain unverified. Overreliance on such technology risks replicating systematic errors rather than fixing them, so we will be replacing human error with machine error.
We all recognise that age assessment is complex and cannot be solved by one measure, but we believe that the Government need to listen to experts and adopt safeguards that make the system safer for children. Amendment 57 offers a practical, rights-based solution. It would preserve operational flexibility at the border, reinforce compliance with children’s legislation, and ensure transparency and accountability in the use of technology. I hope the Minister can give us some more details about how the trial of this AI technology will work, and indeed that he can reassure us that it will not be relied on unless it is truly accurate—but it looks as if we are a long way from that.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was too late to put my name down to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am sure she will understand that the points that have been made on the second amendment in this group largely apply to hers as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, tells us that adults game the system. I agree, but safeguarding applies both ways, both if someone is assessed as a child when he is an adult—it is usually a he—and if he is assessed as an adult when in fact he is a child. The question that we have is: where do you start from? How do you approach this: that claimants are fraudulent, or that claimants should be believed until the contrary is shown—the benefit of the doubt, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has said? Where is the greatest danger? It will be obvious from my signature to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, where I believe it is.
I think, too—I will accuse myself of this; I do not want to accuse others of it—that there is a cultural bias. I say that even though I have a lot of Middle Eastern blood in me, so I should not be as biased as someone who is an ancient Briton, but I have detected it in myself.
I accept that this is a hugely difficult area and that technology is advancing almost as fast as we can draft amendments, which makes it all the more difficult. I am sure it has advanced a long way since the time I was stopped at the Gare du Nord because I seemed not to be the same as the person shown in the photograph in my passport because I was wearing earrings, which meant that the distance between my ears was not the real one.
I asked a couple of Questions for Written Answer recently. On the first one I got generalised assurance, so I asked some very specific questions, which inevitably got an Answer about the Home Office providing further updates regarding testing “in due course”. In a way, the thrust of my question today is to ask the Minister how and when Parliament is to be updated on what is going on—not just Parliament but all the stakeholders. It is not word I particularly like but it describes the variety of people concerned with this.
The Answer to my Question of 6 October included:
“If and when this technology is used in live cases, full information and guidance will be available to those undergoing”
facial age estimation
“as well as to staff involved in the process”.
That suggests that the Home Office will stay in its silo looking at the issues and at the process, without involving all those stakeholders who need to be included—social workers, for instance. In the case of the second amendment it is social workers in local authorities, because it the local authorities that have to carry the can and look after children under 18.
I accept that the figures reported on GOV.UK are only up to quarter 2 of 2024, so I am making the point as a general one for all of us and not accusing the Government of anything, but they show that in three of the quarters the issue was resolved with the claimant being over 18. In fact, the numbers show that there was very little difference between those under and those over 18 in the particular quarters, but in the other five quarters considerably more were found to be less than 18, including 240 at less than 18 compared to 18 plus, 744 at less than 18—I am fudging my figures. I do not mean to fudge them; I am just making a mess off them because I have not written them out properly. But the differences in the numbers at less than 18 were considerably more than those found to be over 18.
The inspector made a number of recommendations. The formal response is that the Government have accepted them all. That is then followed by an explanation which, again, does not seem to be as precise as I, for one, would like it to be. I hope, in particular, where the Home Office has said in response to the inspector that the date of implementation will be December 2025—next month—that the Minister will agree to report on those various points very soon, perhaps in February, because December is not very far away. If things are going to happen in December, and I can see he is checking this, it would be very helpful for the House to know that a system is in place for reporting on what is going on.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the evidence coming out in our debate today is that there are a lot of examples where people are being wrongly assessed as adults. Last weekend, I met a group of local authority leaders who told me about a situation last November, regarding unaccompanied children who had been kept in hotels and were coming out into their care. I asked whether it had improved, and they said that the numbers may have changed but there were still examples of young people who had been taken out of the system because they had been wrongly assessed. The current system for determining the age of unaccompanied children seeking asylum remains deeply flawed. I think there are not many who would accept that it is all working really well.
We already have some indication that the cohort of people being sent back to France included a number of children, largely because they were inspected rapidly upon entry by Border Force officials. As we know from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, appearance, demeanour and physical development are all affected by environment, life experiences and ethnicity, and making visual assessments is notoriously unreliable.
In answer to the point that there will be some people who will play the system, we need to understand that, when children are wrongly treated as adults, they are denied the rights and protections afforded them as children. That risks them being placed in adult accommodation, detained or even prosecuted. That is a clear safeguarding failure. Misidentification of children as adults poses a greater safeguarding risk than the reverse, primarily because adult systems lack the robust protections necessary for children. We have already seen cases where individuals who raised that their age was under 18 were subsequently arrested and charged in the adult criminal justice system, leading to time spent in adult prison on remand, or a conviction on immigration offences.
The stakes in this Bill are extremely high, with the new offences related to immigration crime contained within it carrying substantial periods of imprisonment, sometimes up to 14 years. It is critical that we safeguard against the unintended consequence of criminalising vulnerable individuals seeking protection.
I know that the Government have started to look carefully at these issues, as we had this discussion during Committee. The Government said that there were concerns about how such an amendment would operate in practice, mentioning the risk of delays that could arise from waiting for a full assessment, and that it would potentially frustrate the removals process and add to asylum backlogs. But at that time the Minister gave assurances, as he will know, that existing safeguards are in place. He named three: that the Home Office decision on age for immigration purposes is not binding on UK courts; that the Crown Prosecution Service is advised of age-dispute issues and determines if pursuing prosecution is in the public interest; and that the Home Office has introduced an additional safeguard, whereby an abbreviated age assessment conducted by qualified social workers is provided for individuals assessed as “significantly over 18” who maintain their claim to be a child and are identified for potential criminal charges. However, these assurances do not go far enough when a child’s liberty and future are at stake.
First, relying on the CPS’s prosecutorial discretion and the court’s ability to take a decision on age retrospectively is insufficient, when we know that individuals have already been wrongfully detained and imprisoned in adult settings. The risk of unlawful detention must be mitigated at the earliest possible point—before the charges proceed. Secondly, the proposal of an abbreviated age assessment is inadequate in the context of criminal law. This amendment would require a comprehensive Merton-compliant age assessment, which adheres to professional standards and best practice, and involves gathering information holistically.
On Amendment 57, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, we need to engage with all parties in respect of this matter. There are so many different interests here, not just local authorities and the key people within them but those who have expertise in this area. It is a difficult area, and we therefore need to bring together all that expertise to ensure that justice, through a full assessment, is preferable to the costs, both human and financial, of wrongful imprisonment or unlawful detention.
The Government are right to focus on improving the robustness of the process. That includes looking at what the NAAB does, how it operates and whether it is up to the job of doing the things that we have been talking about in this debate. Facial age estimation technology is almost a case of saying, “We may have that possibility in the future”, but, as with anything—such as if we were trying to tackle new drugs or give new treatments to people—we should not do it without sound advice that it is in order and would produce the right results. The question must remain open on that matter, and I am sure the Minister will know that the exploration of this issue may have some way to travel.
Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend, is a fundamental safeguard. It would ensure that expert, child-focused social work assessment occurs before an individual is drawn into the criminal justice system as an adult. We know that this amendment has been supported by organisations across the children’s sector. It would ensure that the principle of protecting children from criminal proceedings is enshrined in law by requiring a high standard of age verification by appropriate experts before any prosecution can proceed. We support the intention of Amendment 57, also in this group. There are very serious matters here that I hope the Minister will address.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, we begin the second day on Report with the first of two groups on age assessments. As in Committee, they have produced a stimulating debate.
The two amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, approach the issue from a different standpoint from our later amendments. That is perhaps not surprising, but it will also come as no surprise that we take a different and opposing view from the underlying principles of both these amendments.
It cannot be right, as is proposed, for a person to be automatically assumed to be a child where their age cannot be proved by way of documentary evidence. We know that too many illegal migrants purposefully tear up or coincidentally lose their passports or identity documents, or, as has been said, lie about their age, so as to game the system once in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Harper made several compelling arguments in respect of both these amendments. I have little to add, except to say that we have seen too many cases where individuals have claimed to be children, despite being grown adults. To these Benches, that represents a grave safeguarding failure. For all those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for her Amendment 57, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her Amendment 27, which has stimulated a discussion. I am grateful for the letter that I received today from my noble friend Lady Longfield, in which she asked me to support my noble friend Lady Lister’s Amendment 57. We have had a number of contributions, and I will try to refer to the issues that have been raised. I was grateful for the chance to have a meeting with the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Brinton, to discuss these amendments. I do not think my noble friend Lady Lister was present—I have had so many meetings that I lose track.
There is general consensus to date that age assessment is a difficult area of work and that no single combination of assessment techniques is able to determine chronological age with precision: Members from all sides of the House have raised that issue. The Government take it extremely seriously and the amendments are right to press the Government on the issues we have raised. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put her finger on the difficulty, sometimes, of age assessments, and this is self-evidently a difficult area for us to examine in detail.
I will mention the report from the independent borders inspectorate. It is important to say at the start of this discussion that the Government accepted all eight recommendations, several of which are in progress—the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble friend Lady Lister, among others, referred to that. They include plans to proactively engage with local authorities—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I hope that, throughout this, Members of the House will recognise that the Government take this issue extremely seriously.
Amendment 57 seeks to incorporate an age assessment measure into the Bill. The proposed clauses would change the current age threshold for a “significantly over 18” policy from 18 to 21, with written reasons, and would put this on to a statutory footing. Initial decisions on age are an important first step to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct immigration process. Immigration officers currently treat an individual as an adult only where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age and two Home Office staff members independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over the age of 18. This approach to initial decisions on age has been considered by the Supreme Court and held to be lawful.
The Government believe that “significantly over 18” is the right threshold, and that raising this even higher would present significant safeguarding risks by putting adults into settings with children. The principle of doubt remains a key element of the policy. Where there is doubt that an individual is not significantly over 18, they will be treated as a child pending further assessment by the local authority—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised this. This is extremely important because, obviously, if an individual is deemed to be over 18 and is not, that presents safeguarding risks—and vice versa: if an individual is deemed to be under 18 and is actually over 18, that equally presents safeguarding risks. So it is extremely important that we examine this individual point in some detail.
The important question of data has been raised, and I gave assurances in our meeting with the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that we are collecting data and that the Government expect to resume publishing age assessment data in early 2026. We have developments now representing a significant advancement in technical infrastructure, enabling the more accurate and consistent recording of key activities. Therefore, the up-to-date age assessment data is not currently published, but work is under way to develop improved recording and reporting on those issues. I hope that addresses the amendment seeking to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay annual reports on this data. We will have that data very shortly and I hope we can publish it.
There has been significant discussion—the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, made reference to this—of the facial age estimation technology and its use in age assessment processes. I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement on this subject issued by my colleague the Minister for Border Security and Asylum in July 2025. Facial age estimation is indeed currently being explored by the Home Office as a potential assistive tool in the age assessment process.
To go back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, further testing and trialling has been commissioned, with the intention of developing this technology further in late 2026. The results of this testing and the necessary validation are required before any final decisions are made on how best to implement this technology. However, the exploratory work that we have undertaken has shown that the technology is continuously improving, as evidenced in the emerging scientific literature, including the recent report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which shows that the potential is there for this to be of assistance.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I asked a specific question about how the Government propose to respond to the chief inspector’s recommendation about involving stakeholders. At the meeting that the Minister has forgotten I was at, I asked about a task and finish group that would involve particularly NGOs, because they bring such understanding to the issues. I said I would be very disappointed if my noble friend refused that, but I am even more disappointed that he has not even addressed it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think I did address that. I said at the very beginning of my statement that the Government have accepted all eight recommendations from the inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I have met my noble friend, I think, three times in various meetings in the last couple of weeks; in that meeting I gave her an assurance, and I give her that assurance again, which I hope will satisfy her.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am really sorry to push this, but I was asking how that recommendation is going to be implemented. If the Minister is giving me an assurance that NGOs will be included in the discussions as to how all the recommendations of the chief inspectors should be implemented, I am very happy—but I am not sure that is exactly what he said.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me say it again and see whether I can help my noble friend: the Government have accepted all eight recommendations. That is clear. We have accepted all the recommendations from the borders inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders—voluntary agencies are key stakeholders, and I met them again last week to discuss this very matter—to progress the recommendations. How that pans out will be for my honourable friend the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Alex Norris, to take forward, but I give this House the assurance that that is the level of engagement that we are trying to have. On that basis, I hope that I have satisfied my noble friend and that she will not press her amendment, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will withdraw hers.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken during the debate on age assessment, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her amendment, which, as the Minister recognised, sets a wider framework for concerns about age assessment, whereas my amendment was highly specific about one area of concern. I say to the Minister and to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Cameron, that nobody is saying in either of these amendments that there should not be any age assessments. We are arguing for age assessments that are appropriate and safe for the particular circumstances that the two amendments address.
I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said that this is not an exact science. We understand that, and it is exactly where part of our concerns come from. I think that full assessment is the only way, particularly when young people who say they are children might end up being treated as adults in a criminal case. That is a very particular concern, which is why I tabled the amendment, because during cases those under 18 are afforded particular support that is not available if they are over 18. Therefore, age assessment is extremely important, which is why my amendment asks for a full age assessment, not the abbreviated age assessment that the Minister says is now taking place.
To summarise as best I can, without taking anything away from the intervention just now from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we hear the Minister saying that there have been changes and that he is watching development as time progresses. From this side of the argument, we say that we do not see enough evidence that these systems are safe. I hope that the Minister will continue to discuss this with us outside the passage of the Bill, because some of us have been arguing for this for three years or more. We still have concerns, which we are seeing in the current system right now, when a child has been treated as an adult and then found to be a child. That should not be happening. But on the basis that this is a progression and that I hope the Minister will meet us in the future, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add section 12 (period for which persons may be detained) to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, these are meant to be helpful amendments and, if they are read with a favourable eye, they might be seen as such. To start, I remind your Lordships that freedom from executive detention is the most fundamental right of all. It is not only an international human right but a national one, reaching back 800 years to the Magna Carta. In the absence of any statutory time limit on the length of detention, other than for children and pregnant women, the right to liberty has been safeguarded in our common law.
Amendments to strip back Section 12 and uphold the common law during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill in July 2023 were supported from all corners of this House by a quite motley crew of very noble Lords. Amendment 28 and the consequential changes made by Amendment 30 seek to simply restore the common law to the position it was in before Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was brought into force and sought to chip away at it. With so many other provisions of the Illegal Migration Act to be repealed by Clauses 38 and 39, Section 12 should be added to their number.
There are two reasons. First, the reasonableness of a period of immigration detention should not simply be in the hands of the Minister and down to her opinion; it should be entrusted to the responsibility of our courts in our world-renowned common-law system. This is not to say that courts will ignore the Home Secretary’s views. On the contrary, in 2007 our Court of Appeal specifically acknowledged that it will no doubt take account of the Home Secretary’s views as may seem proper.
Secondly, by returning to the common-law position, we would also uphold the right to liberty under international human rights law. In 2016 the European Court of Human Rights agreed that it is this consideration by domestic courts of the reasonableness of each individual period of detention that ensures the absence of a general fixed time limit in the UK system, because it does not, in principle, give rise to increased risk of arbitrariness.
Repealing Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act is consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At paragraph 103 of its report on this Bill, it clearly stated:
“We agree with our predecessor Committee and recommend the repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with Article 5”.
Turning to Amendment 32 in my name, I take forward the task of continuing to recommend that the Government leave out the retrospective element of the detention power in Clause 41—that is, the power to detain people when considering whether to make a deportation order on the basis of their presence. This amendment is modest when compared with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was to leave Clause 41 out of the Bill altogether. This amendment is simply about removing retrospectivity in subsection 17, which treats the new detention power as always having had effect.
The Government’s position appears to be that Clause 41 is necessary to clarify matters but that it is not retrospective. Both cannot be true. It is either necessary because it is retrospective and protects the Government from false imprisonment challenges, or it is unnecessary because it is already the position in law. The Government’s own impact assessment, when read carefully, shows that it has been unlawful since 20 October 2014 to detain people in the way that they have. Changing the law now and treating it as if it had always had effect will provide neither legal certainty nor foreseeability to people detained in these past 11 years. It only insulates the Government from challenge and inhibits people from having a domestic remedy and compensation for their unlawful detention.
This precedent of making the unlawful deprivation of liberty lawful places us on a very slippery slope. I ask the Government to reconsider their position on both these amendments, to repeal a section of the law that prior Governments passed in the Illegal Migration Act to erode our common law, and to leave out retrospectivity from their new detention order—all to uphold the right to liberty and to be free from executive detention, that most fundamental right of all. I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly set out why I do not think this is a particularly helpful amendment, which I am sure the noble Baroness is not entirely surprised to hear. Despite what she said, I am not sure the amendment is entirely intended to be helpful.
This is an area in which there is a balance to strike. The noble Baroness is quite right that the Illegal Migration Act shifted the balance—a little—in favour of the Home Secretary; the balance had drifted too far in the other direction. I strongly support the need for some limits and constraint on the ability of the Home Secretary to use detention powers, but if you are not careful, those who try to frustrate the system inappropriately—people who have no right to be here—will use the rules to frustrate an attempt legitimately to remove them from the country.
I saw many cases of people who had no right to be in the United Kingdom, and who had failed on a number of occasions to stay here through the legal processes, using this as another tool. If you have strict, bright-line rules, the danger is that people game and frustrate the system. The Home Secretary does not want to detain more people than is absolutely necessary; there is a very significant cost in doing so. As she well knows, the Home Office does not have an unlimited budget, but it is necessary to have these powers.
Certainly, the powers that were in place before the provision the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is trying to repeal needed strengthening. As I said, this moves things in the direction of the Home Secretary, but as with all the Home Secretary’s powers, she has to exercise them in a reasonable and lawful manner, and all the decisions she takes are challengeable by judicial review.
The Illegal Migration Act still refers to whether the detention is “reasonably necessary”. It still has that test, so the Home Secretary has to exercise that judgment. If somebody feels that the Home Secretary has got that judgment wrong, it is still open to them to challenge it. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the balance has shifted in favour of the Home Secretary.
I come back to what I said in the earlier group: there is a balance to strike here. Much of the debate so far is coming from one particular angle. I do not criticise the noble Baroness for doing it, but the other side of the argument needs to be put, so the House can hear a more balanced argument. We need a firm system which allows people to come to and stay in the United Kingdom if they are following our rules or have a legitimate asylum claim; equally importantly, where they do not, they should not be able to use rules and regulations that are there to protect people, in order to frustrate the legitimate exercise of that power.
To all those who want an asylum system, or one that allows people to come here legitimately, I urge them to be careful what they wish for, because we are getting to the point where the public are losing patience. Ministers are ultimately accountable both to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords, but if the public do not feel that Ministers are accountable, or if they feel that they do not have the powers to deliver a system the public want to see, public belief and confidence in the system will disappear, and that would be very dangerous. Those who want a more liberal system would rue the day that that happened.
Therefore, having that balance is necessary. The changes made in the Illegal Migration Act to the powers on detention moved in the right direction. The fact that the Government, despite doing a pretty wholesale removal of the powers in that Act, have not removed this one suggests that Ministers think that shift in the balance was sensible. I therefore hope that it remains in place. Regretfully, if the noble Baroness presses her amendment to a vote, I will not be able to support it. I hope she understands why, and I suspect it will not be a surprise to her to learn that I am unable to support it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we should of course be aware of public feeling, but we should also not inflame it. We need to be careful with that. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 32 seeks to leave out Clause 41(17), which states that the amendments made by most of the subsections in that clause
“are to be treated as always having had effect”.
We should be very wary of the retrospectivity contained in them. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is about to finalise, I hope, a report on the rule of law, and we point to retrospectivity, or retroactivity—I am never sure whether there is a difference—as threatening the rule of law, along with legal certainty and so on. I am therefore glad that the noble Baroness tabled this amendment.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will make just a brief intervention from us on this matter, which was raised in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for telling me what reasons he had for not taking out Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. It raises some further questions, which I guess the Minister might have been expecting. Essentially, the noble Baroness’s amendments aim collectively to inject greater protection of civil liberties and to ensure proportionality in the use of detention powers, and they demand clarity regarding the mental element required for the new immigration offences in the Bill.
In his letter to me, the Minister said of Section 12 that
“policies to differentiate in line with the provision can be resumed if required”.
He said that they
“are not currently in use”,
and they have not been in use since this Government took office. He said:
“This Government is prioritising steps to restore order to the asylum system”,
et cetera, as one might expect. But, he continued:
“While the Government reviews the approach, it would not be appropriate to remove these provisions from the statute book”.
Can the Minister tell me what review of what approach will determine whether this provision should be removed, and whether, in the immediate future, there is any intention to recommence Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act?
In conclusion, having some clarity on this matter would be useful. The Law Society, as noble Lords might expect, says that the retention of Section 12, by removing the
“court’s ability to decide for itself whether the detention of a person for the purposes of removal is for a reasonable period”,
risks increasing unlawful and prolonged detention. There is currently a legal aspect to retention; I know that it is not being used, but we need to ensure that the fallback described by the Law Society is in place. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I begin by making plain our opposition to the amendments in this group. In Committee, we spent much time rehashing the arguments over the Illegal Migration Act 2023. We have made our position abundantly plain. It is obvious that there exists a gulf in opinion regarding that Act between many of us in this House. This is Report, so now is not the time for me to repeat those arguments. As noble Lords know, we strongly oppose the repeal of the bulk of the Illegal Migration Act, but I should say that it is at least some solace to us that the Government have deemed it right to retain Section 12. Since we support the Government’s intent to keep that section on the statute book, we oppose Amendments 28, 30 and 32, notwithstanding the elegant arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendments and how she presented them. She said that she was trying to be helpful and supportive on these matters, and I am grateful for that.
Amendment 28 seeks to add Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act to the list of sections of that Act being repealed under this Bill. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act establishes that it is for the Home Secretary, rather than the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period to detain an individual for a specific statutory purpose, such as for removal. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, raised a point that I would wish to set out: the Home Secretary is a Member of the House of Commons, and I answer for the Home Secretary in this House on matters to do with the Home Office. Therefore, we are accountable to Parliament for the decisions that are taken.
The important point that I want to put to the noble Baroness is that, even with Section 12 in force, the courts will continue to have significant oversight over detention. That goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, made today and my noble friend Lady Lister made in Committee. Individuals detained under immigration powers may apply at any time to the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber for immigration bail, where a judge will assess whether their continued detention is justified. If they consider that it is not, they will grant immigration bail. Therefore, the Home Secretary will have more discretion, but there will still be judicial oversight of immigration bail.
Additionally, as I said in Committee, individuals can challenge the legality of their detention through a judicial review in the High Court, where the court will consider whether the Secretary of State made a reasonable decision in detaining a person or in continuing their detention. If the court considers that the Secretary of State did not act reasonably, it will ensure that that person has access to an appropriate remedy, including ordering a release if appropriate. Again, there will be greater discretion for the Home Secretary, but there will also be strong judicial oversight and parliamentary oversight of this matter.
Section 12 simply makes it clear that the Secretary of State’s judgment of what is a “reasonable” period of detention should have more weight. That is logical, since the Home Office is in full possession of all the relevant facts and best placed to decide whether continued detention is reasonable in all the circumstances. That could include safeguarding the public, safeguarding an individual or the issues of cost that have been mentioned. Ultimately, the Home Secretary will determine what is reasonable based on the information before her. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, from the Opposition Front Bench, added his voice to those general concerns.
Section 12 also provides for detention to continue for a reasonable period while arrangements are made for a person’s release. That is particularly important when, for example, we need foreign national offenders to be accommodated in a specific location in accordance with their licence conditions, or to make safeguarding referrals for vulnerable people. Previous case law established the principle of a grace period to enable a person’s release, and Section 12 now provides legal clarity by placing that on a legislative footing.
Section 12 applies to all immigration detention powers. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 30, which is consequential to Amendment 28, seeks to ensure that the provisions that apply to Section 12 are repealed. Although I know that the noble Baroness is trying to be helpful on this matter, for the reasons I have just set out, it is right that Section 12 is retained for all immigration detention powers, to give the Secretary of State an additional discretion. None the less, that will be subject to parliamentary oversight and judicial oversight.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 32 seeks to remove the retrospective effect of Clause 41. As Members have discussed, Clause 41 clarifies the existing statutory powers of detention where the Home Office is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good and consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I deeply regret that I did not come to him with these amendments before to discuss them a little bit more. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, even the noble Lord, Lord Harper, who started to raise deep, dark political waters that I definitely do not agree with him about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would repeal section 29 of the Illegal Immigration Act 2024, which requires the Secretary of State to remove people who have sought to use modern slavery protections in “bad faith”.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I also have Amendments 69 and 79B in this group, which includes Amendments 29A and 31A from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean. Amendment 29 would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, a section which, like others, is not in force.
Section 29, if enforced, would broaden the public order disqualification to mandate—because “may” becomes “must”—that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are disqualified from protection, identification and support; are denied a recovery period and limited leave to remain in the UK; and may be removed from the UK, unless there are compelling circumstances which mean that the provisions should not apply. I say “broaden” because it includes the deportation of people who have committed low-level offences, which takes us into the territory of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I think is now quite generally regarded as being inadequate—if not in its own terms, though there is some consensus around that, in that the offenses which are excluded are too few and it does not exclude some that are not so serious.
The clause provides a defence for modern slavery victims who are compelled to commit a crime, but it is also inadequate in the awareness of the clause, and therefore whether it should be brought into consideration in a prosecution. The Illegal Migration Act provision was criticised by a previous independent asylum seekers commissioner, who said that limiting the public order exemption would
“severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups”.
I emphasise those words because the focus of this legislation is, as I understand it, intended to be on the perpetrators and organised crime groups.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the same point and the Government responded, saying that this section would, if commenced, bring all foreign national offenders into scope for mandatory consideration of disqualification from modern slavery protections. I again emphasise those two words because it is not mandatory only if there are “compelling circumstances”, which is a difficult phrase—difficult ever to prove.
Amendments 69 and 79B would both restrict information sharing between public authorities when vulnerable, abused or exploited people are involved. They have particular need of protection and the concern extends not only to people who are exploited and who would like to be able to report the exploitation; it applies also to other people—their colleagues—who would like to report on their behalf but are concerned about exposing themselves. I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee, although I do not resile from it.
We had some banter then about a photograph of the Ministers celebrating the passage of the 2015 Act, if that was the right occasion. We have had some discussion about the series of photographs. I was sent a photograph as well, which included both the noble Lord and me supporting the position of overseas domestic workers. I think the Minister thinks that was an even earlier occasion. However, the passage of time has not changed the issue, even though we may look—certainly I do—rather different from how I did in that photograph. The Minister reminded us that the Bill is about tackling organised immigration crime. He used the term “turbocharge”, and I have already talked about the commitment we should have to victims. I have searched for a sort of equivalent terminology and all I have come up with is “not steamrollering them”.
The Minister referred to the NRM—the national referral mechanism—providing
“a structured, compassionate route for potential victims of modern slavery to receive help without fear of intimidation and immediate immigration consequences”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1486.]
The problem is that they do fear, and they are deterred from reporting, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of someone else. He said also:
“In the immigration White Paper, we have made specific reference to Kalayaan”—
that is, the organisation which supports overseas domestic workers—
“and domestic workers, and I will reflect on those points as we go through”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1484.]
I did word searches on the White Paper and I found one reference to domestic workers, though it was in another context, and I will return to all that in Amendment 44, probably on the next day of Committee—although, of course, if there has been any reconsideration to date, I would be happy to hear it. I could not find “Kalayaan”. I am not trying to make a cheap point, but, if it is there, perhaps I could be directed to it following the debate.
The most important point is that the Government recognise that there is a genuine concern around here and intend to reconsider the overseas domestic worker visa route. So any further information or news that the Minister can give the House today would be welcome.
The two other amendments in this group would retain Sections 22, 23, and 25 to 29 of the Illegal Migration Act; in other words, they would bring in Section 29, to which I have spoken, and other provisions relating to modern slavery, except one which applies to Scotland. They raise the question about how the noble Baroness considers we should treat victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, including those who claim to be victims, and what should be the future of the NRM. I beg leave to move Amendment 29.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, to follow on from what the noble Baroness has just said, my Amendments 29A and 31A would in fact reintroduce and commence the modern slavery clauses and provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The net effect of them would mean that individuals who have entered illegally would not be able to use modern slavery provisions as a route to frustrate removal, but it is important that we continue to support genuine victims at the same time. The reason I have tabled these amendments is that, while they were necessary back in 2023 when this Act was passed, the need for them has become even more pressing now.
I declare an interest as a former Home Office Minister who led on the modern slavery support system and has seen the challenges of operationalising this system and protecting victims of this awful crime, which is what we all want to do.
The world has changed. Since the Modern Slavery Act was passed, patterns of migration have shifted dramatically. The system that we built, for very good reasons, over a decade ago is now being stretched, and in some cases exploited in ways Parliament never intended. In particular, I can find no reference in the original debates that we intended to create a welfare and support system for victims of crime from all over the world, rather than for our own citizens who have been trafficked and abused. Yet that is exactly what is happening now.
In 2024, for the first time, 44% of referrals to the NRM reported exploitation overseas, overtaking those claiming exploitation within the UK, at 43%. This concern is shared across Parliament. I quote the Home Secretary who said, in response to the egregious situation that we saw connected to the one-in, one-out asylum-seeking individual who claimed that he was a victim of trafficking in France, that some asylum seekers were making “vexatious, last-minute claims” of being victims of modern slavery to block removal. The Home Secretary and the Government can simply use the measures already on the statute book. That is the fastest way to tackle this, if they can perhaps get over the “not invented here” objection.
When we have these debates, those who do the important work of supporting victims will claim and state, rightly, that it is impossible to provide definitive evidence that the system is being abused. I agree with that, which is why I have tabled amendments later on to address that point. But, whether we like it or not, there is a significant interaction between illegal arrivals and referrals into the NRM. Just this quarter, we have seen the highest number of referrals since the start of the NRM in 2009. The people who are being referred now are non-UK nationals: the largest groups being referred are Albanians, followed by Vietnamese. For context, in 2014, the entire system handled fewer than 2,500 referrals, yet last year it handled nearly 2,500 referrals just from Albania. This surge has placed immense strain on the system and on public confidence, and of course also on taxpayers and on the public purse, because the Government have committed to spending £379 million over five years on the modern slavery support system.
In the Lords debates on these clauses of the Illegal Migration Act that my amendment seeks to retain, my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, speaking for the then Government, said:
“It is a central tenet of the Bill that a person who satisfies the conditions in Clause 2 will not have their asylum, human rights or modern slavery claims considered in the United Kingdom. It is a sad but incontrovertible fact that our modern slavery protections are susceptible to abuse by illegal migrants seeking to frustrate their removal from the United Kingdom. Whereas in 2019 just 6% of people arriving in the UK on a small boat and detained for return involved a modern slavery referral, the figure in 2021 was 73%”.”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1784.]
Britain can be both compassionate and firm, but it cannot be naive. I follow my noble friend Lord Harper in asking this House to be honest that people will seek to lie about their experiences, especially when the incentives are so strong and the evidence threshold necessarily very low. These amendments would protect those exploited while removing incentives for illegal entry.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend and the three amendments that she has in her name, Amendments 29, 69 and 79B.
Amendment 29 seeks to repeal Section 29 of Illegal Migration Act and to remove individuals who have sought to use modern slavery protections in “bad faith”. We have heard clear warnings that Section 29 represents a dangerous expansion of the public order disqualifications originally introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Crucially, Section 29 transforms the disqualification of potential and confirmed victims of trafficking and modern slavery from a discretionary power to a mandatory duty—unless compelling circumstances exist. This mandatory disqualification extends to non-British nationals sentenced to imprisonment of any length for a crime of any seriousness. This blanket approach fails to consider that victims of modern slavery are frequently coerced by their traffickers into committing criminal offences. By lowering the threshold so severely and making disqualification mandatory, there is an increased risk that vulnerable survivors will be denied protection, denied a recovery period and ultimately be removed from the United Kingdom, potentially exposing them to re-trafficking or retribution. The International Organization for Migration has explicitly called for the repeal of this section.
The Government argued in Committee that Section 29 needs to be retained for its potential “operational benefit” and to allow flexibility in reforming the national referral mechanism. While reviewing the national referral mechanism is vital, retaining a measure that institutionalises the potential criminalisation of victims is fundamentally unjust and unnecessary. Section 29 seriously undermines our commitment to tackling modern slavery. We must uphold our duty to protect the exploited.
Amendment 69 would introduce a new clause to strengthen protection for victims of slavery or human trafficking by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015. This amendment seeks to establish crucial firewall arrangements. Its intention is to safeguard vulnerable individuals by preventing public authorities, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, sharing information with immigration authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence. That firewall is critical for many people to report on what is happening to them.
We must ensure that these victims feel safe seeking help and engaging with the national referral mechanism process. Without a robust firewall, a victim coerced into illegal entry might fear that disclosing their history of exploitation to obtain assistance will simultaneously expose them to immediate prosecution and removal. It is chicken and egg, egg and chicken. This is an unacceptable dilemma for them to face.
Amendment 69 seeks to weaken the grip of traffickers and enable victims to come forward and seek justice. By implementing this firewall, we align safeguarding duties with our enforcement aims, preventing information provided for protection purposes being weaponised against the victim by the state.
Amendment 79B seeks to address a fundamental vulnerability in our system: the inherent conflict faced by a victim of labour abuse who is simultaneously subject to immigration controls. This secure reporting clause is designed to prevent information disclosed by a victim or a witness of labour abuse being used for a purpose within Section 40(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007, which of course is the gateway for immigration and nationality purposes.
This firewall is desperately needed because exploitative employers rely on the fear of their workers that authorities will prioritise issues around their immigration status over the abuse that they have faced. Unscrupulous employers use threats about illegality, detention and removal as a method of control and coercion. This turns the state’s immigration framework into a tool of the exploiter—Amendment 79B would combat this.
These Benches also oppose Amendments 29A and 31A, which are a reversal of the modern slavery safeguards that appeared in the Illegal Migration Act. Sections 22 to 28 of the Illegal Migration Act removed protections for victims of modern slavery who had arrived in the country without a valid visa. The current Bill includes the repeal of those sections, a step that is widely welcomed, because these positions could have been catastrophic for survivors. Therefore, we support the Government in proceeding with these amendments and in removing those sections from the Illegal Migration Act. Section 29, as proposed here, is dangerous because it expands the scope of public order disqualifications and makes them mandatory. This measure mandates disqualification for potential victims of modern slavery unless there are compelling circumstances, even if they have been convicted of an offence of any length.
In conclusion, we support the Government in their intention of removing those sections in the Illegal Migration Act and press them on a way in which the firewall of which we have spoken earlier can be protected.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, efforts to tackle modern slavery are indeed a noble and important cause—we all agree on that—but, as my noble friend Lord Harper said in Committee, there is a balance to be struck.
My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch has made many of the points I would have made, and I will not repeat those arguments, particularly on Report. Suffice to say, however, that protections which were initially intended to protect victims of modern slavery have now become loopholes that are being exploited by those with no right to be here, and whose claims are too often totally spurious. It does our country no good. It does not build public faith in the immigration and asylum systems when illegal migrants abuse modern slavery protections to circumvent their own legitimate deportation.
To that end, my noble friend Lady Maclean is right to highlight that the Government have a number of legislative tools at their disposal. It is unfortunate that they are seeking to repeal those powers, and even more unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats wish to remove those others that the Government intend to retain.
We take particular issue with Amendment 69. When it comes to tackling the border crisis, surely there cannot ever be enough information sharing. The noble Baroness’s amendment would prohibit public authorities mentioned in it sharing information regarding a suspected victim of modern slavery. We fear this may only encourage more people to make spurious claims in a last-ditch attempt to halt removal from the United Kingdom.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for this series of amendments. Having served as the lead shadow spokesperson for the Labour Party in the other place on the Modern Slavery Bill in 2015, I can say that we continue to be steadfast in government in our commitment to tackling modern slavery in all its forms and to supporting survivors.
Amendment 29, from the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered on a case-by-case basis for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public order grounds. I argue that Section 29 needs to be retained in its current form so that it can be considered for future commencement alongside potentially wider reforms as part of the Government’s commitment to work with partners on the long-term reform of the national referral mechanism. I will come back to that point when I discuss Amendment 69.
Amendments 29A and 31A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, seek to retain further modern slavery sections from the Illegal Migration Act and for those sections to be commenced on the day this Act is passed. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord German, has mentioned, the Government have been clear that we are repealing those sections because we have committed to ending the migration and economic partnership with Rwanda, which we did not feel served a useful purpose. The Government are going to retain only the measures in the Illegal Migration Act that are assessed to provide operational benefit in delivering long-term, credible policies to restore order to the immigration and asylum system. I am afraid that Amendments 29A and 31A, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord German, has mentioned, are not ones that we can accept today. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for her contribution and for raising those issues.
Amendment 69, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, seeks to prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, from His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench, made valid points on the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German.
On restricting information shared in respect of modern slavery identification, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides certain public bodies in England and Wales with the statutory duty to notify the Secretary of State when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking. This information provides that notification enables the UK to fulfil its obligations to identify and support victims. The duty to notify is discharged for adults by making a referral into the national referral mechanism for consenting adults, or by completing an anonymous entry on digital systems where the adult does not consent. The information provided is used to build a better picture of modern slavery in England and Wales and to help improve law enforcement responses. It does not include—this is the key point—information that identifies the person, unless the person consents to the inclusion of that information. It should be noted that child victims do not need to consent to enter the national referral mechanism. As such, the national referral mechanism referral discharges the duty to notify.
This is another key point. If a person is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery or trafficking, they are currently eligible for a recovery period during which they are protected from removal from the UK if they are a foreign national and are eligible for support, unless disqualified on grounds of public order or bad faith. Imposing restrictions on the information provided to identify and support victims of modern slavery would be to the detriment of our obligations to those vulnerable people and, I suggest, to our duty to protect UK borders and protect the public.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister, who is an expert on the Modern Slavery Act, as are the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German. I am not. Can the Minister explain, as I still have not quite got it, why it is right that, if Section 29 survives from the Illegal Migration Act 2023, a known victim of modern slavery, if convicted of a crime, loses all the protections that he or she has had as a victim of modern slavery and is to be deported? The opposition argument against Amendment 29 seemed to be that it would create spurious claims of modern slavery. I follow that argument to a degree, but what about the person who has an established claim under modern slavery legislation and is entitled to asylum here but, if Section 29 survives, will be deported? Have I understood it correctly?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for calling me an expert on modern slavery matters. I dealt with the Bill 10 years ago, and a lot of swimming around the goldfish bowl has been undertaken since then. We should recognise the importance of that Act in establishing basic criteria, which the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, brought forward, and which I, as the then shadow Minister, supported and tried to stretch even further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, continues to remind me.
The key thing about the point made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is what I referred to in opening: a case-by-case basis. The Act, if commenced, would amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for deportation, but on a case-by-case basis for disqualification from the modern slavery protections on public order grounds. It is important that we do not have a blanket dismissal but do have the potential for the national referral mechanism, the Home Secretary and others to look at these matters on a case-by-case basis.
I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He shakes his head to say that it does not, but sometimes I cannot satisfy every Member of this House. I say to him simply that the case-by-case basis means that if someone wants to make the case that they should not be covered by this, the opportunity is there for them to do so. I therefore beg that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, with regard to the reporting restrictions, as in two of the amendments in this group, I say again that it is a matter of how those affected perceive the situation, because that affects their behaviour. With regard to Amendment 29, of course, the provision has still not been brought into force. I wish the Home Office had the courage of its convictions and got rid of it.
If we are being told, as I think we are, that the subject of modern slavery, protection for victims and so on may come before us in some new form, and is certainly being considered, that would be the point at which to bring in some of what is in Section 29 if that was thought to be appropriate—some but not all of it, perhaps. I can hope only that it remains not brought into force. I do not think that is a very good way to deal with legislation, but I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 29.
Lord Bach
“Duty to make legal aid available to detained persons(1) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that civil legal services in relation to any of the matters set out in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31A, 32 or 32A of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 are made available to any person who is detained under a relevant detention power within 48 hours of the relevant time.(2) The Lord Chancellor may make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under subsection (1).(3) The duty under subsection (1) is subject to—(a) section 11 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (qualifying for civil legal aid) and any regulations made under that section, and(b) section 21 of that Act (financial resources) and any regulations made under that section.(4) In this section—“civil legal services” has the same meaning as in section 8 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;“relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—(a) paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal),(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation),(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State), or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation);“relevant time” means—(a) the time at which a person is first detained under a relevant detention power, and(b) if a person has been released following detention under a relevant detention power, the time at which they are next detained under a relevant detention power.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available to certain detained persons in relation to immigration matters within 48 hours of their detention.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, it seems appropriate that my Amendment 33 is being debated at the start of Pro Bono Week, given that it is the one amendment which deals with legal aid. At the heart of this amendment is the rule of law and the fundamental right of access to justice. As I was delighted to see in pursuing this amendment in Committee, these values are beyond party politics; they are universally accepted across the House and, I would like to think, across the country.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that people in the custody of the state for immigration reasons are provided effective legal advice and representation within 48 hours of being detained. At a time when we are seeing more accelerated processes—for example, the UK-France treaty—and the growth in the number of people being detained, I argue that this matter is more urgent than ever. Indeed, individuals flagged for deportation under the UK-France agreement must respond to the Home Office’s notice to remove them within seven days. As such, it is surely even more essential that legal advice is provided early and quickly, within 48 hours.
Briefly, I will remind the House of the basic problem of legal aid deserts in immigration. First, 60% of people in England and Wales are unable to access a local immigration legal aid lawyer; and, secondly, 55,000 people are unable to get an immigration legal aid lawyer when they need one. It is both the law and Home Office policy under all Governments that people should be able to receive legal advice before they are removed. There is no suggestion from any Front Bench that this should change. As such, the more effective the provision of legal advice and representation, the more effective the immigration system can become.
I want to develop three points that were raised in Committee. The first is the cost of the amendment; the second—and at the heart of the amendment—is whether the current system for providing legal advice and representation in immigration detention is working; and the third is the cost savings that will flow from improving the availability of legal aid lawyers.
First, in our Committee debate, some Peers, and the Minister himself, questioned the cost of accepting the amendment. I underline that the amendment does not expand the scope of eligibility for legal aid. Anyone who receives legal aid due to this amendment was already entitled to it. This amendment is about improving the speed and quality of that advice, which, frankly, is woeful at present.
We always understood that the amendment was, in effect, cost-neutral to the legal aid budget; it would not increase or decrease legal aid eligibility. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming this understanding in a letter that noble Lords will no doubt have seen, and which has been placed in the House of Lords Library. This is a targeted amendment meant to help the Government fix the most broken part of the legal aid system, which is liable to collapse without some fairly urgent intervention.
Secondly—and, as I say, this is at the heart of the amendment—I want to address whether the current system for providing legal advice and representation in immigration detention is working effectively. I will remind the House of the basic system. There are two schemes for providing legal advice in immigration removal centres and prisons: the detained duty advice scheme, or DDAS, and the telephone legal advice service, or TLAS.
Research going back more than a decade reveals that, since the cuts in 2011 that the House knows about well, there has been a sharp drop in people accessing the schemes I have just mentioned. A survey this year by Bail for Immigration Detainees found that only 27% of respondents held in immigration removal centres had a legal aid solicitor. This contrasts with 75% pre the LASPO Act.
Crucially, this is not because people do not want legal aid and help but because they cannot access it. In my work on this amendment, I was fortunate to speak to many immigration experts and civil society organisations, to whom I owe a great deal for their help in preparing it. These experts and civil society organisations provided many practical examples of the government schemes failing to provide the very basics of access to justice. For example, I was told of a victim of human trafficking who simply stopped hearing from his DDAS lawyer after weeks of working together. He met five other lawyers, none of whom had the capacity to take on the case. It took 15 other referrals by Bail for Immigration Detainees to secure a legal aid lawyer.
Another example is of a case concerning a vulnerable adult at risk, with serious mental health needs, who tried five times to secure a lawyer through DDAS over two months. He could not secure one and had to be supported through a charity outside the scheme. He was later granted bail by the Home Office, perhaps indicating that this was not—as some undoubtedly are—a meritless claim. The House may hear of other egregious examples during this debate.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I enthusiastically support the amendment led by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which I was pleased to co-sign. The noble Lord rightly spoke about the rule of law and the fundamental right of access to justice. He referred to the UK-France deal. I understand that, at Brook House, a large number of people were detained and notices of intent to remove them were served on 25 August this year, with a deadline of 1 September to respond. But no appointments under the detained duty advice scheme were available until at least 2 September—the day after they were supposed to respond.
Previously, on the attempt to remove people to Rwanda, the Inspectorate of Prisons, during its 2022 inspection of Brook House—which of course is an immigration removal centre—noted that one detainee
“understood that he needed to reply to the notice of intent within seven days but described his escalating panic as he could not speak to a lawyer as the window drew to a close”.
The inspectorate said that, in the five cases it looked at, no detainees had replied to the notice within the seven-day window or before the decision to issue removal directions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, astutely argued, this is an “invest to save” amendment. It reminds me of the one I am backing from noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on the right to interpreting and translation services—the noble Lord, Lord Katz, has been kind enough to meet with us—in that there might seem to be an upfront cost, but it will actually make the system work more efficiently and save money. At the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, pointed out, there will be costs to the Ministry of Justice and the courts and tribunal services, with unrepresented parties with longer hearings, more support at appeals, more adjournments, and so on. There will be costs for local authorities, with unresolved asylum claims meaning that they have to provide housing support for longer, et cetera. There is a cost to the NHS, given the mental stress and ill health of people who are not properly supported.
This reminds me very much—I hope noble Lords do not think that I am going down a rabbit hole—of diabetes technology. It might seem absolutely nothing to do with this subject, and it is not, but my late husband was a type 1 diabetic. For a long time, the NHS was very reluctant to supply insulin-dependent people with diabetes with technology such as insulin pumps that enabled much better control of blood glucose. Better control means fewer hypos—hypoglycemic incidents—a severe one of which could require hospitalisation. The problem, as I understand it, is that the cost of the technology is on the GP budget but the cost of the hospital stay is on the hospital budget. There was no overall cost-benefit analysis, and you can see that all around the NHS, of course. Eventually, some bright spark realised that, with diabetes taking up 10% of the NHS budget, it made no sense not to invest in people having much better blood glucose control—but it took a very long time.
There has to be someone who takes a holistic view of all this and sees that you do not actually save money in the longer term by failing to support, in this case, an effective legal aid scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, concluded, an effective legal aid scheme saves money; it makes economic sense.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, of which I too am a signatory. The principle is not controversial; the principle is established, and this really seems to be a matter of organisation, but one that has been as neglected as the somewhat remote but interesting analogy used by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, illustrated with cogency the extra costs to the Ministry of Justice of improving availability of legal aid. There are no extra costs of improving legal aid; there is a net financial saving, as long as the organisation is improved. Indeed, organising the availability of legal aid as required by law would remove not only the expensive delays to individual cases but the controversial delays to them, which in some instances have led to demonstrations—at hotels and other places where significant numbers of asylum seekers are living. I suggest to the Minister that simple adjustments to the system of dealing with asylum cases could make a huge difference to processing that vast cohort of cases, including the required provision of legal aid.
Just so that we see what we are looking at, I suggest that an overwhelming majority of the cases fall into two easily identifiable categories. First, in truth the majority are cases with no or almost no merit, which can be dealt with quickly. Secondly, there are cases with obvious merit that need to be separated from the critical mass early so that they can be dealt with on their undoubted merits.
I have some specific suggestions to make to the Minister—and I am afraid that there are a lot of mnemonics in what I am going to say. I suggest that the asylum intake unit, or AIU, the national asylum allocation unit, or NAAU, and the Home Office Third Country Unit—which, if it has a mnemonic, is HOTCU, or hot queue, which is quite descriptive of what is happening—should all be placed at detention centres or other facilities where applicants are resident in large numbers. The processes could then be completed within days, save in exceptional cases.
When there is a refusal, the appellate tier, the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, could also sit at or near the same premises. That chamber, without undue difficulty, could locate tribunal chairs to near the point of residence or at it, and each applicant’s case could then be considered first as a paper application. That is exactly the process followed in judicial review cases, where paper applications are considered in large numbers by single judges. I know that because I did it for a number of years, as a deputy High Court judge. Through a process like that, using the Legal Aid Agency on-site too, one could deal with these cases in a short time—within days. At the same centres, the Legal Aid Agency, through its civil aid service, could provide officials directly, not necessarily through law firms, if at each centre there were persons trained in immigration and asylum legal aid to consider each case.
Although we have heard that there is a shortage of lawyers to deal with immigration legal aid—and there is—one of the main problems is the absence of a critical mass for lawyers to concentrate in one place. If there is enough work, there will be some lawyers there to do that work; if there are only one or two cases, the lawyers simply will not do it. That is the law of supply and demand, which applies equally to legal services as to any other service. I suggest that if the Government and the department managed these services holistically and efficiently—heaven forfend that they would—these cases could be dealt with and the numbers reduced in half a minute less than no time, to coin a phrase, or certainly within a very short time.
The sense of urgency that this process requires, as I have described, is uncharacteristic of the legal system. As a lifelong professional member of the legal system, I plead guilty to that much. But knowing it as well as some of us in this Chamber do, I believe that the legal system can adapt to speedy processes when the merits require it and there is a right to legal aid, for example. So let us concentrate on dealing with the backlog, giving people legal aid and allowing them legal advice, but doing it promptly while providing a fair system—including, of course, legal aid.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. What I have to say is almost redundant, but I will still emphasise a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, admirably highlighted why the current system needs fixing and the rationale for it. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has given some practical advice on how we could speed up the process. If the amendment were accepted, it would improve the efficacy of the system and access to justice and, in the long run, as we have heard, save money.
It is worth emphasising that this amendment does not seek to extend the scope of the current provision of legal aid; it merely seeks to improve its effectiveness and access. As we have heard, in the light of the UK-France deal, the shortcomings of the scheme are even more evident, because those detained under this deal are facing greater risk of not having legal representation before they are removed. Experience shows that in substantial cases there have been delays of more than seven days in accessing DDAS, thus depriving people of opportunities to receive legal aid. We are very grateful to charities working in this area for providing examples; they have shown the inadequacies of the current system and drawn attention to the delays and the inability of individuals to get timely and proper assistance.
The failures of the scheme are not new; they were evident well before the UK-France deal and were highlighted by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in 2022, during his inspection of the Brook House immigration removal centre. The benefits of this amendment are self-evident, and I strongly urge the Government to accept the amendment and some very critical advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on how to improve the process and organisation of the scheme.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of my noble friend’s amendment. In July I visited Harmondsworth IRC as a member of the APPG on detention. One lesson I learned from that was about the poor quality of legal advice and access to it. I heard from talking to some of the men who were detained and NGOs working there that the failure to provide decent legal advice for the detainees is a systemic issue that needs addressing urgently.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, at the beginning of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that this was Pro Bono Week. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that he has fulfilled his job for this House. I am sure that the Minister will be very grateful for the advice that he has given pro bono and I hope that, if he asks for more, the noble Lord will be willing to give it.
I have learned two things from what has been said so far in this debate. First, we have a crisis of legal aid. No one who has spoken has said that it is all fine and dandy. Secondly, what is available is not working well.
On the first of those, a survey by Bail for Immigration Detainees found that only 42% of people held in IRCs had a lawyer in their immigration case in 2025. That is a steep decline, down from 75% in 2012—some years ago. For those detained in prison, 71% of respondents had not received legal advice under the scheme. The second concern raised is of course about what is provided; that is the 30 minutes, often considered to be of doubtful quality and insufficient. As professionals have argued, immigration law is highly complex: those of us who are working on the Bill will understand that this is a very highly complex area of work. It is unrealistic to believe that a detained person, who may be traumatised, speak little English or have just arrived, can navigate this complex labyrinth of law on their own and without professional assistance.
The amendment is necessary not merely on humanitarian grounds but to protect the integrity of the rule of law itself—first, access to justice, and secondly, practical effectiveness. I do not want to repeat the points about cost, which are obviously going to come up in the response, but it would save taxpayers’ money: invest to save early. That is quite clear from everything that has been said so far. We must be clear also that a failure to provide legal aid can amount to a breach of fundamental rights, particularly under Article 6 of the European convention, so this amendment offers a practical and necessary solution to a systemic failure. It mirrors existing successful arrangements, such as the immigration police station advice scheme, which is used when detained persons are found to have no criminal element in their case. It would simply ensure that an immigration lawyer is allocated to an individual upon entering detention, providing a necessary check against unlawful incarceration and ensuring fair process.
I end with a quote that was given by one of the organisations working in this field:
“Ensuring prompt legal counsel for detained persons is not merely a gesture of goodwill; it is the necessary foundation for a fair judicial process. A system that incarcerates first and allows access to justice later is like starting a race 48 hours behind the starting gun—the individual is severely disadvantaged before they even begin to fight for their rights”.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, in Committee we had a very detailed and well-informed discussion of this amendment in the existing framework of legal aid in the asylum and immigration system—with a House full of eminent lawyers, this was always bound to be the case. On our side, of course we welcome efficiency, and we have looked hard at this amendment, but we are not persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and other noble Lords that the proposals they advance will have the beneficial effect that they seek.
Amendment 33 would ensure that any person detained under a relevant detention power would have access to a raft of legal aid within 48 hours, but to move from the current situation, where a person is given a 30-minute window for free legal advice, to one where there is a 48-hour window in which legal aid can be given, would come with entirely unknown costs. The current system already diverts scarce resources away from those in genuine need: every pound spent on repeat litigation, in particular, is a pound not spent on border security, faster processing or refugee support. We are unable to support Amendment 33.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had, limited though it is, to speak to him outside the Chamber about the motivation for the amendment, which remains unchanged since Committee and would seek to impose a duty to make civil legal aid available to detained persons within 48 hours of them being detained. I note the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Prashar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lady Lister for my noble friend Lord Bach. I cannot go as far, dare I say it, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in his denunciation of my noble friend’s amendment, because I feel it is a point well made, but I assure him and other noble Lords who have spoken that access for justice for those in immigration detention is a priority shared by the Government.
I agree with those who spoke in previous debates on this subject, and indeed today, that provision of legal aid for those seeking protection is important in maintaining an effective asylum system, reducing costs and reducing the asylum backlog. Indeed, it will help to end hotel use and increase returns, because speeding up the asylum process depends on good legal aid, but also depends on the measures that the Government are taking separately, putting extra investment into that area to speed up asylum claims. That is why, as I noted in the previous debate, we have legal aid available for asylum cases and immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse, modern slavery, separated migrant children and those challenging immigration decisions.
As I noted in the previous debate, to additionally support detained individuals, all those in immigration removal centres can access the 30 minutes of free legal advice that has been described today, through the detained duty advice scheme, DDAS. This triage appointment supports people to meet a legal provider who may provide further legal advice, subject to the matter being within the scope of legal aid and the detained person’s eligibility for that legal aid.
Concerns were raised in the previous debate about the take-up of this advice. I can assure noble Lords that all detained individuals arriving at an immigration removal centre are advised of their right to legal representation and how they can obtain such representation. That is done within 24 hours of their arrival as part of their induction. All individuals arriving at an immigration removal centre in England are booked an appointment with a legal representative under the scheme that I have just described, unless they decline to have that appointment. Their appointment will take place as soon as possible after they attend the immigration removal centre, which could be as early as the next working day, but obviously, as noble Lords have mentioned, it may on occasion be longer. We have produced leaflets in 26 languages on the operation of the scheme, and I therefore suggest gently to my noble friend that Amendment 33 would have no material effect on access to justice, as those in the system are entitled to an initial appointment under that long-standing scheme.
In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and I questioned the potential cost of this. I have had the opportunity to look into the costings, and I just clarify that the Government’s position on this is not now related to cost. This has been assessed, and we have looked at it in detail. Were the proposed amendment to be passed, the overall spend on legal aid would be unaffected, so the cost element is not one of the things that we need to look at now, because there is a high likelihood that detained individuals will seek legal aid-funded support regardless of a time limit, and their eligibility for legal aid would be unchanged were a time limit to be introduced. The concern and discussion around the amendment is based on the consideration that existing arrangements already enable detained individuals to seek an initial appointment, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.
I reiterate to all Members the vital role that legal aid plays, both in mainstreaming and maintaining an effective immigration and asylum system, and ensuring that the most vulnerable, such as victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, can navigate the complex legal system. As my noble friend mentioned and knows, we have taken important action to support the provision of immigration and asylum legal aid. The Government have confirmed uplifts to immigration and asylum legal aid fees, which is a significant investment and the first since 1996. The Government are also funding the costs of accreditation for immigration and asylum caseworkers, providing £1.4 million in 2024 and a further £1.7 million this year.
I want to continue to work with my noble friend Lord Bach and with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to look at how we can improve the efficiency of this system still further. I am happy to meet them to look at the suggestions that were made today. Those made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are hot off the press this evening and worthy of examination. I am happy to reflect on those and to work with my noble friend Lord Bach. I suggest to him that the amendment does not add to what we currently offer and therefore I ask him to withdraw it, with the assurance that we will look at the issues that both he and other noble Lords have raised in this debate.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and for what he kindly offered at the end. I particularly want to thank all those who have spoken in support of this amendment. I hope the House will accept that they carry with them a huge amount of experience in this area and should be listened to with great care.
I am afraid there is a legion of examples where the system is not working as well as the Minister suggested it was from the information he has received. The classic example is the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned, which refers to the first group of asylum seekers to be detained under the treaty with France. That is not a treaty I object to—in policy terms, I agree with it—but in this particular case, they were allowed seven days to make their response and representations. A seven-day notice was served on them. Presumably, they were entitled, as anyone else in their position, to the 30 minutes of free advice. However, it seems not one of those men received any legal advice in the seven-day period. Two were apparently—I emphasise “apparently”—informed that they could not have legal advice, and only two days after the seven-day period had run out was the serious error put right with an additional advice shift.
As I say, this is not an attack on the treaty or what it is trying to do. It is an attack, if I may use that phrase, on the system that allows this to happen. The speeches that were made in support, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, should make the Government think carefully about whether this system is working as well on the ground as they think it is. I hope all the government departments involved—namely, the Home Office and particularly the Ministry of Justice—will look at the system, see how it is working, keep an open mind and make changes for the better in due course.
In the meantime, I am most grateful to the Minister for his offer of a meeting after this debate is over. I will certainly take that up and I hope others will as well. I never had any intention of calling a Division on this issue. The idea behind it was to try to persuade the Government that there is a real problem here. I hope that we have managed to do that in this debate. I seek permission to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Offences and deportation(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsection (2) and (3).(2) For section 3(6) substitute—“(6) Where a person to whom this subsection applies is convicted of an offence, the court must sentence the person to deportation from the United Kingdom.(6ZA) Subsection (6) applies to a person who—(a) is not a British citizen, and(b) who is over the age of seventeen.”(3) In section 24—(a) for subsection (F1) substitute—“(F1) A person who commits an offence under any of subsections (A1) to (E1) is liable on conviction on indictment to removal from the United Kingdom.”,(b) after subsection (F1) insert—“(F2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the deportation of any person convicted of an offence under subsections (A1) to (E1).”, and(c) in subsections (A1), (B1), (C1), (D1), (E1) and (1) omit instances of “knowingly”.(4) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (7).(5) In section 32—(a) in subsection (1)(a), at the end insert “and”;(b) in subsection (1)(b) for "and” substitute “or”;(c) for subsection (1)(c) substitute—“(c) who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971”; and(d) omit subsections (2) and (3).(6) In section 33, omit subsections (2), (3) and (6A).(7) In section 38—(a) omit subsection (1),(b) in subsection (2)(a) for “does not include” substitute “includes”, and(c) in subsection (4) omit paragraphs (b) and (d).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the deportation of any foreign national who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, almost daily we are subjected to ever more horrific stories of foreign nationals committing horrendous crimes in this country, who are all too often permitted to stay in the United Kingdom. Fahad Al Enaze, an asylum seeker from Kuwait being housed in a hotel in Liverpool, sent sexual messages to a person he believed to be a 14 year-old girl. He was sentenced to eight months in jail, but the sentence was suspended for 24 months. Consequently, he will be spared jail time and, under the current law, he will not be subject to automatic deportation.
Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 as it stands permits the automatic deportation of a person sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment or who is convicted of an offence which is specified in an order made under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The individual just cited was convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, which is an offence under Section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but is not specified under Section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Since he was convicted of an offence that is not specified and was not sentenced to more than 12 months in prison, he will not be automatically deported. This is obviously wrong. This is a man seeking to obtain asylum status in the UK who is being housed at the taxpayers’ expense. He is a convicted paedophile and yet the law will permit him to stay. There are many more examples of this and it cannot be right. We cannot claim to be protecting the British public when we permit people like this to remain in the country.
The amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough would change that. Amendment 34 would ensure that, where any foreign national is convicted of an offence, regardless of the sentence, they will be deported. The amendment does this through two avenues. First, it proposes an alteration to Sections 3 and 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Proposed new subsection (2) in my amendment would change the current discretion in Section 3 for a court to recommend deportation where a person over the age of 17 is convicted of an offence to make that recommendation mandatory. The change to Section 24 would ensure that, where a person commits the offence of entering the UK illegally, they will be liable to deportation and the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangement for that person’s removal.
Secondly, my amendment would amend Sections 32, 33 and 38 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to remove the condition that a person must be sentenced to a custodial sentence of at least 12 months to be eligible for automatic deportation. Government figures show that 12% of the current prison population are foreign-national offenders—that is nearly 11,000 people. Not only this, but a further 19,500 foreign-national offenders have been released from jail but not deported. We know that this Government have released almost 40,000 prisoners before the end of their sentences. Their Sentencing Bill, which introduces the presumption that any sentence shorter than 12 months will be suspended, will mean that another 40,000 people will avoid jail every year. The Government claim this is necessary due to prison capacity. Of course, if the Government were to adopt our proposals to remove all foreign-national offenders from UK prisons and deport them, and ensure that any foreign national convicted of a criminal offence was also swiftly deported, we would have thousands of spare prison spaces.
The British public does not want foreign nationals who commit criminal offences to remain in the United Kingdom. A poll from March this year found that over 80% of people want them deported. Unfortunately, under the law as it stands, this will not happen. Even after the Government bring in changes to the early removal scheme via Clause 32 of the Sentencing Bill, a significant proportion of foreign criminals will not be deported, and that is to say nothing of those foreign-national offenders who have served sentences and then been released. Amendment 72 tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson would ensure that they were given a deportation order within seven days of their release from prison. When the time comes, if my noble friend decides to test the opinion of the House, he will have my full support.
Where this Government have acted, we will support them. They have increased the rates of removal for foreign-national offenders, and that is welcome, but it is not enough. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 72 in my name and emphatically support Amendment 34 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench.
The amendment seeks to enshrine in law the responsibility of and duty on the Government to remove from this country those who do not have the automatic right to be here and who have committed a serious enough offence to have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. If you come to this country and make it your home, you must understand that if you break the law, there are consequences. The amendment would apply to those who have committed crimes serious enough that they present a risk to the security and public safety of the British people.
The increase in the number of foreign national offenders between 2021 and 2024 was three times greater than that of British nationals, at 19.4% compared to 5.9%. In 2024, there were 20,866 non-summary convictions, of which violence and sexual offences by foreign national offenders amounted to 14,016 crimes, or 67% of offences, and a quarter of jailed sex offenders come from just five countries. We also have over 11,000 foreign national offenders housed in our prison estate, as my noble friend said. Albanians take up over 1,000 prison places. To my knowledge, they have been part of neither the British Empire nor the Commonwealth and have never been citizens of the European Union. Therefore, why is this the case and what are Ministers doing about it?
At the same time, the number of foreign national offenders released and not deported rose to 19,244 by the end of 2024. One of the reasons for this is the backlog of legal cases by those who have challenged deportation. The Government need to take strong action to clear this backlog and remove new offenders who present themselves.
This Government can blame only themselves, in all honesty, for this crisis, for which they have no solutions. Their cultural cringe to the European Court of Human Rights and their activist so-called jurists have facilitated the abuse of the central tenets of human rights and obligations by our own activist judiciary, as well as by some rapacious and cynical human rights lawyers.
The necessity of this amendment—the imperative of placing such a duty on a statutory footing—has been shown by recent events. A foreign offender who was imprisoned for sexual assault was accidentally released and then deported only after he was recaptured. He was then paid £500 so that he would not try to challenge his deportation. He was given taxpayers’ money in case he tried to claim asylum. The Government should not be in a situation where officials must decide that the paying of foreign offenders to leave nicely without causing a disturbance is the only way forward. That is not the best course of action. An individual who has been convicted and has served time for sexual assault should not have the ability to hold our immigration system to ransom.
On a wider question, could the Minister advise the House on the progress made in the returns deal with the Balkan states, and the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which my noble friend Lord Harper challenged him on two months ago, on 8 September? On that date, the Minister stated:
“We will simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders and take further targeted action against recent arrivals who commit crime in the UK before their offending can escalate … Later this year … we will table legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1164.]
I ask the Minister, when are we likely to see this new legislation?
I concede that the Government have moved in a positive direction. Around 5,100 foreign national offenders were deported in 2024, which, to their credit, is more than the just under 4,000 deported under the previous Government. That said, a large number chose to leave voluntarily.
I spoke in Committee about a
“chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1157.]
That mismanagement has now been brought to public attention. In the 12 months leading to March 2025, 262 prisoners were released by mistake, a 128% increase compared to the previous year. A criminal justice system as dysfunctional as ours, as error prone as this, needs clarity brought to it where possible, and that is what this amendment brings.
I agree that my own party’s record was suboptimal, but this Government have had 16 months to develop—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
That is being polite. They have had 16 months to develop a workable strategy, yet the one-in, one-out strategy is an embarrassment and an international joke. Plans to spend vast sums of money on asylum hostels and houses in multiple occupation continue, and we are welcoming Gazans and their families without any proper security vetting or due diligence.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support very strongly Amendments 34 and 72. I imagine that if the public are watching this, this is the first amendment this afternoon for which there is wholehearted support. This is just common sense. Personally, I would like anyone who is not a British citizen—a foreign national—who has been sentenced to prison to be deported as soon as they are sentenced, but I accept that this may be going a little too far for noble Lords. At least when they have served their sentence, they should be deported.
I will raise a couple of very quick points about the concern in Northern Ireland which the Minister will know about. The other three recent Bills on this issue—the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the soon to be defunct legacy Act—were all ruled by the courts in Northern Ireland as unworkable in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to be very clear that this is meant to be a Bill for the United Kingdom.
Because of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which includes commitments that Northern Ireland will keep pace with certain EU rights, it is absolutely clear to me—and I hope to the Minister—that if the EU law says something different from our national law, EU law applies on these kinds of issues. Therefore, there could be two categories of people in Northern Ireland courts. It seems beyond doubt that convicted foreign criminals who are EU citizens will have the additional protection of the EU citizens’ rights directive. Those who are not EU citizens will still have enhanced protection from deportation under the Windsor Framework. This means that Northern Ireland could become a real magnet for foreign criminals.
The current Government have appealed a court ruling on this issue, which is very important, and we hope to get that result from the Supreme Court very soon. When this Bill goes through, we cannot end up with part of the United Kingdom not being able to deport foreign nationals in the same way.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I will raise two points. I very much support someone who has an order of deportation being removed, as I suspect the whole House does. However, Amendment 34 is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, suggested, for somebody who has a prison sentence; it applies to anyone who has been convicted of an offence. Does that mean that if somebody is convicted of careless driving, they are actually to be deported? On reading Amendment 34(2), that is exactly what it appears to mean. That seems to me a trifle extreme.
Secondly, although I recognise that deportation to a safe country that is prepared to take the person back is one thing, where, I wonder, does the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, intend that people who have come from unsafe countries should go to? What concerns me is that when someone from Afghanistan, Syria at the moment, Darfur or Iran, commits an offence, it is unlikely that they could be sent back there. Therefore, where, according to the wording of this amendment, should these people go?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, would the noble and learned Baroness agree that it could also be described as extreme that, as per Amendment 72, a deportation order would not be subject to appeal under the two Acts cited, or any other enactment, and that:
“A deportation order made under this section is final and not liable to be set aside in any court”?
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I support both these amendments. It is sensible that we set a presumption that those who are here effectively as our guests have to follow the rules. Insisting that they be deported if they commit crimes strikes me as very sensible. Putting it in statute is important. We have done this before in the past, when we were having problems with courts interpreting very broadly some of the human rights legislation around people’s right to a family life. We made some clear rules and put them in primary legislation in the Immigration Act 2014, and that largely—not entirely—dealt with those problems. There was a rule in there that if you were given a prison sentence of a certain length, you had to be deported. This is a logical extension of that. It would strengthen the Government’s hand in a number of the cases that my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Cameron set out, where Ministers sound as frustrated as the rest of us that they are not able to deport people, or, if they are, only after a very lengthy legal process.
To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about challenging the deportation, my noble friend’s amendment is drafted as such because the person concerned would have had the opportunity under the criminal law to challenge his sentence if there was some issue with the legal case, but, having been convicted of the criminal offence concerned, it should follow that they are then deported. You should not get a second bite of the cherry to have, in effect, another appeal when you have already had the chance to appeal against the sentence in the first place.
The other benefit of these amendments is that, although initially they would indeed be challenging for the Government for the reasons that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out, including around where you can send people back to, the proposal would force the Government to do two things. First, it would force them to engage with some of the countries where returning people is more challenging. You can do that by sending people back before they finish serving their sentence—you have a prisoner transfer agreement, where they can go back to their home country and continue serving the sentence in that country, before their release from prison. That is the preferable outcome, where they still have a measure of justice.
The second thing the proposal would do is force the Government to confront the cases that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out. I accept that they are challenging, but it cannot be right that, because somebody is from a certain country, they can come to the United Kingdom, commit any level of criminality and, once they have finished their prison sentence, we cannot get rid of them.
We should force the Government to confront two tests. The first is to ask whether someone who comes from a country that we do not deem safe should forfeit the right to not be sent back to it by their conduct.
Lord Harper (Con)
I will address the second test after I have given way to the noble and learned Baroness.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
What about careless driving? The noble Lord is dealing with people who have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, but the wording of this amendment would include careless driving.
Lord Harper (Con)
I suggest that careless driving is not a trivial offence. When I was Immigration Minister, I dealt with a father who had lost his child because of someone’s poor driving. We were struggling to remove that person from the country for a similar reason to that which the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, set out: they were an EU national, and there was a stricter test about whether you could remove them. I have to say that that father who had lost his child thought that that driving offence was really serious, so I would not trivialise it at all.
The second test is that, if we cannot deport someone to the country from which they came, we should look at whether there is an opportunity, as we set out in our Rwanda policies, to deport them to another safe country. It is very clear that the British people do not want serious criminals who have come to this country staying here. We can have a debate about the detail of this, but the principle is very clear. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will address the principle of whether he thinks that people in the circumstances set out by my two noble friends should be able to stay here.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I want to follow the argument that the noble and learned Baroness tried to raise. Looking at the wording, I am afraid that the process would still be very long. The proposed new clause in Amendment 34 states:
“Where a person to whom this subsection applies is convicted of an offence, the court must sentence the person to deportation from the United Kingdom”.
Let us say that this person has committed grievous bodily harm and has been tried, and the jury say that he is guilty and so he is found guilty of the crime that is committed. The noble Lord is saying that, immediately, that same court must sentence this person to deportation. But the person who has been convicted in this country has a right of appeal. They may challenge the way the jury was selected, the way everything happened and the sentence itself, saying that being sent back to the very dangerous place that they left is condemning them to death. Should the process of appeal still happen, what the noble Lord is saying would not happen immediately.
Lord Harper (Con)
That was quite a lengthy intervention, with a number of points. The case raised by the noble and right reverend Lord about a country that we would normally deem not safe is a perfectly reasonable one. But, as I said, my challenge back is this. Is there any offence that people who come from certain countries to which we would not normally return them can commit that is of a level of seriousness that we think should make them immune to being sent back to that country? I believe that there are certain offences that people commit for which it is reasonable that they forfeit the right to stay in the United Kingdom. That is a perfectly reasonable case.
It may be that the wording in these amendments is not entirely perfect, but the argument that we are having is whether, if you come to this country and you commit a serious sexual offence, for example—as in my noble friend’s example—or you murder or rape somebody, you should be able to stay here for ever because the country from which you came is not ideal and we would not normally send you back to it. That is a debate worth having. I think the general public would take a much more robust position in those cases than many Members of your Lordships’ House would feel comfortable with.
Finally, I challenge the Minister, as my noble friend Lord Jackson did, having got in before me, to respond to the points in the debate we had earlier about what the Government will do to bring forward amendments or changes to how they interpret human rights legislation to give them a better chance—I am assuming the Government will not accept these amendments—of removing people who we know the Government would like to get rid of. In the case that my noble friend Lord Jackson set out, it sounded to me as though Ministers were very frustrated—as frustrated as he is. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I could be accused of being extreme on these issues, and therefore I want to apply a very serious matter here. This is an issue that most disturbs people in Britain. There are those of us who are determined to protect a multiracial society, who strongly believe in people living with each other and who are proud to have their grandchildren educated with a wide range of different backgrounds in schools that care about that. We are very concerned when we do not deport people who have been guilty of offences, because it is felt by the majority of people in Britain not to be sensible to keep in this country people who have committed offences.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to something that has always puzzled me. Article 8 has two paragraphs. The first is about
“the right to … private and family life”.
The second states that you can ignore that if it is
“in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
I do not see the problem with inserting something such as that into the Bill, whereby we can remove people if they breach that. That is part of Article 8, which is not at all about an unqualified right to a family life.
On the point about “careless driving”, that term is used if you have made a bit of a mistake, whereas “dangerous driving” really is a dangerous offence. I can see how that would qualify, but I am not so sure about careless driving—it depends on the circumstances.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate, and I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson. This is the type of debate that we need to have in this Chamber. These are wide moral issues that go to the heart of what we do with our justice system.
Something that has been forgotten in the debate is that the purpose of some measures—which have been described by some as extreme and, somehow, a little too far reaching—is to have a deterrent effect. We sometimes forget that that is the purpose of some law. It is not about having something in place so that, after an event has happened, we can do something that is proportionate to the person who did it; it should be about the knowledge of the wider public, whether that is our standing population or those who are living among us and seeking refugee status, that there are normalities and reasonable behaviours expected of us all. If we have what some describe as extreme measures on our statute book, they could perhaps facilitate better behaviour. I do not think we should be frightened of this.
We need to have a wider debate and for the Government to open up more countries to be deemed acceptable and safe. We hear that our European neighbour countries are taking a rather different view of what is deemed a safe country, including Afghanistan, from ours in this country. I do not think that their human rights industry has quite got to the advanced state that we have in the UK. We have an opportunity here for the British public to realise that these Houses of Parliament are listening to them and their concerns, so I welcome this wider debate. If we do not adopt these amendments today, the Government should take on board how they can move towards the position of the wider public.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is entirely positive that we can say, “Let’s look at the wording of this”; we might have some qualms about whether we need to reword it to avoid unintended consequences—that is fine. The noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, made a good point: this is a very important moral debate. It is one that more and more people in the country are frustrated that Parliament is not having, so it is positive that we are doing so today.
I will emphasise three things. First, we often consider what will happen to the safety of people if we deport them to countries that we deem unsafe. But the key question is actually: what about the safety of British citizens? They get forgotten in that whole discussion. We end up with this ridiculous situation where we say, “Oh, I’m really worried about this person who has committed a serious sex crime. If they are returned to their country, they might be thrown into some terribly unsafe prison. They might be beaten up or killed for the fact that they’re a sex criminal. We’ve got to save them”. We say that rather than emphasise the victims of that person. That is why people get frustrated about the topsy-turvy nature of this.
Secondly, until we legislate on this, the British public could rightly say that the Government have no control over a decision, which they want to make, to deport foreign nationals who commit crimes in this country. That is entirely appropriate for legislation, even if we need to work out the wording so that it is proportionate.
Finally, we are about to start the Sentencing Bill, which I am very interested in. The state of prisons is incredibly depressing at the moment. In fact, while we are talking about unsafe places, I do not know that going to prison here is safe for anyone. They are overcrowded and there are serious problems with our prison system. It is unexplainable that we would have people in that prison system, taking spaces that we just do not have, when we should, by right, be able to say that they do not deserve to be in this country. They broke the social contract after they were given an opportunity to be here. Sometimes they are illegal—that is different—but if they are given the right to remain, and then they murder, rape or steal from their fellow citizens, they have broken the basis on which we trusted them to stay. That is reasonable to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a good point: this is not an extreme position but a normal, commonsensical position. Based on everything I have heard from the Government, I think they agree with that. If they do, they need to legislate accordingly, which is what these amendments are trying to do.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I think it will be no surprise to Members of the Conservative Party that we oppose Amendments 34 and 72. It is quite interesting that, once the rat had been let out of the sack that the amendment was not capable of being put to the House, of course, this debate turned into a Second Reading debate about other issues on the way we should be talking about this matter. I will turn to that in a moment, but let us just take these amendments at face value as they are written, because that is what the Report stage of a Bill is about: reporting about amendments which we are discussing, not about raising other issues which should have been raised at Second Reading way back in the beginning.
These amendments embody an approach of absolute and mandatory deportation that sacrifices judicial discretion and proportionality in favour of unworkable rigidity, thereby undermining fundamental legal safeguards and international obligations. Amendment 34 proposes a sweeping new deportation regime. The explanatory material states:
“This new clause would require the deportation of any foreign national who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom”.
Further, it seeks to amend the Immigration Act 1971 by requiring a court to sentence a non-British citizen over the age of 17 convicted of “an offence” to deportation from the United Kingdom. You might call this the “Mars bar” scheme, whereby anybody who steals a Mars bar will be deported, or, perhaps, if that was not serious enough, you may have to steal a multi-pack of Mars bars rather than a single one.
We must oppose this proposal on multiple grounds. First, there is a lack of proportionality and balance. The amendment would introduce an obligation to make a deportation order with no exceptions and no discretion. Such an absolute provision ignores the circumstances of the offence, mitigating factors or the length of time a person may have lawfully been in this country. It comes to something when a noble Lord prays in aid the ECHR to support us against an amendment from the Conservative Party. That is an extremely interesting way forward.
Secondly, on risk of torture and human rights breach, this obligation to deport would apply even if removal would send the person concerned to a country where they would face torture or even, in some countries, where they have capital punishment. The proposal is unworkable and contrary to our international obligations.
Thirdly, on vulnerability in modern slavery, Amendment 34 would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking. For example, a small child who arrived in the UK, committed a crime, was sentenced to prison and was subsequently found to be a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of forced criminality would be subject to automatic removal without any court or tribunal mechanism to consider the circumstances of their case.
Fourthly, on eroding criminal safeguards, Amendment 34 seeks to amend Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 by omitting instances of “knowingly” from certain immigration offences. Removing this element of mens rea—a lack of knowledge as a defence—will likely result in consequential deportation decisions being subject to more challenges under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Amendment 72 would place a duty to remove foreign offenders on the Secretary of State. It mandates that a deportation order must be made against any non-British citizen who
“has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment”—
this is different in this amendment—and “has completed their term”. Crucially, it dictates that:
“The Secretary of State must make the deportation order … within the period of seven days”.
This amendment falls foul of some of the critical flaws in Amendment 34—first, in terms of an unworkable timeline and mandatory duty. Placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to execute a deportation order within a rigid seven-day period against any person sentenced to imprisonment disregards the complex process required for removal, particularly when a human rights for protection claim is lodged.
Secondly, there is an absence of scrutiny and due process. Such an absolute obligation removes necessary judicial oversight and requires deportation without considering the individual’s human rights. The objective of mandating deportation in this manner risks encouraging offending behaviour and would not necessarily increase removals from the UK.
Thirdly, the amendment conflicts with legal principles. In mandating deportation for any offence, conviction without exception, it ignores the fact that deportation orders can be made against those who are victims of coercion or human trafficking. To support these kinds of absolutist amendments, especially in the context of deportation, is incredibly difficult for anyone who believes in the rule of law and due process.
We must remain resolute in our commitment to deport those who abuse our hospitality by committing crimes in the UK, but the paths produced and proposed by Amendments 34 and 72 substitute effective, balanced legislation with measures of legal absolutism. We must empower the Government to act decisively, but we must do so in a way that respects fundamental rights, due process and proportionality. These amendments fail all those critical tests.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for tabling the amendments, because they have, self-evidently, generated a good discussion on some important principles. For the avoidance of any doubt, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Lord Harper, that the Government will oppose these amendments tonight, but that does not mean that they will oppose the principle of deporting foreign national offenders.
I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his measured approach to this issue—I often find myself agreeing with him now, which is contrary to what I did during the whole of the 1980s. I will take that back as a potential area of support, and I appreciate his reasoned approach to this issue, because he is right; it is important that the British people know that the Government will take action on these issues, that there is fairness on these issues and that this Government are not going to tolerate foreign national offenders committing offences in this country. That is why, and I say it to all noble Lords who have spoken today, in the period between the July of the general election in 2024 and July of this year, the Government have increased the number of foreign national deportations by some 14% over the previous year under the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, shakes his head. The Government have increased the deportation of foreign national offenders during this year. The noble Lord referenced the previous Conservative Government. In the past year, from July to July, 5,200 foreign national criminals were removed. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that is why we are trying to meet the objectives that he has set. It is important that individuals in the country know that.
Amendment 34 would seek to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of “an offence”—I take the point mentioned by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—committed in the UK without consideration of their human rights. Amendment 72 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation. Both those issues remove protections for under-18s and for victims of human trafficking in the face of the UK Borders Act 2007. It would also require a court to pass a sentence of deportation on any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord German, on that were extremely important.
Just to back up what I have said with regard to the performance on removal of foreign national offenders, noble Lords have made some important points about how we need to put in place prisoner transfer agreements. When a Minister of Justice, I spent part of 2009 negotiating such an agreement with the Nigerian authorities. It is important that we continue to do that and continue to work with our partners, but no one is going to reach a prisoner transfer agreement if we ignore human rights issues under our international obligations. Nobody is going to sign one of those with this country if we are ignoring our human rights obligations as a whole.
What are the Government going to do if we oppose the amendments proposed by the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, today? We are going to simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders. We are going to take further targeted action against any recent arrivals who commit crimes in the UK before their offending can escalate. Later this year, we are going to set out more detailed reforms and stronger measures to ensure that our laws are upheld, including streamlining and speeding up the removals process. Later this year, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, we are going to look at Article 8 and how we can streamline that proposal. We are going to bring forward legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK, striking that right balance between individual family rights and the wider public interest—the very point that the noble Earl mentioned.
Those are things that the Government are going to bring forward later this year. It may not satisfy noble Lords that we are not doing it today, but we are going to bring those things forward. However, the amendments before us today would not be workable and, as the noble Lord, Lord German, has said, they would be contrary to our international obligations.
Again, I recognise that some Members of this House will want us to walk away from our international obligations. I understand that, but our obligations are there, and we do support the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we are a signatory. We support other human rights legislation, which is important, and I do not accept that Amendment 34 or Amendment 72 would help us maintain an international reputation, which I think is important for the UK to maintain.
Lord Deben (Con)
I hope the Minister will accept that we are discussing a Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. What he is saying is what the Government are going to do. The problem for some of us is that this Bill ought to have had this in it, and as a result, we have two unsatisfactory amendments; but the only way that we can bring home just how serious this is to the Government is to ask: how on earth can we produce what will be an Act without what the Minister is now saying is going to be? That is the problem we all have.
We support the Government’s very considerable improvement. I have already said to my own side that I think a bit of humility about how well we managed some of these things would help a lot. That does not mean to say, however, that there should not be a bit of virility about asking the Government to act more quickly. It should have been in this Act, which is why some of us are going to find it very difficult not to support the amendments, not because we think the amendments are right; not because they should not be different; but because the Government have produced a Bill which does not have this in it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
This Bill covers a whole range of manifesto commitments that the Government made in the general election, including the establishment of a Border Security Commander. Going back, for example, to the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned about Albania, that Border Security Commander has established a Balkans task force dealing with a whole range of issues there to tighten up our performance with countries such as Albania. This Bill covers a whole range of other matters, but the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has been around a long time. He knows that the Government have processes to follow and legislation to bring forward.
I am saying today that we are going to bring forward, in very short order, the measures I have outlined: detailed reforms on ensuring that our laws are upheld; simplifying the rules on processing for removal of foreign national offenders; and strengthening public interest tests under Article 8. That is going to happen in very short order. Not everything can happen in the first 12 months of a Government. Actually, if I go back to the point that the noble Lord mentioned, the non-legislative drive has seen us increase the number of foreign national offenders removed from this country by 14%, so it is an absolutely important matter that we have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked me an important question, and I just want to give her a response on this. Immigration is a reserved matter. Deportation powers are consistent across the United Kingdom. Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework provides a commitment that the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunities set out in a particular part of the Good Friday agreement are not diminished as a result of EU exit. This means that certain rights people in Northern Ireland had before Brexit cannot be reduced as a result of EU exit.
The Home Secretary is currently continuing to challenge some court interpretations on those matters, including the scope of Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework, both in the case of Dillon and Ors v the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and in pursuing an appeal against the High Court ruling on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s application, JR295, which found that certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act were incompatible with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.
Bluntly, the bottom line is: when foreign nationals commit serious crimes in our country, we will do everything in our power to deport them. We will bring back measures in the near future on some of the issues that have been raised today to give greater support and clarification. But I cannot accept the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Jackson of Peterborough.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been very spirited. I listened very carefully, especially to the Minister, who has unfortunately not accepted Amendment 34. We stand by this amendment: there are far too many foreign nationals who have committed criminal offences and who will not be deported if we allow the law to remain as it is. My noble friend Lord Deben and others are absolutely right: this is of huge concern across the United Kingdom. The Government’s plans do not go far enough. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 3rd November 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-V Fifth marshalled list for Report - (30 Oct 2025)
19:32 - Division on Amendment 208 - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 178 - Amendment 208 disagreed.
20:52 - Division on Amendment 237 - Ayes: 107 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 237 disagreed.
21:05 - Division on Amendment 238 - Ayes: 72 / Noes: 147 - Amendment 238 disagreed.
22:25 - Division on Amendment 239 - Ayes: 58 / Noes: 125 - Amendment 239 disagreed.
23:00 - Division on Amendment 245 - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 102 - Amendment 245 disagreed.
Lord Roborough
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to my Amendment 231A. I address Amendment 208 individually, rather than as a group as in Committee, because the facts have changed following the CG Fry Supreme Court judgment. This creates an opportunity to accelerate home building, which the Bill currently threatens to eliminate unnecessarily. I will speak to the application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites from the Back Benches, and leave the policy area of housebuilding to my Front-Bench colleagues, as it is their speciality. My amendments would remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill, preventing the legal imposition of the habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. Before I go on, I refer the House to my register of interests as an owner of development land, which, as far as I know, is not impacted by nutrient neutrality or Ramsar.
We in government chose to apply the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites through policy as a well-intentioned move to recognise the special international status of these wetland sites. I do not see evidence that our largest neighbours, such as France and Germany, have chosen to do the same. Since then, we have all watched in horror as Natural England’s advice on nutrient neutrality within the habitats regulations has led to as many as 160,000 new homes being blocked. We know that 18,000 of these are through the application of the habitats regulations to the Ramsar site on the Somerset Levels. I and my noble friends have asked the Government several times: how many more homes than this 18,000 are currently blocked by the unnecessary application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites? I hope that we can receive that answer today.
The CG Fry judgment, that simply adopting this as policy does not carry legal weight, was right. The habitats regulations derived from EU law and were designed to apply to sites with protection under EU law and no further. Natural England has been able to advise for years that specific land should have SPA or SAC designation and be brought under the habitats regulations. The fact that many Ramsar sites have only partial or no protection as European sites is because, so far, Natural England has judged that they do not need it. Ramsar sites already have protection under paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework. If, after the CG Fry judgment, Natural England were to advise that more European designations were necessary on the Ramsar sites and the Government accepted that, the habitat regulations would apply at that point. Should my amendment be passed, I am sure that Natural England will want to evaluate that point, and I would urge it to be highly scientific and evidence-based in that process, because the eyes of those needing houses will be on them.
The Natural England advice in the CG Fry case relating to the Ramsar site was not even that development would add to the level of phosphates in the Somerset Levels but that it would slow the rate of improvement in phosphate levels. Natural England had no objection based on the SPA designation for the Somerset Levels. This appears to be a pretty tenuous argument.
I urge the Government to accept my amendments, not to blindly block new housebuilding, and allow the habitats regulations to perform more closely to their original intention. Clause 90 and Schedule 6 unnecessarily and voluntarily gold-plate the application of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites, for which they were not intended, to the detriment of the broader interests of our country. Without my amendments, this planning Bill, designed to accelerate housebuilding and growth, will actually block housebuilding. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have heard time and again during the passage of this Bill from the Government Front Bench that this is a Bill to streamline the obstacles for anybody who wants to get anything done in this country. That is what Amendment 208 does, and I support it entirely.
Just under two weeks ago in the Supreme Court, as my noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned, four years of litigation concluded in the Fry case. The case revolved around the protections of Ramsar sites. In essence, the court was asked to judge whether Ramsar sites were subject to the same onerous requirements as sites protected by the EU habitats directive, including the potential for developments to be blocked at the stage of discharging planning conditions, many years after they have obtained that planning permission.
For over 50 years—since 1971, when the Ramsar treaty relating to over 2,500 wetlands in 172 nations was signed in the town of Ramsar in modern day Iran—it has never been the case that EU habitats directives apply to these important places. For that period, over the entire world, Ramsar sites have been protected without any reference to the EU, EU regulations or any of the other state paraphernalia that flows from Brussels. Why would they be? There are 23 such sites in Brazil, six in Cameroon, one in Mongolia, three in Equatorial Guinea and 39 in Japan. The EU is irrelevant to these places.
Natural England, as the Government’s statutory adviser, quite wrongly asserted that EU habitats regulations were relevant when they are not. Do not take my word for it: take the word of the Supreme Court. It concluded that the regulator had no business in making the equivalence between Ramsar and the other nature sites covered by the habitats directive. The Supreme Court held that Ramsar sites were not subject to this level of protection as they fell outside the habitats directive. Twelve days ago, a regulatory burden was lifted. Inexplicably, the Government now seek to undo that pro-growth judgment by bringing the Ramsar sites back within the habitats regulations, even though they fall outside the regulations’ parent directive.
We need a moment to see what has happened here. The justices concluded that Natural England had overreached itself in its advice to government, that it could not interpret the legislation accurately, that it misdirected itself and, crucially, misadvised the entire development industry as to the truth. Natural England’s dossier had the effect of holding up tens of thousands of homes. The evidence before the court in the Fry case was that 18,000 homes had been held up in Somerset alone, many already with planning permission, owing to Natural England’s misplaced concerns.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and other noble Lords, seek to remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. These Benches are not supportive of these amendments. While we appreciate the arguments that have been made about streamlining and simplifying the legislative framework, it is more important to recognise the significance of Ramsar sites and to treat them in the same category as European sites when it comes to environmental protection.
These wetlands—there are 176 designated sites in the UK—are often of extraordinary ecological value, supporting biodiversity that is not only nationally but internationally important. To remove the relevant provisions at this stage would risk sending the wrong signal about our priorities and would weaken the coherence of the overall environmental protections.
The Government’s goal all along has been to preserve sites that are of environmental importance. The arguments about Part 3 of the Bill have not entirely gone the way we had hoped, but they have gone a long way towards raising the importance of the environment as far as the planning system goes. We are keen to uphold the value of Ramsar sites, alongside other protected areas, and to dismiss the arguments made by those who, on one hand, say that we need more houses on these wetland sites, but, on the other hand, argue for other sites—perhaps in the green belt or designated sites—not to be built on. Let us be clear: the environment comes first, and protecting biodiversity and our precious environmental heritage is of key importance to us.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough. These may appear as technical provisions, with Clause 90 dealing with temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase and Schedule 6 making consequential changes to Part 3 of the Bill, but, as we have heard from the speakers so far, their combined efforts risk damaging the very housing and infrastructure goals that this legislation is seeking to advance.
The Bill, as currently drafted, extends the legal obligations of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites. In practice, this means further restrictions on housing development and a fresh layer of uncertainty for local planning authorities and developers alike. The result, as my noble friend Lord Roborough warned, is that a Bill meant to get Britain building risks doing totally the opposite by tying up housing delivery in yet more red tape and delay. This point cannot be overstated: the country faces a housing crisis—not a crisis of ambition, but a crisis of delivery. By removing Schedule 6, we would avoid further complexity in the already overburdened environmental assessment framework, a system that too often paralyses local authorities and developers in costly uncertainty rather than securing real gains for nature.
The Government’s own target of 1.5 million new homes will not be met if planning reforms continue to tangle it up with excessive regulation and unintended consequences. Of course, environmental protection must remain a central consideration in planning, but, as my noble friend rightly observed, the small nut being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 has now been shown to be even smaller. The recent ruling to which he referred has already resolved many of the issues these provisions sought to address. What remains, therefore, is unnecessary bureaucracy and an additional drag on housing delivery.
However, I reiterate that the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case has now shifted the status quo. Following the judgment, Clause 90 and Schedule 6 will have the perverse effect of blocking development rather than facilitating it. This surely cannot be the Government’s intention; we are minded, therefore, to seek to test the opinion of the House when Amendment 208 is called if the Government have nothing further to say on this issue.
These amendments are not anti-environmental. They are proportionate, pro-clarity and, most importantly, pro-housing. They seek to ensure that this Bill does what it says on the tin: to plan and deliver the infrastructure and homes that this country so desperately needs. I urge the Minister to look again at Clause 90 and Schedule 6. Are they truly necessary to achieve the Bill’s goals or are they, as the evidence increasingly suggests, just obstacles in their delivery?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 208 and 231A, both tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seek to remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. These relate to Ramsar sites, as we have heard, and noble Lords will be aware from the debate that these are wetlands of international importance that have been designated under the Ramsar Convention on wetlands. I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
To date, in England, these sites have been given the protection of the habitats regulations assessment process through policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. To support the effective operation of the nature restoration fund, we propose placing protections for Ramsar sites on a legislative footing, with Part 1 of Schedule 6 amending the habitats regulations so that protections for Ramsar sites align with the protection of other internationally important sites. Placing protection of Ramsar sites on a statutory footing will ensure that the NRF can be used to address the negative effects of development on Ramsar sites, and this has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance.
The Government have, of course, carefully considered the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgments, which we have been debating, that distinguished in very specific circumstances between the legal protection provided to European sites under the habitats regulations and the policy protection afforded to Ramsar sites. This ruling has led to some commentary suggesting that placing Ramsar protections on a statutory footing will serve to prevent development from coming forward. This belief was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her speech just now; this, however, is mistaken.
Noble Lords who have followed the judgment will know that it found that habitats regulations protections for Ramsar sites should not have been applied, as a matter of policy rather than legal obligation, to developments that were already in possession of planning permission prior to the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020. While some—and the noble Lord, Lord Robrough, mentioned this in his introduction—have suggested that large numbers of homes will be unlocked if Clause 90 and Schedule 6 are removed from the Bill, this does not bear up to scrutiny. The reason is that no new planning applications have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020 that are affected by the Supreme Court’s judgment or by the protections for Ramsar sites proposed in the Bill. Furthermore, while this case has been progressing through the courts, the Government have provided significant investment to deliver local mitigation schemes, including in Somerset, which has ensured that mitigation is available to allow development to come forward.
I want to respond to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, who suggested that 18,000 homes in the Somerset catchments are delayed by nutrient neutrality. That is actually the number of homes in existing plans from 2020 to 2032, so we are talking about a 12-year period. It includes homes that already have mitigation and homes for which no application has yet been submitted. Therefore, this overstates the number of homes affected.
We also know that developers can access nutrient mitigation in Somerset. For the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2025, 5,747 dwellings have been permitted within the Somerset Levels and Moors catchment area, and phosphate credits are available to mitigate a further 2,900 dwellings. That demonstrates that mitigation is already available and that this is not blocking such development.
The NRF will now deliver on the Government’s manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports more efficient and streamlined development, but with better environmental outcomes. We want the NRF model to be available to support development that impacts Ramsar sites as well as SACs, SPAs and SSSIs, while also driving the recovery of, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, put it perfectly, these internationally important sites. The amendments would actually prevent the NRF being used to help development in circumstances such as those in Somerset.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, to my noble friend on the Front Bench for her support and to the Minister for her well thought-through and considered reply.
I have to say that I am not convinced. The fundamental principle of the habitat regulations is that they are supposed to apply to EU-designated sites. Should these Ramsar sites be deserving of that protection, then surely it is up to Natural England to advise the Government that that is the case and to put in place those protections. Without that, it is really not clear why we alone among the major European economies should be choosing to hamper our building in this way.
I am grateful for the detailed response regarding which houses are being held up. These are still material numbers of houses. The effect of the CG Fry judgment alone was to release 650 houses, and, while that may be over a 12-year period, that is still a lot of houses. The country needs those houses, and the Bill is supposed to deliver them. So we on these Benches cannot sit on our hands and watch this happen. Given that the Government are determined to plough ahead with this, I am forced to test the opinion of the House.
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where it appears to Natural England that a notice of a proposal under section 28E(1)(a) of the WCA 1981 relates to an operation which is or forms part of a plan or project situated wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site,it must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.(2B) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, Natural England may give consent for the operation only after having ascertained that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is the first of a number of amendments to Schedule 6, the effect of which would be that the Habitats Regulations would give protection to Ramsar sites (wherever situated) where they are affected by any plans or projects in England (rather than protecting only Ramsar sites in England).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
(a) in paragraph (1)—(i) after “where” insert “—(ii) at the end insert “, or(b) a consent for an operation situated wholly in England has been given under section 28E(3)(a) of the WCA 1981 (or has effect as if given under that section) in relation to land included in a site of special scientific interest which, after the date of that consent, becomes land within a Ramsar site.”;(b) in paragraph (3)—(i) in sub-paragraph (a), after “24(1)” insert “or (2A)”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), after “24(2)” insert “or (2B)”;(c) in the heading, after “European sites” insert “or Ramsar sites”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(a) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project situated wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site,must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(ba) in paragraph (9), for “paragraph (1)” substitute “paragraphs (1) and (1A)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(b) after “63(1)” insert “or (1A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(za) in paragraph (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1A)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
14 “(1) In regulation 75 (general development orders)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);(b) at the end insert—“(2) It is a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order made by the Secretary of State on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force that development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,must not be begun until the developer has received written notification of the approval of the local planning authority under regulation 77 (approval of local planning authority).”(2) In regulation 75(2) (as inserted by sub-paragraph (1)), after “force” insert “or a street vote development order”.14A In regulation 76 (general development orders: opinion of appropriate nature conservation body), in paragraph (7), for “75(a)” substitute “75(1)(a) or (2)(a)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where a simplified planning zone scheme for an area in England is adopted or approved, that scheme is not to be taken to grant planning permission for development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,unless adopted or approved in accordance with the assessment provisions.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(a) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where an order designating an enterprise zone is made for an area wholly in England, or where a modified enterprise zone scheme is approved for such an area, that order or scheme is not to be taken to grant planning permission for development which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,unless made or approved in accordance with the assessment provisions.”;(aa) after paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) Paragraph (2A) does not apply to an order made or a scheme approved before the day on which this paragraph comes into force.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“22A In regulation 85A (assumptions to be made about nutrient pollution standards: general), in paragraph (6)(a), after “63(1)” insert “or (1A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(4) Section 3(10) of that Act is not to be taken to deem planning permission to be granted for development wholly in England which—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,whether or not the development authorised by the permission has been begun, unless the competent authority has agreed to the plan or project in accordance with the assessment provisions.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(a) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Where a land use plan relating to an area wholly in England—(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site,the plan-making authority for that plan must, before the plan is given effect, make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“(za) in paragraph (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1A)”;(zb) in paragraph (3), after “105(1)” insert “or (1A)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“37 In regulation 110A (assessments under this Chapter: required assumptions)—(a) in paragraph (5)(a), after “105(1)” insert “or (1A)”;(b) in paragraph (5)(b), after “105(1)” insert “or (1A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to page 180 line 26.
“Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
41A (1) The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 is amended as follows.(2) In section 125 (general duties of public authorities in relation to MCZs), after subsection (12) insert—“(12A) This section does not apply to the exercise by a public authority of functions under or by virtue of Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (development and nature recovery).”(3) In section 141 (exceptions to offences under section 139 or 140), in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) was done by a public authority exercising functions under or by virtue of Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (development and nature recovery);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the duties in s.125 of the MCAA 2009 where a public authority exercises functions under Part 3, such as drafting or approving an EDP. This is necessary to enable an EDP to include network conservation measures (see further the explanatory statement to my amendment to Schedule 4 (at page 171, line 28)). It also makes a consequential amendment to s.141.
Lord Lansley
“ScheduleMayoral Development Corporations for planning and development purposes: amendment of the Localism Act 2011Introduction
1 The Localism Act 2011 is amended in accordance with this Schedule.Part 8
2 In the heading of Part 8, after “London” insert “and areas of other mayoral strategic authorities”.Interpretation
3 In section 196—(a) before the definition of “the Mayor” insert—““CCA” means a combined county authority established under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“combined authority” means a combined authority established under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;“constituent council” means—(a) in relation to a combined authority—(i) a county council the whole or any part of whose area is within the area of the authority, or(ii) a district council whose area is within the area of the authority;(b) in relation to a CCA—(i) a county council for an area within the area of the authority, or(ii) a unitary district council for an area within the area of the authority;and here “unitary district council” means the council for a district for which there is no county council;”;(b) for the definition of “the Mayor” substitute—““the Mayor” means—(a) the Mayor of London,(b) the mayor for the area of a combined authority, or(c) the mayor for the area of a CCA;”;(c) after the definition of “MDC” insert—““strategic authority area” means—(a) in relation to the Mayor of London or a mayoral development area designated by that Mayor, Greater London;(b) in relation to the mayor for the area of a combined authority or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the combined authority, or(c) in relation to the mayor for the area of a CCA or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the CCA;”.Designation of Mayoral development areas
4 (1) Section 197 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “Greater London” substitute “a strategic authority area”.(3) In subsection (3), in the words before paragraph (a), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may designate a Mayoral development area only if—(a) the Mayor considers that designation of the area is expedient for furthering economic development and regeneration in the strategic authority area,(b) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by subsection (5B) and, if applicable, subsection (5C),(c) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees,(d) in the event that those comments include comments made by a constituent council or a district council consulted under subsection (5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance,(e) the Mayor has laid before the combined authority or CCA, in accordance with its standing orders, a document stating that the Mayor is proposing to designate the area, and(f) the combined authority or CCA approves the proposal.(5B) The persons who have to be consulted before an area may be designated are—(a) the constituent councils,(b) each Member of Parliament whose parliamentary constituency contains any part of the area, and(c) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.(5C) In the case of a combined county authority, any district council whose local authority area contains any part of the area also has to be consulted before the area may be designated.(5D) For the purposes of subsection (5A)(f) the combined authority or CCA approves a proposal if it resolves to do so on a motion considered at a meeting of the combined authority or CCA throughout which members of the public are entitled to be present.”.Exclusion of land from Mayoral development areas
5 (1) Section 199 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Before making an alteration, the mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA must consult—(a) the constituent councils, and(b) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.”.Transfers of property etc to a Mayoral development corporation
6 (1) Section 200 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “a person within subsection (3)” substitute “an eligible transferor”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferor” means—(a) a London borough council,(b) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,(c) any company whose members—(i) include the Mayor of London and a Minister of the Crown, and(ii) do not include anyone who is neither the Mayor or London nor a Minister of the Crown, or(d) a person within subsection (3).(1B) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority, “eligible transferor” means a person within subsection (3).(1C) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a CCA, “eligible transferor” means—(a) any district council whose local authority area is within the area of the CCA, or(b) a person within subsection (3).”.(4) In subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraphs (a) and (b);(b) in paragraphs (d) and (e), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”;(c) omit paragraph (k).(5) In subsection (4), for “liabilities of—” substitute “liabilities of an eligible transferee.(4A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferee” means—”.(6) Before subsection (5) insert—“(4A) 20 In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA, “eligible transferee” means—(a) the combined authority or CCA, o(b) a company that is a subsidiary of the combined authority or CCA.”.(7) In subsection (9), after “(4)(c)” insert “or (4A)(b)”.Functions in relation to Town and Country Planning
7 (1) Section 202 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (7), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (7) insert—“(7A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may make a decision under any of subsections (2) to (6) only if—(a) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by section 197(5B) and, if applicable, section 197(5C), in relation to the area,(b) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees, and(c) in the event that those comments include comments made by the constituent council or a district council specified by section 197(5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance.”.Arrangements for discharge of, or assistance with, planning functions
8 In section 203, in subsections (1) and (4), after “City of London” insert “, or a county council or district council”.Acquisition of land
9 (1) Section 207 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”.(3) For subsection (3) substitute—“(3) Before submitting a compulsory purchase order authorising an acquisition under subsection (2) to the Secretary of State for confirmation—(a) 15 an MDC for an area in Greater London must obtain the consent of the Mayor of London;(b) an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA must obtain the consent of the mayor for that area.”.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 232 relates to mayoral development corporations. Noble Lords will recall a debate in Committee about this precise point. To remind noble Lords, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, presently in the other place, the Government have proposed that the powers available to the Mayor of London in relation to the establishment of a mayoral development corporation should be provided to all mayors of established strategic authorities—I think that is correct. Noble Lords will also recall that I previously tabled an amendment to this effect back in July, so I was pleased to see that the Government were proceeding in exactly the same direction, but disappointed that this has been included in the English devolution Bill rather than here in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where Part 4, which we have now reached, is devoted to development corporations. It was certainly my understanding and intention that we would debate and, I hope, adopt the measure of giving all the mayors access to the same powers.
As a simple way of bringing that forward, I took Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and transposed it into what would become a new schedule to this Bill. I anticipate that it is not the Government’s intention to disagree with the content of Amendment 232, since they wrote it; however, they appear to be set on resisting the idea that it should be included in this Bill and, on the basis of our anticipation of Royal Assent being reached only in a matter of weeks rather than months, be brought into force rapidly.
As it happens, since Committee, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee has had the opportunity to consider Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill and has not amended it, so there is no requirement for us to think of it having changed. I suspect, based on the discussion in that Bill Committee, it will not be returned to in substance on Report. I do not anticipate that the English devolution Bill, when we see it, will have any different text from what we see here now.
I put it once more to Ministers, but will not press it because what would be the point? It is their Bill, their language, their schedule that they can have now, in my view—and why would they not? It seems to me that most mayors, certainly the ones I have spoken to or their representatives, would like the powers sooner rather than later.
Quite early in the new year, probably before the English devolution Bill has received Royal Assent, we will be discussing the question of which new towns will be mayoral development corporations as opposed to government development corporations or locally led ones. These are precisely the issues which are the subject of this part of this Bill. I put it to noble Lords that it would be better to take this provision, include it now, and bring it into force at an earlier stage. I beg to move
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we have much sympathy with the core principle behind this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, regarding mayoral development corporations. The purpose of Part 4 of this Bill is to create a more flexible, and perhaps more robust, framework for development corporations. The existing way that development corporations work has limitations with regard to some of the development that all of us seek—transport infrastructure, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has helpfully reminded us that this selfsame wording is in the devolution and empowerment Bill, currently going through its stages at the other end of the building, so those of us who will have the joy of debating that Bill, when it comes here, will be coming back to this issue.
The main concern we have, though, is about the decision being vested in the hands of the mayor and the rather narrow representations of the leaders of the constituent authorities—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister. This is an erosion of meaningful local planning influence, reducing local authorities to mere consultees whose considered objections can be dismissed. This amendment could grant substantial planning control over designated areas by placing the decision-making at the mayoral level, with its minimal approach to democratic engagement and consultation. While mechanisms exist for arrangements concerning the discharge of planning functions, this shift inherently concentrates strategic planning functions away from the local level.
Amendment 232 is a way forward in potentially accelerating growth plans, but it is achieved at the expense of local democratic involvement and, crucially, would lose having a strong voice from those residents directly affected. In a nutshell, this is an interesting and important proposal, but it bypasses local democracy.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s expertise on development corporations is, as ever, formidable, and the concerns he raises deserve full and careful consideration. This amendment speaks to the wider question surrounding the Government’s devolution agenda, particularly the potential to give metro mayors the tools they need to deliver housing projects, attract private investment and cut through the bureaucratic fragmentation that so often stifles local ambitions. In many ways, it would build upon the principles set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and the work that we have done collectively to champion place-based solutions to the challenges that this country faces. As my noble friend says: equality for mayors.
I am entirely sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment. It is clearly defined and purpose driven. However, to sensibly empower metro mayors or development corporations further, the Government must provide clarity on their plans for local government reorganisation. Without this clarity we risk legislating into a vacuum, creating overlapping authorities and confusion where coherence is needed. On these Benches, we strongly support greater local oversight and a faster route to regeneration, but the real obstacle remains the Government’s opaque approach to LGR. Until there is a clear framework for how local government structures will interact with devolved authorities and combined counties, progress will be piecemeal at best. The Government must work this out, and quickly. We are all waiting for clarity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 232, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I understand why the noble Lord has brought his amendment forward. The Government are bringing forward equivalent provisions via Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and I understand his view that inclusion of this amendment would expedite the legislative change. I welcome that enthusiasm: it is essential that all mayors have powers to establish and oversee mayoral development corporations, which are a key tool to drive large-scale development and regeneration in their regions.
None the less, the amendment would not save significant time. The Government are committed to ensuring that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill reaches Royal Assent in spring 2026, at which point there will be no delay. The relevant provisions will commence on the day that the Act is passed, providing relevant mayors with the powers to establish development corporations. The amendment would also have minimal impact because, except for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority—I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, might be particularly interested in that one—all mayoral strategic authorities currently have powers to establish and oversee MDCs. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, as well as any new mayoral strategic authorities, will automatically receive mayoral development corporation powers following Royal Assent of the English devolution Bill.
Finally, and I think this reflects the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, it is appropriate that Parliament scrutinises provisions providing mayors with mayoral development corporation powers, as part of the wider package of powers being granted to mayors through the devolution framework in the English devolution Bill. Therefore, while I understand the reason that the noble Lord has brought Amendment 232 forward, I hope that he will consider withdrawing it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to this short debate, and particularly grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. I heartily endorse what he said about the importance of trying to resolve the relationship between the processes of local government reorganisation and the rapid progress we want to achieve in implementing planning reform in order to get on with building the houses and developments we are looking for.
I should have previously referenced my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The Minister is absolutely right: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor should have access to development corporation powers—even though the Government’s apparent intention, as I think was stated last week, was that the Cambridge Growth Company will be turned into a development corporation in the Cambridge area. We have yet to know in what designated area and with what powers, but that is for another day.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s assertion that the delay will be so limited. Let us hope that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does not get at all bogged down in the new year, because we want to be sure that those powers are available to mayors where they come forward to take up the potential new town designation. I was wrong when I said “mayors of all established strategic authorities”; I know it is my amendment, but I have just checked, and it does not say that. It refers to all mayors of strategic authorities. Whether they should be established strategic authorities is a question we might have a look at when we get to the English devolution Bill. But for the present, while looking forward to returning to these interesting issues in the new year, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 232.
Lord Lansley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to another amendment in Lord Lansley’s name to clause 94.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this group containing, happily, not only my amendments but Amendment 238 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, is about the designation of new towns. The purpose of Amendment 236, which is the substantive one in my name, is to provide for additional parliamentary scrutiny of the designation of new town development corporations—those controlled by the Government. It is particularly about those under Section 1(1) of the New Towns Act, whereas elsewhere in that Act, locally led new towns, for example, were subsequently inserted. This provision would not apply to them; it would apply only to those controlled by the Government.
The point is that there are substantial implications in having a new town controlled by the Government. Designating the area and, for that matter, the powers that are to be given to that development corporation, and therefore by extension taken away from a local planning authority and vested in a development corporation, is a highly significant issue.
The super-affirmative procedure which the proposed new clause would introduce is, as the parliamentary guide would tell us, intended to be reserved for highly significant statutory instruments. I think this fits that bill. We are talking about the potential transfer of powers, potentially for relatively large areas, away from democratic control for decades.
For example, in the recent report by the New Towns Taskforce we saw a proposal for a dozen new town sites, some of which are pretty substantial. If we look at the area described as Brabazon and West Innovation Arc, it comprises three substantial areas to the north of Bristol. If all the planning control in that area were to be taken out of the hands of local authorities for what might be decades, it would make a very big impact in that area. The scrutiny of that by Parliament at the outset is important.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 238. I welcome the broad thrust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporations contemplated by the Bill. In fact, I think it is the best part of the Bill.
Clause 96 seeks the achievement of sustainable development and the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. However, there will be no sustainable development without sustainable financing of the proposals that the development corporations bring forward. Since Committee, the New Towns Taskforce has published its report, and only this afternoon at Question Time the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, gave warm words to the principle of private investment in local infrastructure, perhaps by development corporations.
The magnitude of the task ahead of us is nothing short of generational. The state alone will not be able to build these new settlements; neither will councils, nor, as noble Lords heard in the previous group, will the mayors—not quickly, anyway. Only by harnessing the power of the financial markets and other private sector actors at home and abroad, including perhaps private households, will the promise of building these places become a reality. My amendment, supported by my noble friends on the Front Bench, recognises this simple truth. Some 50 years since Milton Keynes and 80 years since Stevenage were designated under the first new towns Act, it is time to bring the development corporations up to date.
I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities may be reorganised, that mayors may be created, and that the day-to-day financial pressures they both face have never been greater. In a former time, the development corporations would hold out their hand, perhaps to central government or to local councils, for funding. Of course, that route may be still open in some parts, but we know that the PWLB is capped and, at a time when Nestlé can borrow money cheaper than our Government can, the PWLB is not necessarily the cheapest, best value, or most available source of long-term infrastructure finance for the generational opportunities that my noble friend Lord Lansley so ably identified. Building new towns is the work of generations—it goes beyond political cycles—and relying on national and local politicians will not be enough in a world where a new secondary school costs £40 million and a flyover £100 million.
So we must help the development corporations in the single-minded pursuit of sustainable development, and we must help them get the money right. That means giving them the powers to exploit the distinction between funding and financing. Funding is simply writing the cheque, but financing is putting that deal together. It is no surprise that the financiers in the City of London have the most highly paid professions, because they have the hardest task: putting those deals together. It is not easy to finance difficult prospects but, to get Britain building, we will have to grasp that nettle.
I will not dwell too much on the significance of governance in development corporations, but I will make the factual observation that strong governance, established by statute—that is why I tabled this amendment—leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating, and the willingness of institutional investors to pony up the cash early on for infrastructure at lower prices. That is why my amendment is so important. We need to make it easy for the development corporations to raise the funds and for the pension funds to put their shoulders to the wheel, helped by the covenant strength that comes from being a statutory body.
The development corporations must be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the issue of bonds, shares or similar, and we should contemplate other sources of finance as well. In my view, that extends to entering into joint ventures with landowners on a territory. Their land could be incorporated at the heart of financing as an in-kind contribution, so they would not enjoy the upfront benefit but they would have a return that is sustained over a long-term period. That may be good for them—it is certainly good for the taxpayer—and it enables us to get the infrastructure built up front more cheaply. It should not be the default position that a development corporation just goes for CPO powers and then ponies up a premium price—10% more than the market value—sustaining all the unpleasantness of the process. There must be a better way. My amendment pathfinds that opportunity.
In Committee, the noble Baroness—rather complacently in my view—said that the amendment was unnecessary because corporations could always borrow from the PWLB, and that was that. The bond markets are suggesting that there may be limits to that approach, which is why we need more flexibility. So I want to place finance in the widest possible context and, without central or local government necessarily acting as a banker in the traditional manner, the development corporations can be empowered.
So, although I accept that development corporations can plan for an area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, ultimately those plans or outcomes will stand or fall on whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve at the best value and the greatest certainty, with the cheapness and value that come from statutory provision.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 236. This gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend and his work in this House. I declare an interest as chairman of the Greater Cheshire Development Forum.
On new towns and the new town of Adlington, I have to say that it was a wee bit of a shock. I am Lord Evans of Rainow, and Rainow is not far away—it is in the Peak District—and as you look out from the Peak District at the Cheshire Plain, Adlington is in the foothills. It is green belt, so it was a bit of a shock for me and the local communities. It is not every day that between 14,000 and 20,000 houses are set to be built in England’s green and pleasant land of east Cheshire. It was also a real shock to the Macclesfield MP, Tim Roca, as he had got married and was on his honeymoon at the time, but he was quick off the mark and put together the inevitable petition to Parliament against this proposal. It really flies in the face of democratic community empowerment—it is a coach and horses through local government. There are three outstanding local parish councils in that area: Poynton Town Council, Bollington Town Council and Pott Shrigley Parish Council. If you go on their website, you can see clearly that a lot of what they say has been articulated here today: a lack of consultation and accountability.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just said. Unlike my predecessor, I have no intention of trying to petition for parts of the diocese of Chester to become parts of the diocese of Manchester, just because of the urban sprawl extending—but I rise to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller.
I have served on the boards of a lot of large institutional investors. One of them, the Church Commissioners, had a particular interest in one of the major landowners in the country. I can well see how for an institutional investor that wants to invest in something that is a social good, like building towns, and wants to do it for the long term, because it is interested in long-term return and not just what the next quarter’s figures are going to be, being able to invest in these kinds of things would be the right way to go. Should the noble Lord put this to the vote, I would hope to be with him in the Lobby.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am broadly in favour of the amendments in this group. As a general principle, we are in favour of any amendments that are genuinely about devolution and not just decentralisation. As we are all aware, there is a significant difference. However, we are aware that this brings issues of governance and accountability that are new to much of the sector at this level, with the difference in governance arrangements and in geography.
We also support the Government’s ambition and political will to build new towns to meet our challenging housing need. But—and it is a big “but”—we nevertheless feel that something as significant, important and impactful as designating a large amount of land for a new town should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Everyone’s voices deserve to be heard—and I understand that there is a difference between being heard and being listened to. However challenging and difficult that might be, the process is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, outlined. Increased scrutiny and the opportunity for revision are essential. We have to get this right for the people and for Parliament. Thus, we too welcome a debate on the new towns agenda and on the sites already designated.
I turn to Amendment 238. It seems to us an inevitable consequence of the new development corporations’ ambitions, roles and responsibilities. If devolution is to really mean something, it must also mean fiscal devolution. It is very unlikely in the present economic climate that any new major developments are going to be totally government funded, so it makes sense to cast the financial net as wide as possible. But—and, again, it is a big “but”—given some local government history on these and related matters, we assume that the Treasury will be concerned about rising debt and potential poor financial controls. With the discredited PFI funding also in the background, it will be concerned also about potential poor value for money. We are concerned that there should be the necessary protections and processes for good government, transparency and accountability. I wonder whether the Government may envisage a more proactive role in this regard for the National Audit Office before investment decisions are made.
Finally, a key question, which my noble friend Lord Shipley raised in Committee, is who picks up the tab if there is a loss on a project, or on several projects, or if a mayoral development corporation is running generally at a loss. Is it the council tax payer or the Government? There was no answer in Committee. It would seem likely to be the Government but, if so, it would be reasonable for them to be involved at all stages of project delivery, which makes Amendment 238 insufficient without explaining what controls would be in place. However, we would still support Amendment 238, because it gives a sense of the direction that we should go in, even if the detail is not yet in place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, all I can say is that we support all the intentions of these amendments so ably introduced, as always, by my noble friend. I do not think there is anything more that I can add to what he has already said, apart from saying to the Minister that I think these important questions need answers tonight.
Alongside my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I have co-signed Amendment 238, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller. Ensuring that development corporations have access to sufficient finance will be critical, as we have heard, if we are truly to deliver the high-quality new towns and new developments that we would all like to see. Having access to a range of finance resources is a key component to this, empowering development corporations to seek finance from the widest possible range of sources. This amendment would allow them to do precisely that—to access funding not only from the Public Works Loan Board but from private capital, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, and through value-in-kind contributions as part of joint ventures. Crucially, it would also give them the ability to issue bonds, either individually or collectively with other development corporations.
Why does this matter? I suggest three key reasons. First, it enables collaboration. Development corporations could work collectively across areas, pooling capacity and scale to unlock investment in major regeneration and infrastructure projects that would otherwise be out of their reach. Secondly, it opens the door for local pension funds, particularly the Local Government Pension Scheme, to invest directly in their communities. This builds on the Government’s own commitment to mobilise LGPS capital for local growth. It would mean that people’s savings are working to deliver tangible, long-term benefits in the very places where they live and work. Thirdly, it aligns with the Government’s broader ambitions on devolution and local growth. Page 29 of the English Devolution White Paper makes clear that strategic authorities will have a duty to deliver on economic development and regeneration. Local authorities will be required to produce local growth plans, and LGPS administrating authorities are expected to identify local investment opportunities and put them forward to their asset pools.
This amendment would therefore help the Government achieve precisely what they have set out to do: to channel more of the nation’s long-term capital into productive place-based investment. It would empower development corporations to be proactive, innovative and financially self-sustaining, drawing on both public and private sources of finance to deliver growth, regeneration and prosperity for local communities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but interesting debate. Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to change the parliamentary procedure for designating areas to be developed as a new town by new town development corporations from the affirmative procedure to the super-affirmative. They would also require that the Secretary of State reconsults if a proposal for an area to be developed by a new town development corporation is changed following an earlier consultation.
The Government agree that proposals to establish development corporations should be subject to consultation and proportionate parliamentary scrutiny, but this is already the case. The New Towns Act 1981 already requires that the Secretary of State consults with relevant local authorities prior to designating an area to be developed by a new town development corporation via regulations. Consultations and decisions to designate are also subject to public law principles. Further consultation would therefore already be considered should the proposal fundamentally change.
I will just comment to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on his points about Adlington. He may have looked at the report of the New Towns Taskforce, which sets out very clearly the principles under which new towns must make provision for infrastructure, including energy, water and all the facilities that make communities work and be successful. As I have said, there is consultation set out in law for those decisions to designate. Designation by regulations is also already subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses. As these regulations neither amend nor repeal an Act of Parliament, which is the usual super-affirmative process, the Government do not believe that they require the high level of scrutiny of that super-affirmative procedure.
The noble Lord’s amendments would also have the unintended consequence of adding significant time to the process of designating areas as new towns. The super-affirmative procedure would add a minimum of two months and the duty to reconsult could add significantly longer, depending on the number of reconsultations required. I was grateful to the Built Environment Select Committee and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for the thorough way he looked at the subject of new towns. His work has been very helpful. I will give thought to the request for further discussions within your Lordships’ House on all the issues arising from this new generation of new towns. Both the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, have made this helpful suggestion. I will take that back to the team and look at parliamentary schedules to see when a further discussion on that might be possible.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short, as the Minister said, but I thought very interesting debate—a preliminary to the further debate that I hope we will have, not least if we can contrive to have an early debate on the Built Environment Committee’s report in the new year at a time when we can incorporate the Government’s full response to the task force report and the Government’s actual proposals for new towns. We learned from my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow that if there is that range of issues to be considered in relation to one of the new town proposals, we can expect a lot of contributions when we get to a dozen such proposals, not even including Cambridge, from my own point of view, which is beyond the task force’s report.
What the Minister had to say was encouraging from the point of view of getting parliamentary debate to take place without impeding or delaying the programme in any way. I hope that, when we have that debate, we will come back to some of the important issues raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller. He made some important points, in my view, about the capacity for financing this. Tax increment financing and the ability to borrow against the future development value will be a key part of that.
From my part, in relation to parliamentary debate on the new towns programme, I was grateful for the Minister’s response, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 235.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I gently remind noble Lords that, as stated in the Companion:
“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and”
should not
“respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”,
or pressing,
“ the amendment”.
Speeches appear to be getting longer at this point. I respectfully urge noble Lords to be brief so that we can continue to make progress and get to the votes.
“Provision of green and blue spacesIn section 4(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 (objects and general power of development corporations), at end insert“and to provide green and blue spaces which are publicly accessible to local communities”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require development corporations to provide green and blue spaces when securing the layout and development of new towns.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief in speaking to Amendment 237 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their support.
Amendment 237 is on a similar theme to my earlier amendment, relating to the delivery of green and blue spaces in spatial development strategies. I will not repeat the arguments that I made previously, other than to say that the provision of accessible green and blue space in urban areas has been identified by many different organisations as a critical component that can support health and well-being for urban populations.
This amendment deals with the same issue. However, this time, it seeks to put the statutory requirement for the provision of accessible green and blue spaces into the objectives of the development corporation responsible for delivering new towns. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to create blue and green space in new towns.
This point was emphasised most recently by the New Towns Taskforce report, published in September 2025, which stated that:
“New towns provide a rare opportunity to plan holistically”,
and that they should have,
“easily accessible green spaces and recreational facilities”.
The Government responded to this report by saying that they are
“committed to ensuring that all new towns are thriving and sustainable places”,
and that they will
“consider how best to ensure expectations are set and managed at a national level”.
However, similar to the spatial development strategies in the NPPF, I imagine the Government will respond to say that the new town development corporations are sufficiently equipped to deal with the provision of blue and green spaces. I will give three counterpoints related to this. First, exactly the same as the NPPF, this is only guidance. It is toothless unless it is written into law. Secondly, there is no clear, mandatory, legally binding standard for equality of access to blue and green space. Over the last five years, yes we have seen more green spaces created, but more and more they are created in rich areas compared to in poorer areas. We have to take this seriously, or inequality of access to green space will get worse.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the recommendation of the New Towns Taskforce was that new towns could be delivered by the introduction of special development orders. That would mean that the Secretary of State could determine a planning permission for a new town and grant it directly through this special development order, with the potential to override the provisions of local plans and the NPPF. We do not even have the NPPF or the local plans any more to ensure blue and green space in cities and equality of access to it.
This is a fairly simple amendment, which would not cost anything. I hope we can find a way to move forward, and that the Minister will accept my amendment. It offers a reasonable and non-burdensome way to implement what the Government recognise is an important issue: to hardwire blue and green space into new towns so that they can deliver critical spaces for health and well-being for everyone in those cities. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have put my name. I will talk briefly about the opportunity that the new towns offer by ensuring that they are beacons for providing green and blue space close to where people live, especially for deprived communities. With her depth of experience, the Minister has seen green and blue spaces and placemaking in Stevenage and, not that far away, in the historical examples of Letchworth Garden City and others, including, more recently, Milton Keynes, which indubitably is full of green and blue spaces.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, I am sure that the Minister will restate her faith in the NPPF requirements—although the noble Baroness raised a question about that—and refer to the New Towns Taskforce report and the strong emphasis it put on placemaking principles and green and blue open space. There is no doubt that new town development corporations are already equipped with sufficient legal powers to provide blue and green spaces, but powers are one thing and commitment is another. I want to see some provision of this sort in the Bill to ensure that, in the push for new towns that the new towns programme represents—to provide housing, businesses and places to live—there is also a push for accessible green space, especially for more deprived communities.
I would like our new towns, in respect of this green and blue open space, to be praised by future generations in the way that the Victorian model towns were praised, in the way we praise the garden cities and in the way that some of us, grudgingly, praise Milton Keynes and, dare I say it, Poundbury.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I have the honour to serve on your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee. It is no coincidence that two of us who have added our names to this amendment are on that committee, the second being the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who is its chair.
An issue that we have come across as we have made our inquiry into new towns—the first module of which was published recently, as was the New Towns Taskforce report—is that there is a lack of vision. There is no vision for blue and green space in the New Towns Taskforce report. Obviously, it is integral that houses are part of a new town; that goes without saying. It should be integral that green and blue space is part of a new town; that should also go without saying.
Last week, we had a fascinating debate in your Lordships’ House on swifts and swift bricks. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, taught me a lot about why swift bricks were perhaps less important, because they could not be positioned in the right place. But the fact is that if those swifts do not have any food, because there is no green space or blue space to produce the insects, all the debate we had about swift bricks is completely meaningless—and that goes for every single species.
It is not just about the species. I will not repeat all the arguments we made in Committee and last week about the other amendment concerning green and blue space being in the NPPF. I simply say that it is equally essential, for all those reasons—for human health and well-being and for children—that green and blue space is as integral in the vision of development corporations as the houses themselves.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, seems to be amazingly modest. If I had written it, it probably would have been far more complicated and have no chance of being passed by this House. But it really needs to be in the Bill.
New towns will be on the map and inhabited for hundreds of years—we hope, if we manage to solve climate change—so it is crucial that the elements that make them up are there at the beginning. Those need to be statutory, compulsory and mandatory because, as we all know, at various points in the evolution of these new towns, there will be financial issues and constraints. That would also allow us to consider not just biodiversity but human health in those new towns, which is absolutely key. I hope that the Government will take heed of this, and that those green and blue spaces will be additional to any biodiversity net gain.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, unlike the previous amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, her Amendment 237 omits the word “network”, and we believe that she was right to do so. Once we define these assets as a network, local authorities become responsible not only for safeguarding individual sites but managing and maintaining the functional and spatial connections between them.
I will not repeat at length the importance of green and blue spaces—that has been thoroughly debated and supported by this side in debates on previous groups of amendments—but I commend the noble Baroness for the clarity and practicality of her approach to them. If she is minded to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will be inclined to support her.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 237 would update the objectives of new town development corporations to include the provision of publicly accessible green and blue spaces for local communities.
Our position remains that national policy is the best mechanism. Development corporations are subject to the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets clear policies for green infrastructure. As noted in Committee, we have seen this work well in practice. The Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has provided almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year is aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.
To repeat what I have said many times in our debates on the Bill, the NPPF is not a statutory document in itself because it needs to be flexible. We brought in a new version of the NPPF last December and we will publish another one shortly, so it is very important we have flexibility within it. However, as I have said before, it sits within a statutory framework of planning, which means that it carries the weight of that statutory framework.
The Government expect development corporations to work within the framework of national policy taken as a whole. It would be inappropriate to single out blue and green infrastructure in primary legislation, and it is unmanageable to include all relevant national policies within the objectives of development corporations at this level of granularity.
I understand that a driving concern behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to ensure that the Government’s programme of new towns includes accessible green and blue spaces. However, her amendment would not guarantee this. New town development corporations are only one possible vehicle for delivering new towns; urban development corporations and mayoral development corporations are also under consideration, as well as public/private partnerships, where this is right for the place.
I would also say to the noble Baroness that we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her role as Defra Minister, that a program is being drawn up on access to green and blue spaces as well, which is coming along very soon.
I fundamentally disagree with the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that there is no vision for new towns from the Government. The independent New Towns Taskforce recommended, alongside its overview, that there were 10 key placemaking principles, including that new towns should have easily accessible green spaces. The initial government response set out that we support the placemaking approach recommended by the task force. The final selection of placemaking principles will be subject to environmental assessment and consultation, as many noble Lords have mentioned.
The Government are committed to ensuring that new towns are well designed and have the infrastructure communities need, including green spaces. Implementation will, of course, be key. The task force recommended that government provide guidance on the implementation of placemaking principles and establish an independent place review panel to help ensure that placemaking principles are translated into local policies, master plans and development proposals.
My officials are developing policy ahead of a full government response to the taskforce’s report next year. I would very much welcome further engagement with the noble Baroness on the issue of new towns to better inform our final position. That said, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their really thoughtful contributions to this debate. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks, but I still have a very big problem here: every time, we come back to the NPPF, and every time there is recommendation and guidance. Unfortunately, when economic costs come in, particularly with developers, those recommendations and guidance disappear. We see it time and time again. At some point, we as a country have to be able to say, “These spaces are so important that they should be in the Bill”. They should be there, because without them, we will have no green spaces left in cities. So, while I appreciate this response, I wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord Fuller
“(c) the funding and financing of development proposals, which may extend to the issuance of bonds, debt or similar financial instruments.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to empower development corporations to seek finance from the widest number of sources whether from PWLB, private money, sovereign wealth, pension funds or value in-kind as part of a joint-venture together with the ability to issue bonds, individually or severally with other development corporations.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the development corporation parts of the Bill are the best parts of it, and my intention is to make the best of that and to support it. I came here with an open mind, not really knowing whether I was going to press the amendment but. in her winding. the Minister said two things which I am uncomfortable with, so in due course I wish to test the opinion of the House. The first was that there is an apartheid in this country in so far as development corporations are concerned.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Lord made his speech earlier. We do not need to rehearse what has been said during the debate—I spoke on this issue at the beginning of this particular debate. Perhaps he can let us know whether he will move this to a vote.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am getting there; I just wanted to give the two reasons. The first was—
Lord Fuller (Con)
Your Lordships are only delaying it.
First, the development corporations outside London should have the same financing as those within and, secondly, the Minister mistakenly interpreted my amendment to mean that it required development corporations only to take private finance, whereas it was to give it the option. As I am dissatisfied with the Minister’s response, I wish to put the matter to a vote.
Lord Lucas
“(A1) In section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (interpretation), after the definition of “local authority” insert—““local news publisher” has the meaning prescribed to it in Schedule 2ZA.”.(A2) After Schedule 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, insert—“Schedule 2ZALocal news publishersDefinition of local news publisher
1 The term “local news publisher” means a business that—(a) has as its principal purpose the publication of original, local news content, where such material, whether or not publication is done with a view to making profit—(i) is published, online or in print, no less than once every 31 days;(ii) is subject to editorial control;(iii) is regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), or by IMPRESS;(b) is legally resident in the United Kingdom;(c) is owned and operated within the community; and(d) is considered by the relevant local authority to be an effective means of drawing the notice to the attention of local people who would be interested to read it but are not actively looking for it.2 An organisation is a relevant local authority if it is—(a) identified as a principal council within the meaning of section 2 of the Local Government Act 1978 for England or section 21 of that Act for Wales, and(b) required by law (such as section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) to issue a public notice relating to any powers it exercises.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with two others to this Clause in the name of Lord Lucas, is to update the 1981 definition of newspaper so that it takes account of the substantial changes in local media this century, in relation to newspaper notices required under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
Lord Lucas (Con)
First, my Lords, I note with unrestrained delight from the annunciator that Parliament is being presented with the opportunity to spend another £10 million on a new door, and I look forward to the announcement shortly.
My amendments concern the advertising requirements in the Bill and indeed elsewhere in legislation. The purpose of the advertisements is to tell people what is happening, and there are two main routes through which that information has to flow. One should be a central database of all such announcements run by the Government so that all the professionals can immediately go where they need to in order to look at it every day, see what is happening and be completely up to date without having to faff around.
The other is that they ought to go in publications that ordinary members of the public read so that they can say, “Oi! What’s going on? I need to take an interest in this”. It is that second section that particularly concerns me because the rules as to where these advertisements can be put were set down in 1881 and need updating. The Minister has kindly promised me a meeting—which has yet to be arranged—with her department and DCMS; I look forward to that very much, but this needs doing.
There are a number of other amendments in this group, the presentations of which I will listen to with interest. The only one that I have a particular interest in is Amendment 250, which seems an undesirable bit of retrospective legislation designed to enable the All England Lawn Tennis Club not to have to negotiate fairly with the people it is disadvantaging as a result of its plans. I hope the Government will reject it, but I declare in saying so my interest, in that I am a resident of Eastbourne, which has been disadvantaged by the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s plans, and I have numerous friends and relations who are Wombles. I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 238A in this group, which is in the same terms as an amendment that I tabled and withdrew in Committee, reserving the right to return to it later. I have decided to bring it back for further consideration and will seek to reinforce the arguments for it.
This takes us into the largely unexplored Part 5 of the Bill and concerns the scope of exceptions to home-loss payments in what is now Clause 105. The compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, is a drastic step for which clear and proper justification should be required. Normally the person displaced from a property that is his or her dwelling receives the market value of the property, together with compensation by a statutory home loss payment, which provides some modest recognition that the person concerned is being compelled to leave his or her home.
However, in Clause 105, a proposed new section of the 1973 Act stipulates exceptions to the right to a home loss payment when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair or there have been other failures to comply with notices or orders which have been served. Homeowners caught by those exceptions will be denied any home loss payment. Of course, the assessed amount which the individual receives on compulsory purchase will always already reflect the lack of repair. Deprivation of the home loss payment would be therefore in addition to the reduced price reflecting a poor state of repair.
Repairs or improvements to a home may not always get done, for a variety of reasons. There may well be situations in which denial of home loss payments would be justified when there has been a significant, culpable failure to comply with statutory obligations to maintain, repair or safeguard a property wholly or in part. But the proposed list of unqualified exceptions in the Bill as drafted could operate unduly harshly and punitively, taking no account of individual circumstances or any underlying reason for non-compliance with the notice or order, which would automatically trigger forfeiture of the home loss payment.
The Bill does not allow for the exercise of any discretion in depriving the homeowner of that payment. In her helpful response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that it would be for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the 1973 Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the owner. I am sure that is correct, but the situation contemplated by my amendment is that arising at a later stage, after the order or notice has been served, when the homeowner to be displaced may reasonably want to show why personal circumstances do not then allow him or her to comply with the notice or order.
I wish to stress as quickly as I can three points. First, the amendment would not place any obligation on the local authority to investigate the reasons for non-compliance in any way, unless and until the person concerned tried to show that the omissions were not deliberate and that the cause of non-compliance was either that the required work could not have been carried out because of that person’s ill health or infirmity or that it could not have been afforded because of financial difficulty, such as an inability to obtain or afford funding. The burden of proving any of that would remain on the person to be displaced and would require credible evidence. The only obligation on the local authority at that stage would be to look at the realities of the cause for non-compliance.
Secondly, in these cases the property being compulsorily acquired is a home, and the displaced homeowner will almost certainly need the home loss payment to help find a replacement home. All this amendment seeks to do is obtain some modification of the blanket application of exclusions from such payments in an attempt to make the proposed new clause fairer and more reasonable when there has been what might be called no-fault non-compliance.
Thirdly, of course it is important to consider the financial implications for local authorities, but compulsory acquisition of homes in disrepair where notices have not been complied with is rare and, if the amendment is accepted, the number of cases in which the claimant could show genuine inability to comply with the required work because of ill health or lack of finance will be rarer still. This amendment would allow those people some opportunity to show those reasons and receive the payment which the Bill would otherwise take away from them. If the Government are not minded to look at this again and reconsider the amendment or something like it, I at least hope there would be an indication that guidance would allow such circumstances to be considered. If it were possible for that to happen, I suggest that unnecessary appeals could be avoided.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 242 and 243 are in my name. The purpose of these amendments is simply to eliminate the ability of the Government to ignore hope value when assessing value on compulsory purchase orders. The Minister has kindly laid out in writing that this will happen only in limited circumstances and, by implication, that it is of little concern. That is wrong. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, put it far more simply and elegantly than I when he said that hope value is actually market value. He is right. Other government departments accept this. When land is valued for inheritance tax or capital gains tax on non-financial transfers, hope value is explicit. Tax is paid on that hope value, so why should another government department be entitled to disregard it?
Under this Government’s family farm death tax, greater inheritance tax will be paid based on this hope value of land that might lift it, in certain circumstances, from around £10,000 per acre to as much as £50,000 per acre. What happens if the Government then turn around two years later and compulsorily purchase that land at £10,000 per acre because they want to disregard hope value? This is surely absurd; that hope value has not disappeared. The Government should pay for it.
This is a power of confiscation and, as my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is probing with Amendment 251, and as I raised at Second Reading and again in Committee, it is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister’s previous responses that the ECHR allows for CPOs is right, but it does not allow them at less than market value. His Majesty’s Government appear to put the ECHR on a pedestal; I am curious whether that is only when it suits them. CPO powers are, of course, essential to a modern Government carrying out their duties, but this cannot be a tyranny of the majority. The rights of the individual have to be respected.
Can the Minister assure us that, should she reject my amendments, CPO valuations will include all elements of market value attributed to that land under historic valuation parameters, as I believe the Red Book valuations already incorporate? I refer the House to my declaration of interests as a landowner, among other things.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 250 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Grabiner, who are unable to be here this evening but who continue to support it, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell. This amendment would address the wide-reaching consequences for persons who acquire former open-space land in light of a Supreme Court decision in 2023, R (on the application of Day) v Shropshire Council [2023] UKSC 8. Given that this amendment has been misunderstood by some and mischaracterised by others, I need to explain what it is and is not about.
Open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to that land for the purpose of recreation. Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that the local authority may not dispose of
“any land consisting or forming part of an open space”
unless before it does so it advertises its intention in a local newspaper for two weeks and considers any objections received in response to that advertisement. Section 123(2B) provides that the sale of the land post advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust.
If a local resident or community group considers that the disposal of land is unlawful for any reason, including but not limited to a failure to comply with the requirement to advertise, they have a remedy: they can bring a claim for judicial review of the local authority’s decision in the High Court. If they have good reason for bringing the claim late—for example, if they were not aware of the decision at the time it was made—they can draw the court’s attention to that in support of an application for a discretionary extension of time.
In public law, the normal position is that, if a public body’s decision has not been successfully challenged by way of judicial review, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision. However, in Day, the Supreme Court held that, even when the decision to dispose of open-space land has not been challenged, and even if it was made many years or even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertising requirements means that the statutory trust continues to exist, and therefore continues to frustrate the beneficial repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question.
Crucially, that is the case even if the land was sold in good faith by the authority to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, and even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements when it was sold.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 250 because I believe that it is a necessary and proportionate measure to remove a legal blockage to sustainable growth—a blockage that is holding back both our national well-being and our economic prosperity. I declare my relevant interests. On the well-being side, I am a member, unpaid, of the board of the World Wellbeing Movement and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics. On the economics side, I am a professional economist with decades of experience at the Treasury, and unpaid president of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, I naturally view this issue through the twin lenses of economic growth and fiscal sustainability. Of course, I am a member of the committee of the All England Lawn Tennis Club, which is obviously where I have experience that others can, I hope, learn from.
Regrettably, the decision that this House made in April, that we must exclude our non-financial interests from the register, has led to a degree of misunderstanding and, in some quarters, to unwarranted personal attacks on me—hence my need to put these matters on the record at my first opportunity. This is the first time I have spoken on this issue. I note that I asked the registrar’s office about this on 6 March: I wanted to carry on including my non-financial interests in the register, because they are really important, and I was told that this was not possible. It is ridiculous, so I am stuck with this.
I go back to the point of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, mentioned all the KCs and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the rest of them have all the legal arguments; I will not even try to rival their expertise. I am an economist—that is what drives me—and I care about well-being. As was said, this amendment responds to the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Day case. In essence, that judgment created a new and retrospective uncertainty over land ownership, affecting potentially innumerable development sites across the country. This is the important thing to get across. This is important for the economic growth of the country. The Wimbledon example is an important one, but it is only one among a number. The Minister is very aware of the long list of projects—because I sent it to her—that are now held back by this legal shadow. Because the problem is itself retrospective, the remedy must necessarily also be retrospective if we are to restore the legal clarity that the market and our communities so badly need.
I will go to my area of expertise: the real-world effects are best illustrated, to me, by the experience of that much-loved British institution, Wimbledon. I declare again that I have been a long-standing member of its main committee and put this in the register for many years, until that April change. The Day judgment has created significant delay and uncertainty for Wimbledon’s ability to transform the land that has, for more than a century, been a private members’ golf club.
I stress that there are lots of other examples but, in the Wimbledon example, the expansion already has planning permission from the Greater London Authority; it has been upheld by the High Court, yet progress is now halted because of the uncertainty surrounding the Day case. But this is about far more than economics. Wimbledon is a jewel in the crown of British sport. The other Grand Slams are investing heavily in their facilities and the fan experience. For Wimbledon to maintain its place at the pinnacle of world tennis, it must be allowed to evolve as they are. This expansion is crucial to that future. It is not only about elite sport; it is also about national well-being. The proposed development would turn qualifying week into a festival in its own right, offering three weeks of world-class tennis and community celebration rather than two. It would enhance the experience for the thousands who camp out each year in the queue. Let us remember that Wimbledon is not a profit-maximising organisation: 90% of our surplus goes back into the LTA and the other 10% goes into improving Wimbledon every year. So it would allow fans to have a better experience and capitalise on one of the country’s finest examples of soft power by extending the celebration of Britishness that the nation holds so dear.
Yet, perhaps most importantly of all—I stress this to my colleagues to my right—the benefits extend to the environment and local community. This is not an act of overdevelopment but of restoration, environmental enhancement and the opening up of new green space. Let me be specific: the project will convert 27 acres of private land into publicly accessible park land—a 50% increase in green space for local residents. It would restore the historic Capability Brown Wimbledon Park lake, which is terribly silted up at the moment, creating a circular boardwalk and reviving a landscape feature of national heritage. It would help to deliver a substantial biodiversity net gain, with the planting of at least 1,500 new trees and the creation of rich habitats for wildlife. These arguments were made at the GLA planning stage, and the environmental case won the day. As someone who massively believes in green spaces and in well-being, I am afraid that I have to disagree with those who think that somehow this development will do the opposite of that. It is not—it will make things better.
I urge the Government to swiftly find a way to support the amendment, which is a modest and necessary measure to restore certainty, enable sustainable growth, strengthen our national well-being and help to deliver the kind of forward-looking development that future generations will thank us for. I honestly do not understand why the Government, who accept that the current situation needs to be changed via legislation, cannot bring forward at Third Reading in their own wording, taking account of any issues that they may have, something that can solve these problems.
I have experience of these matters; there are more there are more than 50 brilliant and excellent draftsmen in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Every department has additional drafters. It is not beyond the wit of man to do this reasonably quickly. When I am told that we might do this in some future legislation, I remember the words of my successor as Cabinet Secretary, alas, the late Jeremy Heywood. When faced with issues like this, he would say to me, “Gus, we need to get a grip”. He was right. Can we please get a grip, get on with it and solve this problem, which will enhance national well-being, improve the environment and stimulate economic growth?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I do not want to take up the time of the House at this stage of the evening, but I want to speak against Amendment 250 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Pannick, Lord Grabiner and Lord O’Donnell. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, in one respect, that it is a backwards step for what the register of interests now represents, in that non-financial interests absolutely ought to continue to be highlighted. We have just had a prime example of that tonight, if I may say so.
I was slightly nervous about saying anything against such an illustrious line-up as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has lined up, but my understanding of the situation is not that, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, tried to persuade me, we are all misunderstanding the position. I do not think we are; there is a real need for this to be gripped, but this is not the way to do it. This amendment has caused substantial concern that it erodes the protection of green space and removes long-standing public rights to green spaces, where the land is sold by local authority, with or without consultation. For the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to say that a judicial review is the way forward, frankly, misrepresents the position of many local communities, which are absolutely incapable of bringing a judicial review, either by degree of organisation or financially.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with pleasure and particularly agree with her point about judicial reviews. I have visited more local communities than I can count, where they have desperately been trying to bake cakes and to collect pence and pounds here and there, struggling to stand up a judicial review and simply unable to do it. I have no nervousness at all in opposing Amendment 250, because I bring voices from the community, something I often seek to bring into your Lordships’ House, as represented by the Wandsworth and Merton Green parties and Merton Friends of the Earth, which are strongly opposed to the development by the All England Lawn Tennis Club and opposed to the kind of changes that this amendment would bring. It is also, of course, strongly opposed by the Open Spaces Society.
I want to make two specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, talked about “beneficial repurposing”, saying, “Oh, it’s fine if it’s beneficial repurposing”. Beneficial repurposing, I am afraid, is often in the eye of the beholder, and there can be many different perspectives on what it is. The other contextual point I wish to add—these are figures from 2018, which will undoubtedly be out of date—is that what has been described as “the new enclosure”, from the late 1970s to 2019, has seen 10% of what was public land in Britain transferred into private hands. That is 2 million hectares of land. This is probably not large in terms of scale, but it would be yet more loss of public good for private profit, not for the people who have already lost so much. I finally note the strong vote for the recent amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, on protecting blue and green spaces: that is the House strongly showing what it wants to do.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 250. I know that many noble Lords are much better versed in the law around this than I am. However, I want to touch on the point about land held in trust for enjoyment by the public. In situations where such a purchase will mean that the public’s rights of enjoyment will not be maintained, surely there should at least be extensive consultation with local communities, with their views taken into account, and where there is strong objection, surely at the very least some alternative provision should be made.
Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, I am concerned that this amendment will erode the rights of the general public and that they will not have a suitable, easily accessible mechanism to defend their rights or negotiate a solution to satisfy both parties. The law is beyond the reach of most normal people as it is so expensive. Judicial review would probably be off-putting to local communities not familiar with law.
If I have read this amendment correctly, it would appear to backdate this right. Surely that is very unusual and we ought to be looking to the future. I hope that when this issue is given further consideration by the Government, they will consider the rights of local people and ensure that their voices are heard and they are given primary consideration.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee. I want to follow up briefly, because in this debate we are getting a more comprehensive view of the problem and, potentially, of the solution. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred to the fact that the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 brought in the provisions now in the Local Government Act 1972. Last time we were told about these ancient pieces of legislation: the Public Health Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906. The fact that they are ancient pieces of legislation is neither here nor there. The thing we are dealing with was inserted in 1980, which is why the amendment refers to 1980.
What should happen in the future? In future, if land to which the public have some rights of enjoyment and access is to be disposed of by a local authority, the local authority should consult. And what the legislation requires is not too onerous: it is to advertise for two weeks and consider any objections raised. This is hardly too much. That is for the future. Clearly, the public benefit should be incorporated into whatever decisions are made as a consequence of that.
For about 45 years local authorities thought, because of what is in Sections 122(2B) and 123(2B) of the Local Government Act 1972, that if they did not do that, not only was the sale still valid but the trusts relating to that legislation were extinguished. They were wrong about that, so we have to put them back in that situation. Essentially, we have to look back and say, in all these decisions made over that period, where local authorities operated on what turned out to be a false basis, they must take into account the public benefit that might have been derived from the trust and find some other way of doing it. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, explained to us how, in one instance, it is the intention of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to ensure that significant public benefit continues to be provided by way of access to open space and public enjoyment. That is exactly where we need to go. But the legislation needs to reflect both the requirement for consultation and that there may be some continuing necessity for the public benefit either to be enjoyed in that open space or by some alternative means.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just said. Philanthropists in the past gave areas of green space and there have been scandals where councils have sold them off for money, and we all complain that there are no more playing fields, for example. This smells a bit like that. It is almost land that has been protected by accident by a legal quirk that has prevented it being developed subsequently or sold on for development unwisely.
To my mind, this is surely a case-by-case matter. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, made a very powerful case for Wimbledon. Maybe he is right, but I am sure that plenty of sites around the country are not quite so green and lovely in their eventual outcome. I find it difficult to support an amendment that alters everything across the board. Going back, almost in a time machine, doing a proper consultation and the substitution of what is being lost has to be the approach, rather than what is proposed in this amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is quite a wide-ranging group of amendments, and fairly disparate at that. I will first briefly focus on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In Committee he raised those issues about the publication of public notices, with which I had, and continue to have, some sympathy.
The sad demise of the printed local newspaper means that fewer and fewer people will have access to the public notices. This is partly in reference to Amendment 250, because where would people read the notice about Wimbledon Park or any other site of that sort? I am sympathetic to the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes in his amendment.
Moving to Amendments 242 and 243 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I remember the long debates we had on this very issue during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I recall that it was the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who passed the levelling-up Bill, now Act, and included in it the very issue he now wishes to undo.
We have been listening to arguments about growth and economic development, but for many parts of the country, without access to land at affordable prices for the public good, those sorts of developments, such as community health centres and so on, will never come to fruition. We had those arguments on the levelling-up Bill. For me they are still important issues that we ought to respect, so for the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I am afraid it is a big cross—I cannot support those amendments.
This leads us on to Amendment 250. It is always worth looking through the other lens of an issue of development, or no development, whether it is for the public good, public well-being and economic development, or the lens of the residents who live in the area. I have used that theme throughout discussions on this Bill. It is very important to those of us on these Benches that the views of local people who are affected by a development, be it a national strategic infrastructure project, a local planning application, mayoral development corporation plans or this issue, should and must be at the heart of those decisions.
What happens on the land affects their lives. It might be that the development is beneficial but, unless you take local people with you, it will not be, because they will constantly oppose it. I hear the legal arguments, but let us listen to people. I have been a local councillor for many years, and one thing I know for certain is that if you try to impose a decision on people—certainly in Yorkshire, anyway; I do not know about the rest of the country—and say, “It’s to do with the law. This is what’s been agreed. It’s bound to be good for you”, they will make their voice heard loud and strong and long. You need to take people with you on these big issues.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will say just one sentence in support of Amendment 238A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is a deeply humane, very minor amendment, and I hope that the Government will get behind it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 238ZA, 238ZB and 238ZC from my noble friend Lord Lucas seek to change the definition of a local newspaper for the purpose of compulsory purchase orders. I listened carefully to his argument for these changes, but we have some concerns that these amendments might be overly prescriptive and place unnecessary burdens on local authorities. That said, we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on improving the transparency of public notices relating to CPOs. Clearly, where CPO powers are exercised by Ministers or Natural England, the public should be made aware, so can the Minister set out the Government’s assessment of the current requirements and confirm whether Ministers have plans to strengthen them?
Amendments 242 and 243, in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, seek to return to the position whereby farmers are paid the market value of their land when it is subject to compulsory purchase. As we have heard, these amendments seek to reverse changes made under the previous Government, but under this Government the situation of farmers has changed significantly. The Government’s policies have put farmers in an impossible position. Noble Lords listening to this morning’s “Today” programme will have heard James Rebanks’s comments on the challenges faced by farming communities across this country.
We have spoken consistently of the need for food security, and Ministers need to deliver a fairer deal for farmers. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will consider giving farmers whose land is subject to compulsory purchase the fair market price for their land? While we may not get an agreement this evening, we hope that Ministers will take on board these concerns and seek properly to support farmers across this country.
Amendment 251, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, also speaks to fairness in the compulsory purchase system. The amendment calls for a report on the compatibility of compulsory purchase powers with the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes a specific right to property. Given the expansion in compulsory purchase powers in the Bill, we agree with my noble friend that the impact of these powers on landowners’ rights should be considered carefully and in full. We hope that the Government can give an undertaking that they will commence a report on that.
Finally, Amendment 250 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. Listening to our proceedings, I am not quite sure whether the things I thought we would be debating have been debated. None the less, this amendment seeks to establish legal clarity. We have seen too many examples of development being blocked after permission has been granted, based on historic technicalities. There will be circumstances where historic constraints are appropriate and should be heeded, but there have also been some very high-profile examples of historic technicalities resulting in perverse outcomes in the planning process, inappropriately blocking the delivery of much-needed homes.
I will take this opportunity to describe my understanding of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked a lot about consultation, but it is my understanding that this amendment would not change in any way the requirement for consultation. Also, if there is a change of use for any piece of land, planning permission will still be needed, and the things we have discussed in this debate can be relooked at, discussed and consulted on, and decisions can then be made on the proposed changes.
I understand that the Government are looking seriously at that, which I welcome. These are complex and technical issues, but I hope that the idea that the decision will come in future legislation can be made much clearer. Perhaps the Minister could say that it could be brought back in the devolution Bill, which is in the other place and is likely to come here in the new year. That would be an ideal way forward in our opinion.
We need legal clarity. Given the hour that this amendment will come for a decision, we may not get a final answer tonight. However, I hope that Ministers will continue to talk to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments, take them away, look at them in detail and, very soon, in the next available Bill, establish a better way forward.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that very interesting debate on a wide-ranging set of issues in the Bill. There are a number of amendments in this group relating to compulsory purchase. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about that subject as well as the other issues raised in this group. I hope noble Lords will understand that, out of respect to you, these require a fuller response than I would otherwise have given at this late hour, because I think it important that I respond to the points that have been made.
Amendment 238A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, relates to compulsory purchase compensation rules and home loss payments. The amendment would ensure that homeowners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action required.
A home loss payment is a separate payment made to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. It is an amount paid in addition to compensation for the market value of a property subject to a CPO. Under current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with notices or orders served on them to make improvements to their land or properties, their right to basic and occupiers loss payments is already excluded.
As mentioned in the previous debates on this issue, there are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments, which is an inconsistency. Clause 105 of the Bill amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 to apply this exclusion to home loss payments. Where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be paid compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation and other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. Clause 105 does not prevent these other heads of compensation or costs being claimed. It will be for local authorities to decide whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order, taking into account the circumstances of the property owner.
Furthermore, individuals are able to challenge improvement notices or orders served on them by local authorities, and Clause 105 does nothing to interfere with this right. The provision introduced by Clause 105 will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring substandard properties back into use as housing where there is a compelling case in the public interest, and this will enable more empty properties to be used as family homes and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.
Amendments 238ZA to 238ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper which notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain criteria. As mentioned in previous debates, the legislation already requires authorities to publish notices in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. As introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, CPO notices are also published on the acquiring authorities’ websites. The purpose of this change was to modernise the CPO process to ensure that local people are fully informed. I agree with the comments made by Peers in the debate on these amendments that there are significant costs associated with publishing newspaper notices, and we therefore have to be mindful of adding new burdens to already hard-pressed local authorities.
That is why the Government have introduced Clause 107 in the Bill. The purpose of Clause 107 is to simplify the information required to be published in CPO newspaper notices, to reduce administrative costs and to improve the content of such notices. The amendments would also increase the complexity of the CPO process. Amending the existing requirement by stipulating in primary legislation a certain type of local newspaper would create unnecessary confusion and uncertainty, make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process and increase the potential risk of legal challenges, resulting in additional costs, and in delay in decision-making and in the delivery of benefits in the public interest.
I reassure the noble Lord that DCMS has committed to a review of statutory notices as part of the local media strategy. I, for one, really welcome that; it is very much time we did it. It is important that a coherent and co-ordinated approach be taken to this issue, rather than picking it up piecemeal. For these reasons, while we agree with the intention behind the amendments, I hope noble Lords will not press them.
Amendments 242 and 243, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, relate to compulsory purchase compensation. The amendments would repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, where justified in the public interest, for certain types of schemes. They also seek to omit Clause 107 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a full and helpful reply to my amendment. I look forward to the meetings which we are in the process of arranging. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Protection of villages(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages from over-development and change of character.(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—(a) preventing villages from merging into one another, and(b) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages, under the National Planning Policy Framework.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we debated this issue on a previous day on Report. On this side of the House, we have grave concerns over the importance of the protection of our much-cherished villages across this country. Pressures will come from new town developments, changes to the green belt and a lack of support for neighbourhood plans. This simple amendment seeks to provide existing villages with the protection equivalent to that which we already provide for our towns under the National Planning Policy Framework. We do not understand this and are going to stand up for our rural communities and villages. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Land purchasing: duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land(1) Any developer or company approaching a landowner to buy or lease land for the purpose of development must declare whether they are also approaching other owners of land in the vicinity to buy or lease land for the purpose of development.(2) The declaration required under subsection (1) must include whether the combined amount of land intended to be purchased or leased will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project as set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008.(3) In subsection (1), “in the vicinity” means any land immediately adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing or whether there are others being approached so that the total sum of the land obtained may result in application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 241. Amendment 240 is a return to the debate that we had about the issues of transparency and the right of landowners to be fully informed of the potential scale of a project. It would insert a new clause after Clause 106, creating a duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land in the vicinity. Proposed new subsection (2) states that that declaration
“must include whether the combined amount of land … will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project”,
while proposed new subsection (3) provides a definition of what is meant by “in the vicinity” in this context; namely, anything adjoining or within 10 miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased. The amendment would not prevent land purchasing from occurring but would force better practices, bringing in transparency and accountability to the process for potentially very large projects.
In Committee, the Minister argued that the amendment could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, potentially jeopardising progress on development projects. I disagree. I am not asking the developer to provide each potential partner with chapter and verse on other negotiations but simply to indicate that the land in question might form part of a larger project connecting to neighbouring land. That is a simple statement that would not be an onerous burden on developers; it would be a way of ensuring that all of them acted within the spirit of professional behaviour that we would expect, although sadly, as examples given in both Houses during the passage of the Bill have confirmed, that does not take place.
All too often it is the actions of a few that tarnish the reputation of the many, but surely it is only morally right and fair that landowners and the local communities potentially impacted have a true sense of the potential scale of the project being proposed and how it might have a bigger impact beyond the one plot being discussed. Anecdotally, I have heard of a case where the developer failed to notify those selling or leasing their land that they would be part of a big project; when it was discovered, there was considerable anger from the local community, with those who had agreed to lease their land being ostracised. Not only is this therefore the right thing to do, because surely all deals of this kind should be open and transparent, but it is also in the interests of community cohesion. I have since checked this with a land agent, who said that he thought it was eminently sensible.
The Minister referred to the book of reference and how it is available for public view—if indeed anyone knows about it—and that it should list all land and interests in land that may be affected by development. I reiterate a point made by others throughout our discussions: to the general public, development jargon and process is all a bit of a mystery to start with. However, the Minister herself mentioned the problem here: she implied in her Committee response that the book of reference is available for public view only once the application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State. Transparency after the application is too late and not transparent at all.
While some landowners may jump at the chance of being part of a nationally significant project, others may not wish to be. If they do not know what is being proposed, how can they make an informed choice? In this House, surely we should not be enabling corporate underhand behaviour. We need to ensure that consideration is given to those being approached for land with projects and the communities that will all have to live with the consequences.
Amendment 241 requires a similar simple statement, which again has the principles of transparency and good practice at its core. It seeks to prevent land banking, the practice of purchasing undeveloped land and holding it for future development or resale, rather than immediately building on it. Its proposed new subsection (1) would create an obligation on the developer or company to declare whether they held planning permission for similar developments within a 10-mile radius of the new site they were seeking permission to buy or lease. Proposed new subsection (2) would give the power to refuse development if any similar sites identified by proposed new subsection (1) had not been activated for over a year.
I remind the House that we must not conflate housing delivery with granting planning permission. Planning permission will not meet targets if it is not acted on. I will not reiterate all the stats from the debate we had in Committee, but suffice to say that, as another noble Lord highlighted, around four years’ worth of the Government’s current target is sitting in land banks. Better transparency will only help build trust and confidence in what our planning system can deliver.
I was pleased that the Minister expressed that the working paper is looking to see that permissions given are built out as quickly as possible and I suggest that this amendment could only strengthen the incentive for this to happen. It was also mentioned that a form of use it or lose it could be brought about by implementing the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Why has this not been kick-started already? Can the Minister give us a timetable in which she hopes that this will be implemented? How many other land banks will be approved before this comes into force? I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for bringing these amendments, particularly Amendment 241. The noble Baroness raised the issue of land banking in Committee and I am pleased that she is raising it again on Report. As she rightly said, land banking is one of the blockers of development. I will repeat one of the stats I gave in Committee: 1.2 million housing units with full planning permission are waiting to be constructed. Those figures are from the ONS. One of the reasons is that developers want to keep prices high and therefore phase development over a sometimes inordinately long timeframe. Indeed, in my own town there is a development of nearly 300 homes that the developer wishes to develop over 10 years, which explains, I think, as much as anything, why this country is short of the housing that it needs.
There are other consequences of land banking, apart from the crucial one of failing to supply the houses that the country needs in a timely way; it also has an impact on local plans. Where developers have full planning permission for all the allocated housing sites in a local plan, they can, and do, argue that they therefore need more sites, sometimes with preference for sites in the green belt, even though there is no intention of beginning, let alone completing, the sites they currently have with full planning permission. That is a really important issue on which I hope the Minister will give some comfort for those of us in local councils. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on these important issues.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson for her constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill, her close attention to its detail and her ambition to improve the legislation in a number of important areas. Amendment 240 needs to be considered carefully; I will be interested to hear what the Minister has on it. Where the total land being assembled could ultimately lead to an application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project, there is a real need for greater clarity at an early stage. That would only help to build trust between developers, landowners and local communities, and my noble friend’s proposals rightly highlight that need.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for Amendment 240. This amendment seeks to ensure that, when approaching landowners to buy or lease their land, developers must declare their interest in purchasing or leasing adjoining land. We appreciate the noble Baroness’s continued interest in promoting transparency and discouraging speculative land banking. However, we maintain that this amendment is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of the Bill.
There is existing guidance on the procedures in the Planning Act 2008 for the compulsory acquisition of land in connection with NSIPs. This guidance supports applicants to seek to acquire land by private negotiation, where practicable, using compulsory acquisition only where attempts to acquire by agreement fail. The guidance also encourages early engagement with affected parties to help build up good working relationships, to treat landowner concerns with respect and to help reduce the mistrust or fear that can arise in such circumstances.
Land acquisition for NSIPs can be highly sensitive and often involves confidential negotiations. Mandating developers to disclose discussions with adjacent landowners could risk breaching confidentiality agreements and potentially hinder the progress of vital infrastructure projects. This is particularly important at the pre-application stage, where early engagement is critical to shaping proposals and identifying potential issues. Forcing disclosure at this stage could discourage that open dialogue between developers and landowners. However, the Government recognise the importance of transparency for landowners and ensuring that there is a fair process in place before consent is granted to authorise the acquisition of land.
For those reasons, when applications that seek to authorise compulsory acquisition are developed and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, applicants are required to submit the accompanying book of reference, to which the noble Baroness referred. This is a publicly available document. It outlines all land and interests in land affected by a proposed development, including those subject to compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or other impacts. This ensures transparency and public accountability. I think there is an obligation to make people aware of the presence of that document.
After an application has been accepted, and to proceed to examination, applicants are required to notify landowners under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. Landowners are also recognised as interested parties under Section 102 of that Act, which enables them opportunities for involvement during examination. This is not merely procedural; it grants landowners meaningful opportunities to engage in the examination process. These provisions are vital to ensure that the voices and interests of landowners are not only heard but properly considered throughout the process.
In light of the sensitivities involved, the existing government guidance and the transparency mechanisms already in place, we do not think this amendment is necessary. I thank the noble Baroness for her continued engagement on this issue and kindly ask her to withdraw Amendment 240.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for tabling Amendment 241 related to the buildout of development, an issue we discussed in Committee. The amendment seeks to address the concerns around land banking by requiring planning permissions to be refused if developers have not commenced another development nearby within a year.
I fully recognise the intention behind this amendment and share the noble Baroness’s commitment to improving the buildout rate of residential development. As I have previously set out, the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that planning permissions are translated into homes being built. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary to achieve that goal. We confirmed at the time of the response to the NPPF consultation that we will implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions following a technical consultation.
During our earlier debates, I highlighted the publication in May of the working paper that sets out a more effective and comprehensive strategy for speeding up buildout, including greater transparency on buildout rates, new powers for local authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort.
The working paper also sets out our intention to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, helping to unlock stalled sites and making land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We are analysing the responses to that working paper and will set out our next steps in due course. I remain confident that the measures set out will make a real and meaningful difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Given this and the broader strategy we are pursuing, I hope the noble Baroness will consider not moving her amendment.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, although I am, of course, slightly disappointed by it.
I worry about when people are approached for land, either for leasing or buying, and not treated with honesty and transparency. I do not see how saying that developers should declare what the endgame is would impede an open dialogue. In fact, not telling people is not an open dialogue.
The Minister set out the process to be followed, but what happens when developers do not follow it? What comeback is there? It is all too late. I am disappointed about that, and I hope that there will be further consideration of it at some point.
I am glad to hear that there is a working paper and that there are plans to implement parts of the LURA. I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Report: local government reorganisation and devolutionWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out—(a) how this Act is intended to operate following local government reorganisation,(b) the arrangements that will apply in respect of this Act in the interim period while devolution settlements are being negotiated, and(c) what provisions must be in place to ensure the effective operation of this Act during the interim period.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is straightforward: it would require the Secretary of State to set out how the Bill is intended to operate following any local government reorganisation.
As many in this House will be aware, the landscape of local government is shifting. Across England, there are ongoing discussions about devolution, new combined authorities and the potential reorganisation of existing councils. Each of these changes will have significant implications for how local responsibilities are defined, how accountability is maintained and, ultimately, how this legislation will function in practice.
This amendment seeks clarity, not complication. If local government structures change, communities, councils and partners need certainty about how their duties, powers and relationships under the Bill will continue. Without such clarity, we risk creating confusion at precisely the moment when consistency and coherence are most needed.
We now await the forthcoming devolution Bill and the conclusions of ongoing negotiations around local government reorganisation. These will no doubt shape the future architecture of local governance, but in the meantime it is vital that we ensure a clear line of sight between this legislation and whatever follows. Amendment 244 is a small but important step towards that assurance. If not, a lack of clarity will affect delivery, as we are already seeing in local planning authorities across the country. I therefore hope the Minister will consider how the Government intend to provide this clarity and ensure that, as local government evolves, the operation of this legislation remains transparent, accountable and effective.
As this is the last time I will speak at this Dispatch Box on Report of this Bill, I will take the opportunity to make a broader point on commencement. Throughout the course of this Bill, we on these Benches have offered the Government a clear, credible plan to build more homes and to get Britain building again—and what have Ministers done with that advice? They have just ignored it. We have sought to address the genuine blockages in our planning system: the practical and legal barriers that stand in the way of new housing, such as the Hillside judgment, the lack of proportionality, the restrictions around the Ramsar sites and the complexities of nutrient neutrality rules. These are not abstract legalities; they are the very issues holding back delivery on the ground.
Our amendments would have tackled those problems directly. They would have released land, unlocked permissions and allowed homes to be built where they are most needed. Let us be clear: we are not speaking about a few thousand homes here or there. We are speaking about hundreds of thousands of homes that our plans would and could have unlocked. The uncomfortable truth is this: it is not local authorities, the courts or even the developers who are blockers in our housing system. It is the Government themselves.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I am sorry to have to point out to her, not for the first time from the Dispatch Box, that her Government had 14 years to get the housebuilding that we so desperately need. They had ample opportunity to take all the action that we are taking now, but they did not do so, so it is left to us to sort out the inevitable housing crisis that we face in this country.
Amendment 244 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three months of enactment, on the operation of the Act in the context of local government reorganisation, and during the interim period while devolution settlements are being negotiated. This amendment creates an unnecessary and potentially burdensome precedent. Councils undergoing reorganisation are subject to a comprehensive suite of secondary legislation providing for the transfer of all statutory functions, including those created in new legislation—from predecessor councils to new councils. We will of course work in partnership with the sector to ensure that areas receive support to enable successful take-up of the Act, as well as transition to new unitary structures. This legislation refers to existing planning legislation—for example, Part 5 of the Local Government (Structural Changes) (Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2008. We will review and, as necessary, amend these and other provisions in the light of this Bill, and the timetable for any such updates will be determined by the reorganisation process.
Turning to devolution, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act already requires the Government to lay an annual devolution report before Parliament. The report provides an annual summary of devolution for all areas in England. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill amends current requirements so that this report reflects the introduction of strategic authorities and the new framework-based approach to devolution in England. It will include information on functions conferred on strategic authorities and any parts of the country where proposals have been received by the Secretary of State for the establishment of a strategic authority, and negotiations have taken place but agreement has not yet been reached. This allows for public transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of the devolution agenda. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, that was not what I expected. There are local planning authorities across this country that do not know what to do—they do not know whether or not to start a local plan. If they start a local plan, what will happen when they then become reorganised? It is a waste of time and money for a local government family that do not have the money to do it, or the resource. It would be such a simple thing to explain to local government what they should do in this interim period. However, I have said it all before and we have asked for something back from the Government, just to help the structures work better. It lands on fallow ground. I have tried, but I am going to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Building regulations: swift bricks(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.(3) For the purposes of this section—“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the common swift and other cavity nesting species;“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitats for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitats in buildings to breed.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Save our swifts! I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“National Planning Policy Framework: bird safety of buildings(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed—(a) amend the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that buildings incorporate, to the extent practicable, features, practices and strategies to reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, and(b) issue guidance on such features, practices and strategies to reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings.(2) The amendments under subsection (1)(a) must apply to any building that is constructed, or of which more than 50 per cent of the façade is substantially altered, after the date of the updated National Planning Policy Framework coming into force.(3) The Secretary of State may issue exemptions to the amendments made by subsection (1)(a) for listed buildings.(4) The guidance under subsection (1)(b) must include—(a) features for reducing bird fatality resulting from collisions with buildings throughout all stages of construction, taking into account the risks and available information on bird fatalities that occur at different types of buildings, and(b) methods and strategies for reducing bird fatality resulting from collisions with buildings during the operation and maintenance of such buildings, including using certified bird-safe glass.(5) The Secretary of State must review the guidance under subsection (1)(b) on a regular basis to ensure that it reflects current knowledge on effective methods to reduce bird fatalities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce bird safety (in design and in the use of bird-safe glass) into the National Planning Policy Framework for new builds and non-heritage buildings being extensively modified.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her constructive comments in the debate. I think we all want to find proportionate ways to stop 30 million birds a year being killed on our windows in the UK. I was very interested in her suggestion that a targeted measure for commercial developments might be a way of solving this problem, or at least addressing it. The Wildlife and Countryside Link briefing supports this, stating that bird safety in a commercial building would cost probably around 0.5% of the facade cost. I hope that the Government might be persuaded to bring this forward in an amendment of their own at Third Reading. On that basis, I will not try the patience of the House further.
Lord Crisp (CB)
“Secretary of State’s duty to promote health improvement and reduce health inequalitiesWhen considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions under the planning Acts the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to—(a) improve the health of persons living in England, and(b) reduce health inequalities between persons living in England.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Lord Crisp, would place a duty upon the Secretary of State to consider health promotion when they discharge their planning functions. The amendments use the same wording for the duty and definitions as are used in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Clause 43, Health improvement and health inequalities duty).
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 247 I will speak to Amendment 248 in my name. I thank the noble Lords who have added their names to it, and I thank Hugh Ellis and Rosalie Callway of the TCPA for their support.
In this House, I am sure we all understand that our health status is very largely determined—65% or more—by the so-called social determinants of health: that is housing, environment, employment, wealth and education. The relationship between good and bad housing and good and bad health is particularly close. Planning is a huge factor, with its oversight of the environment, access to nature and blue and green spaces, housing, economic development and much more. Unless these other sectors and planning are involved in promoting health and reducing health inequalities, I fear that the UK’s health status will not improve and may continue to get worse, with knock-on effects on public services and the economy, and that the NHS will simply not achieve its ambitious goals for improvement.
My amendment is not about the NHS; it is about health, important as the NHS is. To quote my old friend Francis Omaswa, who used to run the Ugandan health service, “Health is made at home; hospitals are for repairs”. By all means let us improve the repair service, but we need to focus on health improvement. It is therefore vital that planning plays a role in promoting health and tackling health inequalities. My preferred route would be through the setting of standards for healthy homes and neighbourhoods, but I recognise, having tried this line several times in your Lordships’ House, that there is currently no appetite for that around the House. I fear it will come back to prominence in future years, not least because of the standard of homes that may get built. I hope I am wrong.
Lord Moynihan
“(2) Sport England may make representations to the Secretary of State about the extent to which the Secretary of State is meeting the duty in subsection (1).(3) The Secretary of State must have regard to the representations in subsection (2).”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and his eloquent explanation when moving his amendment. My amendment seeks to reinforce the points he has made. It will not surprise him to learn that not only am I fully supportive but that sports policy is no longer principally about sporting success; it is about the important link between sport, health and well-being. That is why I have for a long time argued that ministerial responsibility for sport and recreation should be firmly embedded at the heart of the Department of Health, rather than mistakenly in a separate department responsible for broadcasting, tourism and the digital economy.
Sport England, courtesy of both parties—I am glad to see the Labour Benches so strongly represented at this hour—already has a statutory responsibility and a strategic duty to promote health improvement and reduce health inequalities, primarily through its role in increasing participation in sport and physical activity among underserved and less active groups. Sport England’s primary legal duty remit has rightly broadened in recent years to encompass improving health and well-being and addressing health inequalities as central objectives, in line with government policy. This includes supporting links between the sport sector, planning and health systems, and driving changes that address barriers to activity for disadvantaged groups in particular. That is why it is the right body to be the consultee, to ensure that with Amendment 147 placed firmly in the Bill, as I hope it will be, it can police its effectiveness.
The government strategy clarifies that the aims set out in this amendment require collaboration across the sectors, including councils, planning authorities, the NHS and other parties. Sport England has the rightly expected lead role and holds measurable targets in this area, and that is why I argue that it should be the statutory consultee. In conclusion, that is why this amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would strengthen it and provide oversight as to its effectiveness.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly at this late hour, having attached my name to Amendments 247 and 248, so ably and clearly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I will make two brief points.
The first point is about the proposed duty to promote health improvement. The UK has a terrible state of public health. We are doing much worse than many other countries that we consider comparable, and that has huge human, social and economic effects. The social determinants of health—so many aspects covered by the Bill—are the major factor in why that is the case. Unless we take action, it will only get worse.
My second point is about the second chief element of the proposed new clause: the Secretary of State’s duty to “reduce health inequalities”. The King’s Fund defines health inequalities as
“avoidable, unfair and systematic differences in health between different groups”.
In assessing this issue, it points to life expectancy, which varies across England by almost a decade, and healthy life expectancy, which varies between the poorest and the richest areas by 18 years.
My question to the Minister and the crowded Benches opposite, is: how can a Labour Government or Labour Peers oppose this amendment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a couple of comments. Clearly, my noble friend the Minister will no doubt say that this is outwith the intention and focus of this legislation. I sympathise with that; it is the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, as a former distinguished chief exec of the National Health Service, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is right to pinpoint that there are some gaps between the needs of health and healthcare and the planning system. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some reassurance that, as we go forward—we have an NHS Bill coming in the next Session—there will be ways to find that some of the noble Lord’s key points will be embraced in both the planning and the National Health Service system.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to attach my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He raised a wider issue in the debate on what became the levelling-up Act about the need for healthy homes, and he was right to do so. I was saddened that that was not accepted by the Government at the time. He has now brought forward a less demanding amendment.
It is important that, when thinking about development, health and housing, we add the idea of ill-health prevention and the social determinants of health. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned and defined, and how right he is.
Some 14% of homes in our country—3.5 million—are not up to decent housing standard. In my own district, which has areas of quite considerable deprivation, where people are living in poor accommodation, a report says:
“Children in bad housing conditions are more likely to have mental health problems, have respiratory problems, experience long-term ill health and disability, experience slow physical growth and have delayed cognitive development”.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has made the case: children deserve better. We ought to support him.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, these amendments deal with an issue that goes to the very heart of the Bill’s purpose: how we ensure that our planning system promotes not only economic growth and infrastructure delivery but the health and well-being of our communities. This is not just about a healthy home but about a healthy community, which is so much more than just the bricks and mortar. As has been raised many times throughout the passage of the Bill, we all want to create great communities—a home and that sense of place. Great places are healthy places. That includes warm and comfortable homes, spaces that are safe for outdoor recreation, places to socialise and places where work, leisure facilities and open spaces are easily reachable.
Amendment 247 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve health and reduce health inequalities when discharging their planning functions. That is not a radical departure; indeed, it aligns precisely with the language used in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and reflects the Health and Social Care Act 2012 duty on the NHS to reduce health inequalities. It simply asks that the same commitment be applied to planning—one of the most powerful levers for shaping the health of our nation.
Amendment 247A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, would add a valuable and practical dimension for allowing Sport England to make representations to the Secretary of State on how this duty is being met. That is a sensible suggestion, recognising the importance of physical activity and access to sport in promoting both physical and mental health.
Amendment 248 would provide clear definitions, ensuring that “health inequalities” and “general health determinants” are well understood and that this duty is not left to vague interpretation. The drafting captures what we all know to be true: the state of health is shaped as much by housing, transport, safety, employment and access to services as by anything that happens in the health service itself.
A modern planning system must support not only economic growth but social resilience and public health. The pandemic reminded us just how closely our built environment is linked to physical and mental well-being. If we want truly sustainable communities, health must be a core planning outcome, not an afterthought. I therefore urge the Minister to look sympathetically at these amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and the decisions that stem from them should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. That would enable and support healthy lives by both promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where that would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities between the most and the least deprived communities.
Turning to Amendments 247 and 248, I recognise that improving the health of our communities is a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, cares deeply about; he has been a great advocate for many years on this topic. We agree with him that health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities is an important matter in which our planning system should play a vital role.
However, we do not believe that his amendments are necessary. Ministers and other public bodies are already subject to requirements under the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard, when carrying out their functions, to the need to advance the equality of opportunity, to eliminate discrimination and to foster good relations between people with protected characteristics. That will, where relevant, include taking into account potential differential impacts in terms of health and well-being. While the noble Lord’s amendment would extend even more widely in relation to Ministers’ planning functions, the importance of these matters is both recognised and addressed through the National Planning Policy Framework, which places a strong emphasis on health. Indeed, the importance of healthy communities is recognised in a dedicated chapter.
The framework sets out that planning policies and decisions should achieve those healthy, inclusive and safe places, which promote social interaction and enable healthy lives, promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where this would address those local health inequalities. The framework recognises the importance of open space and sport and recreation facilities in enabling physical activity and the health and well-being of local communities. It is clear that local planning should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are set out in planning practice guidance, which supports the implementation of the NPPF in practice.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I believe it falls to me to briefly respond. My intention is not to press my amendment.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment; I should have supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I am still not convinced by the Minister’s response or that what she has said will make a material difference to health in this country. Until we take the social determinants of health seriously, we will not see the improvements that we want. I will continue to press this on other occasions. Having said all that, I am not going to move to a vote tonight, given the certainty of losing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Compulsory purchase for planning and development: code of practice(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice to be followed by all bodies or individuals exercising powers of compulsory purchase for the purposes of planning and development.(2) On publication of the code of practice, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) an enforcement mechanism for the code of practice, including nominating a responsible body or individual for monitoring compliance,(b) penalties for non-compliance with the code of practice, and(c) a system for appealing against findings of non-compliance with the code of practice.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to ensure that all acquiring authorities, and their agents, are bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice exercised by a willing seller to a willing buyer.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, a similar amendment to this was brought forward in Committee and very ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. The problem the amendment tries to resolve is the fact that the Government’s powers of compulsory purchase are being used and abused by private operators. The Government quite rightly have statutory powers of compulsory purchase for developing our infrastructure. But in recent years the statutory bodies responsible for building this infrastructure have been delegating, or outsourcing, these powers of compulsory purchase to private operators that are abusing the system for their own private gain. There are numerous examples of the use of bullying tactics and scandalous delays in payment.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted some of the appalling aberrations and bully-boy tactics that are currently prevalent in the system, which only seem to be getting worse. I will not repeat the examples he gave, but bad behaviour is not hard to find, involving a range of statutory bodies from highway authorities to water companies, electricity operators and, of course, railway companies—HS2 being a prominent offender.
I will not detain your Lordships with too much detail, but it cannot be right that householders should, for instance, be given three months’ notice to leave their homes and get offered only 90% of the market value, and that they often get paid long after the three months are up. How can they buy an equivalent new home for themselves and their family under those circumstances?
It cannot be right that businesses, farming or otherwise, can be threatened with either temporary or full-time confiscation of their premises without the upfront—I stress that word—full compensation for what they are losing. I may also say that, in the case of HS2, many of the businesses involved in a cancelled section—cancelled over two years ago now—have yet to see either their land back or proper payment for their property. In the private sector you have to pay 100% up front before you can take occupation of a house or land on a farm. All we are asking for is for compulsory purchases to be bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice. You should not be allowed to chuck a family out of their house or off their land without giving them full compensation before you do so. These people have done nothing wrong. They just happen to have found themselves living or working in the wrong place. Furthermore, the dispossessed should have an easy means of recourse if the code of behaviour is abused.
A flagrant HS2 example which I came across recently involves a commercial site in Birmingham where HS2 took over the property of a partnership over seven years ago now. Six months after the purchase, HS2 had paid the partnership only 20% of a conservative value put on its property by its bank. I should point out that banks never overvalue property; they would not survive if they did. Well, some of them did in 2008, and we all know what happened then. A spokesman for that partnership told me:
“Our sense is that HS2’s strategy has been to seek to delay payment for as long as possible. They have used the letter of the law to obfuscate and avoid meaningful interaction with us at all times. At no point has there been a genuine desire to settle this case or even to meet to share information and views. As a result, we are likely to incur thousands of pounds, tens of thousands of pounds, on legal costs, trying to drag them through the courts to force their hand”.
Involving slightly less money, I give your Lordships an example from Wales which came to me just last week. I quote from the lady farmer involved:
“Our farm has been in our family for four generations and includes an eco-campsite by the Colwyn Brook Marshes SSSI, a protected wetland habitat supporting rare species. On 7 July 2025, a Land Agent called to say that Green Gen Cymru (part of Bute Energy) planned to conduct surveys during the weeks of 14 and 28 July—our busiest period. He said they intended ‘to make an example out of somebody’ and would issue a summons and seek costs if access was refused.
On 29 July, Green Gen representatives arrived unannounced at our campsite shop saying surveyors would arrive on 31 July but they could not confirm where or when. I showed them our map and asked them to identify the survey areas—they refused. I explained that we offer our guests open access to our land while ensuring that environmentally sensitive sites were properly protected. Despite this, I was told that legal action would be taken if we attempted to obstruct the surveyors, and that the energy company would seek a warrant and pursue court action if we refused access.
The next day, I was told by email that the surveys had been deferred. I thought this was because they’d had second thoughts, but then we found out it was because they had already been. Hidden wildlife camera footage showed them walking through the Colwyn Brook SSSI in dirty boots and overalls, having entered my land on 29 July. No biosecurity measures were followed. And when I reviewed the CCTV footage, I discovered that the surveyors had also been in the stream below our house—despite assurances that no surveys would be carried out”.
These are the sorts of cowboys that are being let loose with government powers across our country. There are now 300 cases looming against Green GEN Cymru of a similar nature. What we all want—at least, what I want—is for the compulsory purchase system to work as effectively and as speedily as possible. That would be so good for our infrastructure, our economy, our economic growth—everything that this Bill is trying to achieve. But there are too many cowboys involved, using state powers to manipulate the system to their advantage.
The compulsory purchase system is, in the opinion of many, lurching towards a crisis. It is now looked on with suspicion by all involved. The key thing is that if no one trusts it, property owners, householders and farmers will dig their heels in and use every legal means available to delay having to surrender their house, their farm or their business. Thus our new infrastructure and our growth will go out of the window.
In Committee, the Minister mentioned existing government guidance which states how the acquiring authority should behave. As I have already pointed out, these do not behave. It could be because the government guidance is 191 pages long. She also indicated that the Government believe that the necessary rules are already in place and should be clear to all. First, having rules and regulations is not the same as having a code of practice to abide by. Secondly, it is not the same as having a referee to oversee fair play. Football has rules but without a ref it would soon descend into a bloodbath. Sometimes it gets quite close to that, even with a ref. It is precisely what is happening now with our compulsory purchase system. Without anyone to blow a whistle, the bad behaviour will only get worse—and our infrastructure growth will be permanently mired in legal entanglement. We must restore faith in the system.
When, two or three Governments ago, the public and politicians became aware of the bully-boy tactics of the large supermarkets over the small food producers, Parliament, with the strong support of the Labour Party, got all parties together to agree a groceries code and appointed a Groceries Code Adjudicator to oversee fair play. It has been a big success. The very existence of the adjudicator has changed how supermarkets work. This is what we desperately need in the compulsory purchase system—some sort of agreed code and a referee.
I hope the Government have noted that I minutely changed the wording of this amendment from the one that I tabled in Committee. I felt that for the Secretary of State to nominate a body or individual to monitor compliance, rather than to establish a new one, might make it more acceptable. However, if the Government want the compulsory system to work effectively, to speed up our infrastructure, from roads and rail to—especially—housing, this amendment or something like it will be essential. I hope that I get a satisfactory response from the Front Bench on this. If the Government cannot accept my amendment, they might undertake to bring their own forward at Third Reading or, at the very least, to have a meeting to work out some way of resolving the problem that I have outlined. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. A code of practice would curb the bad practice that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has very movingly illustrated to us this evening. It is based on the evidence of lived experience of compulsory purchase as currently enforced by commercial agents. I urge the Government to reflect on its merits as driving a far more humane, more swift and less expensive process than the current guidelines achieve. I hope the Government will not reject it simply because they can.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, made a compelling case for the issue which he has reiterated this evening—the necessity for a code of practice to set rules that can be enforced on compulsory purchase order issues. I said in Committee that I had a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord had to say. He has made an even stronger case this evening with the real-life examples that he has quoted to us.
I hope that the Minister can respond very positively this time to the genuine issues that are being raised, with a solution being offered. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has said, we look forward to what the Minister has to say, but this issue is not going to go away unless the Government grasp it and deal with it.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to add our support for Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I would draw a thread through all these debates that we have had on Report on compulsory purchase: this is a necessary tool of government to allow society’s needs to be placed above the individual in a small number of cases where the case is clear-cut.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for the amendment. The Government understand the spirit of the amendment; however, we maintain that a statutory code of practice is unnecessary.
First, government guidance, which was updated earlier this year in collaboration with external stakeholders, such as the Countryside Land Association, contains strengthened advice, which acquiring authorities should follow. The updated guidance states that authorities should undertake early engagement with landowners to identify the impacts of their schemes and what measures local authorities can take to mitigate the impacts of their schemes. I say to the noble Lord that where this is not done, the Government are of the view that CPOs are at risk of failing. In addition, we intend to update CPO guidance early next year, and we would welcome the views of stakeholders, such as the Countryside Land Association, on where the advice could go further on promoting best practices for acquiring authorities to follow.
Secondly, when decisions are taken on CPOs, the decision-maker must be sure that the purposes for which the CPO is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. As I mentioned previously, particular consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the convention. In addition, acquiring authorities should consider the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 when making a CPO and have regard to the needs of meeting the aims of that Act.
Thirdly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published updated professional standards expected of its members involved in the valuation of compulsory purchase compensation. The purpose of the professional standards is to protect claimants and businesses, support high standards in valuation delivery, and future-proof practices in the public interest. The standards lay out the ethical conduct and competence expected for RICS members advising on compulsory purchase matters. The Compulsory Purchase Association has also published, in collaboration with leading CPO practitioners, a land compensation claims protocol.
This Government’s objectives are to make the process more efficient for all parties to a CPO without creating further duplication. The amendment would run counter to these objectives. Therefore, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words, which I have to say were very disappointing. They obviously came from her department, written of course from the perspective of the Whitehall bubble, which in my view always remains somewhat distant from the reality of what is going on out there.
I cannot actually believe that the Minister personally believes that the sort of behaviour I have described should be at best tolerated, or at worst condoned by the Government—by any Government. Nevertheless, in spite of my disappointment and in light of the numbers in the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Rock
“Tenant farmers (compensation for disturbance following change of use for farm business tenancies let under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995)In the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, after section 21 insert—“21A Compensation payable to the tenant for disturbance(1) This section applies where a farm business tenancy terminates in whole or in part by reason of a notice to quit given by the landlord following the granting of a planning consent for change of use and the tenant quits the holding in consequence of the notice.(2) Where this section applies there shall be payable by the landlord to the tenant by way of compensation for disturbance a sum equal to the tenant’s actual loss limited to the extent of the farm business tenancy and any consented activities connected to this.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces reasonable compensation provisions payable to farm tenants within the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. It will ensure that farm tenants receive compensation equivalent to their real loss for any land removed from their tenancy agreements for development. There are currently no compensation provisions within the Act.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, you will be delighted to hear that we are now in the home stretch as we debate just before midnight. I shall speak to the three amendments standing in my name, which, unsurprisingly, deal with matters connected with agricultural tenancies. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their support, and for the many sympathetic responses to the amendments I have had from all sides of the House from people who recognise the important role tenant farmers play. I refer to my interests in the register as a tenant farmer and the author of the Rock review into agricultural tenancies.
From time to time, landlords of holdings that are subject to agricultural tenancies may secure planning consent for a change of use from agriculture, either through a planning application considered by a local authority, which may also go to appeal, or as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. When that occurs, depending on the nature of the agricultural tenancy, the landlord will be able to secure vacant possession of the holding or part of the holding involved, either by statute or by contract. Agricultural tenancies subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 have a statutory process, set out in Schedule 3 to the Act under what is known as case B, which will allow the landlord to recover possession but paying only a statutory maximum level of compensation, which is just six times the rent being paid by the tenant for the land being removed. That rarely, if ever, comes close to the tenant’s actual commercial loss. For example, if a tenant farmer is paying £65 for an acre of land, compensation for that acre would be just £390. Amendment 253A seeks to redress that by providing a default position, setting out that the compensation will either be a multiple of the rent or the tenant’s actual loss, whichever is the larger.
I take as an example of the problem the case of the tenant arable farmers Rob and Emma Sturdy, who farm on the Fitzwilliam Malton estate in North Yorkshire. The local planning authority rejected a planning application by the solar energy developer Harmony Energy to take away almost half their farm, but that was appealed by Harmony. Before that appeal, Harmony Energy made an offer of compensation that was above the statutory minimum but, as far as Rob and Emma were concerned, below what would have been their actual commercial loss.
On appeal, the refusal of the solar farm by the local planning authority was overturned, but the inspector failed to make it a condition of that consent that the compensation offered by Harmony, and alluded to throughout the entire appeal, should be paid to Rob and Emma. Unfortunately, Harmony Energy has now taken that compensation offer away and reverted to offering only the statutory minimum compensation of six times rent for half the Sturdys’ farm. That is wholly unacceptable.
The case is made doubly worse by the fact that it was called in by the Government and the decision of the inspector was fully supported by the Planning Minister, despite the promise made to tenant farmers by the Prime Minister when, as Leader of the Opposition, he said that solar energy schemes must not be taken forward at the expense of tenant farmers and that tenant farmers needed to know that the soil beneath their feet was secure. Unfortunately, Rob and Emma are now feeling the emptiness of those words. That is why this provision is so ripe for change. Furthermore, in the solar road map that the Government published in June, they said that statutory compensation for tenant farmers must be addressed, so there is no reason why it cannot be addressed for all development that causes dislocation to tenant farmers.
The situation for tenants under farm business tenancies, regulated by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, is arguably worse. There is no statutory fallback position as to compensation when a tenant loses land following a planning application obtained by the landlord for change of use which allows the landlord to use a contractual clause to remove land. Amendment 253 merely seeks to add a legislative fallback position. Again, this will operate to provide tenants with a level of compensation equivalent to their real loss in losing land to a change of use following the granting of planning permission.
Amendment 253B seeks for the compulsory purchase regime to fully recognise the way in which tenant farmers are impacted. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, have spoken expertly on the need for wider reform of the way in which compulsory purchase operates, but this amendment focuses its attention on tenant farmers, who are often left out of discussions and end up with little or indeed no compensation when they see their businesses, homes and livelihoods devastated by a compulsory purchase acquisition.
While the landlord might receive a level of compensation which may or may not be reasonable in the circumstances, we must ensure that tenant farmers are also in receipt of a level of compensation which adequately covers their losses. In the same way that tenant farmers facing loss of land due to change of use being taken forward by their landlords need adequate compensation, the same must be true when the land is removed through compulsory purchase.
I confess I was increasingly dismayed this evening to note that the Minister in early responses on CPOs constantly referred to landowners. Some 64% of England’s land is wholly or partly tenanted, and yet the Minister fails to address the issue of tenant farmers who do not own land but will still be affected by CPOs. I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment to level the playing field for tenant farmers.
The Government should, and I believe should with ease, support these amendments, as they sit firmly within their own policy that the compensation payable to a farm tenant should be “adequate and fair” following a change of use to give way to a solar energy scheme as set out in the Government’s own recent solar road map. In already accepting that compensation provisions are not fit for purpose for solar energy schemes, the Government surely must also recognise that they are not acceptable for other types of development where the tenant farmer, through no fault and no decision of their own, loses occupation of land where they pay rent. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Grender has cosigned the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. Unfortunately, she is not well and so is not here tonight. She has asked me to make it clear that she fully supports the amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock, supported by my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
These are very important amendments, not just because the contents are wise and right, but also because of the detailed knowledge my noble friend has of tenant farming—better than anyone else in this House. My noble friend is a non-executive director of Imagination Technologies and First News UK. She is the senior independent director of the Keller Group, a company of 10,000 employees with a revenue of £3 billion. She is also the chair of Costain, another company with revenue of almost £1.5 billion. My noble friend is a top-notch executive with experience of analysing problems and delivering solutions, and has been headhunted by some of the most important companies in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is no surprise that in 2022, the Defra Secretary of State asked her to chair the Tenancy Working Group, which had two clear objectives.
The first was to look at how the new government financial schemes will be accessible, open and flexible to tenant farmers. The second was to look at longer-term changes that would ensure a robust, vibrant and thriving agricultural tenanted sector for the future. With roughly a third of farmland in England being tenanted, tenant farmers are absolutely vital to the nation’s food production, alongside the delivery of environmental outcomes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for those kind comments about my noble friend Lady Hayman. She was here earlier this evening, but it was not fair to keep her here when she is still recovering from quite a nasty bug.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her Amendments 253 and 253A, which seek to ensure that farm tenants receive compensation equivalent to their real loss where a farm business tenancy is terminated, in whole or in part, as a result of planning consent being granted to a landlord for a change of use. The stories she gave were indeed truly shocking. Existing legislation in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 sets out the compensation provisions for tenant farmers, but we genuinely recognise that it needs to be revised so that tenant farmers receive adequate compensation, reflecting real loss for land removed from their tenancy agreements for development.
The Law Commission announced its 14th programme earlier this year, which will consider whether existing agricultural law appropriately balances giving tenant farmers the security and opportunity to maintain viable businesses, while providing landlords with the confidence to let land and supporting opportunities for new entrants into farming. That is something I am sure the noble Baroness would want to see, as we all do.
The review is also likely to consider the scope and design of appropriate compensation provisions, drawing on the Law Commission’s specialist expertise in legal reform. This would typically include a detailed consultation and thorough examination of the law, resulting in the most comprehensive and balanced outcome. I suggest that the compensation provisions be considered within this wider review of agricultural tenancy law, not in isolation. As such, we recommend that the amendment be rejected pending the Law Commission’s 14th programme review into agricultural tenancies, which will commence when resources allow. Further steps and timings will be announced in due course.
Baroness Rock (Con)
These reviews take years and years, but this is a clear and present danger now. Therefore, before the Minister sits down, will she agree to meet with me and the Tenant Farmers Association to discuss what can be done in this Bill to protect tenant farmers immediately, rather than waiting for a review that could take years and years? Otherwise, I reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I genuinely do not believe that this Bill is the place to deal with this, but I am very happy to meet with the noble Baroness, and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hayman would be prepared to meet as well. Within Defra, there may be more scope for dealing with some of the issues the noble Baroness raised, so I am very happy to have that meeting. It may also be worth the noble Baroness speaking to the Law Commission about the urgency of this, because the commission will be dealing with it. Stressing the importance and urgency of this with the commission will be helpful. Meanwhile, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 253B seeks to allow tenants whose homes are subject to compulsory purchase to claim compensation for disturbance to their business where it is carried out from home. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, we do not believe it is necessary. As part of their entitlement to compensation, occupiers, including tenants, can already claim disturbance payments where they lose possession as a consequence of compulsory acquisition. These payments cover losses caused by losing possession of the land as a consequence of the compulsory purchase order, as well as other losses not directly based on the value of the land, which could include any associated with running a business from home. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Rock (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for her response. As I said, I am disappointed. This is absolutely the right place to address these issues around tenant farmers. I have given very clear examples of why these amendments sit firmly in government policy and are desperately required. I look forward to the meeting with the Minister and, as I said, I reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(ca) section (Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems” to extend to England and Wales and Scotland. However, it would have no application in Wales as there are no relevant seismic array systems situated there.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a stray reference to provisions that were left out in Committee.
“(a) sections 1 and 2 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;(aa) section (Projects relating to water) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;(ab) sections 3 to 8 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Projects relating to water” would come into force on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.
“(na) section (Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems” to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“(u) sections 39 and 40 come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;(ua) section 41 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;(ub) sections 42 and 43 come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my proposed replacement for Clause 41 to come into force by regulations.
“(ca) section (Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in England) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in England” would come into force on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.
“(ca) in section (Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets)—(i) subsection (1) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;(ii) subsection (2) comes into force at the same time as section 102(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for my new clause entitled “Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets” to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“(ca) section (Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge” would come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“(ca) section (Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that my new clause entitled “Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities” would come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a technical amendment linked to my amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 6. It means that a reference to street vote development orders is only inserted into the Habitats Regulations when the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act introducing SVDOs themselves come into force.